Deliberately Destroying America

By Alan Caruba | June 17, 2012 | Canada Free Press

It has taken three and a half years into Barack Obama’s presidency for most Americans to realize that he has been deliberately destroying America by driving up the nation’s debt and deficit, reducing privately held wealth, forcing millions onto the public dole, undermining its moral structure, and weakening the nation’s reputation internationally.

His latest lie is that “the private sector is doing just fine”, but the numbers tell the whole story and one can find them on an excellent blog, Economic Collapse, that offers seventy examples:

Rep. Allen West: ‘Family Values, Not Government’ Needed for Economic Stability in Black Community

By Amanda Swysgood | June 20, 2012 | CNS News

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army Lt. Col. (AP photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a freshman conservative congressman and former Army officer, said that the “breakdown of the Black family” is one of the most important causes of the economic disparity facing the black community.

“We are here today to talk about economic freedom, as opposed to economic dependency,” West said at a Capitol Hill forum Monday addressing “Economic Empowerment in the Black Community.”

“‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ in the black community are at 28 percent; that leads to a failure in education and that leads to a failure in urban statistics and revitalization,” West said.

A panelist at the forum, West said Black unemployment remains at almost 14 percent — almost double the rate for whites.

“This is a trend that has continued for the past 50 years, during both strong and weak economies,” he said.

Bill Whittle: The Vote Pump [Video]

Barack Obama will have ONE BILLION DOLLARS to spend on his re-election in 2012. Bill calls that chump change. Find out how the Big Government statists spent 22,000 times that amount on buying votes in 2011 alone!

Victor Davis Hanson: The Liberal Super Nova

By Victor Davis Hanson | June 11, 2012 | PJ Media

Two parties, left and right, are central to good consensual government — one the perennial check on the other, both within the general boundaries of constitutional free-market capitalism.

Yet the hard-Left takeover of the Democratic Party has meant that there is no longer a credible balance in our system, as almost all the tenets of contemporary left-wing ideology are blowing up, imploding super nova style — unsustainable ideas that are contrary to human nature and demand coercion for their implementation, given that they are increasingly anti-democratic and have to be implemented from high by an elite technocracy whether in Brussels, Sacramento, or Washington.

Far too much is always seen as not enough: Greeks are angry that there was too much “austerity” and not enough of the old borrow and spend; Obama is blamed for only borrowing $5 trillion for too “little” stimulus; Democrats threaten to withhold from the community-organizer Obama because he was not hard enough on “fat cats” and the capitalist state; in California, a 10.3% income tax is too low, not too high. When the remedy is seen worse than the disease, then the patient is indeed terminal.

Let me do a brief survey of the fissuring liberal world in which we live:

Obama Amnesty Plan: Catch, Release, Vote

By Rush Limbaugh | June 15, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I have a name for this new Obama immigration policy. In case you haven’t heard, folks, very quickly. The regime today told the border agents: “If you catch young illegals, let ’em go and grant ’em work permits.”  No more deportation of illegal immigrants.  They are to be given work permits and they can stay in the country.  So what this is is “Catch, Release, Vote.”

JOHNNY DONOVAN:  And now, from sunny south Florida, it’s Open Line Friday!

RUSH:  That is exactly what this is: Catch, Release, Vote.

A Republican Liberation Movement [Video]

By Daniel Greenfield | June 10, 2012 | Sultan Knish

The real lesson of Wisconsin is that the Republican Party is at its strongest and greatest when it acts as a revolutionary liberation movement, breaking apart the power relationships of the Democratic Party that stifle people’s personal, economic and religious lives.

The Democratic Party has made it its mandate to politicize and collectivize the personal. It has done this to militarize every area of life, to transform all human activities into a battlefield and to bring every area of life under the aegis of its power relationships. These power relationships form its infrastructure, fusing together governmental and non-governmental organizations, to form the true ruling class.

These power relationships act as dams, walling up human energy into organizational structures, they create the mandates that provide power and money to the organizations, which are fed throughout the infrastructure to create a massive cage of bureaucrats, activists and think-tanks that set the agenda, which becomes law, and is then enforced by governments at every level.

Obama believes the most important issue of second term is ‘climate change’

By Ed Lasky | June 11, 2012 | American Thinker

President Obama is quoted in a New Yorker column by hooked-in journalist Ryan Lizza as believing the most important issue to address in his second term would be climate change

“Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change (italics mine), one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now. He also is concerned with containing nuclear proliferation.”

Do we have the most obtuse President ever in the Oval Office?

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

By Rep. Paul Ryan | May 2012 | American Spectator

Also in Choice Symposium

• James Piereson – A Time for Choosing
• Stephen Moore & Peter Ferrara – The Road From Serfdom
• David N. Bass – The Millennial Perspective

The choice and the contrast in health care.

In March, as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of President Obama’s partisan health care law, the American people saw an event that could mark the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. At the same time, just across the street in the halls of Congress, they witnessed a powerful reaffirmation of the American Idea as the House of Representatives passed the Path to Prosperity—a budget for the federal government.

Our Age of Anxiety

By Yuval Levin | May 28, 2012, Vol. 17, NO. 35 | Weekly Standard

Romney’s challenge is to address the deep uneasiness in America and point the way to a comeback.

There is something very strange about the 2012 presidential race so far. The election comes at a time of extraordinary public unease, which clearly demands some response from the political system, and especially from the men running for the highest office in the land. But the two presidential candidates are both running campaigns oddly detached from what is rightly worrying voters.

If you were to judge the state of the country by listening only to the Obama campaign, you would conclude that we are on the verge of the long-awaited triumph of the liberal welfare state, and that all that stands in the way is a gang of retrograde Social Darwinists who somehow manage to be simultaneously nihilistic and theocratic. That band of reactionaries ran the economy into the ground for the sake of their wealthy patrons, and now they’re coming for our social programs and for women’s freedoms. Only if they are held off can the forward march of history proceed.

If you were to judge the state of the country by listening only to the Romney campaign, you would conclude that all was well in America until we took a wrong turn four years ago and elected a president hostile to freedom and prosperity. If we just correct that error and undo what he has done, our economy will be ready to bloom again.

Is GOP Headed for Ash Heap of History?

By Patrick J. Buchanan | May 17, 2012 | WND

Pat Buchanan applies latest racial data to realities of Republican Party policies

 Among the more controversial chapters in “Suicide of a Superpower,” my book published last fall, was the one titled, “The End of White America.”

It dealt with the demographic decline of the white majority and what it portends for education, the U.S. economy, politics and national unity.

That book and chapter proved the proximate cause of my departure from MSNBC, where the network president declared that subjects such as these are inappropriate for “the national dialogue.”

Apparently, the mainstream media are reassessing that.

For, in rare unanimity, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today all led yesterday with the same story.

“Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.,” blared the Times headline. “Minority Babies Majority in U.S.,” echoed the Post. “Minorities Are Now a Majority of Births,” proclaimed USA Today.

