Showing posts with label Democratic party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic party. Show all posts

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Ron Paul's Farewell Address

"Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves." --Ron Paul

Ron Paul is leaving Congress after 23 years of service as a representative from the State of Texas.  When I first heard him speak, I found him to be a bit eccentric.  However, after looking into the problems we are facing as a nation, I believe that Ron Paul is correct in his description of the problem and his recommended solution.  That solution is to return to our Constitutional form of government as originally founded.

We must therefore strengthen those individuals, groups, and political parties that support such a return.  The Tea Party is a solid beginning, and it must grow.  It could potentially become a completely separate party, as the governing corruption of both the Republican and Democratic (Socialist) Parties do not offer us true solutions to get us out of the mess we're in and prevent it from occurring again in the future.

The name of "Tea Party" could become the "Constitutional Party" to make its platform inherent in its name, clearly setting it apart from the Republican and Democratic (Socialist) parties that have worked together over the years to circumvent our Constitution.  We must also prevent its corruption by those who seek to hijack and pervert its platform.  Another option would be for the Constitutional Party to completely transform the Republican Party from within.

What follows is Representative Ron Paul's farewell address.  Listen to his words and contemplate what he is saying.  Then be resolved to do your part to get America back on track before it is too late.

--Against All Enemies


Farewell to Congress

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor.  At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period.  My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today:  promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.

It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.


How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little.  No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness.  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues.  Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer.  A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going.  One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and  corporate elite.  And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.   As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits.  If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell.  Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.


Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty.  There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible.  Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth.  In our early history we were very much aware of this.  But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax.  The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be “progressive” ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved  for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady.  It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected.  As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.


The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone.  That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market.  It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail.  We have ended up with a system that doesn’t produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time.  Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.


We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law.  A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties.  Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled.  Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy.  Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely—that is until it too fails.  There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option.  The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism.  And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future.  The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored.  By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom.  But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others.  Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited.  These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.


No More ‘isms’

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more “isms.”  The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less.  Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition—especially if we move in this direction—increases optimism which in itself is beneficial.  The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the  one that we have  had for the  last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers.  We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself.  Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.  The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders.  In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed.  Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome.  The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.


Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need.  Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

Undeclared wars are commonplace.
Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
Debt is growing exponentially.
The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.”
Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders.
Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.


Questions

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
Why can’t Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York?  Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
Why do our political leaders believe it’s unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
Why should there be mandatory sentences—even up to life for crimes without victims—as our drug laws require?
Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
Why haven’t we given up on the drug war since it’s an obvious failure and violates the people’s rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can’t even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
Why can’t people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a “kill list,” including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it’s wrong.
Why is it is claimed that if people won’t  or can’t take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren’t they the same?
Why don’t more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and  foreign policy?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there’s such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration?   Yes there is, and there’s a way to reverse these attitudes.  The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems.  Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.


Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves.  Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades.  The blame is shared by both political parties.  Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop.  Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity.  The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced.  Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats.  This replaces the confidence in a free society.  Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they,   armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production.  This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.  It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It’s no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.


Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace.  Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals.  Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems.  Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world.  Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned—or especially when well-intentioned—the results are dismal.  The good results sought never materialize.  The new problems created require even more government force as a solution.  The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government  uses force  for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order.  Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.


No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society.  Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream.  We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000.  Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.


The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes.  Today the experts can’t even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books—they number into the thousands.  No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system—especially the tax code.  Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China.  I don’t understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws.  Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year.  When will the people start shouting, “enough is enough,” and demand Congress cease and desist.


Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”
Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.


The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it’s, in reality, a moral crisis.  It’s the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power.  Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2.  There is no other choice.  Claiming there is a choice of a “little” tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a “touch of pregnancy.”  It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise.  What we see today is a result of that type of thinking.  And the results speak for themselves.


A Culture of Violence

American now suffers from a culture of violence.  It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.  Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.”  They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”  The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority.  Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to “do good,” as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified.  This is similar to what we were once told that:  “destroying a village to save a village” was justified.  It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was “worth it” to achieve the “good” we brought to the Iraqi people.  And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms.  The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn’t initiate violence, then we give the authority to government.   Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual’s “right” to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority.  If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority.  It’s then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs.  As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase—as are already occurring— violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs.  They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer   just can’t be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs.  All moral standards become relative.  Whether it’s bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it’s all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth.  Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it’s only a matter of “fairness” that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it’s fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that’s what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.  It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.  Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.


Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed.  The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people.  The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government.  The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty.  The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt.  The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what “a virtuous and moral people” means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time.  This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due.  This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending.  Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek.  Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of  personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions.  The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.  Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.


Conclusion                                                                                                                                                  

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.            

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of “blow-back” is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.                                                      

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.                                      

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.                                            

 5. World government taking over  local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking,  a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.                                                  

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression.  The retort to such a suggestion is always:  it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth—considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.  It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior.  Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny.  This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.  The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war.  The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time.  It’s time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people.  Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them.  Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”  John Adams concurred:  “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society.  All great religions endorse the Golden Rule.  The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials.  They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow.  This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society.  If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn’t mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it’s easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it’s the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people’s attitudes aren’t changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome.  Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare.  Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies.  These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism.  Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out “the plain truth of things.”  The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

Source link here.


AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Saturday, November 03, 2012

Monday, October 01, 2012

Media Have Become an "Enemy of the People"



Pat Caddell, a former Democratic pollster, discusses how the media has now become an enemy of the people of the United States of America.  He specifically speaks to the media's handling of the attack on our ambassador in Libya, and how the media controls what you are allowed to know, and what you are not allowed to know, as the American people.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/brDZJA8j-8c


--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Nazis, Communists, and Socialists Support Occupy Wall Street Protest

Nazis, Communists, and Socialists Support Occupy Wall Street Protest

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

The GOP has a wonderful tool to use in defeating Obama in 2012.  It is the unruly crowd called the Occupy Wall Street Movement. It is a gift to the GOP on a silver platter… if they have the common sense to use it.

Obama is creeping ever closer to supporting the out and out socialist/communist/ nazi/labor union movement.  He can’t help himself.  Obama and the modern Democratic Party are drawn to the unruly rabble as moths to a flame.  Why?  They believe the anarchic socialist/communist philosophy espoused by the raucous rabble littering America’s streets with their socialist utopian ideology.

Middle America views the antics of those useful idiots as disruptive, distasteful, and a clear and present danger to America’s security.

We have warned many times of the Democratic Party’s embrace of socialism and yes, even communism. Now it is on display for the world to see.

America is under attack… from inside. It has been a dream of the socialist/communist parties to destroy American capitalism and they now believe that THIS is the time. There is a weak American President who supports their philosophy and, they feel Americans are mentally prepared to toss aside capitalism, which built this nation into the most prosperous and powerful nation on the globe, and replace it with a system of government that will most certainly destroy America in record time. They want a socialist/communist government in America and THAT’S what all the infantile empty-headed antics in the streets of America is all about.
  
Human events has an article entitled: “Nazi Party and Communist Party Support Occupy Wall Street --- So does Obama.” Jim Hoft wrote the article.

 In the article, at Human Events, Mr. Hoft says: “The American Nazi Party likes what it sees.” (SOURCE)  We recommend you read the entire article at Human Events.

 Here is an excerpt from the American Nazi Part website: 

 “Racial Comrades: I am going to address the issue of this "Occupy Wall Street" fervor that has been sweeping the land like a breath of cleansing air!

THE NATIVES ARE GETTING RESTLESS, AND ZOG FEARS IT MIGHT HAVE A POPULAR UPRISING ON ITS HANDS - finally!

This issue is TAYLOR MADE for National Socialists, as well as WN who are serious about DOING SOMETHING - MORE - than shouting "racial slurs" and acting like "poster boys of hate" loons.

After all - JUST WHO - are the WALL STREET BANKERS? The vast majority are JEWS - and the others are SPIRITUAL JEW materialists, who would sell their own mother's gold teeth for a PROFIT. And MORE and MORE people are AWARE of this truth, are not only NOT afraid to TALK ABOUT IT - they're shouting it on WALL STREET!

I urgently URGE all of you to TAKE PART and JOIN IN when these protests hit your neck of the woods. Produce some flyers EXPLAINING the "JEW BANKER" influence - DON'T wear anything marking you as an "evil racist" - and GET OUT THERE and SPREAD the WORD!   
(SOURCE)

Are you beginning to understand what is going on in the Occupy Wall Street Movement? 

There’s more.

At the Communist Party USA website there is the following:

“The movement is the newest wrinkle in the all-people’s upsurge against the banks and corporations and reflects a new level of class-consciousness.

While there is a wide range of political and ideological trends, there is a consensus against corporate greed, getting money out of politics, taxing the rich and putting people before profits.

