Survival is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness


Blog | Talk Radio Online | Columnists | Your Opinion | The News | Photos | Cartoons | Books & Movies | Issues | Action Center

Survival Optional
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

It used to be said that self-preservation is the first law of nature. But much of what has been happening in recent times in the United States, and in Western civilization in general, suggests that survival is taking a back seat to the shibboleths of political correctness.

We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given “rights” that exist neither in our laws nor under international law.

These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.

There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot.

Nobody even thought that this was a violation of the Geneva Convention. American authorities filmed the mass executions. Nobody dreamed up fictitious “rights” for these enemy combatants who had violated the rules of war. Nobody thought we had to prove that we were nicer than the Nazis by bending over backward.

Bending over backward is a very bad position from which to try to defend yourself. Nobody in those days confused bending over backward with “the rule of law,” as Barack Obama did recently. Bending over backward is the antithesis of the rule of law. It is depriving the people of the protection of their laws, in order to pander to mushy notions among the elite.

Even under the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers have no right to be turned loose before the war is over. Terrorists– “militants” or “insurgents” for those of you who are squeamish– have declared open-ended war against America. It is open-ended in time and open-ended in methods, including beheadings of innocent civilians.

President Obama can ban the phrase “war on terror” but he cannot ban the terrorists’ war on us. That war continues, so there is no reason to turn terrorists loose before it ends. They chose to make it that kind of war. We don’t need to risk American lives to prove that we are nicer than they are.

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law is not some “brooding omnipresence in the sky.” It is a set of explicit rules by which human beings structure their lives and their relationships with one another.

Those who choose to live outside those laws, whether terrorists or pirates, can be– and have been– shot on sight. Squeamishness is neither law nor morality. And moral exhibitionism is beneath contempt, when it sacrifices the safety of those who live within the law for the sake of self-satisfied preening, whether in editorial offices or in the White House.

As if it is not enough to turn cutthroats loose to cut throats again, we are now contemplating legal action against Americans who wrung information about international terrorist operations out of captured terrorists.

Does nobody think ahead to what this will mean– for many years to come– if people trying protect this country from terrorists have to worry about being put behind bars themselves? Do we need to have American intelligence agencies tip-toeing through the tulips when they deal with terrorists?

In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.

Repercussions extend far beyond issues of the day. It is bad enough that we have a glib and sophomoric narcissist in the White House. What is worse is that whole nations that rely on the United States for their security see how easily our president welshes on his commitments. So do other nations, including those with murderous intentions toward us, our children and grandchildren.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.


The Great Liberal Pandemonium Machine


Return to the Article

April 30, 2009
The Great Liberal Pandemonium Machine
By James Lewis

The Mexican swine flu pandemic? Oh, that’s soooo yesterday. Global Warming? All those confident “scientific” predictions are falling apart around the world, even as greedy politicians still try to squeeze the last little drops of power and money out of them. Human flesh-eating bacteria? SARS? Ozone holes? Mad Cow? The Curse of the Killer Tomatoes? Water torture? CO2? Bee Colony Collapse? It never ends. As long as scare stories sell, as long as millions of indoctrinated suckers fall for them they will never end. They’ve got you on a rat-running wheel, running scared every day, like rats scrambling to get away from electrical shocks that never actually come.

The Left rules by constant fear, but none of its predicted catastrophes come true. Ever notice that? Instead, we do have real things to worry about, all right — but half of them are the results of the Media Pandemonium Machine itself. Like one third of the little kids in our world who are now convinced — by cynical or deluded adults — that they won’t live long enough to enjoy a healthy adulthood. That is a terrible burden imposed on little children by the Left, in its never-ending grab for power.

There is an element of sadistic cruelty in the Leftist Pandemonium Machine. “Pandemonium” is the imaginary Hell of devils, and there is something truly demonic about the torrent of media madness we have to tolerate every day.

But we have to understand it as a psychological trick. Ultimately, each of us has to resist the media storm and learn to laugh at it. Only you can solve the problem of media madness by ignoring them: Turn away from the scare headlines on the daily news, turn off the radio, don’t click false-alarming websites. Every time you respond to a screaming scare story you are playing into their hands.

The Pandemonium Machine is crazy-making, quite literally. It’s a phenomenon psychiatrists encounter every day with their paranoid and borderline disorder patients, people who really have developed a lifelong talent for driving their friends and family crazy with anger, stress and worry. The Great Liberal Pandemonium Machine is spreading disease, all right, but it’s a psychiatric disease — of unjustified fear, depression, and despair. The acid-dropping hippies of the Sixties had a name for it: Mind-fxxxing. When the Left took over America, it also imposed an endless mind-fxxx on a victimized population. It is their road to power. They are still doing it.

Then there are some very realistic dangers — like terrorists blowing up a chunk of Manhattan or getting nuclear weapons. You may not happen to remember this, because our media studiously avoid the subject, but real jihadi terrorists actually crashed real airplanes into Manhattan in 2001, after slitting the throats of cabin personnel and pilots. And the same Islamist fanatics were planning to bring down the Los Angeles Library Tower and other American landmarks by hijacking six passenger planes from Heathrow Airport in Britain. They are still trying; they are happy to tell us about their ongoing efforts. They are real, all right.

But as long as they fail, the Left can pretend that terrorists don’t exist. And if they ever succeed in creating another domestic catastrophe, the Left will blame anybody but themselves. If we see another 9/11, I can just see Obama pointing the finger of blame at Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Can’t you?

Real bizzarros like Kim Jong Il have real nuclear weapons and three-stage missiles, and they are actively spreading the technologies of mass destruction around the world — to Pakistan, Syria, and Iran; maybe other places, too. Libya only gave up its nukes when it got scared enough by George W. Bush, who today is the much-abused scapegoat of all our liberal media. But all those real dangers are just swamped by the imaginary ones that the Liberal Pandemonium Machine spreads over our lives like a blinding psychic fog.

Somehow the Liberal Fear Machine never points out real dangers. The Left just isn’t good at understanding reality or defending against genuine threats.

You think maybe there’s a reason for that?

Ya think?

Remember, only you can turn off that Pandemonium Machine. Protect your kids. Defend against the crazy-making Left. Turn off the screaming headlines.

