From NewsMax.com, April 2002
Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?
I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.
The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?
Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.
What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.
And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.
One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.
And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."
Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.
In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.
But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.
Read the rest of the article at NewsMax.com
Monday, February 28, 2011
Americans Have a Duty to Revolt
Note from poster Roger F. Gay: In my view, Judge Andrew Napolitano presents solid arguments that are much more important in American politics today than the budget. (I take it you all know that the budget debate is extremely important.) I am disappointed however, that he seems to hang so much of the cause of the downfall of Constitutional rule on the Patriot Act and George W. Bush. By the time the Patriot Act was signed, the rights it ignored had already been abandoned by bipartisan acts in Congress that were confirmed by federal courts. Mechanisms were in already place to track intimate details of the lives of everyone in the US. More than $10 billion had already been spent developing and operating a national computer system for doing that, and every employer, business and institution was required to connect their computer systems to it and provide information. Mass round-ups of American citizens were being conducted by multiple police agencies using mass warrants based on long lists prepared by bureaucrats. Homes were already being invaded, property confiscated arbitrarily, people arrested and jailed and held indefinitely without trial; without any evidence that they had committed a crime. It had nothing to do with 9/11 or the War on Terrorism and the problem will not go away if the Patriot Act is overturned or expires. (See Taken Into Custody, by Stephen Baskerville.) Discussing the actual history would involve issues that are less popular with the mainstream media than opposition to the Patriot Act. I suggest the following videos as part of familiarizing yourself with Judge Napolitano's argument. I suggest not skipping the Q&A either.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Rand Paul is a RINO
By Roger F. Gay
I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the “business as usual” talking point repeated by many others.
On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.
Letterman: “In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?”
Paul: “Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.”
Letterman: “Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?”
Paul: “I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.”
Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
My question: Where's the Constitution – the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?
Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.
Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.
American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.
Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an “investment” of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.
Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.
Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.
I can't help but notice that the new wave of Tea Party Republicans, said to be on probation until they've proven themselves, have quickly circled their wagons to defend the established RINO culture. To make the point, we might as well start with the extremely popular young senator Rand Paul. But if you're paying attention, you too will notice the “business as usual” talking point repeated by many others.
On February 24, 2011, Senator Paul was interviewed by David Letterman. Here is the excerpt that this article addresses.
Letterman: “In this day and age, what does it mean if you're a member of the Republican Party? What are the precepts? What do we stand for?”
Paul: “Well, we wanted to mean something. When I ran, I said the Republican Party is an empty vessel unless we imbue it with values. What I mean by that is kind of what the Tea Party says. You gotta believe in something. I think during many of the Bush years we became just like the Democrats. We could spend money just as fast as the Democrats could and we ran up the debt and that was a problem for me. I thought really that government needs to live within its means.”
Letterman: “Live within its means. So that's the headline for the Republican Party. If you're a Republican, you stand for fiscally responsible government, first and foremost. Is that right?”
Paul: “I think so, and I think that unifies a lot of people.”
Letterman: “And what about the Tea Party. Does that overlap with the Republican precept?”
Paul: “Yeah, and the difference is though the Tea Party … [will] tell you if you don't vote correctly or if you vote with the Republicans when they're voting to bankrupt the country, we'll bring you home too. They're not very shy about it.”
My question: Where's the Constitution – the one that enforces limited government and individual rights?
Let's review. There are three major kinds of conservatives competing to control US politics; social, political, and fiscal.
Social conservatives have proven just as politically dangerous as social liberals. Both favor arbitrary increases in government power and the use of force to intrude upon individual freedom. Both have contributed equally to the collapse of Constitutional rule.
American political conservatives are basically the modern version of classic liberals and the last actual defenders of Constitutional rule in the United States. There must be a structured relationship between government and the people that does not allow arbitrary government intrusion.
Fiscal conservatives are politically equivalent to fiscal liberals. There are no set rules that limit government involvement in anything and everything, just political preferences. They are also often just as much in favor of more government and more spending. If a pork-barrel scheme is promoted as an “investment” of public money that will eventually reduce spending, self-described fiscal conservatives are just as quick to jump on the band wagon as liberals, no matter how weak the argument that more spending equals savings. Over the past three decades, they have frequently voted in favor of arbitrary increases in government power to suit their agenda. They also tend to ally with social conservatives in order to win elections. In one major scam, they pretended arbitrary federal intrusion into marriage and family law would save taxpayer dollars by reducing poverty. Not only did the welfare budget skyrocket as a result, the institution of marriage was destroyed and took out fundamental individual rights with it.