A big challenge for the CPUSA and left, progressive movements is to link these demonstrations with the labor led all-people’s coalition and help deepen understanding that the path to progress must be through electoral and political action including defeating Republican Tea Party reaction in 2012.

Of primary importance is linking it with the burgeoning fight for jobs and especially passage of the American Jobs Act.

We can also play a role in offering more advanced programmatic ideas like nationalizing the banks and socialism.

To have a positive impact, the CPUSA and YCL must be a part of the “Occupy” movement, participating at every level and building greater local support for the actions among labor and progressive forces.” (SOURCE)


The Socialist Party is VERY deeply invested on the Occupy Wall Street movement.  They are asking their supporters to stand with protesters, listing events and times in various cities. (SOURCE)  In a statement on their website they say the following: “The Socialist Party USA supports the mobilizations to occupy Wall St. in New York and various cities across the US and encourages our locals to take part in these actions.”  Then there is a listing of the various protest locations.  You really need to read this site for yourself to grasp the depth of the Socialist Party involvement in the Occupy Wall Street movement.  You will find it HERE.

Socialism is a condition that is terminal to any nation -- and America is no exception.

The GOP has a grand opportunity to show the Occupy Wall Street movement up for what it is – a wanna-be Bolshevik Revolution such that in Russia in 1917 by what became know as the Russian Communist Party.

As time goes on the connections between the Democratic Party, the Obama White House, and the Occupy Wall Street movement will become very clear.

If the GOP has the sense God gave a gnat they will use that evidence and irrefutably expose Obama for the socialist he really is and his socialist/communist agenda for America. It is an agenda America cannot survive.

J. D. Longstreet 

Monday, February 28, 2011

Why Democrats Hate “Fair And Balanced” News


Why Democrats Hate “Fair And Balanced” News
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Around two thousand years ago, a man said: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” A relatively short while ago, someone added a few words to it and said: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free – but first, it will pi*s you off!” That’s all you need to know about the democrats and the fair and balanced news channel – Fox News.

However, I still have blank paper to write upon and an ink cart not quite dry, so I shall plod on in the seemingly endless task of defining the love of democrats for the politically correct over fact and/or truth.

Facts and truth are two of the most stubborn things in existence. It does not matter whether you believe a fact, or refuse to accept a fact; it remains a fact, nonetheless. The same is true for the truth. It makes not one whit of difference whether you believe the truth, or not. It remains the truth – period.

On the other hand, politically correct facts and/or truth(s) can mean anything you want them to mean. Often they are based on fact or truth but, in reality, that is the only thing valid about politically correct fact and truth. To my way of thinking, a politically correct fact, or truth, is an oxymoron. In the southern vernacular: “There ain’t no such thang!”

The political left is entirely too emotional for me. It has often been said that if American political parties had gender, the democrats would be female and the republicans would be male. All one needs to do to see evidence of that is to observe the pathetic union demonstrations in Wisconsin and other states.

Those demonstrations are a public display of an emotion, called anger, because they lost control of the US government last November. It is the reaction that a child displays when a favorite toy is taken away as punishment.

The electorate sent the democrats to the woodshed, and they don’t like it, no, not even a little bit. They are P.O’ed and, like a child, they are throwing a tantrum.

When I “threw a fit,” as a child, my parents snatched my skinny butt up and applied a 2-inch leather belt to my gluteus maximus until my cerebral cortex sparked and my mind was changed, my attitude was adjusted, and my general demeanor was acceptable in polite southern society. Of course, that meant eating from the mantle board for a few days. (For those uneducated in southern colloquialism, that means: “eating while standing up.”)

Look. When grown people, adults, make fools of themselves, on purpose, normal people just have to wonder: “What ails those folks?”

OK, so it is just me. See, I have a heck of a time dealing with anyone having authority over me. While in the US Army, I was on “KP,” as punishment, 13 times in eight weeks, at Fort Jackson, SC, because I had a problem with authority figures. I simply do not like, and will not tolerate, anyone or anything having absolute control over me. It ain’t gonna happen. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not particularly proud of it – but neither am I shamed by it. It is the way I am wired.

(Stay with me – I am about to make a point – or, at least, TRY!)

Unions, and the Democrat Party, are all about control. I could never be a member of either. I tend to think for myself, indeed, I LIKE thinking for myself. I am self-motivating, and I darn sure don’t like some one trying to motivate me -- covertly or overtly. (Again – it is the way I am wired.) You can imagine – I was a pain in the collective posteriors of my former employers.

