Uncommon Knowledge: Dennis Prager on Why America Is Still the Best Hope [Video]

Obama is Losing Racial Politics Game [Video]

By Rush Limbaugh | June 22, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Do you remember, ladies and gentlemen, last November I made a big deal of something? And I remain surprised. I can’t believe… And I really mean this. I can’t believe that this was not focused on more. Not by the mainstream media but rather by conservative media. This was a column by Thomas B. Edsall who used to write for the Washington Post and is now big at the Huffing and Puffington Post. And he had a piece in the New York Times, which means the regime wanted it there.

He works for Obama in a way. There’s a tie-in. And the piece, if you’re a regular listener here you’ve heard me reference it many times, but it’s stayed in its own vacuum. The piece was a tantamount admission that the Obama campaign had written off the working-white-voters block. They’ve just written them off. They were the bitter clingers. They knew, back in November, that they were not going to compete for them. They’re not even going to campaign for the white, working voters of America.

Obama the Reactionary

By James Lewis | June 18, 2012 | American Thinker

In a perverse way this is the most utopian administration in American history. That’s after all what Marxism comes down to, a stubborn fantasy that the world will flip into utopian perfection as soon as all the evil capitalists are in Siberian labor camps. The Soviet Union spent seven decades trying to eradicate capitalism at home and abroad, along with religion, family values and individualism. As a natural consequence, they ended up destroying hard work and agriculture, and every five years the Kremlin kept wondering what could have gone wrong with their “scientific” policies this time around.

Today Vladimir Putin kneels down with the Patriarch of Moscow in the Kremlin Chapel, surrounded by magnificent bling going back to the Byzantine Empire.

So much for eradicating human nature.

UN Plans to Expand the Phony Water Crisis … ‘Smart Water Meters’ on the Way

By Anthony Wile | June 16, 2012 | The Daily Bell

UN-Water Survey Examines Water Law Reform … Twenty years ago this June world leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro for an Earth Summit to develop an action plan for sustainable development. They discussed a wide variety of topics including climate change, alternative sources of energy to replace fossil fuel and the growing scarcity of water. This June, world leaders will gather once again for the Rio+20 Conference to examine the progress that has been made. – WaterWorld

Here we go again!

Leading proponents of “leveling” are preparing to descend on Brazil for the upcoming Rio+20 Earth Summit, hosted by the United Nations, and one of the items on the menu will be a re-valuation of the UN’s muddled Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) initiative.

The results will doubtless be a further weakening of property rights around the world under the guise of communitarianism and outright socialism.

Liberalism Is Terminally Ill

By J. Matt Barber | June 11, 2012 | CNS News

It’s been a pitiful sight – a sad week for progressives and “Big Union” Democrat-shilling thugs. In the wake of last Tuesday night’s devastating recall smackdown in Wisconsin, tens of thousands of “Occupy” hippies across the nation have simply been too depressed to get stoned and not look for work.

On Wednesday the White House released President Obama’s detailed itinerary through October:

1. Worry

2. Lie

3. Obfuscate

4. Golf

5. Fundraise

6. Worry

Indeed, the president has much to worry about. No honest politico can deny that liberals’ Wisconsin debacle likely represents a shadow of things to come – a precursor to November.

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.

Global Governance Utopianism and the Threats to Freedom

By Avi Davis | June 10, 2012 | Breitbart News

It does not take much to trace the lineage of the global governance movement.  Beginning with the very first work on international law, written by Herman Grotius in 1623, down through the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant and Karl Krause and to the mid- 20th century novels of H.G. Wells, a line can be drawn threading together advocacy of intellectuals and political leaders for the establishment of some kind of global authority to be placed in charge of governing mankind’s work and activities.

The State at the End of the Universe

The current round of class warfare taking place in this country can hardly be called that because it is taking place within a single class. This is no great conflict between the construct of a 1 and 99 percent, this is a civil war taking place within the 1 percent. The very name of the “Buffett Rule” makes that all too obvious. When your class warfare bid relies on 1-percenters like Warren Buffett and Elizabeth Warren, then what you have isn’t a class war, it’s an internal conflict among some of the wealthiest Americans over whether the future lies with an all-encompassing state or a looser libertarian system.

Buffett’s position as the champion of the government class isn’t as irrational as it might seem. For the average taxpayer, the tax code is a vacuum cleaner, but, for Buffett, it’s an investment. The more money people pay in, the more money the government has available to salvage troubled banks that he can swoop in on at a hefty profit. The average taxpayer loses money to the government, but Buffett gets back money from the government.

Good Intentions: Progressives’ Fundamental Misunderstanding of Human Nature

Progressivism: An Adolescent Ideology

By Arnold Ahlert | June 4, 2012 | Canadian Free Press

One of the things I learned growing up is that, in order to actually grow up, you have to be man enough to admit when you’re wrong. In one sense I feel sorry for those people who are unable to do so, because I know they’re stuck in a self-imposed purgatory of semi-permanent adolescence. On the other hand, when those people are running things—into the ground—and dragging the adults along with them, my sympathy meter moves back to zero.

Born in Crisis

The Meaning Of The Constitution

By Edwin Meese III | September 16, 2009 | Heritage Foundation

The Constitution of the United States has endured for over two centuries. It remains the object of reverence for nearly all Americans and an object of admiration by peoples around the world. William Gladstone was right in 1878 when he described the U.S. Constitution as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

Part of the reason for the Constitution’s enduring strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a government that exercises legitimate power by “the consent of the governed,” and it defined the conditions of a free people, whose rights and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated the structure of government and the rules for its operation, consistent with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in the Declaration.

Justice Joseph Story, in his Familiar Exposition of the Constitution (1840), described our Founding document in these terms:

We shall treat [our Constitution], not as a mere compact, or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself.

By the diffusion of power—horizontally among the three separate branches of the federal government, and vertically in the allocation of power between the central government and the states—the Constitution’s Framers devised a structure of government strong enough to ensure the nation’s future strength and prosperity but without sufficient power to threaten the liberty of the people.

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.

Socialist Thought Has Crippled Black America

By John Rossomando | Mar 19, 2011 | Townhall.com

Leading black conservatives lay blame for black America’s rampant poverty and other ills squarely at the feet of the socialist orientation of black leaders such as Al Sharpton.

They say the black intelligentsia’s rhetoric has created a defeatist and demoralizing climate that has robbed millions of black Americans of hope and has sentenced them to an impoverished existence.

“One of the tenets of the socialist ideology is to create a welfare state, and that’s exactly what has happened in the black community,” says Florida Rep. Allen West, the only Republican member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “I like to say we have sort of a reverse plantation going on here where you have people like Sharpton and [Jesse] Jackson trying to make themselves into overseers.”

Communitarianism: This is Your Future

From the Post Sustainability Institute:

Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural and suburban areas. Roads not being maintained to those areas, schools not being supported in those areas, law enforcement/fire/social services not being supported in those areas means a gradual movement into the denser city centers.  Add to that the increased cost of gasoline (manipulated), and the higher cost of energy (manipulated) to heat and cool statistically larger homes, and you have more pressure to leave rural and suburban areas. Reduction of energy usage is key.  Smart Growth/New Urbanism in Redevelopment Areas is the supposed answer: smaller units, attached condos, little or no parking, few private cars.  More eyes on the street.  Redevelopment projects are the implementation arm of the UN plan, and include rezoning of huge sections of your cities to Smart Growth zones. This physical manifestation of UN Agenda 21 is social engineering paid for with your property tax dollars.    These areas then have their property taxes diverted away from your services and into the pockets of a few developers and bond brokers for 30-45 years.  Result?  Bankrupt cities and counties.