Real Hope for Ending Federal Debt

By Bruce Walker | May 22, 2012 | American Thinker

The per capita federal debt is $31,000 growing.  Much of Europe and many American states are facing practical bankruptcy.  As the creditworthiness of the United States and many states is been downgraded, the cost of simply servicing the existing debt will rise.  Add to these woes vast unfunded entitlements and money simply created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve System, and it is hard to see how even very aggressive Reaganomics can save us.

Government is so far in debt that simply cutting spending less is not enough, and raising taxes is foolishness.  We need to dramatically increase the sources of non-tax revenue.  Fortunately, the convergence of more sophisticated technology and rising costs for natural resources makes that possible.

Anu Mittal, director of natural resources and the environment for the General Accounting Office, recently testified before Congress that the oil reserves in the Green River Formation, spanning much of the Rocky Mountain Region, are greater than all the rest of the world’s reserves combined — perhaps three trillion barrels, with about half the oil on federal land and with half of the oil extractable at current prices.  The federal royalty by a rough estimate would be over $9 trillion.

The Left’s War on Language

By Timothy Daughtry  | March 14, 2012 | Townhall.com

Though we may be tempted to laugh at the silliness of the Democrats’ recent accusation that the Republican Party is waging a “war on women,” mainstream Americans need to brace themselves: This is but a mild example of the kind of tactic we can expect from the Obama forces during the 2012 campaign, and the left uses tactics like that because they work. As skyrocketing gas prices combined with unemployment and underemployment to trap American workers in an economic vice-grip, this administration cannot afford to campaign on its record, so out comes the community organizer playbook. For voters who think political campaigns should actually discuss issues, things are going to get even more bizarre in a hurry.

The particular tactic in play here is simple: Convince one group that the liberal politician will make things right by defending that poor, helpless group. Think “transfer payments with a little vengeance thrown in,” and you will have the essence of the tactic. This tactic is political gamesmanship at its worst, and it works.

You Cannot Miss What You’ve Never Had: The Vanishing Feeling of Freedom

By Daren Jonescu | May 19, 2012 | American Thinker

 The primary reason why it is so difficult to defend political liberty today is because freedom is a rational construct, and thus cannot be understood by the irrational.  Children, or adults whose moral reasoning skills are stalled at childish levels, are unable to experience it — they literally don’t know what they are missing.

This is why authoritarians of all stripes are hell-bent on producing and maintaining a society of childish citizens: dependent, trusting of the hand that feeds, obedient, pleasure-centered — perhaps capable of proficiency in well-defined tasks, but frightened, above all else, of being left to “fend for themselves.”

The Balkanization of America: Is Demography Destiny?

By Thomas Sowell | May 18, 2012 | WND

Thomas Sowell asks if ongoing racial polarization will spell disaster for U.S.

Now that census data show – for the first time in American history – the number of white babies born exceeded by the number of babies born to non-white minorities, the question is: What does this mean for the future of American society?

Politically, it means that minorities who traditionally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats can ensure that the country veers ever further to the left over the years, making America more like the welfare states of Europe, whose unsustainable spending led ultimately to financial crises and widespread riots.

But this is not strictly a matter of whites versus non-whites. Jews vote consistently, and almost as overwhelmingly, for Democrats as blacks do. Moreover, Asian-Americans are by no means as likely as other non-whites to vote for the class-warfare, tax-and-spend agenda of the Democrats.

Yet when all is said and done, the future political direction of the country seems painfully clear for these demographic trends, unless something happens to change the current correlation between race and political party affiliation. Moreover, even that may not be enough.

Could George W. Bush Be the Last Republican President?

By Myra Adams | May 4, 2012 | PJ Media

Is it possible that George W. Bush could be the last Republican president ever, or at least for the foreseeable future?

Am I crazy to even formulate that question?

Maybe not and here are 10 reasons why.

1. Rapidly changing demographic trends that favor the Democrat Party.

2. An education system controlled by liberals that churns out young liberals.

3. A population with an ever increasing dependence on government in the form of entitlements and subsidies.

4. A mainstream media that is overwhelmingly comprised of journalists who subtly and not so subtly spin the news in support of Democrats and liberal causes.

5. The influence of Hollywood, which makes it cool to be a liberal Democrat.

6. The growing power concentrated in local, state, and federal government worker unions, whose members actively campaign against Republicans on the taxpayer dime.  (See WI Governor Walker’s upcoming recall election for an active example of this.)

7. A culture where non-traditional social and sexual behavior has become mainstream.

8. A hatred for Republicans in general and a tendency to blame the party for “the mess we’ve inherited.”

9. A Republican Party that is growing increasingly white, old, southern, and male, while alienating majorities of younger voters, Hispanics, African Americans, gays, teachers, young professionals, atheists, unmarried women, and even suburban married women.

10. The internet and the growing social media phenomenon that strongly tilts in favor of Democrats.

Together, all of the above reasons are reflected in the latest Obama vs. Romney Real Clear Politics Electoral College map.

Currently with 270 electoral votes needed to win, the states that are either likely or lean Obama total 253, while Romney’s likely or lean states total 170.

What is even more significant is the list of toss-up states.

Below is a list with their electoral votes and a hyperlink to the latest Obama vs. Romney polling averages in each state.

Arizona (11)

Colorado (9)

Florida (29)

Iowa (6)

Missouri (10)

New Hampshire (4)

North Carolina (15)

Ohio (18)

Virginia (13)

Together these 9 states total 115 electoral votes, of which Romney must win 100 if he is to reach 270.

Consult your nearest statistician for the odds of that happening.

Upon examining this lopsided electoral matchup, one could conclude that Romney is not the strongest candidate the Republicans could nominate to go up against Obama.

Sure, you could say that, but you would be wrong.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Initial speculation spells doom for Republicans in November (theblaze.com)
• North Carolina a political headache for Democrats (dailycaller.com)
• The Electoral Ceiling in 2012. It Is Not Just a Republican Thing. (thewesternexperience.com)
• “Narrow path” red herring (salon.com)
• Democrats doubling down on swing states (boston.com)
• Ohio, Virginia key to presidency (toledoblade.com)
• More On the Electoral Ceiling in 2012 (thewesternexperience.com)
• No, George W. Bush Will Not Be the Last GOP President (pjmedia.com)
• Why Missouri doesn’t matter in this race (kansascity.com)
• Romney faces lengthy to-do list as likely GOP pick (dailycaller.com)
• Poll: Obama’s gay marriage push hurts him with independents (dailycaller.com)
• Barry Goldwater vindicated (dailycaller.com)

Cloward-Piven Strategy Working Perfectly — in Europe

By Zombie | May 6, 2012 | PJ Media

The now-infamous “Cloward-Piven Strategy” outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven in 1966 proposed a clear roadmap to socialism: get so many people addicted to government entitlements that the economic system collapses, and in the resulting chaos the populace will demand and vote for a new economic system in which everyone is supported by the state.

