By Roger F. Gay
The Democratic Party expected that having a half-black man in the White House would come with a free Platinum Race Card that would never be questioned. But as the mid-term elections unfold, they're still waiting nervously by the mail box for delivery. Their continuing efforts to get what they can't pay for in fact and reason come off looking more like clumsy caught-on-camera shoplifting attempts at the mall.
Bill Press compared Glenn Beck and attendees at the Restoring Honor Rally to Al Qaeda. He rationalized this bizarre comment on CNN, saying that the Lincoln Memorial, for all Americans, is one of our sacred places, and that he thinks that allowing Glenn Beck to speak there was just as offensive as giving those who carried out the 9/11 attack permission to speak at Ground Zero.
If you're just tuning in, wondering if you'll bother to go to the polls to vote, feeling entirely confused about what that was supposed to mean, let me explain. Press was attempting to wag a racial slur in your face. The Restoring Honor Rally was held on the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's revered I Have a Dream speech, which was also delivered at the Lincoln Memorial.
Still a bit confused? The back story is important. Since Obama entered office, the Democratic Party faithful have gone to extremes to divide the nation along racial lines. In their imaginations, the racial division is now perfectly clear, in everything. (You might think that there was a racial divide to begin with; but that's nothing. It's more like they've been pressing for an all out race war.)
Lincoln presided over the American Civil War, the war that ended slavery. Dr. Martin Luther King was black. His speech is symbolic of the Civil Rights Movement (circa. 1955-1968). Glenn Beck is a white guy who is not a Democrat. (Same as Lincoln, but never mind.) So rather than thinking, you should immediately imagine Glenn Beck as a rampant dedicated racist trampling on the sacred ground of progressive politics.
Progressive politics? Maybe I'm skipping through the long progression of leftist propaganda a bit too quickly. I'll assume that even if you're just crawling out of the crib somewhere near a television, you've felt the vibrations associating Democrats with new (yes, just like soap and toothpaste) and Republicans with old. This superficial marketing ploy has been very effective in the young and female market. (What soap and toothpaste companies already knew.)
New isn't quite the same thing as progressive is it? (You might ask.) We need to probe a little more deeply than a comparison with a soap commercial. Let's get clarification on the talking point from someone who better deserves the title of the the Democratic Party's Joseph Goebbels (or at least his writing staff): Chris Matthews. Listen to this.
What is the argument? You may need to listen again, but it's just as superficial as old verses new. Let me give you a hint. A big, all-powerful federal government is good. The federal government does the right thing. His statement is unconditional. There is no current issue involved, just an event. Don't think. Just imagine that anyone who opposes unconditional federal control, particularly if they support or reference the Constitution, is standing in the way of a better world; crazed and mean-spirited racist punks if you'd like – for the sake of concrete imagery.
Matthews did touch my emotions. References to the civil rights struggle that I grew up in as well as he tend to do that. Matthews did manage to make me feel offended – by him. There is a huge divide between those who led the Civil Rights Movement and the progressive left, including Barack Obama – especially including Barack Obama (yes, even though he's half-black). It is hard to imagine a group more solidly opposed to civil rights than today's Democratic Party – and they really weren't much for it back then either. I am terribly offended by their use of the Civil Rights Movement in their propaganda.
The Civil Rights Movement built its success on lawsuits. Its participants asserted Constitutional rights. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they did so to avoid chaos in response to Supreme Court decisions on Constitutionally derived civil rights, and even moreso to claim political credit for something that had to be done to preserve Constitutional order. President Johnson took to the airwaves to address the nation with exactly that in mind, noting that a president from the Democratic Party, known as the party of racism, would sign the bill. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 facilitated cashing in that credit.
The success of the Civil Rights Movement was a triumph of individual rights over the collective that had erected social, legal, economic, and physical barriers to integration. Their success depended directly on our Constitutionally defined three-branch system of government, in which each branch has equal (but separate) power. It required an independent judicial branch with its highest obligation to the Constitution, not to a congress or a president – and definitely not to a political party.
The Democratic Party has and continues to push for a shift in power from Constitutional rule to one in which the political parties have absolute power, concentrated at the top. Barack Obama has made this preference perfectly clear. He has expressed his dissatisfaction with – not merely the results of the Civil Rights Movement – but with the fundamentals; maintaining and asserting individual rights over the power of the collective. (By the way Barack, the United States already has – or did have – the largest wealth redistribution system in the world.)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
What Women Want — for Real
The new feminism of life as it is really lived.
Could politics end the mommy wars?
What mommy wars, you ask? One short answer is: the ones that make for awkward silences at cocktail parties when a woman is asked what she does and she responds that she raises her children. The feminist revolution would have us believe that’s undignified.
That’s bunk. It always has been.
With the increased media presence of women of all political stripes, especially in politics — as candidates, as tea-party players and participants — that lie is being exposed in a whole new mainstream way, crowding out the delusion of the lamestream (to borrow one woman’s word). Exposing that lie in a reasoned, well-researched, sober way was the goal of a panel presented by the Susan B. Anthony List in Manhattan on the 90th anniversary of the enactment of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the constitutional right to vote.
Read the whole article: What Women Want — for Real
Could politics end the mommy wars?
What mommy wars, you ask? One short answer is: the ones that make for awkward silences at cocktail parties when a woman is asked what she does and she responds that she raises her children. The feminist revolution would have us believe that’s undignified.
That’s bunk. It always has been.
With the increased media presence of women of all political stripes, especially in politics — as candidates, as tea-party players and participants — that lie is being exposed in a whole new mainstream way, crowding out the delusion of the lamestream (to borrow one woman’s word). Exposing that lie in a reasoned, well-researched, sober way was the goal of a panel presented by the Susan B. Anthony List in Manhattan on the 90th anniversary of the enactment of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the constitutional right to vote.
Read the whole article: What Women Want — for Real
Monday, August 30, 2010
Iraq: Mission Accomplished - Or Just Semantics and Broken Promises?
"Amid much fanfare last week the last supposed combat troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq war and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of those administration operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq war is at last ending."
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Don't Throw Away Freedom to Prop Up Failure
On Thursday, Congressman Ron Paul appeared on Fox Business' The Willis Report to discuss auditing the federal government's gold, ending the Fed, and restoring a prosperous economy.
On the Passing of MND: A Focused Reflection on Marriage and Family and What to Do Next
By Roger F. Gay
Founder and Editor-in-Chief Mike LaSalle announced the retirement of MensNewsDaily.com today. After nearly 9 years of continuous operation, the world's premier men's news and commentary site will end its operations “over the next month.” Mike will continue publishing with Hawai`i News Daily, which will also house the MND article archive.
The introduction of MND came at a pivotal time in American history, in the aftermath of legislative thrusts against fathers and families that had broad legal, social, and political ramifications. In the 1980s, at the peak of PC and particularly feminist doctrinal influence, Congress had moved the federal government into the business of family. This triggered a ruling in 1993, in which the US 9th District Court of Appeals ripped marriage and family from their private roots and replanted them solidly in the public (government) domain. (P.O.P.S. v. Gardner) During the 1990s, the mass media, backed by a bipartisan political coalition, an army of bureaucrats, and a new publicly funded child support collection industry, held growing criticism at bay with a hate campaign against men generally and fathers in particular, and did nothing to inform or educate the public on the radical political changes that were taking place.
Few people were prepared to respond. Most were uninformed, and upon encountering the facts it was difficult to believe them. The established political order in the United States was, after all, defined by the Constitution. Courts had always recognized marriage and family as the most important and essential private institution in human existence. They are also clearly not within the scope of federal regulatory authority. So how did they get it? Socially and fiscally conservative rhetoric had been thrown into the family law debate during the 1980s, angling in via “welfare reform“ and the “deadbeat dads” theme, with ideas on government-enforced personal-responsibility, a rather obvious oxymoron upon reflection. Social and fiscal conservatives bought it and supported reforms without seeing the big picture. The reforms aimed far beyond welfare entitlements and struck more deeply at the heart of American life than most people could find imaginable at the time. More than a few still struggle with it.
There was a critical need to inform the public and explain to newly divorced fathers why things were the way they were as well as to battle against the continuing waves of anti-male, anti-father propaganda. Divorcing fathers faced two new burdens. As a result of family law reform, many were being irrecoverably economically devastated and then being thrown in jail for being unable to pay arbitrarily high child support amounts. They were having their futures stolen from them. The second is that even their closest friends and families, uninformed, saw them as obsessed whiners when they attempted to talk about their experiences and explain the causes.
Their blaming government and feminism from the perspective of victims was seen as emotionally-driven and their “conspiracy theories” were seen as a sign of obsessed psychological imbalance or an immature rationalizing of their circumstances. They were told to “act like a man,” have a “stiff upper lip,” and that so many men had survived the experience before them. They were also told to get a good lawyer, at a time when even divorcing lawyers were shooting judges and battling injustice in their own cases. They were offered psychological counseling. Most people were blissfully unaware that things had changed. For many divorced and divorcing fathers, it was like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Such dramatic change can't be kept secret forever. By Bill Clinton's second presidential campaign, the thunderous applause for anti-father rhetoric (and the code-phrase “welfare reform” now expressed by Clinton's slogan “ending welfare as we know it”) was exchanged for the rumbling of the crowd. Too many divorcing fathers were telling similar stories. A few brave journalists were telling them too. And people had seen the effects, not only to the bottom line of the welfare budget, which was growing out of control, but to their working, non-entitled, responsible friends and family members; loving fathers who deserved a life as much as anyone else. The swelling discontent however had come too late to save marriage, which had been callously executed by the 9th Circuit Court decision of 1993.
