A reader wrote to ask how Rush Limbaugh differs from Joseph Goebbels. Both, said the reader, are hate-mongers. There isn’t much similarity, of course. Limbaugh is not a great orator, as Goebbels was. Nor is he at all the superb organizer and administrator that Goebbels was.
The reader’s question, however, prompted a comparison of Barack Obama, whose announced intention is to revolutionize the United States, and Adolph Hitler, whose announced intention was to revolutionize German society. Both aimed at socialistic redistribution of wealth to improve the lot of working men and other lower-income groups. Both imposed control over major industrial groups.
However much we deplore the racist nationalism of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis), we have to give the devil his due. We are compelled to recognize Hitler and Goebbels as extraordinarily gifted organizers and administrators, as well as outstanding orators.
Obama is a good orator, as his victories in the Democrat/Socialist Party presidential primary and later in the general election proved. Unlike Hitler, however, Obama flounders without a prepared speech, supported by a teleprompter. Hitler could mesmerize an audience without notes, speaking to vast audiences, any length from half an hour to two hours, often without even a public address system. English and American journalists went to his National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) rallies expecting to hear a buffoon. Without exception they became entranced as Hitler orated with great logical clarity, finding themselves almost in agreement with him.
Like Obama, Hitler rose to power in the midst of social and economic turmoil. After World War I, German industry was severely crippled, unemployment was high, and fecklessness of the Weimar Republic’s brand of socialism left the nation in despair. The conditions that Hitler faced were, in fact, much more severe than anything confronting Obama.
Obama flitted from limited engagement as a neighborhood agitator-organizer to working with Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn to insinuate socialistic messages into the public school curriculum. He managed to get elected to the Illinois legislature and then to the United States Senate, never getting any significant legislation enacted.
His short, dilettantish gesture in the direction of community organization in Chicago’s South Side was his only exposure to executive administration before his coronation as the Nation’s Savior in 2009. In his first year as president, Obama has concentrated upon speechifying, leaving administrative and legislative responsibilities in the hands of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
In sharp contrast, Adolph Hitler took over a Munich political club with hardly more than 40 members and, in 14 years (including his time in Landsberg prison in 1923-24), built it into the largest and most powerful political organization in Germany. Hitler was directly involved in every political and organizational move, appointing and directing party leaders, from the neighborhood to the national level. He was especially effective at the strategic level, foreseeing the path to national triumph of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis).
Goebbels, like Obama, was a neighborhood organizer, though considerably more effective and skilled than Obama.
Goebbels was dispatched by Hitler in 1926 to Berlin, the heart of German communist support and the seat of the Weimar Republic. Berlin, like Hollywood and the East and Left Coast metropolises of today, had sunk into a pit of sensual degradation, a degradation so extreme that even the Parisians were shocked at what was exhibited publicly.
Goebbels’s mission was to organize the rag-tag bit of the National Socialist German Workers Party in Berlin and to increase its membership. He did both things spectacularly well in the face of assaults by street gangs of armed communist labor union members.
A final comparison and, in this case congruence, between Obama and Hitler, as well as the Soviet Union’s Vladimir Lenin, is their recognition that, if socialism is to be imposed successfully, it must become a world-wide phenomenon. So long as socialist nations are bordered by non-socialist nations, their hegemony always will be threatened by defections and periodic aggressions. Hence the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union’s continual campaigns during the Cold War to subvert central and easter-European nations to bring them behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet control.
Hitler’s socialistic vision, like that of Mussolini’s Fascist italy, was nationalistic, aiming to bring all necessary farmland and natural resources under control of the National Socialist German Workers Party in order to insure maximum self-suffiency for Nazi Germany. Obama’s obsession with “green” jobs and high-cost fuel in the name of energy self-sufficiency is not politically the same as Hitler’s Drang nach Osten, but economically it is of the same stripe. Ditto Obama’s drive to control the banking business, auto manufacturing, energy production and use, and the nation’s healthcare industry.