Sounds logical (if nefarious), and President Obama seems hell-bent on bringing it to fruition in the United States. The problem for Obama’s inner socialist is that he’s also required for appearance’s sake to attempt a rescue of the American economy using Keynesian principles. This self-cancelling combo-strategy is the underlying cause of our economic stagnation, as outlined in “The Obama-Piven Strategy,” an earlier PJM post I made last year that made some waves. What I noted back then remains true:

I propose that President Obama is simultaneously trying to rescue the economy using the Keynesian/Democratic model while at the same time also trying to destroy the economy through the Cloward-Piven Strategy. His two mutually contradictory plans cancel each other out, rendering all his efforts self-negating, and this explains why the American economy has stalled.

I dub this the Obama-Piven Strategy. And it’s the reason why we remain mired in a deep recession. We are neither recovering, as the Keynesian model predicts, nor is capitalism collapsing, as the revolutionaries hope; the Obama-Piven strategy ensures that we remain in suspended animation between the two extremes.

But something interesting happened on Sunday in Europe: Voters in both France and Greece, two countries ruinously addicted to government entitlements, rejected the “austerity” model of debt-reduction and instead doubled down on unsustainable spending sprees. France elected Socialist Francois Hollande as president, and in his acceptance speech he promised to increase government benefits and amp up “stimulus” spending programs — the exact things that got France into a metaphorical debtors’ prison in the first place. But exactly as Cloward and Piven had surmised, once you get 50+% of the population hooked on “free” government money, there’s no turning back — they will vote for socialists every time. The election of Hollande is the culmination of Cloward-Piven; the strategy worked, but in the wrong country.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Left’s National Vote Fraud Strategy Exposed (johnmalcolm.me)
• The Leftists are like Ideological Crack Dealers (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Frances Fox Piven: Yeah, we’re working with the Communists (glennbeck.com)
• Somebody Is Egging For A Riot: PIVEN USES CLASSROOM LECTURE TO LAY OUT STRATEGY TO ILLEGALLY OCCUPY FORECLOSED HOMES, DEFAULT ON STUDENT DEBT (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• Radical leftist Piven predicts Occupy heading into ‘trouble’ phase (glennbeck.com)
• Is the White House using energy to collapse the system? (glennbeck.com)
• Is Obama aiding & abetting ECONOMIC JIHAD against America? (bokertov.typepad.com)
• Free To Choose Part 5: Created Equal (thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com)
• U.S. Failing? Debt Higher than Greece Per Capita (gulagbound.com)
• National Insolvency Update (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Democrats unleash coordinated effort against voter ID laws (theblaze.com)
• The American Spring Bears Poisonous Fruit (gulagbound.com)
• New Black Panthers: Bloodshed and revolution long overdue (glennbeck.com)
• Frances Fox Piven Indoctrinating College Students To Be Ready For Violent Street Battles (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Calling on the Dregs of the Earth #occupywallstreet (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
• Yes, that is Alinsky student, #44.. (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• (A LOOK BACK – WHY?) Archived-Articles: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• New French face, same old euro crisis as Hollande sworn in (windsorstar.com)
• Mr. Hollande Goes to Berlin … and Beijing? (rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com)
• European Elections: And So the Left Was Right (themoderatevoice.com)
• Hollande’s victory long-term pain (lfpress.com)
• Europe Has Bet The Farm (zerohedge.com)
• Voters In Germany’s Biggest State Crush Merkel’s CDU (ibtimes.com)
• Sarkozy Out, Hollande In: Are France’s Election Results a Harbinger of Things to Come in the U.S.? – by Robert Ringer (robertringer.com)
• Austerity, bullies and broken spirits (dailykos.com)
• Can Hollande make friends with Merkel? (telegraph.co.uk)
• Be of Good Cheer: the Keynesian Welfare State Is Doomed (lewrockwell.com)
• David Cameron can use Europe to boost his popularity at home (guardian.co.uk)
• France worries about Europe, not Hollande (theglobeandmail.com)
• The €64bn question. Will Angela Merkel listen to François Hollande? (guardian.co.uk)
• After Winning the French Presidency, What Will François Hollande Do Next? (globalspin.blogs.time.com)
• Hollande warns Merkel over new austerity package (smh.com.au)
• Au revoir, austerity (macleans.ca)
• France’s Hollande to Focus on Growth Rather Than Austerity (blogs.voanews.com)
• Socialist victory in France: President Hollande (economist.com)
• Glenn inspires Frances Fox Piven to publish collection of radical writings (glennbeck.com)
• Progressive Vote Fraud and Intimidation EXPOSED (trevorloudon.com)

A New Declaration of Independence

By Eileen F. Toplansky | April 28, 2012 | American Thinker

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary to ensure that a President, who has led the country to near ruin and who is working to discard the basic principles upon which this Great Country rests, be peaceably removed it is incumbent upon us that we submit the reasons to the people.

Without any in-depth research or vetting about his background, Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44^th president of the United States.  There were voices of caution who early on exposed Obama’s connections to former terrorist Bill Ayers, anti-American vilifier Reverend Wright, crook Tony Rezko, and anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi, but they were laughed at as the people allowed themselves to be demagogued on hope and change.  Evidence continues to suggest that Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate is, indeed, a forgery.  This would make his presidential eligibility suspect.

Thus, the American people are at a critical watershed moment in our history.  The facts are in; Obama’s ideology and core principles are now public and exist for all to see.  We can no longer claim ignorance; we can no longer be naïve; we can no longer deny what is patently before us.  The record of this current president is a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Mr. Obama has “given himself the powers to declare martial law[.]  It is a sweeping power grab that should worry every American.”  Thus, “Barack Obama is very dangerous, the apotheosis of an insidious strain of authoritarianism that destroys from within.”  In a statement published on December 31, 2011, Mr. Obama states that “[t]oday I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.”  Though he claims that he has “signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” it was Mr. Obama who “demanded the removal of any and all protections for US citizens and legal residents.”

And like King George III, Obama has now established the distinct possibility of placing “[s]tanding armies without the Consent of our legislatures” — although sadly, in this case, the Senate passed this unwholesome disgrace.  King George III would be pleased.

In fact, Mr. Obama sees fit to bypass the “pesky” Constitution whenever it suits him, thus ignoring limited-government tenets which were at the core of the Founding Fathers’ belief system.  Thus, the NDAA detention mandate allows indefinite military detention not just to foreigners; now “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”

In fact, should Mr. Obama be re-elected to a second term, “our rights to speech, religion and property, and to privacy in our persons and homes, will be transformed.”  Mr. Obama has already “hectored Christianity on matters of conscience.”  Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, Mr. Obama is forcing Catholic institutions to pay for insurance covering contraceptives.  Why, when “religious liberty was weighed against access to birth control, did freedom lose?” — a clear intrusion into the first of the five protections of the First Amendment.  Bishop Daniel Jenky has likened President Obama’s health care policies to the attacks on the Catholic church by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin of yesteryear.  Dare we go down that totalitarian road again?

The onslaught against free speech has been heightened because of the “cooperation between [Mr. Obama] and the OIC or Organization of Islamic Cooperation.”  The “Obama administration stands ‘united’ with the OIC on speech issues,” thus silencing Arab reformers and anyone who makes any allegedly negative remarks about Islam.  The “repressive practices” of the OIC member-nations speak volumes about their restrictions on free speech.  Hence, “the encroachment of de facto blasphemy restrictions in the West threatens free speech and the free exchange of ideas.”  That an American president would threaten this most fundamental right is yet another resounding reason why he needs to be removed from office.