The communists used to refer to THEIR minions as “useful idiots.” They manipulated them anyway they wanted and those minions did the will of the Communist Party. Much like Pavlov’s dog, the party would ring the bell -- and the “little commies” would come running.

Now. Compare that to what you see in the union demonstrations. The unions ring the bell(s) and the union members come running. See? Understand? It is “conditioning.” It is “control.”

There would be a heat wave in Hades before I would stand in the snow and shout that a news organization, which actually makes an effort to present BOTH sides of an issue, is a liar – for anyone!
But, then again, they have been so conditioned by the union’s propaganda and the Democratic Party’s propaganda that they seem to actually have great difficulty discerning truth from fiction, fairness from partiality, fact from lie. Its called: “CONTROL.”

It is important that America understands that those “conditioned” union members and Democratic Party members are a prototype for a liberal-socialist Democrat Party/labor union controlled America. Should they ever gain total control of America – they will OWN you – much like the people of the old Soviet Union, only worse.

It would seem their problem with Fox News is – the truth. They can’t stand it. And since the truth remains – unchanged – they must attempt to divert America’s attention elsewhere. They try to besmirch the purveyors of the truth. If it were not so serious, it would be hilariously funny.
Don’t hate them. No. They are to be pitied. They can’t quite grasp the meaning of a representative republic. They seem to believe that socialism is not evil and will not lead directly to communism, and ultimately to slavery. Sadly, they don’t have a clue that they would be the very first targets their socialist masters would seek to round up and annihilate!
J. D. Longstreet

Friday, February 18, 2011

Democrats Flee Conflict in Wisconsin


Democrats Flee Conflict in Wisconsin

The Ugly Face of the Unions Unmasked in Wisconsin

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*****************


One of the truest of all truisms is -- when the chips are down it is then that you learn the metal of a man/woman.

In Wisconsin it could not be any clearer. When the “defecation hit the rotary oscillator,” all the democrats in that state’s legislature boarded buses -- and headed for parts unknown.

I rest my case!

What we clearly see here is a demonstration of the kind of courage the democrats bring to an issue. When the pitchforks and torches come out, they “get the hell out of Dodge!” (Actually – Wisconsin)This is the kind of courage that lands our country in trouble time and time again when the Democratic Party is in power.

As of this moment, America is in serious trouble -- nationally and internationally. Our national leader is of the party, which, in Wisconsin, boarded buses and took off.

It would be funny were it not for the fact that this is serious business.

I am STILL not over the fright Obama threw into me -- and a huge number of Americans by his vacillating, “democrat two-step,” during the early stages of the ongoing Middle East fiasco. He clearly did not know what he was doing. He clearly did not know WHAT TO DO. He clearly did not have a plan of action for the US in the event the Mubarak government in Egypt fell, and he clearly has no idea what to do, even now.

Americans should note one important thing as they observe the furor and rage of the Unions in Wisconsin. Those are OBAMA’S PEOPLE! The Unions threw massive amounts of money and manpower into the election of Obama. It is important to know WHO those people in the streets really are.

I have news for the unions. They are not as powerful as they think they are. What is happening in Wisconsin now will have -- no -- has already had an effect on the American people as they have seen the unions with their façade down.

The more the unions riot, the less support they will have among the American people. And the better America will be as a result.

Another thing of note: The more money the unions spend on the sort of activity we are seeing in Wisconsin, the less they will have to insure their puppet is reelected in 2012. Now – THAT is a GOOD thing!

Come on, America! We all know Obama is a hand puppet for the unions in America.

There may have been a time in America’s past when labor unions were of some help to the working class in America, although you will have a difficult time trying to convince me. Even if that time did exist – it is long since past and today the labor unions are a burden on the workingman and workingwoman, and on the nation as a whole.

Incidents such as the ugly, ugly, demonstrations in Wisconsin simply show America why so many Americans object to labor unions -- and states like mine have “right to work laws.”It also demonstrates, as clearly as one could possibly hope, the ties between the Democratic Party and the labor unions in America. Take a good look, America. Those rioting unions are the “big club” of the Democratic Party and they will use it to keep YOU in line if we do not purge them from our government.

In November of 2012 we will have another chance to finish the job we began last November. That is to cleanse the US Senate and the Oval Office and put some adults in charge of the government of the United States. It will also give us the opportunity to put the labor unions in their place, which, most definitely, is not in the Oval Office, nor any place in the US government.

Observe how the democrats left town while their muscle covered their backsides as they retreated. There is a huge lesson to be learned from all this ugliness in the streets of Wisconsin. What we are seeing is the left at work.

