545 PEOPLE--By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..... The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax..
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
545 vs 300,000,000
I got this in an email, and had to share it with everyone. This is probably how most Americans feel at the moment when it comes to Politicans:
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Green Think Tank: Activists Should Leave Climate Science
Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change.
They say this is a losing hand that has been made even weaker by the furor over the now-infamous hacked climate science emails, and controversy surrounding the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus are a contrarian pair with a years-long penchant for telling the mainstream environmental movement that it’s screwing up the climate fight in one way or another. Several of their past essays have been controversial, notably 2004’s "The Death of Environmentalism."
Full article at The Hill in Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change.
They say this is a losing hand that has been made even weaker by the furor over the now-infamous hacked climate science emails, and controversy surrounding the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus are a contrarian pair with a years-long penchant for telling the mainstream environmental movement that it’s screwing up the climate fight in one way or another. Several of their past essays have been controversial, notably 2004’s "The Death of Environmentalism."
Full article at The Hill in Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Global Warming : Guardian Admits to Publishing Propaganda
(Roger F. Gay)
It is well-known that RealClimate.org is one of the premier websites for global warming scare-mongering. For more than six years, several of the most infamous characters in the global scandal have pumped out politically laden junk science articles attacking “skeptics” and offering model arguments and defenses for the propaganda effort.
The bloggers at RealClimate.org are difficult to satisfy. They play a high pressure game and do not tolerate dissent. They are drowning in their own self-destructive, well over the top nature, and from the looks of it may take many of their followers with them when they finally unceremoniously go under for the last time. In the latest, they have provoked the Guardian into an admittance that damages the newspaper's credibility.
It surprised me to find a blog comment at RealClimate by Dr. James Randerson, the editor of the Guardian’s environmental website. It wasn't merely that the editor would stoop so low as to participate in the site, it's what he has to say about the Guardian's relationship with RealClimate.org.
Dr. Randerson's RealClimate blog posting : The Guardian responds
It is well-known that RealClimate.org is one of the premier websites for global warming scare-mongering. For more than six years, several of the most infamous characters in the global scandal have pumped out politically laden junk science articles attacking “skeptics” and offering model arguments and defenses for the propaganda effort.
The bloggers at RealClimate.org are difficult to satisfy. They play a high pressure game and do not tolerate dissent. They are drowning in their own self-destructive, well over the top nature, and from the looks of it may take many of their followers with them when they finally unceremoniously go under for the last time. In the latest, they have provoked the Guardian into an admittance that damages the newspaper's credibility.
It surprised me to find a blog comment at RealClimate by Dr. James Randerson, the editor of the Guardian’s environmental website. It wasn't merely that the editor would stoop so low as to participate in the site, it's what he has to say about the Guardian's relationship with RealClimate.org.
I should say first that we hold RealClimate in very high regard. The site is part of the Guardian Environment Network, a collection of more than 20 hand-picked websites including Grist and Nature’s Climate Feedback blog with whom we have a mutual content sharing agreement. Under the arrangement, the Guardian website republishes RealClimate blogs regularly.I didn't know that. Let me offer some advice to newspapers for their defense when caught using RealClimate.org propaganda. Do not detail your relationship with RealClimate.org and other global warming propaganda sites. To emphasize balanced coverage, no matter how slim, simply say; We're not as bad as The New York Times.
Dr. Randerson's RealClimate blog posting : The Guardian responds
Saturday, March 27, 2010
These are the new times that try men's souls...
Hello, everyone.
Let every one of us endeavor not to be a summer soldier in this War of Ideas, nor a sunshine patriot in this struggle for the future of our country. Let us each take a moment to reflect upon what it is we are struggling for and just how precious liberty is. If liberty fails here, where else in the world will it flower? The answer is nowhere. If liberty is lost here it will be lost to all of mankind, and even most of our founders believed that if that were to happen it would be almost impossible to resurrect it. It is far easier to preserve liberty in a climate of dwindling freedom than to gain it anew in a climate of tyranny. These are indeed the new times that try men's souls. Let us all resolve to struggle on and like our nation's Founders did before us, let us pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
This is a hard time to be a conservative. To the conservative mind and libertarian heart, the past year has been exhausting. The past couple of weeks have been exhausting and heart-breaking. In the War of Ideas, the conservative cause was championed by peaceful patriots. We had right on our side. We had the people on our side. We even had the majority in Congress on our side. But those who seek to dismantle our republic and replace it with a friendly-faced tyranny allowed nothing to stand in their way; not the law, not Congressional rules, not even the Constitution. By sweeping aside whatever measure of law and order which dared to stand in opposition to their agenda and by openly bribing any and all representatives of the people willing to sell their vote if the price was right, the agents of tyranny capped a year of frustration and losses with a crushing victory.
Yes, it hurts. It always hurts when any amount of liberty is lost. And this was a lot of liberty we just lost. We had a hard year, but a good year. For the most part, people of this country who were asleep in their daily struggles of life saw us, heard us, were confused, then slowly began to understand. They began to understand that patriotism isn't just wearing a red, white, and blue tie or an American flag pin on your lapel. It isn't just some cheesy notion that our grandparents prattled on about, but has since become as old-fashioned as the jitterbug. They began to understand that America really is different, and it's our founding documents that make it so. In the War of Ideas we won victory after victory, and as much as we were dismayed at each new attempt to wrest the fruits of liberty from our collective grasp we were heartened as we saw more and more people awaken to the call to defend that liberty.
America is now more awake than asleep, and that is thanks to the defenders of liberty: the Tea Parties, the Town Hall protests, the 9/12 Project. All of these patriots and soldiers in this War of Ideas saw their fortunes rise and finally fall. And so, many of us will be tempted to pause and consider what we will do. Yes, you're tired. Yes, you're probably suffering in some way. But I don't think I can improve on the words of Thomas Paine who wrote during a time in our young nation's history which bears many similarities to our own. He wrote:
THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
Obama Just Got His Private Reserve Army
Remember this speech that Barack Obama gave back in 2008 eluding to the fact that he wanted a civilian army force that doesn't swear to uphold the Constitution:
Well, it looks like Obama has gotten his way…and no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT–
(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.
(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–
(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
I bet no one thought President Obama was creating another army with health care, but it looks like it has happened.
Well, it looks like Obama has gotten his way…and no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce
Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program.
Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs.
Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs.
Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps.
Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics.
Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps.
Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.
Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT–
(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.
(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–
(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
I bet no one thought President Obama was creating another army with health care, but it looks like it has happened.
Is the Death Penalty a Budget Buster for the States?
Another interesting reason for budget problems comes in the form of the death penalty. Most people would not go to the death penalty for the reason a state might be in financial trouble, but it seems that the execution of mass murderers is costing the state a tremendous amount of money.
From Fox News:
Every time a killer is sentenced to die, a school closes.
That is the broad assessment of a growing number of studies taking a cold, hard look at how much the death penalty costs in the 35 states that still have it.
Forget justice, morality, the possibility of killing an innocent man or any of the traditional arguments that have been part of the public debate over the death penalty. The new one is this:
The cost of killing killers is killing us.
"There have been studies of costs of the death penalty before, but we have never seen the same reaction that we are seeing now," says Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center. "Perhaps it is because governments are looking for ways to cut costs, and this is easier than school closings or layoffs, but it sure has hit a nerve."
Global Warming : Condemn the IPCC
By Roger F. Gay
Yesterday, I wrote that the IPCC should be shut down and that the core conspirators should be hunted down and prosecuted. That commentary did not go far enough. To avoid break-down of the modern world, the IPCC must be condemned and steps taken to assure that similar activities are not started in the future.
The IPCC agenda supports large-scale theft of public funding, a path to international economic chaos, and a plan for a New World Order devoid of freedom and effective democracy. These are issues often discussed and without a doubt pose a global threat. Another highly destructive element, dealing with the means to the ends, is political control of the scientific process. This is (obviously) the area of activity in which the IPCC is most directly involved.
The modern world is an artifact of progress in science and technology: in transportation, entertainment, communication, energy, food from production through preparation, water treatment, industrial production, business and government processes, policing and defense to name a few key areas. Even the top political problem of the day, health care reform, is brought to you by the opportunity to live much longer and healthier lives due to modern science and technology. It's greatest problem is that cutting edge medicine and treatments are often expensive.
Progress in science and technology is gained through scientific and engineering processes. Causing large-scale damage to these processes will have a long term effect that is similar to bombing a country back to the stone-age. New investments are needed to bring the country back to its former state and the time lost in which further progress could have been pursued is lost forever. New solutions and improved cost-effectiveness are at least delayed. If the disruption continues, the ability to maintain the infrastructure suffers and economic suffering or even collapse will follow. Those countries that defend these processes progress and overtake those that don't.
We need look no further than the current administration in the US to illustrate blind destructive behavior in dealing with science and technology; so obvious as to be apparent in all parts of the development chain. The Obama administration doles out large amounts of public funding for investment in IPCC related activities and development of non-competitive pseudo-”green” technologies, passes large amounts of “green”-green (money) to political friends, and helps big donors compete with more expensive, lower quality products than those already on offer.
The engineering process is suffering directly. What is progress that will translate into next year's new products when next year's political manipulation of the market is arbitrarily controlled and currently unknown? What will be allowed and promoted in five years? What can be done, and what can be understood, if progress on its own merits no longer matters? Nothing. The rational response to such great uncertainty is lower private investment. Public funding increases its role along with greater political definition and control of “progress.” Private companies must wait and follow arbitrarily defined political directions and vie for political favors rather than pushing competitively for real progress.
In case you haven't heard, this deep economic recession has hit the engineering community fairly hard. There are other factors involved to be sure, but let me maintain the focus. With the government so heavily involved in market manipulation through arbitrary control of science and technology, long term planning is no longer possible, or at least far less effective. Among the layoffs from private companies are engineers and scientists who were engaged in envisioning and realizing the future. As mature engineering organizations are dismantled, the ability of industry to maintain an efficient flow of innovation suffers. Industry becomes reactive rather than progressive; competitively weaker.
The IPCC demonstrates how far the politicization of science has gone. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere. The many “scientists” who routinely perform government “studies” that give whatever results politicians desire are the true bottom-feeders in the whole process, and they have been around for a good while. Their academic credentials are used to provide a superficial impression that a credible, objective analysis has been performed. But their activity is not the application of objective science. They are lobbyists being paid illegally from public funds who intentionally present false information in support of political scams. They are pervasive in the political process and are likely to be found wherever a committee has been seated to support a policy initiative.
It was in such an environment that Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) all received their on-the-job training in the real-world political process. It partially explains the vast disconnect between the Political Class and The People. No political initiative is impossible. If “truth” can be manipulated to give the impression that you're right, then truth and whether you're actually right doesn't matter. Public opinion should never be a problem so long as much of the press core loyally repeats the propaganda created with the help of bottom-feeding pseudo-scientific lobbyists.