Enjoy some peace of mind.

Now watch: They’re going to try again tomorrow.

Are you going to fall for it? Again?

Page Printed from: at April 30, 2009 – 08:13:33 PM EDT

Government Takeover of Private Sector Continues


AdvertiseGovernment Takeover of Private Sector Continues
Share Post PrintApril 28, 2009 Posted by John at 9:55 AM

You are about to become the proud owner of a controlling interest in General Motors–well, you and tens of millions of fellow taxpayers, anyway. A deal has been struck that tries to keep GM out of bankruptcy. As I understand it, the deal is contingent on GM providing a turnaround plan that is satisfactory to its new owners–us–by June 1.

The company’s bondholders are up in arms about the deal:

Calling the proposal “neither reasonable nor adequate,” an ad hoc committee of GM bondholders said it believed “the offer to be a blatant disregard of fairness for the bondholders who have funded this company, and amounts to using taxpayer money to show political favouritism of one creditor over another”.

The linked news story fails to explain why the deal “shows political favouritism,” but Larry Kudlow fills in the gaps:

What is going on in this country? The government is about to take over GM in a plan that completely screws private bondholders and favors the unions. Get this: The GM bondholders own $27 billion and they’re getting 10 percent of the common stock in an expected exchange. And the UAW owns $10 billion of the bonds and they’re getting 40 percent of the stock. Huh? Did I miss something here? And Uncle Sam will have a controlling share of the stock with something close to 50 percent ownership. And no bankruptcy judge. So this is a political restructuring run by the White House, not a rule-of-law bankruptcy-court reorganization.

As we’ve said for a long time, the only way to bring transparency and the rule of law to the issues raised by the troubled automakers is through a bankruptcy proceeding. Instead of that, we have a national-socialist type top-down restructuring carried out by politicians to achieve political purposes. It is deeply ironic, with hindsight, that the Left used to accuse the Bush administration of “shredding the Constitution.”

Elsewhere, the bad news continues. The Treasury Department reportedly has just reached an agreement with Chrysler’s management that will “help the troubled automaker avoid bankruptcy.” In other words, another back-room deal that will favor Barack Obama’s political constituencies.

In other news, the federal government has “stress tested” Citigroup and Bank of America and decided that both banks “need more capital.” Is that true? I have no idea, but executives at both companies reportedly “are objecting to the preliminary findings.” I have a great deal more confidence in those executives than I do in Tim Geithner and the rest of Obama’s economic wrecking crew.

Given that finding, where are Citi and BoA supposed to raise more capital? Shares in both companies have been hammered, in part on fears that they they will be nationalized by the Obama administration, and both are down again on today’s news. It may be that the only realistic supplier of the capital the government thinks is needed (but the banks do not) is the government itself.

One hallmark of organized crime loan-sharking is that, once you are in debt to the mob, you are never allowed to pay off the principal. No matter how much you pay, you always owe more. The mob squeezes you for everything you have. Until a few months ago, I never expected to see an analogy between the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Mafia. But is it unreasonable to see a parallel in the government’s refusal to allow banks that have borrowed money under TARP to repay it? Does it not appear that financial institutions that became enmeshed with the government, and are now being dictated to by the government, find it increasingly difficult to extricate themselves?

Maybe that analogy is overblown. I certainly hope so. But when we look back in a few years, I wonder how many of the financial institutions that accepted “help” from the federal government–some of which tried to refuse, but had “help” forced upon them–will still exist, and how many will be hollowed-out shells operating as arms of the government.

BREITBART: Question Democratic authority? Not!

Monday, April 20, 2009
BREITBART: Question Democratic authority? Not!
Andrew Breitbart


On April 15, I joined hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans across the nation at the tax day “tea party” protests. I wasn’t told to go there by Fox News or by billionaires or millionaires. But what if I had?

The mainstream media and the Democratic Party – one and the same these days – spent much of the last week furiously attacking the grass-roots tea party protest movement as somehow illegitimate – or worse.

Days before the uniformly peaceful and patriotic gatherings took place, Homeland Security czar Janet Napolitano conveniently issued a bizarre report slandering military veterans and assorted right-leaning groups as racist, homegrown terrorism threats.

News anchors resorted to prime-time “tea-bagging” jokes in frequent attempts to mock the participants’ grievances. On Keith Olbermann’s hate crime of a show on MSNBC, Janeane Garofalo fused two memes to declare tens of thousands of Americans as “tea-bagging rednecks.”

Multimillionaire House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blamed the rich. “This initiative is funded by the high end – we call it AstroTurf, it’s not really a grass-roots movement. It’s AstroTurf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” (Some dare call Madame Pelosi’s AstroTurf accusations projection – just no one in the traditional media.)

CNN reporter Susan Roesgen viciously interrogated a middle-aged man for attending a Chicago tea party with his 2-year-old child.

Norm, who wouldn’t give his full name for fear of media reprisal, cited President Lincoln when asked by Ms. Roesgen to describe why he attended the event.

Ms. Roesgen then tried to rebut: “Norm … do you realize that you’re eligible for a $400 credit?” she asked. “Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion out of the stimulus? That’s $50 billion for this state, sir.”

Where but from the Democrat Party or the Obama administration could those arguments have come from? This was not journalism, it was politicking and intimidation. CNN has yet to reprimand its journalist and has attempted to scrub the Internet of the now-infamous video.

Think Norm was paranoid not to offer his full name? Not at all. Remember what happened to Joe the Plumber?

When Joe Wurzelbacher asked a question about taxes that candidate Barack Obama couldn’t answer, Democratic operatives attempted to destroy his reputation with the aid of their minions in the media.

During the last presidency, similar public expressions of citizen displeasure were enthusiastically promoted by the media and the Democrat Party. In fact, the Bush years were nothing short of an unprecedented, well-funded, permanent protest against a sitting wartime president.

“Dissent is patriotic” became the all-purpose rallying cry for an ascendant political left that learned it could take down a political party by publicly disagreeing with it over anything. Any suggestion of the illegitimacy of a single protest was met with cries of censorship and intimidation.

Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, in conjunction with the media and the organized left, codified this bizarre take on free speech when many of her fans decided to protest her complaints about President Bush in 2003.

“Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all,” Ms. Maines told a London concert crowd. “We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.”

When Dixie Chicks fans decided to stop buying her albums, Ms. Maines’ right to consumer support – not her right to dissent – was trampled.

Similarly, Tim Robbins warned, “A chill wind is blowing in this nation” – just as he and his common-law wife, Susan Sarandon, joined hundreds of thousands of Americans in free and open expressions of coordinated public dissent against the United States’ participation in the war on terrorism.

Never once did the media or the Democrat Party impugn the motives of anti-war-riors. In fact, white supremacist David Duke and much of the out-of-power white-power movement similarly rallied against the Iraq war. But the anti-war movement was not maligned, Napolitano-style, using guilt by association.

The freak show that was Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink was elevated by the media and elected Democratic officials despite their ties to well-heeled partisans and extremists.

George Soros took down currencies and countries in his pursuit of even more billions, but the media never called him on it. The radical left was given a pass for isolating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) and small-money donors for public attack after Proposition 8 passed in California.

Norm and his fellow protesters and armed forces veterans join fellow everyday Americans like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in the Democratic playbook’s strategy of destruction by media. For years, this unholy alliance has gotten away with this and hurt our democracy.

I’m glad that the Democrat Media Complex took the tax day tea party protest personally. It should have. Its days are numbered.

• Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site and is co-author of “Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon – the Case Against Celebrity.”

President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests


April 21, 2009 4:00 AM

A Timid Advocate of Freedom
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

By Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.

The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
© National Review Online 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Are You an “Extremist”?


Are You an “Extremist”?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanamo, the Director of Homeland Security is worried about “right-wing extremists.”

Just who are these right-wing extremists?

According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” It also includes those “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.”

If you fit into any of these categories, you may not have realized that you are considered a threat to national security. But apparently the Obama administration has its eye on you.

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security “has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” But somehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere, somehow.

So-called “honor killings” by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN — its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored — the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing “extremists” who don’t like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

In one sense, the Department of Homeland Security paper is silly. In another sense, it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration — and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them.

Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration might be more of a threat than the people they are investigating.

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year’s election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.

Why such an organization? For what purpose?

Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?

Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that gets floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grassroots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration — and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama’s personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.

Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved

In all my years of watching news coverage in America, I don’t believe I have ever witnessed more condescending, amateurish, purely politicized reporting than what just transpired among the liberal MSM covering America’s Tax Day Tea Parties. The Tea Parties represented a very significant news event.


Return to the Article

April 20, 2009
MSM’s Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

In all my years of watching news coverage in America, I don’t believe I have ever witnessed more condescending, amateurish, purely politicized reporting than what just transpired among the liberal MSM covering America’s Tax Day Tea Parties. The Tea Parties represented a very significant news event.

Whenever close to 300,000 middle-class Americans put their productive lives on hold on a midweek workday, make original signs with their own hands, and travel miles and miles to stand with other private citizens just to demonstrate their anger with government, in more than 300 cities from coast to coast and everywhere in between, that’s NEWS. Yet, many local newspapers – even the Boston Globe for crying out loud! – pettily refused to even cover their local protests. When every news channel – except the only one thriving on the block, Fox – finally decided to cover the events, it was with derision, mockery and elitist condescension.

Note to MSM: This is why you’re going broke.

The puerile, vulgar humor of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, targeting the most clean-cut, rancor-less groups of protesters possibly ever assembled in the U.S.A., was the kind of thing one would expect on an adolescent playground when the teacher isn’t listening. I personally polled 16 friends and relatives, aged 23 to 66, and not a single one of them had ever even heard the sexually perverse phrase regarding tea bags, which peppered Maddow’s and Cooper’s primetime rants.

Yet, apparently, these two don’t even have enough good sense left to be ashamed of themselves.

Who raised these eternal adolescents?

The real cake-taker in my view, however, was the flighty pomposity of a previously unknown CNN “reporter” on the scene of the Tea Party in Chicago. One Susan Roesgen approached an all-American male, holding his toddler son in the crowd of protesters, asking an open-ended question, “Why are you here?” This gentleman proceeded to try to explain his frustration with Obama, citing Lincoln’s valiant stand for liberty, at which point he was sanctimoniously cut off by CNN’s know-nothing. Ms. Know-nothing then demanded to know, “What does this have to do with taxes? Don’t you know you’re eligible for a $400 tax credit? Don’t you know that Illinois is getting millions from the stimulus?”

If the CNN woman had been more of a reporter and less of a shill for Obama, then she might have actually allowed this Illinois gentleman to explain himself. She might have uncovered the reality that not many Illinois citizens are all that fired up over other Americans paying millions into their Blago-genic political system, via the Democrat trio of do-gooding tyrants, Pelosi, Reid & Obama. She might have understood that the Tax Day Tea Parties were more about liberty than about taxes, more about the Democrats’ profligacy and waste than about paying one’s fair share for the real purposes of federal government as specifically outlined by the U.S. Constitution.

Alas, reporting the facts was not CNN’s mission.

But anyone with half a brain already knew that.

This on-air “interview” was quite enlightening on another measure, however. It perfectly illuminated the sheer cognitive dissonance among the lion’s share of our too-disgraceful-for-words MSM.

They simply do not get it.

Perfectly akin to candidate Barack Obama’s exchange with now-famous Joe the Plumber, these liberal Statists, who see government as more loving than God, more able than Superman and more necessary than drinking water, simply have no genuine understanding of liberty or the individual spirit that kindles and keeps its fires burning from generation to generation. They are so out of touch with the American productive class that they honestly believe no honest-to-goodness patriots even exist in the current day.

Our media have convinced themselves — as has the entire Democratic Party cabal of power-wielders now in charge — that the November election really was a landslide of historic proportions (which it certainly was not), that the “change” moderates really wanted was what they are now getting (out-of-control profligate spending), and that they are now free as “reporters” to finally come out of the closet as the socialist elitists they’ve always been.

Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, “Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren’t out in the streets during GW’s eight years?”

Why indeed. The ordinary American — normally quite-silent majority — will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don’t get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We’re the productive class, the vast middle. We’re busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We’re the citizens doing the lion’s share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government — completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power — may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?

