THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE
Scientists, not unlike journalists, are arrogant people. No, its not because they are, as some would have you believe, smarter than the rest of us. It really has more to do with their perceptions of their reputations. Science, we are repeatedly told, is concerned with facts and data and therefore it is supposedly immune to the sort of criticism leveled at the likes of politicians and clergymen. Unfortunately, scientists are, in fact, human and therefore susceptible to the same biases and temptations that befall the rest of us. Is it then shocking to find out that scientists would cast their "precious" reputations before swine and bias their research in favor of a particularly desired outcome, especially if by doing so they would gain both fame and the financing needed to continue their pursuits? Of course not.
The fact is, we have seen politics invaded by science all too often lately. Or is it the other way around? Sometimes it can get really hard to tell who is the whore and who is the customer. We have seen this a lot lately in the political discourse over so-called man made global warming. There are billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars at stake over public policy that is being debated to combat what is essentially a scientifically superficial fraud. The legislation now being considered in congress is nothing more than a redistributionist scheme to extract wealth from the private sector and place it in the control of the government. More scientists are coming out every day against the idea that any change in the climate is due to the actions of mankind or, more importantly, that any action taken by mankind could or should reverse it. Yet, experts who contest the concept of man-made global warming are not even being allowed to bring their arguments into the Democratically controlled congress's debates on the issue. The game is being rigged and a sympathetic media is going along with it. There is still hope that this Cap and Trade swindle will be stifled by congressmen from energy producing states acting in their own self-interest. But who knows? In Obama's world anything that generates economy destroying debt is seen as the "collective good."
And how about the fiasco over embryonic stem cell research? We recently watched as the current president excoriated the previous one as being unfriendly to science because he failed to fund new lines of embryonic stem cell research. This, in spite of the fact that embryonic stem cell research has been a considerable failure compared to the research being done with adult stem cells. This entire episode is nothing more than a political sideshow in the continuing debate over abortion and the definition of an embryo as human life. The politics and the science is being intertwined into an unnecessary moral dilemma. One that, from a purely scientific point of view, should be resolved with the successes of adult stem cell research. But why put an end to a good fight?
It should therefore come as no surprise to find out that the politically motivated science of progressive social engineers has yet again been derailed from its devious and deceptive tracks. This time it is the myth that homosexuality is genetically inherited that is coming unravelled. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the progressive's favorite lies is being scientifically destroyed. And not a moment to soon.
Many people today believe that homosexuality is part of a homosexual's construction from the moment of conception. This idea that homosexuality is both a genetic and permanent condition has been promoted by both homosexual activists and a fawning media. One example often promoted by the media is this from a brochure issued by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1998 that stated:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
There is only one problem with that. It is not, and never has been, true. The truth is that such statements are, and always have been, part of a massive homosexual propaganda campaign designed to deceive the public into accepting homosexual behavior as natural and normal. It was neither, and many of us have said so all along. However, by taking control of the debate and framing homosexuality as non-choosable and inherited, it became possible to refer to anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda as a bigot. A nice weapon to wield if you can get away with it. Unfortunately the real science of genetic research was always unwilling to go as far as the propaganda, as evidenced by this from Science Magazine in 1994:
"Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."
In other words, it is not as simple as the journalists and activists implied. They had a result they desired and proceeded to look for some science to back it up. In the meantime they were willing to stretch the inconclusive results into unsubstantiated data that would support their desired conclusion. That conclusion being that homosexuals are born and not the product of any "environmental" influences. How damning it is then that the APA, after years of research deliberately looking for this mythical "gay gene," would be forced to change their statement on homosexuality to this:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."
Although they declined to reveal the particulars of the research that made them change their position it is resoundingly clear that all efforts to prove that homosexuality is biologically and genetically transmitted have failed. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY GENE!
The MAJORITY of scientists now believe that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social and biological factors, as the following statements on the matter can attest:
"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." -American Psychological Association
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality is that multiple factors play a role." -Simon LeVay, "Gay Brain" researcher
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality." -Dennis McFadden, University Of Texas neuroscientist
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." -Steven Goldgerg, Sociologist
"If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic." - Douglas Abbott, University of Nebraska
All of this information is documented by The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH also has this to say about a term often used by proponents of homosexuality: "homophobia":
"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"
Homosexuality makes for strange bedfellows. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexuals but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual. However, if we take this new Hate Crimes legislation to its natural conclusion, could not scientists who argue that homosexuality is not an inborn trait be considered guilty of violating the Hate Crimes legislation also? Homosexuals consider ANY criticism of them as hate speech so certainly if they decry the words of God from the Bible they must assuredly decry the words of scientists who fail to support their agenda. Something to consider as well is why we should allow such legislation to pass at all as it clearly is aimed at protecting behavior and not people. Perverse and un-natural behavior at that!
According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center For People and the Press, attitudes about homosexuals have changed significantly over the last 22 years. This is especially true among people who consider themselves to be religious. There is a trend toward more tolerance towards homosexuals and the idea of homosexual marriage. This can be entirely attributed to the homosexual activists and their use of propaganda to deceive the public into viewing their "plight" as a civil rights issue. It is not. Their entire campaign has been built on deliberately misleading, and at times, entirely fabricated science. These lies are now being exposed. There is nothing virtuous about tolerating, supporting or endorsing homosexuals or homosexual behavior. If you are one of those who were led to believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are a victim of this deceptive propaganda machine. Be a victim no more.
All of this has to be devastating to homosexual advocates, and it would be, if the media would report any of it. Like the also less that scientifically valid Theory of Evolution, some science is too politically important to allow the facts to interfere with the agenda. The Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a cog in the progressive religion of "multiculturalism" that is used to justify every social engineering scheme the socialist left favors. Genetic homosexuality, by contrast, is considered to be a poison to the only religion that can compete with theirs...Christianity. And to think these are the people who argue that they favor science over religion...
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Der Angriff
DER ANGRIFF
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then somewhere (Hell, perchance?) Joseph Goebbels is basking in celebration. Certainly the infamous propaganda minister for The Third Reich has to be proud of the Obama administration's bold use of his tried and true tactics of mass deception. Coordinated and "manufactured" stories and pseudo-events pour through the media daily, all in deliberate lockstep with the "Community Organizer In Chief's" agenda to remake Amerika into a socialist/fascist state more susceptible to deception and, ultimately, control. Consider these headlines which appeared in newspapers across the country on April 7th and 8th, 2009:
• Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
• Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
• Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
• Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
• Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
• Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
• Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
• 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
• 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
• Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman
• One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities
• 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle
• 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent
• Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal
• Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald
• Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune
• Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette
• Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio
• REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6
- List directblue@blogspot.com
There are considerably more examples than this but I think you get the idea. All of these stories were "supplied" by an organization called "Families USA." Actually they are nothing more than one of many liberal/progressive advocacy groups working under the larger umbrella of something that calls itself the "Progressive States Network." And who, praytell, would you imagine that they receive their orders from? Why none other than our good friends at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the SEIU (Service Employees International Union).
Incidentally, aren't these the same people who are attempting to backdoor engineer the so-called "fairness doctrine" under the concept of "localism?" Yet none of these stories that appeared all across the country in "local" media sources were actually generated locally. Oh, the hypocrisy of the progressive/socialist left!
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." -Barack Obama
President Obama made this claim during the campaign that got him elected. Now he has initiated the propaganda campaign that he hopes will help him to fulfill that promise. Unfortunately, as with most propaganda campaigns, accuracy, honesty and truth take a back-seat to partisan objectives. The mainstream media, an active participant in the Obama propaganda machine, continues to tout the figure of 47 million Americans without health insurance. However, as always, this figure is both misleading and distorted. Data from the Census Bureau reveals:
• 9.5 million people are illegal aliens.
• 8.3 million uninsured people are those who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and choose not to purchase insurance.
• 8.7 million uninsured people are those who make over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase insurance.
Not particularly the kind of uninsured "victims" that the American people should be enthusiastic enough to overhaul their entire medical apparatus just to rescue are they? Why do so many people CHOOSE not to get health insurance that they CAN afford? Because 60% reported being in "excellent health or very good health" and purposefully decided not to buy insurance, a not unreasonable choice. Once we subtract these willfully uninsured from the original number we are left with approximately 20 million uninsured, that less than 7% of the population! Does 93% of the population really want to jeopardize the best health care system in the world over something that is most definitely NOT a crisis? There are ways to help the remaining uninsured that do not involve such a radical response as this president is proposing. The "crisis" in health care is false. You want to improve the system? Put limits on the judgements one can recieve for a malpractice/negligence lawsuit. However, since almost EVERYONE in government is a lawyer, and they tend to profit from such litigation, I wouldn't hold my breath for such tort reform.
The new U.S. Propaganda ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream media) doesn't satisfy itself with the mere misrepresentation of facts. Deliberately manufactured events and photo opportunities are just as useful in portraying our new president as something other than what he is. A recent "surprise visit" (c'mon "Clockwork Orange" fans) by the president to visit the troops in Iraq was plastered in the media all around the world. If you believed your lying eyes you thought the troops were elated to see the president. They were cheering and gathering around him in much the same way as they did for his predecessor who was very popular with them. The Associated Press expressed it thusly:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq. He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future. The war-zone photo opportunity produced a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war. - AP
But alas, you didn't see what you thought you saw. As it turns out the entire event was no "surprise visit" at all, but was instead a thoroughly planned and orchestrated event. When the curtain is pulled back we learn that all of the soldiers that were invited to greet the president on this fabricated "surprise visit" were, in fact, questioned beforehand so that only those who revealed themselves as having voted for Obama would be in attendance.
That wonderful cheering welcome that President Obama received with his unscheduled surprise visit to the troops in Iraq, was entirely a staged event. The troops were interrogated beforehand, with those military members who had voted for President Obama given identical digital cameras and placed in front of the media cameras covering the event. - Minority Report
Uh-Oh...
A sergeant who was there explained the subterfuge. “We were pre-screened, asked by officials ‘Who voted for Obama?’, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.” - Minority Report
Isn't it strange that all these soldiers managed to have their cameras with them when the president "surprised" them with his visit? And don't they all look remarkably similar? Isn't that curious considering the plethora of different cameras there are on the market? But really, has this administration shown any competence at ANYTHING? Why would we presume they would be all that good at deception?
Do you remember that episode of the classic TV show "The Brady Bunch" where Greg Brady was made into a rock star because he fit the suit that the record company already had? They even hired girls to attack him everywhere he went so he would look like a star. Barack Obama's presidency is playing out much the same way. Everything is controlled and contrived, and he is not going to deviate from the pre-arranged plan. It worked to get him elected and as long as he keeps the mainstream media in his pocket, he hopes he can continue to manipulate public opinion through these deceptions. And boy does he have the media in his pocket!! Consider these recently revealed facts from the Center For Media & Public Affairs:
Total network news coverage for the first 50 days:
Obama 27 hours- 44 minutes-- Reporting 58% Positive
Bush 7 hours- 42 minutes -- Reporting 33% Positive
Clinton 15 hours- 2 minutes-- reporting 44% Positive
Obama’s news coverage for the first 50 days:
CBS 10 hours 46 minutes -- Reporting 58% Positive
NBC 9 hours 38 minutes -- Reporting 61% Positive
ABC 7 hours 20 minutes -- Reporting 57% Positive
Fox- Bret Baier 10 hours 24 minutes ( from the first 30 minutes of the show)--
Reporting 13% Positive
I would like to say these numbers are surprising but, unfortunately, we all knew this to be true. However what IS surprising is how blatantly and shamelessly journalists have sold their integrity. And for what? Like Esau in the famous Bible story, it would appear to be for food! Well, maybe not for food but certainly the transaction did take place over dinner. A recent report from Howard Kurtz revealed that David Bradley of the Atlantic Monthly has been, for over a year, regularly hosting dinners that allow certain elitist journalists to mingle with A list members of the Obama campaign and administration. These exclusive dinners are ongoing even as his campaign has become his administration. Who are these elitist journalists that merit invitations to these exclusive dinners?