The IPCC however represents the largest and most dangerous exercise in politically controlled science since Nazi evolutionary “science” was used to justify ethnic cleansing and Communist control of agricultural “science” caused mass starvation. It ties together the corruption of science from bottom to top in the pseudo-science food chain and ties into goals of controlling and corrupting the private sector; and it does so on a global scale.
As I have said before, it is time for “responsible adults” to step in and put a stop to these activities. To not do so assures our peril. The IPCC must be condemned in the strongest possible terms and steps taken to assure that similar activities are not started in the future. Moreover, the general message must be delivered that we do not accept being lied to through the politicization of science.
Yesterday, I wrote that the IPCC should be shut down and that the core conspirators should be hunted down and prosecuted. That commentary did not go far enough. To avoid break-down of the modern world, the IPCC must be condemned and steps taken to assure that similar activities are not started in the future.
The IPCC agenda supports large-scale theft of public funding, a path to international economic chaos, and a plan for a New World Order devoid of freedom and effective democracy. These are issues often discussed and without a doubt pose a global threat. Another highly destructive element, dealing with the means to the ends, is political control of the scientific process. This is (obviously) the area of activity in which the IPCC is most directly involved.
The modern world is an artifact of progress in science and technology: in transportation, entertainment, communication, energy, food from production through preparation, water treatment, industrial production, business and government processes, policing and defense to name a few key areas. Even the top political problem of the day, health care reform, is brought to you by the opportunity to live much longer and healthier lives due to modern science and technology. It's greatest problem is that cutting edge medicine and treatments are often expensive.
Progress in science and technology is gained through scientific and engineering processes. Causing large-scale damage to these processes will have a long term effect that is similar to bombing a country back to the stone-age. New investments are needed to bring the country back to its former state and the time lost in which further progress could have been pursued is lost forever. New solutions and improved cost-effectiveness are at least delayed. If the disruption continues, the ability to maintain the infrastructure suffers and economic suffering or even collapse will follow. Those countries that defend these processes progress and overtake those that don't.
We need look no further than the current administration in the US to illustrate blind destructive behavior in dealing with science and technology; so obvious as to be apparent in all parts of the development chain. The Obama administration doles out large amounts of public funding for investment in IPCC related activities and development of non-competitive pseudo-”green” technologies, passes large amounts of “green”-green (money) to political friends, and helps big donors compete with more expensive, lower quality products than those already on offer.
The engineering process is suffering directly. What is progress that will translate into next year's new products when next year's political manipulation of the market is arbitrarily controlled and currently unknown? What will be allowed and promoted in five years? What can be done, and what can be understood, if progress on its own merits no longer matters? Nothing. The rational response to such great uncertainty is lower private investment. Public funding increases its role along with greater political definition and control of “progress.” Private companies must wait and follow arbitrarily defined political directions and vie for political favors rather than pushing competitively for real progress.
In case you haven't heard, this deep economic recession has hit the engineering community fairly hard. There are other factors involved to be sure, but let me maintain the focus. With the government so heavily involved in market manipulation through arbitrary control of science and technology, long term planning is no longer possible, or at least far less effective. Among the layoffs from private companies are engineers and scientists who were engaged in envisioning and realizing the future. As mature engineering organizations are dismantled, the ability of industry to maintain an efficient flow of innovation suffers. Industry becomes reactive rather than progressive; competitively weaker.
The IPCC demonstrates how far the politicization of science has gone. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere. The many “scientists” who routinely perform government “studies” that give whatever results politicians desire are the true bottom-feeders in the whole process, and they have been around for a good while. Their academic credentials are used to provide a superficial impression that a credible, objective analysis has been performed. But their activity is not the application of objective science. They are lobbyists being paid illegally from public funds who intentionally present false information in support of political scams. They are pervasive in the political process and are likely to be found wherever a committee has been seated to support a policy initiative.
It was in such an environment that Al Gore, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) all received their on-the-job training in the real-world political process. It partially explains the vast disconnect between the Political Class and The People. No political initiative is impossible. If “truth” can be manipulated to give the impression that you're right, then truth and whether you're actually right doesn't matter. Public opinion should never be a problem so long as much of the press core loyally repeats the propaganda created with the help of bottom-feeding pseudo-scientific lobbyists.
The IPCC however represents the largest and most dangerous exercise in politically controlled science since Nazi evolutionary “science” was used to justify ethnic cleansing and Communist control of agricultural “science” caused mass starvation. It ties together the corruption of science from bottom to top in the pseudo-science food chain and ties into goals of controlling and corrupting the private sector; and it does so on a global scale.
As I have said before, it is time for “responsible adults” to step in and put a stop to these activities. To not do so assures our peril. The IPCC must be condemned in the strongest possible terms and steps taken to assure that similar activities are not started in the future. Moreover, the general message must be delivered that we do not accept being lied to through the politicization of science.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Once Upon a Time in the Wild West
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
There was this Western town out in the middle of nowhere once. It was a tiny, typical old wild west town of about 75 people. It was a friendly town, and everybody got along. There was a church, a school, a blacksmith shop, a town doctor (named "Doc"), a barber shop, a horse stable and a saloon (Mabel's Saloon). It had a bartender, a couple of waitresses and several young ladies who would share a drink with you and a romp in the hay upstairs if one were so inclined. Oh yeah, there was a piano player, but he didn't know about all that.
There was also a sheriff, who commanded a posse of about 20 tough hombres.
He was also the beau of the purty local schoolteacher.
Finally, there was a no-nonsense town mayor, who everybody loved.
The sheriff and his posse took care of all the bad varmints like castle rustlers and all that. With the no-nonsence mayor and a hangin' judge, outlaws knew that if they messed with this town, they were lookin' at a necktie party.
Cattle rustler
Then one day a couple of strangers showed up in town. One wore a mask, and the other was an Indian named Tonto (which means "stupid" in Spanish).
Masked Man
Tonto
Well, anyway, this masked man was giving away bottles of snake oil, which he told the townsfolk would cure all their ills. The townsfolk were elated and welcomed the strangers to the town. When they asked him why he wore a mask, the stranger told them he was "the Lone Ranger".
Pretty soon, the townfolk were so happy with all the free snake oil that they elected the "Lone Ranger" to be their mayor. The old mayor was sent packin'. The first proclamation the new mayor made was that from then on, whiskey would be free because whiskey was a "human right". The people were elated.
Mabel wasn't too happy, but she was assured by the Lone Ranger that the city government would foot the bill.
Soon, however, changes started to come to the town. One day, soon after the mayor's inaugural, a bunch of city slickers showed up in town-all brought in by the new mayor. They were given new jobs that no one had ever heard of before.
Then the mayor fired the sheriff, ran him out of town, and brought in his own sheriff, who promised a "smarter" war against outlaws.
The new sheriff fired the posse and tore up all the wanted posters.
The mayor also fired the hangin' judge and brought in a new judge.
Soon, a new word was heard in the town, which had never been heard before:
"Probation".
Then the mayor and his city-slicker friends started passing a bunch of new laws. Pretty soon, Mabel had to buy snake oil supplies for all her workers. Some of the workers-especially the fine young ladies- didn't even want to drink the snake oil, but the law was passed and they all had to use snake oil. Only now it wasn't free anymore. In fact, it was now quite expensive. No matter. Everybody now had to drink snake oil when they got sick. As a result, old "Doc" had to close up shop get a job as a bartender at Mabel's saloon. The only medical care available became "Lone Ranger" snake oil.
When asked what he thought about all this, Tonto was heard to reply,
"This is a big f----- deal."
Then more city-slickers arrived from back East. Sixteen thousand of them to be exact. They were revenooers, assigned to make sure that everybody was buying their snake oil. Suddenly, the size of the town was multiplied by 160 (is that accurate?) Parking became a problem. There weren't enough horse rails for everybody to park their horses. The Lone Ranger decided that the solution was to seize the horse stable and take over the horse business.
After a year or so, somebody noticed that the quality of horses in the town had declined.
Government horse.
No matter. The Lone Ranger decreed that henceforth, everyone in the town had to purchase a government horse.
Even Granny Skaggs?
Even Granny Skaggs.
And Tonto stated,
"This is a big f----- deal, Kimo Sabe."
Then another new word was introduced into the town's vocabulary.
Taxes.
Taxes?
"Yes", explained the Lone Ranger. "It will create jobs-green jobs".
"Green jobs!?!?!"
As you might well imagine, things went to Hell in the town. People didn't get along as they used to.
In addition, the school had to close, and that purty schoolteacher had to get a job at Mabel's saloon. And it wasn't a green job.
Well, it didn't take long before the townfolk had had enough. One by one, they began leaving the town. Mabel closed down her saloon and took all her employees -including that purty little schoolteacher- to another town as far away as possible. Soon, everything was gone. No more school, no more saloon, no more barber shop, no more blacksmith, no more horse stable, just the Lone Ranger, Tonto and all those bureaucrats and revenooers.
So one day, the Lone Ranger and Tonto gave up, saddled up and headed off to Wyoming. Down the road a piece, they passed by an old rancher and his grandson who watched them riding off.
"Is that the Lone Ranger?" asked the little boy.
The old man spat out a mouthful of tobacco juice and replied,
"He ain't no f-----' Lone Ranger. Why he's a f------' outlaw."
"Hiyo Silverrrr!"
"We f------ fooled 'em Kimo Sabe".
fousesquawk
There was this Western town out in the middle of nowhere once. It was a tiny, typical old wild west town of about 75 people. It was a friendly town, and everybody got along. There was a church, a school, a blacksmith shop, a town doctor (named "Doc"), a barber shop, a horse stable and a saloon (Mabel's Saloon). It had a bartender, a couple of waitresses and several young ladies who would share a drink with you and a romp in the hay upstairs if one were so inclined. Oh yeah, there was a piano player, but he didn't know about all that.
There was also a sheriff, who commanded a posse of about 20 tough hombres.
He was also the beau of the purty local schoolteacher.
Finally, there was a no-nonsense town mayor, who everybody loved.
The sheriff and his posse took care of all the bad varmints like castle rustlers and all that. With the no-nonsence mayor and a hangin' judge, outlaws knew that if they messed with this town, they were lookin' at a necktie party.
Cattle rustler
Then one day a couple of strangers showed up in town. One wore a mask, and the other was an Indian named Tonto (which means "stupid" in Spanish).
Masked Man
Tonto
Well, anyway, this masked man was giving away bottles of snake oil, which he told the townsfolk would cure all their ills. The townsfolk were elated and welcomed the strangers to the town. When they asked him why he wore a mask, the stranger told them he was "the Lone Ranger".
Pretty soon, the townfolk were so happy with all the free snake oil that they elected the "Lone Ranger" to be their mayor. The old mayor was sent packin'. The first proclamation the new mayor made was that from then on, whiskey would be free because whiskey was a "human right". The people were elated.