All liberal-progressive-socialist leaders, from Auguste Comte to Marx and Lenin, to Obama have exhibited a strong faith that reified laws of history are moving us inevitably toward a socialized world hegemony under the tutelage of liberal-progressive intellectuals. That doctrine anticipates a world of peace and harmony when income and property shall have been equally distributed around the globe. As in Lenin’s vision of socialism, when the political state, through whatever methods may be necessary (for instance, ramming Obamacare through Congress via reconciliation) shall have succeeded in reshaping human nature into the New Soviet Man (from each according to ability, to each according to need), government will simply wither away and the whole world will be one big happy family.
James Madison spoke to that sort of utopian theorizing in the Federalist Papers, when he noted that, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. But experience and prudence suggested the need for auxiliary precautions.
Thomas E. Brewton
http://thomasbrewton.com/
That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a “stimulus” does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a “jobs bill” does not mean there will be more jobs.
What have been the actual consequences of all the hundreds of billions of dollars the government has spent? The idea behind the spending is that it will cause investors to invest, lenders to lend and employers to employ. Full Piece
]]>In essence America was built by individuals and for individuals. It wasn’t built because of the founders’ love of the country, but because of their love of freedom. In this country we gave when we wanted to, not when the state decided that we shall give. Because when we wanted to give we gave more. This was a country of free, strong, arrogant and selfish individualists. The best by any account place in the world. Was.
A hundred years ago there was a similar story. Vladimir Lenin and his inner circle didn’t like Russia. In effect they hated everything that Russia represented. Not folk songs or landscape, this they liked. They seized an opportunity given by an unpopular war and by collapsing economy and began fundamentally changing what they didn’t like – changing everything they could lay their hands on.
They of course said that they love the country. They expressed tons of love for the people of the country, said that everything they did was for the good of the country. And maybe even it was for the good of the country, but definitely not for the good of people who lived in the country. If old people are not given proper medical care, the country has more resources to build military might for example. Russia added territories from east to west, from north to south and became a huge empire, one of the biggest in the history of humankind. If Josef Stalin would have his way, the Soviet Union would be the only country in the united under the red banner world. Intellectuals in Europe at that time used to say “Better Red then dead” throwing hands in the air giving up their freedom even before they were asked to.
The new tsars of Russia were saying “You can’t make omelets without breaking eggs”. And they broke eggs by millions; all that was done for the good of the country. Millions of lives lost, millions of dreams gone, Gulags and killing fields everywhere. This is the cost of the change, they were saying. If those bad people who resist the change could die or be isolated, the country would live better.
I personally do not care if the country would live better or not – they killed my grandfather for their greater good! I can’t forgive or see beyond that. Sorry, I am probably not a good Christian. I am actually Jewish, like Jesus.
God forbid something like that will start happening in the United States of America. God forbid. I have already heard that Obama is not Stalin, he doesn’t want any hard tyranny… he wants a soft one. Beware my brothers citizens, the seeds are sown into this blessed land, once being the truly best place for humans in the world. It is done for the good of the sick, and for the good of the oppressed, and for the good of the tribe, and for the world peace… To cure the sick, to feed the hungry… Now you are not doing it because you want to, but because you are told to and soon you will be obligated to. For the good of the country let’s take a trillion from the old who are not producing anymore, who will soon die and it is really not important, they die tomorrow or a year from now. The younger ones need the money, the ones that will do good to the country. Which part you didn’t understand? May it is the part that we are talking about your mom and dad?
Obama hates MY America. He wants to destroy it. He calls it “change”. He tries to introduce his change with all his might. Equality is weakness. There is no equality, and can’t be. When people will start realizing that they had been conned, than time for guns might come. God forbid! The corporations will be blamed again. They will be seized and given to the workers. We will hear from our leaders that it only just since the workers are the ones who gave their sweat and blood to those companies… The wealth shall belong to all – and the state shall take it and keep on our behalf we will be told. And all profits shall be divided among all of us, and the government will divide them most efficiently and honestly. From everyone according to their might, to everyone according to their needs.