One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world’s slights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we – at the very least – believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.

Obama’s first 100 days has been the last straw.

Not only has this president pompously promised the wages of our children and grandchildren in a profligate spending spree that guarantees serfdom for the productive class, he has bowed, scraped, fawned and apologized his way across the entire continent of Europe.

He has planned huge and irresponsible cuts in our defense spending, promised to do away with missile defense systems and heralded the day he will disarm our nuclear arsenal, so as to set a nice example for the resurgent Russian Bear. Obama has obsequiously bowed to the Saudi King, some of whose own subjects blew more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans to kingdom come a mere 7 years ago. Obama has called off the Global War on Terror, yet has no surrender treaties to accompany this juvenile exercise in hating all things Bush. He has welcomed Castro, Chavez, Ortega, Ahmadinejad and Hamas with open arms, salivating grins and friendly warmth, while dissing our heretofore friends and allies, even making a rude point of telling Israel’s PM, Netanyahu, that there will be no face-to-face meeting with him next month in D.C.

So, when our liberal MSM confronts middle America, now on the march, and demands to know what there is not to like about this new Administration, they demonstrate the most out-of-touch elitism ever to disgrace American media. It is cognitive dissonance on steroids. And what’s worse, their liberal Statist myopia prevents their even realizing it.

Never in the history of this grand Republic of ours, has a group so demanded massive intervention as this media does now.

And I think they may be about to get it from the folks they most hate – genuine American patriots.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at

Page Printed from: at April 20, 2009 – 05:54:44 PM EDT

Conservatives Have Had Enough of Statism


Return to the Article

April 17, 2009
Not Something We Do?
By Matt Spivey

The Tax Day Tea Parties may have been a surprise to some conservatives, but the groundwell is very real.

A few months ago, as bailouts were booming and budgets were busting, I wondered how long it would take for conservatives to actively respond. Outside of the world of talk radio and opinion columns, I felt the American public needed a voice, a venue, and a vindication for the debt-multiplying and partisan-flaunting policies imposed upon us by our new president. To my dismay, however, my questions were largely ignored.

As one conservative colleague told me, protesting is “not something we do.”

But yesterday I was never so happy to see a conservative proven wrong.

At the Tax Day Tea Party in Phoenix, thousands of protesters congregated on the lawn of the State Capitol. And as the event kicked off, humor played an important role in setting an energetic tone. Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth announced, “It’s strange to see this many employed protesters.” Noting the 5:30 p.m. start, one sign read, “I protest at night because I work during the day!” A mock teleprompter garnered laughs, as did a sign that read, “See what happens when you give a Junior Senator a credit card!”

But while smiles were on the mouths of Phoenix residents Wednesday night, frustration was in their eyes.

Their purposes varied, but their passions shone brightly. Many were outraged at the excessive spending on government programs, some detested the bank and business bailouts, and others simply proclaimed their love for liberty.

A concern for our nation’s children also weighed heavily for many in the crowd. “I’m here for my children,” a man with three young ones told me. “They don’t deserve to be in debt from the failure of others. I work hard to provide for them, not to provide for the government’s mistakes.”

One small boy held a sign that read, “I’m only ten years old and already in financial ruin.” Another one read, “Obama gives his kids a puppy and gives my kids debt.”

But among the many messages supported at the rally, one common theme seemed to prevail. The protesters of Phoenix are tired of the stupor of our leaders regarding the disintegration of personal responsibility. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi cannot comprehend that people actually exist in this country that prefer to take care of themselves. There are actually Americans that believe in earning a keep and keeping what is earned. There are even Americans that — gasp! — enjoy helping each other without government assistance.

And those that do believe in these crazy ideals are labeled as freaks by the media. And even worse by our own government.

The crowd’s disgust was palpable concerning this week’s Department of Homeland Security report that warned of the “right-wing extremism” of veterans, border advocates, tax protesters, and small government conservatives. During his turn at the mic, conservative talk show host Barry Young asked, “Anybody here go to church? Anybody pro-life?” Upon hearing enthusiastic cheers, he replied, “Boy, we’ve got a fierce set of extremists out here!” With a more serious reaction, one man I spoke to, a serviceman of our country for 33 years, sadly commented, “I went to bed a veteran and somehow woke up a terrorist.”

The painful irony of the DHS statement is that it is Arizona’s own ex-governor, Janet Napolitano, heads the department that released the malicious statement. And to add insult to injury, Napolitano’s replacement, Republican Jan Brewer, is planning on raising local taxes on Arizona residents. Phoenix had a lot to be angry about Wednesday.

“We’re not protesting taxes,” one woman told me. “We’re protesting the irresponsibility of individuals, businesses, and our government.” “Free markets — not free loaders” was a common message on posters. The recent actions of the government are like a punch in the face of hardworking Americans who take pride in self-reliance.

And it is the commonness and simplicity in the lifestyle and attitude of these Americans that is truly inspiring. It is the average independence that New York City and San Francisco do not understand. It is the heartbeat of personal pride that not only drives these citizens today, but has driven citizens since the formation of our republic.

The beauty of today was found under hard hats and cowboy hats, in work boots and flip flops, on the experienced faces of grandfathers and the innocent cheeks of children. Some were draped in flags, a few wore colonial garb. But no hint of violence was found amidst the multitudes. No broken windows, no fires, no outrageous demonstrations. Civil voices with a vigorous message. Respectful protest with a passionate vision.

I saw mechanics and firemen, teachers and businessmen, long-bearded bikers and short-haired Marines all standing side by side with a united goal. All ages and all races together. The future of our nation is tenuous on a number of fronts, but today’s protesters showed they are ready for the next step. “Is it 2012 yet?” read one sign. “The next election starts today,” read another.

But I still needed to know if conservatives should start adding “protester” to their long list of honorable qualities. One grandmother had this to say: “We aren’t angry people who normally protest things. But when the government gets out of hand, our anger will definitely be heard. We may not protest on every issue like a lot of liberals, but to assume we’ll never protest is crazy. Today proves that.”

A nearby sign echoed that sentiment: “First time protester, long time taxpayer. Enough is enough.”