Mabel wasn't too happy, but she was assured by the Lone Ranger that the city government would foot the bill.
Soon, however, changes started to come to the town. One day, soon after the mayor's inaugural, a bunch of city slickers showed up in town-all brought in by the new mayor. They were given new jobs that no one had ever heard of before.
Then the mayor fired the sheriff, ran him out of town, and brought in his own sheriff, who promised a "smarter" war against outlaws.
The new sheriff fired the posse and tore up all the wanted posters.
The mayor also fired the hangin' judge and brought in a new judge.
Soon, a new word was heard in the town, which had never been heard before:
"Probation".
Then the mayor and his city-slicker friends started passing a bunch of new laws. Pretty soon, Mabel had to buy snake oil supplies for all her workers. Some of the workers-especially the fine young ladies- didn't even want to drink the snake oil, but the law was passed and they all had to use snake oil. Only now it wasn't free anymore. In fact, it was now quite expensive. No matter. Everybody now had to drink snake oil when they got sick. As a result, old "Doc" had to close up shop get a job as a bartender at Mabel's saloon. The only medical care available became "Lone Ranger" snake oil.
When asked what he thought about all this, Tonto was heard to reply,
"This is a big f----- deal."
Then more city-slickers arrived from back East. Sixteen thousand of them to be exact. They were revenooers, assigned to make sure that everybody was buying their snake oil. Suddenly, the size of the town was multiplied by 160 (is that accurate?) Parking became a problem. There weren't enough horse rails for everybody to park their horses. The Lone Ranger decided that the solution was to seize the horse stable and take over the horse business.
After a year or so, somebody noticed that the quality of horses in the town had declined.
Government horse.
No matter. The Lone Ranger decreed that henceforth, everyone in the town had to purchase a government horse.
Even Granny Skaggs?
Even Granny Skaggs.
And Tonto stated,
"This is a big f----- deal, Kimo Sabe."
Then another new word was introduced into the town's vocabulary.
Taxes.
Taxes?
"Yes", explained the Lone Ranger. "It will create jobs-green jobs".
"Green jobs!?!?!"
As you might well imagine, things went to Hell in the town. People didn't get along as they used to.
In addition, the school had to close, and that purty schoolteacher had to get a job at Mabel's saloon. And it wasn't a green job.
Well, it didn't take long before the townfolk had had enough. One by one, they began leaving the town. Mabel closed down her saloon and took all her employees -including that purty little schoolteacher- to another town as far away as possible. Soon, everything was gone. No more school, no more saloon, no more barber shop, no more blacksmith, no more horse stable, just the Lone Ranger, Tonto and all those bureaucrats and revenooers.
So one day, the Lone Ranger and Tonto gave up, saddled up and headed off to Wyoming. Down the road a piece, they passed by an old rancher and his grandson who watched them riding off.
"Is that the Lone Ranger?" asked the little boy.
The old man spat out a mouthful of tobacco juice and replied,
"He ain't no f-----' Lone Ranger. Why he's a f------' outlaw."
"Hiyo Silverrrr!"
"We f------ fooled 'em Kimo Sabe".
Global Warming : Shut down the IPCC
By Roger F. Gay
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It's time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.
The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC's exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore's), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.
These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers' case.
Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.” Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.
There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers' theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted. When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data.
So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming. They lied.
For decades, the IPCC has constructed reports containing junk science to promote a scientifically unsupportable theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. A core group incorporated fake data, filtered out real science and data, and presented conclusions in direct contradiction to scientific evidence and consensus. (Other than a core group of warmers, scientists reviewing the IPCC reports insisted that there is no scientific case for catastrophic man-made global warming.)
So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC is a publicly supported lobbying group that used deceptive practices to promote manipulation of energy markets, higher taxes, economic chaos, global political revolution and the illegitimate “cap-n-trade” industry.
The IPCC public relations campaign continues, but there seems very little room for new moves. Confessing errors in reports allows the IPCC to attempt to manage the public reaction; superficially a much better approach than the dramatic error of denial. Case in point: After IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri denied that their rapid Himalayan ice-melt claim was scientifically unsupportable, accusing “skeptics” of “voodoo science,” solid evidence turned up that Pachauri knew the claim was wrong. It emphasized the deceptive nature of the IPCC and those in charge.
Announcing and discussing their own problems is intended to give the impression that the IPCC has reformed itself into an open-minded, self-critical, and more objective scientific organization. Announcing one problem at a time avoids the big picture and comes with damage control. It's not new to the warming debate. Warmers have battered us with claims of the absolute scientific certainty of their theories – we're on our way to certain catastrophe unless their economic and political demands are met. But when backed into a corner over their junk science, suddenly it's all very complicated and uncertain.
Regarding rapid Himalayan ice-melt, the IPCC eventually issued a statement saying "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." When a published paper on rapid sea-level rise was recently retracted, The Guardian was quick to point out, “Many scientists criticized the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more.”
The IPCC was established in 1988 years ago by the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) under the UN's Environment Programme. It was tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. Although we could not rely on the UN organization to fulfill its task, the task is nonetheless completed. Corruption in the organization and the dishonesty of the core science team has been exposed. Quite publicly, the world has been made aware that human activity does not control the climate. There is no legitimate reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.
So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC should be shut down – immediately. Each nation then has an independent responsibility to hunt down those involved in the conspiracy and pursue appropriate legal action against them. What could be more obvious?
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It's time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.
The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC's exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore's), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.
These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers' case.
Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.” Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.
There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers' theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted. When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data.
So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming. They lied.
For decades, the IPCC has constructed reports containing junk science to promote a scientifically unsupportable theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. A core group incorporated fake data, filtered out real science and data, and presented conclusions in direct contradiction to scientific evidence and consensus. (Other than a core group of warmers, scientists reviewing the IPCC reports insisted that there is no scientific case for catastrophic man-made global warming.)
So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC is a publicly supported lobbying group that used deceptive practices to promote manipulation of energy markets, higher taxes, economic chaos, global political revolution and the illegitimate “cap-n-trade” industry.
Years after the infamous "hockey stick" warming graph has been discredited, it's still used for far-left political indoctrination aimed at teenagers. (From tigweb.org.)
The IPCC public relations campaign continues, but there seems very little room for new moves. Confessing errors in reports allows the IPCC to attempt to manage the public reaction; superficially a much better approach than the dramatic error of denial. Case in point: After IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri denied that their rapid Himalayan ice-melt claim was scientifically unsupportable, accusing “skeptics” of “voodoo science,” solid evidence turned up that Pachauri knew the claim was wrong. It emphasized the deceptive nature of the IPCC and those in charge.
Announcing and discussing their own problems is intended to give the impression that the IPCC has reformed itself into an open-minded, self-critical, and more objective scientific organization. Announcing one problem at a time avoids the big picture and comes with damage control. It's not new to the warming debate. Warmers have battered us with claims of the absolute scientific certainty of their theories – we're on our way to certain catastrophe unless their economic and political demands are met. But when backed into a corner over their junk science, suddenly it's all very complicated and uncertain.
Regarding rapid Himalayan ice-melt, the IPCC eventually issued a statement saying "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." When a published paper on rapid sea-level rise was recently retracted, The Guardian was quick to point out, “Many scientists criticized the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more.”
The IPCC was established in 1988 years ago by the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) under the UN's Environment Programme. It was tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. Although we could not rely on the UN organization to fulfill its task, the task is nonetheless completed. Corruption in the organization and the dishonesty of the core science team has been exposed. Quite publicly, the world has been made aware that human activity does not control the climate. There is no legitimate reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.
So, let's be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC should be shut down – immediately. Each nation then has an independent responsibility to hunt down those involved in the conspiracy and pursue appropriate legal action against them. What could be more obvious?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Ron Paul: Executive Orders are Unconstitutional
President Obama signed an executive order the other day that allowed for the health care compromise on abortion...however, the great Congressman Ron Paul explains how executive orders are unconstitutional with every President:
Almost a Quarter of Repulbicans Think President Obama is the Anti-Christ
From the Daily UK:
Americans who suggest Barack Obama should rot in hell are apparently deadly serious.
Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president 'may be the Antichrist', according to a survey.
An even greater number compared him to Hitler.
While I don't think he is the anti-Christ, I would be in the category of comparing him to Hitler. And before people give me a bunch of crap for comparing him to the worse human being the Earth has ever had the privileged of knowing, let me explain myself.
We compare him to Hitler because of the actions that he is taking as President. We compare him in the realm that he is using the power of the government to take over the lives of the American people. We don't think he is going to start another Holocaust.
Mr Obama was jubilant this week after securing his £626billion healthcare reform plan.
But his triumph seems only to have inflamed his critics among the evangelical Christians from America's heartland who kept George Bush in power for eight years and have demonised his successor.
But lets analyze this number of Republicans that believe Obama to be the anti-Christ.
It is an interesting number that over a quarter believe this idea. 25% might seem small, but when it comes to polling numbers, this is a pretty decent percentage of people that believe the President of the United States is the anti-Christ.
Where do they get these ideas? Well one of the answers is it comes from talk radio and who they are listening to on the radio. Glenn Beck is the biggest example, because he has talked about this idea that Obama might be the anti-Christ and this has stemmed over into the general listening audience.
Still a very interesting number to ponder....
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Give Me Liberty!
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?His final phrase has been immortalized, yet it is rarely quoted in its full context...
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!The full text of this speech may be found here,
3 Reasons Health Care Reform Won't Cut The Deficit By One Thin Dime
New video from Reason T.V. explaining why the new health care reform won't do a thing to cut the deficit:
The Individual and the Tenth
From the Tenth Amendment Center.
Most discussions of the Tenth Amendment center around using the state legislature to enforce it when the Supreme Court fails to do so. In that situation, the state legislature declares a law null and void within the state’s borders. In this posting, we’ll focus on another historic enforcement mechanism. The Ninth Amendment says,
And the Tenth Amendment says,
So in this post we will look at another remedy which is available to the second beneficiary of Tenth Amendment protection, the people. The remedy is plain old civil disobedience.
Read the whole article at the Tenth Amendment Center in The Individual and the Tenth
Most discussions of the Tenth Amendment center around using the state legislature to enforce it when the Supreme Court fails to do so. In that situation, the state legislature declares a law null and void within the state’s borders. In this posting, we’ll focus on another historic enforcement mechanism. The Ninth Amendment says,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (emphasis mine)
And the Tenth Amendment says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (emphasis mine)
So in this post we will look at another remedy which is available to the second beneficiary of Tenth Amendment protection, the people. The remedy is plain old civil disobedience.