If you believe this is possible, why wouldn’t you believe in Clinton not inhaling marijuana or Obama not knowing what his pastor was preaching in his church. Bad times, bad. But we can still fight and get out of this mess. We need people in Congress and the White House who love this country – this country, not a dream utopia that never was and probably never will be. The person whom we will vote next can hate the sunsets and birds singing, but he has to love what we are standing for. Otherwise we will become one more banana republic with nuclear warheads.
Leon Weinstein
http://LeonWeinstein.com/
Copyright ©2010 Leon A. Weinstein
Leon was born in the Soviet Union in 1949, during the Stalin era. Emigrated to the USA in 1984 and became an American citizen in 1995. The Author of “Looking for Hugh: The Capitalist Guidebook”
]]>The Founding Fathers of America understood that a strong central government would never work in a republican form of government, the form of government they gave the American people. They knew that. They had just declared the independence of Americans from the “strong central government” of King George of Great Britain. They understood that for Americans to thrive and become a great nation of great people the government should provide one thing… freedom. They knew the American government should provide security from any and all enemies that presented a threat to the freedom of the American people so the American people could make the seeds of liberty grow and flourish.
Meeting in Philadelphia in 1776 they labored to create a constitution, the bedrock foundation of this nation, dedicated to the idea that the people would control their own destiny, not the government, that the people would make or break this experiment in democracy, not the government, that the labors of the people, known as business, would be free to create and manufacture, to sell, and to create wealth and keep that wealth or distribute it as they chose, not the government.
The constitution is as simple a governing document as has ever been written. It was drawn up to protect the people of this country from its government. Our Founding Fathers had just turned their backs on government, which had insinuated itself into the lives and businesses of its colonists to the point that those colonists rebelled and said: “No more!” With the constitution, the Founding Fathers put in writing the limits of the new American government.
For the past 234, or more, years the constitution has been a fly in the ointment to the political left everywhere on earth. When a people yearning to breath free, anywhere on the globe, look for a way, for a pattern, for directions on how to set up a non-repressive government, they turn to the US Constitution. There must be a reason. There is. Because it works!
Today, however, Americans themselves are ready to toss the constitution overboard and cling to a government, drunk on power and ready to do exactly the same thing King George did, insinuate itself into every aspect of the American people’s life. So bent on desecration of the constitution are they, that 52 % of the American voters cast their ballots for a man who declared his allegiance to creating a strong central government, which will take away the freedoms, the liberty, our forefathers fought, bled, and died to give us. They declared their overwhelming willingness to toss the democratic form of government in favor of a socialist form of government, which will guarantee cradle to the grave security. They voted “yes” to exchanging liberty for security. They voted to turn their backs on all the heroes of American history to follow in the footsteps of the Pied Piper of Socialism now President of the United States of America.
Again, let’s turn to Ronald Reagan for clarity. In 1964 Reagan said the following:
“It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.“
This idea? That government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. “
Reagan went on to say: “The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.
So we have come to a time for choosing.
About financial security, Reagan had this to say: “There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.”
Reagan wound up this jewel of a speech by saying the following: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
The question I would ask today is… have we done all we could do? It seems to me the multi-billion dollar bailout of our financial markets should be filed under “Controlling the people by controlling the people’s economy.” National Healthcare (Socialized Medicine) is, unquestionably, controlling the people in every facet of their lives.
As I view the America the voters of this nation created in November of 2008, I am inclined to say that, indeed, we have, just as Reagan warned, sentenced our children to a thousand years of darkness.
J. D. Longstreet
http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/
The wind power trade group, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has been pouring big bucks into a public relations effort to convince Americans that wind is the energy source of the future and that acres of wind turbines should be installed to replace the proven sources, primarily coal-fired, natural gas, and nuclear plants currently providing more than 80% of the nation’s electricity needs.
Thanks to Freedom of Information requests, the Chicago Tribune revealed significant collusion among Department of Energy officials and AWEA, as well as other third-party special interest groups such as the Center for American Progress, a think tank that pushes Green and other liberal agendas.