In December of 2009, Nat Hentoff, a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, asserted that “[i]f congressional Democrats succeed in passing their health-care ‘reform’ measure to send to the White House for President Obama’s signature, then they and he are determining your health decisions[.]” Thus, “these functionaries making decisions about your treatment and, in some cases, about the extent of your life span, have never met you[.]  Is this America?”  Hentoff concludes his piece with the revelation “I’m scared and I do mean to scare you.  We do not elect the president and Congress to decide how short our lives will be.”

Thus, we still hold “these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  And “whenever any Form of Government becomes  destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles … as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  We do not declare violent revolution but do demand the secure right to change the government through the ballot box.

But even this fundamental right is being seriously eroded as the Department of Justice openly and arrogantly dismisses genuine cases of voter intimidation with nary a word of concern by Barack Obama.  Although there is visual proof and  evidence of threats to the voting public as well as exhortations of death threats to a man on trial, Attorney General Eric Holder turns a blind eye.

By his selective indifference, Mr. Obama has created a racially divisive atmosphere in America.  He continues to promote this hateful attitude wherein the civil rights progress made in this country for all its citizens is ignored.  Surely, Mr. Obama has “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” as he engages in racial division, class warfare, and phony gender wars.  If Mr. Obama is, indeed, so interested in the rights of women, then why does he support Islamic sharia law, which demands second-class status for women?  These diversions serve to stir up resentments; unfortunately, they are successful in obfuscating the shameless actions of this 44^th president.

Mr. Obama is not content with taking the country down the path to “European socialism.”  His centralized control of the health care industry, his increases in entitlement programs, his redistribution of capital — in fact, his sweeping regulations that give the government new authority to control the entire financial sector — are reminiscent of Karl Marx’s 10-Point Agenda, and although communism was unknown in 1775, the signatories of the Declaration knew of the absolute power of the monarchy and would see through the oligarchic nature of this “ism.”

Amazingly, Mr. Obama has assured Russian leaders (who have gained their power through rigged elections) that American concessions are coming their way, but they [the Russian leaders] must wait because he is seeking re-election and he dare not tell his own people of his true intentions.  What credible reason would a loyal American president have for weakening American and allies’ defense systems?  During the open microphone conversation between Obama and Medvedev, a puppet of KGB Putin, the world learned whose interests Obama was truly serving.  Surely, this is “enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.”

Furthermore, Obama has “obstructed the Administration of Justice[,]” instead pitting one group against the other through “waivers.”  If ObamaCare is so laudable, why extend waivers in the first place?  In fact, it is yet another example of how manipulative Mr. Obama is when he tries to make the people “dependent on his will alone.”

Mr. Obama has ignored the laws of our country to impose an arbitrary and capricious rule of law by outside forces.  He finds it more expedient to pit the federal government against an American state which is trying only to enforce federal immigration law.  To this end, Mr. Obama has seen fit to “subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution[,]” which was so clearly enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as reason to reject King George III.   By issuing a Universal Period Review (UPR), the first of its kind, Mr. Obama has given the United Nations the right to dictate to Arizona.  Thus, the “stakes for our national sovereignty have just been raised.”  Despotic countries of the United Nations have now been empowered to dictate how Americans should conduct themselves.  Is this not reminiscent of King George III “waging war against us”?

Moreover, the Obama State Department ordered the “suspension of routine border inspection procedures in order to whisk (Muslim Brotherhood) Islamists into our country.  Thus, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party did not have to go through the normal procedures of inspection.  Recall that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission statement is “Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”  Negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhood is akin to negotiating with the dictator Hitler.  It is appeasement all the way.  Why does the Obama administration cavort with such people?  Does this not make him unfit to defend the interests of America?

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Romney Silent As Woman Says Obama Should Be Tried For Treason (buzzfeed.com)
• Obama: ‘2012 is Make or Break for American Marxism’ (gulagbound.com)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare (johnmalcolm.me)
• Barack Obama speaks out and declares support for same-sex marriage – The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
• The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Decision on ObamaCare (johnmalcolm.me)
• Lawmaker’s ‘How to Slap Washington’ Strategy (johnmalcolm.me)
• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
• #NDAA: This is happening in America? (alexanderhiggins.com)
• Obama Mentor Wanted Americans Put In Re-Education Camps (musicians4freedom.com)
• From Communism Day to Government Loyalty Day (musicians4freedom.com)
• In my humble opinion (100wnayelli.wordpress.com)
• Tennessee Sheriffs Cracks Down On Obama Federal Agents Gone WIld: NDAA Nullified And Kidnapping Charges Against Feds.. (12160.info)
• Nat Hentoff: I’ll vote for Romney … (wnd.com)
• A long way from ‘hope’ and ‘change’ (wnd.com)
• Virginia State Senate Passes Bill Forbidding Indefinite Detention of Americans: ‘Council of Governors’ member McDonnell could try to sabotage anti-NDAA law (destructionist.wordpress.com)
• Impeach Obama 2012! Join the National Campaign! (musicians4freedom.com)
• Chicago: the cesspool that gave us Barack Obama (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• ObamaCare Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics + More (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Judicial Watch’s ‘Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians’ for 2011: Executive Edition – Big Government (politicalvelcraft.org)
• Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
• Obama: More Flexibility After Elections (myfoxphoenix.com)
• The NDAA Provision for Detaining Citizens is Waived! Spread! (disclose.tv)
• The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Virginia lawmakers agree to reject NDAA (12160.info)
• Obama Sets NDAA Detention Guidelines (todaysnews4you.wordpress.com)
• Corporate Media Silent On Lawuit Over NDAA Being Used To Silence Journalists (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
• ‘Obama signed US into Police State’ [Voltaire Network] (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
• Obama Worse than Bush on Civil Liberties – Romney No Different From Obama (ronpaulnews.net)
• Pulitzer Prize journalist Chris Hedges suing Barack Obama for NDAA (vaticproject.blogspot.com)
• Piracy vs Privacy: Obama may ‘oppose’ CISPA but still sign it like NDAA (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• Romney & Obama, the NDAA & Ron Paul (revolutionarypolitics.tv)
• NDAA lawsuit – update from RT (video) (occupyblogosphere.wordpress.com)

Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans

By Steve McCann | May 8, 2012 | American Thinker

The 2012 election has often been described as the most pivotal since 1860.  This statement is not hyperbole.  If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama’s first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of “transforming America” in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress.   That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama’s first term is to make Congress irrelevant.  Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency.

During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshipping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.