It’s the Culture, Stupid

By Tom Tancredo | May 25, 2012 | WND

Exclusive: Tom Tancredo asserts election is about worldview clash, not economics

There is a growing realization in political quarters that there’s more to the resiliency of the Obama regime and his re-election chances than voters’ shifting priorities or occasional upticks in the nation’s economy. But the resiliency of the Obama constituency should not be a mystery: It’s the culture, stupid.

Some very large segments of the population are immune from any evidence or real-world news of Obama’s failures. The challenge for Republican strategists and Romney advisers is that this problem is far deeper than traditional Democratic constituencies such as organized labor and ethnic minorities. The problem for Republican strategists is that they have great difficulty thinking outside the box of conventional economic issues. They fear “social issues” – which are, of course, cultural issues – and have no contingency plan for dealing with them.

The bad news for Romney is that at least 40 percent of the electorate shares much of Obama’s worldview; their support for Obama does not depend on the direction of the monthly unemployment numbers. That’s not a weak base to build on, and the Republican task of finding 51 percent who will resist the free-lunch demagoguery of the left grows more difficult with each election cycle.

The World Wildlife Fund Targets Humanity

By Robert Zubrin | May 23, 2012 | National Review

To save the Earth, the WWF urges us to adopt the living standards of Chad or Sudan.

The World Wildlife Fund, the posh flagship of the global environmentalist movement, has just released its biennial publication assessing “the state of the planet.” Entitled “Living Planet Report 2012,” the publication bemoans alleged catastrophic effects that humanity is inflicting upon the Earth, and calls for drastic curbs on civilization as a necessary corrective measure.

According to the WWF, the human race is currently consuming at a rate that would be sustainable only if we had 1.5 Earths. Since we do not, overall human activity needs to be reduced by 33 percent to put mankind “in balance with the Earth’s biocapacity.”

Why Wright Matters: Obama’s on a Mission from God

By Tom Rowan | May 20, 2012 | American Thinker

When Elwood retrieved his brother Jake from Joliet prison, the two went on a pilgrimage to their childhood Catholic orphanage.  Their pitiful orphanage was under siege from Chicago’s infamously oppressive tax regime and was being put out of business.  For inspiration, the brothers were directed to a Chicago Baptist church.  The church was filled with laughter and love, song and dance, and miraculous divine inspiration that set the Blues Brothers on their own mission with a purpose: keep hope alive for Chicago orphans by paying off the corrupt Chicago regime.

The movie rendition of an all-black Baptist church led by the charismatic James Brown preacher, thrilling his flock with high-spirited love and devotion, is what gave The Blues Brothers soul.  This was what America imagined successful, loving black churches in Chicago looked like.  No wonder, then, that Reverend Wright’s scream for God to damn America is so jarring even to this day.

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.”

Progressing Toward Moral Darkness

By Gary Horne | May 19, 2012 | American Thinker

 A fashionable name for the left these days is “progressive.”  The use of this word hints that the progressive has already passed the rest of us and is moving on to some place where the normal rules of reality don’t apply.  Is it the Garden of Eden?  Atlantis?  Oz?

What will life be like in this destination?  Will the moral standards be compatible with the society we want?  How do progressive values compare with the traditional American ethical standards from the founding of the United States and from the major religions?

From the Founding:

The moral underpinnings of the United States of America were beautifully and concisely expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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.

Can we rely on the progressives to protect those unalienable rights derived from our nature as human beings?  Will they uphold the standards in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

A Hidden History of Evil

By Claire Berlinski | Spring 2010 | City Journal

Why doesn’t anyone care about the unread Soviet archives?

MARC RIBOUD/MAGNUM PHOTOS

Though Mikhail Gorbachev is lionized in the West, the untranslated archives suggest a much darker figure.

In the world’s collective consciousness, the word “Nazi” is synonymous with evil. It is widely understood that the Nazis’ ideology—nationalism, anti-Semitism, the autarkic ethnic state, the Führer principle—led directly to the furnaces of Auschwitz. It is not nearly as well understood that Communism led just as inexorably, everywhere on the globe where it was applied, to starvation, torture, and slave-labor camps. Nor is it widely acknowledged that Communism was responsible for the deaths of some 150 million human beings during the twentieth century. The world remains inexplicably indifferent and uncurious about the deadliest ideology in history.

For evidence of this indifference, consider the unread Soviet archives. Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London, has on his computer 50,000 unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War. He stole them in 2003 and fled Russia. Within living memory, they would have been worth millions to the CIA; they surely tell a story about Communism and its collapse that the world needs to know. Yet he can’t get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation. In fact, he can’t get anyone to take much interest in them at all.

Then there’s Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who once spent 12 years in the USSR’s prisons, labor camps, and psikhushkas—political psychiatric hospitals—after being convicted of copying anti-Soviet literature. He, too, possesses a massive collection of stolen and smuggled papers from the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, which, as he writes, “contain the beginnings and the ends of all the tragedies of our bloodstained century.” These documents are available online at bukovsky-archives.net, but most are not translated. They are unorganized; there are no summaries; there is no search or index function. “I offer them free of charge to the most influential newspapers and journals in the world, but nobody wants to print them,” Bukovsky writes. “Editors shrug indifferently: So what? Who cares?”

The originals of most of Stroilov’s documents remain in the Kremlin archives, where, like most of the Soviet Union’s top-secret documents from the post-Stalin era, they remain classified. They include, Stroilov says, transcripts of nearly every conversation between Gorbachev and his foreign counterparts—hundreds of them, a near-complete diplomatic record of the era, available nowhere else. There are notes from the Politburo taken by Georgy Shakhnazarov, an aide of Gorbachev’s, and by Politburo member Vadim Medvedev. There is the diary of Anatoly Chernyaev—Gorbachev’s principal aide and deputy chief of the body formerly known as the Comintern—which dates from 1972 to the collapse of the regime. There are reports, dating from the 1960s, by Vadim Zagladin, deputy chief of the Central Committee’s International Department until 1987 and then Gorbachev’s advisor until 1991. Zagladin was both envoy and spy, charged with gathering secrets, spreading disinformation, and advancing Soviet influence.

When Gorbachev and his aides were ousted from the Kremlin, they took unauthorized copies of these documents with them. The documents were scanned and stored in the archives of the Gorbachev Foundation, one of the first independent think tanks in modern Russia, where a handful of friendly and vetted researchers were given limited access to them. Then, in 1999, the foundation opened a small part of the archive to independent researchers, including Stroilov. The key parts of the collection remained restricted; documents could be copied only with the written permission of the author, and Gorbachev refused to authorize any copies whatsoever. But there was a flaw in the foundation’s security, Stroilov explained to me. When things went wrong with the computers, as often they did, he was able to watch the network administrator typing the password that gave access to the foundation’s network. Slowly and secretly, Stroilov copied the archive and sent it to secure locations around the world.

When I first heard about Stroilov’s documents, I wondered if they were forgeries. But in 2006, having assessed the documents with the cooperation of prominent Soviet dissidents and Cold War spies, British judges concluded that Stroilov was credible and granted his asylum request. The Gorbachev Foundation itself has since acknowledged the documents’ authenticity.

Bukovsky’s story is similar. In 1992, President Boris Yeltsin’s government invited him to testify at the Constitutional Court of Russia in a case concerning the constitutionality of the Communist Party. The Russian State Archives granted Bukovsky access to its documents to prepare his testimony. Using a handheld scanner, he copied thousands of documents and smuggled them to the West.

The Russian state cannot sue Stroilov or Bukovsky for breach of copyright, since the material was created by the Communist Party and the Soviet Union, neither of which now exists. Had he remained in Russia, however, Stroilov believes that he could have been prosecuted for disclosure of state secrets or treason. The military historian Igor Sutyagin is now serving 15 years in a hard-labor camp for the crime of collecting newspaper clippings and other open-source materials and sending them to a British consulting firm. The danger that Stroilov and Bukovsky faced was real and grave; they both assumed, one imagines, that the world would take notice of what they had risked so much to acquire.