Read the whole article at the Tenth Amendment Center in The Individual and the Tenth
The Triumph of Soviet Deception
Frontpage Magazine editor Jamie Glazov interviewed Nina Karsov, the head of a London-based company, Kontra, which has been publishing Polish and Russian books since 1970, including the Collected Works (19 volumes in print, but more are planned) by Józef Mackiewicz, a great Polish novelist and political writer (1902-1985).
Mackiewicz’s analytical work, The Triumph of Provocation, written in 1962, and now published in English by the Yale University Press, examines the history and nature of Communism as it developed in the Soviet Union and in Poland. His unique interpretation of the differences and similarities between Communism and Nazism is highly relevant to debates about these two systems and to major contemporary issues which are of particular importance to the U.S. and Europe.
Mackiewicz, interpreted through Karsov; seems to have timely insights for people in the West.
Read the published interview at Frontpage.com in The Triumph of Soviet Deception.
Mackiewicz’s analytical work, The Triumph of Provocation, written in 1962, and now published in English by the Yale University Press, examines the history and nature of Communism as it developed in the Soviet Union and in Poland. His unique interpretation of the differences and similarities between Communism and Nazism is highly relevant to debates about these two systems and to major contemporary issues which are of particular importance to the U.S. and Europe.
Mackiewicz, interpreted through Karsov; seems to have timely insights for people in the West.
... if he had observed the incremental, but rapid, erosion of our liberties and the amassing of state powers over the individual in the West, Mackiewicz would have wondered – but let me emphasize that this is an extrapolation of his teaching – whether we were not approaching a global catastrophe, that is to say, the total victory of authoritarian and totalitarian power, albeit without starvation or labor camps. One of his main messages might be, therefore, to warn us against a collective way of thinking and a tendency toward uniformity and conformity because – if one adds modern technological advancements to the concoction of collective thinking and the accumulation of state powers – the dangers are obvious.
Read the published interview at Frontpage.com in The Triumph of Soviet Deception.
Monday, March 22, 2010
'Health Reform' Script Notes
(By Roger F. Gay)
Notes on 'Health Reform' to DC writers, directors, and producers:
I know you've put part of a whole year's work into this, but sorry – there's no way it's going to be worth the price of admission. Here's a critique with some fresh ideas at the end. Let's do lunch soon. - Best!
Characters are weak. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced yesterday that he would vote for passage on nationalization of health care, playing a leading role in a soap-opera delivering all the drama of a first year community college acting class. "I've always supported health care reform," he said in a statement shortly before the vote.
Looks staged. Hollywood was shooting film outside and taking notes, desperately seeking scenes that hadn't already been done. Insiders made a few extra moves they thought would look good in a made-for-TV movie – but you know what amateurs politicians are – no sense of the audience, they play to themselves and each other. Elements of the MSM, entertainment industry affiliates, tried to create racial tension for exploitation. Not good!
Dry. A single issue stood in the way of Bart Stupak's support. Seems dramatic, but then he gives his support with no actual changes to the bill. Behind-closed-doors deal-making leaves a big empty spot, or is it meant to open the door to “based on real events” artistic license? Maintaining character consistency, perhaps Barack Obama says something like, “Trust me. I'll make sure there's no new federal spending on abortion before the bill goes into effect,” and then nodding to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “Make sure states are required to pay double for that.” Laughter fills the room as Bart Stupak provides a dry Washington version of comic relief. “I didn't hear that, Mr. President.”
Yes, dry. Really dry. Dry as a bone dry. There's nothing new in the script. Pushing the broad fundamental issues aside by focusing down to a single divisive issue and using it in a symbolic but meaningless deal at the last minute doesn't provide dramatic twist with an emotional ending. It's been done to death in box-office losers. I thought this was 101. It only works with audiences when there's the added dimension of a pure-of-heart hero battling against it. And the race thing – oh, come on! It's so 1950s to begin with and too much of a stretch to try to link racism with support for the US Constitution. These are ideas that shouldn't have made it out of the first brainstorming session.
A big issue with the current version is that it's related to real events that are familiar to far too many people; so you very easily slip into a problem that is better-known to sci-fi fans and directors. When the science is wrong, people notice, and it just looks stupid. There's no way to suspend disbelief to allow even a temporary sense of reality, and that's no fun, it's just dweeby. Right now it's pretty much all like Bart Stupak's announcement that he got a critical deal on the bill that isn't being changed; things that don't make sense and won't play well to human emotions. Maybe it's a matter of preference, but I'm just not interested in America's Stupidest Political Bloopers with boing sounds in the background and all that.
If you want heroism, you need to stop slapping lipstick on pigs. Think Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Lord of the Rings, and so many others – they all had something in common. Repeating a fundamental point: The popular heroes battle against out-of-control power, corruption, and oppression. I mean, what do you want to do; rewrite Star Wars with The Empire representing good and Darth Vader as the hero? Were Luke and Leia racists? Those religious fanatical Jedi did seem to have a problem with clones. Maybe you can do something with that. No – I'm kidding! But seriously, what's this with Republicans verses Democrats? Where are the good guys? There's no hook into hope in the face of adversity. Were you thinking Phoenix: symbolic salvation in a final apocolyptic collapse? A tragedy where everybody dies in the end? Let's put those thoughts on the back burner for now.
Take a fresh look at the real events material. There's no way to shrug off the strange feelings evoked by Michigan voters sending a Constitution-busting socialist to the US House of Representatives. The feeling is intense because obviously he's not alone there. I'm left wondering why we bothered with the American Revolution in the first place. Was it merely that Marx and Engels hadn't written the Manifesto yet? It creates a strong sense of incompleteness that this aspect of the story is not explored. It's an open question and an issue that needs closure even if it takes a sequel.
Side note: A socially conservative Constitution-busting socialist? Did somebody send a resume to South Park? That's a pretty bizarre character that simply seems to distract from the main story. Don't you think it also raises questions? When would you get around to answering those?
Think big picture. If you block out all the fundamental issues, you miss the epic that's unfolding in the real world, the one people know about; religion all but forced under-ground, adopting Europe's problems as rapidly as possible - not solving them but simply using them to build and maintain central control, and well on our way to “global governance.” The “American dream” is quite literally and rapidly being crushed out of existence. This is big stuff, dramatic stuff, and the first cut missed it completely.
Because of the obvious ties with Soviet and other history, the concept crosses time as well as plenty of geography. You know what that means. Epic! Epic! Epic! It could become a timeless classic if you get the focus right – but you're not there yet. I strongly recommend a start-from-scratch rewrite. And get a hero for cryin' out loud.
Notes on 'Health Reform' to DC writers, directors, and producers:
I know you've put part of a whole year's work into this, but sorry – there's no way it's going to be worth the price of admission. Here's a critique with some fresh ideas at the end. Let's do lunch soon. - Best!
Characters are weak. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced yesterday that he would vote for passage on nationalization of health care, playing a leading role in a soap-opera delivering all the drama of a first year community college acting class. "I've always supported health care reform," he said in a statement shortly before the vote.
Looks staged. Hollywood was shooting film outside and taking notes, desperately seeking scenes that hadn't already been done. Insiders made a few extra moves they thought would look good in a made-for-TV movie – but you know what amateurs politicians are – no sense of the audience, they play to themselves and each other. Elements of the MSM, entertainment industry affiliates, tried to create racial tension for exploitation. Not good!
Dry. A single issue stood in the way of Bart Stupak's support. Seems dramatic, but then he gives his support with no actual changes to the bill. Behind-closed-doors deal-making leaves a big empty spot, or is it meant to open the door to “based on real events” artistic license? Maintaining character consistency, perhaps Barack Obama says something like, “Trust me. I'll make sure there's no new federal spending on abortion before the bill goes into effect,” and then nodding to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “Make sure states are required to pay double for that.” Laughter fills the room as Bart Stupak provides a dry Washington version of comic relief. “I didn't hear that, Mr. President.”
Yes, dry. Really dry. Dry as a bone dry. There's nothing new in the script. Pushing the broad fundamental issues aside by focusing down to a single divisive issue and using it in a symbolic but meaningless deal at the last minute doesn't provide dramatic twist with an emotional ending. It's been done to death in box-office losers. I thought this was 101. It only works with audiences when there's the added dimension of a pure-of-heart hero battling against it. And the race thing – oh, come on! It's so 1950s to begin with and too much of a stretch to try to link racism with support for the US Constitution. These are ideas that shouldn't have made it out of the first brainstorming session.
A big issue with the current version is that it's related to real events that are familiar to far too many people; so you very easily slip into a problem that is better-known to sci-fi fans and directors. When the science is wrong, people notice, and it just looks stupid. There's no way to suspend disbelief to allow even a temporary sense of reality, and that's no fun, it's just dweeby. Right now it's pretty much all like Bart Stupak's announcement that he got a critical deal on the bill that isn't being changed; things that don't make sense and won't play well to human emotions. Maybe it's a matter of preference, but I'm just not interested in America's Stupidest Political Bloopers with boing sounds in the background and all that.
If you want heroism, you need to stop slapping lipstick on pigs. Think Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Lord of the Rings, and so many others – they all had something in common. Repeating a fundamental point: The popular heroes battle against out-of-control power, corruption, and oppression. I mean, what do you want to do; rewrite Star Wars with The Empire representing good and Darth Vader as the hero? Were Luke and Leia racists? Those religious fanatical Jedi did seem to have a problem with clones. Maybe you can do something with that. No – I'm kidding! But seriously, what's this with Republicans verses Democrats? Where are the good guys? There's no hook into hope in the face of adversity. Were you thinking Phoenix: symbolic salvation in a final apocolyptic collapse? A tragedy where everybody dies in the end? Let's put those thoughts on the back burner for now.
Take a fresh look at the real events material. There's no way to shrug off the strange feelings evoked by Michigan voters sending a Constitution-busting socialist to the US House of Representatives. The feeling is intense because obviously he's not alone there. I'm left wondering why we bothered with the American Revolution in the first place. Was it merely that Marx and Engels hadn't written the Manifesto yet? It creates a strong sense of incompleteness that this aspect of the story is not explored. It's an open question and an issue that needs closure even if it takes a sequel.
Side note: A socially conservative Constitution-busting socialist? Did somebody send a resume to South Park? That's a pretty bizarre character that simply seems to distract from the main story. Don't you think it also raises questions? When would you get around to answering those?
Think big picture. If you block out all the fundamental issues, you miss the epic that's unfolding in the real world, the one people know about; religion all but forced under-ground, adopting Europe's problems as rapidly as possible - not solving them but simply using them to build and maintain central control, and well on our way to “global governance.” The “American dream” is quite literally and rapidly being crushed out of existence. This is big stuff, dramatic stuff, and the first cut missed it completely.
Because of the obvious ties with Soviet and other history, the concept crosses time as well as plenty of geography. You know what that means. Epic! Epic! Epic! It could become a timeless classic if you get the focus right – but you're not there yet. I strongly recommend a start-from-scratch rewrite. And get a hero for cryin' out loud.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
We're Headed Straight Off a Cliff If Health Care Passes
Never has “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” sounded more like an empty promise.