The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration.  This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they “shall” do something and more than 200 times when they “may” take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action.  On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the “Secretary determines.”  In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The “Chicago Way” Must Be Stopped! (conservativesonfire.wordpress.com)
• Quote of the day: Obama tells Congress to get to work (theblaze.com)
• Obama Targets the Tea Party (spectator.org)
• Cordray: Say, what this CFPB needs is more power (hotair.com)
• Pelosi calls on Obama to respect states’ rights, end medical marijuana raids (dailycaller.com)
• Fundraising Apples and Oranges (whitehouse12.com)
• Twenty percent of NC Democrats decline to vote for Obama (ConservativeActionAlerts.com)
• Romney calls marriage ‘tender’ issue, repeats stance (firstread.msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama Loves America… When It Agrees With Him (wizbangblog.com)
• Obama’s views on gay marriage have been ‘evolving’ for a while (theblaze.com)
• The American People are Fed Up (johnmalcolm.me)

Government’s Trump Card: The Use of Force

By Robert Ringer | May 3, 2012 | WND

Exclusive: Robert Ringer says going the way of Europe is least of our worries

The two most poisonous words in the English language are rights and entitlements. They mean essentially the same thing, and both are subjectively created in the minds of collectivist dreamers.

Though the notion of rights/entitlements has been around since the founding, and has been heating up at an accelerating pace since FDR first introduced Americans to the welfare state, it is Barack Obama whom historians will credit with bringing the issue into the debate arena.

His nasty, Alinsky double-down style has caused millions of heretofore sleepwalking citizens to wonder if his fundamental change of America is transforming it into the kind of country they really want for their children and grandchildren.

Right now, Republicans are obsessing about “reforming” entitlements, though few of them dare talk about taking away people’s artificially created rights (a right to an education, a right to a good job at a “decent” wage, a right to “affordable” housing, a right to free health care … a right to just about anything one can imagine).

Even though rights and entitlements are really one and the same, the word rights has a much stronger moral connotation. A right sounds very official, as though it were handed down from on high, while an entitlement has a twinge of victimization to it.

But whether one refers to involuntary gifts from his neighbor as rights or entitlements, the bottom line is that they are made possible only through the government’s never-fail trump card: the use of force. And it’s not a force for good, but evil.

Mao had it right: Political power does, indeed, grow from the barrel of a gun. Patriotic Americans like to delude themselves, but the reality is that government can do anything it wants to you, your children, or your property through the threat force – and the use of force, if necessary.

Even so, most people – including some of the most sophisticated media types – tend to ignore what government’s essentially unrestricted use of force means in real terms. Their normalcy bias tells them that we have checks and balances via our three branches of government, so a Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Castro, or Chavez could never happen in today’s America. Alas, they are hopelessly naïve.

Whether it’s Waco, Ruby Ridge, taxes, silencing free speech, or regulating activities individuals want to engage in, government’s use of force is always the trump card. This was made evident yet again when a video of another Obama far-left appointee, Alfredo Armendariz, went viral last week.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Rights, Entitlements, and the Government’s Trump Card: The Use of Force – by Robert Ringer (robertringer.com)
• Pentagon trumps poverty programs (politico.com)
• The Life and Death of the Old Right (johnmalcolm.me)
• Liberal Imperialism (spectator.org)
• John Stewart’s 19 Questions for Libertarians Answered by a Constitutional Conservative (texaslynn.wordpress.com)
• Why I don’t Call Myself a Libertarian (rossbot.wordpress.com)
• Non-aggression is not pacifism (dailycaller.com)
• Left-Libertarianism, Utopian Pipe dream? (lurdblog.wordpress.com)
• New World Order? (spectator.org)
• Time for a return of the Cypherpunks, Crypto-Anarchists & Techno-Libertarians? (jroller.com)
• The Injustice of Modern Warfare – Part I (libertarianreview.us)
• What is libertarianism? – Part I: principles (politicsontoast.com)
• Why I am Not a Libertarian – A Libertarian Response (youngcatholiclibertarian.wordpress.com)
• Anne Wortham: American Conservative/Libertarian (gadabout-blogalot.com)
• Today’s Occupier is Tomorrow’s Teapartier ? …. Hmmm (youviewedblog.wordpress.com)
• The Good Arguments Against the Kochs’ Using Their Property Rights Over Cato Are All Burkean and Communitarian. They Are Not Libertarian (delong.typepad.com)
• White House expands reach of sanctions on Syria, Iran (stripes.com)
• Obama Quietly Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to U.N. Law (johnmalcolm.me)
• Panetta caught in one-world scheme Defense secretary says ‘international permission’ trumps Congress (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Alarms over Obama coup against Constitution surging (wnd.com)

Democratic Socialism

By Mark Alexander | March 10, 2011 | The Patriot Post

The Democrat’s Design to Demolish Free Enterprise

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared.” –Thomas Jefferson

Paraphrasing the esteemed classical liberal economist, Friedrich von Hayek, Future Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger wrote, “There is no difference in principle, between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and regulated economy.”

Not only is there no economic distinction between socialist systems in different political wrappers, ultimately there is no consequential societal distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism, or the most recent incarnation of this beast, Democratic Socialism. The conclusion of socialism by any name, once it has replaced Rule of Law with the rule of men, is tyranny.

Noted Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, no stranger to the consequences of statism, wrote, “Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit.”

Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a dominant-party state that controls economic production by way of taxation, regulation and income redistribution. The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty — the rights “endowed by our Creator” — primarily by refuting such endowment.

Notably, regardless of the populist variant of Socialism, the consequences of of all three are tyranny. For those who are offended by the comparison of Democratic Socialism to Marxist and Nationalist Socialism, neither Stalin nor Hitler were guilty of exterminating “enemies of the state” until they had ascended to political positions affording consolidation of power in their respective Socialist states. The terminus of Socialism under any label, is tyranny. As Von Hayek observed, “Many who think themselves infinitely superior to the aberrations of Nazism, and sincerely hate all manifestations, work at the same time for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny.”

So what do these observations have to do with the current state of economic and political affairs in our great nation? Unfortunately, more than most Americans currently realize.

However discomforting this fact might be, there is abundant and irrefutable evidence that Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadre are endeavoring to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” with a debt bomb, the future shockwave of which, they surmise, will break the back of free enterprise. From the ashes of that cataclysm, Obama and his ilk envision restructuring our national economy as a Democrat Socialism State.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• FRSFreeStateNow: “Socialism and Social Darwinism”: The Meaning of Socialism in America (frsfreestatenow.wordpress.com)
• Time To Junk Internationalism? (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)
• There’s no room for snobbery in socialism (akindofalexness.wordpress.com)
• About that socialism… (macleans.ca)
• Romantic Socialism, Marxist Materialism, Modernism (losthighwaytimes.com)
• Reform & Revolution: A New Socialist Approach (marxistdrivel.wordpress.com)
• New political rules open way for old Gorbachev project (rt.com)
• Finland’s left has become a victim of its own success | Laura Saarikoski and Saska Saarikoski (guardian.co.uk)
• Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman: Social Democrats? (professorbainbridge.com)
• Pirates are now the third most poplar political party in Germany (venturebeat.com)

Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle on The Founding Fathers and the Future of America [Video]

Related Articles

• Bill Whittle: Why We Suck (johnmalcolm.me)
• Andrew Klavan: Liberalism Exposed – Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes (johnmalcolm.me)
• Bill Whittle: How to Steal Power (johnmalcolm.me)
• ANDREW KLAVAN ON NBC’S EDITGATE: The Big Double Standard. UPDATE: Reader Jeff Johnson writes: … (pjmedia.com)
• Andrew Klavan Book Series Optioned by Hurt Locker/Twilight Filmmakers (prweb.com)
• Leading Hollywood Conservative Andrew Klavan Rips New Health Care Bill (prweb.com)
• Teen Review – The Final Hour by Andrew Klavan (hcplteenscene.org)
• New York Times #1 Best Selling Author Andrew Klavan’s Hot New Book Series Optioned by Twilight Filmmakers (prweb.com)
• Conservative Hollywood Screenwriter, Novelist, and Cultural Commentator Andrew Klavan Coming to Washington, DC and New York City for Live and In-Person Interviews (prweb.com)

What if the Government Rejects the Constitution?

