Saturday, December 19, 2015
Fascists at Oberlin College...
Oberlin Students Release Gargantuan 14-Page List Of Demands
By Blake Neff
Oberlin College students have finally joined dozens of other colleges in releasing a Mizzou-inspired set of demands for their administration, and while the demands come a month late, they make up for it by being very numerous and remarkably extreme.
The list, which bubbled up online over the past three days, is no less than 14 pages in length, and includes a staggering 50 demands, many of which divide into several sub-demands. Not only are the demands numerous, but they are quite severe and are paired with stern rhetoric. The document opens as follows:
Oberlin College and Conservatory is an unethical institution. From capitalizing on massive labor exploitation across campus, to the Conservatory of Music treating Black and other students of color as less than through its everyday running, Oberlin College unapologetically acts as [sic] unethical institution, antithetical to its historical vision. In the 1830s, this school claimed a legacy of supporting its Black students. However, that legacy has amounted to nothing more than a public relations campaign initiated to benefit the image of the institution and not the Africana people it was set out for … [T]his institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy. Oberlin College and Conservatory uses the limited number of Black and Brown students to color in its brochures, but then erases us from student life on this campus. You profit off of our accomplishments and invisible labor, yet You expect us to produce personal solutions to institutional incompetencies. We as a College-defined “high risk,” “low income,” “disadvantaged” community should not have to carry the burden of deconstructing the white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist system that we took no part in creating, yet is so deeply embedded in the soil upon which this institution was built.
After continuing in this manner for a while and outlining some broad goals (such as “the eradication hegemony in the curriculum”), the document begins to reel off demands, warning that they are “not polite requests, but concrete and unmalleable demands.” If Oberlin doesn’t capitulate, the document warns of a “full and forceful response,” though, despite the detailed demands, what the “response” would be remains entirely undefined...
Read the rest:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/oberlin-students-release-gargantuan-14-page-list-of-demands/
By Blake Neff
Oberlin College students have finally joined dozens of other colleges in releasing a Mizzou-inspired set of demands for their administration, and while the demands come a month late, they make up for it by being very numerous and remarkably extreme.
The list, which bubbled up online over the past three days, is no less than 14 pages in length, and includes a staggering 50 demands, many of which divide into several sub-demands. Not only are the demands numerous, but they are quite severe and are paired with stern rhetoric. The document opens as follows:
Oberlin College and Conservatory is an unethical institution. From capitalizing on massive labor exploitation across campus, to the Conservatory of Music treating Black and other students of color as less than through its everyday running, Oberlin College unapologetically acts as [sic] unethical institution, antithetical to its historical vision. In the 1830s, this school claimed a legacy of supporting its Black students. However, that legacy has amounted to nothing more than a public relations campaign initiated to benefit the image of the institution and not the Africana people it was set out for … [T]his institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy. Oberlin College and Conservatory uses the limited number of Black and Brown students to color in its brochures, but then erases us from student life on this campus. You profit off of our accomplishments and invisible labor, yet You expect us to produce personal solutions to institutional incompetencies. We as a College-defined “high risk,” “low income,” “disadvantaged” community should not have to carry the burden of deconstructing the white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist system that we took no part in creating, yet is so deeply embedded in the soil upon which this institution was built.
After continuing in this manner for a while and outlining some broad goals (such as “the eradication hegemony in the curriculum”), the document begins to reel off demands, warning that they are “not polite requests, but concrete and unmalleable demands.” If Oberlin doesn’t capitulate, the document warns of a “full and forceful response,” though, despite the detailed demands, what the “response” would be remains entirely undefined...
Read the rest:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/oberlin-students-release-gargantuan-14-page-list-of-demands/
It's all part of the plan, folks...
ISIS, Al Qaeda And The CIA: The Documented Connection
By Tyler Durden
The Middle East is fertile ground for conspiracy theories, and one growing to towering heights these days says the US created the Islamic State. But while the US may well have aided ISIS in its formative days with covert supplies of weapons and CIA funding (directly or indirectly, via Turkey leading political families) the one nation most responsible for iteration after iteration of “terrorist organizations” is Saudi Arabia which “created” not only the Islamic State, but al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and many other Sunni Jihadist groups in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan.
The US has long been aware of this, of course, and it has provided material support to some of them in the distant past, for example to the Taliban in the war against Russia. But the more reasonable among us have questioned recent claims that the US intentionally created the Islamic State, a group of the same lineage as the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Those rejecting a direct link between the US and the Islamic State instead ask a perfectly logical question: why would the US allow a country ruled by monarchs with dark-age-sensibilities get away with attacking us on 9/11, funding al-Qadea in Iraq (a group that killed a few thousand US soldiers), and now the Islamic State? Two answers: fat, senile Saudi kings are preferable to the Islamic monsters that would replace them in a regime change, and the Bush family/Carlyle Group would prefer not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Thanks to the resurrection of “J Pierpont Morgan”, these doubts and questions are no longer reasonable. They are, in fact, irrelevant. Because J Pierpont Morgan, apparently experiencing a Scrooge-like transformation, has seen the light. Yesterday he tweeted three public source documents that conclusively show a Senior CIA Spy- a major figure in operations from South America to the Middle East-is lobbying the US Government to destroy Iraq and formally create an independent Sunnistan on behalf of a Sunni terrorist.
That terrorist joined the Iraq insurgency in 2004 under the Al-Qaeda Iraq banner, and was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the CIA and CENTCOM to defect, joining the US-led coalition in the now famous “Surge.” Known as H.E. Shaykh Abdalrazzaq Hatem al-Sulayman, this self-described prince is the head of a 4 million strong (mostly Sunni) tribe in Anbar, and lived the high life on US taxpayer money- that is until Obama declared AQ and AQI dead, bolted from Iraq and pivoted toward Asia. No CIA. No Surge. No money. Just the wasteland that is Anbar, and a Baghdad government intent on consolidating power at Sulayman’s expense.
His Eminence, with his children in need of Bugatti supercars, flats in London, multiple Vertu mobiles, and an entourage of slaves, did what any good dad would: he created an insurgency called The Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council in 2013, and solicited funds from Sunni Monarchs and individuals throughout the GCC. The goal: destroy Baghdad and restore the Sunni to power in Iraq. His allies: the Ba’ath and ISIS.
In late 2014 Sulayman connected with Jonathan Greenhill, “former” Senior Operations Officer at the CIA who set up shop in DC as a lobbyist. Makes sense. CIA Spy since the early 1980s, probably living oversees under non-official-cover, comes home to lobby Congress. Anyway, Mr. Greenhill incorporated the Greenhill Group, and Sulayman retained him. One wonders how Sulayman became aware of Greenhill’s lobbying venture...
Read the rest here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/tyler-durden/isis-al-qaeda-cia/
By Tyler Durden
The Middle East is fertile ground for conspiracy theories, and one growing to towering heights these days says the US created the Islamic State. But while the US may well have aided ISIS in its formative days with covert supplies of weapons and CIA funding (directly or indirectly, via Turkey leading political families) the one nation most responsible for iteration after iteration of “terrorist organizations” is Saudi Arabia which “created” not only the Islamic State, but al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and many other Sunni Jihadist groups in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan.
The US has long been aware of this, of course, and it has provided material support to some of them in the distant past, for example to the Taliban in the war against Russia. But the more reasonable among us have questioned recent claims that the US intentionally created the Islamic State, a group of the same lineage as the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Those rejecting a direct link between the US and the Islamic State instead ask a perfectly logical question: why would the US allow a country ruled by monarchs with dark-age-sensibilities get away with attacking us on 9/11, funding al-Qadea in Iraq (a group that killed a few thousand US soldiers), and now the Islamic State? Two answers: fat, senile Saudi kings are preferable to the Islamic monsters that would replace them in a regime change, and the Bush family/Carlyle Group would prefer not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Thanks to the resurrection of “J Pierpont Morgan”, these doubts and questions are no longer reasonable. They are, in fact, irrelevant. Because J Pierpont Morgan, apparently experiencing a Scrooge-like transformation, has seen the light. Yesterday he tweeted three public source documents that conclusively show a Senior CIA Spy- a major figure in operations from South America to the Middle East-is lobbying the US Government to destroy Iraq and formally create an independent Sunnistan on behalf of a Sunni terrorist.
That terrorist joined the Iraq insurgency in 2004 under the Al-Qaeda Iraq banner, and was given hundreds of millions of dollars by the CIA and CENTCOM to defect, joining the US-led coalition in the now famous “Surge.” Known as H.E. Shaykh Abdalrazzaq Hatem al-Sulayman, this self-described prince is the head of a 4 million strong (mostly Sunni) tribe in Anbar, and lived the high life on US taxpayer money- that is until Obama declared AQ and AQI dead, bolted from Iraq and pivoted toward Asia. No CIA. No Surge. No money. Just the wasteland that is Anbar, and a Baghdad government intent on consolidating power at Sulayman’s expense.
His Eminence, with his children in need of Bugatti supercars, flats in London, multiple Vertu mobiles, and an entourage of slaves, did what any good dad would: he created an insurgency called The Anbar Tribes Revolutionary Council in 2013, and solicited funds from Sunni Monarchs and individuals throughout the GCC. The goal: destroy Baghdad and restore the Sunni to power in Iraq. His allies: the Ba’ath and ISIS.
In late 2014 Sulayman connected with Jonathan Greenhill, “former” Senior Operations Officer at the CIA who set up shop in DC as a lobbyist. Makes sense. CIA Spy since the early 1980s, probably living oversees under non-official-cover, comes home to lobby Congress. Anyway, Mr. Greenhill incorporated the Greenhill Group, and Sulayman retained him. One wonders how Sulayman became aware of Greenhill’s lobbying venture...
Read the rest here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/tyler-durden/isis-al-qaeda-cia/
“If you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”
America First -- or World War III
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“If you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”
So said Rand Paul, looking directly at Gov. Chris Christie, who had just responded to a question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian plane that violated his no-fly zone in Syria.
“Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it,” blurted Christie: “I would talk to Vladimir Putin … I’d say to him, ‘Listen, Mr. President, there’s a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.’
“Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling … we have in the Oval Office … right now.”
Ex-Gov. George Pataki and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum would also impose a no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes that violated it. Said Gov. John Kasich, “It’s time we punched the Russians in the nose.”
Carly Fiorina would impose a no-fly zone and not even talk to Putin until we’ve conducted “military exercises in the Baltic States” on Russia’s border. Jeb Bush, too, would impose a no-fly zone.
These warhawks apparently assume that President Putin is a coward who, if you shoot down his warplanes, will back away from a fight.
Are we sure? After the Turks shot down that Sukhoi SU-24, Moscow sent fighter planes to Syria to escort its bombers and has reportedly deployed its lethal S-300 antiaircraft system there.
A U.S. Marine Corps aviator describes the S-300: “A complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it.” There are press reports that an angry Putin has ordered the even more advanced S-400 system moved into Syria.
Is Putin bluffing? Are we prepared to ride the up-escalator, at the top of which is nuclear war, if Putin, who has been boasting of his modernized nuclear forces, is also willing to ride it rather than back down?
Uber-hawk Lindsey Graham wants to send tens of thousands of American troops to fight ISIS, and refuses to work with Iran, Russia, or Syria’s Bashar Assad to crush our common enemy ISIS.
Graham prefers “allies,” like the Saudis and Gulf Arabs.
But both have bailed out of the air war on ISIS, and sent troops and bombers instead to attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Result: The Houthis have been in retreat and al-Qaida and ISIS are moving into the vacated territory.
Another Mideast base camp for terrorists is being created — by us.
“I miss George W. Bush!” wailed Graham in the undercard debate.
How many other Americans are, like Graham, pining for the return of a Bush foreign policy that gave us Barack Obama?
Yet, now, a rival school is taking center stage in the Republican presidential campaign, rejecting the knee-jerk hostility to working with Putin. Not only does Rand Paul belong to this school, so, apparently, do Donald Trump and his strongest challenger, Sen. Ted Cruz.
Cruz had previously disparaged the legacy of the “neocons” who prodded Bush into war in Iraq and championed a democracy crusade in the Middle East. In Las Vegas, he spoke of a new national-interest-based foreign policy, a policy that puts “America First.”
“If we topple Assad … ISIS will take over Syria, and it will worsen national security interests. And the approach — instead of being … a democracy promoter, we ought to hunt down our enemies and kill ISIS rather than creating opportunities for ISIS to control new countries.”
Cruz rejects the Manichaean worldview of the neocons and their reflexive hostility to Russia, and appears willing to work with a Russian autocrat to crush a monstrous evil like ISIS, as U.S. presidents did in working with anti-Communist dictators to win the Cold War.
Midway through the debate, Trump cut loose with a sweeping indictment of mindless American interventionism in the Middle East:
“We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off. …
“We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!”
If we do not want Syria in 2016 to become what Sarajevo became in 1914, the powder keg that explodes into a world war, the War Party Republicans, who have learned nothing from the past, should be relegated to the past.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/patrick-j-buchanan/america-first-world-war-iii/
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“If you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate.”
So said Rand Paul, looking directly at Gov. Chris Christie, who had just responded to a question from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as to whether he would shoot down a Russian plane that violated his no-fly zone in Syria.
“Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it,” blurted Christie: “I would talk to Vladimir Putin … I’d say to him, ‘Listen, Mr. President, there’s a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.’
“Yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling … we have in the Oval Office … right now.”
Ex-Gov. George Pataki and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum would also impose a no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes that violated it. Said Gov. John Kasich, “It’s time we punched the Russians in the nose.”
Carly Fiorina would impose a no-fly zone and not even talk to Putin until we’ve conducted “military exercises in the Baltic States” on Russia’s border. Jeb Bush, too, would impose a no-fly zone.
These warhawks apparently assume that President Putin is a coward who, if you shoot down his warplanes, will back away from a fight.