Rand Paul is misleading when he equates fiscal conservative rhetoric with imbuing values in an empty vessel. Fiscal conservatism isn't values, it's a set of relative actions taken in context. We are once again being told to accept a government of people and not of laws. Paul and other new Republicans are not presenting a reformed Republican image. They're reselling the old one, and our experience already tells us that doesn't work and why. Fiscal conservatives do not imbue fundamental rules in the relationship between government and the people in their empty vessel.
Fiscal conservatism is a set of relative actions taken in context. It is not a set of values.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Rand Paul on the Budget Showdown
On Friday, Rand Paul appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss the budget showdown and his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington.
Unionized Teachers Abuse Children
By Roger F. Gay
In one of my regular forum haunts, I'm reading comments from a parent whose son is still being subjected to global warming propaganda. It's one of the most atrocious political cons that's ever been foisted on the public. You could call it the Big Lie that got out of control. It's political fraud, not science, not social studies. So why is it being “taught” in public schools?
In the United States, it's a con game run primarily by members of the Democratic Party; Al Gore being the most famous liar in the game. There's a lot of money to be stolen, both public and private, and the scam is designed to produce dictatorial power over the market. The Democratic Party is in bed with the unions. They're scratching each others backs.
Although public education is increasingly more expensive, the quality of education is continuously in decline. At this point, some wonder if they're anything more than partisan brain-washing factories.
The curriculum is dictated by the political agenda. Misinformation can follow them throughout their entire lives. A college graduate who believes the Earth's climate is driven by human activity is going to be seen as incompetent. Teaching in public schools might be the only job they'll be able to get.
Let's not forget that every hour spent on political indoctrination represents more than one hour of missing education. Things are related. Ideas are related. Sound logic and critical thinking is needed in everything. How does one teach students anything real about climate while mixing in a new wave of politically motivated superstition? They can't. If facts and logic don't matter, how do they then teach any science at all? How do they teach anything, really?
It's a form of child abuse that the public really hasn't labeled accurately yet. Parents, like the one in the forum, tend to be brave souls; doing their best to counter the harm with real facts and intelligent discussion. Children who are lucky enough to have a parent involved in this way may very well learn to think for themselves aside from being better informed.
But it's not something that should be tolerated any more than if they were selling nude pictures of your children taken surreptitiously in bath- and locker rooms. The latter is probably less harmful. Let's face the fact that children are often forced to endure this miseducation process for at least 12 of their most formative years. During this period, they're not just entangled in a web of lies. They're bullied and manipulated if they don't act like true believers by people abusing the authority they have over them.
It's another of those things that have gone too far and responsible adults need to step in and put a stop to it.
In one of my regular forum haunts, I'm reading comments from a parent whose son is still being subjected to global warming propaganda. It's one of the most atrocious political cons that's ever been foisted on the public. You could call it the Big Lie that got out of control. It's political fraud, not science, not social studies. So why is it being “taught” in public schools?
In the United States, it's a con game run primarily by members of the Democratic Party; Al Gore being the most famous liar in the game. There's a lot of money to be stolen, both public and private, and the scam is designed to produce dictatorial power over the market. The Democratic Party is in bed with the unions. They're scratching each others backs.
Although public education is increasingly more expensive, the quality of education is continuously in decline. At this point, some wonder if they're anything more than partisan brain-washing factories.
The curriculum is dictated by the political agenda. Misinformation can follow them throughout their entire lives. A college graduate who believes the Earth's climate is driven by human activity is going to be seen as incompetent. Teaching in public schools might be the only job they'll be able to get.
Let's not forget that every hour spent on political indoctrination represents more than one hour of missing education. Things are related. Ideas are related. Sound logic and critical thinking is needed in everything. How does one teach students anything real about climate while mixing in a new wave of politically motivated superstition? They can't. If facts and logic don't matter, how do they then teach any science at all? How do they teach anything, really?
It's a form of child abuse that the public really hasn't labeled accurately yet. Parents, like the one in the forum, tend to be brave souls; doing their best to counter the harm with real facts and intelligent discussion. Children who are lucky enough to have a parent involved in this way may very well learn to think for themselves aside from being better informed.