No matter how the problems with the Wisconsin state budget are finally settled, union members are going to lose. Jobs WILL be lost. When the money is gone it is, well, GONE.

There will be other states in the near future, which will face the same sort of problem as Wisconsin. If the union rioting spreads to other states, look for the taxpayers to take another look, a favorable look this time, at the possibility of states filing bankruptcy. Seems to me that is where this is ultimately headed, anyway.

No. The unions aren’t doing themselves any good, at all, by the actions they are taking in Wisconsin. If anything, in the long run, they are doing damage to themselves that will require decades just for minimal recovery.

So – take a long, hard, look at the “demonstrating” unions in Wisconsin and ask yourself if that is what you want in your state. Because, more than likely, it is coming to your state, and like Wisconsin, it won’t be pretty.

J. D. Longstreet

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Some federal judges are badly confused
about the U.S. Constitution

Commentary by James H. Shott


Some federal judges are as unconcerned with the intent of the U.S. Constitution as many members of Congress and the administration, as last Thursday’s ruling on Obamacare shows.

A lawsuit that was filed in Michigan claimed that the mandate contained in the health care reform bill forcing people to buy health insurance exceeded Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.

But Federal Judge George Caram Steeh said the mandate to get health insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for not buying coverage are legal, because Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

Well, there you have it: all that is required for Judge Steeh to rule that a law is constitutional is that someone had good intentions behind their actions. I wonder why Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison didn’t think of that.

His reasoning goes like this. "Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," he said. Translation: If the government didn’t force everyone to buy insurance, some people would exercise their right not to buy it, and we can’t allow that.

The judge seemed more concerned with approving the rationale for what Congress did than in determining whether it comports with the intent of the Constitution, a question which has been completely ignored in matters of recent over-reaching legislative and executive behavior. And that begs the question: What is the point of the Constitution if judges, presidents and members of Congress don’t understand it, pay no attention to it, or interpret it out of existence?

Judge Steeh’s ruling demonstrates why we need to impose term limits on the federal judiciary.

If he thinks the Commerce Clause can be stretched to fit any circumstance motivated by good intentions, perhaps he ought to look around at the chaos health care reform is already causing, and re-examine the wisdom of the rationale he strayed so far from Constitutional intent to approve.

The health insurance provision already placed nearly a million low-wage or part-time workers at risk of losing their coverage because their employers would be encouraged by the increased costs involved to drop coverage rather than bear the cost of increasing it to the dictated standard. And the same cost increases will occur for those who do not get their insurance through their employer. So much for keeping your coverage if you are satisfied it.

So far thirty companies – including fast food giants McDonald’s and Jack in the Box, and the insurance company Cigna – have petitioned and been granted exemptions from the requirement from the Department of Health and Human Services, and will therefore not drop coverage for those employees. Fortunately for them this is an election year, and a million people losing their health insurance right before an election would be a big problem for Democrats.

According to some critics all of this confusion and disruption, and that which will surely follow, is part of a plan. They believe that the bill is designed to create so many problems that insurers will be leave the market, and so much chaos will ensue that the federal government will have to ride in on its white horse and save the day, forcing single-payer government-provided health coverage down our throats.

Whether government-controlled health care is either the goal or the result of the reform effort, the entire process is a significant reason for the anger and disgust that has driven the Tea Party movement. The drafting and passing of the health care reform bill was ugly and partisan, and a majority of the American people recognized the bill’s problems and opposed its passage, all to no avail.

So vile and disreputable was this process that every Representative and Senator who did not vote against it should be voted out of office and sent home. And while we’re at it, let’s rid ourselves of all those who support the cap and trade bill that will raise everyone’s taxes, increase the cost of everything from energy to building materials, and damage the economy of energy producing states. And also send home those who supported the $800 billion stimulus bill that has nationalized parts of the auto and banking industries, created the longest stretch of unemployment above 9.5 percent since 1948, put the nation at tremendous economic risk, and for all of that has produced virtually nothing positive.

Let’s also include those likely to support the financial transaction tax supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and being discussed (quietly) by Congressional Democrats that would put a one percent tax on all banking transactions like deposits and withdrawals, transfers between savings and checking accounts, ATM withdrawals, and loan payments, among other transactions. And for good measure let’s include those who support the freedom-robbing card check measure that will be sneaked in for a vote in the lame duck session after the election.

There is no time like the present. For all 435 Representatives and 37 Senators, that opportunity is three weeks away.