We may not have much practice at this protesting stuff, but it appears we do it pretty well.

Page Printed from: at April 19, 2009 – 02:17:12 PM EDT

Saving The Republic


Return to the Article

April 17, 2009
Saving the Republic
By Larrey Anderson

“What can we do to win back our country?” Conservatives are asking themselves that question — with increasing urgency — every day. They are desperately groping for a way to stop the twin avalanches of deficit spending and socialist programs that are hurtling down and shattering the once great mountain of a free republic that was the United States of America.

Most of the conservative remedies offered to date (including mine) have been specific policy recommendations: cutting taxes, imposing term limits, or reforming entitlement programs.

Something is missing in these propositions. Conservatives have some good suggestions for how to fix our runaway government — but we have failed to convincingly address the issue of why the government needs to be fixed in the first place.

This article is all about the why.[i] Understanding why America is America (and not some third world country) is crucial knowledge. The why of America is information that must be not only be understood by conservatives; the “why” must be promulgated and shared with all of our fellow citizens before conservatives can convince their fellow citizens the need for the “how” — for adopting any specific conservative solutions.

There are three “whys” that ground America’s historical success and prosperity. They are tradition, the Constitution, and education. These three concepts are interrelated and interdependent. If one of them falls then all three fall. And, at least at this moment in time, all three are in jeopardy — not only of falling — they are in danger of being destroyed.

Tradition: Private Property

Stated as simply as possible, America was founded on two truths. Both of these propositions were manifested in traditions that were established initially by the observation and practice of Judeo-Christian principles and then, over several centuries, were further developed under British common law. The first, and the most important tradition, was the right to private property.

John Locke, the British philosopher, explained the importance of the right to property as the foundation of any secure and free political regime:

Men, therefore, in a society having property, they have such a right to goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their consent; without this they have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he please against my consent. Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or a take any part of them at pleasure.[ii]

Locke stumbled upon a fascinating political truth. The stability of any polity is directly related to the government’s ability to protect its citizens’ rights to buy, sell, own, exchange and/or keep their private property.

The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has done groundbreaking research that has proven the John Locke was correct. Professor de Soto’s monumental book, The Mystery of Capital, explains in shocking detail what happens when governments hinder, refuse to protect, or actively intervene in preventing the free exchange of private property.

In his review of de Soto’s great work, Thomas Sowell gives us this insight into the results of incongruous governmental meddling with private property:

Third World peoples “have houses but not titles, crops but not deeds, businesses but not statutes of incorporation.” Why then do they not get legal titles? Because it can be an unbelievable ordeal, especially for people with little education and in countries where red tape is virtually boundless.

When bureaucracy and frustrating legal systems drive economic activities underground, the losers are not simply those engaged in these activities. The whole country loses when legal property rights are not readily available because investment is stifled.

De Soto gives this stunning example:

In Egypt, the person who wants to acquire and legally register a lot on state-owned desert land must wind his way through at least 77 bureaucratic procedures at 31 public and private agencies. This can take anywhere from 5 to 14 years. To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require 6 to 11 years of bureaucratic wrangling.

America, until just a few months ago, had a two hundred year tradition of protecting the free exchange of property between its citizens. One of the most important aspects of that process of exchange is called bankruptcy. If a business fails, the property or assets of that business are offered for sale to other citizens or businesses.[iii]

In other words, the state, in a self-governed and stable society, does not enter into the business of saving businesses. In a free society, the government allows its citizens to “sift through” the remains of a failed enterprise and to either restart the business or to salvage whatever valuable assets remain in the failed enterprise.

But rather than let the market place sort out the value of the abandoned homes, the heavily mortgaged properties, and the over promised benefits that resulted from the burst of the “housing bubble,” the collapse of the auto makers, and the incompetence of the insurance industry, many Americans seem more than willing to put the federal government in charge of “solving” these problems.

In allowing the government to not only intervene, but actually purchase, these failed businesses and at risk assets, Americans have abandoned the most important and cherished tradition that grounds our freedom: the right to property.

The ultimate result of this kind of capitulation by the citizens to the state has been known for centuries. Once the government becomes involved in the actual distribution of private assets the result is always the same: corruption, ineptitude, injustice and tyranny:

Then the LORD said to Elijah, the prophet from Tishbe, “Go to King Ahab of Samaria. You will find him in Naboth’s vineyard, about to take possession of it. Tell him that I, the LORD, say to him, ‘After murdering the man, are you taking over his property as well?’ Tell him that this is what I say: ‘In the very place that the dogs licked up Naboth’s blood they will lick up your blood!'[iv]

Read the entire story of the state’s seizure of Naboth’s property. Many citizens of Jezreel were complicit in the king’s successful attempt to kill Naboth and take his vineyard. The parallel between the biblical story of Naboth’s vineyard to our government’s current “bailouts” (rapidly turning into buyouts) is stunning.

Tradition: Privacy

I have argued at length elsewhere that the right to privacy can only exist in tandem with, as an addendum to, and as a corollary of the right of property. Put as simply as possible — privacy takes place. And it must have a private setting in order to take place. As I have demonstrated, the venue, that is both sufficient and necessary for the existence of the right of privacy, is the right (and the sustained existence) of private property.[v]

When people lose their right to property they lose, and they lose it quickly, the right to privacy. We have witnessed, in the last few weeks, dramatic examples of this fundamental political truth.

Within weeks of “bailing out” AIG both state and federal governments demanded the release of the names of the employees who worked for AIG who had signed bonus contracts.

AIG employees’ lives were threatened and “concerned citizens” picketed some AIG executives’ homes.

Within weeks of receiving financial aid from the federal government, the Chairman of General Motors was forced to resign by President Obama. The right of the shareholders to hire and fire the head of the company that they own is an example of the right of privacy that stems from the right to property. (A contract is a private agreement between the owners of the company and their employee — the CEO.)[vi]

These are but two examples (there are others) of losses of the right to privacy that have occurred within months of the passage of the first TARP bailout and since President Bush’s infamous declaration, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

Abandoning free market principles does far more than increase the federal deficit. Abandoning the free market not only devastates free markets … it destroys freedom.