Are we sure? After the Turks shot down that Sukhoi SU-24, Moscow sent fighter planes to Syria to escort its bombers and has reportedly deployed its lethal S-300 antiaircraft system there.
A U.S. Marine Corps aviator describes the S-300: “A complete game changer for all fourth-gen aircraft [like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18]. That thing is a beast and you don’t want to get near it.” There are press reports that an angry Putin has ordered the even more advanced S-400 system moved into Syria.
Is Putin bluffing? Are we prepared to ride the up-escalator, at the top of which is nuclear war, if Putin, who has been boasting of his modernized nuclear forces, is also willing to ride it rather than back down?
Uber-hawk Lindsey Graham wants to send tens of thousands of American troops to fight ISIS, and refuses to work with Iran, Russia, or Syria’s Bashar Assad to crush our common enemy ISIS.
Graham prefers “allies,” like the Saudis and Gulf Arabs.
But both have bailed out of the air war on ISIS, and sent troops and bombers instead to attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Result: The Houthis have been in retreat and al-Qaida and ISIS are moving into the vacated territory.
Another Mideast base camp for terrorists is being created — by us.
“I miss George W. Bush!” wailed Graham in the undercard debate.
How many other Americans are, like Graham, pining for the return of a Bush foreign policy that gave us Barack Obama?
Yet, now, a rival school is taking center stage in the Republican presidential campaign, rejecting the knee-jerk hostility to working with Putin. Not only does Rand Paul belong to this school, so, apparently, do Donald Trump and his strongest challenger, Sen. Ted Cruz.
Cruz had previously disparaged the legacy of the “neocons” who prodded Bush into war in Iraq and championed a democracy crusade in the Middle East. In Las Vegas, he spoke of a new national-interest-based foreign policy, a policy that puts “America First.”
“If we topple Assad … ISIS will take over Syria, and it will worsen national security interests. And the approach — instead of being … a democracy promoter, we ought to hunt down our enemies and kill ISIS rather than creating opportunities for ISIS to control new countries.”
Cruz rejects the Manichaean worldview of the neocons and their reflexive hostility to Russia, and appears willing to work with a Russian autocrat to crush a monstrous evil like ISIS, as U.S. presidents did in working with anti-Communist dictators to win the Cold War.
Midway through the debate, Trump cut loose with a sweeping indictment of mindless American interventionism in the Middle East:
“We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off. …
“We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!”
If we do not want Syria in 2016 to become what Sarajevo became in 1914, the powder keg that explodes into a world war, the War Party Republicans, who have learned nothing from the past, should be relegated to the past.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/patrick-j-buchanan/america-first-world-war-iii/
Friday, December 18, 2015
"Throughout history, people have looked to the man on the white horse during times of crisis, the man who will save them from distress and keep them safe in exchange for his assumption of dictatorial powers. The American people did it during the Great Depression. Time will tell whether they do it again."
Donald Trump Really Is Like FDR
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Undoubtedly Donald Trump ruffled a lot of liberal-progressive feathers when he declared that he is more like President Franklin Roosevelt than any other leader has been. The truth oftentimes hurts, but actually Trump is right.
One can easily imagine a President Trump ordering the Pentagon to round up Muslim-Americans and foreign Muslims living here in the United States and put them into U.S. concentration camps for the duration of the “war on terrorism,” just as Roosevelt did to Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Japanese and German citizens who were living here in the United States at the outbreak of World War II.
It actually could be worse under Trump. He believes in torture, which does not bode well for people in concentration camps run by the U.S. military and the CIA.
Leftists might respond to Trump’s comparison by pointing out that FDR was a socialist while Trump hews to a fascist economic philosophy.
Of course, we libertarians would say: Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?
Nonetheless, Trump is an ardent defender of Social Security, the socialist program that FDR foisted onto the American people during the Great Depression. In fact, like all other Republicans, he is a defender of the entire welfare state, which is based on the socialist principle of taking money from people to whom it belongs and giving it to people to whom it does not belong.
That’s not to deny, of course, Trump’s fascist proclivities. One could easily imagine Trump following in the bootsteps of Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet by converting America’s Social Security system to the fascist model, whereby the government permits people to keep their own money but then forces them, on pain of fine and imprisonment, to place savings into government-approved retirement accounts.
Even though Trump avoided military service during the Vietnam War, I don’t think it would surprise anyone if he modeled his presidency on Gen. Pinochet’s military regime in addition to that of FDR. Don’t forget that Pinochet also rounded up tens of thousands of innocent people and put them into concentration camps and military dungeons, where they were tortured or killed. In fact, I would think that Trump, like most conservatives, would hold Pinochet in high regard for doing his best to cleanse Chile of communism.
That’s not to say, of course, that Roosevelt didn’t have his fascist proclivities as well. Don’t forget his National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and Blue Eagle campaign, by which the law placed American businesses and industries into cartels, much like the fascist system that Benito Mussolini was implementing in Italy. It certainly wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a President Trump bringing back the NIRA, given his conservative bias in favor of government-business partnerships.
Of course, the Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional, but that didn’t stop Roosevelt any more than it is likely to stop Trump. Recall FDR’s infamous court-packing scheme. While it technically went down to defeat, the fact remains that the Court never again interfered with Roosevelt’s economic program or, for that matter, with that of his protégé President Lyndon Johnson. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to see a President Trump doing much the same thing that FDR did to ensure that the Supreme Court doesn’t stand in the way of what Trump knows is best for the country.
Let’s not forget what FDR did to Jewish refugees who Hitler was willing to release from Nazi Germany. He refused Hitler’s offer to let them leave Germany and come to the United States. We have immigration controls and quotas, FDR declared. I don’t think anyone doubts that a President Trump would do same thing to Muslim refugees or, for that matter, any other refugees in the same or similar circumstances.
And then there is FDR’s deliberate acts to provoke a German or Japanese attack on the United States, with the aim of getting America into World War II, notwithstanding the overwhelming sentiment among the American people to stay out of the conflict. Given Trump’s bellicosity toward Russia, it’s certainly is reasonable to assume that he might well follow in the footsteps of his icon FDR and provoke a Russian attack on the United States, with the aim of cleansing the world of communism once and for all.
Throughout history, people have looked to the man on the white horse during times of crisis, the man who will save them from distress and keep them safe in exchange for his assumption of dictatorial powers. The American people did it during the Great Depression. Time will tell whether they do it again.
Link:
http://fff.org/2015/12/18/donald-trump-really-like-fdr/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Undoubtedly Donald Trump ruffled a lot of liberal-progressive feathers when he declared that he is more like President Franklin Roosevelt than any other leader has been. The truth oftentimes hurts, but actually Trump is right.
One can easily imagine a President Trump ordering the Pentagon to round up Muslim-Americans and foreign Muslims living here in the United States and put them into U.S. concentration camps for the duration of the “war on terrorism,” just as Roosevelt did to Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Japanese and German citizens who were living here in the United States at the outbreak of World War II.
It actually could be worse under Trump. He believes in torture, which does not bode well for people in concentration camps run by the U.S. military and the CIA.
Leftists might respond to Trump’s comparison by pointing out that FDR was a socialist while Trump hews to a fascist economic philosophy.
Of course, we libertarians would say: Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?
Nonetheless, Trump is an ardent defender of Social Security, the socialist program that FDR foisted onto the American people during the Great Depression. In fact, like all other Republicans, he is a defender of the entire welfare state, which is based on the socialist principle of taking money from people to whom it belongs and giving it to people to whom it does not belong.
That’s not to deny, of course, Trump’s fascist proclivities. One could easily imagine Trump following in the bootsteps of Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet by converting America’s Social Security system to the fascist model, whereby the government permits people to keep their own money but then forces them, on pain of fine and imprisonment, to place savings into government-approved retirement accounts.
Even though Trump avoided military service during the Vietnam War, I don’t think it would surprise anyone if he modeled his presidency on Gen. Pinochet’s military regime in addition to that of FDR. Don’t forget that Pinochet also rounded up tens of thousands of innocent people and put them into concentration camps and military dungeons, where they were tortured or killed. In fact, I would think that Trump, like most conservatives, would hold Pinochet in high regard for doing his best to cleanse Chile of communism.
That’s not to say, of course, that Roosevelt didn’t have his fascist proclivities as well. Don’t forget his National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and Blue Eagle campaign, by which the law placed American businesses and industries into cartels, much like the fascist system that Benito Mussolini was implementing in Italy. It certainly wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine a President Trump bringing back the NIRA, given his conservative bias in favor of government-business partnerships.
Of course, the Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional, but that didn’t stop Roosevelt any more than it is likely to stop Trump. Recall FDR’s infamous court-packing scheme. While it technically went down to defeat, the fact remains that the Court never again interfered with Roosevelt’s economic program or, for that matter, with that of his protégé President Lyndon Johnson. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to see a President Trump doing much the same thing that FDR did to ensure that the Supreme Court doesn’t stand in the way of what Trump knows is best for the country.
Let’s not forget what FDR did to Jewish refugees who Hitler was willing to release from Nazi Germany. He refused Hitler’s offer to let them leave Germany and come to the United States. We have immigration controls and quotas, FDR declared. I don’t think anyone doubts that a President Trump would do same thing to Muslim refugees or, for that matter, any other refugees in the same or similar circumstances.
And then there is FDR’s deliberate acts to provoke a German or Japanese attack on the United States, with the aim of getting America into World War II, notwithstanding the overwhelming sentiment among the American people to stay out of the conflict. Given Trump’s bellicosity toward Russia, it’s certainly is reasonable to assume that he might well follow in the footsteps of his icon FDR and provoke a Russian attack on the United States, with the aim of cleansing the world of communism once and for all.
Throughout history, people have looked to the man on the white horse during times of crisis, the man who will save them from distress and keep them safe in exchange for his assumption of dictatorial powers. The American people did it during the Great Depression. Time will tell whether they do it again.
Link:
http://fff.org/2015/12/18/donald-trump-really-like-fdr/
Ain't no difference twixt the two...
Paul Ryan, John Boehner: What's the Difference?
Written by Steve Byas
Fiscal conservatives who hoped House Speaker Paul Ryan would put up more of a fight against President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have reason to be disappointed with the unveiling of the new congressional budget.
The budget increases federal spending and hands victory after victory over to the White House and Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress.
The budget continues full funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization revealed to having been involved in the sale of baby body parts. Sanctuary cities — localities that ignore federal immigration law and harbor illegal aliens — will continue receiving federal funds uninterrupted. Visas for foreign workers, which lead to the displacement of American workers, received an increase in funding. Democrats won extensions of tax credits for solar and wind production. Efforts to block Obama’s executive actions on immigration were not included in the bill.
Exactly how the budget bill would differ from a bill negotiated by former House Speaker John Boehner is hard to determine.
Republicans were able to insert a repeal on the ban of crude oil to foreigners, but that is hardly the kind of victory that excites the Republicans' conservative base. Rather, it is revealing of just who is important to Republican leaders in Congress, and who has the better lobbyists. Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp agreed with lifting the ban, but he said he did not receive a single call in favor of the action. Instead, his calls were all about Syrian refugees, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and several other concerns.
Not surprisingly, members of the House Freedom Caucus, the group which is largely responsible for forcing Boehner out of Congress, are not pleased with the new budget. Huelskamp, who is a member of the caucus, predicted that a majority of Republicans would vote no on the $1.1 trillion appropriations bill. He’s calling the package the “Boehner legacy bill.” Another member of the Caucus, Jim Jordan, agrees that few Republican members of the House will support the bill, either.
Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who is also a Caucus member, had objections about the cybersecurity language added to the bill.
“It’s pretty bad,” complained Freedom Caucus chairman Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio. “How can you not put the refugee issue in there? It makes so much sense. We were clear that if that goes in and [we get] something pretty good on the pro-life, we thought we could get a number of us” to vote for the bill. “But that’s not going to happen.”
So, Ryan will most likely construct a coalition of so-called moderate Republicans and mostly House Democrats to pass the bill. This, of course, was the Boehner way of advancing spending bills during his tenure. When Ryan was under consideration for the speakership, he wooed conservatives by promising to abide by the Hastert Rule (named for former Speaker Denny Hastert). The Hastert Rule stipulated that the speaker would allow votes only on bills enjoying the support of the majority of the Republicans.
But Ryan is not following the Hastert Rule with this budget. He is instead implementing the governing coalition used by his predecessor, John Boehner.
Despite predictable grumbling from the more conservative members of the House, such as Freedom Caucus members, Ryan appears safe in his position as speaker, at least for now. Representative David Brat, the man who pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history when he defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a Republican primary in Virginia, criticized the budget deal (“We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps”), but he also had cautious praise for Ryan.
“Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things.”
Arizona Republican Representative Matt Salmon agreed. “Paul [Ryan] made some pretty sustainable commitments about things we’ll do next year: a major overhaul of our tax system, welfare reform, replacing Obamacare. These are major things. If we do those things and define clearly what we stand for, that’s the best we can hope for.”
“In terms of process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” added Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican. It was Meadows who headed the charge against Boehner that eventually led to his resignation last fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”
One concrete action taken by Ryan that is encouraging to some Freedom Caucus members is that he has already begun the budget process for 2016. A large part of the problem for the past several years has been the failure of the House to develop a budget early enough to vote on the various parts of that budget separately. This has led to the series of “continuing resolutions” of recent years, which has led to a subtle shift in budget-making power away from Congress to a liberal president such as Obama. Obama can threaten to veto the budget if the Republicans put things in the bill he does not like, and blame the Republicans for “shutting down the government.” With his allies in the mainstream media, the public is led to believe it is all the Republicans’ fault. Many Republicans in Congress quake in fear of being blamed for "shutting down the government."
The next budget vote is slated in the fall of next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign. We can expect to hear suggestions that Republicans in the House should avoid a confrontation with Obama over the budget, so as not to hurt the Republican nominee. “Let’s wait until we have a Republican president to take serious action on the budget” will be the probable plea.