Cross-posted from Observations

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Media dishonesty and complicity are
in the news once again

Commentary by James H. Shott


Not too long ago the light of truth shined on climate scientists who cheated in trying to persuade the world that its end is near when a series of emails were made public revealing their fraud and deceit.

Now, a series of online discussions between journalists, academics and others of a similar mind have been discovered in which the dialogue centered on how to manipulate the voting public, and other matters equally out of bounds. The journalists represent several media outlets, including The Washington Post, Time Magazine, the Guardian (Britain), National Public Radio, The Nation, The New Republic, Bloomberg News, Salon, and Harper’s. The emails were posted at an online meeting place, a list-serve called “JournoList.”

Some people defend the activities of JournoListers as nothing unusual. Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, asserts that the communications are normal interaction between associates. To him there is nothing unusual or improper about journalists discussing how to distract the American public from the negatives of one candidate in a presidential election. Boys will be boys, you know.

But journalism professor Jim Campbell of the State University of New York at Buffalo finds the JournoList troubling. “At one level it could be thought of as just colleagues throwing ideas out to one another, but from another standpoint it almost looks like collusion … where virtual talking points are shared and solidified in a group.” “That can’t be healthy for the country – or for the media, for that matter,” he added.

Bingo.

One useful tactic of the JournoListers was to distract attention from negative Obama news with some sensational charge against a prominent conservative. Someone named Spencer Ackerman, at the time on the staff of the Washington Independent, suggested to participants that to distract attention from Barack Obama’s racist and anti-America minister Jeremiah Wright, pick a conservative like “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.”

Manipulating information for political and ideological gain wasn’t the only topic these folks discussed in this virtual smoke-filled back-room. They also thought freedom of the press should be done away with, because it allows Fox News to exist. Daniel Davies, a columnist at the Guardian, commented that “I am genuinely scared” of Fox because it “cannot be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation.” Imagine that: a news outlet that can’t be “controlled.” He continues: “In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”

We need a “legal framework” to control Fox News, while the media outlets where the JournoListers work continue to operate unfettered? That sounds both fair and constitutional, doesn’t it?

Jumping on the anti-Fox News bandwagon was Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, who suggested a more strong-arm solution to the Fox News dilemma: “[I]s there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” This man is a law professor?

Journalists are supposed to be in competition with one another, not in collusion, formulating “talking points” with each other. It is, obviously, a glaring conflict of interest when journalists pick a side and conspire to support one candidate or one side of an issue over the others. Such conflicts are scrupulously avoided by ethical professionals.

And what a horrid concoction of arrogance and insecurity these media people have. They are so arrogant as to think their ideas are more important than those of their fellow Americans, and yet are so insecure about their ideas that they believe they have to fool the American people into supporting them.

This perverse exercise has revealed such curious creatures as journalists who want freedom of the press for some but not others, and who conspire to manage information, and a law professor who believes Fox News has an FCC “permit” that can be revoked at will.

Good grief!

We are witnessing another once-honorable profession abandoning its integrity and hawking a personal agenda as it takes its place in the Hall of Shame alongside climate science.

At its best, news journalism is a noble and vital profession that adequately informs the public by objectively supplying accurate information so people can be well informed in order to make good decisions. It makes a point of covering controversial issues fully, because controversial issues are the ones most in need of public discussion. It does not favor one side over another, and leaves the picking of winners and losers to the American people, where it belongs.

At its worst, it is a corrupt and dishonorable perversion that controls information on events and issues to fit an ideological agenda. It ignores stories that will damage its chosen beneficiaries and over-emphasizes its point of view on important issues and its chosen candidates. It focuses extra attention toward its opponent’s negatives and ignores the positives. All to the detriment of the country and the citizens it is ethically bound to serve. Such integrity-challenged “journalists” throw ethics on the trash heap, and reduce themselves to partisan players in the political game.

Today, it seems there is much more “journalism at its worst” than ever before.

Cross-posted from Observations

Thursday, July 08, 2010

First rule of National Security: Secure the Borders!


First rule of National Security: Secure the Borders!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

***************

Ok, so I AM just an old country boy. But it seems to me that the fist step in national security, securing the country from those who would do us harm, is keeping them OUT of the country in the first place! That means securing the borders of our nation. If we don’t we won’t have a nation much longer.

We have often said the borders of the US could be secured, almost overnight, IF the government wanted to do so. But they don’t. The evidence is right before our eyes. That evidence? The borders aren’t secured!