During George W. Bush's second term, the Massachusetts Supreme Court delivered a judgment that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Offering civil unions as an alternative was not acceptable. It seemed a queer ruling in the face of over 200 years of judicial acceptance. It's one that can only be explained by the fundamentally changed legal status of marriage. But no one had as yet effectively thrown their shoes into the national propaganda machinery. Republicans blamed “activist judges” (the wrong ones) and debated “defense of marriage” acts to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, missing the point entirely. The redefinition of marriage as a public policy left indiscriminate equality as the only remaining Constitutional consideration. In 2010, as the lame-stream media debates judicial power verses the will of the people on Prop. 8 in California, it's clear that our shoes still haven't damaged the propaganda machinery enough. The People are not yet sufficiently informed, but they do see that something is amiss.
Much has changed since the 1980s and men who are determined to address political problems need to find their place in the 21st century. Nothing has been so informative and provocative as Barack Obama in the White House with a Democratic Party majority in both houses. Industry take-overs, a poor version of socialized medicine passed in opposition to the public will, global warming policy based on fraud, out-of-control spending, blatant cronyism, in-your-face corruption, political indoctrination in schools, pledges of allegiance to Barack Obama rather than to the flag and the country; with politicians proclaiming that there are no limits to federal power, laughing and demonizing those who support the Constitution, they've done much of the work for us.
You (men / fathers) need to understand that the political problems that you face are but one instance of a larger problem. You need to understand that you are not part of an isolated minority. You need to understand what over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause means and how it effects the relationship between government and the people. You need to know what other issues have been effected by the same root causes. You need to understand that the millions of people who have taken to the streets to express their grievances and demand a return to Constitutional rule are your fellow soldiers in the same civil war.
And they need to know it too. When you arrive on the battle-ground, address the troops. Tell them specifically why you are there and how your grievances are related to theirs and the larger problem. Let them know that the spearhead of this war struck first at fathers while they slept, that the people's loss of that battle led to the broader fight they now face, and that none of us will ever see freedom again until the family is returned to its rightful place.
Founder and Editor-in-Chief Mike LaSalle announced the retirement of MensNewsDaily.com today. After nearly 9 years of continuous operation, the world's premier men's news and commentary site will end its operations “over the next month.” Mike will continue publishing with Hawai`i News Daily, which will also house the MND article archive.
The introduction of MND came at a pivotal time in American history, in the aftermath of legislative thrusts against fathers and families that had broad legal, social, and political ramifications. In the 1980s, at the peak of PC and particularly feminist doctrinal influence, Congress had moved the federal government into the business of family. This triggered a ruling in 1993, in which the US 9th District Court of Appeals ripped marriage and family from their private roots and replanted them solidly in the public (government) domain. (P.O.P.S. v. Gardner) During the 1990s, the mass media, backed by a bipartisan political coalition, an army of bureaucrats, and a new publicly funded child support collection industry, held growing criticism at bay with a hate campaign against men generally and fathers in particular, and did nothing to inform or educate the public on the radical political changes that were taking place.
Few people were prepared to respond. Most were uninformed, and upon encountering the facts it was difficult to believe them. The established political order in the United States was, after all, defined by the Constitution. Courts had always recognized marriage and family as the most important and essential private institution in human existence. They are also clearly not within the scope of federal regulatory authority. So how did they get it? Socially and fiscally conservative rhetoric had been thrown into the family law debate during the 1980s, angling in via “welfare reform“ and the “deadbeat dads” theme, with ideas on government-enforced personal-responsibility, a rather obvious oxymoron upon reflection. Social and fiscal conservatives bought it and supported reforms without seeing the big picture. The reforms aimed far beyond welfare entitlements and struck more deeply at the heart of American life than most people could find imaginable at the time. More than a few still struggle with it.
There was a critical need to inform the public and explain to newly divorced fathers why things were the way they were as well as to battle against the continuing waves of anti-male, anti-father propaganda. Divorcing fathers faced two new burdens. As a result of family law reform, many were being irrecoverably economically devastated and then being thrown in jail for being unable to pay arbitrarily high child support amounts. They were having their futures stolen from them. The second is that even their closest friends and families, uninformed, saw them as obsessed whiners when they attempted to talk about their experiences and explain the causes.
Their blaming government and feminism from the perspective of victims was seen as emotionally-driven and their “conspiracy theories” were seen as a sign of obsessed psychological imbalance or an immature rationalizing of their circumstances. They were told to “act like a man,” have a “stiff upper lip,” and that so many men had survived the experience before them. They were also told to get a good lawyer, at a time when even divorcing lawyers were shooting judges and battling injustice in their own cases. They were offered psychological counseling. Most people were blissfully unaware that things had changed. For many divorced and divorcing fathers, it was like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Such dramatic change can't be kept secret forever. By Bill Clinton's second presidential campaign, the thunderous applause for anti-father rhetoric (and the code-phrase “welfare reform” now expressed by Clinton's slogan “ending welfare as we know it”) was exchanged for the rumbling of the crowd. Too many divorcing fathers were telling similar stories. A few brave journalists were telling them too. And people had seen the effects, not only to the bottom line of the welfare budget, which was growing out of control, but to their working, non-entitled, responsible friends and family members; loving fathers who deserved a life as much as anyone else. The swelling discontent however had come too late to save marriage, which had been callously executed by the 9th Circuit Court decision of 1993.
During George W. Bush's second term, the Massachusetts Supreme Court delivered a judgment that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Offering civil unions as an alternative was not acceptable. It seemed a queer ruling in the face of over 200 years of judicial acceptance. It's one that can only be explained by the fundamentally changed legal status of marriage. But no one had as yet effectively thrown their shoes into the national propaganda machinery. Republicans blamed “activist judges” (the wrong ones) and debated “defense of marriage” acts to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, missing the point entirely. The redefinition of marriage as a public policy left indiscriminate equality as the only remaining Constitutional consideration. In 2010, as the lame-stream media debates judicial power verses the will of the people on Prop. 8 in California, it's clear that our shoes still haven't damaged the propaganda machinery enough. The People are not yet sufficiently informed, but they do see that something is amiss.
Much has changed since the 1980s and men who are determined to address political problems need to find their place in the 21st century. Nothing has been so informative and provocative as Barack Obama in the White House with a Democratic Party majority in both houses. Industry take-overs, a poor version of socialized medicine passed in opposition to the public will, global warming policy based on fraud, out-of-control spending, blatant cronyism, in-your-face corruption, political indoctrination in schools, pledges of allegiance to Barack Obama rather than to the flag and the country; with politicians proclaiming that there are no limits to federal power, laughing and demonizing those who support the Constitution, they've done much of the work for us.
You (men / fathers) need to understand that the political problems that you face are but one instance of a larger problem. You need to understand that you are not part of an isolated minority. You need to understand what over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause means and how it effects the relationship between government and the people. You need to know what other issues have been effected by the same root causes. You need to understand that the millions of people who have taken to the streets to express their grievances and demand a return to Constitutional rule are your fellow soldiers in the same civil war.
And they need to know it too. When you arrive on the battle-ground, address the troops. Tell them specifically why you are there and how your grievances are related to theirs and the larger problem. Let them know that the spearhead of this war struck first at fathers while they slept, that the people's loss of that battle led to the broader fight they now face, and that none of us will ever see freedom again until the family is returned to its rightful place.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
What About the Destructive Influence of U.S. Government Funding on Science?
What About the Destructive Influence of U.S. Government Funding on Science?
By Roger F. Gay
Many people have come to understand that the climate scam involves collusion between corrupt politicians and dishonest scientists. The problem however, is much broader even than Al Gore. Science is critical to our modern existence. Large amounts of public money are spent on a wide range of scientific activities each year; a practice that has become the heart of the problem. Yet, precious little focus has been placed on developing reforms to undo the ongoing damage.
The climate change example has demonstrated that scientific integrity can be compromised with money. This doesn't mean that all scientists are dishonest. But experience shows that these kinds of problems, involving insufficiently safeguarded access to money, tend to grow. Indeed, as more money was offered to a broader group of scientists during Al Gore's political tenure, we discovered that many scientists are willing to compromise at least a little. When funding was offered to virtually any scientist who was willing to include an untested support phrase for man-made global warming in final reports and articles, propagandists got the result they wanted; a large number of published papers containing a gratuitous statement of support. (Publishing scientists cited reports that claimed that man-made global warming is really bad and destined to get worse without containing any research to test the claims.)
Those who compromised got funding and published papers, padding out their resumes and improving their chances of more funding and greater numbers of research students. Those who did not compromise would later be characterized as lesser scientists by those who did, based on having received less funding and having published fewer papers in “climate science,” an activity now nearly completely defined by paid support for a political agenda. The snowballing continues as increased taxation and spending related to global warming is one of the key goals in the Obama agenda; it's execution already involving impeachable abuses of power and open corruption in the EPA. The argument for their agenda is that they are supported by a “scientific consensus.”
The circle of corruption is almost complete. As children were indoctrinated with the fake science, they (and many others) were pushed to a level of ignorance previously thought impossible in the modern, civilized world. Millions accepted, in effect, the outlandish superstitious idea that insufficient sacrifice to and worship of the leftist Political Class would summon the wrath of nature. The social, emotional, and intellectual damage caused by such well-funded misinformation campaigns is immeasurable.