But it's not something that should be tolerated any more than if they were selling nude pictures of your children taken surreptitiously in bath- and locker rooms. The latter is probably less harmful. Let's face the fact that children are often forced to endure this miseducation process for at least 12 of their most formative years. During this period, they're not just entangled in a web of lies. They're bullied and manipulated if they don't act like true believers by people abusing the authority they have over them.
It's another of those things that have gone too far and responsible adults need to step in and put a stop to it.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Rand Paul Gives David Letterman an Economics Lesson
From the Blaze.com
Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on “The Late Show” with David Letterman last night to promote his new book,”The Tea Party Goes to Washington.” But what started as a book discussion quickly became a debate over policy, and eventually ended in Paul giving Letterman an economics lesson.
Colby Hall at Mediaite explains the exchange this way:
The discussion was entirely civil, though it was not without some significant disagreement and passion over tax cuts for the wealthy, public and private sector jobs and the labor dispute in Wisconsin. Paul appeared to score on points, though Letterman’s disagreements were severely undercut by a lack of facts.
He concludes the segment is “entertaining,” but notes that when Paul regularly used facts and figures to back up his arguments, Letterman relied more on feelings, saying things like, “that doesn’t sound right.” Another site points out Letterman went as far as to say, “I think he’s wrong about some of these things, I just can’t tell you why.” Shame.
Watch the exchange below:
A Government Shutdown is Necessary!
There has been a lot of talk in the past couple of weeks of a potential shutdown of the federal government because neither side can come to a budget agreement. On March 4, 2011 the federal government will run out of money to operate and that will lead to a shut down of certain services and federal employees will not get paid in most cases.
President Obama and the Democrats fear a government shut down will slow recovery and will do damage to the country. From the Politico:
White House officials are deeply concerned that even a short interruption in government services, while no economic knockout blow, might slow down a recovery that has just recently gained momentum.
And they believe the political fallout could be even more severe, with Obama – who has positioned himself as the only grown-up in Washington capable of making government work — attracting as much blame as the GOP for presiding over a dysfunctional process, senior Democrats told POLITICO.
“He’s the guy who is supposed to make the deals that keep the bad stuff from happening,” said an Obama ally outside of the West Wing. “If the bad stuff actually does happen, what does that say about his leadership? That’s the concern over there.”
It is true that both sides will take a hit politically for any shutdown of the federal government, but I say...who cares!
Our country is spending at massive levels and has been for quite some time. It is absolutely necessary to send a message that we can no longer sustain at the current levels and there needs to be cuts to government across the board.
The government shutting down for a week or two will actually benefit this country greatly and will allow the bleeding of our fiscal nightmare to stop for just a little while.
Yes, government workers will not get paid and many important services will stop, but that is one price we have to pay to get this under control. Government workers know that they are civil servants and are at risk for this type of battle, but they will still survive. They will eventually get paid what they lost in the shutdown, but at least we can send a clear message that something needs to be done right now to stop the fiscal bleeding.
Our National Debt is getting out of hand...$14 Trillion and growing massively every single day. How do we stop this chaos from spiraling out of control? The answer is people in Washington that will actually get something done and prevent our financial ruin, even if it comes at the expense of them losing their office in the next election......just get something done!!
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Get involved in Libya?
Here we go again with the Neo-Cons saying we should get involved with another foreign entanglement! Bill Kristol is leading the charge to send our military might over-seas again to police the worlds problems when we can't even figure out how to solve our own.
What exactly is the problem with letting the people of the middle east set up and tear down the government as they see fit? Why do so many of you think that WE should be their dictators and decide for them how to, and who will run their country? I know it is taboo nowadays as a conservative to state the fact that it is precisely our foreign policy decisions that have created these enemies in the middle east, and the rest of the world for that matter. What makes our need for oil and resources more important that anyone else's? If we really wanted to solve our energy problems we would DEMAND our government get out of the business of policing the world and dictating to us what resources we at home can and cannot use! We have MORE than enough oil and natural resources to support ourselves.