The Tribune reported that an Assistant Secretary of Energy, Cathy Zoi, who formerly held top positions at Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, was charged with crafting renewable energy policy for the Obama administration and emails obtained revealed that she was working closely with AWEA to rebut and discredit a ground-breaking study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University.
Dr. Calzada’s research concluded that, for every “green job” the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed and that nine out of ten government-created “green jobs” were temporary at a time when Spain’s unemployment rate is at an all-time high, not unlike the situation in the U.S.
At the time that Dr. Calzada’s study was reported, the Obama administration was pushing “Cap-and-Trade” legislation through the House. This legislation would set up a system for the sale, auction, and trade of “carbon credits” based on the totally discredited assertion that “greenhouse gases”, primarily carbon dioxide, were “causing” global warming. The bill remains in the Senate awaiting a vote.
Back in January AWEA was ecstatic over an Obama administration award of $2.3 billion in “clean energy manufacturing tax credits and the President’s call for an additional $5 billion.” There is no economic or scientific justification for the waste of taxpayer dollars in this fashion.
Also in January, a Boston Herald article by Jay Fitzgerald revealed that “National Grid customers will experience sticker shock after the giant utility negotiates a long-term electric contract with Cape Wind developers, energy experts warn.”
“The Rhode Island deal calls for National Grid to pay an eye-popping 24 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity from Deepwater Wind’s proposed wind farm off Block Island for 20 years. That’s three times higher than the current price of natural-gas generated electricity - and the Rhode Island deal includes a 3.5 percent annual increase over the life of the contract.”
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, in February eleven wind turbines froze because their hydraulic fluid had turned to gel and oil lubricants were rendered sluggish. These kinds of problems do not occur in other sources of electricity. In Oregon, General Electric had announced a big wind project involving 338 wind turbines that it claimed would power 235,000 homes. Naturally, it was applying for federal subsidies.
In Great Britain, in January, its wind turbines representing six percent of total generating capacity and billions invested, supplied virtually no power most days because, as Dennis T. Avery, a former senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department noted “The wind tends not to blow when and where it’s already cold.”
Avery pointed out that neither Denmark, nor Germany, leaders in wind energy projects, has decommissioned any fossil fuel plants. “The fossil generators are kept in ‘spinning reserve’ to keep the lights on in the schools, factories, and hospitals when the wind dies.”
The wind and solar energy industries, as well as the biofuels industry, continue to depend on government subsidies to exist, as opposed to private enterprises that have a long track record of providing affordable electricity.
First the government gives the wind energy producers your money and then you end up paying higher energy bills as a result. Both wind and solar energy depend on government mandates for their use.
These are facts you need to keep in mind every time President Obama speaks of “clean energy” and “green jobs.” Like so much else one hears from the TelePrompter-in-Chief, it has no relation to the truth.
Editor’s Note: For more information about wind power, visit http://windpowerfacts.info/
© Alan Caruba, 2010
http://alancaruba.com/
...That’s why it is with sorrow that I realize a significant amount of scientific research is corrupt and fraudulent. How can that be?
...Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of government. If government funds research, then the research results must (almost by definition) reflect the government’s agenda. The sad truth is many federally funded scientists have become political lackeys, spouting whatever nonsense the government says they should spout and giving it the veneer of credibility because of a few letters after their names. Full Piece
]]>We feel disgust with their deceptions, disreputable tactics, and hypocrisy as they rush frantically to lock in by any means, fair or foul, their unpopular socialist healthcare scheme before voters take their power away.
...The only standard of leftist morality is “social morality.” As they define it, any politician working openly and/or secretly to tear down capitalism, redistribute wealth, and impose socialism is moral. Full Piece
]]>This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.
In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,“ federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:
· The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
· Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
· The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
· The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
· There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.
So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?
The answer to both is no.
The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.
Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science.
Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA: “[‘Gay’ men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.“
The FDA further warns: “[‘Gay’ men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in [‘gay’ men] than in the general population.“
A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?