Corrupt use of experts is not confined to research. It is common practice for politicians and bureaucrats to construct commissions to investigate policy issues, padded with members who they can trust will recommend the policies that they desire. Policies are then constructed based on commission reports, allowing bureaucrats to sidestep lack of real justification and to ignore public criticism. (Related article on publicly funded EPA propaganda campaign.) Commission members can easily be found among academics who have built careers on public funding and have shown a willingness to compromise on other occasions. They can even be drawn from the population that owes their appointments to cronyism; providing them with pseudo-qualifications by job title and position history. (Even in Supreme Court appointments. This is how the Political Class operates.)
In reaching toward One World Government, US government funding has even been causing chaos in other countries. Using counter-terrorism related funding, the Department of Homeland Security has been able to fund technical research and development in all politically friendly nations. This gave an unprecedented level of control to a US bureaucracy in effecting strategic research throughout the Western World. Thinking it a good deal, and feeling some obligation to join a unified front against terrorism, politicians accepted the offer and reorganized their strategic research plans toward a “cooperative” plan. This sometimes involved dropping some of the most promising and critical research being done in their own countries; decisions that will ultimately weaken the Western alliance economically and militarily.
What to do? Certainly, public funding for science and engineering has historically produced enormous benefits. It would be easy to respond to the misuse of the power of funding by politicians by simply arguing for greater scientific independence. But we know that scientists are people too, subject to temptation like everyone else. One should also consider that mission focused research and development in some areas, such as military technology, is critical. Advancements in energy production, storage, distribution, and use throughout our history (not all publicly funded) have dramatically improved our lives and will likely lead to economically sound alternative energy sources in the future. Someone has to decide how and how much public money should be spent. How do we allow continuous spraying of funds into the right areas while assuring that holes are not being poked in the hose? How do we sustain an effective public effort while checking the influence of our government representatives?
Additional perspectives:
CATO: End Government Science Funding
Scientific American: The Economics of Science: Interview with Terence Kealey
By Roger F. Gay
Many people have come to understand that the climate scam involves collusion between corrupt politicians and dishonest scientists. The problem however, is much broader even than Al Gore. Science is critical to our modern existence. Large amounts of public money are spent on a wide range of scientific activities each year; a practice that has become the heart of the problem. Yet, precious little focus has been placed on developing reforms to undo the ongoing damage.
The climate change example has demonstrated that scientific integrity can be compromised with money. This doesn't mean that all scientists are dishonest. But experience shows that these kinds of problems, involving insufficiently safeguarded access to money, tend to grow. Indeed, as more money was offered to a broader group of scientists during Al Gore's political tenure, we discovered that many scientists are willing to compromise at least a little. When funding was offered to virtually any scientist who was willing to include an untested support phrase for man-made global warming in final reports and articles, propagandists got the result they wanted; a large number of published papers containing a gratuitous statement of support. (Publishing scientists cited reports that claimed that man-made global warming is really bad and destined to get worse without containing any research to test the claims.)
Those who compromised got funding and published papers, padding out their resumes and improving their chances of more funding and greater numbers of research students. Those who did not compromise would later be characterized as lesser scientists by those who did, based on having received less funding and having published fewer papers in “climate science,” an activity now nearly completely defined by paid support for a political agenda. The snowballing continues as increased taxation and spending related to global warming is one of the key goals in the Obama agenda; it's execution already involving impeachable abuses of power and open corruption in the EPA. The argument for their agenda is that they are supported by a “scientific consensus.”
The circle of corruption is almost complete. As children were indoctrinated with the fake science, they (and many others) were pushed to a level of ignorance previously thought impossible in the modern, civilized world. Millions accepted, in effect, the outlandish superstitious idea that insufficient sacrifice to and worship of the leftist Political Class would summon the wrath of nature. The social, emotional, and intellectual damage caused by such well-funded misinformation campaigns is immeasurable.
Corrupt use of experts is not confined to research. It is common practice for politicians and bureaucrats to construct commissions to investigate policy issues, padded with members who they can trust will recommend the policies that they desire. Policies are then constructed based on commission reports, allowing bureaucrats to sidestep lack of real justification and to ignore public criticism. (Related article on publicly funded EPA propaganda campaign.) Commission members can easily be found among academics who have built careers on public funding and have shown a willingness to compromise on other occasions. They can even be drawn from the population that owes their appointments to cronyism; providing them with pseudo-qualifications by job title and position history. (Even in Supreme Court appointments. This is how the Political Class operates.)
In reaching toward One World Government, US government funding has even been causing chaos in other countries. Using counter-terrorism related funding, the Department of Homeland Security has been able to fund technical research and development in all politically friendly nations. This gave an unprecedented level of control to a US bureaucracy in effecting strategic research throughout the Western World. Thinking it a good deal, and feeling some obligation to join a unified front against terrorism, politicians accepted the offer and reorganized their strategic research plans toward a “cooperative” plan. This sometimes involved dropping some of the most promising and critical research being done in their own countries; decisions that will ultimately weaken the Western alliance economically and militarily.
What to do? Certainly, public funding for science and engineering has historically produced enormous benefits. It would be easy to respond to the misuse of the power of funding by politicians by simply arguing for greater scientific independence. But we know that scientists are people too, subject to temptation like everyone else. One should also consider that mission focused research and development in some areas, such as military technology, is critical. Advancements in energy production, storage, distribution, and use throughout our history (not all publicly funded) have dramatically improved our lives and will likely lead to economically sound alternative energy sources in the future. Someone has to decide how and how much public money should be spent. How do we allow continuous spraying of funds into the right areas while assuring that holes are not being poked in the hose? How do we sustain an effective public effort while checking the influence of our government representatives?
Additional perspectives:
CATO: End Government Science Funding
Scientific American: The Economics of Science: Interview with Terence Kealey
Friday, August 27, 2010
The last refuge of a liberal
From the Great Charles Krauthammer:
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Read the rest: The last refuge of a liberal
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Read the rest: The last refuge of a liberal
Thursday, August 26, 2010
VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab
Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy
The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.
Read the whole article: VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab
The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.
"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. ... To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions."
Read the whole article: VENABLE: Texas fights global-warming power grab
Are Americans Ready For What’s Ahead?
I hope so. I want to think so. Jury’s still out.
Okay, before I go on, confession . . . . I am a weak American. I’m so addicted to modern conveniences, our 2010 way of life, when the electricity goes out I can’t function. It’s pitiful. Astoundingly so.
I’ve always said that if I’d been alive during the American pioneer times, they would have decided my best use was bait for wolves or grizzlies, an effort to save others while having one take it for the team. Largely still think so. Of course, if I was in pioneer times surrounded by a large sampling of other Americans transported there along with me from 2010, I’d be a hell of a lot safer, looking pretty good in comparison, I think.
What’s happened to this country? To us?
The election of 2008 wasn’t the beginning. It was just an example so blatant, so pathetic – “hope” and “change” . . . my diaper – it’s woken many from a comfortable slumber. Gets worse from here I’m pretty certain, so prepare.
Continue Are Americans Ready For What’s Ahead?
Okay, before I go on, confession . . . . I am a weak American. I’m so addicted to modern conveniences, our 2010 way of life, when the electricity goes out I can’t function. It’s pitiful. Astoundingly so.
I’ve always said that if I’d been alive during the American pioneer times, they would have decided my best use was bait for wolves or grizzlies, an effort to save others while having one take it for the team. Largely still think so. Of course, if I was in pioneer times surrounded by a large sampling of other Americans transported there along with me from 2010, I’d be a hell of a lot safer, looking pretty good in comparison, I think.
What’s happened to this country? To us?
The election of 2008 wasn’t the beginning. It was just an example so blatant, so pathetic – “hope” and “change” . . . my diaper – it’s woken many from a comfortable slumber. Gets worse from here I’m pretty certain, so prepare.
Continue Are Americans Ready For What’s Ahead?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Ron Paul: Gold is Money! The Dollar's Value is Destined to Go Down
If more people get behind this idea, then maybe we will be able to save the power of our money and what we can purchase for decent prices:
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Climate Change: I'm Glad the Left Isn't Really Serious About Science
By Roger F. Gay
For too many years, we've had to put up with dishonest, idiotic, and sometimes insane ramblings from the left on the subject of “climate change.” As Al Gore proclaimed, it's not over yet. But it's certainly much closer to being shrugged off with mocking laughter than it was a year ago. (In fact, I've been doing it for some months now.)
A critical load bearing card in their propaganda house was the claim that it is a scientifically established fact that modern human existence is leading quickly to catastrophe. The unmerciful and unyielding science god of the atheists had spoken and was demanding sacrifices. A holy war commenced.
While the inner circle may make the history books for cashing in on one of the biggest cons in political history; the small but determined rank and file of the warmers' movement amounted to a shabby collection of green entrepreneurs, professional activists and con artists, professional artists looking for attention, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, academics hoping to take advantage of funding opportunities, and some bored teenagers out for a Beavis and Butthead afternoon.
It's not all a laughing matter, of course. It has been a bad few years for real science and the whole chain of related economic activities. (related article) The global warming scam has been, and still is, part of a big push into overwhelmingly corrupt government activities that have drained the world economy and crushed Constitutional rule in America. Chaos and civil war may yet be the result.
But just imagine for a moment, a world in which concern for the environment and global warming fears caused a migration of budding young intellectual leftists from liberal and fine arts into the hard sciences. It's a nightmarish thought.
In one generation, the mentally disciplined geeks with calculators strapped to their belts who pride themselves on meticulous knowledge of technical details, admire Spock, obsessively seek flawless logic themselves, and relish the thought of long days stretching into nights dispassionately observing and recording the multiplication of fruit flies or whatever for a result that is actually and truly correct – people who actually check information for accuracy; would be heavily infiltrated by emotionally driven, impatient, undisciplined, equal treatment collectivists who want to build a career on the art of day-dreaming, insist that credit and rewards should be shared equally especially when they haven't actually done anything, and think “facts” should be determined by their feelings regarding social value rather than whether or not they're actually true.