Voters were told that Republicans will take “serious action” if they get control of the House. After they did win the House in the 2010 elections, little was done, because the argument then was that the Democrats still controlled the Senate, and besides, we have a presidential election in 2012. Then, in 2014, the Republicans took the Senate and kept the House, and the Republican base was told, once again, to “wait,” since Obama will just veto any substantive action on important issues. And, of course, he can blame the Republicans.
A year from now, the Paul Ryan “honeymoon” will be over, and we will get to see the extent to which he will honor his “marriage vows” to the Republicans in Congress and to the country.
Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22161-paul-ryan-john-boehner-what-s-the-difference
Written by Steve Byas
Fiscal conservatives who hoped House Speaker Paul Ryan would put up more of a fight against President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have reason to be disappointed with the unveiling of the new congressional budget.
The budget increases federal spending and hands victory after victory over to the White House and Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress.
The budget continues full funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization revealed to having been involved in the sale of baby body parts. Sanctuary cities — localities that ignore federal immigration law and harbor illegal aliens — will continue receiving federal funds uninterrupted. Visas for foreign workers, which lead to the displacement of American workers, received an increase in funding. Democrats won extensions of tax credits for solar and wind production. Efforts to block Obama’s executive actions on immigration were not included in the bill.
Exactly how the budget bill would differ from a bill negotiated by former House Speaker John Boehner is hard to determine.
Republicans were able to insert a repeal on the ban of crude oil to foreigners, but that is hardly the kind of victory that excites the Republicans' conservative base. Rather, it is revealing of just who is important to Republican leaders in Congress, and who has the better lobbyists. Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp agreed with lifting the ban, but he said he did not receive a single call in favor of the action. Instead, his calls were all about Syrian refugees, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and several other concerns.
Not surprisingly, members of the House Freedom Caucus, the group which is largely responsible for forcing Boehner out of Congress, are not pleased with the new budget. Huelskamp, who is a member of the caucus, predicted that a majority of Republicans would vote no on the $1.1 trillion appropriations bill. He’s calling the package the “Boehner legacy bill.” Another member of the Caucus, Jim Jordan, agrees that few Republican members of the House will support the bill, either.
Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who is also a Caucus member, had objections about the cybersecurity language added to the bill.
“It’s pretty bad,” complained Freedom Caucus chairman Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio. “How can you not put the refugee issue in there? It makes so much sense. We were clear that if that goes in and [we get] something pretty good on the pro-life, we thought we could get a number of us” to vote for the bill. “But that’s not going to happen.”
So, Ryan will most likely construct a coalition of so-called moderate Republicans and mostly House Democrats to pass the bill. This, of course, was the Boehner way of advancing spending bills during his tenure. When Ryan was under consideration for the speakership, he wooed conservatives by promising to abide by the Hastert Rule (named for former Speaker Denny Hastert). The Hastert Rule stipulated that the speaker would allow votes only on bills enjoying the support of the majority of the Republicans.
But Ryan is not following the Hastert Rule with this budget. He is instead implementing the governing coalition used by his predecessor, John Boehner.
Despite predictable grumbling from the more conservative members of the House, such as Freedom Caucus members, Ryan appears safe in his position as speaker, at least for now. Representative David Brat, the man who pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history when he defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a Republican primary in Virginia, criticized the budget deal (“We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps”), but he also had cautious praise for Ryan.
“Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things.”
Arizona Republican Representative Matt Salmon agreed. “Paul [Ryan] made some pretty sustainable commitments about things we’ll do next year: a major overhaul of our tax system, welfare reform, replacing Obamacare. These are major things. If we do those things and define clearly what we stand for, that’s the best we can hope for.”
“In terms of process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” added Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican. It was Meadows who headed the charge against Boehner that eventually led to his resignation last fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”
One concrete action taken by Ryan that is encouraging to some Freedom Caucus members is that he has already begun the budget process for 2016. A large part of the problem for the past several years has been the failure of the House to develop a budget early enough to vote on the various parts of that budget separately. This has led to the series of “continuing resolutions” of recent years, which has led to a subtle shift in budget-making power away from Congress to a liberal president such as Obama. Obama can threaten to veto the budget if the Republicans put things in the bill he does not like, and blame the Republicans for “shutting down the government.” With his allies in the mainstream media, the public is led to believe it is all the Republicans’ fault. Many Republicans in Congress quake in fear of being blamed for "shutting down the government."
The next budget vote is slated in the fall of next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign. We can expect to hear suggestions that Republicans in the House should avoid a confrontation with Obama over the budget, so as not to hurt the Republican nominee. “Let’s wait until we have a Republican president to take serious action on the budget” will be the probable plea.
Voters were told that Republicans will take “serious action” if they get control of the House. After they did win the House in the 2010 elections, little was done, because the argument then was that the Democrats still controlled the Senate, and besides, we have a presidential election in 2012. Then, in 2014, the Republicans took the Senate and kept the House, and the Republican base was told, once again, to “wait,” since Obama will just veto any substantive action on important issues. And, of course, he can blame the Republicans.
A year from now, the Paul Ryan “honeymoon” will be over, and we will get to see the extent to which he will honor his “marriage vows” to the Republicans in Congress and to the country.
Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22161-paul-ryan-john-boehner-what-s-the-difference
"People like Etzioni don't understand that one of the bedrock principles behind the Second Amendment is that it protects all our other rights and freedoms..."
Huffington Post author calls for total disarmament of entire U.S. public ... absolute obedience to a government monopoly on guns now demanded by the deranged Left
by: J. D. Heyes
Sensing that the time is now to push for complete disarmament of the American people – the very first step necessary to usher in tyranny – Left-wing extremist zealots are going all out in stumping for more gun control, seriously believing that it is the answer to ending all violence and terrorism.
As noted by Intellihub, following the horrific terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., in which 14 Americans were killed and 17 more wounded, many on the Left – beginning with the propagandist-in-chief, President Obama – have screamed for new gun control measures. This is nothing new; Obama has complained about gun rights since taking office.
As Intellihub noted further:
From a prime-time address to the nation that called for unilaterally banning anyone on a secretive "no fly" list from owning a firearm to major media publications dedicating front page space to editorials that attempt to shame the American people into submission, anti gun zealots have taken their mission into overdrive.
Most of the ranting has followed along the same lines of "logic" – that is, that all gun control advocates really want are "common sense" reforms. But that's beginning to change, and the tenor of the demands is certainly becoming more shrill – and unhinged from constitutionalism and reality.
Why do Left-wingers want our guns?
Now, a Left-wing professor from a major university has gone full-tilt on the tyranny; he isn't calling for more "gun control;" he wants the American public universally "disarmed." [Read his rant here if you want to].
A professor of international relations at George Washington University, Amitai (AM-eh-tie) Etzioni (ete-zee-OH-nee), begins his call for mass gun confiscation by writing about how "good progressives" are really trying hard to save the American people from all gun violence, but horrible, evil conservatives and that problematic pro-Second Amendment organization known as the National Rifle Association (NRA), just won't stop pushing back and insisting we honor and follow the Constitution (like Etzioni did when he used his First Amendment rights to complain about the Second Amendment).
Then he tips the hand that most anti-gun liberals never do publicly: He says reforms like universal background checks and such will never achieve the goal of the pathetically Marxist extreme Left: Total gun confiscation and the banning of personal firearms ownership. So, he argues the Left should simply go all-in for disarmament.
Part of his narrative was based on a false premise – that "mass shootings" don't happen in the civilized nations of the world, especially Europe, despite the two that have occurred in Paris this year alone. The false premise comes when comparing any other nation to ours, in that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" enshrined in our founding governing document, while other nations do not:
Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naive, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted — and somehow enforced — the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)
The Second Amendment protects ALL our rights
To that last part, yes, the police in Paris did not have firearms when they were gunned down by armed jihadi assailants, but apparently this ironic reality is completely lost on Etzioni. And as for the first part of his statement: Were it true, there would not have been these mass shootings in heavily gun-controlled Paris – right?
He continued with the real intention of his column:
Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.
All this really boils down to is this: Left-wing Marxists prefer the heavy authoritarian hand of government, not the light touch envisioned by our founders. So naturally authoritarianism can only be accomplished by disarming the public.
The founders knew there would be people like Etzioni in the future – because people like him existed at the time of the country's founding, and human nature doesn't really change all that much.
But here's the thing: It doesn't matter how many Americans own guns, or support gun rights or are willing to use a gun to defend themselves and others. The only thing that matters is that Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms, period, and that won't change unless the Second Amendment is repealed (and good luck with that).
People like Etzioni don't understand that one of the bedrock principles behind the Second Amendment is that it protects all our other rights and freedoms.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052353_public_disarmament_gun_rights_leftist_media.html#ixzz3ufiz2Xq9
by: J. D. Heyes
Sensing that the time is now to push for complete disarmament of the American people – the very first step necessary to usher in tyranny – Left-wing extremist zealots are going all out in stumping for more gun control, seriously believing that it is the answer to ending all violence and terrorism.
As noted by Intellihub, following the horrific terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., in which 14 Americans were killed and 17 more wounded, many on the Left – beginning with the propagandist-in-chief, President Obama – have screamed for new gun control measures. This is nothing new; Obama has complained about gun rights since taking office.
As Intellihub noted further:
From a prime-time address to the nation that called for unilaterally banning anyone on a secretive "no fly" list from owning a firearm to major media publications dedicating front page space to editorials that attempt to shame the American people into submission, anti gun zealots have taken their mission into overdrive.
Most of the ranting has followed along the same lines of "logic" – that is, that all gun control advocates really want are "common sense" reforms. But that's beginning to change, and the tenor of the demands is certainly becoming more shrill – and unhinged from constitutionalism and reality.
Why do Left-wingers want our guns?
Now, a Left-wing professor from a major university has gone full-tilt on the tyranny; he isn't calling for more "gun control;" he wants the American public universally "disarmed." [Read his rant here if you want to].
A professor of international relations at George Washington University, Amitai (AM-eh-tie) Etzioni (ete-zee-OH-nee), begins his call for mass gun confiscation by writing about how "good progressives" are really trying hard to save the American people from all gun violence, but horrible, evil conservatives and that problematic pro-Second Amendment organization known as the National Rifle Association (NRA), just won't stop pushing back and insisting we honor and follow the Constitution (like Etzioni did when he used his First Amendment rights to complain about the Second Amendment).
Then he tips the hand that most anti-gun liberals never do publicly: He says reforms like universal background checks and such will never achieve the goal of the pathetically Marxist extreme Left: Total gun confiscation and the banning of personal firearms ownership. So, he argues the Left should simply go all-in for disarmament.
Part of his narrative was based on a false premise – that "mass shootings" don't happen in the civilized nations of the world, especially Europe, despite the two that have occurred in Paris this year alone. The false premise comes when comparing any other nation to ours, in that Americans have a right to "keep and bear arms" enshrined in our founding governing document, while other nations do not:
Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naive, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted — and somehow enforced — the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)
The Second Amendment protects ALL our rights
To that last part, yes, the police in Paris did not have firearms when they were gunned down by armed jihadi assailants, but apparently this ironic reality is completely lost on Etzioni. And as for the first part of his statement: Were it true, there would not have been these mass shootings in heavily gun-controlled Paris – right?
He continued with the real intention of his column:
Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.
All this really boils down to is this: Left-wing Marxists prefer the heavy authoritarian hand of government, not the light touch envisioned by our founders. So naturally authoritarianism can only be accomplished by disarming the public.
The founders knew there would be people like Etzioni in the future – because people like him existed at the time of the country's founding, and human nature doesn't really change all that much.
But here's the thing: It doesn't matter how many Americans own guns, or support gun rights or are willing to use a gun to defend themselves and others. The only thing that matters is that Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms, period, and that won't change unless the Second Amendment is repealed (and good luck with that).
People like Etzioni don't understand that one of the bedrock principles behind the Second Amendment is that it protects all our other rights and freedoms.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052353_public_disarmament_gun_rights_leftist_media.html#ixzz3ufiz2Xq9
It's the fascist way...
Climate activists try to silence climate skeptics... No debate allowed... Same tactic always used by the radical left when they are losing the argument
by: J. D. Heyes
Well, another "climate change summit" is on the books, and the "agreement" isn't even being applauded by the "green" groups. But that didn't stop the global warming hucksters from doing all they could to force their views on the global public, not through reasoned debate, but by attempting censorship.
As noted by Marc Morano of Climate Depot – who was in Paris recently to kick off a documentary "Climate Hustle," laying out the hoax in detail – several environmental groups called for revoking the credentials of any attendee who questioned the cult of global warming, while others have called for banning opposing viewpoints and even taking legal action against "deniers."
Moreno himself appears in a photo next to a "WANTED" poster featuring him, which has been affixed to a post, presumably in Paris (some of the poster is written in French).
"I may have to relocate to a secure undisclosed location. I hope I don't need a stunt double tonight to walk the red carpet at the 'Climate Hustle' premier," he said in a statement mocking the poster and the concept behind it.
Another WANTED poster created by a French climate activist group, claimed that Moreno and several other people identified by the group are "WANTED for destroying our future."
The flyer/press release further states:
"The world is calling for a commitment to a 100% clean future at the climate summit in Paris. But a group of climate criminals is trying to stop that deal. Their tactics are different, but their end game is the same: shift the focus away from emissions targets and keep fossil fuels at the centre of human development. Some even argue that more money should be spent on coal - the worst carbon-polluting fuel. Most get paid by fossil fuel companies like Exxon to speak against climate action. Some of them have launched extreme public attacks against scientists and others."
As for Moreno specifically, the group, AVAAZ, advised attendees of the summit to steer clear of him.