By Andrew Napolitano | April 11, 2012 | WND

 Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and anchor of “FreedomWatch” on Fox Business Network. His most recent book is “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong.”To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

Andrew Napolitano asks rhetorical questions about all 3 branches dishonoring charter

What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation – in some cases the same human beings – that wrote in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don’t regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?

What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don’t think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people’s backs?

What if there’s no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us Obamacare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don’t want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?

What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?

What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Judge Napolitano Calls Out The Government And The President (economicnoise.com)
• What If Patriotism Means Abolishing the Government? ~ Andrew Napolitano on neo-America. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism?’ (johnmalcolm.me)
• Can the Government Force You To Eat Broccoli? (lewrockwell.com)
• Hope for the Dead by Andrew P. Napolitano (“The Government Murdered Jesus Christ”) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Can the President Kill You? (lewrockwell.com)
• Can the President Kill You? by Andrew P. Napolitano (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Is the CIA in Your Kitchen? by Andrew P. Napolitano (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Judge Napolitano Slams Obama’s SCOTUS Criticism: ‘No Pres. Has Questioned This Since Andrew Jackson!’ (mediaite.com)
• Andrew Napolitano on Obama’s Assassination Powers (reason.com)

You Don’t Get 1/2 of What You Earn. [Video]

Related Articles

• Live on YouTube today: Many questions ahead of Google’s Q1 earnings report (nextlevelofnews.com)
• Dangers of Continuing in Sin Creflo Dollar (nuggets4u.wordpress.com)
• Earnings Expectations for First Quarter are Modest (AA, GOOG, JPM, WFC) (247wallst.com)
• REMINDER: This Coming Earnings Season Will Be Different Than Every Other One Since The Recovery Began (businessinsider.com)

The Poverty of Equality

By Stephen Moore & Peter Ferrara | April 2012 | The American Spectator

Fairness requires that President Obama read up on his Kurt Vonnegut.

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

So began Kurt Vonnegut’s 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron.” In that brave new world, the government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage he had, so everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks to hide their good looks. The strong had to wear compensating weights to slow them down. Graceful dancers were burdened with bags of bird shot. Those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every 20 seconds, shattering their thoughts “to keep them…from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”

But Harrison Bergeron, who was far above average in everything, was a special problem. Vonnegut explained, “Nobody had ever borne heavier handicaps.… Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses.” To offset his strength, “Scrap metal was hung all over him,” to the point that the seven-foot-tall Harrison “looked like a walking junkyard.”

The youthful Harrison did not accept these burdens easily, so he had been jailed. But with his myriad advantages and talents, he had broken out. An announcement on TV explained the threat: “He is a genius and an athlete…and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

Harrison broke into a TV studio, which was broadcasting the performance of a troupe of dancing ballerinas. On national television, he illegally cast off each one of his handicaps. Then he did the same for one of the ballerinas, and then the orchestra, which he commanded to play. To shockingly beautiful chords, Harrison and the ballerina began to dance.

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the laws of gravity and the laws of motion as well.…The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it. And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

SOCIAL SAFETY NETS that provide basic help for the needy to prevent human suffering are easily justifiable on moral grounds. Nearly everyone supports them to prevent severe hardship among those disabled, widowed, orphaned, or even just temporarily down on their luck. In modern and wealthy societies like ours, there is broad voter consent to such policies, which ensure people do not suffer deprivation of the necessities of life: food, shelter, and clothing. This recognizes we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man. It’s always an open question how much of that should fall to private charity and how much should be done through government taxation. That said, the truth is, such safety nets, if focused on the truly needy and designed to rely on modern markets and incentives, would not be costly compared to the immense wealth of our society.

But once such policies are established, going further—taking from some by force of law what they have produced and consequently earned, and giving to others merely to make incomes and wealth more equal—is not justifiable. Vonnegut’s story helps explain why.

First, achieving true and comprehensive equality would require violating personal liberty, as the talented and capable must be prevented from using their advantages to get ahead. Under this philosophy, the most productive must be treated punitively through high tax rates simply because they used their abilities to produce more than others. What we have just described is a progressive tax system. Work and produce a little bit, and we take 10 percent. Work and produce more, and we take 20 percent, and so on. Some societies take as much as 90 percent of the marginal output, as the U.S. did after World War II.

In a society where men and women are angels who always put the welfare of others ahead of their own, this system—from each according to his ability, to each according to his need—might even work. High tax rates wouldn’t have any negative consequences because everyone would work for everyone else’s benefit. Society would be like one, large commune, with everyone working for the common good. The ambitious, hard worker would get the same pay as the one who sleeps in and lives a lazy lifestyle. Output would be high, and we would have almost complete equality of outcome.

The problem, of course, is that men are not angels. We are driven by self-interest-not entirely, of course, but enough that giving everyone an equal share despite unequal contributions would severely deter work incentives. This is why in all those societies that have tried to enforce the more extreme vision of mandatory equality, totalitarian governments and poverty have emerged. And, by the way, in practice these societies are not very equal either. Richer and freer countries tend to have smaller income disparities than poorer and less free nations.

Moreover, as Vonnegut’s story illustrates, inequalities of wealth and income are not the only important differences in society. If equality is truly a moral obligation, then inequalities of beauty, intelligence, strength, grace, talent, etc. logically all should be leveled as well. That would require some rather heavy-handed government intervention. It is not fair that LeBron James has a 40-inch vertical leap, and we have a 4-inch vertical leap (combined). It is not fair that some have high IQs, and others are below average. It is not fair that Christie Brinkley is beautiful, that some people are born with photographic memories, that one person gets cancer and the next one doesn’t. We Americans were born in a land of opportunity and wealth, while billions around the world are born into poverty and squalor. We won the ultimate lottery of life just by being born in this great and rich country. Where is the justice in that?