More bureaucracy and less independent thinking would be essential. Lying to get ahead would certainly not be out of the question. (Some of the Climategate conspirators, as well as IPCC officials have made that point explicitly.) What matters most is that the obsessive projected self-loathing of the leftist community gains status in academics as the result of a continuous flow of condemnation of the rest of humanity and finally justifies the left's craving to tell everyone else what to do. That much has been objectively, scientifically demonstrated by the experience of the global warming scam.
I am glad that the left is not actually serious about science.
For too many years, we've had to put up with dishonest, idiotic, and sometimes insane ramblings from the left on the subject of “climate change.” As Al Gore proclaimed, it's not over yet. But it's certainly much closer to being shrugged off with mocking laughter than it was a year ago. (In fact, I've been doing it for some months now.)
A critical load bearing card in their propaganda house was the claim that it is a scientifically established fact that modern human existence is leading quickly to catastrophe. The unmerciful and unyielding science god of the atheists had spoken and was demanding sacrifices. A holy war commenced.
While the inner circle may make the history books for cashing in on one of the biggest cons in political history; the small but determined rank and file of the warmers' movement amounted to a shabby collection of green entrepreneurs, professional activists and con artists, professional artists looking for attention, corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, academics hoping to take advantage of funding opportunities, and some bored teenagers out for a Beavis and Butthead afternoon.
It's not all a laughing matter, of course. It has been a bad few years for real science and the whole chain of related economic activities. (related article) The global warming scam has been, and still is, part of a big push into overwhelmingly corrupt government activities that have drained the world economy and crushed Constitutional rule in America. Chaos and civil war may yet be the result.
But just imagine for a moment, a world in which concern for the environment and global warming fears caused a migration of budding young intellectual leftists from liberal and fine arts into the hard sciences. It's a nightmarish thought.
In one generation, the mentally disciplined geeks with calculators strapped to their belts who pride themselves on meticulous knowledge of technical details, admire Spock, obsessively seek flawless logic themselves, and relish the thought of long days stretching into nights dispassionately observing and recording the multiplication of fruit flies or whatever for a result that is actually and truly correct – people who actually check information for accuracy; would be heavily infiltrated by emotionally driven, impatient, undisciplined, equal treatment collectivists who want to build a career on the art of day-dreaming, insist that credit and rewards should be shared equally especially when they haven't actually done anything, and think “facts” should be determined by their feelings regarding social value rather than whether or not they're actually true.
More bureaucracy and less independent thinking would be essential. Lying to get ahead would certainly not be out of the question. (Some of the Climategate conspirators, as well as IPCC officials have made that point explicitly.) What matters most is that the obsessive projected self-loathing of the leftist community gains status in academics as the result of a continuous flow of condemnation of the rest of humanity and finally justifies the left's craving to tell everyone else what to do. That much has been objectively, scientifically demonstrated by the experience of the global warming scam.
I am glad that the left is not actually serious about science.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
IPCC Says Climate Prediction Impossible
IPCC Says Climate Prediction Impossible
Donna Laframboise
On page 85 of Taken By Storm, Essex and McKitrick call our attention to a rather astonishing line in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2001 Assessment Report (TAR):
The remainder of the page includes a great deal of gobblygook about the need to "project future climate changes" and the need to understand how probable some future scenarios may be when compared to others.
But there's no doubt about it. The IPCC admitted, a decade ago, that future long-term climate cannot be predicted. The system is chaotic. It is non-linear. It does not, and will not, behave the way we mere mortals expect it to.
So tell me again why we're scaring little kids witless by telling them there won't be a habitable world left by the time they grow up?
..
Donna Laframboise
On page 85 of Taken By Storm, Essex and McKitrick call our attention to a rather astonishing line in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2001 Assessment Report (TAR):
...we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. [bold added]This statement appeared in the Executive Summary of Chapter 14 of the report produced by Working Group 1 (see the first bullet point on the right, page 3 of this 18-page PDF - or the third bullet point from the bottom here).
The remainder of the page includes a great deal of gobblygook about the need to "project future climate changes" and the need to understand how probable some future scenarios may be when compared to others.
But there's no doubt about it. The IPCC admitted, a decade ago, that future long-term climate cannot be predicted. The system is chaotic. It is non-linear. It does not, and will not, behave the way we mere mortals expect it to.
So tell me again why we're scaring little kids witless by telling them there won't be a habitable world left by the time they grow up?
..
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Is Obama Sealing His Fate With Mosque Debate?
Obama has been that President that has had a lot of trouble getting people to agree with him on a bunch of issues. His approval ratings are dropping faster with every passing day, and this debate about the Mosque is really going to harm him even more.
From Fox News:
President Obama's seemingly conflicting responses over the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero demonstrate another example of the tone-deaf nature of the White House, politicians on both sides of the aisle are suggesting as the remark raises the prospect of another sticky election issue for lawmakers this November.
The issue of whether to build the thirteen-story Park 51 mosque and Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan -- two blocks from where the Twin Towers fell -- is one that Democrats don't need on their plates right now as they try to defend their economic policies and the new health care law ahead of what is expected to be pivotal a midterm election.
It is interesting to sit back and just watch the downfall of this Presidency. I mean, I get the argument that he is making; the Muslims have every right to practice whatever religion they want to in the United States, and the Constitution protects them from such, but there is a lot of emotion around this proposed site.
Obama just feels like he has to have an opinion on every issue that comes up, and that will be his downfall.
Fed Official Admits the Fed Starts Boom/Bust Cycles
Well, it looks like the people in the Federal Reserve have an idea who is the culprit:
"Monetary policy is a useful tool, but it cannot solve every problem faced by the United States," Mr. Hoenig [Thomas M. Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City] said in a town hall-style meeting in Lincoln, Neb. "In trying to use policy as a cure-all, we will repeat the cycle of severe recession and unemployment in a few short years by keeping rates too low for too long."
Mr. Hoenig added: "I wish free money was really free and that there was a painless way to move from severe recession and high leverage to robust and sustainable economic growth, but there is no short cut."
He was the one dissenter in the 9-1 vote to buy Treasury debt instead of shrinking the Fed's balance sheet. But sometimes, all it takes is the first dissenter to have the courage to speak out, and others will join in. Keep your fingers crossed that happens here.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
"Is The Fed Bad for U.S. Economy?"
Most people have probably never even thought about the Federal Reserve and how they have manipulated the market with price controls and artificial interest rates. However, they effect the economy big time and they are bad for it.
A pretty easy question to answer, but the debate between Judge Napolitano and Fox Business' Charlie Gasparino on Freedom Watch is well worth viewing.
A pretty easy question to answer, but the debate between Judge Napolitano and Fox Business' Charlie Gasparino on Freedom Watch is well worth viewing.
Is Al Gore Sane Enough to Stand Trial?
Al Gore's bogus green enterprises have pulled in some major public funding based on fraudulent claims; leading to the suggestion that he may eventually stand trial. There's something more. In his obsessive lectures, it seems he'll not be content until he's destroyed the economy and forced his political enemies, those who he credits for bringing his 2000 presidential dreams to an end, to their knees.
Is it a simple kind of Napoleon complex? Or is there something psychologically deeper? Will he be allowed to stand trial if Senate investigations lead to indictments?
I have reflected on one of his commentaries that I saw on YouTube. He had become frightened of the carbon dioxide in the soil and what might happen if it gets out. Carbon dioxide – CO2 – the stuff plants need to live and grow – stuff that's been around since before the beginning of life – stuff life can't do without.
You probably know that the basic scam started well before Al Gore got involved. Scary stories about global warming or a coming ice age sold books. There was even a very successful movie - Soylent Green, based loosely on a 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison. I remember the era well. Men with long hair, the smell of marijuana in the air, and people were bad, mmkay. Their up-tight, middle-class values and ways were destroying the Earth. Right on!
CO2 is scary? Science tells us that oxygen burns explosively. You might as well be just as scared, if not moreso, of oxygen. People can drown in water. It's actually happened. It's not however, rational to fear such natural life-essential molecules as they normally exist in the atmosphere or in the soil.
I'd have to guess that most people believe that Al Gore is merely using his knowledge of political corruption for profit; and getting an extra kick from screwing his old political foes. But it seems to me that a slick politician, with all his marbles in the right place, wouldn't go over the top too much for fear of looking like a loony.
Then I listened to his state of the movement address.
Certainly, at first at least, it probably seems to most of you like typical Al Gore global warming drivel. But have we, like the frog in hot water, merely grown accustomed?
I thought again about what he's been doing, obsessively, for several years. He's made the effort, semi-successfully, to build a vast army of ding-bats to spread his message and do battle with his mortal enemies; including some that can't defend themselves, like carbon dioxide. The “vast army” is actually smaller than he'd like to imagine and the most involved are actually paid mercenaries, some on his own payroll. (Gore's “vast army” of global warmers conjured up thoughts of Aragorn's undead army of oath-breakers in Lord of the Rings, but I just couldn't figure out how to fit that into the sentence.)
A lying politician? Perhaps so. But for years he's been begging us to believe that he believes. A cry for help? Maybe that's true too. If he is indicted, I'm not betting against an order for a psychological evaluation. The test is whether he can distinguish right from wrong. I've never seen any evidence that he can.
Is it a simple kind of Napoleon complex? Or is there something psychologically deeper? Will he be allowed to stand trial if Senate investigations lead to indictments?