Stroilov claims that his documents “tell a completely new story about the end of the Cold War. The ‘commonly accepted’ version of history of that period consists of myths almost entirely. These documents are capable of ruining each of those myths.” Is this so? I couldn’t say. I don’t read Russian. Of Stroilov’s documents, I have seen only the few that have been translated into English. Certainly, they shouldn’t be taken at face value; they were, after all, written by Communists. But the possibility that Stroilov is right should surely compel keen curiosity.

For instance, the documents cast Gorbachev in a far darker light than the one in which he is generally regarded. In one document, he laughs with the Politburo about the USSR’s downing of Korean Airlines flight 007 in 1983—a crime that was not only monstrous but brought the world very near to nuclear Armageddon. These minutes from a Politburo meeting on October 4, 1989, are similarly disturbing:

Lukyanov reports that the real number of casualties on Tiananmen Square was 3,000.

Gorbachev: We must be realists. They, like us, have to defend themselves. Three thousands . . . So what?

And a transcript of Gorbachev’s conversation with Hans-Jochen Vogel, the leader of West Germany’s Social Democratic Party, shows Gorbachev defending Soviet troops’ April 9, 1989, massacre of peaceful protesters in Tbilisi.

Stroilov’s documents also contain transcripts of Gorbachev’s discussions with many Middle Eastern leaders. These suggest interesting connections between Soviet policy and contemporary trends in Russian foreign policy. Here is a fragment from a conversation reported to have taken place with Syrian president Hafez al-Assad on April 28, 1990:

H. ASSAD. To put pressure on Israel, Baghdad would need to get closer to Damascus, because Iraq has no common borders with Israel. . . .

M. S. GORBACHEV. I think so, too. . . .

H. ASSAD. Israel’s approach is different, because the Judaic religion itself states: the land of Israel spreads from Nile to Euphrates and its return is a divine predestination.

M. S. GORBACHEV. But this is racism, combined with Messianism!

H. ASSAD. This is the most dangerous form of racism.

One doesn’t need to be a fantasist to wonder whether these discussions might be relevant to our understanding of contemporary Russian policy in a region of some enduring strategic significance.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Gorbachev Throws Support Behind Obama (peacemoonbeam.typepad.com)
• Mikhail Gorbachev, Ted Turner and Henry Kissinger Attend Cold War Dvd Series Screening Photos (binsidetv.net)
• Gorbachev praises democratic Russia (rt.com)
• Gorbachev to Amanpour: Cheney and Gates liked “Yeltsin’s plans to destroy the union…” (cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com)
• Former Soviet Leader, Nobel Winner Brings History Lesson To Classroom (chicago.cbslocal.com)
• Sean Penn’s joke about Berlin Wall doesn’t leave Gorbachev laughing (suntimes.com)
• Gorbachev on AMANPOUR: Russia is “an imitation of democracy” (cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com)
• Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev Says He Supports President Obama (mediaite.com)
• Gorbachev, in Chicago, on Obama: ‘I will support him’ (suntimes.com)
• Russia Case Study (freecasestudy.wordpress.com)
• Stalin’s son was executed in Nazi camp – archives (rt.com)
• We are fighting Islamism from ignorance, as we did the cold war | Simon Jenkins (guardian.co.uk)
• The New York Times–Walter Duranty–Useful Idiots–Denial of the Holodomor–Ukraine Famine Genocide–Videos (raymondpronk.wordpress.com)
• From the archives: Chernobyl, as seen from Minsk (spectator.co.uk)
• The TV Watch: CNN’s ‘Cold War’ Will be Released on DVD on Tuesday (tv.nytimes.com)
• From the archive, 9 March 1983: Reagan calls Moscow an evil empire (guardian.co.uk)
• Friday Image: Targeting the USSR in August 1945 (nuclearsecrecy.com)

Gary Casselman and Timothy Daughtry Discuss “Waking the Sleeping Giant” [Video]

The Psychology of the liberal Mind: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own Game [Video]

Related Articles

• Is Obama’s Narcissism a National Security Concern? (johnmalcolm.me)
• The Ed Morrissey Show: Kerry Picket, Steven Crowder, Waking the Sleeping Giant (hotair.com)

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)

So What Do You Think “Fundamental Transformation” Will Do? Just Ask Winston Churchill!

“A  love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.”  ~Sir Winston Churchill

Related Articles

• The Masters of Our Fate: Winston Churchill Addresses Congress (1942) (ghostsofdc.org)
• Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech (vintage-everyday.blogspot.com)
• Quote of The Day – Winston Churchill (assassinstairhopper.wordpress.com)
• Jan. 24, 1965 | Winston Churchill Dies (dokmz.wordpress.com)

Why Congress Must Confront the Administrative State

By Robert Moffit, Ph.D. | April 2, 2012 | Heritage Foundation

Abstract: The triumph of the administrative state has been made possible by the emasculation of the legislative power. Washington’s problem is not merely federal spending and debt; it is the arrogance of centralized power. The time is therefore ripe for a major national discussion not only about the size of government, but also about the processes of government. Americans have a choice: to be governed by the rule of law, as hammered out in open legislative debate carried on by elected representatives who are directly accountable to us, or the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us. The rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government—exactly what the Founders wished to prevent in crafting the Federal Constitution.

Steve Kroft of CBS recently interviewed President Barack Obama. In response to a question on his job performance, the President ranked himself fourth among America’s chief executives (behind Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) in the production of policy initiatives.[1]

Critics quickly ridiculed his self-assessment as narcissistic nonsense. They’re wrong.

President Obama is transforming American government. Few Presidents have enjoyed more success in enacting such a large policy agenda in such a short period of time.

• Within weeks of his inauguration, the President signed into law a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid.
• He quickly followed this up with the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus” bill), adding $831 billion to our deficits.
• In 2010, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd–Frank bill), providing for massive and far-reaching financial regulation.
• And on March 23, 2010, he signed into law the 2,800-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It is the largest single piece of social legislation in American history, expanding federal control over one-sixth of the American economy and the personal lives of more than 300 million citizens.

Combine this massive legislative production with his zealous regulatory program. While Washington’s bureaucratic regime has been growing since the early 1900s, under President Obama its growth has exploded. In 2009 and 2010 alone, federal agencies issued 7,076 final rules.[2]

While the President insists that his regulatory output is less than that of President George W. Bush, a closer look reveals that his “major” regulations—those having an annual impact of at least $100 million each—were more numerous. Since President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion.[3] Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.[4]

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are at the center of this regulatory storm. They alone account for 43 percent of all rules in the federal pipeline.[5] Of the 43 major rules issued in 2010, 10 were based on EPA mandates.[6] With the President’s health and environmental initiatives alone, the Obama White House has dwarfed the regulatory agenda of its predecessors.

The national health law expands the administrative power of the HHS Secretary beyond anything previously attempted. The Secretary is required to act—indicated by the statutory language “shall”—1,563 times in the final language of the legislation, and 40 specific provisions of the law mandate or permit the issuance of regulations.[7] Senate Republican Policy Committee staff estimate that the new law creates 159 new agencies or entities, but the Congressional Research Service says that the exact number is “unknowable” inasmuch as certain powerful federal offices are created administratively without direct congressional authorization.

While the law’s schedule of implementation stretches out over eight years, the most far-reaching provisions—the mandates on individuals, employers, and states—take effect in 2014. Nonetheless, in less than two years, the national health law has already generated over 11,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and related paperwork in the Federal Register.