Look, the US secures OTHER countries’ border overseas. Take Korea for example. Now we learn that the US government has agreed to assist Saudi Arabia in defending it’s border with Yemen! (SOURCE) For decades we protected West Germany’s border with East Germany, etc.

If federal law forbids the placement of US troops on the US borders, then we need to make the changes necessary to do just that.

Understand this: When I say US troops on the border, I mean armed combat-trained soldiers with the authority to use deadly force to protect US citizens from those illegally crossing into the United States.

I know that will not sit well with many of the readers of this piece, but the fact is, the people of the US are in serious danger from terrorists crossing our borders intent on doing as much damage, and taking as many American lives as they possible can -- even at the cost of their own lives.

God bless the state of Arizona for demonstrating the intestinal fortitude to go head to head with the federal government and pass a state law authorizing their own police to do the job our poor excuse for a federal government simply will not do. I feel sure Arizona will prevail at the Supreme Court. If they do, many other states will follow suit.

Politics is behind the Obama Regime and the Democratic Party dragging their feet on border security.

When you break it down it is simple to see. The Democratic Party has adopted so much of the socialist platform the American people are turning their backs on them in droves. Their only hope of winning elections in the future is with their base. They need, desperately, to grow that base.

The fastest growing portion of the base of voters for the Obama Regime and the Democratic Party is the African-American/Hispanic block of voters. With an unsecured southern border, the Obama Regime and the Democratic Party are holding the door wide-open for more Hispanics to cross, illegally, into America -- and eventually become democratic voters.

If we EVER hope to secure the borders of America, we must show the democrats the door and oust as many as we possible can in the Mid-Term Election this coming November -- and again in November of 2012. We must break their grip on power in the United States government.

J. D. Longstreet

Thursday, April 22, 2010

SEIU Forms New Political Party in North Carolina



New Political Party Forming in North Carolina
Guess Who Is Behind It
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


********************

In an article entitled: “Unions Now Starting Their Own Political Party,” Warner Todd Huston, at the Canada Free Press, says the following: “Apparently the Democrats in North Carolina aren’t sufficiently leftist enough for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). It appears that the SEIU, one of the largest and most powerful public employees unions in the nation, don’t have their hand deep enough in the taxpayer’s pockets so it is starting its own political party in the Tar Heel State, by passing the Democrats altogether.” You may read the entire article HERE.


SEIU’s Political party is called “North Carolina First.” It is, in our opinion, a thinly veiled attempt at payback for the three Democrat Congressmen from North Carolina who voted against ObamaCare -- Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, and my own Congressman, Mike McIntyre.


I am torn between being angry at what has the appearance of an Obama Power play, and being thankful, both at the same time. You may ask the reason for my gratitude. Well, I’ll tell you. The SEIU, with their North Carolina First Party, might very well elect three new Republicans from North Carolina to the US House! If Obama is taking this avenue to punish the NC democratic congressman, who bucked him on ObamaCare, then it may very well backfire and turn out to be a case of “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face!”


Tar Heels are not feeling very charitable towards the Democratic Party in NC at the moment. The scandal involving our immediate past Governor has soured a lot of democrats in the state. This power play by the SEIU, which Tar Heel voters associate with the Democratic Party, does absolutely nothing to enhance their image in the eyes of Tar Heel democrats.


North Carolina is a “right to work” state and labor unions are not looked upon very favorable in this state to begin with. And now they do THIS!


My regional newspaper reports that out of the 85,000-registered voter’s signatures they need to get on the ballot in North Carolina, at last count they had 20,000. So, they ARE well on their way. And they are working, hard, at accomplishing their goal.


On the North Carolina First website SEIU says the following: “North Carolina First is on the ground talking to voters. Right now, North Carolina First is gathering signatures to determine whether to qualify as a state party - to give working families the ability to choose a candidate that will fight for their interests - or to identify Congressional candidates who will stay accountable to the needs of working families not Washington's special interests.”
You can visit their website HERE.

SEIU plans to have a slate of candidates ready to run in the Mid-Term Election this coming November.

At “The Plum Line,” Greg Sargent’s blog, he says: “It’s also unclear what kind of cash SEIU national will put into this effort — which will also include SEANC, the state employees’ union — and what this will do to relations between labor and the national Dem establishment. But this challenge appears to be a serious experiment in reshaping the landscape of Democratic politics, and it bears watching.” Read the entire article HERE.

North Carolina politics never fails to be entertaining. The coming democrat blood-letting in the Mid-Term Election in November is shaping up to be another contest ranking right up there with mud wrestling!