I have reflected on one of his commentaries that I saw on YouTube. He had become frightened of the carbon dioxide in the soil and what might happen if it gets out. Carbon dioxide – CO2 – the stuff plants need to live and grow – stuff that's been around since before the beginning of life – stuff life can't do without.
You probably know that the basic scam started well before Al Gore got involved. Scary stories about global warming or a coming ice age sold books. There was even a very successful movie - Soylent Green, based loosely on a 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison. I remember the era well. Men with long hair, the smell of marijuana in the air, and people were bad, mmkay. Their up-tight, middle-class values and ways were destroying the Earth. Right on!
CO2 is scary? Science tells us that oxygen burns explosively. You might as well be just as scared, if not moreso, of oxygen. People can drown in water. It's actually happened. It's not however, rational to fear such natural life-essential molecules as they normally exist in the atmosphere or in the soil.
I'd have to guess that most people believe that Al Gore is merely using his knowledge of political corruption for profit; and getting an extra kick from screwing his old political foes. But it seems to me that a slick politician, with all his marbles in the right place, wouldn't go over the top too much for fear of looking like a loony.
Then I listened to his state of the movement address.
“The United States government, in its entirety, … has failed us.” “In the last few months and weeks, the United States Senate has failed to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.” “I hope I'm wrong about that but I want to be realistic because we need to redouble our efforts for the battle that lies ahead. It's not over. …. we simply have no choice but to win this battle. Even while we are so painfully and profoundly aware of the crisis in which we find ourselves, even as we recognize the common thread linking the climate crises and the economic crisis and our national security challenges, the Senate has still failed us. The United States government as a whole has failed us.”
Certainly, at first at least, it probably seems to most of you like typical Al Gore global warming drivel. But have we, like the frog in hot water, merely grown accustomed?
I thought again about what he's been doing, obsessively, for several years. He's made the effort, semi-successfully, to build a vast army of ding-bats to spread his message and do battle with his mortal enemies; including some that can't defend themselves, like carbon dioxide. The “vast army” is actually smaller than he'd like to imagine and the most involved are actually paid mercenaries, some on his own payroll. (Gore's “vast army” of global warmers conjured up thoughts of Aragorn's undead army of oath-breakers in Lord of the Rings, but I just couldn't figure out how to fit that into the sentence.)
A lying politician? Perhaps so. But for years he's been begging us to believe that he believes. A cry for help? Maybe that's true too. If he is indicted, I'm not betting against an order for a psychological evaluation. The test is whether he can distinguish right from wrong. I've never seen any evidence that he can.
Videos that Didn't Win the EPA's “Rulemaking Matters” Contest
As reported in April, the Obama administration was again using public money to create yet another grass roots people's expression of public support. This time, it was the EPA, still wobbling from criticism of its illegal creation of cap-n-trade law by classifying life-giving CO2 as a pollutant.
The EPA created a “contest” with a $2500 award for making a video telling people that Congress doesn't write laws, they just authorize bureacrats to do it. They didn't mention the funding part. The winner was an amateurish production that simply parroted the message. The real meat of the idea was to con people into producing a large number of home-grown pro-bureaucracy videos and publishing them on YouTube.
Without further ado, here are some videos that didn't win:
The EPA created a “contest” with a $2500 award for making a video telling people that Congress doesn't write laws, they just authorize bureacrats to do it. They didn't mention the funding part. The winner was an amateurish production that simply parroted the message. The real meat of the idea was to con people into producing a large number of home-grown pro-bureaucracy videos and publishing them on YouTube.
Without further ado, here are some videos that didn't win:
Al Gore Admits Defeat
'Der Krieg ist verloren!' declares confused, angry, trembly-handed Al Gore in bunker conference call
“This battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year,” a shaken Al Gore has told his supporters, conceding that there is now next to no chance of US Congress passing a Climate Bill in 2010. (H/T Julian Morris).
As recorded by Steve Milloy at the Green Hell Blog, the bloated sex poodle was on magnificently paranoid form, lashing out in all directions at the enemies responsible for his mission’s failure, up to and including the US President: 'Der Krieg ist verloren!' declares confused, angry, trembly-handed Al Gore in bunker conference call
“This battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year,” a shaken Al Gore has told his supporters, conceding that there is now next to no chance of US Congress passing a Climate Bill in 2010. (H/T Julian Morris).
As recorded by Steve Milloy at the Green Hell Blog, the bloated sex poodle was on magnificently paranoid form, lashing out in all directions at the enemies responsible for his mission’s failure, up to and including the US President: 'Der Krieg ist verloren!' declares confused, angry, trembly-handed Al Gore in bunker conference call
Racist Harry Reid Gets Response
Racist Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he doesn't understand why anyone of Hispanic descent can vote Republican. Hispanic Republican Marco Rubio, who is running for the Senate in Florida, responded.
Evidence for the "eroding" support for Republicans among Cuban-American Voters
Evidence for the "eroding" support for Republicans among Cuban-American Voters
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Rand Paul Scares the Establishment
These stories that you come across shed the man in a negative light, and the most recent one is no exception.
From Fox News:
The woman who reportedly accused U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul of kidnapping her and trying to force her to take drugs backed away from those allegations on Wednesday, telling the Washington Post that Rand and his friends were just "messing" with her
You have this story, and there was one about Rand being a racist, but there has been nothing on how he actually has a plan and vision to fix what is wrong with this country.
He challenges the people that hold power right now, because he will actuallyl stick to his promises of stripping power from the elites and give it back to the people. He actually wants to cut the debt in half and get rid of the burden that is challenging all Americans.
Rand Paul is not your ordinary type of politician and he will actually change the situation in Washington. That is why you read a lot about him on the internet and that is why they are trying to trash his reputaition, because they know that he will win the Senate race in Kentucky and bring down the power elite.
Cut the Deficit by Cutting Useless 'Services'
By Roger F. Gay
Chief Political Correspondent for The Washington Examiner, Byron York published a commentary yesterday entitled; Cut deficit without cutting services? Start here. He discussed studies by The Heritage Foundation and others that show government workers receive salaries that are much larger than their counterparts in the private sector and pointed to Republican proposals to freeze federal pay.
I was shocked at the reported differences; $78,901 a year in wages and salary versus $50,111 in the private sector; $111,015 a year versus $60,078 when pension and other benefits are included. But I was equally underwhelmed by the projected $47 billion a year savings from a freeze, and disappointed that Republicans would favor allowing the disparity in pay “until the private sector begins to catch up”. Or, as is always the case, until the public sector yields to union demands and grants another pay raise.
I was not surprised however. Republicans and Democrats in office define “pork barrel spending” as something limited to the extra bits tacked onto spending bills as special favors to themselves. Mentioning that the programs themselves might amount to waste is forbidden within the two-party political power collective. The annual political game is rife with proposals that seem to signify something without doing anything (but usually end up costing more). Is it really only the thought that counts?
While we're on the subject of government employees, I think it worth mentioning that the last I heard, the government child support collection system had more than 80,000 employees. Despite confusing rhetoric from both parties, there has been no change in the percent child support paid of what has been owed, in the three decades since the federal program began. So, that's 80,000 government employees or so, on the public payroll, making more than their private sector counterparts, for doing absolutely nothing useful for anyone.
Then there's the billions of dollars each year that the federal government provides through states to private companies to duplicate the same useless “service”. The private child support collection industry is a product of what is known as the “public-private partnership” scam. Its new application to wage an outlandishly expensive and futile war against the Earth's climate is the more familiar example to most. It's a mechanism for pumping money from the people into politically friendly hands; and often back to the very politicians who created and maintain it.
Taxpayers even got the bill for the software that runs on the collection industry's computers – to the tune of about $10 billion. I have a great deal of knowledge about the software industry, and I have no way of even thinking about a $10 billion database application. Perhaps not just incidentally, the project was set-up and initially executed by Anderson Consulting, a division of Arthur Anderson, at least until they went through the first $4 billion.
I'll repeat something others have been saying lately. It makes you nostalgic for the days of $10,000 hammers.
What's the objectionable cost of government really all about? It's the corruption, stupid!
Chief Political Correspondent for The Washington Examiner, Byron York published a commentary yesterday entitled; Cut deficit without cutting services? Start here. He discussed studies by The Heritage Foundation and others that show government workers receive salaries that are much larger than their counterparts in the private sector and pointed to Republican proposals to freeze federal pay.
I was shocked at the reported differences; $78,901 a year in wages and salary versus $50,111 in the private sector; $111,015 a year versus $60,078 when pension and other benefits are included. But I was equally underwhelmed by the projected $47 billion a year savings from a freeze, and disappointed that Republicans would favor allowing the disparity in pay “until the private sector begins to catch up”. Or, as is always the case, until the public sector yields to union demands and grants another pay raise.
I was not surprised however. Republicans and Democrats in office define “pork barrel spending” as something limited to the extra bits tacked onto spending bills as special favors to themselves. Mentioning that the programs themselves might amount to waste is forbidden within the two-party political power collective. The annual political game is rife with proposals that seem to signify something without doing anything (but usually end up costing more). Is it really only the thought that counts?
While we're on the subject of government employees, I think it worth mentioning that the last I heard, the government child support collection system had more than 80,000 employees. Despite confusing rhetoric from both parties, there has been no change in the percent child support paid of what has been owed, in the three decades since the federal program began. So, that's 80,000 government employees or so, on the public payroll, making more than their private sector counterparts, for doing absolutely nothing useful for anyone.