"Marc Morano has made a career out of spreading climate misinformation through the Climate Depot website, and has said that climate scientists, 'deserve to be publicly flogged.' His signature trick is to publish the email addresses of climate scientists, a move the Guardian suggests leads to Climate Depot readers cyber-bullying scientists," the press release said.
"Morano is the PR man of the climate denial industry. This year, when Pope Francis visited the US, he orchestrated a report accusing the Pope of creating an 'unholy alliance' with climate activists," it continued.
The Australian, meanwhile, reported (paywall):
"Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris, with a call for delegates with contrarian opinions to be ejected from the UN talks. ...
"Sceptic groups such as the Heartland Institute have started to arrive in the French capital, sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests."
So, no debate or discussion – just bans, censorship and the imposition of one viewpoint over the other. That must be what the "united" part of United Nations means – forced unity. That's what desperation looks like.
And honestly, the "warmists" as Morano calls them, ought to be feeling desperate. Their hoax has been exposed time and again as a fraud. Consider:
-- Time and again climate data purporting to "prove" warming is taking place has been faked or changed;
-- Some of the same dire warnings the government issued during the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s – such as, the cooling will become a major national security issue – are used in the global warming hoax today;
-- In order to perpetuate their hoax, the cultists need to spew their "science" without challenge, which is why they want government to criminally charge so-called "deniers." Only people whose viewpoint cannot stand up to scrutiny would wish to empower government in such a manner.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052363_junk_science_global_warming_debate_censorship.html#ixzz3ufiTNzHg
by: J. D. Heyes
Well, another "climate change summit" is on the books, and the "agreement" isn't even being applauded by the "green" groups. But that didn't stop the global warming hucksters from doing all they could to force their views on the global public, not through reasoned debate, but by attempting censorship.
As noted by Marc Morano of Climate Depot – who was in Paris recently to kick off a documentary "Climate Hustle," laying out the hoax in detail – several environmental groups called for revoking the credentials of any attendee who questioned the cult of global warming, while others have called for banning opposing viewpoints and even taking legal action against "deniers."
Moreno himself appears in a photo next to a "WANTED" poster featuring him, which has been affixed to a post, presumably in Paris (some of the poster is written in French).
"I may have to relocate to a secure undisclosed location. I hope I don't need a stunt double tonight to walk the red carpet at the 'Climate Hustle' premier," he said in a statement mocking the poster and the concept behind it.
Another WANTED poster created by a French climate activist group, claimed that Moreno and several other people identified by the group are "WANTED for destroying our future."
The flyer/press release further states:
"The world is calling for a commitment to a 100% clean future at the climate summit in Paris. But a group of climate criminals is trying to stop that deal. Their tactics are different, but their end game is the same: shift the focus away from emissions targets and keep fossil fuels at the centre of human development. Some even argue that more money should be spent on coal - the worst carbon-polluting fuel. Most get paid by fossil fuel companies like Exxon to speak against climate action. Some of them have launched extreme public attacks against scientists and others."
As for Moreno specifically, the group, AVAAZ, advised attendees of the summit to steer clear of him.
"Marc Morano has made a career out of spreading climate misinformation through the Climate Depot website, and has said that climate scientists, 'deserve to be publicly flogged.' His signature trick is to publish the email addresses of climate scientists, a move the Guardian suggests leads to Climate Depot readers cyber-bullying scientists," the press release said.
"Morano is the PR man of the climate denial industry. This year, when Pope Francis visited the US, he orchestrated a report accusing the Pope of creating an 'unholy alliance' with climate activists," it continued.
The Australian, meanwhile, reported (paywall):
"Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris, with a call for delegates with contrarian opinions to be ejected from the UN talks. ...
"Sceptic groups such as the Heartland Institute have started to arrive in the French capital, sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests."
So, no debate or discussion – just bans, censorship and the imposition of one viewpoint over the other. That must be what the "united" part of United Nations means – forced unity. That's what desperation looks like.
And honestly, the "warmists" as Morano calls them, ought to be feeling desperate. Their hoax has been exposed time and again as a fraud. Consider:
-- Time and again climate data purporting to "prove" warming is taking place has been faked or changed;
-- Some of the same dire warnings the government issued during the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s – such as, the cooling will become a major national security issue – are used in the global warming hoax today;
-- In order to perpetuate their hoax, the cultists need to spew their "science" without challenge, which is why they want government to criminally charge so-called "deniers." Only people whose viewpoint cannot stand up to scrutiny would wish to empower government in such a manner.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052363_junk_science_global_warming_debate_censorship.html#ixzz3ufiTNzHg
Here we go...
They fired the first shot
by Ben Crystal
You had to know it was coming. Wednesday afternoon, House Democrats formally introduced a bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, to bar the manufacture and sale of something they call “assault weapons.” Although so-called “assault weapons” are, in actuality, merely semi-automatic replicas of actual combat weapons, the Democrats are absolutely committed to making complete and utter fools of themselves.
It’s worth noting that this latest shot at the 2nd Amendment is primarily inspired by the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, and timed just a week after the three-year anniversary of the terrorist attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School. It’s also worth noting that neither attack was prevented by firearms ownership laws already on the books in places like San Bernardino and Newtown, Connecticut — laws that Democrats have sworn for decades would solve the problem of so-called “gun violence.” It’s also worth noting that those laws conclusively failed to do so in either case.
But God love our progressive pals; they’re not letting past failure stop them from more of the same. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I., aka that forgettable state wedged between the people’s republics of Massachusetts and Connecticut, kind of like Mongolia) explained their reasoning, or their facsimile thereof:
Now, let’s remember that assault weapons were first designed for the battlefield by Germans during the second World War.
I own an AR-15. It’s a slightly overly “tacticooled” replica of the select-fire M4. I call it “the M4-gery.” With its pistol-ish looking grippy bits and shoot-ey looking parts sticking out at decidedly sharp angles, it’s clearly not a toy. However, with its inability to fire at a rate any higher than I can flex my trigger finger, it’s clearly not a combat weapon. I can promise you that the Germans to whom Cicilline attributes the advent of “assault weapons” would have thought my darling little plinker to be woefully underqualified for the battlefield. In fact, the entire military world recognized the inferior combat capabilities of one-shot-per-trigger-pull standard-issue infantry weapons during World War II — hence, the development of select-fire and fully-automatic firearms wielded by the overwhelming majority of combat troops since then. There’s a reason the guys on the front lines carry M4s instead of “M4-geries.”
Cicilline had another round in the chamber:
The sole purpose of their existence was to kill as many people as quickly as possible during military combat.
The weapons designed for the battlefield actually are designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. As I noted above, the development of fully automatic infantry weapons was spurred by the inadequacies of semi-automatic rifles during World War II. But the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 doesn’t have any effect on weapons designed to “kill as many people as possible during military combat.” The Democrats’ latest attempt to put a bullet in the Bill of Rights is way off target. Because they’re afraid of M4s, they’re going to ban “M4-geries.”
Cicilline wasn’t the only Democrat firing blindly into the night. Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Californistan) squeezed off a couple of blanks of her own:
The assault weapons we’re talking about today are not just any guns… They’re not for hunting; they’re not for target practice. These are weapons of war, designed to inflict the maximum amount of death and injury.
I’ve owned my “M4-gery” for quite a few years now, along with a number of other weapons that would be verboten under the Democrats’ planned new firearms reich. I’ve hunted with them and punched holes in targets with them. But I have never so much as pointed the business end of any of them at another human being, and the situation would have to be pretty dire to alter that status. You can imagine my surprise to learn that, according to the honorable lady from Los Angeles’ reasoning, I’ve been using them incorrectly this entire time.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-the surprisingly violent, yet “gun-free” state of Maryland), who is old enough to remember the World War II weapons over which Cicilline beclowned himself, got out the old blunderbuss:
I don’t know any hunters who use an assault weapon — and if they do, that’s not much of a sport.
I don’t know any hunters who use an “assault weapon,” either. I do know a number of people, myself included, who use semi-automatic rifles to hunt. A .308 is a .308, whether it’s a Ruger Hawkeye or a Ruger SR-762. And anyone who’s missed a late-season buck knows it’s always a sport. Remarks like Hoyer’s make me wonder how many hunters he knows, period.
And Cicilline, Hahn, Hoyer and the other 90 or so Democrats who affixed their names to the bill brought along a heavily armed posse. President Obama huddled behind closed doors with anti-Bill of Rights sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg this week, in what many believe to be a prelude to Obama issuing some gun control-aimed versions of those executive orders of which he’s so fond. Of course, any such orders would undoubtedly violate multiple constitutional dictates, touching off idiotic court battles that would outlast Obama’s occupation of the Oval Office and ultimately be rescinded by the next president.
With such esteemed firearms experts as these leading the charge, it’s no wonder 80 percent of Americans now oppose the very gun grabbery inherent in the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. And with a momentous presidential election less than a year away, I hope the Democrats ride the “ban” bus all the way to November.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/they-fired-the-first-shot/
by Ben Crystal
You had to know it was coming. Wednesday afternoon, House Democrats formally introduced a bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, to bar the manufacture and sale of something they call “assault weapons.” Although so-called “assault weapons” are, in actuality, merely semi-automatic replicas of actual combat weapons, the Democrats are absolutely committed to making complete and utter fools of themselves.
It’s worth noting that this latest shot at the 2nd Amendment is primarily inspired by the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, and timed just a week after the three-year anniversary of the terrorist attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School. It’s also worth noting that neither attack was prevented by firearms ownership laws already on the books in places like San Bernardino and Newtown, Connecticut — laws that Democrats have sworn for decades would solve the problem of so-called “gun violence.” It’s also worth noting that those laws conclusively failed to do so in either case.
But God love our progressive pals; they’re not letting past failure stop them from more of the same. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I., aka that forgettable state wedged between the people’s republics of Massachusetts and Connecticut, kind of like Mongolia) explained their reasoning, or their facsimile thereof:
Now, let’s remember that assault weapons were first designed for the battlefield by Germans during the second World War.
I own an AR-15. It’s a slightly overly “tacticooled” replica of the select-fire M4. I call it “the M4-gery.” With its pistol-ish looking grippy bits and shoot-ey looking parts sticking out at decidedly sharp angles, it’s clearly not a toy. However, with its inability to fire at a rate any higher than I can flex my trigger finger, it’s clearly not a combat weapon. I can promise you that the Germans to whom Cicilline attributes the advent of “assault weapons” would have thought my darling little plinker to be woefully underqualified for the battlefield. In fact, the entire military world recognized the inferior combat capabilities of one-shot-per-trigger-pull standard-issue infantry weapons during World War II — hence, the development of select-fire and fully-automatic firearms wielded by the overwhelming majority of combat troops since then. There’s a reason the guys on the front lines carry M4s instead of “M4-geries.”
Cicilline had another round in the chamber:
The sole purpose of their existence was to kill as many people as quickly as possible during military combat.
The weapons designed for the battlefield actually are designed to kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. As I noted above, the development of fully automatic infantry weapons was spurred by the inadequacies of semi-automatic rifles during World War II. But the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 doesn’t have any effect on weapons designed to “kill as many people as possible during military combat.” The Democrats’ latest attempt to put a bullet in the Bill of Rights is way off target. Because they’re afraid of M4s, they’re going to ban “M4-geries.”
Cicilline wasn’t the only Democrat firing blindly into the night. Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Californistan) squeezed off a couple of blanks of her own:
The assault weapons we’re talking about today are not just any guns… They’re not for hunting; they’re not for target practice. These are weapons of war, designed to inflict the maximum amount of death and injury.
I’ve owned my “M4-gery” for quite a few years now, along with a number of other weapons that would be verboten under the Democrats’ planned new firearms reich. I’ve hunted with them and punched holes in targets with them. But I have never so much as pointed the business end of any of them at another human being, and the situation would have to be pretty dire to alter that status. You can imagine my surprise to learn that, according to the honorable lady from Los Angeles’ reasoning, I’ve been using them incorrectly this entire time.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-the surprisingly violent, yet “gun-free” state of Maryland), who is old enough to remember the World War II weapons over which Cicilline beclowned himself, got out the old blunderbuss:
I don’t know any hunters who use an assault weapon — and if they do, that’s not much of a sport.
I don’t know any hunters who use an “assault weapon,” either. I do know a number of people, myself included, who use semi-automatic rifles to hunt. A .308 is a .308, whether it’s a Ruger Hawkeye or a Ruger SR-762. And anyone who’s missed a late-season buck knows it’s always a sport. Remarks like Hoyer’s make me wonder how many hunters he knows, period.
And Cicilline, Hahn, Hoyer and the other 90 or so Democrats who affixed their names to the bill brought along a heavily armed posse. President Obama huddled behind closed doors with anti-Bill of Rights sugar daddy Michael Bloomberg this week, in what many believe to be a prelude to Obama issuing some gun control-aimed versions of those executive orders of which he’s so fond. Of course, any such orders would undoubtedly violate multiple constitutional dictates, touching off idiotic court battles that would outlast Obama’s occupation of the Oval Office and ultimately be rescinded by the next president.
With such esteemed firearms experts as these leading the charge, it’s no wonder 80 percent of Americans now oppose the very gun grabbery inherent in the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. And with a momentous presidential election less than a year away, I hope the Democrats ride the “ban” bus all the way to November.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/they-fired-the-first-shot/
"The war on terrorism is not about protecting America from the threat of a worldwide caliphate. The war on terrorism is all about imperialism and interventionism. It’s about control."
Muslims, Islam, and the Koran Are Not the Problem
by Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the most fascinating aspects to the post-9/11 “war on terrorism” is the fixation of American statists on Muslims, Islam, and the Koran. “The Muslims are coming to get us,” they cry. “The Muslims have been trying to conquer the world for centuries. They’re determined to establish a worldwide caliphate, one in which everyone will be forced to convert to Islam. They want to replace America’s common-law legal system with Sharia law. The Koran mandates that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and other infidels and, therefore, we have no choice but to kill them before they kill us.”