All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.“ Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.“ The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.
When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.
Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.
In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.
For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.“
Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously.
J. Matt Barber
Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law.
]]>Last week President Obama signed a law authorizing the United States Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, during that time he did another one of his favorite paradoxical quips in a speech in which he discussed his commitment to frugality. Terrence P. Jeffrey of Human Events, suggests we all review the White House website and review the President’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) own figures.
I love the title on the top of the OMB page: “A new era of responsibility.“ This from a budget that is adding to the deficit annually, what was the entire national debt for the first 180 plus years of this republic. The propagandists at the White House have nothing over the advocates of “newspeak” in Orwell’s 1984.
Jeffrey observes that:
When calculated by the average annual percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that Obama will spend during his presidency, he is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the first year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP.
When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP that Obama will borrow during his presidency, he is on track to become the greatest spender and debtor since Franklin D. Roosevelt in terms of real spending.
Thought George Bush was bad? Obama will outspend and out-borrow the man that the Obama Administration routinely uses as a punching bag because of Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility and who, when in office, was often seen by friends and foes alike as a “Big Government Republican.“
Obama does not enjoy the excuses that FDR had for his dramatic expansion of government. After all, we do recall the Great Depression and World War II. In spite of this, Obama will even out spend this icon of big government.
Spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product is the gold standard for determining real spending. Under FDR (from 1933 to 1945), federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of the GDP. Under Obama, the estimates from the President’s own Office of Management and Budget is 24.13 percent of the GDP. That is about 25 percent more than FDR’s expenditure during the two greatest challenges of the 20th century—worldwide war and global depression.
What may be most startling is the unique distinction that both Obama and FDR share. According to the OMB’s calculations, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to have annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP.
In the same vein, Obama will have a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product; the last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945—at the end of World War II.
Jeffrey’s most profound observation in the article was in regards to comparing our current challenges with those of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s in the latter’s efforts to end the Cold War. Without firing a shot and without having a budget that exceed 6 percent of our GDP, Reagan put the Soviets into bankruptcy and ended the Cold War. Obama is going to have a difficult time explaining the fiscal mess he has created for us.
Kevin Price
http://BizPlusBlog.com/
A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers. Full Piece
]]>Jim Kuhnhenn of AP(Associated Progressives) is almost gleeful to report “GOP disavows fear-baiting fundraiser“.
Everyone with a brain knows the Demercrats and Obama Regime are hell bent on turning the USA into a “Glorious Socialist Banana Republic“ but various high level Republicrats are saying stuff like this - “There is no place for this. Obviously, when you’re fundraising you want to make points, and you want to make direct and succinct points, but using these sorts of tactics is certainly not something that any of us ought to condone.“(1)
Lets face “The Republic” is bankrupt and going downhill each by design with Demercrats and RINOs pushing the status toward worse with every move they make.
The RNC needs to stick to their guns and fight the Demercrats with every tool they can muster. The Demercrats are busy initializing every scheme they can think of to bias and distort the 2010 and 2012 elections!
Malcolm T. Hedges
http://malcolmhedges.com/
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times. Full Piece
]]>In the latest diatribe to come out of the Montgomery Alabama based mini-ACLU, titled - Rage on the Right - The Year in Hate and Extremism – the group lays out their justification for striking fear in the hearts of every Tea Party, 912 and town hall activist, angry over the federal governments mishandling of their country.
The SPLC report opens with – “The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation.”
According to the report – “The anger seething across the American political landscape — over racial changes in the population, soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama Administration that are seen as “socialist” or even “fascist” — goes beyond the radical right. The “tea parties” and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism.”
At least they properly identified some of the causes for widespread frustration with the current administration – “soaring public debt and the terrible economy, the bailouts of bankers and other elites, and an array of initiatives by the relatively liberal Obama Administration that are seen as “socialist” or even “fascist” – and they are right, the anger goes way beyond the confines on the Tea Party, 912 and town hall movements, to include more than 61% of the nation who believe that the Unites States is in certain decline.