Just consider the law’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The powerful board will make its initial recommendations for detailed and specific Medicare payment cuts in January 2015, and the Secretary is empowered to put them into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative set of payment cuts to meet statutory Medicare spending targets.[8] The board’s automatic recommendations are subject to neither administrative nor judicial review, and the law further requires a three-fifths Senate majority to block IPAB’s prescriptions.

Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has observed that the extraordinary power of this new board is “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”[9]

In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.[10] Today, more than at any other time in our history, we are less and less governed by the rule of law, hammered out in legislative deliberations as the Founders intended, and more and more governed by the rule of regulation. We are subject to edicts promulgated by administrators—persons we do not know and will never know, persons protected by civil service law and tenure who are not accountable to us and will never be accountable to us. Nonetheless, the administrators’ detailed decisions have the force of law.

Regulation, as law, can and does directly affect whether or not we can start or run our businesses, determine how many persons we can or cannot afford to hire, how we may or may not use our land or dispose of our property. Not only do administrators publish thousands of pages of regulations, but our fellow citizens can sometimes also go to jail for violating them.

THE TRIUMPH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the triumph of the administrative state, but that conquest is only possible because of the emasculation of the legislative power. The Founders made Congress the lawgiver, as clarified in Article I, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution. So much of their focus, reflected in The Federalist and other writings, was on how to check and balance the predominant legislative power, to channel and contain personal ambition and factional interest, to restrain potentially tyrannical majorities and safeguard the rights of beleaguered minorities, to secure personal liberty and protect the rights of property.

Though federal power has grown steadily since President Washington took the oath of office, today the relationship between the individual and the government is changing in a qualitative way. Americans are increasingly the subjects of an administrative regime rather than the free citizens of a democratic republic with a limited government.

Picking Winners and Losers. This steady transfer of legislative power to administrators has another inescapable consequence: arbitrary rule. The champions of administrative power invariably couch their arguments in appeals to expertise. The more complex the economic sector to be planned or regulated, the more that strict uniformity in the application of the rules becomes problematic.

In broad congressional grants of power, lawmakers give administrators wide latitude in the development and enforcement of the rules, so those who make the rules can also unmake them by granting waivers and exemptions. In the case of the health care law, HHS has already granted over 1,722 temporary waivers to certain businesses, unions, and gourmet restaurants in San Francisco that don’t have to comply with national coverage rules that apply to other companies throughout the country.

Treating similarly situated Americans differently, either as individual citizens or as citizens of a particular state, amounts to arbitrary rule; and arbitrary rule is inherently unjust.

THE NEED FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF PUBLIC DEBATE

Today’s debate over the powerful bureaucracy is usually framed in terms of economic impact: How will federal rules affect economic growth and job creation, the price of gasoline or electricity, the cost of health insurance or the quality of medical care? While this level of debate is necessary, it is insufficient. Yes, we cannot neglect the trees, but it is really the health of the forest that matters.

The big question is this: How does this bureaucratic ascendancy affect ordinary Americans? My answer: Our very civic life is at stake, not just our prosperity.

The current trend is an affront to our self-government. The tacit assumption: Millions of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions for ourselves. Rather, we need to be closely supervised by officials. They will prescribe for us, for example, what kind of light bulbs and washing machines we should use. The provision of nutritional or caloric information on restaurant menus, or food items dispensed through vending machines, is now a federal mandate under Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act.

Our supervision, though distant and impersonal, becomes more precise and detailed. We are to become increasingly dependent on government for our well-being. Today, almost half of Americans (48.5 percent) live in households that are getting some form of government assistance, largely funded from federal revenues, but nearly half (49.5 percent) of our citizens pay no federal income taxes. But today’s Progressives are still dissatisfied. In their view, the many are to be even more dependent on the few, and the few (the hated “rich,” however they are defined) should be paying even more in taxes than they do today.

Over time, these dynamics will change the character of our people, with corrosive consequences for our political culture and our economic prosperity. America will have a progressively larger class of dependent citizens, and that spirit of freedom and independence for which the Founders risked their lives and fortunes will be broken.

It does not have to be this way. Our task is to paint the big picture, the overarching framework of American civic life. The great medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, the “First Whig,” defines law as an edict of reason, promulgated by the sovereign for the common good of the community.[11] The law instructs citizens in their rights and duties, and thus has a teaching function. That being the case, as lawmakers, you must become teachers of the Constitution, carriers of our rich political culture of republican government.

What must we do to preserve and protect the constitutional traditions of limited government, individual liberty, the separation of powers, and the unique advantages of federalism? James Madison, “the Father of The Constitution,” was not a lawyer, but he was a Congressman. And in that role, he was also a teacher: He routinely employed his formidable talents in the education of his colleagues and fellow citizens on the first principles of government.

In my reading of the public mood, you also have an eager audience. More and more Americans hunger for the wisdom of the Founders, are reading their biographies, and seek to understand their tightly reasoned arguments for the adoption of our Constitution. They are also becoming aware that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which they are being governed and that this process deviates from the intentions of the Founders. They correctly sense that modern government is ever more distant and disconnected from them. They are right.

HOW WE GOT HERE

President Obama, like President Woodrow Wilson, is a real “Progressive,” but what does that mean? In his recent speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, he recalled President Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”[12] A genuine Progressive, TR favored the imposition of inheritance taxes and the income tax and became the standard bearer of the Progressive Party in 1912.

Reflecting that tradition, President Obama and his ideological allies are also vigorous champions of aggressive executive power.[13] Commenting on President Obama’s governance, New York Times columnist David Brooks predicts, “When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era…. It’s a progressive era based on faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.”[14]

Welcome to the “100 Years War” of American politics. Progressivism, after all, was America’s dominant political movement from 1890 to 1920. While the Progressives are identified with social reform and the reining in of corporate interests and trusts, they focused intensely on structural reform of government, particularly civil service reform and the democratization of our politics.

No modern American political movement has been more successful. Within a relatively short span of time, progressives backed the adoption of four transformative amendments to the Constitution. They fostered the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) and secured direct election of U.S. Senators (Seventeenth Amendment); many backed Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment); and they allied with the suffragettes (Nineteenth Amendment). In the several states, they broke the power of the political bosses and enacted initiative and referenda and the recall of public officials.

Long before the New Deal of the 1930s, Progressives concentrated power in Washington. With the backing of the Progressives, Congress created the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914). Federal employment soared.[15] During the Great War, Congress (in the Overman Act of 1918) gave President Wilson enormous discretionary power to consolidate and rearrange executive offices and agencies. Meanwhile, dissent, especially criticism of America’s entry into the war, was suppressed.

“Permissiveness,” the hallmark of the Sixties, was never welcome among Progressives, old or new. Under the rule of the new Progressives, if you want to just “do your own thing,” you won’t. You will do what you are told. If you think you can just “turn on, tune in, and drop out,” think again. You will be forced, for example, to buy government-approved health benefits—including federally certified abortifacients—or pay a fine. You will behave. You will conform. You will comply. You will not march to a different drummer.

The old Progressives were earnest and well-intentioned—old-fashioned “do gooders.” They were also stern and sober social reformers. During the Progressive Era, Congress suppressed the lottery business and interstate prostitution. They enforced prohibition on the sale and manufacture of alcohol,[16] and they imposed taxes on narcotics. Personal vice had become a public enemy. Professor Charles Beard, a leading Progressive historian, wrote in 1930: “Perhaps no country in the world, except Russia, places so many restraints on what is called ‘personal liberty,’ the right to do as one pleases in personal conduct and on the use of property.”[17]

Because Progressivism is an old and recurrent stream in our public life, its influence on public policy is so immense that it is a given: part of our national landscape. Progressive intellectuals generally had—and still have—a profound faith in social science, a conviction that scientific expertise was the key to social progress, especially in a social and economic order that was increasingly complex. Administration was to be the change agent. Again, Beard: “Thus, in our day, a new social science is being staked out and developed—the science of administration in a ‘great society.’ If the ‘great society’ is to endure, then it must make itself master of administration.”[18]

For Progressives, true liberty was not merely freedom from, or “negative” liberty, meaning freedom from arbitrary rule or tyrannical coercion, as embodied in the venerable natural rights tradition of the American Revolution. True liberty was the freedom to be, to act, to grow personally and to fulfill one’s potential.