J. D. Longstreet

Monday, April 09, 2007

Newt Gingrich and the Left

Originally posted at Maggie's Notebook

For several years Newt Gingrich has been my choice for President in 2008, but I changed my mind several months ago. While Gingrich is an exceptional thinker, creative and civil in thought and speech, and most certainly wants the best for America, he is deeply entrenched in Congressional friendships.

Thursday, Newt was interviewed by Paul W. Smith, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh. The news is next Tuesday’s debate on climate and environmental issues between Newt and John Kerry. When I first learned of this debate my reaction was, this is a very good thing. Newt has long been immersed in environmental issues and no one puts conflicting thought into succinct words better than Gingrich.

So, I'm listening to Gingrich and Smith, and liking the prospect of this debate, until...Newt emphasizes that the debate will not be a verbal “Wrestlemania,” points out his “long relationship” with Kerry, and then really rubs it in with “he’s a smart guy.” I am nauseous from hearing conservatives tout their civil accord with Democrats.

Smith pushes on and cuts to the chase, asking what all of conservative America wants to know:
"Honestly, you can take Kerry can't you?"
Newt's immediate, and defensive, response is,
"It's not a question of taking him."
You see, Newt wants to have "interesting dialog;" he wants to discuss "market oriented science," and that's all well and good – it’s a discussion this country needs to have, but the Left intends to bring America to its knees on this issue, fueled by the elite's quest for even more wealth, by manipulating the everyday habits of industrious Americans. They have no interest in entrepreneurial-endeavors that expose the folly of carbon credits and such.

Newt, we watch you on talk shows, read your books - listen to your every word. You tamp-down Democrat strategists with the ease of picking lint. You are tough and calmly aggressive until...until...you pair up with an elected politician. Those leading, shaping and interpreting public policy should not shine a light on personal friendships. When you do, we angst over it, for recent history has not been kind to trusting Republicans who, daily, watch the unthinkable parade in front of us.

We are not asking you to abandon the fine art of gentlemanship, but we are asking you to be fearless in revealing the absurd; for instance, a worthy debate might be Sandy Berger's appalling behavior, or William Jefferson's $100,000.00 bribe. Ask the sitting-Senator Kerry to make a public statement on these issues, and when the statement is veiled and lukewarm, keep after it until you get the answers we all deserve. Do us a favor and put the elected on the hot seat, and encourage other conservative leaders to do the same. America will enthusiastically support you. Let Kerry find other avenues to promote his book, as you introduce your new, A Contract with the Earth, in a more respected forum where you need not let down your guard to friendship.

We want our finest conservatives to take-on "taking" the Left. We want our conservative leaders to call them out, one-by-one, these rude, mean-spirited, and dishonest politicians. If you personally like the Left, fine - just don't tell us about your buddyship until today’s dire issues have the opportunity to be settled by conservative measures.

Then you can tell us how fine Senator John Kerry and his cohorts may be. On a personal level, I concede that you think John Kerry is a swell guy, but when you “speak” such validation – out-loud, it hurts the conservative movement because the fence-sitter moderates look for the easy way out, and the Democrat strategists quote you, just as they did when you personally validated Hillary Clinton a few years ago. It only makes sense that we need every honest advantage, and praising the Left, when it’s not necessary, is to put your debate at risk. The problem is, conservative debate is just too proper and vulnerable when up against political friendships.

My message to all conservatives in the public arena today: Taking pride in the conservative nature of accord just gets us into trouble. It doesn't work anymore. Don't even think of telling us that you cannot bring yourself "down" to their level - that you will not stoop that low. Find a way to deal with these people. You're either the person for the job or you’re not. We want you to "take" Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy, Murtha, as well as Specter and Hagel and the other Republican liberals. They will eat us alive if you, and other Republican leaders, do not.

Ending Note: As I finish the above, Newt is on Fox News Sunday suggesting that it's best that Gonzales step-down, and Chuck Schumer is thrilled with Newt's conclusion. Tomorrow, I'm sure, Schumer will be in front of a mic and a camera, somewhere, with: Even Newt Gingrich agrees that Gonzales needs to resign.

Now, Newt is commenting that "his good friends on the Senate-side" will tie-up the Gonzalez investigation for months. I do not advocate Newt or any politician misrepresenting their own criticisms of any branch of government, but I do advocate turning the conversation to an advantage for the conservative side - always.

Permalink for this entry: http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/newt-gingrich-and-left.html

Trackback URL for this entry:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/4183851223298429609


Technorati Tags:
Follow faultlineusa on Twitter