But they get it predictably wrong on their claim of “anger seething across the American political landscape — over racial changes in the population…”
The widespread anger isn’t over “racial changes in the population,” nor is the nation angry over what the SPLC refers to as “non-white immigration.” The public anger started long before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama, but this group thinks it’s all about Obama. Isn’t everything all about Obama?
Like the political leftists the SPLC hopes to prop up with such insane reports, they fail to differentiate between “legal immigration” and “breaking and entering.” What the SPLC sees as only an issue of “race” over “non-white immigration,” is actually anger over “illegal immigration” and the increasingly high cost to a shrinking number of American taxpayers, including the fact that the problem has bankrupted state and federal budgets and left the borders wide open to intruders, some of whom are gang thugs and outright terrorists that threaten national security as well.
We have a security and economic problem largely due to the lack of border control and unenforced immigration laws. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with national sovereignty and security, economic and otherwise. Still, some Tea Party groups like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works are on record supporting illegal immigration and amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
In short, the SPLC makes the average American patriot sound like Hitler reincarnated, and paints every citizen reasonably concerned about the future of their country, like a Timothy McVeigh wannabe.
Despite the federal takeover of the banking, mortgage, auto and now health care industries, the SPLC can’t seem to connect the obvious dots between Obammunism and Communism. As a result, anyone who disagrees with the current Cloward-Piven Strategy employed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid, must be a “potential domestic terrorist” on the basis that they oppose the utter destruction of the freest most prosperous nation on earth, at the hands of overt Marxists, excuse me, progressives.
Just because we don’t call it Marxism anymore doesn’t mean that it isn’t still Marxism. Even under the much more marketable name “progressive,” the policies and results are the same and most Americans know it, even if the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t.
But on the basis of the SPLC report, Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams was openly attacked by MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan on national TV this week.
Williams was right however. Radicals do exist in almost every group and most people can tell the difference between radical extremists and average decent citizens concerned about their country. Not every Democrat is an extreme left-wing Marxist, but some are. – Not every Muslim is a Jihadist, but some are. – Not every pet lover is an extreme PETA terrorist, but some are. Most people, excluding Dylan Ratigan and the Southern Poverty Law Center, can tell the difference between all of them.
Likewise, the political right is no exception. We have a few extreme crackpots too. And to be sure, when extremists, racists, anti-Zionists, anti-Semitics and anarchists rear their ugly heads anywhere, they should be separated from the otherwise healthy heard of average American patriots.
I have met and heard from thousands of real patriots across this country over the years. 99% of them are salt of the earth Americans, the very definition of the word patriot – “a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.”
When one bad apple rears his head spewing skinhead rhetoric and railing against “Zionists” and “Jews” while engaging in efforts to seat like-minded extremists in positions of power via his seemingly harmless organizations, http://www.wagthedog2010.com/ and http://www.networkamerica.org/ , the rest of the legitimate movement must call them out, distance themselves and maintain integrity within their ranks.
Ratigan was right about that… and if legitimate patriotic citizen organizations fail to denounce such nonsense, people are forced to speculate as to just how legitimate that organization might be.
Where Ratigan and the Southern Poverty Law Center are wrong is in their effort to use one bad apple to spoil an entire nation full of good, honest, decent American citizens, or make them feel like any dissenting voice will be labeled an act of racism or even worse, terror, just because they oppose socialized everything.
This is a form of terrorism.
Making average Americans so afraid to speak openly about their country or their government for fear of being labeled “extremists,” or being audited by the IRS for no reason other than their political views, or God forbid, being arrested and detained like “potential terrorists” just because they have a deep love for their Constitutional Republic, freedom and liberty, should in and of itself, be a crime.
Mark Williams said and did nothing indecent on MSNBC. But Ratigan was completely indecent towards guest Mark Williams, and he felt entirely justified, on the basis of the SPLC report, which is full of false statements and over-blown accusations, and paints with a very broad brush.
Racist organizations see everything as an act of racism, just like liars think that everyone lies.