This was “positive” liberty. It was to be achieved by the removal of economic and customary restraints, creating fairness in social and economic relations, liberating all persons, regardless of class or condition, from the unwelcome vicissitudes of the market and providing child care, education, universal health care, and pensions: in short, security. Justification for government action would be grounded, as Beard argued, not in power, but in service. This new liberty would be secured through broad-scale central planning and social and economic regulation.

Positive liberty, therefore, was to be achieved through the positive state. Think personal “growth” in a straitjacket.

Such ideological assumptions justified a federal role in health care and a national system of social insurance (based on the German model) for pensions in the Progressive Party platform of 1912. They explain the passion for centralization of power, particularly in the executive branch of national government, where scientific expertise would be able to work its will. “Progressivism,” wrote Professor Ralph Gabriel of Yale University, “was an aspect of the rising cult of science.”[19]

But Progressivism carries within it the seeds of contradiction. While Progressives long championed the democratization of our institutions, sunlight in government, and the elimination of the baneful influence of corporate interests, they clung stubbornly to a faith that public problems could be effectively solved through bureaucratic decision-making: little bands of experts appointed to an expanding number of government boards, commissions, or panels. That is at the heart of the Progressive conception of modern government.[20]

Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality of Progressive rule is profoundly undemocratic, precisely because it takes crucial decision-making that directly affects the lives of millions of citizens “out of politics.” Thus, you have the administrative state: the rule of administrators.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (johnmalcolm.me)
• A New Declaration of Independence (johnmalcolm.me)
• White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare (spectator.org)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Anti-American Decrees (gulagbound.com)
• Sen. Cornyn: Holder’s ‘arrogance knows no bounds’; Obama should force him to comply with Fast and Furious subpoena (dailycaller.com)
• How a bureaucratic dictate becomes a law (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Administration Regulatory Onslaught against American Energy Production Continues (canadafreepress.com)
• Obama administration heeds industry call to ease rail safety rules (kansascity.com)
• Romney’s EPA would look very familiar (politico.com)
• Making Regulation Smarter to Save Lives and Money (whitehouse.gov)
• Obama Gives Coal Miners the Shaft (gulagbound.com)
• Obama’s Narcissism: The Troops are Fighting for Me, Me, Me (wizbangblog.com)
• GOP attorneys general litigate, push back against Obama regulations (dailycaller.com)
• Federalizing fracking: a bad idea (dailycaller.com)
• Managing the Regulation Process will Define Barack Obama’s Success in Office (prweb.com)
• Conditional, Comprising, and Dereliction of Duty (onemorecup.wordpress.com)
• The Revolt Against the NDAA Hits Congress (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare… (projectworldawareness.com)
• Obama’s Second Term Transformation Plans (mb50.wordpress.com)
• Will Obama’s Refi Plan Be on Congress’s To-Do List? (blogs.wsj.com)
• President Obama gives his wish list to Congress (fox6now.com)

How to Think About the Foundations of American Conservatism

By James Ceaser, Ph.D. | December 10, 2008 | Heritage Foundation

Contemporary American conservatism, which is notorious for its internal factionalism, is held together by a self-evident truth: conservatives’ shared antipathy to modern liberalism. Their main objections are well-known.

Almost to a man or woman, conservatives oppose using government authority to enforce a vision of greater equality labeled by its supporters, with great seduction, as “social justice.” Nearly as many conser­vatives object to the use of government authority–or, alternatively, to the denial of government authority where it is natural, legal, and appropriate–to pro­mote a worldview of individualism, expressivism, and secularism. Finally, most conservatives want nothing to do with an airy internationalism, frequently suspi­cious of the American nation, that has shown itself so inconstant in its support for the instruments of secu­rity that are necessary in the modern world.

No shame attaches, or should, to relying in politics on the adhesive property that comes from the senti­ment of common dislike. That sentiment is the heart that beats within the breast of the conservative move­ment, supplying much of its unity. This heart sustains four heads, known generally as religious conserva­tives, economic or libertarian-minded conservatives, natural-rights or neoconservatives, and traditionalists or paleoconservatives.

The four heads comprise a coalition of the willing that came together during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The remarkable diversity of this coalition has been both a source of strength and a source of weak­ness for the conservative movement. Each part came into existence at a different time and under differ­ent circumstances, and each has been guided by a different principle by which it measures what is good or right.

• For religious conservatives, that principle is biblical faith.
• For libertarians, it is the idea of “spontaneous order,” the postulate that a tendency is opera­tive in human affairs for things to work out for themselves, provided no artificial effort is made to impose an overall order.
• For neoconservatives, it is a version of “natural right,” meaning a standard of good in political affairs that is discoverable by human reason.
• Finally, for traditionalists, it is “History” or “Culture,” meaning the heritage that has come down to us and that is our own.

There are refinements and subdivisions that could be added to this schema, but it represents, I think, a fairly standard approach to discussing the different intellectual currents inside the conserva­tive coalition. Recently, however, a number of com­mentators have fallen into the practice–I use this expression advisedly–of replacing this four-part schema by a two-part division based on a distinc­tion between the concepts of “Culture” and “Creed.” The new system of categorization derives from a book published last year by Samuel Hun­tington, entitled Who Are We? in which the author offers these concepts as the two basic modes in any society for establishing national identity.[1] The cate­gories are meant to refer to the whole nation, but conservatives have applied them to discussions of their own movement.

My argument in this essay will be that introduc­ing this new categorization schema represents a huge error, especially as a way of discussing conser­vatism. The Culture-Creed distinction does not sim­plify; it distorts. Built into its categories are premises that attempt by fiat to order and arrange the different parts of the conservative coalition. Not only is this arrangement “partisan,” in the sense of favoring the Cultural category, but it also attempts, with no basis either in principle or in fact, to place faith inside of Culture, thereby suggesting a natural grouping of traditionalists and religious conservatives in opposi­tion to natural-rights or neoconservatives. Whether this attempt was undertaken consciously or not is of little matter; what counts are its effects, and these could have serious and negative implications for the conservative movement.

The Concepts of Culture and Creed

Let me now take a step back and describe the concepts of Culture and Creed. Huntington initial­ly provides a social science definition of Culture that is so broad as to be meaningless. Culture con­sists of “a people’s language, religious beliefs, social and political values, assumptions as to what is right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, and to the objective institutions and behavioral patterns that reflect these subjective elements.”

Huntington is less interested, however, in social science than in recovering a basis today for patrio­tism and for securing unity in America. It is our Culture that concerns him. He labels that culture “Anglo-Protestantism,” which refers to everything that Huntington elects to emphasize among the first New England settlers. His selection boils down to four main elements: our language (English); our religion (dissenting Protestantism); our basic polit­ical beliefs (a commitment to liberty, individualism, and self-government); and our race (white).

Since Huntington wants Culture to work as a source or standard of identity, and identity in a pos­itive sense, he allows it to evolve in order to per­form its function. In its evolved form, the Culture to which we should look refers–still–to the English language and to the same commitment to liberty and self-government; the notion of religion is broadened slightly from dissenting Protestantism to Christianity insofar as it has been Protestantized. Race as a criterion of distinction drops out.