Yet, deep down American statists have to realize that all this just a crock. The war on terrorism is not about protecting America from the threat of a worldwide caliphate. The war on terrorism is all about imperialism and interventionism. It’s about control. It’s about whether the U.S. Empire is going to be able to impose its will on people and governments throughout the world.
Was any American statist expressing concern about Muslims, Islam, the Koran, or Sharia law during the 45 years of the Cold War?
Nope! Back then, the big bugaboo was communism, especially Soviet communism but also Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, Chilean, and Vietnamese communism, not to mention the U.S. Communist Party. At no time did any American statist exclaim against the Muslims or decry that they were coming to get us as part of their supposed centuries-old plan to establish a worldwide caliphate.
Even more revealing, American statists overwhelmingly supported the U.S. government’s support of radical Muslims in Afghanistan during the Cold War, when it was the Soviet Union, rather than the United States, that was doing the invading and occupying.
When people who were suffering the ravages of U.S. imperialism and interventionism in the post-Cold War period, most of whom happened to be Muslims, began retaliating with strikes against U.S. troops in their homelands or with terrorist strikes against civilians, that’s when American statists began exclaiming, “Oh, they just hate us because we’re free and because we’re Christians rather than Muslims. It has nothing to do with the fact that our government has invaded their homelands and killed, tortured, maimed, humiliated, or incarcerated countless numbers of them or bombed or otherwise destroyed their homes and businesses.”
When the U.S. government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to effect regime change in those two countries, Americans cheered and ardently supported the troops notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. government installed into power official Islamic regimes in both countries.
Did you ever hear any American statist express even mild criticism or concern for the U.S. government’s having brought two official Islamic governments into existence?
Nope, not a peep!
In fact, it’s even worse than that. During the U.S. occupations of both countries, which lasted for more than 10 years, U.S. troops were killing anyone who resisted their imperialism and interventionism or resisted the brutal and corrupt Islamic regimes that U.S. officials had installed in their countries. They called resisters to their imperialism and interventionism “terrorists.”
Throughout the time that U.S. troops were protecting these two official Islamic regimes, Americans were supporting the troops, enthusiastically. “Thank you for your service in Iraq and Afghanistan” was a popular refrain during the entire period of the occupations.
Now, wouldn’t you think that people who are concerned about an Islamic conquest of the entire world would be a bit concerned about two official Islamic governments being established in Iraq and Afghanistan and being defended and protected by U.S. troops?
Yet, not only no criticism but effusive praise instead.
Here’s another hint that the caliphate fears of American statists are nothing but a bunch of hooey: Notice that none of them are going out and killing American Muslims. Why not? If we’re at war against Muslims and Islam — if the Koran commands Muslims to kill us, as American statists maintain — then why aren’t these Americans out there defending our country by killing the people in our midst who are secretly conspiring to kill us?
There is a very simple reason why they’re not killing Muslim-Americans as part of what they say is a religious war: They know that as soon as they killed even one of the “enemy,” they would be arrested by state law-enforcement officers and charged with the state crime of murder. And they also know that if they were to try to use their ludicrous religious-war rationale as a defense in their murder trial, the judge would instruct the jury to disregard it. They know that they’d end up on a death-penalty gurney or with life in prison for killing an innocent American Muslim.
So, why do American statists remain fixated on the caliphate-Koran-Muslim-Islam-Sharia law rationale for supporting the “war on terrorism”?
The reason is a religious one, but not in the way that statists view the situation. The problem is that American statists are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually unable to confront the fact that their very own federal government, especially the national-security component of the government (i.e., the military and the CIA) — is at the root of America’s foreign-policy woes.
That’s because American statists, including Christians, Jews, and atheists, have elevated the federal government to the status of a god, one who watches over his people, takes care of them with sustenance, educates their children, provides their healthcare, gives them welfare, and keeps them safe. For American statists, the federal government is their friend, their daddy, their Big Brother, and their protector. It is also a god who commands unswerving allegiance and loyalty, unconditionally.
Consider the Christian churches of America, where since 9/11 church ministers have exhorted their members to “support the troops, especially those in harm’s way.”
Has any minister ever asked his congregation to support the victims of the troops — the people who are being killed or maimed or having their homes or businesses bombed or otherwise destroyed?
Are you kidding? That would be heresy! When Christian ministers here in the United States exhort people to pray for the troops, the thought of questioning or challenging what the troops are doing or why they are doing it doesn’t even enter their minds. God is not supposed to be challenged. The troops could be killing the unborn with abortions or the born with bombs and bullets, and the assumption is that it’s all good, it’s all moral, it’s all okay. After all, “National security is at stake! Support the troops!”
Or consider this prayer that is heard in Christian churches: “Let us pray for peace and an end to terrorism around the world.” Translation: “Let us pray that people in foreign lands that are invaded by our troops will not resist what our god wills for them and that they instead peacefully submit to the will of our god.”
Consider the reaction among statists to what Edward Snowden did. He revealed dark secrets of the Empire to the world, disclosing acts of illegality. Where was the statist ire directed? No, not at the Empire for illegally spying on the American people. It was directed at Snowden for daring to reveal the secrets of the great statist god, who is just trying to keep its children safe.
Wouldn’t it be nice if at this time of year — Christmastime — the American people were to revisit the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” That would be a good first step to restoring a free, harmonious, moral, and prosperous society to our land.
Link:
http://fff.org/2015/12/17/muslims-islam-and-the-koran-are-not-the-problem/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the most fascinating aspects to the post-9/11 “war on terrorism” is the fixation of American statists on Muslims, Islam, and the Koran. “The Muslims are coming to get us,” they cry. “The Muslims have been trying to conquer the world for centuries. They’re determined to establish a worldwide caliphate, one in which everyone will be forced to convert to Islam. They want to replace America’s common-law legal system with Sharia law. The Koran mandates that Muslims kill Christians, Jews, and other infidels and, therefore, we have no choice but to kill them before they kill us.”
Yet, deep down American statists have to realize that all this just a crock. The war on terrorism is not about protecting America from the threat of a worldwide caliphate. The war on terrorism is all about imperialism and interventionism. It’s about control. It’s about whether the U.S. Empire is going to be able to impose its will on people and governments throughout the world.
Was any American statist expressing concern about Muslims, Islam, the Koran, or Sharia law during the 45 years of the Cold War?
Nope! Back then, the big bugaboo was communism, especially Soviet communism but also Chinese, North Korean, Cuban, Chilean, and Vietnamese communism, not to mention the U.S. Communist Party. At no time did any American statist exclaim against the Muslims or decry that they were coming to get us as part of their supposed centuries-old plan to establish a worldwide caliphate.
Even more revealing, American statists overwhelmingly supported the U.S. government’s support of radical Muslims in Afghanistan during the Cold War, when it was the Soviet Union, rather than the United States, that was doing the invading and occupying.
When people who were suffering the ravages of U.S. imperialism and interventionism in the post-Cold War period, most of whom happened to be Muslims, began retaliating with strikes against U.S. troops in their homelands or with terrorist strikes against civilians, that’s when American statists began exclaiming, “Oh, they just hate us because we’re free and because we’re Christians rather than Muslims. It has nothing to do with the fact that our government has invaded their homelands and killed, tortured, maimed, humiliated, or incarcerated countless numbers of them or bombed or otherwise destroyed their homes and businesses.”
When the U.S. government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to effect regime change in those two countries, Americans cheered and ardently supported the troops notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. government installed into power official Islamic regimes in both countries.
Did you ever hear any American statist express even mild criticism or concern for the U.S. government’s having brought two official Islamic governments into existence?
Nope, not a peep!
In fact, it’s even worse than that. During the U.S. occupations of both countries, which lasted for more than 10 years, U.S. troops were killing anyone who resisted their imperialism and interventionism or resisted the brutal and corrupt Islamic regimes that U.S. officials had installed in their countries. They called resisters to their imperialism and interventionism “terrorists.”
Throughout the time that U.S. troops were protecting these two official Islamic regimes, Americans were supporting the troops, enthusiastically. “Thank you for your service in Iraq and Afghanistan” was a popular refrain during the entire period of the occupations.
Now, wouldn’t you think that people who are concerned about an Islamic conquest of the entire world would be a bit concerned about two official Islamic governments being established in Iraq and Afghanistan and being defended and protected by U.S. troops?
Yet, not only no criticism but effusive praise instead.
Here’s another hint that the caliphate fears of American statists are nothing but a bunch of hooey: Notice that none of them are going out and killing American Muslims. Why not? If we’re at war against Muslims and Islam — if the Koran commands Muslims to kill us, as American statists maintain — then why aren’t these Americans out there defending our country by killing the people in our midst who are secretly conspiring to kill us?
There is a very simple reason why they’re not killing Muslim-Americans as part of what they say is a religious war: They know that as soon as they killed even one of the “enemy,” they would be arrested by state law-enforcement officers and charged with the state crime of murder. And they also know that if they were to try to use their ludicrous religious-war rationale as a defense in their murder trial, the judge would instruct the jury to disregard it. They know that they’d end up on a death-penalty gurney or with life in prison for killing an innocent American Muslim.
So, why do American statists remain fixated on the caliphate-Koran-Muslim-Islam-Sharia law rationale for supporting the “war on terrorism”?
The reason is a religious one, but not in the way that statists view the situation. The problem is that American statists are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually unable to confront the fact that their very own federal government, especially the national-security component of the government (i.e., the military and the CIA) — is at the root of America’s foreign-policy woes.
That’s because American statists, including Christians, Jews, and atheists, have elevated the federal government to the status of a god, one who watches over his people, takes care of them with sustenance, educates their children, provides their healthcare, gives them welfare, and keeps them safe. For American statists, the federal government is their friend, their daddy, their Big Brother, and their protector. It is also a god who commands unswerving allegiance and loyalty, unconditionally.
Consider the Christian churches of America, where since 9/11 church ministers have exhorted their members to “support the troops, especially those in harm’s way.”
Has any minister ever asked his congregation to support the victims of the troops — the people who are being killed or maimed or having their homes or businesses bombed or otherwise destroyed?
Are you kidding? That would be heresy! When Christian ministers here in the United States exhort people to pray for the troops, the thought of questioning or challenging what the troops are doing or why they are doing it doesn’t even enter their minds. God is not supposed to be challenged. The troops could be killing the unborn with abortions or the born with bombs and bullets, and the assumption is that it’s all good, it’s all moral, it’s all okay. After all, “National security is at stake! Support the troops!”
Or consider this prayer that is heard in Christian churches: “Let us pray for peace and an end to terrorism around the world.” Translation: “Let us pray that people in foreign lands that are invaded by our troops will not resist what our god wills for them and that they instead peacefully submit to the will of our god.”
Consider the reaction among statists to what Edward Snowden did. He revealed dark secrets of the Empire to the world, disclosing acts of illegality. Where was the statist ire directed? No, not at the Empire for illegally spying on the American people. It was directed at Snowden for daring to reveal the secrets of the great statist god, who is just trying to keep its children safe.
Wouldn’t it be nice if at this time of year — Christmastime — the American people were to revisit the First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” That would be a good first step to restoring a free, harmonious, moral, and prosperous society to our land.
Link:
http://fff.org/2015/12/17/muslims-islam-and-the-koran-are-not-the-problem/
Thursday, December 17, 2015
"That's tyranny, not freedom, and that makes people like Schmidt the enemies of freedom..."
Google chairman calls on tech industry to regulate internet speech
by: J. D. Heyes
Here we go again: Another Left-wing Marxist who wants to quash all political speech he and those of his ilk disagree with – because quashing speech is much easier than debating ideas and convincing others you are right.
In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, Google CEO Eric Schmidt argued that so-called "hate speech" should be heavily censored online, conveniently just days after leading Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton called on Silicon Valley to help in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).
Clinton argued that it is important to "disrupt" the terrorist organization's communications network by depriving "jihadists of virtual territory."
So, terrorism.
For his part Schmidt made similar claims and for similar reasons: Terrorism. Except that he narrowed in on a specific problem – "hate" speech related to terrorism or used by violent organizations to foment more chaos and to recruit those who would help spread it.
Hiding tyranny in what some claim is only reasonable
This paragraph in particular is troubling:
The Internet is showing us the raw reality of the lives of oppressed people and their real needs, and it is also allowing some of our worst traits — in the form of envy, oppression and hate — to come into full view as well. We need strong leaders worldwide who will fight broadly for human progress and tolerance, and focus on bettering everyone's lives. We need leaders to use the new power of technology to allow us to broaden our horizons as individuals, and in the process broaden the horizons of our society. [Emphasis added]
Schmidt goes on to give lip service to "free speech," but claims that governments and technology companies like Google should really play the role of speech police:
We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice. Without this type of leadership from government, from citizens, from tech companies, the Internet could become a vehicle for further disaggregation of poorly built societies, and the empowerment of the wrong people, and the wrong voices.
Did you catch that? The "wrong people" and "the wrong voices." Who decides such things? And based on what parameters or defining qualities?
Sure, it sounds all well and good that Google – and, presumably, Yahoo, Microsoft and the other major tech and media companies – want to ban "terrorist speech," but such power will eventually morph into a much broader effort aimed at banning "hate speech" or, at least, speech that gatekeepers like Schmidt eventually deem as "hateful."
Enemies of speech
And what would such speech look like? We already know because we've already seen it.
In recent months when Americans expressed disapproval for gay marriage, they were shouted down, vilified and taken to court, all in an effort to shut them up and quash their point of view (their speech, if you will). And the reasons behind the opposition didn't matter at all – whether it was due to religious objections or on constitutional grounds. The same goes for virtually all matters of race; the Left is the only arbiter of what does and does not constitute "hate speech," and frankly that's been the problem with "hate speech" laws from the outset – they are arbitrary, broadly (or too narrowly) applied, and subjective.
Here is a good primer on the constitutional implications of "hate speech." Read it and see if you agree.