As for the people being slaughtered by their own government in Libya, I would love to help them but WE ARE FAR BEYOND BROKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can't afford it anymore! The U.S. is bankrupt and so far in debt we will need a miracle to get out from under our debt before it crushes us. We spend more on "defense" in this country than the rest of the world COMBINED! Not to mention the fact that MORE intervention into the SOVEREIGN AFFAIRS of another country will only serve to create more enemies to fight later. Do you really still believe that the muslim terrorists hate us because we are free? How does that even make sense? They hate us because we go into their countries and tell them how its going to be, take their resources, and set up dictators friendly to us to "protect out interests". I'm sure you would like it if China were to do the same to us, right? Let me get this straight. We HATE it when the government comes into our States and towns and tells us what we can or cannot do. But we love it when our government goes to another country and does the same thing? How does that make sense? The last thing we need to do is expand our empire. We need to scale it back if we want to survive. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a strong defense. That should be the SECOND directive of our Federal Government. The FIRST being to SECURE OUR LIBERTY!!! Not ensure it will be lost by running a world empire, bankrupting the Treasury, and over-regulating EVERY aspect of it's citizens lives. Including the resources needed to sustain our economy, fuel our homes, and conduct business.
What exactly is the problem with letting the people of the middle east set up and tear down the government as they see fit? Why do so many of you think that WE should be their dictators and decide for them how to, and who will run their country? I know it is taboo nowadays as a conservative to state the fact that it is precisely our foreign policy decisions that have created these enemies in the middle east, and the rest of the world for that matter. What makes our need for oil and resources more important that anyone else's? If we really wanted to solve our energy problems we would DEMAND our government get out of the business of policing the world and dictating to us what resources we at home can and cannot use! We have MORE than enough oil and natural resources to support ourselves.
As for the people being slaughtered by their own government in Libya, I would love to help them but WE ARE FAR BEYOND BROKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can't afford it anymore! The U.S. is bankrupt and so far in debt we will need a miracle to get out from under our debt before it crushes us. We spend more on "defense" in this country than the rest of the world COMBINED! Not to mention the fact that MORE intervention into the SOVEREIGN AFFAIRS of another country will only serve to create more enemies to fight later. Do you really still believe that the muslim terrorists hate us because we are free? How does that even make sense? They hate us because we go into their countries and tell them how its going to be, take their resources, and set up dictators friendly to us to "protect out interests". I'm sure you would like it if China were to do the same to us, right? Let me get this straight. We HATE it when the government comes into our States and towns and tells us what we can or cannot do. But we love it when our government goes to another country and does the same thing? How does that make sense? The last thing we need to do is expand our empire. We need to scale it back if we want to survive. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a strong defense. That should be the SECOND directive of our Federal Government. The FIRST being to SECURE OUR LIBERTY!!! Not ensure it will be lost by running a world empire, bankrupting the Treasury, and over-regulating EVERY aspect of it's citizens lives. Including the resources needed to sustain our economy, fuel our homes, and conduct business.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Senator Rand Paul Talks About Government Shutdown
There has been a lot of talk recently about the federal budget and what might happen if the two sides in Congress cannot come to some type of agreement.
Senator Rand Paul discussed this possibility with ABC's nightline:
Maybe it might actually be a good thing for the government to shut down for a little bit...save us all some money???
Senator Rand Paul discussed this possibility with ABC's nightline:
Maybe it might actually be a good thing for the government to shut down for a little bit...save us all some money???
Monday, February 21, 2011
Ron Paul's Liberty PAC Money Bomb Today--Convince Ron to Run in 2012
In just 70 minutes the Congressmen has already raised over $372,000!!
This can be pushed into the millions by the end of this President Day holiday.
Pass this along to all your friends and ask them to donate as much as they possibly can to the cause of liberty and continue the Ron Paul Revolution into the 2012 election.
http://www.libertypac.com/
Sunday, February 20, 2011
What Could You Buy With $3.73 Trillion?
Congressman Patrick McHenry of North Carolina studied the President’s proposed budget and now gives us some great examples of what you could buy with $3.73 trillion dollars.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%
However, the new Rasmussen Poll might suggest otherwise:
"Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even."
Looks to me the "fringe" candidate Ron Paul is extremely capable of taking on the sitting President and potentially crushing him once people have a clear understanding of his position on the issues.
Friday, February 18, 2011
The NeoCons Fear Ron Paul
The NeoCons of the Republican Party fear him and try as hard as they can to pull him down, but they fail to miss that he appeals to a vast range of citizens because he actually makes sense. Unlike a lot of others in the Republican Party he can argue an issue and keep arguing the same issue for 30 years.