As for Creed, Huntington initially defines it in a social science fashion as the taking of bearings from theoretical claims that are offered in principle as universal or applicable to all. Examples of Creed that he identifies are communism and classical lib­eralism. The use of these broad-based theoretical concepts is what Huntington means by Creedalism as distinguished from Culturalism. As he says at one point:

People are not likely to find in political principles [i.e., a Creed] the deep emotional content and meaning provided by kith and kin, blood and belonging, culture and nationality. These attachments may have little or no basis in fact, but they do satisfy a deep human longing for meaningful community.

Once again, however, Huntington’s interest in Who Are We? is more in our own Creed than in Creeds in general. Our Creed consists of an idea of nature, specifically of natural rights, as articulated in documents like the Declaration of Independence.

How does the binary distinction between Cul­ture and Creed replace and subsume the four-part division of conservatism? The implication is the following. The category of Culture consists of tra­ditionalists and religious conservatives–the first for the obvious reason of their emphasis on our his­tory and culture and the second because Hunting­ton identifies dissenting Protestantism as first or original. The category of Creed consists of natural-rights or neoconservatives and libertarians–the former because they regularly reference natural rights and the Declaration of Independence and the latter because they think in terms of general princi­ples of economic reasoning.

An example will help to illustrate how this bina­ry mapping of conservatism has entered into con­temporary discussion. Lawrence Auster, an outspoken conservative, publishes an instructive blog entitled “View from the Right.” Never one to mince words, he begins a spirited entry of October 25, 2005, with an attack on President George W. Bush (one of his frequent targets) in an article iron­ically entitled “Under Bush and the American Creed, America Continues Its Bold Progress”:

At President Bush’s annual Ramadan dinner at the White House this week–did you know the President has an annual Ramadan dinner?–he announced for the first time in our nation’s history we have added a Koran to the White House Library. Yippee.[2]

Arguing that this recognition serves unwisely to legitimize Islam in America, Auster finds further evidence of this same error in a passage from a speech given the previous week by Senator John McCain at the Al Smith Dinner:

We have a nation of many races, many religious faiths, many points of origin, but our shared faith is the belief in liberty, and we believe this will prove stronger, more enduring and better than any nation ordered to exalt the few at the expense of the many or made from a common race or culture or to preserve traditions that have no greater attribute than longevity.[3]

In Auster’s view, the McCain-Bush position rep­resents the perfect expression of creedal thinking:

According to McCain, the meaning of America is that we have no common culture and no coherent set of traditions but give equal freedom to all cultures, traditions and religions. Such a cultureless society is stronger and more enduring than any other.[4]

Auster may have taken some liberties with the strict claims of Bush and McCain, but his general point could not be more clear: The end result of the Creed is at best indifference, at worst hostility, to Culture.

The Problem with the Culture-Creed distinction

This application of the Culture-Creed distinc­tion to the conservative movement contains two assumptions. The first is that Creedalists are not true conservatives, but conservatives on their way to becoming liberals, if they are not there already. The other is that religious conservatives–meaning those concerned with biblical faith–fall inside the category of Culturalists. Here would seem to be the main gambit involved in this analysis: to define those of faith as closer to cultural traditionalists than to proponents of natural rights.

In light of this questionable mapping of the con­servative movement, it is fair to ask whether Creed and Culture make up helpful categories that assist in understanding reality, or whether they force the analyst to describe reality in a way that satisfies these categories.

Thomas Hobbes, that puckish British philoso­pher, has a chapter in Leviathan in which he reminds us that abstract categories are human con­structions, born either of men’s efforts to compre­hend the world or of the aim of some to dictate how others will think. The result very often is that these terms are imprecise, conflating different things under the same label and producing ever-growing confusions. Hobbes was a very timid man, and as is not infrequent with personalities of this kind, he was also a bit of a sadist. The trait served him well in describing how an individual, when employing a poorly circumscribed category, will soon find him­self “entangled in words as a bird in lime twigs, the more he struggles, the more belimed.”

Have we become “belimed” by adopting the Cul­ture-Creed distinction?

I bear some slight personal responsibility for popularizing this distinction. Last year I wrote a review essay on Huntington’s Who Are We? for The Weekly Standard.[5] In contrast to the avalanche of reviews from the Left attacking the book, mine was in many ways very appreciative. I followed the Golden Rule of discussing the work of a major thinker, which is to treat it initially on its own terms. Hence my lengthy discussion of the Cul­ture-Creed distinction, on which I offered two observations.

First, I pointed out that more than 20 years ago, Huntington wrote a previous book on America–a fact he all but hides in this one–in which he invoked the Culture-Creed dyad.[6] In both books he argues that forging our national identity requires relying on both Culture and Creed. But whereas in the earlier book he contends that America should emphasize the Creed, in the current one he argues that it should identify more with the Culture.

Second, I asked what reason could account for so fundamental a change. A higher ordering idea of some kind, contained either within one of the two principles or coming from a new one, ought to have been supplied to account for how to regulate the appropriate mix of Culture and Creed. I offered a couple of speculative comments of my own on this issue and suggested that it would be a nice question for others to consider.

In the past year, this theme has been taken up by two well-known political scientists. In a recent issue of The Claremont Review of Books, the editor, Charles Kesler, has a fine essay on Huntington’s work. He begins with some cogent criticisms of how Huntington allows the concept of Creed to slide from its specific and original American mean­ing (a support of natural rights) to its more general social scientific meaning (any kind of broad type of theoretical reasoning). The result is a category that encompasses everything offered in the name of rational principles, from the position of limited government and individualism of the Founders to the Big Government position of the Progressives.

Following this clarification of the concept of Creed, Kesler goes on to argue that we need both concepts, but that the standard of regulation must stem from the Creed (properly understood). He concludes his essay:

The American creed is the keystone of American national identity; but it requires a culture to sustain it. The republican task is to recognize the creed’s primacy, the culture’s indispensability and the challenge which political wisdom alone can answer, to shape a people that can live up to its principles.[7]

Another very perceptive article appeared this fall in Society, written by Peter Skerry. Skerry takes Huntington to task for much of his treatment of the status of the Hispanic community in America and for his analysis of the process of immigrant integra­tion into an American identity. On the major theo­retical distinction of Culture and Creed, however, Skerry embraces Huntington’s analysis and shares his Cultural emphasis. America needs both Creed and Culture, but the senior partner today is–and should be–Culture, which Skerry observes is “at the core of Huntington’s understanding of Ameri­can national identity.”[8]

Both of these essays, each critical in its own way of Huntington’s work, make use of the Culture- Creed distinction. In doing so, they, along now with many other writings, lend credibility to the view that these categories are adequate to define the terrain of this inquiry. It is this position that now needs to be challenged.

Before turning directly to this question, it is worthwhile to observe that for many “Culturalists,” there appears to be as much politics as social sci­ence in the Culture-Creed categorization scheme. No sooner is the distinction introduced than Cul­turalists put it to work to argue for their positions on two major issues of the day.

The first is the previously mentioned matter of immigration policy. Culturalists are deeply con­cerned with the current rate and character of immi­gration. Huntington devotes a large portion of his book to warning of the threat to national unity posed by the influx of Hispanics, largely Mexican. We are in danger of establishing two different cultures in the United States: one English-speaking and Anglo-Protestant, the other Spanish-speaking and, I sup­pose, Latin Catholic. Not only is it said that a Cultur­al approach makes us more aware of this problem, but also Creedalists are charged with being incapa­ble of taking this problem seriously. Their reasoning in universal terms about all human beings makes them “a-Cultural” or anti-Cultural, which for practi­cal purposes means, for immigration politics, multi­cultural. The Culture-Creed distinction is put to use as the proverbial stick with which to beat certain (alleged) foes of immigration restriction.