"Among those in regular attendance are David Brooks and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gene Robinson and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, NBC's David Gregory, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, PBS's Gwen Ifill, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum, former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson and staffers from Bradley's Atlantic and National Journal, including Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch." - Washington Post
And you wonder how Obama gets such favorable reporting!! Don't be too impressed by all those polls that show Obama to have a high approval rating either. Numbers and statistics are even easier to manipulate than journalists...and they eat less! Barack Obama first conquered the media and effectively made them into his propaganda ministry. They have a lot invested in him. They need him to succeed to cover their own asses. Those polls that originate from media sources reflect a higher opinion of Obama than the more respectable (and accurate) polls used to track elections. He is not nearly as well approved of as is being reported. But remember, according to the media in Germany during WW II, they were always winning the war, even as the American and Russian armies were destroying their country. When your entire government is built on a foundation of deception and manipulation, you cannot ever abandon those methods. Certainly Joseph Goebbels would approve of Obama's methods. But then again, both Joseph Goebbels AND Barack Obama are...SOCIALISTS!!
Der Angriff (meaning "The Attack" in English) was a newspaper founded in 1927 by Joseph Goebbels.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then somewhere (Hell, perchance?) Joseph Goebbels is basking in celebration. Certainly the infamous propaganda minister for The Third Reich has to be proud of the Obama administration's bold use of his tried and true tactics of mass deception. Coordinated and "manufactured" stories and pseudo-events pour through the media daily, all in deliberate lockstep with the "Community Organizer In Chief's" agenda to remake Amerika into a socialist/fascist state more susceptible to deception and, ultimately, control. Consider these headlines which appeared in newspapers across the country on April 7th and 8th, 2009:
• Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
• Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
• Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
• Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
• Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
• Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
• Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
• 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
• 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
• Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman
• One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities
• 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle
• 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent
• Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal
• Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald
• Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune
• Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette
• Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio
• REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6
- List directblue@blogspot.com
There are considerably more examples than this but I think you get the idea. All of these stories were "supplied" by an organization called "Families USA." Actually they are nothing more than one of many liberal/progressive advocacy groups working under the larger umbrella of something that calls itself the "Progressive States Network." And who, praytell, would you imagine that they receive their orders from? Why none other than our good friends at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the SEIU (Service Employees International Union).
Incidentally, aren't these the same people who are attempting to backdoor engineer the so-called "fairness doctrine" under the concept of "localism?" Yet none of these stories that appeared all across the country in "local" media sources were actually generated locally. Oh, the hypocrisy of the progressive/socialist left!
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." -Barack Obama
President Obama made this claim during the campaign that got him elected. Now he has initiated the propaganda campaign that he hopes will help him to fulfill that promise. Unfortunately, as with most propaganda campaigns, accuracy, honesty and truth take a back-seat to partisan objectives. The mainstream media, an active participant in the Obama propaganda machine, continues to tout the figure of 47 million Americans without health insurance. However, as always, this figure is both misleading and distorted. Data from the Census Bureau reveals:
• 9.5 million people are illegal aliens.
• 8.3 million uninsured people are those who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and choose not to purchase insurance.
• 8.7 million uninsured people are those who make over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase insurance.
Not particularly the kind of uninsured "victims" that the American people should be enthusiastic enough to overhaul their entire medical apparatus just to rescue are they? Why do so many people CHOOSE not to get health insurance that they CAN afford? Because 60% reported being in "excellent health or very good health" and purposefully decided not to buy insurance, a not unreasonable choice. Once we subtract these willfully uninsured from the original number we are left with approximately 20 million uninsured, that less than 7% of the population! Does 93% of the population really want to jeopardize the best health care system in the world over something that is most definitely NOT a crisis? There are ways to help the remaining uninsured that do not involve such a radical response as this president is proposing. The "crisis" in health care is false. You want to improve the system? Put limits on the judgements one can recieve for a malpractice/negligence lawsuit. However, since almost EVERYONE in government is a lawyer, and they tend to profit from such litigation, I wouldn't hold my breath for such tort reform.
The new U.S. Propaganda ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream media) doesn't satisfy itself with the mere misrepresentation of facts. Deliberately manufactured events and photo opportunities are just as useful in portraying our new president as something other than what he is. A recent "surprise visit" (c'mon "Clockwork Orange" fans) by the president to visit the troops in Iraq was plastered in the media all around the world. If you believed your lying eyes you thought the troops were elated to see the president. They were cheering and gathering around him in much the same way as they did for his predecessor who was very popular with them. The Associated Press expressed it thusly:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq. He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future. The war-zone photo opportunity produced a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war. - AP
But alas, you didn't see what you thought you saw. As it turns out the entire event was no "surprise visit" at all, but was instead a thoroughly planned and orchestrated event. When the curtain is pulled back we learn that all of the soldiers that were invited to greet the president on this fabricated "surprise visit" were, in fact, questioned beforehand so that only those who revealed themselves as having voted for Obama would be in attendance.
That wonderful cheering welcome that President Obama received with his unscheduled surprise visit to the troops in Iraq, was entirely a staged event. The troops were interrogated beforehand, with those military members who had voted for President Obama given identical digital cameras and placed in front of the media cameras covering the event. - Minority Report
Uh-Oh...
A sergeant who was there explained the subterfuge. “We were pre-screened, asked by officials ‘Who voted for Obama?’, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.” - Minority Report
Isn't it strange that all these soldiers managed to have their cameras with them when the president "surprised" them with his visit? And don't they all look remarkably similar? Isn't that curious considering the plethora of different cameras there are on the market? But really, has this administration shown any competence at ANYTHING? Why would we presume they would be all that good at deception?
Do you remember that episode of the classic TV show "The Brady Bunch" where Greg Brady was made into a rock star because he fit the suit that the record company already had? They even hired girls to attack him everywhere he went so he would look like a star. Barack Obama's presidency is playing out much the same way. Everything is controlled and contrived, and he is not going to deviate from the pre-arranged plan. It worked to get him elected and as long as he keeps the mainstream media in his pocket, he hopes he can continue to manipulate public opinion through these deceptions. And boy does he have the media in his pocket!! Consider these recently revealed facts from the Center For Media & Public Affairs:
Total network news coverage for the first 50 days:
Obama 27 hours- 44 minutes-- Reporting 58% Positive
Bush 7 hours- 42 minutes -- Reporting 33% Positive
Clinton 15 hours- 2 minutes-- reporting 44% Positive
Obama’s news coverage for the first 50 days:
CBS 10 hours 46 minutes -- Reporting 58% Positive
NBC 9 hours 38 minutes -- Reporting 61% Positive
ABC 7 hours 20 minutes -- Reporting 57% Positive
Fox- Bret Baier 10 hours 24 minutes ( from the first 30 minutes of the show)--
Reporting 13% Positive
I would like to say these numbers are surprising but, unfortunately, we all knew this to be true. However what IS surprising is how blatantly and shamelessly journalists have sold their integrity. And for what? Like Esau in the famous Bible story, it would appear to be for food! Well, maybe not for food but certainly the transaction did take place over dinner. A recent report from Howard Kurtz revealed that David Bradley of the Atlantic Monthly has been, for over a year, regularly hosting dinners that allow certain elitist journalists to mingle with A list members of the Obama campaign and administration. These exclusive dinners are ongoing even as his campaign has become his administration. Who are these elitist journalists that merit invitations to these exclusive dinners?
"Among those in regular attendance are David Brooks and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gene Robinson and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, NBC's David Gregory, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, PBS's Gwen Ifill, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum, former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson and staffers from Bradley's Atlantic and National Journal, including Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch." - Washington Post
And you wonder how Obama gets such favorable reporting!! Don't be too impressed by all those polls that show Obama to have a high approval rating either. Numbers and statistics are even easier to manipulate than journalists...and they eat less! Barack Obama first conquered the media and effectively made them into his propaganda ministry. They have a lot invested in him. They need him to succeed to cover their own asses. Those polls that originate from media sources reflect a higher opinion of Obama than the more respectable (and accurate) polls used to track elections. He is not nearly as well approved of as is being reported. But remember, according to the media in Germany during WW II, they were always winning the war, even as the American and Russian armies were destroying their country. When your entire government is built on a foundation of deception and manipulation, you cannot ever abandon those methods. Certainly Joseph Goebbels would approve of Obama's methods. But then again, both Joseph Goebbels AND Barack Obama are...SOCIALISTS!!
Der Angriff (meaning "The Attack" in English) was a newspaper founded in 1927 by Joseph Goebbels.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Homosexuals and Huguenots
HOMOSEXUALS AND HUGUENOTS
Well, it has happened again. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout the country disapprove of the legalization of homosexual marriage, those who know better have forced it upon us by judicial fiat. This time it was in Iowa, the veritable heart of America, where homosexuals were rescued from the oppression of unsanctioned marriages. Couple this with the Obama administration's desire to declare homosexuals to be a superior and protected class of citizens through new and expanded hate crimes legislation, and you have the makings of a disaster the likes of which we have seen before. Yes, we have seen this before. You see, our homosexual friends are guilty of behaving like...Christians! I bet you weren't expecting that, huh? Read on that you may understand that being "right" always comes with a price...
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state's Supreme Court actually confessed to being guilty of "activism" in its opinion today paving the way for same-sex "marriage" in the state. Iowa's high court said same-sex marriages "could begin" in as little as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three states formally recognizing homosexual duos. King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the decision. "The opinion strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn the will of the people of the state of Iowa," King said. "This turns on its head the entire composition of human history and law." He called it the "most activist opinion that I have every read."
Citing the court's boasts about how it had led in the fight against slavery and for women's rights, and equating same-sex "marriage" with those issues, King called the statement "a self-assigned confession of activists. It's the will of the people that's supposed to lead the way," he said. "The constitution is not supposed to change unless it's changed by the people. The ruling should "infuriate" every Iowan, he said. "I don't think Iowans have changed their opinions. If they did they would have changed the law."
Once again we see a minority group using the courts to tyrannically impose its will on a population that would otherwise never accede to their demands. In fact a poll released at the same time of this ruling shows that more than 62 percent of Iowans oppose homosexual marriage, and fewer than 30 percent support it, though about half of those opposed would support civil unions. Unfortunately the court ruled that civil unions weren't an acceptable alternative. Why? Because this is about being "right," and these activist courts are convinced it is their job to make things "right." Never mind that it is their job to interpret the law, not "fix" it. By linking homosexual marriage to the fight against slavery the court is claiming to be operating on some higher moral authority that seems to exist above the law. One could make the argument that this higher moral authority could come from God except for the fact that we know his feelings on homosexuality.