February 17, 2011 - Congressman Ron Paul joins the discussion on "Stossel" to address a point made during his CPAC 2011 speech regarding taxation. Additional topics include the media's criticism and misrepresentation of Ron Paul's message, the problem of coercion, and various questions from the audience:
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Geithner Admits Spending in Obama‘s Budget is ’Unsustainable’
In testifying before the Senate Budget Committee Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made a candid admission, characterizing President Barack Obama’s own budget plan as “unsustainable” with interest payments and obligations that are “excessively high”:
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
New Obama Press Secretary Hammered by ABC Correspondent
The President released his new budget yesterday and claims that all of the spending he is proposing will not increase the national debt. However, most people that have some type of brain on them know that this claim is false. When you borrow money to pay off interest for the debt, you are going to add more and more to the already exploding number we are seeing from the national debt.
Obama's new Press Secretary took a beating from ABC's Jake Tapper on this very subject. Just watch the exchange for yourself:
Obama's new Press Secretary took a beating from ABC's Jake Tapper on this very subject. Just watch the exchange for yourself:
"The Plain Truth" on the "PATRIOT" Act
On Monday's Freedom Watch, Judge Andrew Napolitano laid out why Americans must oppose the so-called "PATRIOT" Act.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ron Paul Talks CPAC Victory
The stars are lining up for a Ron Paul run in 2012 and this website will be there all the way until he sets foot inside the White House as President!
Uncovered: The 15 Tax Hikes Hidden in Obama’s New Budget
Here are the hidden increases:
- Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike
- Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
- Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
- Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
- New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
- New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
- New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
- Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
- Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
- Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
- A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
- Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
So, in order to pay for this massive budget that the President proposed, we need to tax the hell out of the American people.
Way to go Mr. President!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Official Movie Trailer: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
This should be the movie of the year as we debate the role of government:
Plot Summary: Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) runs Taggart Transcontinental, the largest remaining railroad company in America, with intelligence, courage and integrity, despite the systematic disappearance of her best and most competent workers.
She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden's super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.
Using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado and pave the way for oil titan Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) to feed the flame of a new American Renaissance.
Hope rises again, when Dagny and Rearden discover the design of a revolutionary motor based on static electricity - in an abandoned engine factory - more proof to the sinister theory that the "men of the mind" (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists, and other innovators) are "on strike" and vanishing from society.
Plot Summary: Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) runs Taggart Transcontinental, the largest remaining railroad company in America, with intelligence, courage and integrity, despite the systematic disappearance of her best and most competent workers.
She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden's super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.
Using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado and pave the way for oil titan Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel) to feed the flame of a new American Renaissance.
Hope rises again, when Dagny and Rearden discover the design of a revolutionary motor based on static electricity - in an abandoned engine factory - more proof to the sinister theory that the "men of the mind" (thinkers, industrialists, scientists, artists, and other innovators) are "on strike" and vanishing from society.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll — again
For the second consecutive year, libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) breezed to victory Saturday in the CPAC straw poll — a sign of the intense following he enjoys and the waning relevance of the surveys.
The results this year were nearly identical to last year — Paul took 30 percent in 2011 and 31 percent in 2010 — and the response from the crowd was the same, as well.
Outgoing American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene was jeered by Paul enthusiasts as he sought to downplay the results.
“It is what it is. It’s a straw poll,” Keene said before introducing pollster Tony Fabrizio, who conducted the survey.
Fabrizio tried to put a positive spin on the survey that the organizers are plainly embarrassed about, noting before announcing the results that attendees agree upon the size of government being a top priority.
Yet, even before the pollster could disclose the news, someone in the audience yelled: “Ron Paul!” The congressman’s supporters let out a loud cheer while his detractors booed just as loudly.
It is time for the Republican establishment to get behind the candidate that the people want. The candidate that embodies the ideas of our founding fathers. The candidate of Liberty!
Ron Paul!!!
Friday, February 11, 2011
Ron Paul is Crowd Favorite at Conservative Convention
From Fox News:
Potential 2012 GOP candidate draws popularity at CPAC for speech comments on Egypt and Patriot Act
Here is the Congressman's entire speech to the CPAC crowd today:
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Trump at CPAC: Ron Paul Has ‘Zero Chance’ of Winning Presidency
This guy thinks he can win????? Ron Paul is the better man and the way better choice!