The other issue on which Culturalists insist today is foreign policy, where many of them are highly critical of the Bush Administration’s position on the war on terrorism. The Administration’s pol­icy in launching the Iraq war and in emphasizing democracy is again said to be a consequence of Creedal thinking, which in its universalistic per­spective leads to a naïve belief, often labeled “Wil­sonianism,” in the possibility of exporting Western democracy to the rest of the world. Creedalism blinds one to the factual primacy of Culture. If the Creedalists who have designed the current foreign policy appreciated the strength and soundness of Culture at home, acknowledging that every other nation or civilization has its Culture just as we have ours, the folly of their grandiose project of nation building would quickly become evident to them.

Culturalists here, incidentally, have their closest allies among those on the Left, including the mul­ticulturalists, who on this issue adopt the Cultural­ist and realist position. Again, the Culture-Creed distinction becomes the weapon of choice in attacking a policy even though a good number of natural-rights conservatives have expressed reser­vations about this policy of their own.

A Better Foundation

Huntington’s inquiry is concerned with cohe­sive­ness and justification–with what enables Americans to be a people, in the sense of possessing unity, and with what makes this people good or worthy in its own eyes. Creed and Culture are said to provide the categories that cover this terrain and allow for intelligent investigation of these ques­tions. But these categories, I have argued, are nei­ther adequate nor exhaustive. Even as defined, they are hugely asymmetrical. Creed refers to a doctrine or set of principles; Culture is presented as a com­pilation of existing sociological facts and realities. But as should be obvious by now, Culture is used to do far more than reference pure facts. It is itself a doctrine that selects facts and bids us to judge the world in a certain way.

It seems to me that a more rewarding approach to the study of unity would begin by separating the study of pure sociological facts–the analysis of what is (or has been) our language, our customs, beliefs, and the like–from all doctrines meant to supply an idea of unity and of right. It would then be possible to examine these doctrines without built-in presup­positions to see how they conceive of cohesiveness and deal with certain sociological facts.

Given my time limits here, I will restrict myself to three major doctrines that were put forth in the early period of our history and that remain impor­tant for contemporary politics and the modern conservative movement: natural rights, traditional­ism, and faith.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• A Positive Vision for American Conservatism (constitutionclub.org)
• Con-fusion (spectator.org)
• The Point of a Republic: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• American social conservatism here to stay (mysanantonio.com)
• Conservatism losing its way, as usual (orthosphere.org)
• From Mitt Romney to Ron Paul: The vast wasteland of American conservatism (thehill.com)
• A hopeful, youthful, idealistic and optimistic conservatism (dailycaller.com)
• Calvin Coolidge: “The Inspiration of the Declaration” (johnmalcolm.me)
• Ron Paul Campaign (which still exists) frustrated by conservatives who fail to recognize Santorum rejects Goldwater (theblaze.com)
• Marco Rubio’s liberal foreign policy (dailycaller.com)

The New World Order: Paranoia Or Reality?

By Brandon Smith | May 2, 2012 | Alt-Market.com

The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine.  Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward their work.  The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been mentally inoculated against even the whisper of the terminology.  That is to say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such discussion instinctively without even knowing why.

Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony) grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance.  I know this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard fact on the NWO that we happened upon.  After seeing the conspiracy crowd made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.

Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject.  Yes, it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing.  If more people were less afraid to shine a floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more willing to absorb it.  And, if more unaware people were willing to listen to the information with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it.  The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO.  Instead, people refuse to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe are not yet embraced by the majority.

It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the life of the follower, and not of the leader.  Only through great hardship and trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength to break free from the collectivist mindset.

Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of background knowledge.  A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a Department of Defense program designed to import and train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil.  Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/04/27/the-russians-are-coming-patriot-paranoia-run-amok/

The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion.  Without the ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of history…

If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question; what is the New World Order?  What is the foundation of the philosophy that drives it?  What are its origins?  This is something mainstream pundits never explore.  They simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the whole thing up for our own entertainment.  In reality, the phrase New World Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a thing as “conspiracy theorists”.

The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and unaccountable governing body.  The goal; to one day completely dismantle individual, state, and national sovereignty.  However, what I and many others hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough.  We must examine the original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.

I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations.  But, to solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go straight to the horse’s mouth:

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Corbett Report Radio 109 – The New World Order Does Not Control Everything (corbettreport.com)
• Newt Gingrich, Asked if He’s a Globalist, In with the NWO (gulagbound.com)
• The Domination Of The New World Order! (revolutioninmedia.com)
• Vigilant Citizen – “The Hunger Games”: A Glimpse at the New World Order? (seeker401.wordpress.com)
• NWO, Surveillance, & Investments – 04-11-2012 (panoffolin.wordpress.com)
• Updated News from “Mission Control”: Magic Bullet Reactivated and NWO collapses in its footprint (vaticproject.blogspot.com)
• General Conspiracies – David Icke agenda (disclose.tv)
• NWO To Receive Mauling Tonight In U.S. – ETs/EDs Warn – by John Kettler (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
• An Explanation of the New World Order. (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
• Kissinger: Obama Primed to Create “New World Order” (anationbeguiled.wordpress.com)
• Icke’s Demons and the Real New World Order (disclose.tv)
• What NWO ? (2012patriot.wordpress.com)
• Conspiracy Theories and Tales of Armageddon (dgmattichakjr.com)
• New World Order: Blueprint of Madmen (Full Length HD) (2012patriot.wordpress.com)

Initiated Force: Liberals’ Tool of Control

By Phil Elmore | February 22, 2012 | WND

Exclusive: Phil Elmore notes the State’s ‘willingness to use violence to bring you to heel’

Liberals adore force. While they hate any firearms they do not wield, and they abhor the notion of self-defense and self-preservation (because leftist ideology is fundamentally self-destructive), they exult in making the other fellow toe the line. From cradle to grave, every waking moment of a man’s life must be controlled if that man is to make the “right” choices as dictated by a lib.

Leftists believe that individual freedom is a threat to all and that freedom of action must be curtailed. The means to make you do as they wish is violence, codified in complex laws and regulations and enforced by the jackbooted thugs of an all-powerful state.

What better symbol is there for liberal violence than the “Occupy” movement, endorsed by President Obama and plagued by rape, disease, defecation and vile threats of assault and murder? These marching, mindless, ravening hordes, these entitled thugs, epitomize where and to what lib rule is driving us.

All lib violence has as its common denominator the desire to make you do something against your will. Democrats and left-wingers salivate at the thought of making you do what they say. They will impoverish you, imprison you, ruin you as totally and as thoroughly as they can, if you oppose them. This is the very definition of initiated force, a concept that runs counter to every instinct and consequence of a free society. It is for this reason that political liberalism, accompanied as it always is by the irresistible compulsion to force your fellow men to obey you, is completely antithetical to the United States Constitution.

Said differently, leftists are un-American, un-patriotic, liberty-hating despots whose ideology is diametrically opposed to the ideals on which the United States was founded. All of this is rooted in liberals’ willingness to use violence to bring you to heel. The average Democrat cannot draw breath without pondering how he might put his boot on your neck.

Last week’s Technocracy concerned your nature as a discrete biological entity. The ideas contained in that column are not original; they are the product of libertarian philosophers both contemporary and ancient. One of those philosophers was a woman born in Russia who took the name “Ayn Rand.” Rand, who owed much to Aristotle and who reinvented several philosophical wheels over the course of her writing, offered a coherent argument on human beings, reason and the immorality of initiating force.

Rand believed initiating force – choosing to move a relationship outside the realm of reason into the realm of physical violence – was immoral among rational human beings. She based this assertion on the self-evident fact that your faculty of reason, your ability to integrate the data of your senses into concepts (from which you make decisions regarding goal-directed actions), is your only means of long-term survival.