In the meantime, understand that the enemies of speech are always those who seek to control what can and cannot be said in the "marketplace of ideas." Enemies of speech are those who seek to define its parameters and scope. They are the ones who will use what seems like a reasonable basis (e.g. helping to stop the spread of terrorism), in order to more broadly apply their power to speech they determine to be "hateful."
That's tyranny, not freedom, and that makes people like Schmidt the enemies of freedom.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052342_Google_censorship_free_speech.html#ixzz3uZxsLuaa
by: J. D. Heyes
Here we go again: Another Left-wing Marxist who wants to quash all political speech he and those of his ilk disagree with – because quashing speech is much easier than debating ideas and convincing others you are right.
In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, Google CEO Eric Schmidt argued that so-called "hate speech" should be heavily censored online, conveniently just days after leading Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton called on Silicon Valley to help in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS – the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).
Clinton argued that it is important to "disrupt" the terrorist organization's communications network by depriving "jihadists of virtual territory."
So, terrorism.
For his part Schmidt made similar claims and for similar reasons: Terrorism. Except that he narrowed in on a specific problem – "hate" speech related to terrorism or used by violent organizations to foment more chaos and to recruit those who would help spread it.
Hiding tyranny in what some claim is only reasonable
This paragraph in particular is troubling:
The Internet is showing us the raw reality of the lives of oppressed people and their real needs, and it is also allowing some of our worst traits — in the form of envy, oppression and hate — to come into full view as well. We need strong leaders worldwide who will fight broadly for human progress and tolerance, and focus on bettering everyone's lives. We need leaders to use the new power of technology to allow us to broaden our horizons as individuals, and in the process broaden the horizons of our society. [Emphasis added]
Schmidt goes on to give lip service to "free speech," but claims that governments and technology companies like Google should really play the role of speech police:
We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media — sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment. We should target social accounts for terrorist groups like the Islamic State, and remove videos before they spread, or help those countering terrorist messages to find their voice. Without this type of leadership from government, from citizens, from tech companies, the Internet could become a vehicle for further disaggregation of poorly built societies, and the empowerment of the wrong people, and the wrong voices.
Did you catch that? The "wrong people" and "the wrong voices." Who decides such things? And based on what parameters or defining qualities?
Sure, it sounds all well and good that Google – and, presumably, Yahoo, Microsoft and the other major tech and media companies – want to ban "terrorist speech," but such power will eventually morph into a much broader effort aimed at banning "hate speech" or, at least, speech that gatekeepers like Schmidt eventually deem as "hateful."
Enemies of speech
And what would such speech look like? We already know because we've already seen it.
In recent months when Americans expressed disapproval for gay marriage, they were shouted down, vilified and taken to court, all in an effort to shut them up and quash their point of view (their speech, if you will). And the reasons behind the opposition didn't matter at all – whether it was due to religious objections or on constitutional grounds. The same goes for virtually all matters of race; the Left is the only arbiter of what does and does not constitute "hate speech," and frankly that's been the problem with "hate speech" laws from the outset – they are arbitrary, broadly (or too narrowly) applied, and subjective.
Here is a good primer on the constitutional implications of "hate speech." Read it and see if you agree.
In the meantime, understand that the enemies of speech are always those who seek to control what can and cannot be said in the "marketplace of ideas." Enemies of speech are those who seek to define its parameters and scope. They are the ones who will use what seems like a reasonable basis (e.g. helping to stop the spread of terrorism), in order to more broadly apply their power to speech they determine to be "hateful."
That's tyranny, not freedom, and that makes people like Schmidt the enemies of freedom.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052342_Google_censorship_free_speech.html#ixzz3uZxsLuaa
"Why are the president and his enablers pushing so hard for worldwide rules and mandates to accomplish what is already being accomplished privately? Is there another agenda behind the push?"
As Natural Gas Prices Drop, so Does Air Pollution
Written by Bob Adelmann
On Tuesday, natural gas prices dropped again, with January futures hitting lows not seen since March 24, 1999. Adjusted for inflation, natural gas prices are the second-lowest ever recorded.
There appears to be nothing to stop the downward trend, thanks not only to softening demand (due to the weather phenomenon El Niño) and a still-weak economy, but also to increased efficiencies in the energy industry. Those efficiencies make producing natural gas profitable even at these prices.
These low, and lower, prices are driving electric power generating companies to move from coal to natural gas. Analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) couldn’t be happier. As Ed King, writing for the Guardian, explained:
US efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions look set for a huge boost this year, with carbon pollution from the power sector set to fall to its lowest level since 1994. Record numbers of US coal-fired power plants are set to close this year, and analysts at [BNEF] say this will likely see power sector emissions drop 15.4 percent below 2005 levels. “On an emissions rate basis … 2015 will be the cleanest year in over 60 years …” says the report.
This is confirmed by the Western Energy Alliance:
Because natural gas is increasingly replacing coal in electricity generation, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have declined to the lowest level since 1994 … more than any other country since 2006. Whereas coal once produced over 60 percent of U.S. electricity, natural gas generation has increased to about 25 percent, while coal is down to 35 percent.
Not only are the economics making sense from a cost per unit of energy point of view, but the environment benefits are as well. While the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning natural gas is half that of coal combustion, the amounts of genuine pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur are scarcedly measurable. Natural-gas byproducts also generate 99-percent lower particulates than does the burning of coal. All of this has taken concerns about “acid rain” virtually out of the national conversation.
In addition to the low price of natural gas pushing the power generation industry away from coal, it is also changing the transportation sector. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), about half of all air pollution (and more than 80 percent of air pollution in cities) is produced by cars and trucks in the United States. When cars and trucks shift from gasoline to compressed natural gas, the reduction in GHGs is remarkable. As noted by NaturalGas.com:
According to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent.
In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to traditional vehicle fuels, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions.
As the free market continues to drive the shift from coal (and gasoline) to natural gas, GHGs are coming down to levels that environmentalists tried to mandate, by force, through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. As Mike Flynn noted at Breitbart:
Since the U.S. rejected [that] agreement in 1998, greenhouse gas emissions here have fallen by more than five percent. Total emissions in the U.S., in fact, are just slightly above the 1990 levels which were the goal of the Kyoto agreement. The U.S. has made far more progress reducing its emissions than many countries [which are] subject to Kyoto’s binding reductions.
When it comes to GHG emissions and other genuine air pollution, two of the biggest contributers are India and China. In fact, over the past 40 years China has increased its carbon emissions by over 900 percent, and continues to launch a new coal-fired power plant almost every week.
The reduction in the price of natural gas coupled with its concomitant reduction in GHGs has another nice benefit: It virtually cuts the legs out from under the environmentalists’ arguments that government intervention is required to clean the air. That may be why President Obama called the recent Paris climate-change conference the “last best opportunity” to launch CO2-reduction mandates worldwide. With the passage of time, the free market will clean up the air naturally, leaving the question open: Why are the president and his enablers pushing so hard for worldwide rules and mandates to accomplish what is already being accomplished privately? Is there another agenda behind the push?
Just asking.
Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/22154-as-natural-gas-prices-drop-so-does-air-pollution
Written by Bob Adelmann
On Tuesday, natural gas prices dropped again, with January futures hitting lows not seen since March 24, 1999. Adjusted for inflation, natural gas prices are the second-lowest ever recorded.
There appears to be nothing to stop the downward trend, thanks not only to softening demand (due to the weather phenomenon El Niño) and a still-weak economy, but also to increased efficiencies in the energy industry. Those efficiencies make producing natural gas profitable even at these prices.
These low, and lower, prices are driving electric power generating companies to move from coal to natural gas. Analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) couldn’t be happier. As Ed King, writing for the Guardian, explained:
US efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions look set for a huge boost this year, with carbon pollution from the power sector set to fall to its lowest level since 1994. Record numbers of US coal-fired power plants are set to close this year, and analysts at [BNEF] say this will likely see power sector emissions drop 15.4 percent below 2005 levels. “On an emissions rate basis … 2015 will be the cleanest year in over 60 years …” says the report.
This is confirmed by the Western Energy Alliance:
Because natural gas is increasingly replacing coal in electricity generation, U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have declined to the lowest level since 1994 … more than any other country since 2006. Whereas coal once produced over 60 percent of U.S. electricity, natural gas generation has increased to about 25 percent, while coal is down to 35 percent.
Not only are the economics making sense from a cost per unit of energy point of view, but the environment benefits are as well. While the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning natural gas is half that of coal combustion, the amounts of genuine pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur are scarcedly measurable. Natural-gas byproducts also generate 99-percent lower particulates than does the burning of coal. All of this has taken concerns about “acid rain” virtually out of the national conversation.
In addition to the low price of natural gas pushing the power generation industry away from coal, it is also changing the transportation sector. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), about half of all air pollution (and more than 80 percent of air pollution in cities) is produced by cars and trucks in the United States. When cars and trucks shift from gasoline to compressed natural gas, the reduction in GHGs is remarkable. As noted by NaturalGas.com:
According to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent.
In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to traditional vehicle fuels, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions.
As the free market continues to drive the shift from coal (and gasoline) to natural gas, GHGs are coming down to levels that environmentalists tried to mandate, by force, through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. As Mike Flynn noted at Breitbart:
Since the U.S. rejected [that] agreement in 1998, greenhouse gas emissions here have fallen by more than five percent. Total emissions in the U.S., in fact, are just slightly above the 1990 levels which were the goal of the Kyoto agreement. The U.S. has made far more progress reducing its emissions than many countries [which are] subject to Kyoto’s binding reductions.
When it comes to GHG emissions and other genuine air pollution, two of the biggest contributers are India and China. In fact, over the past 40 years China has increased its carbon emissions by over 900 percent, and continues to launch a new coal-fired power plant almost every week.
The reduction in the price of natural gas coupled with its concomitant reduction in GHGs has another nice benefit: It virtually cuts the legs out from under the environmentalists’ arguments that government intervention is required to clean the air. That may be why President Obama called the recent Paris climate-change conference the “last best opportunity” to launch CO2-reduction mandates worldwide. With the passage of time, the free market will clean up the air naturally, leaving the question open: Why are the president and his enablers pushing so hard for worldwide rules and mandates to accomplish what is already being accomplished privately? Is there another agenda behind the push?
Just asking.
Link:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/22154-as-natural-gas-prices-drop-so-does-air-pollution
Got Guns???
Here’s some bad news for Obama
by Sam Rolley
As President Obama gets ready to release a bevy of executive orders curtailing Americans’ gun rights, more citizens than ever before disagree with his attitudes toward the 2nd Amendment.
That’s according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll which shows that the president’s efforts to drum up fear about “assault weapons” have been a total failure.
Fifty-three percent of respondents told pollsters that they oppose a government ban on “assault weapons.” That’s up 13 percent from 1994 when the Clinton administration was able to put such a ban in place.
Forty-five percent of respondents said they would support a new “assault weapons” ban. In 1994, polls registered about 80 percent support for such a ban.
Recent polling from Rasmussen tells a similar story, as that polling agency notes:
Americans are more supportive than they have been in the past of their constitutional right to bear arms. They remain closely divided over the need for more gun control but still tend to oppose it. Perhaps that’s because just 38% think more gun control will keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Fifty-one percent (51%) think it will just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun. Sizable majorities have said for years that the government needs to enforce the gun laws already on the books instead.
A big problem for supporters of more gun control is that only 26% of Americans trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws.
The polling suggests that a growing number of Americans are losing confidence in the government’s ability to keep citizens safe from terrorists and mass shooters. In response, more Americans are opting to take matters of personal safety into their own hands via gun ownership.
Rasmussen also points out that a solid majority (65 percent) of Americans view the 2nd Amendment’s primary function as protecting citizens from government tyranny. That means President Obama could be playing with fire in planning to strip gun rights through executive fiat.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/heres-some-bad-news-for-obama/
by Sam Rolley
As President Obama gets ready to release a bevy of executive orders curtailing Americans’ gun rights, more citizens than ever before disagree with his attitudes toward the 2nd Amendment.
That’s according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll which shows that the president’s efforts to drum up fear about “assault weapons” have been a total failure.
Fifty-three percent of respondents told pollsters that they oppose a government ban on “assault weapons.” That’s up 13 percent from 1994 when the Clinton administration was able to put such a ban in place.
Forty-five percent of respondents said they would support a new “assault weapons” ban. In 1994, polls registered about 80 percent support for such a ban.
Recent polling from Rasmussen tells a similar story, as that polling agency notes:
Americans are more supportive than they have been in the past of their constitutional right to bear arms. They remain closely divided over the need for more gun control but still tend to oppose it. Perhaps that’s because just 38% think more gun control will keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Fifty-one percent (51%) think it will just make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy a gun. Sizable majorities have said for years that the government needs to enforce the gun laws already on the books instead.
A big problem for supporters of more gun control is that only 26% of Americans trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws.
The polling suggests that a growing number of Americans are losing confidence in the government’s ability to keep citizens safe from terrorists and mass shooters. In response, more Americans are opting to take matters of personal safety into their own hands via gun ownership.
Rasmussen also points out that a solid majority (65 percent) of Americans view the 2nd Amendment’s primary function as protecting citizens from government tyranny. That means President Obama could be playing with fire in planning to strip gun rights through executive fiat.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/heres-some-bad-news-for-obama/
"Expanding government power will not increase our safety; it will only diminish our freedom. Americans will have neither liberty nor security until they abandon the fantasy that the US government can provide economic security, personal security, and global security."
If You Want Security, Pursue Liberty
By Ron Paul
Judging by his prime-time speech last week, the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency will be marked by increased militarism abroad and authoritarianism at home. The centerpiece of the president’s speech was his demand for a new law forbidding anyone on the federal government’s terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm. There has never been a mass shooter who was on the terrorist watch list, so this proposal will not increase security. However, it will decrease liberty.