The Constitution

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the twin principles of the right to property and the right to privacy. In fact they knew that the two concepts were inseparable:

Government is instituted no less for protection of property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.[vii]

If the government protects the right to property, it protects the persons and their rights to privacy within their property (their homes and their businesses.)

The Constitution was specifically written to limit the power of the federal government and to protect the citizens’ rights to property and to privacy.

For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically itemizes the power of Congress. In fact, that’s the name of Article I, Section 8: “The Powers of Congress.”

So how many powers does the Congress have and what are they? You can read them here. There are less than 20 powers and the particular capacities of Congress are fully enumerated in less than 500 words.

That’s it — at least according to the Constitution that’s it. No mention in Section 8 of buying up auto companies, or bailing out banks, or providing medical services, or spending money on schools, or windmills, or building bike paths or … well, the list of what Congress has done, compared to the list of what Congress is allowed to do in the Constitution is almost endless.

So who has the power to do all of the things that Congress now does — powers that are NOT specifically listed in the Constitution? You do. And I do. And, to a certain extent, so do the individual states and local governments in the United States.

To emphasize and to make it perfectly clear that the new federal government was a limited government intended primarily to protect the property and the persons of the new nation, the Founders added a list of ten amendments that we call “The Bill of Rights.”

Of particular interest in our discussion are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Here is what the Ninth Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The list of rights granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 (the enumerated rights of the Congress) contains all of the “Powers of Congress” granted under the Constitution.

If any particular right is not granted to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, then that right belongs to you and me. We, the people, retain all of the rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

In order to make the Ninth Amendment absolutely explicit, the Founders added the Tenth Amendment. I like to call the Tenth Amendment the “And We Really, Really Mean It” amendment. Here is what it says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Founding Fathers really, really did mean it.


America is founded on the right to property and the accompanying and complimentary right to privacy. Our Constitution was written to protect these two most precious forms of freedom — the joint liberties from which all other rights and human dignities flow. These are the two simple truths that, for more than two hundred years, made America the most powerful and prosperous nation on the face of the earth.

We have failed as a nation to teach the majority of at least the last two generations of our citizens these fundamental truths. This is why we a loosing our republic. The Founders warned time and time again that they had given us a free republic “if you can keep it.”[viii]

The first step conservatives must take to preserve our republic is to understand the importance of these truths and to teach them to our children, our friends, and, yes, even to our political opponents.

Start with our children. Millions of Americans study the scriptures with their children — some on a daily basis. How many of these same Americans study the Constitution with their offsrping? The Bible and its message are available in almost every country in the world (including autocracies like Cuba and Venezuela). But God blessed only America with the Bible and with our majestic Constitution.

My advice for the millions of religious conservatives in America: read your kids the Bible and the Ten Commandments but don’t neglect reading them The Constitution and the Ten Amendments.

There are some great resources available for teaching our children the history of the founding of America. National radio talk show host Mike Church has produced an entertaining series of recordings on compact disc that tell the story of the struggle for independence and the founding of America. The series includes The Road to Independence and The Fame of Our Fathers.

These fascinating, and historically accurate, CDs are a must for home school history classes. Children who attend public schools would greatly benefit listening to these CDs. New citizens, or adult Americans who don’t know much about early American history, will enjoy them as well.[ix]

Take the time to sit down with your like-minded friends and study the Constitution. Are you in a book club? Insist that the Federalist Papers be included on the reading list.

Learn the Constitution. Understand the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. In an argument with any one on the far left, being able to refer to specific sections of the greatest political document ever written is the most effective debating tool you can possess. Be able to show them that the Constitution is all that stands between their inalienable rights to property and privacy … and tyranny.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released.


[i] My suggestions in this article for solving the current crisis in our republic are very simple and straightforward. But the principles behind these ideas are not so simple. My proposals are based on philosophical premises that I have published over the last several months here on American Thinker. I suggest that the reader review these articles before considering the manifesto that follows: (1) Privacy and Property Rights; (2) The Myth of Relativism and the Cult of Tolerance; and (3) Intellectuals and Philosophy vs. Conservatives and Tradition.

[ii] Second Treatise, Section 138.

[iii] The state’s role in the redistribution of the assets of a failed enterprise is fair and just judicial oversight of the sale of the remaining holdings. It is also important to realize that a corporation is a legal fiction created to be able to allow a business to act as a single “person” to buy and sell property, to provide goods and services, and to enter into the contractual obligations to do so.

[iv] I Kings 21: 17-19. See also Exodus 22:1-4.

[v] Here was the summation of that argument: “Whenever the state restricts a private activity, thus limiting the activity to a specific site, if there is no private property (no specific site) then there is no place in which that activity can occur. Prisons are not private.”

[vi] See note 3. The traditional (and constitutional) role of government in contract law is to act as a referee (once again through the judiciary) when one side or the other fails to keep its part of the contractual agreement.

[vii] The Federalist, Number 54.

[viii] The Federalist, Number 10 outlines the need for continuing education and the frailty of a free republic to be captured by “factions.”

[ix] Professional actors read from the actual historical letters and documents. The CDs were recorded with convincing sound effects and a stunning musical score.

Page Printed from: at April 19, 2009 – 02:12:21 PM EDT

But when the adversary is not nature, but fellow men, rationality as normally considered is out the window. We live in a world where Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are taken seriously. Where Libya is given the chair on the Human Rights commission at the UN. Where heads of state genuinely believe sheep farts are dangerously heating up the planet.


Return to the Article

April 05, 2009
Stop Making Sense
By Randall Hoven

I’ve been suffering under the wrong paradigm for decades. All this time I thought what mattered was “reality.” How wrong I’ve been. Somewhere in the transition from trying to wade through the CBO’s analysis of President Obama’s budget and putting it aside to read some James Thurber, I had an epiphany.

Before my epiphany, if you had asked me about some problem or policy, I would have tried to analyze it — asking, or even answering, what I thought were pertinent questions. Say we were talking health care. I would have looked up what we spend on it, life expectancies, infant mortality, disease survival rates, etc. I might have wanted to know what the cost drivers are, how much we spend for each year of life saved, how we compare to other countries. That sort of thing.