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The New Audit the Fed Push
On January 26, 2011, Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul, introduced companion legislation in both chambers of the United States Congress to require a full and thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.
The bills, both titled The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, but known better as "Audit the Fed,"are numbered H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate and continue the efforts championed by Ron Paul last year that won 320 cosponsors before passing the House and 32 cosponsors in the Senate before falling short on a floor vote.
In this video Ben Bernanke takes a question on the idea of auditing the fed:
Click here to petition your representatives to support a full audit of the Fed.
ABC News' "Subway Series" with Senator Paul
Rand Paul speaks with ABC News about the need to cut government spending. He has proposed $500 Billion in budget cuts and has the most ambitious plan to reduce government spending.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Senator Paul's Inaugural Speech
In his first speech on the Senate floor, Senator Paul notes that he will now sit at Henry Clay's desk, likely the most famous legislator ever to hail from Kentucky. Henry Clay was known as the "Great Compromiser", which Paul reflects on throughout his speech.
Sen. Paul points out that Henry Clay's preference for compromise over principle eventually contributed to an electoral shortcoming for the Presidency, thereby proving that jaded compromise does not always equal political expediency.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Rep. Ron Paul calls Egypt a "mess" made by U.S. intervention
As usual Ron Paul is Spot on in his analysis, getting straight to the heart of the matter! One thing though... Paul is NOT an isolationist! He's just not in support of these United States running an empire. Which is exactly what we are doing.
Todd J. Gillman/Reporter Bio
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, is blaming U.S. policy for the upheaval in Egypt.
"This is a typical example of what happens when we run on intervention-type foreign policies. We get in the middle of these fights. We've been in the middle of this for 30 years now. We've given Mubarak $60 billion. We're responsible for a lot of the mess that is over there," Paul said this afternoon on FOX News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Paul, a potential Senate candidate in Texas next year, is a longstanding critic of foreign entanglements, and probably Congress' leading isolationist. His son, Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky., caused a stir in recent days by advocating for the cutoff of aid to Israel, in the context of a broader push to eliminate all foreign aid. It's a goal he shares with his father.
"I wouldn't just cut off Egyptian aid. I'd cut off all aid to the Middle East and maybe that whole area would be better off for it," the congressman told Fox.
As for concerns that the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, or even Al-Qaeda, would fill the power vacuum if Mubarak is forced out, Paul said the real problem stems from a U.S. habit of propping up authoritarian leaders. Both Mubarak and the deposed Shah of Iran became targets of popular revolt because they were "our puppet government," he said.
"There was a blowback to us and you had an unintended consequence," he said. "Yes, I think we have to worry about the radicals, but we have to understand how they get their motivation."
Todd J. Gillman/Reporter Bio
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, is blaming U.S. policy for the upheaval in Egypt.
"This is a typical example of what happens when we run on intervention-type foreign policies. We get in the middle of these fights. We've been in the middle of this for 30 years now. We've given Mubarak $60 billion. We're responsible for a lot of the mess that is over there," Paul said this afternoon on FOX News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto.
Paul, a potential Senate candidate in Texas next year, is a longstanding critic of foreign entanglements, and probably Congress' leading isolationist. His son, Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky., caused a stir in recent days by advocating for the cutoff of aid to Israel, in the context of a broader push to eliminate all foreign aid. It's a goal he shares with his father.
"I wouldn't just cut off Egyptian aid. I'd cut off all aid to the Middle East and maybe that whole area would be better off for it," the congressman told Fox.
As for concerns that the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, or even Al-Qaeda, would fill the power vacuum if Mubarak is forced out, Paul said the real problem stems from a U.S. habit of propping up authoritarian leaders. Both Mubarak and the deposed Shah of Iran became targets of popular revolt because they were "our puppet government," he said.
"There was a blowback to us and you had an unintended consequence," he said. "Yes, I think we have to worry about the radicals, but we have to understand how they get their motivation."
Al Gore: Snowstorms Caused By Warming
An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM
Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”
When will this guy just give up and realize that most people are not buying into this global warming crap anymore.
Most of us have realized that we go through different weather cycles and that is what is happening right now. Stop trying to stretch your lie anymore and go try and make your money in a different avenue.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Judge Andrew Napolitano: FL Judge Rules Health Care Law Unconstitutional
Great insight from a brilliant legal mind:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)