You are not born preprogrammed; there is no other means of acquiring and applying knowledge. Psychic insight is unreliable. Religious revelation is subjective. Instinct tells you that you need certain things, but not specifically what they are or how to get them.

When you acknowledge this, you of necessity accept that you do not have the right to initiate force. All force has a physical component, but this does not mean all manifestations of force are some form of striking or restraining someone. Theft is force, because it deprives people of assets rightfully theirs. Fraud is force, because it is a form of theft.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Way of Peace (txwclp.org)
• game tries after initial forcing NT response (bvillebridge.wordpress.com)
• Rand (wg57.wordpress.com)
• How Liberals Successfully Silence Dissent (johnmalcolm.me)
• Non-aggression is not pacifism (dailycaller.com)
• Profit & Selfishness (involuntaryobservations.wordpress.com)
• Liberty, Capitalism, and Anarchy (oracleofreason.com)
• But Then We’d Have Anarchy! by Eric Peters (pointsofhype.wordpress.com)
• Today’s Occupier is Tomorrow’s Teapartier ? …. Hmmm (youviewedblog.wordpress.com)
• Golden Rule vs. Non-Aggression Principal (afterhisimage.wordpress.com)
• What is libertarianism? – Part I: principles (politicsontoast.com)
• What is libertarianism? Part II: markets (politicsontoast.com)
• Worship of the Mob: a discussion with L-wing bohemian types (disclose.tv)
• Learning from the Left (whoplanswhom.com)
• Libertarianism Does Not Equal Selfishness | Sheldon Richman | Reason | 23 March 2012 (reason.com)
• End Government’s Aggressive Violence (lewrockwell.com)
• Rand Paul’s War on Promiscuous Power (spectator.org)
• This Is the Rand Paul Essay I Would Have Written… (bothwell.typepad.com)
• No More Killing for the Government (lewrockwell.com)
• Martin Luther King Was A Dreamer, Not An Occupier – Part 1 (thecollegeconservative.com)
• Left-libertarians and aggression: a facebook conversation (stephankinsella.com)
• Non-violence more effective because everyone can take part – Mustafa Barghouti (jfjfp.com)
• Obama’s Inner Lenin Invoked in Desperate Re-Election Strategy (economicnoise.com)

The Empire of Poverty [Video]

By Daniel Greenfield | April 29, 2012 | Sultan Knish

Controlling a large number of people isn’t easy. The United States alone consists of 312 million people spread out across nearly 4 million square miles. Add on nearly 500 million for the population of the European Union and another nearly 4 million square miles of territory. Then pile on Canada with 34 million people and another 4 million square miles, Australia with 22 million and 3 million square miles and a few other stragglers here and there, and the postmodern rulers of the progressive empire have to cope with nearly a billion people spread out across 15 million square miles.

Large territories and large numbers of people are very difficult to govern. Structures tend to break down and people further away from the centers of power don’t listen to the boys at the top. The only way to make a going proposition of it is to consolidate as much power as possible at the center and the very act of centralizing power leads to tyranny.

The most direct chokehold possible is physical. China’s rulers, faced with vast territory and population, turned to the water empire. The modern West is quickly rediscovering a more sophisticated form of hydraulic despotism, cloaked in talk of saving the planet and providing for everyone’s needs.

Western resources are not innately centralized, which makes seizing control of them and routing them through a central point more difficult. This has to be done legislatively and has to be justified by a universal benefit or a crisis. One example of this is FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act which allowed the government to control wheat grown on a farm for private consumption. Another is nationalizing health care by routing the commercial activity of medicine through government organs. Both services and commodities can be controlled in this manner.

But the larger challenge is that the West is rich and a water empire depends on scarcity. Central control is much less potent if there is plenty of the commodity or service available. It’s only when shortages are created in bread or health care that the system really wields power by rationing a scarce commodity or service.

If a resource is scarce, then the water empire has to distribute it efficiently. But if a resource is widely available, then the water empire has to find ways of making it scarce, until the demand vastly outstrips the supply.

The modern water empire is dependent for its power on manufactured shortages. The rise of the progressive state was closely tied to its exploitation of shortages. Its challenge has been to win the race with industrial productivity by manufacturing shortages and destroying wealth faster than it could be created. While the machine of industry created wealth, the machine of government destroyed it. Today the machine of government is very close to winning the race, creating a state of permanent shortages.

Manufactured shortages are the great project of modern governments. This manufacture is done by prohibitively increasing the cost of creating and distributing products and services, by controlling the means of production in the name of wealth redistribution and by prohibiting the production on the grounds that it is immoral or dangerous. Over the 20th century the transition was made from the first to the second and finally to the third.

The third means of manufacturing shortages is the final trump card in the race between human ingenuity and government power. It began with pollution regulation and has reached the stage where all human activity, from a bike ride to the corner to a puff of exhaled air, is a form of pollution. The carbon footprint is to the human being what the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to wheat, a mandate for total central regulation of all human activity.

While the second means of manufacturing shortages only justified redistributing wealth, the third prevents its creation. It is the final lock of the water empire. When it slides into places, shortages become permanent and the Empire of Poverty rules over all.

The Empire of Poverty is the modern incarnation of the water empire, its feigned concern for social equality disguising its hunger for total power. With the third stage, the empire of poverty is mostly putting aside its pretense of controlling production in order to maximize human benefits from the products or services and is shifting over to controlling production in order to deny use of the products and services to those who need them.

Global Warming rhetoric is still couched in the usual social justice rhetoric, aimed at the poorer kleptocracies who are eager to join the line for a handout, but its logic is poverty driven. It is not out to create wealth, but to eliminate it, on the grounds that cheaply available food or electricity is an immoral activity that damages the planet.

Read the full article here.

Adam Taxin interviews Daniel Greenfield for a bit under five minutes about his Sunday, April 29, 2012 column, “The Empire of Poverty.”

Related Articles

• The Great Collapse of the US Empire by Jeff Berwick (postamericana.wordpress.com)
• Abhijit Banerjee: ‘The poor, probably rightly, see that their chances of getting somewhere different are minimal’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Frank Ward on ‘Economics of Agricultural Water Conservation: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications’ (aquadoc.typepad.com)
• The Violence of Poverty (counterpunch.org)
• The Empire versus Iran and Syria: A New World War for a New World Order? (usapartisan.com)
• Glenn Beck, National Decline And The Story Of The Roman Empire (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• A Rejoinder to “I’m worried” (ritholtz.com)
• Singing for the Empire: Make love, then war (intrepidreport.com)

The Big Silver Picture [Infographic]

Click on infographic to ENLARGE:

Source:  Don’t Tread on Me

Andrew Klavan: Wall Street On Trial [Video]

Related Articles

• Andrew Klavan: Why Racism and Conservatism Don’t Mix (johnmalcolm.me)
• Andrew Klavan: The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition (johnmalcolm.me)
• Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle on The Founding Fathers and the Future of America (johnmalcolm.me)
• Andrew Klavan: Liberalism Exposed – Beyond the Elitist, Preening America-Hating Stereotypes (johnmalcolm.me)
• Kardashian’s $10M Wedding, Economic Stimulus? with H’wood Conservative Andrew Klavan (prweb.com)
• ANDREW KLAVAN ON NBC’S EDITGATE: The Big Double Standard. UPDATE: Reader Jeff Johnson writes: … (pjmedia.com)
• Teen Review – The Final Hour by Andrew Klavan (hcplteenscene.org)
• Bargain Alert! The Last Thing I Remember (The Homelanders Series #1) by Andrew Klavan is $2.99! (randomizeme.net)
• Bill Whittle: Why We Suck (johnmalcolm.me)

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 […]