How silly of me. And how futile. The answer is simple: propose a “New Era of Responsible Health Care”, fund it with a trillion dollars and assign a czar.

I don’t say this totally facetiously. Many of us have overrated reality. Or more exactly, we’ve been distracted with the wrong kind of reality.

Prior to my epiphany, I thought of reality as, say, things that can kill you. Disease. Hunger and famine. Bad accidents. Murder. War.

Close, but not quite. If we think more along the lines of murder and war, we’re getting closer to the reality that counts. I had a tendency to think that dealing with “reality” meant, primarily, the struggle of man against nature. Wrong. The reality that really counts is man against man.

Here’s an example from pre-history. Say you were the guy or gal who invented “agriculture.” You found plants had seeds; you could plant them where you like, water them, tend them, protect them from bugs and varmints as best you can. And once their fruits ripened, you’d have a feast for yourself, your family and maybe your tribe. Months of hard and careful work would pay off.

Except the guys from the next tribe, who didn’t plant a damn thing and wouldn’t have a clue how you did it, would show up just as your little crop ripened and take it from you by force. All your bright ideas, your months of labor, your trials and errors — all gone in a day. And maybe your mate and kids too, to be slaves, or worse.

The answer is to think less about tomatoes and more about how to deal with the tribe next door. In fact, you start thinking: maybe you should just pillage those guys. Instead of using your brain to think about what makes tomatoes grow, you use it to make better weapons. The agricultural revolution would have to wait a few more millennia.

And the rest is history.

When dealing with other men, if you can’t just kill them, you need to deal with what is inside their heads, which has almost nothing to do with “reality” in the sense of man against nature. If the other man thinks you are a devil who must be vanquished at all costs, it does you absolutely no good to know that you are, in fact, not a devil. And the things that might convince the other man that you are not a devil have nothing to do with, say, evidence, the scientific method, or looking up “devil” in the dictionary.

You share a planet with six billion humans who could, under the right circumstances, either butcher you and your family, or help you grow next season’s crop. Next to dealing with them, knowing how to go from seed to fruit is a footnote.

If we can just hold off our fellow butchers for a few decades at a time, we can achieve awesome things. Transportation across continents, between continents, in the air, through space and to the moon. Communication in words, sounds, and pictures, almost anywhere and everywhere at the speed of light. The eradication or near eradication of multiple diseases, more than a doubling of life expectancies and making child birth almost certainly survivable for both mother and child. Making food production so efficient that all of us can be fed by the efforts of 2% of us using 2% of the land.

Real things like famine and disease are actually pretty well taken care of, believe it or not. The Bible warns of famine, pestilence and war. Defeating two out of three ain’t bad. But that leaves war – man against man.

We’ve narrowed down our troubles. Neither small pox nor poor crops are really all that troublesome any more. No, our problems are now pretty much each other. (Inasmuch as small pox and poor crops are still problems in some places, see what the men there are up to.)

If you think man-against-man problems went away in ancient times, recollect the 20th century. One hundred million deaths can be attributed to communism alone. Add in perhaps 21 million more thanks to Hitler. R.J. Rummel tried to count 20th century human deaths caused by governments, not including wars between nations. His count: over 260 million. That was before the Congo (3.9 million), Sudan (2 million), Rwanda (937,000) and recent “famines” in North Korea (2 million), all since 1990.

Millions dead. Tens of millions. Hundreds of millions. Yet modern governments are more concerned about sheep farts than, say, terrorism.

If statistics don’t grab you, try out these excerpts from Communist officers themselves, via The Black Book of Communism.

“Seventy-five people were tortured, but it is impossible to make head or tail of any of the written reports… When I asked the local Cheka leader to explain himself, he answered, ‘We didn’t have time to write the reports at the time. What does it matter anyway, when we are trying to wipe out the bourgeoisie and the kulaks as a class?'”
“Orgies and drunkenness are daily occurrences. Almost all personnel of the Cheka are heavy cocaine users. They say that this helps them deal with the sight of so much blood.”
From Lenin himself: “With the help of all those starving people who are starting to eat each other, who are dying by the millions, and whose bodies litter the roadside all over the country, it is now and only now that we can — and therefore must — confiscate all church property with all the ruthless energy we can still muster… our only hope is the despair engendered in the masses by the famine … this is the moment to crush the Black Hundred clergy in the most decisive manner possible, and to act without any mercy at all, with the sort of brutality that they will remember for decades.” [My emphasis.]

For a more recent example, try this excerpt from The Fate of Africa by Martin Meredith:

“During a mass for some 500 Tutsis, a killing squad burst into the church. ‘The militia began slashing away,’ a survivor recalled. ‘They were hacking at the arms, legs, breasts, faces and necks.’ The killing lasted for two hours. Similar massacres broke out across the country.’ ‘Across Rwanda, church buildings where Tutsis desperately sought sanctuary became the scene of one massacre after another. More people were killed there than anywhere else.”

When we were dealing with nature, rational thinking anchored in reality was key. It led to those transportation, communication, health and agricultural advances, plus plenty of labor saving devices and methods. You might think it was high-minded liberalism that ended slavery. Was it just coincidence that an institution that had flourished for multiple millennia ended during the industrial revolution?

But when the adversary is not nature, but fellow men, rationality as normally considered is out the window. We live in a world where Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are taken seriously. Where Libya is given the chair on the Human Rights commission at the UN. Where heads of state genuinely believe sheep farts are dangerously heating up the planet.

As Vladimir Lenin was commenting on “all those starving people who are starting to eat each other, who are dying by the millions,” Walter Duranty was the New York Times Moscow bureau chief saying things were just wonderful there. He won a Pulitzer Prize for that.

Here is the awful truth: it’s not what is true, it’s what you can convince others to believe.

Bill Clinton knew this instinctively. When most of us learned about logical fallacies, for example, we thought of them as things to be avoided since they could lead us astray — away from truth. But to Bill Clinton, those fallacies were something to adopt, since they are effective ways to persuade.

He beat an impeachment rap for one simple reason: he was popular. It had nothing to do with being innocent, or what I had called, prior to my epiphany, reality. He beat the rap because people liked him.

It’s neither the law nor the facts, but what you can get the jury to do.