THE GOAL OF A SOCIETY should not and cannot be to make people equal in outcomes, an impossibility given the individual attributes with which we were each endowed by our creator. It is the opposite of justice and fairness to try to equalize outcomes based on those attributes. It is not fair to the beautiful to force them to wear ugly masks. It is not fair to the strong to punish them by holding them down with excess weights. It is not fair to the graceful and athletic to deprive them of their talents. In the same way, it is not fair to the productive, the risk taking, or the hard working, to deprive them of what they have produced, merely to make them equal to others who have worked less, taken less risk, and produced less.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Free Market Fairness (resnikoff.wordpress.com)
• Kurt Vonnegut: The Art of Fiction No. 64 (longform.org)
• Kurt Vonnegut, We Miss You. (marclougee.com)
• Kurt Vonnegut explains drama (timbauer.wordpress.com)
• Review: Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut (roofbeamreader.net)
• Books on Record: Vonnegut Reads “Breakfast of Champions” (wfmu.org)
• “How do humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all humanists do, ‘If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not? – Kurt Vonnegut ‘Render to Caesar, Extraordinarily (rodfusco.wordpress.com)
• Where did the time go? (itsthecolleenlife.wordpress.com)
• Vonnegut’s Letter: Slaughterhouse Five (myintelligentlife.wordpress.com)

How much is your country really worth to you?

By imperfectamerica (Diary) | April 9, 2012 | RedState

Over the course of the last ten years millions of brave men and women have served in the United States military. Those people, those fathers, mothers, sons and daughters deserve every ounce of respect that Americans of all stripes have.

It says a lot about both the country and these individuals that they still see something in the United States worth defending and that they were willing to sign on the dotted line to do so.

Unfortunately, that is simply not enough. Not that those brave men and women aren’t giving enough, but rather, the great sacrifice they have been and are making today is simply not sufficient to save the United States.

The United States is far more than a military power. In reality, military power is but a small part of what makes America great and a leader in the world. People around the planet have been flocking to watch Hollywood movies for decades. They’ve also been sending the best and the brightest of their progeny to study at our universities. During the Cold War it was Levis and Pepsi that Soviet citizens were clamoring for. According to Interbrand, ten of the ten most valuable consumer brands in the world are American, including names like Coke, Disney, McDonalds and Google. None of these things were accomplished with a barrel of a gun. From Star Wars to Big Macs to our private and public universities, people around the world see the United States as a place where seemingly everything is possible, where great ideas come from and where anyone can find success. Little of that is the result of American military intervention. It’s the result of accomplishments and achievements Americans have forged throughout the nation’s history… although winning two world wars certainly didn’t hurt.

The bottom line is, the United States’ military is strong because America is strong. Not the other way around. And what has made America strong is her people, the individual freedom and liberty they have enjoyed since June 21, 1788 and the economic strength that freedom has created.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• American Views of Military Power (timothymichaellaw.com)
• First American Troop Deployment Lands In Australia (inquisitr.com)
• AMERICAN SNIPER, by Chris Kyle with Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice. (HarperCollins Publishers.) A member of the Navy Seals with the most career sniper kills in United States military history discusses his childhood, his marriage and his battlefield experie (nytimesbestsellingbooks.wordpress.com)

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

Abstract: The great and calamitous fiscal trends of our time—dependence on government by an increasing portion of the American population, and soaring debt that threatens the financial integrity of the economy—worsened yet again in 201 and 2011. The United States has long reached the point at which it must reverse the direction of both trends or face economic and social collapse. Yet policymakers made little progress on either front since the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government was published. Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions. The United States reached another milestone in 2010: For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes. Related to these disturbing trends, publicly held debt continued its amazing ascent without any plan by the government to pay it back. As if those circumstances were not dire enough, the country is about to witness the largest generational retirement in world history by a population that will depend on currently bankrupted pension and health programs.

Source: The Heritage Foundation

		
View this document on Scribd

Related Articles

• Report: Dependence on government up 23 percent under President Obama (hotair.com)
• Rex Nutting: Heritage Foundation is wrong about welfare state (marketwatch.com)
• Morning Bell: Dependence on Government Highest in History (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• Unsustainable – 49.5% of Americans don’t pay income taxes (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Dependency Index Shoots Up 23% Under President Obama (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• Vote Obama If You still Do not want to work! (wdednh.wordpress.com)
• Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
• Open Thread: Foodstamp Nation? (newsbusters.org)
• Government Dependency (5ptsalt.com)
• Prison Planet.com ” Chart of the Week: Nearly Half of All Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes (gunnyg.wordpress.com)

The Supreme Bureaucrats’ Decision on ObamaCare

By Scott Lazarowitz | April 6, 2012 | Lew Rockwell

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: Can America’s Descent Possibly Be Reversed?

No, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare and the individual mandate will not matter, especially when, as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the states have a right to nullify the individual mandate – or all of ObamaCare if they want to.

The statists who rule over us, and their apparatchiks and propagandists, want to assert that the “Civil War settled everything” on issues of nullification and state secession. Those authoritarians suggest that President Abe Lincoln’s U.S. government war on the seceding states “settled” the states’ (and their individual inhabitants’) attempts at independence and the freedom to exercise their right to self-determination and the right to control their own lives.

The statists say that the federal government is supreme and the entire population must obey the will of our high-and-mighty federal rulers. But such an assertion goes against the principles of the American Revolutionaries.

Economic Historian Thomas Woods addressed these issues in his book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21^st Century. In an article that appeared last year, Woods addressed specific points made by the critics of nullification.

Of course people have a right to buy or to not buy health insurance. And yes, that right to choose is just as inherent and God-given a right as are the rights to self-defense and free speech. Just because the Bill of Rights does not list such a right to choose to buy or not to buy health insurance does not mean that such a choice is not a right.

Some people believe that the federal government is empowered to tell the people what to do, and that federal bureaucrats are our bosses. But the reverse is true. The states had formed the federal government as an agent to act on behalf of the states’ interests. The federal government is employed by the people of the states. The people of the states are the federal government’s boss.The Bill of Rights could not possibly enumerate all the rights we as individual human beings have, or such a list would never end. This was addressed by the Ninth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And it was especially Lincoln’s war against the people that reinforced the reversal of that original relationship into a centralized, federal dictatorship. President Barack Obama’s communist-like recent Executive Order to seize all of America’s resources, including food, agriculture, water and labor resources during non-emergency peacetime was a huge step further down America’s descent into totalitarian tyranny.

Obama’s recent Executive Order – in addition to Obama’s command that all Americans must buy health insurance – was just the most recent in a long list of federal power-grabs since Lincoln’s War on Independence. Here are just a couple more examples:

• The order via legal tender laws that all Americans must use only U.S. government-issued currency as their sole medium of exchange. And this despite the fact that the Federal Reserve‘s central planning manipulators have distorted prices, caused massive swings in the business cycle, caused constantly high unemployment levels, and devalued the dollar and its purchasing power. Such authoritarian dictatorial policies have greatly diminished freedom and enhanced the bureaucrats’ power to steal from us poor slobs.
• The order that all Americans must participate in the federal government-run retirement scheme known as Social Security, against the will and better judgment of individuals. The promises made by the government could not possibly be kept in such an inherently flawed and treacherous scheme. It is immoral for anyone to interfere with an individual’s right to save, spend or invest one’s earnings or wealth however one wants.