Pork is the preferred legislative meat for members of Congress, but this weekend they opted for bologna as they tried to convince the public – and themselves – that their so-called “health care” or health insurance “reform” monstrosity will be good for us. At least Castor oil was supposed to work even though it tasted awful. This bill not only tastes bad, it will curdle the best health care system in the world, which could be made a lot better, but will be made much worse with many of the provisions in this legislation.
Democrats now readily admit that Medicare is full of waste, fraud and abuse, but they want us to believe they can run an even larger venture without throwing additional money away. Amazing!
President Obama again claimed in Saturday remarks to the House Democratic caucus that the bill will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion. He must know that isn’t true because the money “saved” from Medicare cuts will go to pay for new spending. Only in Washington can you save money and spend money at the same time.
Read more at FoxNews in We're Headed Straight Off a Cliff If Health Care Passes
Pork is the preferred legislative meat for members of Congress, but this weekend they opted for bologna as they tried to convince the public – and themselves – that their so-called “health care” or health insurance “reform” monstrosity will be good for us. At least Castor oil was supposed to work even though it tasted awful. This bill not only tastes bad, it will curdle the best health care system in the world, which could be made a lot better, but will be made much worse with many of the provisions in this legislation.
Democrats now readily admit that Medicare is full of waste, fraud and abuse, but they want us to believe they can run an even larger venture without throwing additional money away. Amazing!
President Obama again claimed in Saturday remarks to the House Democratic caucus that the bill will reduce the deficit by $1.3 trillion. He must know that isn’t true because the money “saved” from Medicare cuts will go to pay for new spending. Only in Washington can you save money and spend money at the same time.
Read more at FoxNews in We're Headed Straight Off a Cliff If Health Care Passes
Obama: We Are Communitarians; Not Individualists
He now believes that we as Americans should become more Communitarian and push aside the reason we exist today; and that is individual liberty.
From the Washington Post:
Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don’t just look out for ourselves, that we don’t just tell people you’re on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community -- (applause) -- and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That’s why you decided to run. (Applause.)
He has attacked the philosophy of Ayn Rand who popularized the idea of Individualism and Objectivism. He believes that as Americans we should come together for the good of the community, instead of what is good for us and our families.
This is total a total lack of disregard for the idea that we are free people and make decisions that affect ourselves.
Obama Refunds ACORN
President Obama has quietly moved behind the scenes to restore full funding to the radical group ACORN, which was his former employer and legal client.
In a move ignored by the media, OMB director Peter Orszag circulated a directive to federal agencies ordering them to begin funding ACORN again. ACORN is the hyperpartisan lead group in the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) coalition and has long supported a government takeover of the U.S. health care system.
The fiscal floodgates will soon re-open for ACORN despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.
More from The American Spectator in Obama Restores Cash-Strapped ACORN's Funding As Reward For HealthCare Support
In a move ignored by the media, OMB director Peter Orszag circulated a directive to federal agencies ordering them to begin funding ACORN again. ACORN is the hyperpartisan lead group in the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) coalition and has long supported a government takeover of the U.S. health care system.
The fiscal floodgates will soon re-open for ACORN despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.
More from The American Spectator in Obama Restores Cash-Strapped ACORN's Funding As Reward For HealthCare Support
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Ever-Changing Face of Anti-Semitism
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
19th century forgery of czarist Russia that purported to tell of a secret meeting of Jewish leaders to plot the takeover of the world. Still a best-seller in the Middle East
Being an amateur scholar of the Third Reich and getting involved in the issue of anti-Semitism in recent years, it is fascinating-and quite sad-to watch how this form of hatred has evolved over time from religious-based hate to hate based on economic jealousy to racial hate and back full circle.
Centuries ago in Christian Europe, Jews suffered religious persecution based on a belief that they were Christ-killers. Eventually, they were targets of oppression based on economic and professional competition and jealousy. Under Hitler, it was mostly about their racial identity vis-a-vis the "pure Aryan race". Conversions made no difference to the Nazis. It was all about race. Even after the Holocaust, Jews, even in America, were discriminated against and held in contempt by many because of their success in education, economic well-being and dominance in certain professions, such as law, medicine, banking and the movie industry. That jealousy still exists in some quarters.
The Israel/Palestine conflict has exacerbated anti-Semitism greatly. The term, "Zionist", has become an epithet to millions of people, especially in the Muslim world. For millions, it is a convenient code word that enables them to condemn millions of people and still claim to have nothing against Jews, per se.
While Christian anti-Semitism based on the Christ-killer concept has largely receded in the past century or so, Islamic hatred of Jews, based on Koranic teachings, is back in full force. Here in America, it is muted by our principles of equality and rejection of hate. In the Middle East, it is not muted. This, coupled with the conflict over Israel, has produced a deadly situation that may have no solution.
The stereotype of the wealthy and devious Jew has never left, unfortunately, as if they should be embarrassed over their success in certain professions. Modern anti-Semitism still abounds as Jews are accused of having too much influence. Israel is accused of having too much influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East-at the expense of our Arab friends. If you peruse the anti-Semitic web sites (I come across them usually by accident) what you see are constant references to the alliance between Israel and American Jews. You also see references to Jews that have nothing to do with Israel.
According to these voices, the American Jewish lobby puts too much pressure on the American government in support of Israel. First of all, it is inaccurate to think that American Jews are a monolithic force. They are as varied in their attitudes and beliefs as the rest of us. Many don't even support Israel and have taken the Palestinian side.
In spite of the above, one of the more recent talking points we hear in America revolves around the so-called "Neo-Cons", who just happen to be all Jewish when names are given. Now we are hearing more and more about the so-called "dual-loyalties" of Jewish Americans. Time's writer Joe Klein, himself Jewish, has written on this line during the past week.
Also in the past week, another blog (left of center) that I contribute articles to has featured an article by another contributor that links an article and radio interview of some retired professor who takes the same line. What is really scary is when you get to the comments section, that is where the word "Jew" starts appearing all over the place. I won't repeat them here, but they can only be described as anti-Semitic. More than one of the writers maintain that 9-11 was perpetrated not only by the Bush administration, but by the Mossad. One loon even opines that Israel killed JFK. Now that the Bush administration is gone, these folks are honing in on Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff. Emanuel, a Jew, has even served with the Israeli Defense Forces, thus he is a convenient target. Many still hold to the canard that there is a conspiracy by Jews to control the world.
Those readers not familiar with Europe may not realize that the few thousand Jews who still live there are being subjected to anti-Semitism on a regular basis, usually by young male Muslim immigrants. One example is Malmo, Sweden, of which I have previously written. A long-standing Jewish community is leaving in droves as they can no longer tolerate the persecution on the streets coupled with the disinterest of the mayor.
As I perceive it here in North America, anti-Semitism is becoming a staple on university campuses, driven by radicalized Muslim Student Associations in their fervent campaigns against Israel and backed by far-left students, professors and community activists. They, of course, deny being anti-Jewish-they are only anti-Zionist they say. Many of their invited speakers show us otherwise when they cross the line into anti-Jew hate speech. Of course, they have learned that one effective technique is to drag in Jewish figures who are themselves anti-Israel, useful idiots like Norman Finklestein, a discredited ex-professor from DePaul University, who now makes his living on the anti-Israel university lecture circuit. There are many others like him.
Some observers, like author Robert Wistrich, call this "anti-Semitism without Jews". How else can you describe a hatred towards a people who are so small in numbers. Their presence in Europe is infinitesimal (and we all know why, don't we?) Even their percentage in the US is tiny. Some people think that only if Israel would go away, there would be no more anti-Semitism.
They are naive. There are those who still want to see Jews disappear from the face of the earth. In my view, that is still a possibility-a second Holocaust, if you will. It must not be allowed to happen.
fousesquawk
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
19th century forgery of czarist Russia that purported to tell of a secret meeting of Jewish leaders to plot the takeover of the world. Still a best-seller in the Middle East
Being an amateur scholar of the Third Reich and getting involved in the issue of anti-Semitism in recent years, it is fascinating-and quite sad-to watch how this form of hatred has evolved over time from religious-based hate to hate based on economic jealousy to racial hate and back full circle.
Centuries ago in Christian Europe, Jews suffered religious persecution based on a belief that they were Christ-killers. Eventually, they were targets of oppression based on economic and professional competition and jealousy. Under Hitler, it was mostly about their racial identity vis-a-vis the "pure Aryan race". Conversions made no difference to the Nazis. It was all about race. Even after the Holocaust, Jews, even in America, were discriminated against and held in contempt by many because of their success in education, economic well-being and dominance in certain professions, such as law, medicine, banking and the movie industry. That jealousy still exists in some quarters.
The Israel/Palestine conflict has exacerbated anti-Semitism greatly. The term, "Zionist", has become an epithet to millions of people, especially in the Muslim world. For millions, it is a convenient code word that enables them to condemn millions of people and still claim to have nothing against Jews, per se.
While Christian anti-Semitism based on the Christ-killer concept has largely receded in the past century or so, Islamic hatred of Jews, based on Koranic teachings, is back in full force. Here in America, it is muted by our principles of equality and rejection of hate. In the Middle East, it is not muted. This, coupled with the conflict over Israel, has produced a deadly situation that may have no solution.
The stereotype of the wealthy and devious Jew has never left, unfortunately, as if they should be embarrassed over their success in certain professions. Modern anti-Semitism still abounds as Jews are accused of having too much influence. Israel is accused of having too much influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East-at the expense of our Arab friends. If you peruse the anti-Semitic web sites (I come across them usually by accident) what you see are constant references to the alliance between Israel and American Jews. You also see references to Jews that have nothing to do with Israel.
According to these voices, the American Jewish lobby puts too much pressure on the American government in support of Israel. First of all, it is inaccurate to think that American Jews are a monolithic force. They are as varied in their attitudes and beliefs as the rest of us. Many don't even support Israel and have taken the Palestinian side.
In spite of the above, one of the more recent talking points we hear in America revolves around the so-called "Neo-Cons", who just happen to be all Jewish when names are given. Now we are hearing more and more about the so-called "dual-loyalties" of Jewish Americans. Time's writer Joe Klein, himself Jewish, has written on this line during the past week.
Also in the past week, another blog (left of center) that I contribute articles to has featured an article by another contributor that links an article and radio interview of some retired professor who takes the same line. What is really scary is when you get to the comments section, that is where the word "Jew" starts appearing all over the place. I won't repeat them here, but they can only be described as anti-Semitic. More than one of the writers maintain that 9-11 was perpetrated not only by the Bush administration, but by the Mossad. One loon even opines that Israel killed JFK. Now that the Bush administration is gone, these folks are honing in on Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff. Emanuel, a Jew, has even served with the Israeli Defense Forces, thus he is a convenient target. Many still hold to the canard that there is a conspiracy by Jews to control the world.