Nevertheless, in spite of all this, as always, the Obama administration stands poised to make things even worse:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section. - White House Website
Yes, the infamous Matthew Shepherd Act, whereby homosexuals are granted status as a "protected" class of citizen as though there was something that was innately special about being a homosexual. Worse still is the implication that protecting them is something of a priority over protecting the rest of us.
All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to both our religious liberties and our right to free speech. In other countries where these kind of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been arrested and fined for speaking what the Biblical scriptures teach about homosexuality. There is even a recently passed state law in Colorado that makes it a crime to hand out Christian literature that speaks against this lifestyle. It can happen here. It is happening here.
I cannot help but recognize the similarity between the radical agenda that is driving the push to legalize homosexual marriage, and a previous time of "manufactured" intolerance. As you will see, we have been here before. Journey back in time to sixteenth century France and the conflict between the Protestants (called Huguenots) and the dominant Roman Catholic Church. You will find that those driving the homosexual agenda have learned a lot from their Huguenot brothers about how to force themselves, and their agenda, on an unwilling majority. However, they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of those actions. There is a price to be paid for being "right."
The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the unprecedented access to Biblical scriptures that resulted from both the invention of the printing press and the translating of the Bible into the various languages of the European Christians. "Sola Scriptura" (by Scripture alone) was one of the mantras of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible, is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. According to this doctrine, the teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin began espousing interpretations of the Bible that clashed with the traditional teachings of Roman Catholicism.
Because the societies of the time were built around monarchist governments that were dominated by Roman Catholics, the Huguenots did not enjoy many, if any, privileges to freely express their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church the Huguenots were heretics and were regularly punished as such. As a result the Huguenots felt they were forced to pursue a course of violence in order to obtain the privilege to worship as they wished. This manifested itself through several "wars of religion" throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. These wars led to many concessions that earned both the right to worship in their own establishments and to freely be recognized for their beliefs without fear of reprisals for heresy. However, once the Huguenots had earned tolerance for their belief system, tolerance soon was not enough. Why? Because they knew they were "right." As I'm sure our homosexual friends would agree, being "right" entitles you to more than just tolerance. So more was sought.
These were very religious people in a very religious time. They felt that the scriptures validated their belief system over the more "pagan" traditions of the Roman Catholicism, therefore they felt it was their Christian duty to impose their beliefs on the Catholics and force them to admit the error of their ways. And so it was that the Huguenots, always in the minority, attacked Roman Catholicism with both words and violence. The Huguenots took to the practice of Iconoclasm, the deliberate destruction of Catholic symbols, statues and churches. Does this remind you of any behavior you have been seeing out of the aggressive homosexual advocates? They too have been trespassing into church services to disrupt them with their agenda as well as pursuing vandalism against their property in the wake of their failure to win enough votes to legalize homosexual marriage in California. Quite blatant behavior for minorities wouldn't you say?
The Catholics of the sixteenth century were, of course, enraged at this violation of their establishments and the defacing of their sacred symbols. Their traditions were being trampled upon even as the monarchy insisted they show "tolerance" and resist the temptation to strike back. However this was an untenable situation. The Huguenots were no longer content to seek tolerance for their belief system and the right to practice it. Their arrogance demanded that the Catholics acknowledge that they were "right."
Positions hardened on both sides of the religious divide. Catholic militants began urging the king to outlaw any expression of Protestant faith. Many wanted the Huguenots to pay for the trouble they caused with their lives. Meanwhile, the Huguenots proudly justified their actions by claiming they had the right to resist "illegitimate authority." Many of you will immediately recognize that as the primary justification for the later American Revolution. In both instances the king rightly recognized a threat to his authority. Unlike in the American Revolution however, the Huguenots were clearly a minority who was wearing out its welcome.
The monarchy, for its part, was still attempting to moderate the dispute. Though largely dominated by Catholics, it was official policy to show tolerance to the Huguenots in hopes of trying to maintain some influence with their leaders in the hope they could reign in the radicals. Contrary to how history has portrayed her, Catherine De Medici was very much in favor of granting Huguenots concessions in hopes of maintaining the social order. Unfortunately she would end up receiving much of the blame for the event that was about to unfold.
Tensions were raised to a fever pitch when the King Charles IX indicated he would consider sending military aid to a Huguenot army that was invading the Netherlands. In May of 1572 Dutch Protestants were in revolt against Catholic King Philip II of Spain. The majority of the French population naturally despised the idea of allying with heretics against a Catholic King. Worse still, was Charles' plan to marry his sister to a Protestant Prince, Henry of Bourbon. In the age of monarchies marriages between to conflicting factions were often used to ease the tensions between warring parties. This could in many ways be seen as the equivalent of homosexuals today using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. For the Catholics of sixteenth century France, this mixed marriage would turn out to be that one straw of tolerance more than the camel's back could bear. There would be no more.
The wedding was to be a very public affair. All the more enraging to those who valued their Catholic traditions. It drew huge numbers of Huguenots to Paris to celebrate what the Catholics viewed as legitimizing heresy. Like a modern day gay pride parade, the Huguenots would be intolerably arrogant and flagrantly flaunting themselves through the streets. Unlike a modern day gay pride parade however, almost no Huguenots left Paris alive.
August 25, 1572 was one of the bloodiest days in Western history. Perhaps the bloodiest one to not involve a military engagement. Forever known as the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the death toll remains a matter of dispute. Many claim it was in the neighborhood of 30,000 but some claim as many as 100,000 were murdered. This was largely due to the fact that the killings went on for months. I will leave the details of the massacre to some other essay. An attempted assassination of Protestant Admiral Coligny is alleged to have sparked it. Rumors of a Huguenot army outside of Paris were prevalent at the time leading to a belief the King ordered a pre-emptive strike. Of course the Huguenots claim that the massacre was initiated on the Kings orders and many allege an ambush was planned all along.
What was unique about it was how enthusiastically the general population of France took to violence in a manner almost resembling a festival. As word spread of the massacre, the population considered itself to have permission, if not a duty, to rid themselves of the infestation of heresy. The Huguenots paid for their arrogance. Many of the victims were forced to recant their faith or recite Catholic prayers. Infants were "baptized" in the blood of their parents. Pregnant women had their babies cut from their wombs. Looting and Pillaging were common. In a word...anarchy.
Now before anyone gets the wrong idea let me state I would in no way argue the massacre in 1572 was justified, and though I am making a connection between the arrogance of the Huguenots and the arrogance of modern day homosexuals, I am not suggesting that such a response is in order today. American society allows a lot more options for people to express their displeasures than sixteenth century France. However I would contend that a minority that does not enjoy widespread popular acceptance ought not to try to bully a majority that values its traditional way of life.
Homosexuals often try to link their "efforts" to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. But unlike homosexuals, Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement always enjoyed the popular support of the majority of Americans. That is not now, nor has it ever been, true of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Remember the poll that showed only 30% of Iowans would support such a thing. Yet the homosexuals found a way around them. In 1572 The Catholics stood in support of "traditional" values and the Huguenots stood against an "illegitimate authority." Both were convinced they were "right." Now the citizens of Iowa can see their traditional values trampled on BY an "illegitimate authority." Homosexuals enjoy all the rights and protections of every other American citizen. That homosexuals are some sort of persecuted minority is nothing more than a fabrication of their own making. They pursue the legalization of homosexual marriage out of an arrogant desire to make all of us acknowledge they are "right." They pursue "hate crimes" legislation merely to put criticism of their lifestyle out of reach.
The problem with the advocates of homosexual marriage is that they demand the dissolution of the standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and replace it with...nothing! The absence of a standard definition for marriage will only lead to further insistence on toleration for the intolerable on down the line. What the homosexuals are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy always breeds violence. The movement for the legalization of homosexual marriage can't claim any higher motivation than selfishness. They have manufactured an issue where there should be none, and have the audacity to claim their critics to be "haters" and "intolerant.". The arrogance of this minority, in demanding that the rest of us bow down and accept that they are "right," is astounding. This cannot possibly end well for them.
Well, it has happened again. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout the country disapprove of the legalization of homosexual marriage, those who know better have forced it upon us by judicial fiat. This time it was in Iowa, the veritable heart of America, where homosexuals were rescued from the oppression of unsanctioned marriages. Couple this with the Obama administration's desire to declare homosexuals to be a superior and protected class of citizens through new and expanded hate crimes legislation, and you have the makings of a disaster the likes of which we have seen before. Yes, we have seen this before. You see, our homosexual friends are guilty of behaving like...Christians! I bet you weren't expecting that, huh? Read on that you may understand that being "right" always comes with a price...
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state's Supreme Court actually confessed to being guilty of "activism" in its opinion today paving the way for same-sex "marriage" in the state. Iowa's high court said same-sex marriages "could begin" in as little as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three states formally recognizing homosexual duos. King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the decision. "The opinion strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn the will of the people of the state of Iowa," King said. "This turns on its head the entire composition of human history and law." He called it the "most activist opinion that I have every read."
Citing the court's boasts about how it had led in the fight against slavery and for women's rights, and equating same-sex "marriage" with those issues, King called the statement "a self-assigned confession of activists. It's the will of the people that's supposed to lead the way," he said. "The constitution is not supposed to change unless it's changed by the people. The ruling should "infuriate" every Iowan, he said. "I don't think Iowans have changed their opinions. If they did they would have changed the law."
Once again we see a minority group using the courts to tyrannically impose its will on a population that would otherwise never accede to their demands. In fact a poll released at the same time of this ruling shows that more than 62 percent of Iowans oppose homosexual marriage, and fewer than 30 percent support it, though about half of those opposed would support civil unions. Unfortunately the court ruled that civil unions weren't an acceptable alternative. Why? Because this is about being "right," and these activist courts are convinced it is their job to make things "right." Never mind that it is their job to interpret the law, not "fix" it. By linking homosexual marriage to the fight against slavery the court is claiming to be operating on some higher moral authority that seems to exist above the law. One could make the argument that this higher moral authority could come from God except for the fact that we know his feelings on homosexuality.
Nevertheless, in spite of all this, as always, the Obama administration stands poised to make things even worse:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section. - White House Website
Yes, the infamous Matthew Shepherd Act, whereby homosexuals are granted status as a "protected" class of citizen as though there was something that was innately special about being a homosexual. Worse still is the implication that protecting them is something of a priority over protecting the rest of us.
All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to both our religious liberties and our right to free speech. In other countries where these kind of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been arrested and fined for speaking what the Biblical scriptures teach about homosexuality. There is even a recently passed state law in Colorado that makes it a crime to hand out Christian literature that speaks against this lifestyle. It can happen here. It is happening here.
I cannot help but recognize the similarity between the radical agenda that is driving the push to legalize homosexual marriage, and a previous time of "manufactured" intolerance. As you will see, we have been here before. Journey back in time to sixteenth century France and the conflict between the Protestants (called Huguenots) and the dominant Roman Catholic Church. You will find that those driving the homosexual agenda have learned a lot from their Huguenot brothers about how to force themselves, and their agenda, on an unwilling majority. However, they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of those actions. There is a price to be paid for being "right."