Regarding the Supreme Court, just how has this gang of nine protected our liberty or our rights (particularly, as noted in the American Declaration of Independence, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)?

Just recently the Supreme Bureaucrats approved of police strip-searching arrestees of minor technical violations such as parking tickets and so forth. In a typical judicial monopoly departure of common sense and in statist loyalty to police power, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” Obviously, Kennedy isn’t aware of how local police neanderthals are known to arrest as many civilians as they can in the name of revenue collection quotas (and for jailer pervs to get off on power trips strip-searching innocent people).

In his apparent love for the TSA and his reference to all Americans as potential terrorists, Justice Kennedy went on to state that, “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.” Hmmm. So we therefore better let the police strip-search Grandma or some teenager on her way to a part-time job, to use Kennedy’s obediently childlike reasoning.

And last year, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Bureaucrats approved of police criminally breaking into private property, and without a warrant, based on an officer’s belief that residents are flushing marijuana down the toilet (“destroying evidence”). “Oooo, someone has marijuana in his own home, we better break in and get him!” This decision shows just how much government schooling has influenced even the highest public officials in the land.

The common sense opinion by Justices would be to nullify the actual law that police are illegally trying to enforce, such as laws against harmless and victimlessdrug possession. And this common sense approach should apply to the Court’s decision on ObamaCare as well.

I am assuming that a President Ron Paul’s Supreme Court Justices would not only strike down bad laws or policies such as ObamaCare based on violations of particular Constitutional protections, but that they would also outright nullify bad laws based on common sense, the Constitution notwithstanding.

After all, the U.S. Constitution itself has been a flawed document from the beginning, and the product of Hamiltonian centralists who got the Leviathan monstrosity they wanted, despite the Anti-Federalists’protests. As we have seen, from Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush/Obama, and from the Supreme Court, the FBI, the CIA and police departments all over America, the Constitution has been ignored time and again. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has observed, the Constitution is itself “unconstitutional” in its multiple self-contradictions.

What the Constitution actually did was, instead of being a document whose rules and provisions were to protect the rights and liberty of the individual, it empowered a centralized, federal government to rule over the masses, and gave such an institution monopoly powers. Those monopoly powers go against the very core of the rights of the individual and the individual’s freedom to choose amongst various competitors in various industries, in health care, retirement planning, food and nutrition, and many other areas.

19^th Century individualist Lysander Spooner observed that the Constitution has “no inherent authority or obligation,” and that the Constitution’s alleged contractual obligations are to those who signed such a document, but not to others. (Members of the “Supreme” Court need to read more Lysander Spooner and less Barack Obama and Paul Krugman.)

Now, regarding Obama’s SovietCare and the idea of insurance mandates or government takeovers of the medical care industry (which has been Obama’s intention all along), Lew Rockwell noted that this socialized medicine is really “subsidizing sickness.” To me, health insurance discourages people to take care of themselves toward prevention of illnesses in the first place. An insurance mandate orders people to not act preventatively, and it implies that they should increase risky behaviors and lifestyles.

Unfortunately, rather than advocating personal responsibility and removing governmental restrictions on our medical freedom, politicians such as FDR, LBJ, Obama and Nancy Lugosi have gone the other way in diminishing our medical freedom and becoming more and more intrusive in our private personal matters.

But Hans-Hermann Hoppe had this better four-step solution to the health care situation in America:

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market…
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs…
3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about…
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

As Hoppe noted, “only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.”

But, regardless how the Supreme Bureaucrats decide, and in addition to our exercising our right to nullify federal dictates, the real solution to protecting ourselves from clueless bureaucrats and their totalitarian medical intrusions is this: DON’T GET SICK!

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his blog.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Related Articles

• State Nullification (johnmalcolm.me)
• Hoppe or the ‘Supreme Court’? (lewrockwell.com)
• ObamaCare May Be in Legal Trouble, But the New Deal Is Not (reason.com)
• Weekend Reflections: Nullify Obama Now ~ 10th Amendment Codifies In Law That ‘We The People’ Of The States Created The Federal Government. (politicalvelcraft.org)
• Santorum on Nullification (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Obama Backtracks From Attack on ‘Non-Elected’, ‘Judicial Activists’ on Supreme Court Over ObamaCare (sfcmac.wordpress.com)
• LearnVest: The Great Debate: Is ObamaCare Constitutional? (wire.kapitall.com)

President’s Health ‘Reform’ [Obamacare] Grows Unfunded Obligations By $17 Trillion

		
View this document on Scribd

The Truth about Obamacare…

Related Articles

• ObamaCare and DOJ vs The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (johnmalcolm.me)
• A Little Tutorial on Obamacare – Video (markamerica.com)
• Why ObamaCare is not EMTALA and still without precedent (teapartywit.com)
• The True Reason For Obamacare | Western Journalism.com (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• ObamaCare Creates $17 TRILLION in Unfunded Liabilities (adask.wordpress.com)
• ‘Obamacare’ Sounds Different When Supporters Say It (npr.org)
• Will ObamaCare’s medical loss ratio help or hurt consumers? (medcitynews.com)
• Obamacare in Action (ergonom3.wordpress.com)
• Obamacare and me (rkadlec.wordpress.com)
• Video: Obama Throws Grandma Off the Cliff (nicedeb.wordpress.com)

On Restoring American Individualism

By Daren Jonescu | March 31, 2012 | American Thinker

Much of the political crisis facing America today stems from a disintegration of the ethical basis of the free society.  That is why the core of the 2012 election fight is not tax rates, job growth, or the national debt.  These issues, though of enormous practical importance, are merely the policy manifestations of underlying moral sentiments.  The fundamental battle to be waged concerns nothing less than the nature of man, and the moral implications of that nature.  If public disapproval of particular Obama policies is to become a lasting movement toward societal renewal, then the conservative’s primary objective must be the restoration of American individualism.

The problem is that the warm quilt of entitlement and dependency which the left has so cozily tucked around American society not only restricts freedom of movement; it also effectively reinforces the anti-individualist morality that makes the left’s advances possible.  In the doublethink names of “fairness” and “security,” soft despotism of the modern leftist sort produces a siren-song promise of carefree mother’s love forever — with its corresponding appeal to a toddler’s moral myopia, the inability to concretize and respect the wishes and wills of other people.  Thus, creeping socialism ushers in a hitherto unknown ethic, which we might dub “collectivist self-absorption.”

“We Are the World” and “We are the 99 percent” are both products of this ethic, expressed as, respectively, self-aggrandizing “brotherly love” and self-aggrandizing slothful covetousness.  In both cases, the heart of the message is, “We are one; give us what we want.”  This sensibility is the very meaning of the “entitlement mentality” with which the left seeks to charm America into moral and intellectual submission.  The constitutionalist is therefore saddled with the thankless task of serving up the repeated splashes of cold water that might prevent the cozily blanketed moral invalid from drifting into the long, nightmarish sleep of collectivist authoritarianism.

The most indispensable resource in this struggle to renew the individualist ethic is a clear understanding of the moral terms of the argument, and a refusal to allow those terms to be redefined by the authoritarians.

Read the full article here.

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]