Federal officials can have an American citizen placed on the terrorist watch list based solely on their suspicions that the individual might be involved in terrorist activity. Individuals placed on the list are not informed that they have been labeled as suspected terrorists, much less given an opportunity to challenge that designation, until a Transportation Security Administration agent stops them from boarding a plane.
Individuals can be placed on the list if their Facebook or Twitter posts seem “suspicious” to a federal agent. You can also be placed on the list if your behavior somehow suggests that you are a “representative” of a terrorist group (even if you have no associations with any terrorist organizations). Individuals can even be put on the list because the FBI wants to interview them about friends or family members!
Thousands of Americans, including several members of Congress and many employees of the Department of Homeland Security, have been mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list. Some Americans are placed on the list because they happen to have the same names as terrorist suspects. Those mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list must go through a lengthy “redress” process to clear their names.
It is likely that some Americans are on the list solely because of their political views and activities. Anyone who doubts this should consider the long history of federal agencies, such as the IRS and the FBI, using their power to harass political movements that challenge the status quo. Are the American people really so desperate for the illusion of security that they will support a law that results in some Americans losing their Second Amendment rights because of a bureaucratic error or because of their political beliefs?
President Obama is also preparing an executive order expanding the federal background check system. Expanding background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists. However, it will make obtaining a firearm more difficult for those needing, for example, to defend themselves against abusive spouses.
Sadly, many who understand that new gun control laws will leave us less free and less safe support expanding the surveillance state. Like those promoting gun control, people calling for expanded surveillance do not let facts deter their efforts to take more of our liberties. There is no evidence that mass surveillance has prevented even one terrorist attack.
France’s mass surveillance system is much more widespread and intrusive than ours. Yet it failed to prevent the recent attacks. France’s gun control laws, which are much more restrictive than ours, not only failed to keep guns out of the hands of their attackers, they left victims defenseless. It is thus amazing that many American politicians want to make us more like France by taking away our Second and Fourth Amendment rights.
Expanding government power will not increase our safety; it will only diminish our freedom. Americans will have neither liberty nor security until they abandon the fantasy that the US government can provide economic security, personal security, and global security.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/ron-paul/feeling-unsafe/
By Ron Paul
Judging by his prime-time speech last week, the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency will be marked by increased militarism abroad and authoritarianism at home. The centerpiece of the president’s speech was his demand for a new law forbidding anyone on the federal government’s terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm. There has never been a mass shooter who was on the terrorist watch list, so this proposal will not increase security. However, it will decrease liberty.
Federal officials can have an American citizen placed on the terrorist watch list based solely on their suspicions that the individual might be involved in terrorist activity. Individuals placed on the list are not informed that they have been labeled as suspected terrorists, much less given an opportunity to challenge that designation, until a Transportation Security Administration agent stops them from boarding a plane.
Individuals can be placed on the list if their Facebook or Twitter posts seem “suspicious” to a federal agent. You can also be placed on the list if your behavior somehow suggests that you are a “representative” of a terrorist group (even if you have no associations with any terrorist organizations). Individuals can even be put on the list because the FBI wants to interview them about friends or family members!
Thousands of Americans, including several members of Congress and many employees of the Department of Homeland Security, have been mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list. Some Americans are placed on the list because they happen to have the same names as terrorist suspects. Those mistakenly placed on the terrorist watch list must go through a lengthy “redress” process to clear their names.
It is likely that some Americans are on the list solely because of their political views and activities. Anyone who doubts this should consider the long history of federal agencies, such as the IRS and the FBI, using their power to harass political movements that challenge the status quo. Are the American people really so desperate for the illusion of security that they will support a law that results in some Americans losing their Second Amendment rights because of a bureaucratic error or because of their political beliefs?
President Obama is also preparing an executive order expanding the federal background check system. Expanding background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists. However, it will make obtaining a firearm more difficult for those needing, for example, to defend themselves against abusive spouses.
Sadly, many who understand that new gun control laws will leave us less free and less safe support expanding the surveillance state. Like those promoting gun control, people calling for expanded surveillance do not let facts deter their efforts to take more of our liberties. There is no evidence that mass surveillance has prevented even one terrorist attack.
France’s mass surveillance system is much more widespread and intrusive than ours. Yet it failed to prevent the recent attacks. France’s gun control laws, which are much more restrictive than ours, not only failed to keep guns out of the hands of their attackers, they left victims defenseless. It is thus amazing that many American politicians want to make us more like France by taking away our Second and Fourth Amendment rights.
Expanding government power will not increase our safety; it will only diminish our freedom. Americans will have neither liberty nor security until they abandon the fantasy that the US government can provide economic security, personal security, and global security.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/ron-paul/feeling-unsafe/
Jail to the chief...
More Hillary Chronicles
By Andrew P. Napolitano
While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump’s tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the government’s efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino, California, killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target.
The basic facts are well-known, but the revealed nuances are important, as well. When the State Department responded to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by telling Judicial Watch that it had no emails from Clinton, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. When the State Department made the same representation to the court — as incredible as it seemed at the time — the judge accepted that representation, and the case was dismissed.
Then The New York Times revealed that Clinton used a private email server instead of the government’s server for all of her work-related and personal emails during her four years as secretary of state. After that, the Judicial Watch FOIA case was reinstated, and then the judge in the case demanded of State that it produce Clinton’s emails.
When Judicial Watch expressed frustration to the judge about the pace at which it was getting emails, the judge ordered Clinton, “under penalty of perjury,” to certify that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department.
Eventually, Clinton did certify to the court that she did surrender all of her governmental emails to the State Department. She did so by sending paper copies of selected emails, because she had wiped clean her server. She acknowledged that she decided which emails were personal and which were selected as governmental and returned the governmental ones to the State Department. She has denied steadfastly and consistently that she ever sent or received any materials marked “classified” while secretary of state using her private server.
All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails — metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government — she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies — hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.
This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office — though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State — because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)
Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue — her own server — and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked “classified” is that protected government secrets are not marked “classified.”
So her statement, though technically true, is highly misleading. The governmental designations of protected secrets are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret” — not “classified.” State Department investigators have found 999 emails sent or received by Clinton in at least one of those three categories of protected secrets.
Back when Clinton became secretary of state, on her first day in office, she had an hourlong FBI briefing on the proper and lawfully required care of government secrets. She signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that she knew the law and that it is the content of emails, not any stamped markings, that makes them secret.
Earlier this week, my Fox News colleagues confirmed the certain presence of top-secret materials among the 999 emails. Intelligence from foreign sources or about foreign governments is always top-secret, whether designated as such or not. And she knows that.
As well, she may have committed perjury in the FOIA case. When the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in its investigation of her role in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, gathered emails, it found emails she did not surrender to the State Department.
Last week, the State Department released emails that give the FBI more areas to investigate. These emails may show a pattern of official behavior by Clinton designed to benefit the financial interests of her family’s foundation, her husband and her son-in-law. Moreover, the FBI knows of a treasure-trove of documents that may demonstrate that the Clinton Foundation skirted the law and illegally raised and spent contributions.
Two months ago, a group of FBI agents sat around a conference table and reviewed the evidence gathered thus far. Each agent was given the opportunity to make or detract from the case for moving forward. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the group to pursue a criminal investigation.
And Clinton is the likely target.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/andrew-p-napolitano/hillary-headed-big-house/
By Andrew P. Napolitano
While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump’s tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the government’s efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino, California, killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target.
The basic facts are well-known, but the revealed nuances are important, as well. When the State Department responded to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by telling Judicial Watch that it had no emails from Clinton, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. When the State Department made the same representation to the court — as incredible as it seemed at the time — the judge accepted that representation, and the case was dismissed.
Then The New York Times revealed that Clinton used a private email server instead of the government’s server for all of her work-related and personal emails during her four years as secretary of state. After that, the Judicial Watch FOIA case was reinstated, and then the judge in the case demanded of State that it produce Clinton’s emails.
When Judicial Watch expressed frustration to the judge about the pace at which it was getting emails, the judge ordered Clinton, “under penalty of perjury,” to certify that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department.
Eventually, Clinton did certify to the court that she did surrender all of her governmental emails to the State Department. She did so by sending paper copies of selected emails, because she had wiped clean her server. She acknowledged that she decided which emails were personal and which were selected as governmental and returned the governmental ones to the State Department. She has denied steadfastly and consistently that she ever sent or received any materials marked “classified” while secretary of state using her private server.
All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails — metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government — she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies — hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.
This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office — though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State — because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)
Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue — her own server — and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked “classified” is that protected government secrets are not marked “classified.”
So her statement, though technically true, is highly misleading. The governmental designations of protected secrets are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret” — not “classified.” State Department investigators have found 999 emails sent or received by Clinton in at least one of those three categories of protected secrets.
Back when Clinton became secretary of state, on her first day in office, she had an hourlong FBI briefing on the proper and lawfully required care of government secrets. She signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that she knew the law and that it is the content of emails, not any stamped markings, that makes them secret.
Earlier this week, my Fox News colleagues confirmed the certain presence of top-secret materials among the 999 emails. Intelligence from foreign sources or about foreign governments is always top-secret, whether designated as such or not. And she knows that.
As well, she may have committed perjury in the FOIA case. When the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in its investigation of her role in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, gathered emails, it found emails she did not surrender to the State Department.
Last week, the State Department released emails that give the FBI more areas to investigate. These emails may show a pattern of official behavior by Clinton designed to benefit the financial interests of her family’s foundation, her husband and her son-in-law. Moreover, the FBI knows of a treasure-trove of documents that may demonstrate that the Clinton Foundation skirted the law and illegally raised and spent contributions.
Two months ago, a group of FBI agents sat around a conference table and reviewed the evidence gathered thus far. Each agent was given the opportunity to make or detract from the case for moving forward. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the group to pursue a criminal investigation.
And Clinton is the likely target.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/andrew-p-napolitano/hillary-headed-big-house/
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
It's up to you...
Good advice: Step up and defend yourselves
by Tribune News Service
President Barack Obama and the growing mob of American anti-2nd Amendment fanatics would have you believe that the state can protect you and your loved ones from all criminal threats. It can’t.
No one knows that better than the men and women who spend their days on the front lines of law enforcement, like Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Arizona.
Babeu and his deputies are actively encouraging residents to take their safety into their own hands by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
In a social media post, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office told residents: “You do NOT need the permission of the government to carry concealed in Arizona.”
The post continued: “We are STRONG defenders of our 2nd Amendment rights. We call for Arizona licensed concealed carry permit holders to step up and defend themselves, their families, and others, when faced with an armed attacker prior to law enforcement arrival.”
During a recent press conference, Babeu explained that law enforcement agencies simply can’t be everywhere all the time.
“I wish we could have a cop in every corner, in every neighborhood, in every school … we just can’t,” the sheriff said.
Babeu told reporters that’s why his department wants citizens to “add to the equation.”
While Arizona is among the states that requires no permit for concealed carry, the sheriff did offer sound advice for anyone thinking about purchasing their first gun: Take a safety course to learn “weapon familiarization, weapon qualification, how to carry and education on the laws.”
Babeu’s dedication to encouraging Americans living in his jurisdiction to protect themselves is a refreshing departure from the attitude of another American sheriff we told you about this week.
Pinellas County, Florida, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri recently called legislation that would allow Floridians to open-carry fundamentally dangerous, suggesting that his officers would be more likely to shoot law-abiding citizens exercising the right.
“At a minimum, they’re going to be thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse,” the sheriff said of how he believes officers would react to open carriers when responding to a call.
Gualtieri also added that an armed citizen who attempts to stop a crime better hope that there are no officers nearby because “he’s going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”
Beyond the issue of firearm rights, it’s vital to understand the distinction between these two law enforcement officials as it pertains to respect for the Constitution.
The sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in his county. And his authority is actually more powerful than you may have realized.
As noted by the Constitutional Sheriff Project: “The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.”
In 2012, that organization hosted its inaugural convention in Las Vegas, with about 120 sheriffs in attendance. The conference was organized by former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack, a Tea Party advocate who, along with six other sheriffs, challenged the constitutionality of the gun control measure commonly known as the Brady Bill that was introduced by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Mack’s challenge went all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was deemed that local law enforcement could not be compelled to carry out federally mandated background checks.
The point is that, if he is so inclined, your sheriff can serve as the last line of defense against federal abuses of your constitutional rights.
And fortunately for people living in areas with a sheriff like Gualtieri, most sheriffs throughout the United States are elected to the positions they hold on the county ballot.
Find out if your county’s top law enforcement official is a friend of the Constitution. If not, get busy now to change that in the next election.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/good-advice-step-up-and-defend-yourselves/
by Tribune News Service
President Barack Obama and the growing mob of American anti-2nd Amendment fanatics would have you believe that the state can protect you and your loved ones from all criminal threats. It can’t.
No one knows that better than the men and women who spend their days on the front lines of law enforcement, like Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Arizona.
Babeu and his deputies are actively encouraging residents to take their safety into their own hands by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.
In a social media post, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office told residents: “You do NOT need the permission of the government to carry concealed in Arizona.”
The post continued: “We are STRONG defenders of our 2nd Amendment rights. We call for Arizona licensed concealed carry permit holders to step up and defend themselves, their families, and others, when faced with an armed attacker prior to law enforcement arrival.”
During a recent press conference, Babeu explained that law enforcement agencies simply can’t be everywhere all the time.
“I wish we could have a cop in every corner, in every neighborhood, in every school … we just can’t,” the sheriff said.
Babeu told reporters that’s why his department wants citizens to “add to the equation.”
While Arizona is among the states that requires no permit for concealed carry, the sheriff did offer sound advice for anyone thinking about purchasing their first gun: Take a safety course to learn “weapon familiarization, weapon qualification, how to carry and education on the laws.”