The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the unprecedented access to Biblical scriptures that resulted from both the invention of the printing press and the translating of the Bible into the various languages of the European Christians. "Sola Scriptura" (by Scripture alone) was one of the mantras of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible, is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. According to this doctrine, the teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin began espousing interpretations of the Bible that clashed with the traditional teachings of Roman Catholicism.
Because the societies of the time were built around monarchist governments that were dominated by Roman Catholics, the Huguenots did not enjoy many, if any, privileges to freely express their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church the Huguenots were heretics and were regularly punished as such. As a result the Huguenots felt they were forced to pursue a course of violence in order to obtain the privilege to worship as they wished. This manifested itself through several "wars of religion" throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. These wars led to many concessions that earned both the right to worship in their own establishments and to freely be recognized for their beliefs without fear of reprisals for heresy. However, once the Huguenots had earned tolerance for their belief system, tolerance soon was not enough. Why? Because they knew they were "right." As I'm sure our homosexual friends would agree, being "right" entitles you to more than just tolerance. So more was sought.
These were very religious people in a very religious time. They felt that the scriptures validated their belief system over the more "pagan" traditions of the Roman Catholicism, therefore they felt it was their Christian duty to impose their beliefs on the Catholics and force them to admit the error of their ways. And so it was that the Huguenots, always in the minority, attacked Roman Catholicism with both words and violence. The Huguenots took to the practice of Iconoclasm, the deliberate destruction of Catholic symbols, statues and churches. Does this remind you of any behavior you have been seeing out of the aggressive homosexual advocates? They too have been trespassing into church services to disrupt them with their agenda as well as pursuing vandalism against their property in the wake of their failure to win enough votes to legalize homosexual marriage in California. Quite blatant behavior for minorities wouldn't you say?
The Catholics of the sixteenth century were, of course, enraged at this violation of their establishments and the defacing of their sacred symbols. Their traditions were being trampled upon even as the monarchy insisted they show "tolerance" and resist the temptation to strike back. However this was an untenable situation. The Huguenots were no longer content to seek tolerance for their belief system and the right to practice it. Their arrogance demanded that the Catholics acknowledge that they were "right."
Positions hardened on both sides of the religious divide. Catholic militants began urging the king to outlaw any expression of Protestant faith. Many wanted the Huguenots to pay for the trouble they caused with their lives. Meanwhile, the Huguenots proudly justified their actions by claiming they had the right to resist "illegitimate authority." Many of you will immediately recognize that as the primary justification for the later American Revolution. In both instances the king rightly recognized a threat to his authority. Unlike in the American Revolution however, the Huguenots were clearly a minority who was wearing out its welcome.
The monarchy, for its part, was still attempting to moderate the dispute. Though largely dominated by Catholics, it was official policy to show tolerance to the Huguenots in hopes of trying to maintain some influence with their leaders in the hope they could reign in the radicals. Contrary to how history has portrayed her, Catherine De Medici was very much in favor of granting Huguenots concessions in hopes of maintaining the social order. Unfortunately she would end up receiving much of the blame for the event that was about to unfold.
Tensions were raised to a fever pitch when the King Charles IX indicated he would consider sending military aid to a Huguenot army that was invading the Netherlands. In May of 1572 Dutch Protestants were in revolt against Catholic King Philip II of Spain. The majority of the French population naturally despised the idea of allying with heretics against a Catholic King. Worse still, was Charles' plan to marry his sister to a Protestant Prince, Henry of Bourbon. In the age of monarchies marriages between to conflicting factions were often used to ease the tensions between warring parties. This could in many ways be seen as the equivalent of homosexuals today using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. For the Catholics of sixteenth century France, this mixed marriage would turn out to be that one straw of tolerance more than the camel's back could bear. There would be no more.
The wedding was to be a very public affair. All the more enraging to those who valued their Catholic traditions. It drew huge numbers of Huguenots to Paris to celebrate what the Catholics viewed as legitimizing heresy. Like a modern day gay pride parade, the Huguenots would be intolerably arrogant and flagrantly flaunting themselves through the streets. Unlike a modern day gay pride parade however, almost no Huguenots left Paris alive.
August 25, 1572 was one of the bloodiest days in Western history. Perhaps the bloodiest one to not involve a military engagement. Forever known as the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the death toll remains a matter of dispute. Many claim it was in the neighborhood of 30,000 but some claim as many as 100,000 were murdered. This was largely due to the fact that the killings went on for months. I will leave the details of the massacre to some other essay. An attempted assassination of Protestant Admiral Coligny is alleged to have sparked it. Rumors of a Huguenot army outside of Paris were prevalent at the time leading to a belief the King ordered a pre-emptive strike. Of course the Huguenots claim that the massacre was initiated on the Kings orders and many allege an ambush was planned all along.
What was unique about it was how enthusiastically the general population of France took to violence in a manner almost resembling a festival. As word spread of the massacre, the population considered itself to have permission, if not a duty, to rid themselves of the infestation of heresy. The Huguenots paid for their arrogance. Many of the victims were forced to recant their faith or recite Catholic prayers. Infants were "baptized" in the blood of their parents. Pregnant women had their babies cut from their wombs. Looting and Pillaging were common. In a word...anarchy.
Now before anyone gets the wrong idea let me state I would in no way argue the massacre in 1572 was justified, and though I am making a connection between the arrogance of the Huguenots and the arrogance of modern day homosexuals, I am not suggesting that such a response is in order today. American society allows a lot more options for people to express their displeasures than sixteenth century France. However I would contend that a minority that does not enjoy widespread popular acceptance ought not to try to bully a majority that values its traditional way of life.
Homosexuals often try to link their "efforts" to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. But unlike homosexuals, Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement always enjoyed the popular support of the majority of Americans. That is not now, nor has it ever been, true of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Remember the poll that showed only 30% of Iowans would support such a thing. Yet the homosexuals found a way around them. In 1572 The Catholics stood in support of "traditional" values and the Huguenots stood against an "illegitimate authority." Both were convinced they were "right." Now the citizens of Iowa can see their traditional values trampled on BY an "illegitimate authority." Homosexuals enjoy all the rights and protections of every other American citizen. That homosexuals are some sort of persecuted minority is nothing more than a fabrication of their own making. They pursue the legalization of homosexual marriage out of an arrogant desire to make all of us acknowledge they are "right." They pursue "hate crimes" legislation merely to put criticism of their lifestyle out of reach.
The problem with the advocates of homosexual marriage is that they demand the dissolution of the standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and replace it with...nothing! The absence of a standard definition for marriage will only lead to further insistence on toleration for the intolerable on down the line. What the homosexuals are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy always breeds violence. The movement for the legalization of homosexual marriage can't claim any higher motivation than selfishness. They have manufactured an issue where there should be none, and have the audacity to claim their critics to be "haters" and "intolerant.". The arrogance of this minority, in demanding that the rest of us bow down and accept that they are "right," is astounding. This cannot possibly end well for them.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
When parasites Strike...Again
WHEN PARASITES STRIKE...AGAIN!
You can't make this stuff up. Even as the American taxpayer is being awakened from his slumber of tolerance for the outrage that is the Obama agenda, the "Parasite in Chief's" faithful supporters insist on demanding their "right" to the fruits of other's labor. The John Galt and "Tea Party" phenomena that are sweeping across America is sadly, if unsurprisingly, not being reported by the mainstream media who seem to think only the rage of the "entitlement" class is newsworthy. Yet what the media fail to perceive is the amount of anger that these so called "civil disobedience" demonstrations provoke in the Americans whose work and assets must be taxed in order to satiate the appetite of ACORN and their socially engineered parasites. Read for yourself and watch your anger rise as well...
LOS ANGELES -- A school board meeting turned into a display of civil disobedience Tuesday as about 50 educators refused to leave, creating a brief standoff with police, who refused to make any arrests in the presence of media.
The members of ACORN and United Teachers Los Angeles -- all wearing bright red shirts -- entered the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education meeting on Tuesday afternoon, sat down and began chanting. Police said the protesters were staging an illegal occupation of a public building. The district said no arrests would occur as long as members of media were in building.
UTLA President A.J. Duffy approached the speakers' lectern and told the board, "You know why we're here. You know I'm not leaving this rostrum. You know I'm going to keep talking." As he spoke several teachers sat on the floor in front of the board and held up signs saying "Students lose when we lose teachers, No layoffs" as the crowd began chanting.
Board President Monica Garcia repeatedly asked Duffy to sit down, but he kept speaking. The microphone was turned off, but Duffy continued to speak and the chanting continued. Garcia then announced that the "disturbance has interrupted our meeting to the point where the orderly conduct of this meeting is not feasible."
There go our buddies in ACORN again. Its good that we have them looking out for our welfare...oops did I say w e l f a r e? Pardon me.
ACORN’s shakedown soldiers consider actions like occupying a public school board's meeting room to be an act of "civil disobedience." In truth it is just another arrogant display of a parasitic need to inefficiently consume resources that can be better used elsewhere. In this case they are trying to preserve employees of a teacher's union in the face of dwindling tax revenues. The school board was merely attempting to do their job of deciding where to allocate the funds that are available. Unfortunately that involves cutting costs, firing teachers and living in the real world where tax revenue is not unlimited. Enter the parasites of the teachers union and their allies ACORN to demand that they be preserved at someone else's expense.
There are reasons why zoo's and national parks have signs prominently displayed that say "please don't feed the animals." Once the animals get accustomed to the handouts, not only do they become dependent on them, they will actually get violent in making demands for them. We are seeing this "animal" behavior in the actions of ACORN and their fellow "community organizers."
As surely as a hookworm believes that a dog exists just to further his own survival, so too do teachers unions and community activist groups like ACORN believe that schools and the government exist solely to provide them with the financial sustenance they need to survive and thrive. It is a complete misconception of the arrangement between the taxpayer and the receivers of the government's largesse. In this case the misconception is abetted by the failure of the schools to educate anyone to know any better. A marvelously self-reciprocating system.
This misconception comes from the belief that things like government jobs and checks are somehow an entitlement. How did they come to view it that way? We fed the animals, that's how. Teachers unions are no more concerned with the education of children than ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is concerned with reforming communities. The goal of the teacher's union is only to increase their membership, not test scores. They are just parasites whose sole preoccupation is to educate, and thereby procreate, more parasites. These are the proceeds from our "investment" (our President's term for this sort of social engineering) in forty years of the "war on poverty." Do you feel cheated? Well you should, if for no reason other than the ingratitude and revisionist history the beneficiaries of these "investments" have construed. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than during a recent exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill:
"The problem here is that you won't acknowledge that for the last 20 years, we've had wealth redistribution. It's just gone from the middle class and the poor to the rich." - Dr. Marc Lamont Hill
Therein hides the lie that the American political left feeds to its all too willing victims. The idea that capitalists, industrialists and other assorted "rich" people acquired their wealth FROM the poor and the middle class. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but such "misconceptions" placate a desire for those who need an excuse for their life's circumstances. It allows them to perceive themselves as a "victim," as well as attach the blame to someone whom they can then extract some form of reparation. In the case of the current administration, income inequality is the justification for redistributionist tax policies.