Those readers not familiar with Europe may not realize that the few thousand Jews who still live there are being subjected to anti-Semitism on a regular basis, usually by young male Muslim immigrants. One example is Malmo, Sweden, of which I have previously written. A long-standing Jewish community is leaving in droves as they can no longer tolerate the persecution on the streets coupled with the disinterest of the mayor.
As I perceive it here in North America, anti-Semitism is becoming a staple on university campuses, driven by radicalized Muslim Student Associations in their fervent campaigns against Israel and backed by far-left students, professors and community activists. They, of course, deny being anti-Jewish-they are only anti-Zionist they say. Many of their invited speakers show us otherwise when they cross the line into anti-Jew hate speech. Of course, they have learned that one effective technique is to drag in Jewish figures who are themselves anti-Israel, useful idiots like Norman Finklestein, a discredited ex-professor from DePaul University, who now makes his living on the anti-Israel university lecture circuit. There are many others like him.
Some observers, like author Robert Wistrich, call this "anti-Semitism without Jews". How else can you describe a hatred towards a people who are so small in numbers. Their presence in Europe is infinitesimal (and we all know why, don't we?) Even their percentage in the US is tiny. Some people think that only if Israel would go away, there would be no more anti-Semitism.
They are naive. There are those who still want to see Jews disappear from the face of the earth. In my view, that is still a possibility-a second Holocaust, if you will. It must not be allowed to happen.
Ron Paul teaches Ben Bernanke a lesson on Austrian free-market economics
You would think that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve would listen to any advice thrown at him. Especially when his "organization" has been damaging the country to its fullest extent.
Here is video of Ron Paul trying to teach the Chairman Bernanke about Austrian economics, but the Chairman is not listening....go figure.
Here is video of Ron Paul trying to teach the Chairman Bernanke about Austrian economics, but the Chairman is not listening....go figure.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Zionism=Nazism-The Great Lie
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
This essay first appeared on Grizzly Groundswell
Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels
He would be proud.
The opponents of Israel has been pushing the idea that Israel is taking on the characteristics of the Nazis as they fight to defend themselves. In actuality, Israel's enemies don't really recognize Israel's right of self-defense since they regard her as an illegitimate state. The charge of Nazism by Israel/Zionists is not a new one, but it is being used with greater frequency in the light of recent fighting between the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and the terrorist groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and Hamas in Gaza at the turn of the year 2008-2009. The idea of comparing Israel to Nazism is absurd on its face.
Much of the accusation is based on charges that in both of the above conflicts, Israel deliberately targeted civilians for death and, in effect, is attempting to commit genocide against the Palestinian people-a charge ridiculous in itself. It is true that civilians died in both conflicts. Civilian casualties in war are eventually inevitable. In Israel's case, they went to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties even as both Hezbollah and Hamas used the tactic of fighting from behind human shields in apartment complexes, schools and hospitals. In effect, they wanted their civilians to die so as to show a willing international media how bad the Israelis were. The media complied-virtually ignoring the causes of both conflicts. In the case of the Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon, it was a result of Hezbollah ambushing and kidnapping two soldiers from across the border. (After the fighting, those soldiers bodies were returned, dead, of course and showing signs of severe torture). In the case of Gaza, it was in response to hundreds of rockets being launched into southern Israel, many of which landed in schoolyards. During the resultant conflicts, the international media paid scant attention to the above as well as Hezbollah rockets lobbed into Haifa in 2006 forcing that city's residents into bomb shelters.
It is also conveniently ignored that in both conflicts, Israel dropped millions of leaflets warning residents in certain areas to clear out. In addition, automatic phone calls were made to residents giving them the same warnings. Contrary to Hamas' propaganda, the Israeli allowed outside humanitarian aid into Gaza during the conflict.
The Nazis never did those things. To be honest, neither did the Allies in World War II. German and Japanese cities were leveled knowing that tens of thousands of civilians would be killed. We were in effect, trying to destroy the will of the Japanese and German people to continue the war. I myself have visited Hiroshima, and it is a profoundly moving experience. This does not mean that I am condemning what we did in World War II. We were fighting for our very survival against two evil regimes that were committing horrible atrocities in the lands they had conquered and occupied.
But back to the comparison between Nazis and Israelis/Zionists. Some questions are in order.
Are the Israelis persecuting their Arab minority living within Israel proper-as the Nazis did to the Jews? No. Arabs/Muslims in Israel enjoy more freedom that they would in any of the neighboring Arab dictatorships. Have Israeli Arabs ever had to wear distinctive clothing in Israel marking them as Muslims or non-Jews?
Has there ever been an Israeli version of Kristalnacht against Arabs or Muslim in Israel? No.
Kristalnacht-November 1938-burning of synagogue in Michelsberg.
In contrast, ask yourself whatever happened to the centuries-old Jewish communities in Arab lands after 1948. The fact is that they were driven out. Today, only a few thousand remain here and there. Yemen's last remaining Jews are trying to get out of that country-where they had lived for centuries- as fast as they can due to persecution.
Do Israeli newspapers and magazines contain perverted images of Arabs or Muslims similar to Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer of the Nazi era? No-but neighboring mainstream newspapers in the Arab world still portray Jews in cartoons similar to Steicher's anti-Semitic images. Here are just a few examples:
Nazi newspaper "Der Stuermer"-headline reads, "Jewish murder plan against non-Jewish humanity uncovered."
The Jewish Blood Libel
Web site of the Arab European League, February 2, 2006
Al-Watan (Oman)
February 3, 2004
There are hundreds more like these that are regularly printed in the Arab media. They are readily available on the Internet. Have you ever heard about Jews rioting over these cartoons?
Who are the real Nazis?
Did the Nazis allow Jews to continue in the Reichstag? Or the universities? The answer is no. Are the Israelis excluding Arabs from teaching or engaging in politics? No. Are the Israelis forcibly taking over Arab businesses and giving them to Israelis? No. Are the Israelis burning down mosques in Israel? No.
Is there anything in Israel comparable to the so-called Nuremberg Laws of 1935 which formally encoded the Jews' status as second class citizens? No. Israel is a democracy, where the rights of minorities are protected-unlike its neighbors, none of whom are democracies.
Do the Israelis punish their citizens for marrying across ethnic or religious lines? No-but Muslims do-they forbid a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim. The penalty is death. That may not be encoded in the legal code of any Muslim nation, but it is part and parcel of Islam. In contrast, Jewish women intermarry all the time.
Eisenach 1940-The sign says, "I am a race-defiler"
Aryan woman and Jewish man in Nazi Germany (same wording on sign)
Other than retaliating or trying to stop armed aggression against them from their neighbors, what countries has Israel invaded and occupied as did Germany, which took over almost all of Europe? True, they have gone into Lebanon in an attempt to defeat those who were at war with them and trying to deny their right to exist, but there is no Israeli desire to make Lebanon part of Israel. Had not Syria, Jordan and Egypt not attempted to destroy Israel in 1967, they would not have lost the Golan Hts, West Bank and the Sinai, which Israel occupied as buffer zones. Can anyone seriously suspect that Israel wants to take over Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and all the other nations of the Middle East? Along those lines, did Nazi Germany ever negotiate peace treaties with any neighboring countries by which they gave up disputed land? No.
Had the Arab world accepted the 1948 UN decision to partition the Palestine area into two states, which Israel accepted, probably none of this conflict would have resulted. The Arab world rejected it and immediately went to war-and lost. The hatred coming from that humiliation has existed ever since.
The fact is that Israel is simply trying to exist as an independent Jewish state-where minority religions are tolerated to this day. Instead, they are faced with a hostile Arab world which refuses to allow the presence of a non-Muslim nation the size of New Jersey to exist in its midst-notwithstanding the historical existence of the three major religions in the Holy Land.
Let's compare the start of World War II with the wars that Israel has engaged in. In 1939, after taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler manufactured a hoax to justify his invasion of Poland. A group of operatives were sent to the German-Polish border- a place called Gleiwitz, where they "stormed" a German radio site, left a few bodies behind in Polish uniforms (actually concentration camp prisoners) and made a fake broadcast. That led to the invasion of Poland which Hitler described as a self defense response. In contrast, Israel's wars against its neighbors have truly been in self defense including the last two incursions into Lebanon and Gaza. Unlike Gleiwitz, Israel had two soldiers truly kidnapped at the Israel-Lebanon border-who were eventually tortured and killed, and in the case of Gaza, Israel was legitimately responding to hundreds of rockets being launched from Gaza by Hamas-a terrorist organization which in its own charter, rejects any negotiation and calls for the destruction of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state. Yet American apologists like the discredited ex-professor Norman Finklestein, himself of Jewish heritage, propagate the lie to university audiences that Israel invaded Gaza because Hamas was becoming "too moderate" and "a real partner for peace". (He said that in my presence at UC-Irvine in January 2009.)
Much more importantly, have the Israelis set up death camps, where their enemies or non-Jews-specifically Muslims-have been systematically exterminated? No. Yet, their enemies charge them with "genocide". Why does not the world cry out over the Hama massacre in Syria in 1982 when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama while fighting elements of the Muslim Brotherhood resulting in an estimate of anywhere from 7-40,000 deaths? Where is the world's memory of the Black September massacre when Jordan expelled or killed thousands of Palestinians?
Do Jews in synagogues call out for "death to Muslims" or anyone else? No. Is Israel trying to exterminate the Arab/Muslim race? Of course not; it would be impossible to begin with.
One of the most disgusting aspects of the anti-Israel campaign is the insistence of many-especially in the Arab world- that the Holocaust never happened-or was greatly exaggerated. In a region where Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is still a best seller, as well as the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", many leaders are engaging in this ultimate of canards. They ignore the historical evidence of an era that is more well-documented than virtually any other. They ignore the images of the death camps once they were liberated. They ignore the testimony of the Nuremberg trials. They even ignore the confessions of the commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, who actually wrote his memoirs describing what happened as he was awaiting his execution in Poland after the war. Even a national leader, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to this mad idea as he and so many others plan their own "final solution" to the Jewish problem.
This is the real Holocaust. This is what real Nazis did.
This is what the Allies discovered when they conquered Germany
Who are the real Nazis of today?
Speaking of Nazis, it should be pointed out that during the war years, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was Hitler's guest in Berlin, from where he made anti-Semitic broadcasts to the Middle East urging his listeners to purge and drive out the Jews. More importantly, he even helped organize a Muslim SS Division in Bosnia, which made their own contributions to the Final Solution in that region.
Hitler and his ally, al-Husseini in Berlin
Who are the real Nazis?