Then there's the billions of dollars each year that the federal government provides through states to private companies to duplicate the same useless “service”. The private child support collection industry is a product of what is known as the “public-private partnership” scam. Its new application to wage an outlandishly expensive and futile war against the Earth's climate is the more familiar example to most. It's a mechanism for pumping money from the people into politically friendly hands; and often back to the very politicians who created and maintain it.
Taxpayers even got the bill for the software that runs on the collection industry's computers – to the tune of about $10 billion. I have a great deal of knowledge about the software industry, and I have no way of even thinking about a $10 billion database application. Perhaps not just incidentally, the project was set-up and initially executed by Anderson Consulting, a division of Arthur Anderson, at least until they went through the first $4 billion.
I'll repeat something others have been saying lately. It makes you nostalgic for the days of $10,000 hammers.
What's the objectionable cost of government really all about? It's the corruption, stupid!
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite.
By Rand Paul
It's often repeated in stories about me or my race for U.S. Senate that I am a "libertarian." In my mind, the word "libertarian" has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and "Tea Party" activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I.
I choose to use a different phrase to describe my beliefs — I consider myself a constitutional conservative, which I take to mean a conservative who actually believes in smaller government and more individual freedom. The libertarian principles of limited government, self-reliance and respect for the Constitution are embedded within my constitutional conservatism, and in the views of countless Americans from across the political spectrum.
Article continues: Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite.
It's often repeated in stories about me or my race for U.S. Senate that I am a "libertarian." In my mind, the word "libertarian" has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and "Tea Party" activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I.
I choose to use a different phrase to describe my beliefs — I consider myself a constitutional conservative, which I take to mean a conservative who actually believes in smaller government and more individual freedom. The libertarian principles of limited government, self-reliance and respect for the Constitution are embedded within my constitutional conservatism, and in the views of countless Americans from across the political spectrum.
Article continues: Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Judge and Tom Woods on Nullification
Recently, historian Tom Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed nullification by the states of laws they deem unconstitutional.
'Scared' of Same-Sex Marriage, or Better Informed?
By Roger F. Gay
Robert Bentley asks Why Are Old School Conservatives Scared of Gay Marriage? Mr. Bentley established and opines regularly in the libertarian leaning blog Conservative for Change, to which I also contribute.
His view is given away by the article's title. Young, open-minded libertarians should cast aside the cowardly bigotry of grumpy old logically-challenged conservatives. He asserts that all American humans have a Constitutional right to marriage and homosexuals are human; therefore, acceptance of same-sex marriage is Constitutionally required. To say otherwise is to deny homosexuals their humanity.
Simple as that, and don't worry if this seems eerily reminiscent of far left progressive thought on the topic. Should we still concern ourselves with historical connections, like the oddly similar condemnation of the relics of bourgeois prejudice by Communist Party members in The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage (1926)?
If we are not merely to assume that ancient leftists were just as stupid as old American conservatives and merely tripped across an enlightened, modern, libertarian idea by accident, perhaps we might wonder if there is something deeper here. Sure enough, there is, and it's my view that young, open-minded libertarians should not be afraid to join older, more experienced soldiers in the eternal struggle for liberty – even if it means daring to take the risk of being labeled an old school conservative.
Let me anchor my perspective a little more before leading you to the main point. First, I would describe myself as politically conservative. I am as capable of becoming irritated by social and even fiscal conservatives as anyone, for, like progressives, they are easily led from the path of freedom by their causes. Both American political conservatism and libertarianism have their roots in classic liberalism. To assure you that I am not merely defending my generation of old Alzheimer patients, let me pay homage to a classic liberal and soldier of freedom from the more distant past. John Stuart Mill, who philosophically justified individual freedom over state control, observed:
The problem with the typical public discussions on this topic, characterized in Mr. Bentley's remarks along with those of many others, is that they mischaracterize the change in the relationship between people and the state brought about by the redefinition of marriage. Traditional marriage has been abolished in the United States, along with the Constitutionally based individual rights (i.e. fundamental “civil rights”) that accompanied it.
In the formal, legal sense, marriage is no longer considered a sacred private institution deserving the strictest protection against arbitrary government intrusion. In P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER (1993), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (from the left coast, the most radical anti-Constitution, most frequently overturned federal court in the nation) reclassified marriage and family law from civil law to social policy. Few people recognize the profound difference that makes, and the leftstream media was too busy promoting the causes that led to the change to take notice.
Civil law involves the messy business of attempting to sort out private matters within the Constitutional limits of government power. It is part of what defines classic liberal government and is essential to maintenance of Constitutional rule. That we have “civil rights” in fact, depends on restraint by courts to avoid arbitrary rulings. Civil law is a place where the new age libertarian philosophy that people should be able to live their lives as they see fit and not have interference from others, unless it harms others around them has traditionally met with the real world.
From a Constitutional perspective, with specific concern for the power of government and civil rights, social policy is much the same as economic policy. While economic policy traditionally referred to fiscal policy (taxes, prime interest rate, money supply), social policy lies at the more recently developed socialist end of government activity, involving the redistribution of wealth through a system of “entitlements” (i.e. the “welfare system”). There are no Constitutional limits whatsoever that restrain political manipulation of social policy. If you don't like current or proposed tax or entitlement rates, you can only vote for someone whose ideas you like better. Your Constitutional right is limited to equal treatment under existing laws.
If marriage and family are no longer legally respected in the framework of a sacred private institution, what are they? They have been absorbed into the welfare system where they are defined as elements in government programs, subject to arbitrary political manipulation. Under the current definition, marriage could be completely abolished. Children could be taken from parents and sent to separate camps to be raised by government care-takers. If you don't like those ideas, be sure to vote for people who have more traditional ideas about how marriage and family should be treated, because you currently have no rights to stop a majority in power that would change it. (You really do need to think carefully about the issue of adoption by same-sex partners and note carefully the consistent argument that children are better off being raised by homosexuals than by their nasty old natural parents.)
The facts do not seem to allow a way to reach Robert Bentley's perspective. It presumes that homosexuals are being granted rights traditionally reserved for opposite sex couples. They are not. Now none of us has legal access to traditional marriage and the fundamental rights that accompanied it. The humanity of homosexuals has not been recognized by this change. Instead, everyone's humanity is being systematically denied. I think young, idealistic libertarians like Robert Bentley need to give this issue a second hearing. Although I can't speak for all old school conservatives, at least some of us might have already developed a more complete understanding.
On a more general note, marriage and family have been placed in the bin of federal social and economic policies based on over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause. As long as federal courts are willing and can get away with arbitrarily reclassifying other areas of law into social and economic policy, allowing this treatment, the Constitution is not actually in effect. The P.O.P.S. case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to review the ruling, played a critical role in the downfall of Constitutional rule. Related on the subject of the change in marital law and the downfall of the Constitution (along with many of my other articles at the same site): Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?.
Robert Bentley asks Why Are Old School Conservatives Scared of Gay Marriage? Mr. Bentley established and opines regularly in the libertarian leaning blog Conservative for Change, to which I also contribute.
His view is given away by the article's title. Young, open-minded libertarians should cast aside the cowardly bigotry of grumpy old logically-challenged conservatives. He asserts that all American humans have a Constitutional right to marriage and homosexuals are human; therefore, acceptance of same-sex marriage is Constitutionally required. To say otherwise is to deny homosexuals their humanity.
Simple as that, and don't worry if this seems eerily reminiscent of far left progressive thought on the topic. Should we still concern ourselves with historical connections, like the oddly similar condemnation of the relics of bourgeois prejudice by Communist Party members in The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage (1926)?
If we are not merely to assume that ancient leftists were just as stupid as old American conservatives and merely tripped across an enlightened, modern, libertarian idea by accident, perhaps we might wonder if there is something deeper here. Sure enough, there is, and it's my view that young, open-minded libertarians should not be afraid to join older, more experienced soldiers in the eternal struggle for liberty – even if it means daring to take the risk of being labeled an old school conservative.
Let me anchor my perspective a little more before leading you to the main point. First, I would describe myself as politically conservative. I am as capable of becoming irritated by social and even fiscal conservatives as anyone, for, like progressives, they are easily led from the path of freedom by their causes. Both American political conservatism and libertarianism have their roots in classic liberalism. To assure you that I am not merely defending my generation of old Alzheimer patients, let me pay homage to a classic liberal and soldier of freedom from the more distant past. John Stuart Mill, who philosophically justified individual freedom over state control, observed:
"It would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another."My concern as a political conservative however, has little to do with individual choices regarding one's own mode of existence or conduct. I do not see my perspective as being in conflict with Robert Bentley's general libertarian ideology; that “people should be able to live their lives as they see fit and not have interference from others, unless it harms others around them.” It all comes down to facts.
The problem with the typical public discussions on this topic, characterized in Mr. Bentley's remarks along with those of many others, is that they mischaracterize the change in the relationship between people and the state brought about by the redefinition of marriage. Traditional marriage has been abolished in the United States, along with the Constitutionally based individual rights (i.e. fundamental “civil rights”) that accompanied it.
In the formal, legal sense, marriage is no longer considered a sacred private institution deserving the strictest protection against arbitrary government intrusion. In P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER (1993), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (from the left coast, the most radical anti-Constitution, most frequently overturned federal court in the nation) reclassified marriage and family law from civil law to social policy. Few people recognize the profound difference that makes, and the leftstream media was too busy promoting the causes that led to the change to take notice.