However the wealth that these "rich" people have acquired was never in the possession of the poor and the middle class. In fact this wealth did not exist at all until these industrious people invested, worked and ultimately CREATED it. It is the fruits of their skills and labor that brought this wealth into existence and, lest we forget, this wealth was then taxed right off the top. Much of this taxed wealth was used for the great social engineering experiment that is the 40 year "War on Poverty." It was the industrialists and capitalists whose taxed income was redistributed to the poor! What would they have been able to do with THEIR money if they had been allowed to keep it and reinvest it into the economy? We can only guess. However we do know what became of the money that was redistributed to the poor.
The U.S. government has spent close to $10 trillion dollars on domestic welfare programs since President Lyndon Johnson launched the “War on Poverty” in 1965. These include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families—TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); utilities assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); housing assistance under a variety of programs, including public housing and Section 8 rental assistance; and the free commodities program. And then state and local governments engage in welfare spending that includes free medical care for the impoverished through charity hospitals. And what, pray-tell, did this "investment" into the poor communities return?
Well, it could have happened to anybody right? Families were destroyed as the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed. Welfare programs that rewarded women for having more babies naturally produced...more babies! Those women who "qualified" as single mothers would get preferential treatment by the system so naturally this led to the phenomenon, entirely predictable, of more single mothers. Welfare quickly became a way of life. That's what happens when the government tries to help people. They created a class of professional parasites whose sole area of expertise was fulfilling the criteria established by the government to get the "free" money. Way to go guys.
Lets not forget what our investment in education has returned as well. Federal spending on education has risen steadily over the past three decades to unprecedented levels. The United States spent $553 billion on public elementary and secondary education in 2006–2007, which is 4.2 percent of gross domestic product. In 2004–2005 (the most recent school year for which data are available), an average of $9,266 was spent per pupil in American public schools. This means that a student entering first grade in 2004 could expect approximately $111,000 to be spent on his or her elementary and secondary education if the student completes high school. Yet the results for all this increased spending are increasingly mediocre. The more we spend...the less we get.
Math Rankings
Grade 4: 12th in the world
Grade 8: 27th
Grade 12: 19th
Science Rankings
Grade 4; 3rd
Grade 8: 17th
Grade 12: 16th
Its clear that something other than money is needed to "reform" our education. Perhaps outlawing the teachers unions would be a good place to start. Unfortunately the Obama administration is sending them MORE money. Feeding the parasites is not the answer.
In this election cycle the democrats made an appeal to one particular group of people whom they had previously not been very successful at drawing into their coalition of the damned and downtrodden. Christians fell into the old "social gospel" trap that actually was a hallmark of Franklin Roosevelt's brand of social intervention. It's the idea of trying to prey upon a Christian's need to fulfill Christ's many exhortations to feed the poor and the downtrodden such as:
LUKE 14: 13-14 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
And of course Jesus did set an example by feeding a multitude of 5000 in this passage that is a favorite of the "social gospel" apologists:
JOHN 6: 1-14: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
It is truly one of the great miracles that Jesus performed during his time on earth. Its amazing how even the most anti-Christian purveyors of social engineering love to use this particular moment in Jesus' history in an attempt to shame Christians into supporting their socialist ideas. Often they even attempt to portray Jesus himself as some sort of "robin hood" liberal. As always, however, they leave out something very important. Jesus commanded individuals, not governments, to help the poor. There is a reason for this that eludes far too many people. It is not just the food that is the issue. It is the human interaction as one person CHOOSES to help another person. The feeling of worth and value that is imparted when someone goes out of his way to personally spend time with, and assist, another human being is as nourishing for the spirit as the food is to the body. No government social program can provide that interaction for it is a totally impersonal transaction that merely establishes your qualifications based on a set of criteria.
Then of course there is the one thing you will never hear from the liberal social engineers and their "social gospel" apologists allies. Its the next verse in the passage:
JOHN 6:15: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Yea, that makes a difference. He knew they would come back. First, they would come back expecting him to feed them again and then they would want to make him a king. Therefore I think it is important to point out that Jesus fed them ONCE and then left. Once is charity. Anything more and you begin to create dependence. By engaging them just once they would better remember him AND what he said, rather than just associate him with free food. That Jesus was a smart man. Apparently he knew the worst thing he could do for them was to make them dependent on getting something for nothing. But then again, Jesus wasn't running for elected office. He didn't need their votes. Unfortunately that's not the case with the social engineers of the modern welfare state.
Our new President doesn't seem to share Jesus' desire to help his fellow man as much as to get him to associate the government assistance with the "generosity" of his administration. It's easy to be generous with someone else's money. You can say he is right to call these programs an "investment" in America. It's an investment in making as many Americans dependent on the government as possible, and particularly the Democratic party who "redistributed" it to them. This is how you encourage more parasites. There is nothing in a government program to provide that sense of self worth. In fact, by accepting such entitlements, there is an implied acceptance of one's lack of worth. Therefore it must always be a dysfunctional relationship based upon need and dependence. The same attributes one finds in the relationship between an addict and his supplier. Make no mistake about it, all parasites are addicts. Especially those that are socially engineered.
The "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" represented the crowning achievement of the liberals social engineering vision of society. Government programs hailed as the solution to social problems. The "unintended" consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that almost no political candidate desires that designation. Unfortunately these policies have returned with the election of the parasite messiah Barack Obama. However this time the professional parasite class created by these disastrous practices is arrogantly DEMANDING what was once GIVEN as an act of benevolence. And like the animals in a national park that were foolishly fed by well meaning tourists, they are willing to attack and use force to acquire their demands.
We must stop feeding these animals.
You can't make this stuff up. Even as the American taxpayer is being awakened from his slumber of tolerance for the outrage that is the Obama agenda, the "Parasite in Chief's" faithful supporters insist on demanding their "right" to the fruits of other's labor. The John Galt and "Tea Party" phenomena that are sweeping across America is sadly, if unsurprisingly, not being reported by the mainstream media who seem to think only the rage of the "entitlement" class is newsworthy. Yet what the media fail to perceive is the amount of anger that these so called "civil disobedience" demonstrations provoke in the Americans whose work and assets must be taxed in order to satiate the appetite of ACORN and their socially engineered parasites. Read for yourself and watch your anger rise as well...
LOS ANGELES -- A school board meeting turned into a display of civil disobedience Tuesday as about 50 educators refused to leave, creating a brief standoff with police, who refused to make any arrests in the presence of media.
The members of ACORN and United Teachers Los Angeles -- all wearing bright red shirts -- entered the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education meeting on Tuesday afternoon, sat down and began chanting. Police said the protesters were staging an illegal occupation of a public building. The district said no arrests would occur as long as members of media were in building.
UTLA President A.J. Duffy approached the speakers' lectern and told the board, "You know why we're here. You know I'm not leaving this rostrum. You know I'm going to keep talking." As he spoke several teachers sat on the floor in front of the board and held up signs saying "Students lose when we lose teachers, No layoffs" as the crowd began chanting.
Board President Monica Garcia repeatedly asked Duffy to sit down, but he kept speaking. The microphone was turned off, but Duffy continued to speak and the chanting continued. Garcia then announced that the "disturbance has interrupted our meeting to the point where the orderly conduct of this meeting is not feasible."
There go our buddies in ACORN again. Its good that we have them looking out for our welfare...oops did I say w e l f a r e? Pardon me.
ACORN’s shakedown soldiers consider actions like occupying a public school board's meeting room to be an act of "civil disobedience." In truth it is just another arrogant display of a parasitic need to inefficiently consume resources that can be better used elsewhere. In this case they are trying to preserve employees of a teacher's union in the face of dwindling tax revenues. The school board was merely attempting to do their job of deciding where to allocate the funds that are available. Unfortunately that involves cutting costs, firing teachers and living in the real world where tax revenue is not unlimited. Enter the parasites of the teachers union and their allies ACORN to demand that they be preserved at someone else's expense.
There are reasons why zoo's and national parks have signs prominently displayed that say "please don't feed the animals." Once the animals get accustomed to the handouts, not only do they become dependent on them, they will actually get violent in making demands for them. We are seeing this "animal" behavior in the actions of ACORN and their fellow "community organizers."
As surely as a hookworm believes that a dog exists just to further his own survival, so too do teachers unions and community activist groups like ACORN believe that schools and the government exist solely to provide them with the financial sustenance they need to survive and thrive. It is a complete misconception of the arrangement between the taxpayer and the receivers of the government's largesse. In this case the misconception is abetted by the failure of the schools to educate anyone to know any better. A marvelously self-reciprocating system.
This misconception comes from the belief that things like government jobs and checks are somehow an entitlement. How did they come to view it that way? We fed the animals, that's how. Teachers unions are no more concerned with the education of children than ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is concerned with reforming communities. The goal of the teacher's union is only to increase their membership, not test scores. They are just parasites whose sole preoccupation is to educate, and thereby procreate, more parasites. These are the proceeds from our "investment" (our President's term for this sort of social engineering) in forty years of the "war on poverty." Do you feel cheated? Well you should, if for no reason other than the ingratitude and revisionist history the beneficiaries of these "investments" have construed. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than during a recent exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Marc Lamont Hill:
"The problem here is that you won't acknowledge that for the last 20 years, we've had wealth redistribution. It's just gone from the middle class and the poor to the rich." - Dr. Marc Lamont Hill
Therein hides the lie that the American political left feeds to its all too willing victims. The idea that capitalists, industrialists and other assorted "rich" people acquired their wealth FROM the poor and the middle class. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but such "misconceptions" placate a desire for those who need an excuse for their life's circumstances. It allows them to perceive themselves as a "victim," as well as attach the blame to someone whom they can then extract some form of reparation. In the case of the current administration, income inequality is the justification for redistributionist tax policies.
However the wealth that these "rich" people have acquired was never in the possession of the poor and the middle class. In fact this wealth did not exist at all until these industrious people invested, worked and ultimately CREATED it. It is the fruits of their skills and labor that brought this wealth into existence and, lest we forget, this wealth was then taxed right off the top. Much of this taxed wealth was used for the great social engineering experiment that is the 40 year "War on Poverty." It was the industrialists and capitalists whose taxed income was redistributed to the poor! What would they have been able to do with THEIR money if they had been allowed to keep it and reinvest it into the economy? We can only guess. However we do know what became of the money that was redistributed to the poor.
The U.S. government has spent close to $10 trillion dollars on domestic welfare programs since President Lyndon Johnson launched the “War on Poverty” in 1965. These include Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families—TANF); food stamps; Medicaid; the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); utilities assistance under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); housing assistance under a variety of programs, including public housing and Section 8 rental assistance; and the free commodities program. And then state and local governments engage in welfare spending that includes free medical care for the impoverished through charity hospitals. And what, pray-tell, did this "investment" into the poor communities return?
Well, it could have happened to anybody right? Families were destroyed as the illegitimacy rate skyrocketed. Welfare programs that rewarded women for having more babies naturally produced...more babies! Those women who "qualified" as single mothers would get preferential treatment by the system so naturally this led to the phenomenon, entirely predictable, of more single mothers. Welfare quickly became a way of life. That's what happens when the government tries to help people. They created a class of professional parasites whose sole area of expertise was fulfilling the criteria established by the government to get the "free" money. Way to go guys.