The charge of Nazism and genocide is not one to be made lightly. To charge the survivors of the Holocaust is unconscionable. Yet, that is what Israel's enemies
do and successfully at that. They have convinced many in the Western World that Israel is no better than Nazi Germany; thus, they argue it does not deserve to exist. No doubt there are many in the West who will accept these lies. After all, so many in Europe are intimidated by an aggressive and radical Muslim immigrant presence, and after all, we need that Arab oil, don't we? So why not accept the lie that Israel is just another evil nation that should be eliminated so we can all live in peace? What naivete.
A more accurate argument would be that Israel is the lone democracy surrounded by Nazis.
fousesquawk
This essay first appeared on Grizzly Groundswell
Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels
He would be proud.
The opponents of Israel has been pushing the idea that Israel is taking on the characteristics of the Nazis as they fight to defend themselves. In actuality, Israel's enemies don't really recognize Israel's right of self-defense since they regard her as an illegitimate state. The charge of Nazism by Israel/Zionists is not a new one, but it is being used with greater frequency in the light of recent fighting between the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and the terrorist groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and Hamas in Gaza at the turn of the year 2008-2009. The idea of comparing Israel to Nazism is absurd on its face.
Much of the accusation is based on charges that in both of the above conflicts, Israel deliberately targeted civilians for death and, in effect, is attempting to commit genocide against the Palestinian people-a charge ridiculous in itself. It is true that civilians died in both conflicts. Civilian casualties in war are eventually inevitable. In Israel's case, they went to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties even as both Hezbollah and Hamas used the tactic of fighting from behind human shields in apartment complexes, schools and hospitals. In effect, they wanted their civilians to die so as to show a willing international media how bad the Israelis were. The media complied-virtually ignoring the causes of both conflicts. In the case of the Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon, it was a result of Hezbollah ambushing and kidnapping two soldiers from across the border. (After the fighting, those soldiers bodies were returned, dead, of course and showing signs of severe torture). In the case of Gaza, it was in response to hundreds of rockets being launched into southern Israel, many of which landed in schoolyards. During the resultant conflicts, the international media paid scant attention to the above as well as Hezbollah rockets lobbed into Haifa in 2006 forcing that city's residents into bomb shelters.
It is also conveniently ignored that in both conflicts, Israel dropped millions of leaflets warning residents in certain areas to clear out. In addition, automatic phone calls were made to residents giving them the same warnings. Contrary to Hamas' propaganda, the Israeli allowed outside humanitarian aid into Gaza during the conflict.
The Nazis never did those things. To be honest, neither did the Allies in World War II. German and Japanese cities were leveled knowing that tens of thousands of civilians would be killed. We were in effect, trying to destroy the will of the Japanese and German people to continue the war. I myself have visited Hiroshima, and it is a profoundly moving experience. This does not mean that I am condemning what we did in World War II. We were fighting for our very survival against two evil regimes that were committing horrible atrocities in the lands they had conquered and occupied.
But back to the comparison between Nazis and Israelis/Zionists. Some questions are in order.
Are the Israelis persecuting their Arab minority living within Israel proper-as the Nazis did to the Jews? No. Arabs/Muslims in Israel enjoy more freedom that they would in any of the neighboring Arab dictatorships. Have Israeli Arabs ever had to wear distinctive clothing in Israel marking them as Muslims or non-Jews?
Has there ever been an Israeli version of Kristalnacht against Arabs or Muslim in Israel? No.
Kristalnacht-November 1938-burning of synagogue in Michelsberg.
In contrast, ask yourself whatever happened to the centuries-old Jewish communities in Arab lands after 1948. The fact is that they were driven out. Today, only a few thousand remain here and there. Yemen's last remaining Jews are trying to get out of that country-where they had lived for centuries- as fast as they can due to persecution.
Do Israeli newspapers and magazines contain perverted images of Arabs or Muslims similar to Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer of the Nazi era? No-but neighboring mainstream newspapers in the Arab world still portray Jews in cartoons similar to Steicher's anti-Semitic images. Here are just a few examples:
Nazi newspaper "Der Stuermer"-headline reads, "Jewish murder plan against non-Jewish humanity uncovered."
The Jewish Blood Libel
Web site of the Arab European League, February 2, 2006
Al-Watan (Oman)
February 3, 2004
There are hundreds more like these that are regularly printed in the Arab media. They are readily available on the Internet. Have you ever heard about Jews rioting over these cartoons?
Who are the real Nazis?
Did the Nazis allow Jews to continue in the Reichstag? Or the universities? The answer is no. Are the Israelis excluding Arabs from teaching or engaging in politics? No. Are the Israelis forcibly taking over Arab businesses and giving them to Israelis? No. Are the Israelis burning down mosques in Israel? No.
Is there anything in Israel comparable to the so-called Nuremberg Laws of 1935 which formally encoded the Jews' status as second class citizens? No. Israel is a democracy, where the rights of minorities are protected-unlike its neighbors, none of whom are democracies.
Do the Israelis punish their citizens for marrying across ethnic or religious lines? No-but Muslims do-they forbid a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim. The penalty is death. That may not be encoded in the legal code of any Muslim nation, but it is part and parcel of Islam. In contrast, Jewish women intermarry all the time.
Eisenach 1940-The sign says, "I am a race-defiler"
Aryan woman and Jewish man in Nazi Germany (same wording on sign)
Other than retaliating or trying to stop armed aggression against them from their neighbors, what countries has Israel invaded and occupied as did Germany, which took over almost all of Europe? True, they have gone into Lebanon in an attempt to defeat those who were at war with them and trying to deny their right to exist, but there is no Israeli desire to make Lebanon part of Israel. Had not Syria, Jordan and Egypt not attempted to destroy Israel in 1967, they would not have lost the Golan Hts, West Bank and the Sinai, which Israel occupied as buffer zones. Can anyone seriously suspect that Israel wants to take over Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and all the other nations of the Middle East? Along those lines, did Nazi Germany ever negotiate peace treaties with any neighboring countries by which they gave up disputed land? No.
Had the Arab world accepted the 1948 UN decision to partition the Palestine area into two states, which Israel accepted, probably none of this conflict would have resulted. The Arab world rejected it and immediately went to war-and lost. The hatred coming from that humiliation has existed ever since.
The fact is that Israel is simply trying to exist as an independent Jewish state-where minority religions are tolerated to this day. Instead, they are faced with a hostile Arab world which refuses to allow the presence of a non-Muslim nation the size of New Jersey to exist in its midst-notwithstanding the historical existence of the three major religions in the Holy Land.
Let's compare the start of World War II with the wars that Israel has engaged in. In 1939, after taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler manufactured a hoax to justify his invasion of Poland. A group of operatives were sent to the German-Polish border- a place called Gleiwitz, where they "stormed" a German radio site, left a few bodies behind in Polish uniforms (actually concentration camp prisoners) and made a fake broadcast. That led to the invasion of Poland which Hitler described as a self defense response. In contrast, Israel's wars against its neighbors have truly been in self defense including the last two incursions into Lebanon and Gaza. Unlike Gleiwitz, Israel had two soldiers truly kidnapped at the Israel-Lebanon border-who were eventually tortured and killed, and in the case of Gaza, Israel was legitimately responding to hundreds of rockets being launched from Gaza by Hamas-a terrorist organization which in its own charter, rejects any negotiation and calls for the destruction of Israel and establishment of an Islamic state. Yet American apologists like the discredited ex-professor Norman Finklestein, himself of Jewish heritage, propagate the lie to university audiences that Israel invaded Gaza because Hamas was becoming "too moderate" and "a real partner for peace". (He said that in my presence at UC-Irvine in January 2009.)
Much more importantly, have the Israelis set up death camps, where their enemies or non-Jews-specifically Muslims-have been systematically exterminated? No. Yet, their enemies charge them with "genocide". Why does not the world cry out over the Hama massacre in Syria in 1982 when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama while fighting elements of the Muslim Brotherhood resulting in an estimate of anywhere from 7-40,000 deaths? Where is the world's memory of the Black September massacre when Jordan expelled or killed thousands of Palestinians?
Do Jews in synagogues call out for "death to Muslims" or anyone else? No. Is Israel trying to exterminate the Arab/Muslim race? Of course not; it would be impossible to begin with.
One of the most disgusting aspects of the anti-Israel campaign is the insistence of many-especially in the Arab world- that the Holocaust never happened-or was greatly exaggerated. In a region where Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is still a best seller, as well as the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", many leaders are engaging in this ultimate of canards. They ignore the historical evidence of an era that is more well-documented than virtually any other. They ignore the images of the death camps once they were liberated. They ignore the testimony of the Nuremberg trials. They even ignore the confessions of the commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, who actually wrote his memoirs describing what happened as he was awaiting his execution in Poland after the war. Even a national leader, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, subscribes to this mad idea as he and so many others plan their own "final solution" to the Jewish problem.
This is the real Holocaust. This is what real Nazis did.
This is what the Allies discovered when they conquered Germany
Who are the real Nazis of today?
Speaking of Nazis, it should be pointed out that during the war years, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was Hitler's guest in Berlin, from where he made anti-Semitic broadcasts to the Middle East urging his listeners to purge and drive out the Jews. More importantly, he even helped organize a Muslim SS Division in Bosnia, which made their own contributions to the Final Solution in that region.
Hitler and his ally, al-Husseini in Berlin
Who are the real Nazis?
The charge of Nazism and genocide is not one to be made lightly. To charge the survivors of the Holocaust is unconscionable. Yet, that is what Israel's enemies
do and successfully at that. They have convinced many in the Western World that Israel is no better than Nazi Germany; thus, they argue it does not deserve to exist. No doubt there are many in the West who will accept these lies. After all, so many in Europe are intimidated by an aggressive and radical Muslim immigrant presence, and after all, we need that Arab oil, don't we? So why not accept the lie that Israel is just another evil nation that should be eliminated so we can all live in peace? What naivete.
A more accurate argument would be that Israel is the lone democracy surrounded by Nazis.
The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism
By Roger F. Gay
The question is raised: Is there a place for social conservatism in a conservative political movement? While it seems that many (informal personal polling) take the question seriously, and most often say yes – the more the merrier – there's influence in numbers – a few shrug it off as part of a vast left-wing media conspiracy to spit the coalescing conservative movement. Ignoring the question won't answer it and could easily weaken conservative influence before 2012.
The fiscal conservatives of the T.E.A. Party tend to insist that neither political conservatism nor social issues matter. T.E.A. is an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already,” and despite a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power expressed among its mass of participants, founders and organizers press to limit their scope to purely fiscal concerns. This they assert, is the big enchilada, large tent conservatism that is needed. Money is the root of all political evil and keeping taxation and spending under control is the final solution.