Civil law involves the messy business of attempting to sort out private matters within the Constitutional limits of government power. It is part of what defines classic liberal government and is essential to maintenance of Constitutional rule. That we have “civil rights” in fact, depends on restraint by courts to avoid arbitrary rulings. Civil law is a place where the new age libertarian philosophy that people should be able to live their lives as they see fit and not have interference from others, unless it harms others around them has traditionally met with the real world.
From a Constitutional perspective, with specific concern for the power of government and civil rights, social policy is much the same as economic policy. While economic policy traditionally referred to fiscal policy (taxes, prime interest rate, money supply), social policy lies at the more recently developed socialist end of government activity, involving the redistribution of wealth through a system of “entitlements” (i.e. the “welfare system”). There are no Constitutional limits whatsoever that restrain political manipulation of social policy. If you don't like current or proposed tax or entitlement rates, you can only vote for someone whose ideas you like better. Your Constitutional right is limited to equal treatment under existing laws.
If marriage and family are no longer legally respected in the framework of a sacred private institution, what are they? They have been absorbed into the welfare system where they are defined as elements in government programs, subject to arbitrary political manipulation. Under the current definition, marriage could be completely abolished. Children could be taken from parents and sent to separate camps to be raised by government care-takers. If you don't like those ideas, be sure to vote for people who have more traditional ideas about how marriage and family should be treated, because you currently have no rights to stop a majority in power that would change it. (You really do need to think carefully about the issue of adoption by same-sex partners and note carefully the consistent argument that children are better off being raised by homosexuals than by their nasty old natural parents.)
The facts do not seem to allow a way to reach Robert Bentley's perspective. It presumes that homosexuals are being granted rights traditionally reserved for opposite sex couples. They are not. Now none of us has legal access to traditional marriage and the fundamental rights that accompanied it. The humanity of homosexuals has not been recognized by this change. Instead, everyone's humanity is being systematically denied. I think young, idealistic libertarians like Robert Bentley need to give this issue a second hearing. Although I can't speak for all old school conservatives, at least some of us might have already developed a more complete understanding.
On a more general note, marriage and family have been placed in the bin of federal social and economic policies based on over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause. As long as federal courts are willing and can get away with arbitrarily reclassifying other areas of law into social and economic policy, allowing this treatment, the Constitution is not actually in effect. The P.O.P.S. case, and the Supreme Court's refusal to review the ruling, played a critical role in the downfall of Constitutional rule. Related on the subject of the change in marital law and the downfall of the Constitution (along with many of my other articles at the same site): Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Why Are Old School Conservatives Scared of Gay Marriage?
It is pretty well known that this website is a libertarian leaning site that focuses on the important issue of getting government out of our lives. We support the idea of less government fiscally, and less government socially. We feel that people should be able to live their lives as they see fit and not have interference from others, unless it harms others around them.
With that being said, it was interesting the other day when we posted about the Judge in California ruling the ban on gay marriage in that state unconstitutional. We had many comments on here and facebook from the old school conservative thought that somehow people who are homosexual are not human and should not be classified as such.
Here is a comments from somebody expressing their feelings on the subject from FaceBook:
So, I ask the question...why are old school conservatives scared of gay marriage?
The answer is simple...they have been brainwashed into thinking that people who are homosexual are not human. Plain and simple. Just read that quote above.
To compare somebody who is a living breathing human being to an animal proves to show that you are brainwashed.
When we look at homosexual marriage, we need to look at the Constitution.
So my first question is this...is a gay man a human being and an American citizen? The answer is yes.
My second question is this...is a horse a human being and an American citizen? The answer is no.
So for that person in the quote above to equate a gay person to a horse is absolute bigotry. Gay people are citizens of this country and they are currently being told by a government they can not be married because they are "different" from the rest of us. With gay marriage being banned, they have lost Constitutional Rights.
One of the biggest solutions to this problem is that government should not even be in the business of handing out marriage certificates. It is a violation of natural law to either charge people to enter a legal contract, or discriminate against people who want to enter a legal contract.
Maybe these old school conservatives need to study the path of a libertarian and learn that some people are different, and we have a Constitution that protects these people.
Here is a comments from somebody expressing their feelings on the subject from FaceBook:
You are blind as a bat if you do not see the tragic implications of redefining marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman. You consider gays a "minority group?" I have news for you...pedophiles are a minority of the population as well. Should pedophiles then have th...e right to marry too? Where do we draw the line. Is it a numbers issue, or do you support polygamy as well? What about marriage between one man and one horse, or perhaps 5 women and 3 goats? We certainly don't want to discriminate, right?
So, I ask the question...why are old school conservatives scared of gay marriage?
The answer is simple...they have been brainwashed into thinking that people who are homosexual are not human. Plain and simple. Just read that quote above.
To compare somebody who is a living breathing human being to an animal proves to show that you are brainwashed.
When we look at homosexual marriage, we need to look at the Constitution.
So my first question is this...is a gay man a human being and an American citizen? The answer is yes.
My second question is this...is a horse a human being and an American citizen? The answer is no.
So for that person in the quote above to equate a gay person to a horse is absolute bigotry. Gay people are citizens of this country and they are currently being told by a government they can not be married because they are "different" from the rest of us. With gay marriage being banned, they have lost Constitutional Rights.
One of the biggest solutions to this problem is that government should not even be in the business of handing out marriage certificates. It is a violation of natural law to either charge people to enter a legal contract, or discriminate against people who want to enter a legal contract.
Maybe these old school conservatives need to study the path of a libertarian and learn that some people are different, and we have a Constitution that protects these people.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Sexual Statism
By Stephen Baskerville
The decline of the male economy — and of fatherhood — arises less from the empowerment of women than from the government’s usurpation of the family.
In “The End of Men,” the cover story of the July/August Atlantic, Hanna Rosin describes “how women are taking control of everything.” Suggesting that “the economics of the new era are better suited to women,” Rosin believes the fair sex are winning the struggle for the survival of the fittest. In what is apparently cause for celebration, she writes, “three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men” in the ongoing Great Recession. “The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance.” She contends that the economic crisis “merely revealed—and accelerated—a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years.”
The Atlantic used the same issue to ask, “Are Fathers Necessary?” Pamela Paul cites a widely publicized study purporting to prove that fathers are harmful in rearing children and that lesbians do it better. The study is politics camouflaged as social science—its authors acknowledge that the parenting virtues they extol are defined “in part in the service of an egalitarian ideology.” Their message echoes Rosin’s: within the home, as in the national economy, men are unreliable at best and pathological at worst. The Atlantic assures us that the decline of men is the product of impersonal forces against which we are powerless to respond, even if we wished to—which apparently we do not.
Rosin, whose essay is #1 on the magazine’s “Biggest Ideas of the Year” list, certainly identifies an important trend. But the phenomenon she describes is the result not of inexorable social forces but of conscious political decisions. The end of men is the consequence of the most profound trend in public life today: the sexualization of politics and the politicization of sex.
Continue reading this article: Sexual Statism
The decline of the male economy — and of fatherhood — arises less from the empowerment of women than from the government’s usurpation of the family.
In “The End of Men,” the cover story of the July/August Atlantic, Hanna Rosin describes “how women are taking control of everything.” Suggesting that “the economics of the new era are better suited to women,” Rosin believes the fair sex are winning the struggle for the survival of the fittest. In what is apparently cause for celebration, she writes, “three-quarters of the 8 million jobs lost were lost by men” in the ongoing Great Recession. “The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance.” She contends that the economic crisis “merely revealed—and accelerated—a profound economic shift that has been going on for at least 30 years.”
The Atlantic used the same issue to ask, “Are Fathers Necessary?” Pamela Paul cites a widely publicized study purporting to prove that fathers are harmful in rearing children and that lesbians do it better. The study is politics camouflaged as social science—its authors acknowledge that the parenting virtues they extol are defined “in part in the service of an egalitarian ideology.” Their message echoes Rosin’s: within the home, as in the national economy, men are unreliable at best and pathological at worst. The Atlantic assures us that the decline of men is the product of impersonal forces against which we are powerless to respond, even if we wished to—which apparently we do not.
Rosin, whose essay is #1 on the magazine’s “Biggest Ideas of the Year” list, certainly identifies an important trend. But the phenomenon she describes is the result not of inexorable social forces but of conscious political decisions. The end of men is the consequence of the most profound trend in public life today: the sexualization of politics and the politicization of sex.
Continue reading this article: Sexual Statism
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Judge Overturns Calif. Gay Marriage Ban...Is it Really a Big Deal?
The Associated Press:
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.
The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Gay couples waved rainbow and American flags and erupted with cheers in the city that has long been a magnet for gays.
Shelly Bailes embraced her wife Ellen Pontac as Bailes held a sign reading, "Life Feels Different When You're Married."
In New York City, about 150 people gathered in front of a lower Manhattan courthouse. They carried signs saying "Our Love Wins" as organizers read portions of the ruling.
So here is my question...is gay marriage really that big of a deal? It has been in our national debate for some time, and it is one of the biggest issues for conservatives who typically oppose gay marriage.
Well here is my answer...gay marriage is not that big of a deal, and it should really be none of our business.
The judge in California is correct...a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the equal rights of the citizens it prevents from getting married.
Typical conservatives talk the big game about less government in our lives, but when it comes to issues like gay marriage, they cry foul when the government does nothing to stop the marriage of homosexuals.
How does gay marriage effect your life? It doesn't and there will still be some religious conservative that will argue it does. But in all reality there is nothing that trumps the Constitution in this country, and if you deny certain minority groups a right that is available to all other citizens, it becomes a violation of the Constitution.
So, to sum up, gay marriage and the ruling by the judge in California is not a big deal. You will go on and live your life like you usually would, and nothing will change the way you conduct yourself.