Lets not forget what our investment in education has returned as well. Federal spending on education has risen steadily over the past three decades to unprecedented levels. The United States spent $553 billion on public elementary and secondary education in 2006–2007, which is 4.2 percent of gross domestic product. In 2004–2005 (the most recent school year for which data are available), an average of $9,266 was spent per pupil in American public schools. This means that a student entering first grade in 2004 could expect approximately $111,000 to be spent on his or her elementary and secondary education if the student completes high school. Yet the results for all this increased spending are increasingly mediocre. The more we spend...the less we get.
Math Rankings
Grade 4: 12th in the world
Grade 8: 27th
Grade 12: 19th
Science Rankings
Grade 4; 3rd
Grade 8: 17th
Grade 12: 16th
Its clear that something other than money is needed to "reform" our education. Perhaps outlawing the teachers unions would be a good place to start. Unfortunately the Obama administration is sending them MORE money. Feeding the parasites is not the answer.
In this election cycle the democrats made an appeal to one particular group of people whom they had previously not been very successful at drawing into their coalition of the damned and downtrodden. Christians fell into the old "social gospel" trap that actually was a hallmark of Franklin Roosevelt's brand of social intervention. It's the idea of trying to prey upon a Christian's need to fulfill Christ's many exhortations to feed the poor and the downtrodden such as:
LUKE 14: 13-14 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
And of course Jesus did set an example by feeding a multitude of 5000 in this passage that is a favorite of the "social gospel" apologists:
JOHN 6: 1-14: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
It is truly one of the great miracles that Jesus performed during his time on earth. Its amazing how even the most anti-Christian purveyors of social engineering love to use this particular moment in Jesus' history in an attempt to shame Christians into supporting their socialist ideas. Often they even attempt to portray Jesus himself as some sort of "robin hood" liberal. As always, however, they leave out something very important. Jesus commanded individuals, not governments, to help the poor. There is a reason for this that eludes far too many people. It is not just the food that is the issue. It is the human interaction as one person CHOOSES to help another person. The feeling of worth and value that is imparted when someone goes out of his way to personally spend time with, and assist, another human being is as nourishing for the spirit as the food is to the body. No government social program can provide that interaction for it is a totally impersonal transaction that merely establishes your qualifications based on a set of criteria.
Then of course there is the one thing you will never hear from the liberal social engineers and their "social gospel" apologists allies. Its the next verse in the passage:
JOHN 6:15: When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Yea, that makes a difference. He knew they would come back. First, they would come back expecting him to feed them again and then they would want to make him a king. Therefore I think it is important to point out that Jesus fed them ONCE and then left. Once is charity. Anything more and you begin to create dependence. By engaging them just once they would better remember him AND what he said, rather than just associate him with free food. That Jesus was a smart man. Apparently he knew the worst thing he could do for them was to make them dependent on getting something for nothing. But then again, Jesus wasn't running for elected office. He didn't need their votes. Unfortunately that's not the case with the social engineers of the modern welfare state.
Our new President doesn't seem to share Jesus' desire to help his fellow man as much as to get him to associate the government assistance with the "generosity" of his administration. It's easy to be generous with someone else's money. You can say he is right to call these programs an "investment" in America. It's an investment in making as many Americans dependent on the government as possible, and particularly the Democratic party who "redistributed" it to them. This is how you encourage more parasites. There is nothing in a government program to provide that sense of self worth. In fact, by accepting such entitlements, there is an implied acceptance of one's lack of worth. Therefore it must always be a dysfunctional relationship based upon need and dependence. The same attributes one finds in the relationship between an addict and his supplier. Make no mistake about it, all parasites are addicts. Especially those that are socially engineered.
The "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" represented the crowning achievement of the liberals social engineering vision of society. Government programs hailed as the solution to social problems. The "unintended" consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that almost no political candidate desires that designation. Unfortunately these policies have returned with the election of the parasite messiah Barack Obama. However this time the professional parasite class created by these disastrous practices is arrogantly DEMANDING what was once GIVEN as an act of benevolence. And like the animals in a national park that were foolishly fed by well meaning tourists, they are willing to attack and use force to acquire their demands.
We must stop feeding these animals.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
When Parasites Strike
WHEN PARASITES STRIKE
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand
The lawlessness that accompanied the campaign that brought Barack Obama to the White House is now escalating as the country's parasites, emboldened and empowered with taxpayer money, continue their campaign to steal the fruits of other's labor. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has put an emphasis on the "now" part of their name by adding violence, vandalism and outright robbery to their ever-growing list of attributes. Meanwhile our esteemed President has decided that the American taxpayer, fresh from being extorted out of 787 billion dollars by his diabolical economic stimulus package, must also pay another 75 billion in protection money to rescue the "victims" of housing foreclosures, lest the ACORN mobs be unleashed nationwide. Welcome to the new "remade" thug America...
A community organization breaks into a foreclosed home in what they are calling an act of civil disobedience. The group wants to train homeowners facing eviction on peaceful ways they can remain in their homes. Derek Valcourt reports their actions are not without controversy.
Near Patterson Park, the padlock on the door and the sign in the window tells part of Donna Hanks foreclosure story. “The mortgage went up $300 in one month,” said Hanks, former homeowner. She says the bank refused to modify her loan and foreclosed, kicking her out of the house in September. The community group ACORN calls Hanks a victim of predatory lending.- WJZ News, Baltimore
Here we see all the traditional elements of the plight of the modern American parasite. A predator, an innocent victim, and of course, a collective of well meaning citizen activists claiming to pursue peaceful methods to help this poor "victim" remain in her home. As always when dealing with mobs of parasites, what lays underneath the veneer of altruism is a disgusting entitlement philosophy that insists that one person's failure must be attributed to someone else's success. That success, by their definition, must be "predatory." In this particular case it is the bank that refused to modify her loan. The fact that she willingly signed the contract and lived in the house until she could no longer fulfill her part of the agreement is of no importance to the perpetrators of perpetual victim-hood. Never mind the fact that in every mortgage the bank ALWAYS owns the house until it is paid off. Poor Donna Hanks is a victim of "predatory lenders." We must shed tears for her and help her. And that is exactly what ACORN did...
"This is our house now," said Louis Beverly, ACORN.
And on Thursday afternoon, they literally broke the foreclosure padlock right off the front door and then broke into the house, letting Hanks back in for the first time in months. "We are actually trespassing, and so this is a way of civil disobedience to try to stay in the house," said Beverly. "Legally it's wrong, but homesteading is the only means that she has left to stay in her house. And we feel as though this is the right thing to do at this particular time to save this family." Inside, there's spray paint on the walls and evidence that someone has possibly been remodeling.
The group says it was staging similar demonstrations in six other cities nationwide while urging a moratorium on foreclosures. They want that until President Obama's stimulus plan begins on March 4. The plan is designed to help threatened homeowners. "As you all can see, Donna is reclaiming her home, and she's putting a lock on her door at this time," said Beverly.
But that padlock won't stay there for long.- WJZ News Baltimore
At least they acknowledge that they are trespassing, however they keep making foolish references to "her home." If it was "her home" she would not have been making payments on it in the first place! She was allowed to "occupy" the house so long as she made the payments that were her proof of intent to purchase the house. Once the payments stopped she no longer had cause to occupy the house. As usual, however, there is more to the story than anyone wants to tell. So tell it we must.
In their zeal to get out ahead of the President's mortgage rescue plan, they have misrepresented this entire affair. Hanks bought the house in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point in the next five years, she re-financed the original home loan for $270,000....Where did all that money go?
In 2006 Hanks house went into foreclosure and she filed for bankruptcy. All this occurred a full TWO YEARS before the current financial malaise that was spawned by the mortgage crisis. The house itself was sold in June of 2008 to a man named William Lane. So what does this prove? Well, it shows that the incompetence that ACORN displayed as they were repeatedly caught trying to fraudulently register voters before the election is still alive and well within that organization. You would think that they would have investigated these details themselves before they went out and made this woman their poster victim for predatory lending. But that would be reasonable and intelligent. Unfortunately such attributes are undesired by the likes of ACORN. This woman was no victim, she was a schemer and it caught up with her. William Lane rightfully says he will sue ACORN, and its intolerant thief, Louis Beverly, will face a burglary charge. Look for the mainstream media and the Looney Left to turn him into some sort of a modern day Robin Hood.
All of this is merely a theatrical way to draw a spotlight to the false notion that there is large number of "innocent" victims in need of rescuing, with President Obama coming to their aid with his 75 billion dollar mortgage rescue plan. Of course it isn't really the president coming to the aid of these "victims" but instead it's the U.S. taxpayer. Obama just wants to take all the credit. As with the mythical Robin Hood, our president has found it easy to provide assistance to these poor "victims" with money extorted from someone else. Keeping in mind that Obama was affiliated with ACORN in the past, one has to wonder if this attempt at "reclaiming" a home was just a demonstration aimed at scaring the public. Perhaps if we are sufficiently frightened of these "victims" we will more willingly tolerate paying them the protection money in the form of the aforementioned mortgage rescue plan. It certainly fits the thuggish pattern of behavior previously established by the organization.
The ever dependable mainstream media were, of course, all over the story initially. They loved the "victims strike back" aspect of the story and how this would certainly add propellant to the passage of Obama's mortgage recovery plan. Unsurprisingly they lost interest when the details failed to match the story they wanted to tell. Now that the true victim is revealed to be the legal owner of the house it no longer fits their world-view so they must look elsewhere to find the "appropriate" victims to assist in Obama's socialist remake of America.
And what exactly does this latest installment of the remake of America bring forth? Part of the $75B in The Plan will be used to subsidize the reduction of a mortgage payment to as low as 31% of their monthly income. The banks will initially need to make concessions to get the payment down to 38%, then the government will match the bank dollar for dollar to get the payment down to 31% of a borrowers monthly income. You read that right, that is taxpayer money that will be used to subsidize these defaulting borrowers. Of course the banks, like the rest of us, aren't going to be given much of an option here as Judges will be allowed to modify the lending agreements without the bank's consent. Just what we need, to render contract law subject to modification by a Judge with a predetermined outcome mandated by law. In these "politically correct" times this is what passes for justice...or should I say "social justice." We have entered the age of the exalted parasite.
The fact that there is no money available for this 75 billion dollar swindle doesn't bother the President. As the prophet of the "affirmative action" generation, his presidency stands as the ultimate parasite entitlement program. One of the benefits of being Parasite in Chief is that you are in charge of the printing presses that print the money. Inflation, perhaps even hyper-inflation, is going to happen. Too bad in Obamaworld they give you credit for attending economics classes rather than passing them or he might be concerned about it. But then again, he did well in his advanced Marxism classes and he understands that if he destroys the economy he will be able to "remake" it more to his communist liking...this will soon become intolerable to the American people. And perhaps it already has started.