The political conservatives in the bunch (the old-fashioned Constitution thumping classic political liberals – or in ObamaSpeak: “domestic terrorists”) can very well ask; Haven't we been down this road before? Isn't “liberal tax and spend” verses the “conservative” lesser of two evils a bit too reminiscent of “business as usual”; the usual business that got us into the great mess we're in today? This is a crowd worth considering. Their independent-mindedness stems from a love of country that far outweighs party loyalty. Many of them would gladly support a third party or not vote in protest in a continuing effort to break the old business as usual cycle. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen or more times and I might have to vote differently!
Real tension has been building around the divisions of varying conservative identities for decades. The great emergencies for Democrats today are nationalized medicine and global warming. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, one of the great emergencies for both parties was that lazy, irresponsible people were weighing down the welfare system. Poor people simply didn't have the right moral character and needed the federal government to step in to “enforce personal responsibility.” (Fathers through the mid- 1990s followed by mothers in the late 1990s.)
To meet the challenge, socially conservative rhetoric was employed to expand the role, power, intrusiveness, size and cost of the welfare establishment and expand welfare entitlements. (That'll teach 'em!) A new era of bipartisanship emerged as both parties focused their zeal on “doing something” at the federal level; completely abandoning any thought of states' rights, privacy, and Constitutional limits to government. To be fair, it wasn't just poor people who needed forceful moral guidance from the new army of bureaucrat crusaders. For the first time in American history, the reach of the “welfare state” was expanded beyond its traditional boundaries (those in need) and into the general population. Fundamental changes in the relationship between government and the people went unnoticed by the mass media and through the 1990s, great battles ensued between the parties over repackaging and taking credit for reforms.
Social conservatism had become the perfect compliment to social liberalism in American politics and fiscally conservative rhetoric the perfect wood from which to build the bridge. Every expansion of government, along with its fancy price-tag was justified because in “theory” it would save tax-payers money. Poverty was a result of poor moral foundation and Bigger Government could fix that. Of course, it didn't work out according to the theory – something many “skeptics” concretely predicted on the basis of observable facts and figures. The media beating those skeptics received make the global warming debate seem quite civilized in comparison. Critics were considered enemies by both partisan camps, and what a filthy beneath human scum type you were to oppose Big Brother this time – right down there with the immoral, low-life deadbeats moral reformers aimed at reforming.
When the facts supporting the morally fiscal “theory” were proven false by their own history, it didn't matter. It's the principle that counts. But like the fiscally conservative theory that yielded unnecessarily higher costs, the adjoining socially conservative “family values” theory yielded an opposite as well – the legal destruction of marriage.
Pushing social issues onto the federal agenda is always a bad idea. The Constitution does not include social issues in federal jurisdiction. It is structured for the exercise of different types of power and particular treatments by courts for issues that at federal, state, and personal levels. Allowing federal take-overs of state (and private) issues is a formula for destruction. Everything becomes arbitrarily politically defined and manipulated. In the case of marriage, this is exactly what the unmitigated social / fiscal conservative perspective delivered.
Marriage was, legally, a sacred, protected private institution. Under the cover of welfare reform, it was legally destroyed through successive unconstitutional intrusions into marriage and family law. The institution of marriage was transformed (legally) into a politically defined element of a federal welfare program; and generally redefined as a public rather than a private issue. Once this was accomplished, its protected status disappeared and courts began ruling on it as they would any other aspect of government programs.
Republicans blamed the destruction of marriage on "activist judges," but the real problem with judicial activism was that judges had not been active enough in fulfilling their oaths to protect the Constitution by protecting the American people against the intrusion. Applying "equal protection," courts extended the new social policy entitlement of marriage to same-sex couples. This was not an extension of a civil right to traditional marriage. In a legal sense, traditional marriage no longer existed. The overall effect was to deny the legal status of traditional marriage to everyone.
You can call me a skeptic when it comes to solutions formulated by the same minds that created the problem, or in this case a similar coalition of self-defined social and fiscal conservatives. The movement to restrict the federal program entitlement of marriage to “a man and a woman” through a US Constitutional amendment collapsed. State initiatives can do little to address the real underlying problem because it was created at the federal level. Now we've moved on to other emergencies – the de facto plan apparently being that we'll all just have to get used to living with another big mess. If the same minds get together to tackle Cap-n-Trade, health care reform, and government take-over of the economy, the mess will just get bigger.
A serious conservative revolution cannot be designed from a formula for a return to business as usual. Merely using different rhetoric to expand government and increase its arbitrary use of power is not sufficient to define a philosophical difference from the political left. The genuine grass-roots conservative movement is defined by the mass of participants who have a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power. Without that translating to the expulsion Big Brother from American soil, there is little reason to suspect that conservative unity will be maintained for long; nor would the movement have any appreciable effect if it did. We really need a return to Constitutional rule to limit the destructive power of government; and that requires (by definition really) a conservative movement that meets in a politically conservative tent.
Related articles:
Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?
How America was Destroyed – The Rise of Big Lie Politics
Tea Party March Hijacked at the Podium
McCain Palin Losing the Gender Gap War
American Politics: We are on a Dangerous Precipice
Why John McCain is Losing
GOP Platform 2008 on Preservation of Marriage
The question is raised: Is there a place for social conservatism in a conservative political movement? While it seems that many (informal personal polling) take the question seriously, and most often say yes – the more the merrier – there's influence in numbers – a few shrug it off as part of a vast left-wing media conspiracy to spit the coalescing conservative movement. Ignoring the question won't answer it and could easily weaken conservative influence before 2012.
The fiscal conservatives of the T.E.A. Party tend to insist that neither political conservatism nor social issues matter. T.E.A. is an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already,” and despite a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power expressed among its mass of participants, founders and organizers press to limit their scope to purely fiscal concerns. This they assert, is the big enchilada, large tent conservatism that is needed. Money is the root of all political evil and keeping taxation and spending under control is the final solution.
The political conservatives in the bunch (the old-fashioned Constitution thumping classic political liberals – or in ObamaSpeak: “domestic terrorists”) can very well ask; Haven't we been down this road before? Isn't “liberal tax and spend” verses the “conservative” lesser of two evils a bit too reminiscent of “business as usual”; the usual business that got us into the great mess we're in today? This is a crowd worth considering. Their independent-mindedness stems from a love of country that far outweighs party loyalty. Many of them would gladly support a third party or not vote in protest in a continuing effort to break the old business as usual cycle. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen or more times and I might have to vote differently!
Real tension has been building around the divisions of varying conservative identities for decades. The great emergencies for Democrats today are nationalized medicine and global warming. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, one of the great emergencies for both parties was that lazy, irresponsible people were weighing down the welfare system. Poor people simply didn't have the right moral character and needed the federal government to step in to “enforce personal responsibility.” (Fathers through the mid- 1990s followed by mothers in the late 1990s.)
To meet the challenge, socially conservative rhetoric was employed to expand the role, power, intrusiveness, size and cost of the welfare establishment and expand welfare entitlements. (That'll teach 'em!) A new era of bipartisanship emerged as both parties focused their zeal on “doing something” at the federal level; completely abandoning any thought of states' rights, privacy, and Constitutional limits to government. To be fair, it wasn't just poor people who needed forceful moral guidance from the new army of bureaucrat crusaders. For the first time in American history, the reach of the “welfare state” was expanded beyond its traditional boundaries (those in need) and into the general population. Fundamental changes in the relationship between government and the people went unnoticed by the mass media and through the 1990s, great battles ensued between the parties over repackaging and taking credit for reforms.
Social conservatism had become the perfect compliment to social liberalism in American politics and fiscally conservative rhetoric the perfect wood from which to build the bridge. Every expansion of government, along with its fancy price-tag was justified because in “theory” it would save tax-payers money. Poverty was a result of poor moral foundation and Bigger Government could fix that. Of course, it didn't work out according to the theory – something many “skeptics” concretely predicted on the basis of observable facts and figures. The media beating those skeptics received make the global warming debate seem quite civilized in comparison. Critics were considered enemies by both partisan camps, and what a filthy beneath human scum type you were to oppose Big Brother this time – right down there with the immoral, low-life deadbeats moral reformers aimed at reforming.
When the facts supporting the morally fiscal “theory” were proven false by their own history, it didn't matter. It's the principle that counts. But like the fiscally conservative theory that yielded unnecessarily higher costs, the adjoining socially conservative “family values” theory yielded an opposite as well – the legal destruction of marriage.
Pushing social issues onto the federal agenda is always a bad idea. The Constitution does not include social issues in federal jurisdiction. It is structured for the exercise of different types of power and particular treatments by courts for issues that at federal, state, and personal levels. Allowing federal take-overs of state (and private) issues is a formula for destruction. Everything becomes arbitrarily politically defined and manipulated. In the case of marriage, this is exactly what the unmitigated social / fiscal conservative perspective delivered.
Marriage was, legally, a sacred, protected private institution. Under the cover of welfare reform, it was legally destroyed through successive unconstitutional intrusions into marriage and family law. The institution of marriage was transformed (legally) into a politically defined element of a federal welfare program; and generally redefined as a public rather than a private issue. Once this was accomplished, its protected status disappeared and courts began ruling on it as they would any other aspect of government programs.
Republicans blamed the destruction of marriage on "activist judges," but the real problem with judicial activism was that judges had not been active enough in fulfilling their oaths to protect the Constitution by protecting the American people against the intrusion. Applying "equal protection," courts extended the new social policy entitlement of marriage to same-sex couples. This was not an extension of a civil right to traditional marriage. In a legal sense, traditional marriage no longer existed. The overall effect was to deny the legal status of traditional marriage to everyone.
You can call me a skeptic when it comes to solutions formulated by the same minds that created the problem, or in this case a similar coalition of self-defined social and fiscal conservatives. The movement to restrict the federal program entitlement of marriage to “a man and a woman” through a US Constitutional amendment collapsed. State initiatives can do little to address the real underlying problem because it was created at the federal level. Now we've moved on to other emergencies – the de facto plan apparently being that we'll all just have to get used to living with another big mess. If the same minds get together to tackle Cap-n-Trade, health care reform, and government take-over of the economy, the mess will just get bigger.
A serious conservative revolution cannot be designed from a formula for a return to business as usual. Merely using different rhetoric to expand government and increase its arbitrary use of power is not sufficient to define a philosophical difference from the political left. The genuine grass-roots conservative movement is defined by the mass of participants who have a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power. Without that translating to the expulsion Big Brother from American soil, there is little reason to suspect that conservative unity will be maintained for long; nor would the movement have any appreciable effect if it did. We really need a return to Constitutional rule to limit the destructive power of government; and that requires (by definition really) a conservative movement that meets in a politically conservative tent.
Related articles:
Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?
How America was Destroyed – The Rise of Big Lie Politics
Tea Party March Hijacked at the Podium
McCain Palin Losing the Gender Gap War
American Politics: We are on a Dangerous Precipice
Why John McCain is Losing
GOP Platform 2008 on Preservation of Marriage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)