On Inauguration Day 2009, 65% of Americans were hopeful about the new President and only 16% were “strongly opposed,” despite the color of Obama’s skin. The 16% were not opposed to his skin color - they just didn’t buy his moderate rhetoric. They knew what was coming…
It wasn’t until Obama replaced his moderate sounding campaign rhetoric with a steady diet of heavy-handed far left policy pushes that the citizens began to turn on Obama. A year later, only 25% of Americans support the leftist policies of the administration, the rest of America is strongly opposed and Obama intends to forge ahead regardless.
To even suggest that the increasing anger towards the tone-deaf administration has anything to do with race, says more about the Southern Poverty Law Center than it does the 75% of Americans who oppose every Obama policy initiative today.
And to issue key national security reports that paint every dissenting American as a “potential domestic terrorist” on this basis is in and of itself, an act of terrorism, aimed at silencing the legitimate voice of dissent.
But why am I not surprised to see this tactic coming out of a left-wing organization while the country is in an all out political battle for the very soul of the nation?
And why does this private partisan organization have so much influence over this administrations security agencies?
JB Williams
http://www.JB-Williams.com/
Sources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaqd1qY1KsM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pj0WxuyLXE
]]>Back in the day, there were “trade schools.” There were schools where certain trades were taught. If a young person wanted to be, oh, say, an auto mechanic, the school would teach them the fundamentals and depending upon the school, much, much, more. It set the student on a path, in his or her young life that would ensure them a trade from which they could make a living, support a family, and contribute to their community. Trade schools were GOOD things.
We have all heard the stories of the high school teacher who assures certain students that they have no business attending college. We tend to recoil in horror at such presumptuousness by anyone, let alone a teacher. But wait! Have you considered the possibility that the teacher might be right? Has it occurred to you that the teacher is in a far better position than you or I to form that conclusion?
Come on, folks. We all know there are, in fact, some folks who only take up space in the classroom whether in high school or college. There are some youngsters for whom life is one continuous party. You cannot honestly believe that THEY deserve to be there, taking the place of a hard working scholar determined to learn as much as he or she can in the four, or more, years they will industriously study to better themselves and the world they occupy and contribute to society.
But in the politically correct world we live in this bit of common sense is frowned upon. In fact, to voice such a stance might get you driven from the room. You have just bumped into the great wall of “inclusivity.” We must be “fair.” We must be “inclusive.” EVERYONE MUST have a chance at a college education and, if at all possible, the government should pay for it.
Of course, when we say the government should pay for it we are really saying the taxpayers should pay for because the government has no money of its own. It takes money from us, the taxpayers and, much to our chagrin, blows it!
Very soon now, I expect to see some sort of bill introduced in our national legislature, which will insure that every American who wants to go to college will be able to do so at taxpayer expense. That is a wrong-headed idea and must be stopped before it ever becomes law. Such a law will only make academia far richer than it is now and will do little, if anything, to better educate the American populace. In fact, one can already see that postsecondary college degrees have been, shall we say, dumbed down?
Let’s face it. There are students who would do far better for themselves, and society, if they studied at a vocational school or a technical school of some variety. We always NEED trained technicians and tradesmen. Every society does.
There is, currently, no RIGHT to a college degree in America. Not yet, at least. But, left to their own devices, the dunces who currently lead our country will certainly make it so. And THAT is wrong! To insist that the taxpayers of America foot the bill for this politically correct act of “inclusivity” is also wrong.
J. D. Longstreet
http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/
I’ve been a consulting economist for more than 25 years. What I have found over time is that public perceptions as to what’s happening in the economy have tended to vary increasingly from the official reporting, generally moving away from the common experience. It appears to be moving toward generally weaker economic growth and stronger inflation than the government is reporting. I’ve used econometric models over time for forecasting a variety of economic variables, and I’ve found the ability of the official numbers to predict what was happening to be also weakening over time. Some of the series are simply nonsense; they’re effectively political propaganda. I’ll state that very specifically in terms of the GDP statistic. Full Piece
]]>