A national movement against the bailout syndrome that is infecting the nation began in cities across the U.S. from New York City and Philadelphia, to the White House in Washington DC and beyond. American taxpayers are launching a movement against the bankrupting of our country. In over 40 cities across America, tea parties were held on Friday, February 27th. This movement is just the beginning of a much bigger revolution by productive hard working Americans to take a stand against the parasitic spending spree in Washington. This event got its tea party name in reference to the infamous Boston Tea Party that all too many American college graduates never heard of thanks to their expensive public educations. Its just more proof of the need to put the parasites in their place. And put them there we shall!
Obama revealed in his new budget his plans to set the nation upon itself in class warfare. He detailed his plans to raise taxes on those people who make over $250,000 annually. Unfortunately what President Obama is unable or unwilling to grasp is the fact that these are the nations EMPLOYERS. His plan is as foolish as it is childish. Obama and his band of merry parasites merely wish to punish the successful producers of America and reward losers with the booty that they extort through taxation. Lyndon Johnson had his "War On Poverty" but Barack H. Obama has a "War On Prosperity." How much more childish can you get? I am afraid to find out.
The top 2% of earners are not going to become the slaves of the parasites. We know this because they are telling us this. I found this interesting statement from Russell Roberts, one of the top 2% that President Obama and his loyal parasites resent so much. It's quite enlightening:
I'm in the target group to do the paying. I won't do it.
I own my business and, unlike an employee, I have the option to work as much or as little as I like. At some tax rate, the marginal dollar won't be worth earning. I'll fire some employees, scale down the business or retire altogether and stick my money in tax advantaged muni bonds and do all the traveling and relaxing I can't do now. The tax advantage of muni bonds will NEVER go away because municipalities will scream bloody murder. If I'm not ready to retire and the tax rate gets too high, I may just immigrate to another country because it's very easy for me to get almost instant citizenship in any other country. I respond to incentives and I'm not incentivized by enslavement and neither is anyone I know. The specialness of this country is the lack of totalitarian regime and individual liberty. Once that's gone, this country is no longer all that special. You can call me evil or "not doing my part" because I'm not willing to work myself into the grave for your family instead of mine, but the reality is that unless you plan to start a Gulag, you can't make me.
Uh...
Note to Russell...
They are working on just such a Gulag apparatus to lock us up. Its called HR-645 - "The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act." Its provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations. These installations are for, among other things, the purposes of a "national emergency." With the Obama administration intentionally sinking the economy with more parasitic debt, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and the Kremlin's recent crackdown on such demonstrations in Russia for what will be happening in the United States next. The tea party protests are just the beginning.
It appears these "national emergency centers" will be used in a national emergency, but only if the national emergency requires large groups of people to be arrested and detained. If that isn’t the case, then why have these national emergency facilities been built on military installations? We all know that our Parasite in Chief doesn't tolerate rejection very well. Something to consider. Mr Russell continues:
The question is, why should I be expected to work and risk more than you to provide you with the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed? Yes, it's sustainable to raise taxes on the most productive. However, it's not sustainable at a high standard of living. It's sustainable only at ever decreasing standards of living. France and Germany are good examples.
There's a difference between the natural altruism that occurs between family members and confiscation by the state. I feel great when I donate to charity. I feel really crappy when I write the check to the IRS. Maybe I should figure out how to receive one instead. Seems a lot less time consuming.
Mr. Russell is what the Obama acolytes call a hater. He doesn't want to do his fair share. In their world it is fair that they should benefit from the work of others. That's parasite logic. If you create a set of qualifications for government assistance, you will necessarily create a professional class of parasites whose sole expertise is fulfilling those qualifications. Likewise they will be perpetually beholden to the politicians who created that arrangement. An arrangement based on dependence. The democrats get the votes and the parasites get a freeloaders lifestyle. In their own pathetic way, everyone views themselves as winners. Everyone except decent hardworking free and independent citizens. They become the slaves of the parasites as the fruits of their labor are stolen to support this scheme...and there-in lies the inevitable failure that awaits the parasites.
As Mr. Russell said, "We won't do it." We won't work and we won't pay the taxes. Without the "forced labor" and the extorted revenue the system fails. As always, the parasite kills the host. When the American government collapses, then we can rebuild her as she was in the beginning. Where all men were "CREATED" equal. That is the only time in their lives they were meant to be so. Candidate Obama spoke often of fairness and the need to be fair. Yet his concept of fairness only looks at the results, and not the inputs that led to those results. In his concept of fairness all games must end in a tie. This is, in fact, completely unfair! Therefore who should want to play at all in a game they can't win?
Let the restoration of America begin. It can be as peaceful, or as violent, as is necessary to vanquish the parasites. They are what they have chosen to be. They cannot and must not have a voice in the restoration of our constitutional government. Voter reform is in order. No one should vote for any office he is not qualified to hold. Getting the under 35 crowd out of presidential politics will solve a lot of problems. Children elect children. In the era of the perpetual adolescent this is a fatal problem. Seeing Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer acting giddy as they squander money they extorted from taxpayers is as sickening as their childish rhetoric. Why are we being dictated to by them and their charlatan president? Is there a better example of childish behavior than these three?
The time to restore America is now. Lets not be squeamish about it either. Our enemies are fond of saying: "by any means necessary." The choice was theirs. Let those words be their epitaph.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -Ayn Rand
The lawlessness that accompanied the campaign that brought Barack Obama to the White House is now escalating as the country's parasites, emboldened and empowered with taxpayer money, continue their campaign to steal the fruits of other's labor. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has put an emphasis on the "now" part of their name by adding violence, vandalism and outright robbery to their ever-growing list of attributes. Meanwhile our esteemed President has decided that the American taxpayer, fresh from being extorted out of 787 billion dollars by his diabolical economic stimulus package, must also pay another 75 billion in protection money to rescue the "victims" of housing foreclosures, lest the ACORN mobs be unleashed nationwide. Welcome to the new "remade" thug America...
A community organization breaks into a foreclosed home in what they are calling an act of civil disobedience. The group wants to train homeowners facing eviction on peaceful ways they can remain in their homes. Derek Valcourt reports their actions are not without controversy.
Near Patterson Park, the padlock on the door and the sign in the window tells part of Donna Hanks foreclosure story. “The mortgage went up $300 in one month,” said Hanks, former homeowner. She says the bank refused to modify her loan and foreclosed, kicking her out of the house in September. The community group ACORN calls Hanks a victim of predatory lending.- WJZ News, Baltimore
Here we see all the traditional elements of the plight of the modern American parasite. A predator, an innocent victim, and of course, a collective of well meaning citizen activists claiming to pursue peaceful methods to help this poor "victim" remain in her home. As always when dealing with mobs of parasites, what lays underneath the veneer of altruism is a disgusting entitlement philosophy that insists that one person's failure must be attributed to someone else's success. That success, by their definition, must be "predatory." In this particular case it is the bank that refused to modify her loan. The fact that she willingly signed the contract and lived in the house until she could no longer fulfill her part of the agreement is of no importance to the perpetrators of perpetual victim-hood. Never mind the fact that in every mortgage the bank ALWAYS owns the house until it is paid off. Poor Donna Hanks is a victim of "predatory lenders." We must shed tears for her and help her. And that is exactly what ACORN did...
"This is our house now," said Louis Beverly, ACORN.
And on Thursday afternoon, they literally broke the foreclosure padlock right off the front door and then broke into the house, letting Hanks back in for the first time in months. "We are actually trespassing, and so this is a way of civil disobedience to try to stay in the house," said Beverly. "Legally it's wrong, but homesteading is the only means that she has left to stay in her house. And we feel as though this is the right thing to do at this particular time to save this family." Inside, there's spray paint on the walls and evidence that someone has possibly been remodeling.
The group says it was staging similar demonstrations in six other cities nationwide while urging a moratorium on foreclosures. They want that until President Obama's stimulus plan begins on March 4. The plan is designed to help threatened homeowners. "As you all can see, Donna is reclaiming her home, and she's putting a lock on her door at this time," said Beverly.
But that padlock won't stay there for long.- WJZ News Baltimore
At least they acknowledge that they are trespassing, however they keep making foolish references to "her home." If it was "her home" she would not have been making payments on it in the first place! She was allowed to "occupy" the house so long as she made the payments that were her proof of intent to purchase the house. Once the payments stopped she no longer had cause to occupy the house. As usual, however, there is more to the story than anyone wants to tell. So tell it we must.
In their zeal to get out ahead of the President's mortgage rescue plan, they have misrepresented this entire affair. Hanks bought the house in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point in the next five years, she re-financed the original home loan for $270,000....Where did all that money go?
In 2006 Hanks house went into foreclosure and she filed for bankruptcy. All this occurred a full TWO YEARS before the current financial malaise that was spawned by the mortgage crisis. The house itself was sold in June of 2008 to a man named William Lane. So what does this prove? Well, it shows that the incompetence that ACORN displayed as they were repeatedly caught trying to fraudulently register voters before the election is still alive and well within that organization. You would think that they would have investigated these details themselves before they went out and made this woman their poster victim for predatory lending. But that would be reasonable and intelligent. Unfortunately such attributes are undesired by the likes of ACORN. This woman was no victim, she was a schemer and it caught up with her. William Lane rightfully says he will sue ACORN, and its intolerant thief, Louis Beverly, will face a burglary charge. Look for the mainstream media and the Looney Left to turn him into some sort of a modern day Robin Hood.
All of this is merely a theatrical way to draw a spotlight to the false notion that there is large number of "innocent" victims in need of rescuing, with President Obama coming to their aid with his 75 billion dollar mortgage rescue plan. Of course it isn't really the president coming to the aid of these "victims" but instead it's the U.S. taxpayer. Obama just wants to take all the credit. As with the mythical Robin Hood, our president has found it easy to provide assistance to these poor "victims" with money extorted from someone else. Keeping in mind that Obama was affiliated with ACORN in the past, one has to wonder if this attempt at "reclaiming" a home was just a demonstration aimed at scaring the public. Perhaps if we are sufficiently frightened of these "victims" we will more willingly tolerate paying them the protection money in the form of the aforementioned mortgage rescue plan. It certainly fits the thuggish pattern of behavior previously established by the organization.
The ever dependable mainstream media were, of course, all over the story initially. They loved the "victims strike back" aspect of the story and how this would certainly add propellant to the passage of Obama's mortgage recovery plan. Unsurprisingly they lost interest when the details failed to match the story they wanted to tell. Now that the true victim is revealed to be the legal owner of the house it no longer fits their world-view so they must look elsewhere to find the "appropriate" victims to assist in Obama's socialist remake of America.
And what exactly does this latest installment of the remake of America bring forth? Part of the $75B in The Plan will be used to subsidize the reduction of a mortgage payment to as low as 31% of their monthly income. The banks will initially need to make concessions to get the payment down to 38%, then the government will match the bank dollar for dollar to get the payment down to 31% of a borrowers monthly income. You read that right, that is taxpayer money that will be used to subsidize these defaulting borrowers. Of course the banks, like the rest of us, aren't going to be given much of an option here as Judges will be allowed to modify the lending agreements without the bank's consent. Just what we need, to render contract law subject to modification by a Judge with a predetermined outcome mandated by law. In these "politically correct" times this is what passes for justice...or should I say "social justice." We have entered the age of the exalted parasite.