While absorbing that concept, consider that about one third of the US population thinks the phrase, “to each according to his need, from each according to his abilities,” is in the US Constitution. One third also believes that the US government conspired in the 911 attacks. A majority thinks sheep farts have more to do with temperature variations on earth than the ball of nuclear fire the size of 1.3 million earths that is eight light-minutes away.

And now, as stock markets plummet around the globe and our national debt is set to triple in just two years, the number of people who believe we are on the right track has tripled.

My wife is fond of an anecdote about a fellow who thought he was dead. A person trying to convince him otherwise asked him if dead people bleed. The man said no. So the other person pricked this man’s finger and he started to bleed. His response was, “well whaddya know, dead people do bleed.”

I once knew a few things about physics, engineering and math — subjects mainly studied by foreigners now. But I never learned how to convince “dead” people they’re not dead. I apparently learned the wrong things for getting along in the 21st century.

Randall Hoven can be contacted at or via his web site,

Page Printed from: at April 18, 2009 – 08:50:38 AM EDT

So Long USA… Hello USSA

Thursday, April 09, 2009
The Death of America– Only 53% of US Say Capitalism Beats Socialism

So Long USA… Hello USSA

Rejoice comrades!
Congratulations to the liberal media, Hollywood, our fine liberal educational institutions, Democrats, and Commie lovers everywhere!

The glorious day you have been waiting for is near.
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
This is despite recent warnings from Russia and China.
Rasmussen reported:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans – by an 11-to-1 margin – favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
Of course, only 1 in 3 democrats believe in capitalism.
That’s a shock.

Related Irony… The same bloggers pushing this socialism are whining about not getting paid for their efforts.

posted by Gateway Pundit at 4/09/2009 05:14:00 AM

Barack Obama seems determined to repeat every disastrous mistake of the 1930s, at home and abroad. He has already repeated Herbert Hoover’s policy of raising taxes on high income earners, FDR’s policy of trying to micro-manage the economy and Neville Chamberlain’s policy of seeking dialogues with hostile nations while downplaying the dangers they represent.


We are now so deep into government intervention that constitutional objections are summarily swept aside.


Blog | Talk Radio Online | Columnists | Your Opinion | The News | Photos | Cartoons | Books & Movies | Issues | Action Center

Obama’s Ultimate Agenda
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 03, 2009

WASHINGTON — Five minutes of explanation to James Madison, and he’ll have a pretty good idea what a motorcar is (basically a steamboat on wheels; the internal combustion engine might take a few minutes more). Then try to explain to Madison how the Constitution he fathered allows the president to unilaterally guarantee the repair or replacement of every component of millions of such contraptions sold in the several states, and you will leave him slack-jawed.

In fact, we are now so deep into government intervention that constitutional objections are summarily swept aside. The last Treasury secretary brought the nine largest banks into his office and informed them that henceforth he was their partner. His successor is seeking the power to seize any financial institution at his own discretion.

Despite these astonishments, I remain more amused than alarmed. First, the notion of presidential car warranties strikes me as simply too bizarre, too comical, to mark the beginning of Yankee Peronism.

Second, there is every political incentive to make these interventions in the banks and autos temporary and circumscribed. For President Obama, autos and banks are sideshows. Enormous sideshows, to be sure, but had the financial meltdown and the looming auto bankruptcies not been handed to him, he would hardly have gone seeking to be the nation’s car and credit czar.

Obama has far different ambitions. His goal is to rewrite the American social compact, to recast the relationship between government and citizen. He wants government to narrow the nation’s income and anxiety gaps. Soak the rich for reasons of revenue and justice. Nationalize health care and federalize education to grant all citizens of all classes the freedom from anxiety about health care and college that the rich enjoy. And fund this vast new social safety net through the cash cow of a disguised carbon tax.

Obama is a leveler. He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. For him the ultimate social value is fairness. Imposing it upon the American social order is his mission.

Fairness through leveling is the essence of Obamaism. (Asked by Charlie Gibson during a campaign debate about his support for raising capital gains taxes — even if they caused a net revenue (BEG ITAL)loss(END ITAL) to the government — Obama stuck to the tax hike “for purposes of fairness.”) The elements are highly progressive taxation, federalized health care and higher education, and revenue-producing energy controls. But first he must deal with the sideshows. They could sink the economy and poison his public support before he gets to enact his real agenda.

The big sideshows, of course, are the credit crisis, which Obama has contracted out to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and the collapse of the U.S. automakers, which Obama seems to have taken on for himself.

That was a tactical mistake. Better to have let the car companies go directly to Chapter 11 and have a judge mete out the bitter medicine to the workers and bondholders.

By sacking GM’s CEO, packing the new board, and giving direction as to which brands to drop and what kind of cars to make, Obama takes ownership of General Motors. He may soon come to regret it. He has now gotten himself so entangled in the car business that he is personally guaranteeing your muffler. (Upon reflection, a job best left to the congenitally unmuffled Joe Biden.)

Some find in this descent into large-scale industrial policy a whiff of 1930s-style fascist corporatism. I have my doubts. These interventions are rather targeted. They involve global financial institutions that even the Bush administration decided had to be nationalized, and auto companies that themselves came begging to the government for money.

Bizarre and constitutionally suspect as these interventions may be, the transformation of the American system will come from elsewhere. The credit crisis will pass and the auto overcapacity will sort itself out one way or the other. The reordering of the American system will come not from these temporary interventions, into which Obama has reluctantly waded. It will come from Obama’s real agenda: his holy trinity of health care, education and energy. Out of these will come a radical extension of the welfare state, social and economic leveling in the name of fairness, and a massive increase in the size, scope and reach of government.

If Obama has his way, the change that is coming is a new America: “fair,” leveled and social democratic. Obama didn’t get elected to warranty your muffler. He’s here to warranty your life.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

A Rookie President


Blog | Talk Radio Online | Columnists | Your Opinion | The News | Photos | Cartoons | Books & Movies | Issues | Action Center

A Rookie President
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder– and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O’Reilly has been impressed by Obama’s demeanor.

There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes– and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives– and theirs– in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of “change,” Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them– certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by “social studies” or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama’s attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians– a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime– which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama’s visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama’s sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.