There is No Electoral Solution to Our Problems.
I hear many people saying that in November we will strike back at the Obama administration and the Democrats in congress. "We are going to vote the socialists out." ........Sure we will. Just like we did in 1980 with Reagan, or 1994 with Newt Gingrich and the contract for America, and how about 2000 with George Bush. Seems to me, we keep "voting the bums out," and nothing really changes for the better, but it does change for the worse no matter who is in office. Well, with Reagan it did get better for a while. But even as strong of a conservative movement as it was, it eventually failed to turn things around. I have come to believe that we must either have a constitutional amendment convention per article V of the constitution, combined with State nullification of Federal laws, or we must once again declare independence from a tyrannical central government who is ignoring the citizens of the states and the states themselves! These are the only two paths left for true American liberty.The Federal government will not stop until it has entirely swallowed up the states and our liberties. We have been using the ballot box for a century now trying to fight the usurpation's of our liberty. This hasn't worked yet!!! We may slow the beast down, but only see it speed up again, and it destroys liberty faster than ever. How long can we keep trying the same thing and expect that it will work when history proves otherwise? Now we have republicans OPENLY supporting progressive ideas, and trampling on the constitution! BOTH sides are in it for their party, and power, not our liberty or our country! Until we wake up and realize the system itself has been perverted and turned inside out to work against us and keep the reigns of power in the hands of the new ruling class, this will NEVER change. With an amendment convention we may have a chance to repeal some bad amendments, (IE. the 16th & 17th) and modify or clarify others that have been grossly misinterpreted (IE. the 14th). As well as propose new ones such as giving the States an annual option to nullify bad decisions by the Supreme court. With 2/3 of the States in agreement a Supreme Court decision would be overturned. The founders never meant for the Supreme court to have the final say on law. Right now there is no check on the Supreme Court, I would say one is long overdue! We must have recourse on Supreme court rulings. We also can give standing to individuals in Federal courts when there is a legitimate claim to loss of liberty brought on by bills passed in Congress. As of today you cannot file suit in Federal court over things like Obama care because you don't have standing. Only States and organizations like the ACLU, NRA, or NAACP can file suit on your behalf. Why? If individuals could file suit, it would be another huge check on Federal power. And how about some term limits too! I am afraid that even if we could get the States to call an amendment convention, and all of these things were accomplished there will still be judges who will reinvent the constitution and its meaning. I fear this is inevitable unless the people educate themselves and go through a fundamental change in their attitude towards government and liberty. Not to mention the unsurpassed importance of faith and morality which is ESSENTIAL to the survival of a free people. I truly believe that this combined with States acting to nullify unconstitutional Federal law is our last hope to salvage what the founders fought and died for. After that there is only one option. Secession, (or as Thomas Jefferson called it in the Declaration "separation"), and a new declaration of independence. This should be a last resort, of course. Just as it was also said by Jefferson's declaration- "Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." However, I fear we are past the time already to accomplish these things and we may not have a choice left but to say again: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation........" I hope I am wrong. But I don't think I am. Do you? |
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The New York Mosque Proceeds
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Now that the commission in charge of buildings in New York has ruled 9-0 not to give landmark status to the building at the proposed mosque site, the way is clear to demolish the site in preparation for that 15-story Cordoba House (mosque and Islamic center). It appears that there is only one entity that can stop this idea and unfortunately that is the group wanting to build it.
Unfortunately, they show no signs of having any regard whatsoever for the sensitivity of building that center in the shadow of the World Trade Center. Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf, is now telling us that it will include a memorial to the 9-11 victims and that they want to be part "of the healing process".
Nonsense. They are ripping the scab open. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect most Americans would tell them to stuff that "memorial to the 9-11 victims."
But public opinion be damned. It's a freedom of religion, freedom of speech issue; they have the ACLU behind them and their message is;
"We're here. Deal with it."
Meanwhile, White House press spokesman and noted comic Robert Gibbs told reporters today that the White House has no interest in getting involved in a "local matter."
I have news for Mr Gibbs; 9-11 is not a local matter anymore than Pearl Harbor was a local matter.
Let us say that Imam Rauf truly intends to build an edifice devoted to peace, interfaith harmony and reconciliation. That goes out the window the first time he stands up in that mosque and repeats statements he has already made about the US becoming "shariah compliant" and US policies bringing on 9-11. Remember this is a guy who has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. Furthermore, he still won't own up to where all the money is coming from to build it.
Update: Now, this evening, comes the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, who tells Bill O'Reilly on The Factor there is no connection between Islam and 9-11, and that the opposition to the mosque is simple bigotry. He would not address O'Reilly's question about respecting the feelings of 9-11 families and others who object to the mosque so close to the World Trade Center site. I trust this guy Awad as far as I can throw him.
In the end, this mosque will be a bad thing for US Muslims because it is reviving the anger of 9-11 and will continue to revive anger every time visitors to the area pass by.
On a more positive note, this quote comes today at the University of California Irvine (where I teach). It was made today by an Arab (Muslim) student studying at UCI who just returned from New York and is very angry over the mosque issue. He says, "that mosque should not be built. I want those buildings back" (WTC).
fousesquawk
Now that the commission in charge of buildings in New York has ruled 9-0 not to give landmark status to the building at the proposed mosque site, the way is clear to demolish the site in preparation for that 15-story Cordoba House (mosque and Islamic center). It appears that there is only one entity that can stop this idea and unfortunately that is the group wanting to build it.
Unfortunately, they show no signs of having any regard whatsoever for the sensitivity of building that center in the shadow of the World Trade Center. Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf, is now telling us that it will include a memorial to the 9-11 victims and that they want to be part "of the healing process".
Nonsense. They are ripping the scab open. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect most Americans would tell them to stuff that "memorial to the 9-11 victims."
But public opinion be damned. It's a freedom of religion, freedom of speech issue; they have the ACLU behind them and their message is;
"We're here. Deal with it."
Meanwhile, White House press spokesman and noted comic Robert Gibbs told reporters today that the White House has no interest in getting involved in a "local matter."
I have news for Mr Gibbs; 9-11 is not a local matter anymore than Pearl Harbor was a local matter.
Let us say that Imam Rauf truly intends to build an edifice devoted to peace, interfaith harmony and reconciliation. That goes out the window the first time he stands up in that mosque and repeats statements he has already made about the US becoming "shariah compliant" and US policies bringing on 9-11. Remember this is a guy who has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. Furthermore, he still won't own up to where all the money is coming from to build it.
Update: Now, this evening, comes the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, who tells Bill O'Reilly on The Factor there is no connection between Islam and 9-11, and that the opposition to the mosque is simple bigotry. He would not address O'Reilly's question about respecting the feelings of 9-11 families and others who object to the mosque so close to the World Trade Center site. I trust this guy Awad as far as I can throw him.
In the end, this mosque will be a bad thing for US Muslims because it is reviving the anger of 9-11 and will continue to revive anger every time visitors to the area pass by.
On a more positive note, this quote comes today at the University of California Irvine (where I teach). It was made today by an Arab (Muslim) student studying at UCI who just returned from New York and is very angry over the mosque issue. He says, "that mosque should not be built. I want those buildings back" (WTC).
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Ethics? What Ethics? Let's Have a Party!
Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
"Happy birthday to you,
happy birthday to you,
happy birthday, dear Hermann,
happy birthday to you
..and many more (hee, hee)
Talk about timing. No sooner does the House of Representatives announce an ethics trial for Charlie Rangel, then it is announced there will be a lavish birthday bash for Charlie on August 11.
"It's a big f-----' deal!"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/01/home-state-democrats-reportedly-plan-lavish-birthday-party-rangel/
Here's another interesting side note; the party is being held on August 11 even though Charlie's birthday was June 11. What's that all about? And the Plaza Hotel? That ain't the Motel 6, folks.
I guess any day now, the Dems will announce a big birthday bash for Maxine Waters-also pending trial on House ethics charges. Maybe her personal banker, Barney Frank, can dip into some TARP funds to put on a monster bash for her and her "businessman" hubby Sidney Williams.
Doesn't House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who promised to "drain the swamp" see what this looks like in the public eye? Now the Washington Post is reporting today that the loopy Pelosi is saying she "was out of the loop" in the Rangel investigation.
Is this what President Obama meant when he said this week that he hopes Rangel can end his career with "dignity"?
Dignity.
Talk about "in-your-face", "rub their noses in it" politics.
fousesquawk
"Happy birthday to you,
happy birthday to you,
happy birthday, dear Hermann,
happy birthday to you
..and many more (hee, hee)
Talk about timing. No sooner does the House of Representatives announce an ethics trial for Charlie Rangel, then it is announced there will be a lavish birthday bash for Charlie on August 11.
"It's a big f-----' deal!"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/01/home-state-democrats-reportedly-plan-lavish-birthday-party-rangel/
Here's another interesting side note; the party is being held on August 11 even though Charlie's birthday was June 11. What's that all about? And the Plaza Hotel? That ain't the Motel 6, folks.
I guess any day now, the Dems will announce a big birthday bash for Maxine Waters-also pending trial on House ethics charges. Maybe her personal banker, Barney Frank, can dip into some TARP funds to put on a monster bash for her and her "businessman" hubby Sidney Williams.
Doesn't House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who promised to "drain the swamp" see what this looks like in the public eye? Now the Washington Post is reporting today that the loopy Pelosi is saying she "was out of the loop" in the Rangel investigation.
Is this what President Obama meant when he said this week that he hopes Rangel can end his career with "dignity"?
Dignity.
Talk about "in-your-face", "rub their noses in it" politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)