The fact that there is no money available for this 75 billion dollar swindle doesn't bother the President. As the prophet of the "affirmative action" generation, his presidency stands as the ultimate parasite entitlement program. One of the benefits of being Parasite in Chief is that you are in charge of the printing presses that print the money. Inflation, perhaps even hyper-inflation, is going to happen. Too bad in Obamaworld they give you credit for attending economics classes rather than passing them or he might be concerned about it. But then again, he did well in his advanced Marxism classes and he understands that if he destroys the economy he will be able to "remake" it more to his communist liking...this will soon become intolerable to the American people. And perhaps it already has started.
A national movement against the bailout syndrome that is infecting the nation began in cities across the U.S. from New York City and Philadelphia, to the White House in Washington DC and beyond. American taxpayers are launching a movement against the bankrupting of our country. In over 40 cities across America, tea parties were held on Friday, February 27th. This movement is just the beginning of a much bigger revolution by productive hard working Americans to take a stand against the parasitic spending spree in Washington. This event got its tea party name in reference to the infamous Boston Tea Party that all too many American college graduates never heard of thanks to their expensive public educations. Its just more proof of the need to put the parasites in their place. And put them there we shall!
Obama revealed in his new budget his plans to set the nation upon itself in class warfare. He detailed his plans to raise taxes on those people who make over $250,000 annually. Unfortunately what President Obama is unable or unwilling to grasp is the fact that these are the nations EMPLOYERS. His plan is as foolish as it is childish. Obama and his band of merry parasites merely wish to punish the successful producers of America and reward losers with the booty that they extort through taxation. Lyndon Johnson had his "War On Poverty" but Barack H. Obama has a "War On Prosperity." How much more childish can you get? I am afraid to find out.
The top 2% of earners are not going to become the slaves of the parasites. We know this because they are telling us this. I found this interesting statement from Russell Roberts, one of the top 2% that President Obama and his loyal parasites resent so much. It's quite enlightening:
I'm in the target group to do the paying. I won't do it.
I own my business and, unlike an employee, I have the option to work as much or as little as I like. At some tax rate, the marginal dollar won't be worth earning. I'll fire some employees, scale down the business or retire altogether and stick my money in tax advantaged muni bonds and do all the traveling and relaxing I can't do now. The tax advantage of muni bonds will NEVER go away because municipalities will scream bloody murder. If I'm not ready to retire and the tax rate gets too high, I may just immigrate to another country because it's very easy for me to get almost instant citizenship in any other country. I respond to incentives and I'm not incentivized by enslavement and neither is anyone I know. The specialness of this country is the lack of totalitarian regime and individual liberty. Once that's gone, this country is no longer all that special. You can call me evil or "not doing my part" because I'm not willing to work myself into the grave for your family instead of mine, but the reality is that unless you plan to start a Gulag, you can't make me.
Uh...
Note to Russell...
They are working on just such a Gulag apparatus to lock us up. Its called HR-645 - "The National Emergency Centers Establishment Act." Its provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations. These installations are for, among other things, the purposes of a "national emergency." With the Obama administration intentionally sinking the economy with more parasitic debt, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and the Kremlin's recent crackdown on such demonstrations in Russia for what will be happening in the United States next. The tea party protests are just the beginning.
It appears these "national emergency centers" will be used in a national emergency, but only if the national emergency requires large groups of people to be arrested and detained. If that isn’t the case, then why have these national emergency facilities been built on military installations? We all know that our Parasite in Chief doesn't tolerate rejection very well. Something to consider. Mr Russell continues:
The question is, why should I be expected to work and risk more than you to provide you with the lifestyle to which you have become accustomed? Yes, it's sustainable to raise taxes on the most productive. However, it's not sustainable at a high standard of living. It's sustainable only at ever decreasing standards of living. France and Germany are good examples.
There's a difference between the natural altruism that occurs between family members and confiscation by the state. I feel great when I donate to charity. I feel really crappy when I write the check to the IRS. Maybe I should figure out how to receive one instead. Seems a lot less time consuming.
Mr. Russell is what the Obama acolytes call a hater. He doesn't want to do his fair share. In their world it is fair that they should benefit from the work of others. That's parasite logic. If you create a set of qualifications for government assistance, you will necessarily create a professional class of parasites whose sole expertise is fulfilling those qualifications. Likewise they will be perpetually beholden to the politicians who created that arrangement. An arrangement based on dependence. The democrats get the votes and the parasites get a freeloaders lifestyle. In their own pathetic way, everyone views themselves as winners. Everyone except decent hardworking free and independent citizens. They become the slaves of the parasites as the fruits of their labor are stolen to support this scheme...and there-in lies the inevitable failure that awaits the parasites.
As Mr. Russell said, "We won't do it." We won't work and we won't pay the taxes. Without the "forced labor" and the extorted revenue the system fails. As always, the parasite kills the host. When the American government collapses, then we can rebuild her as she was in the beginning. Where all men were "CREATED" equal. That is the only time in their lives they were meant to be so. Candidate Obama spoke often of fairness and the need to be fair. Yet his concept of fairness only looks at the results, and not the inputs that led to those results. In his concept of fairness all games must end in a tie. This is, in fact, completely unfair! Therefore who should want to play at all in a game they can't win?
Let the restoration of America begin. It can be as peaceful, or as violent, as is necessary to vanquish the parasites. They are what they have chosen to be. They cannot and must not have a voice in the restoration of our constitutional government. Voter reform is in order. No one should vote for any office he is not qualified to hold. Getting the under 35 crowd out of presidential politics will solve a lot of problems. Children elect children. In the era of the perpetual adolescent this is a fatal problem. Seeing Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer acting giddy as they squander money they extorted from taxpayers is as sickening as their childish rhetoric. Why are we being dictated to by them and their charlatan president? Is there a better example of childish behavior than these three?
The time to restore America is now. Lets not be squeamish about it either. Our enemies are fond of saying: "by any means necessary." The choice was theirs. Let those words be their epitaph.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
September11, 2008: American Putsch?
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008: AMERICAN PUTSCH?
With the recession, and President Obama's subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us "informed" citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment Act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth...
On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.
The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts. - Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania
In an interview broadcast on C-Span's Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued...
Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.
In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a "coincidence." Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course...where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!
All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren't for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn't even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off...Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted...U.S. economic counterattack?
Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the "terrorism" card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain's chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush's legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.
It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.
If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would have almost certainly been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama...you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: "it's the economy, stupid." Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.
Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility...that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.
A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?
One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:
OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that "expressed concerns about IndyMac's viability."
"In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts," the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender's takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."
Schumer's letter on June 26 said he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers." - CNN
Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros' name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated 1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.
Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?
Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:
"There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what's right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there's no reason why we can't be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I'm going to do is, I'm going to -- what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time." - Barack H. Obama
Ahh, the the notorious "call me if you need me" line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn't a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?
With the recession, and President Obama's subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us "informed" citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment Act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth...
On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.
The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts. - Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania
In an interview broadcast on C-Span's Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued...
Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.
In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a "coincidence." Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course...where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!
All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren't for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn't even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off...Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted...U.S. economic counterattack?
Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the "terrorism" card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain's chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush's legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.
It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.
If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would have almost certainly been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama...you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: "it's the economy, stupid." Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.
Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility...that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.
A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?
One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:
OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that "expressed concerns about IndyMac's viability."
"In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts," the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender's takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."
Schumer's letter on June 26 said he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers." - CNN
Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros' name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated 1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.
Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?
Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:
"There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what's right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there's no reason why we can't be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I'm going to do is, I'm going to -- what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time." - Barack H. Obama
Ahh, the the notorious "call me if you need me" line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn't a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
FOR THE LOVE OF HATE: The Prosecution of Geert Wilders
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." [John 8:32].
There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. "The times they are a changin," and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome...
Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. "Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.
Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called "Fitna." Fitna is an Islamic term meaning "strife." Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu'ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu'ran to Hitler's famous book "Mein Kampf" and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea...
“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler
“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler
That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn't it? One might even call it..."inconvenient!" The two leading Nazi's of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?
The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations...which can amount to inciting hatred" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs."
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism" - Gerard Spong, lawyer
So there you have it. "Offensive" speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is "one sided," and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. "hate speech" is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for "insulting" religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the "defamation" of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don't like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.
There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn't have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn't even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.
For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:
"The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don't want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don't fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004." - Geert Wilders
And yet, this is not an isolated incident:
Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam's prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter's home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.
The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making "indecent advances" on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she "did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems." The verdict is not yet legally binding.
Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad's consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their "perfect example" and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn't call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a "Divine Blessing."
“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini
It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of "incitement" for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the "incitement" consists of citing examples from Islam's own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: "who's your daddy?" Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)
You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don't be so sure about that. Our new president is a "sensitive" sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to "incitement" laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those "protected" classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them "blasphemy laws" because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn't want to stifle all the "artistic creativity" in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!
How is it you can be charged with offending someone's beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words 'human rights' in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone's intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn't respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth" - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)
It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu'ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO's "Axis Of Evil" are to be considered "hate speech" and guilty of the crime of "incitement," might the same also be said of the Qu'ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn't it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?
It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don't stand against Islam's desire to remain beyond criticism. "Tolerance" and "multiculturalism" may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas...Muslims. They can't. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don't believe me? Observe this:
The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations.”
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.
With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)
There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of "crowd control." Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such "emergency centers" are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as "incitement." A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.
Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama's new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won't go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." [John 8:32].
There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. "The times they are a changin," and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome...
Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.
Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. "Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.
Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called "Fitna." Fitna is an Islamic term meaning "strife." Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu'ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu'ran to Hitler's famous book "Mein Kampf" and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea...
“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler
“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler
That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn't it? One might even call it..."inconvenient!" The two leading Nazi's of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?
The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations...which can amount to inciting hatred" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs."
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.
"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism" - Gerard Spong, lawyer
So there you have it. "Offensive" speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is "one sided," and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. "hate speech" is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for "insulting" religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the "defamation" of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don't like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.
There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn't have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn't even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.
For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:
"The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don't want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don't fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004." - Geert Wilders
And yet, this is not an isolated incident:
Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam's prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter's home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.
The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making "indecent advances" on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she "did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems." The verdict is not yet legally binding.
Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad's consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their "perfect example" and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn't call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a "Divine Blessing."
“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini
It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of "incitement" for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the "incitement" consists of citing examples from Islam's own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: "who's your daddy?" Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)
You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don't be so sure about that. Our new president is a "sensitive" sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:
President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to "incitement" laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those "protected" classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them "blasphemy laws" because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn't want to stifle all the "artistic creativity" in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!
How is it you can be charged with offending someone's beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words 'human rights' in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone's intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn't respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth" - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)
It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu'ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO's "Axis Of Evil" are to be considered "hate speech" and guilty of the crime of "incitement," might the same also be said of the Qu'ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn't it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?
It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don't stand against Islam's desire to remain beyond criticism. "Tolerance" and "multiculturalism" may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas...Muslims. They can't. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don't believe me? Observe this:
The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations.”
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.
With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)
There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of "crowd control." Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such "emergency centers" are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as "incitement." A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.
Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama's new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won't go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