Babeu’s dedication to encouraging Americans living in his jurisdiction to protect themselves is a refreshing departure from the attitude of another American sheriff we told you about this week.
Pinellas County, Florida, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri recently called legislation that would allow Floridians to open-carry fundamentally dangerous, suggesting that his officers would be more likely to shoot law-abiding citizens exercising the right.
“At a minimum, they’re going to be thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse,” the sheriff said of how he believes officers would react to open carriers when responding to a call.
Gualtieri also added that an armed citizen who attempts to stop a crime better hope that there are no officers nearby because “he’s going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”
Beyond the issue of firearm rights, it’s vital to understand the distinction between these two law enforcement officials as it pertains to respect for the Constitution.
The sheriff is the top law enforcement officer in his county. And his authority is actually more powerful than you may have realized.
As noted by the Constitutional Sheriff Project: “The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.”
In 2012, that organization hosted its inaugural convention in Las Vegas, with about 120 sheriffs in attendance. The conference was organized by former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff Richard Mack, a Tea Party advocate who, along with six other sheriffs, challenged the constitutionality of the gun control measure commonly known as the Brady Bill that was introduced by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Mack’s challenge went all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was deemed that local law enforcement could not be compelled to carry out federally mandated background checks.
The point is that, if he is so inclined, your sheriff can serve as the last line of defense against federal abuses of your constitutional rights.
And fortunately for people living in areas with a sheriff like Gualtieri, most sheriffs throughout the United States are elected to the positions they hold on the county ballot.
Find out if your county’s top law enforcement official is a friend of the Constitution. If not, get busy now to change that in the next election.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/good-advice-step-up-and-defend-yourselves/
"Critics are always haters – never "critics" or reasoned opponents – to Left-wing hacks and Marxists. It's their modus operandi."
Any ideas the political left doesn't like are labeled 'HATE'
by: J. D. Heyes
It's a tried-and-true tactic that the political Left has used successfully for years. When a liberal no longer wants to debate the big issues of our time – issues that are generally only "controversial" because the Left has deemed them so – they shut off debate by calling their detractors and opponents names, and saddling them with labels that are neither flattering nor accurate.
If you don't agree that gays and lesbians should be married then you're a hater and a bigot, even if you feel the way you do because of religious convictions [though liberals aren't even consistent with this view, because they won't use such labels to describe Muslims who vehemently oppose homosexuality, let along gay marriage].
If you have a problem with social carve-outs for people of color, like giving minorities extra or out-sized consideration for college admission, employment or for other reasons, you're a hater and a racist.
If you don't believe in big government welfare programs, you're a hater and an extremist.
If you oppose the "Black Lives Matter" movement and so-called "safe zones" on campus, you're a hater and a racist and a bigot and an extremist all wrapped into one.
You oppose open borders? Hater! Bigot! Insensitive boob!
Hater, hater, hater
And so on. But the Left's go-to label, if you will, is that anyone who disagrees or offers any resistance to their Marxism whatsoever is a hater. In fact, the Left has weaponized the term; they use it whenever they're trying to take out their opposition.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews perfectly demonstrates this Left-wing Marxist attack. During a February 2014 program, Matthews dumped on top GOP presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is well-known for espousing conservative viewpoints and sticking by them no matter what.
Critiquing a Cruz appearance on constitutional law scholar and former Reagan official Mark Levin's top-rated radio program, Matthews labeled Cruz "fanatical" and Levin a (you guessed it) "hater."
"I'll tell ya', this isn't a nuance, this isn't 'Let's move a couple notches to the right'... And he's saying this on Mark Levin's show. Well, there's a hater anyway, but he's on there trashing what he's claimed to be a member of. I think he's got Joe McCarthy tendencies! I think he's all about indicting everyone around him as somehow a traitor of some sort."
The Left-leaning Daily Beast, in a December 2013 piece, claimed that President Obama's "haters" were somehow worse than detractors of President George W. Bush (whom Obama blamed for everything that went wrong in his first term), in large part because, you know, racism:
"Sometimes, of course, the left goes cultural. Calling Bush a chimp and an idiot and a cowboy, say; those trafficked in liberals' stereotypes about Texans, Southerners in general, back-slapping oil men, and so on (well, chimp just had to do with certain facial features). That wasn't nice, I suppose, but here's the thing. It was done to laugh at him."
[With Obama] "... always, race will be ladled on top, like, well, chocolate syrup."
Modus operandi
And:
"To people on the left, Bush was embarrassing, ever a threat to behave boorishly or be asked to appraise a Kandinsky on a European visit and crack that it looked like yesterday's breakfast leftovers. To people on the right, though, Obama is a menace. They are different—and yes, the latter is worse than the former, because it does breed a more intense hatred."
I can't think of a Republican president the Left hated more than Bush, but when the Left claims the right to define the parameters of the debate, then you get this lopsided view of history.
And there is this headline from The Economist, which is typical of any Obama critic (because Obama is the first president who should never be criticized, you see), "Obamacare's Haters Won't Stop Hating," which, of course, praises the massively expensive and overly bureaucratic government takeover of healthcare.
Haters. Critics are always haters – never "critics" or reasoned opponents – to Left-wing hacks and Marxists. It's their modus operandi.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052331_hate_speech_radical_left_liberal_hypocrisy.html#ixzz3uU4Gqyuv
by: J. D. Heyes
It's a tried-and-true tactic that the political Left has used successfully for years. When a liberal no longer wants to debate the big issues of our time – issues that are generally only "controversial" because the Left has deemed them so – they shut off debate by calling their detractors and opponents names, and saddling them with labels that are neither flattering nor accurate.
If you don't agree that gays and lesbians should be married then you're a hater and a bigot, even if you feel the way you do because of religious convictions [though liberals aren't even consistent with this view, because they won't use such labels to describe Muslims who vehemently oppose homosexuality, let along gay marriage].
If you have a problem with social carve-outs for people of color, like giving minorities extra or out-sized consideration for college admission, employment or for other reasons, you're a hater and a racist.
If you don't believe in big government welfare programs, you're a hater and an extremist.
If you oppose the "Black Lives Matter" movement and so-called "safe zones" on campus, you're a hater and a racist and a bigot and an extremist all wrapped into one.
You oppose open borders? Hater! Bigot! Insensitive boob!
Hater, hater, hater
And so on. But the Left's go-to label, if you will, is that anyone who disagrees or offers any resistance to their Marxism whatsoever is a hater. In fact, the Left has weaponized the term; they use it whenever they're trying to take out their opposition.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews perfectly demonstrates this Left-wing Marxist attack. During a February 2014 program, Matthews dumped on top GOP presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who is well-known for espousing conservative viewpoints and sticking by them no matter what.
Critiquing a Cruz appearance on constitutional law scholar and former Reagan official Mark Levin's top-rated radio program, Matthews labeled Cruz "fanatical" and Levin a (you guessed it) "hater."
"I'll tell ya', this isn't a nuance, this isn't 'Let's move a couple notches to the right'... And he's saying this on Mark Levin's show. Well, there's a hater anyway, but he's on there trashing what he's claimed to be a member of. I think he's got Joe McCarthy tendencies! I think he's all about indicting everyone around him as somehow a traitor of some sort."
The Left-leaning Daily Beast, in a December 2013 piece, claimed that President Obama's "haters" were somehow worse than detractors of President George W. Bush (whom Obama blamed for everything that went wrong in his first term), in large part because, you know, racism:
"Sometimes, of course, the left goes cultural. Calling Bush a chimp and an idiot and a cowboy, say; those trafficked in liberals' stereotypes about Texans, Southerners in general, back-slapping oil men, and so on (well, chimp just had to do with certain facial features). That wasn't nice, I suppose, but here's the thing. It was done to laugh at him."
[With Obama] "... always, race will be ladled on top, like, well, chocolate syrup."
Modus operandi
And:
"To people on the left, Bush was embarrassing, ever a threat to behave boorishly or be asked to appraise a Kandinsky on a European visit and crack that it looked like yesterday's breakfast leftovers. To people on the right, though, Obama is a menace. They are different—and yes, the latter is worse than the former, because it does breed a more intense hatred."
I can't think of a Republican president the Left hated more than Bush, but when the Left claims the right to define the parameters of the debate, then you get this lopsided view of history.
And there is this headline from The Economist, which is typical of any Obama critic (because Obama is the first president who should never be criticized, you see), "Obamacare's Haters Won't Stop Hating," which, of course, praises the massively expensive and overly bureaucratic government takeover of healthcare.
Haters. Critics are always haters – never "critics" or reasoned opponents – to Left-wing hacks and Marxists. It's their modus operandi.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052331_hate_speech_radical_left_liberal_hypocrisy.html#ixzz3uU4Gqyuv
The Age of Liberal Ignorance...
Liberalism: The age of impassioned ignorance
by John Myers
My dad used to repeat this quote: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
That’s been an impossible task for me given my 30 years as a columnist. My solution is simple: When I don’t know the answer, I just say I don’t know the answer. If many people were more honest about a great many things, they, too, would say they don’t know the answer.
Take the past two weeks, in which I have written about my doubts over man-made climate change. The personal attacks in the comment section from a minority of readers were bristling.
I was accused of being a shill for the petroleum industry, a member of the Flat Earth Society or just an overall ignoramus who is fat and has a bad haircut. Why did some readers believe I earned such derision? It was because I wrote that man-made climate change is a theory and has some ways to go before it is proven.
I admitted I don’t know the cause of carbon-based climate change or even if the small amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere is what is causing long-term climate change because we don’t know whether there has been climate change over the long term — a period of centuries, not decades.
I think I got into hot water with the liberals for saying no one person and no group of scientists can say for certain anything other than that man-made climate change is a theory that President Barack Obama and other progressive leaders are making a huge wager on with our money.
After all, man-made climate change has become the root of all evil, from Islamic terrorism to drowning polar bears. And through it all Obama envisions himself as the man who is leading the charge to save the planet.
Remember when the Soviet Union and the United States were one split second from destroying life on Earth? That was a problem, and it wasn’t a theoretical one. That Ronald Reagan spent the Soviet Empire into bankruptcy and averted a nuclear Armageddon was a major accomplishment. I don’t say this because I am a Republican (I am a libertarian). I say it because it is obvious.
What is not obvious, at least to me, is that the just signed U.N. Paris climate agreement has yet to be demonstrated as a landmark moment. Of course, that doesn’t stop Obama from declaring victory in the war on carbon any more than the facts dispute what former Vice President Al Gore said was his role in creating the Internet.
From a liberal to libertarian
I was having a beer with a friend a few years ago and he looked around the upscale bar we were in. “There is nothing sadder than a young Republican,” he said.
“Except an old Democrat,” I added.
My first political experience, which has stayed with me for half a century, came from Liberal Party leader and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. In 1968, he decriminalized homosexuality. Trudeau said, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”
What I learned during my university years was that the Liberal government wasn’t interested in peeping into my bedroom, what it wanted was to get into my wallet.
After I graduated and moved to the United States, there was a basic dividing line between Republicans and Democrats on what role the government should play in people’s lives. That line could be bent and often was for important legislation. But it has fundamentally split in American politics and even in the way people think over the past 15 years. Both sides have become hardened in their beliefs.
I lived in the United States, and I am an American citizen. How I feel is best summed up by the character Col. Frank Fitts in the 1999 Academy Award-winning movie “American Beauty”: “This country is going straight to hell!”
No one party, let alone one individual, is responsible for the dysfunction of our government, which is spreading throughout our society. But Obama’s brand of liberalism, along with his hubris, deserves some share of the blame. And he has had much help from the environmentalists, who are determined to save the planet even if it means destroying the nation.
While filming “The Revenant” in Calgary, Canada (where I live), renowned actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio experienced a “terrifying” moment with climate change. Variety reported on DiCaprio’s comments at the !&A for the film:
“We were in Calgary and the locals were saying, ‘This has never happened in our province, ever,’” he said to the largely guild and Academy audience. “We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come.”
…
“And of course, I’m not talking about climate change in relation to movies and how difficult it’s going to be to make movies,” he said, “but it was scary. I’ve never experienced something so firsthand that was so dramatic. You see the fragility of nature and how easily things can be completely transformed with just a few degrees difference. It’s terrifying, and it’s what people are talking about all over the world. And it’s simply just going to get worse.”
The locals that DiCaprio was speaking to were certainly pulling his leg. What he experienced is called a Chinook, and it predates the Indians’ arrival to the Great Plains. It’s a much-welcome weather pattern that comes and goes over the course of a winter, and one that most first-grade children know about.
DiCaprio could be excused if he were just a movie star. But he is far more than that. He is the head of a multimillion-dollar environmental lobby group, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, and a producer of documentaries on climate change.
So I’ll address any Greens who are still reading. While I am no scientist, I make only one claim: man-made global warming is at this time a theory.
And oh, yes, DiCaprio is an idiot. Yet DiCaprio is an important opinion maker to tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people through his star power and an estimated fortune close to a quarter of a billion dollars.
The entertainment industry shouldn’t be painted with a single brush, so I leave you with this from a stand-up skit of the late, great comedian George Carlin:
We’re so self-important, so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all: Save the planet. What? Are these f*cking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another. We’re going to save the f*cking planet? I’m getting tired of that sh*t. Tired of that sh*t. Tired. I’m tired of f*cking Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists. These white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the Earth safe for their Volvos.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/liberalism-age-impassioned-ignorance/
by John Myers
My dad used to repeat this quote: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
That’s been an impossible task for me given my 30 years as a columnist. My solution is simple: When I don’t know the answer, I just say I don’t know the answer. If many people were more honest about a great many things, they, too, would say they don’t know the answer.
Take the past two weeks, in which I have written about my doubts over man-made climate change. The personal attacks in the comment section from a minority of readers were bristling.
I was accused of being a shill for the petroleum industry, a member of the Flat Earth Society or just an overall ignoramus who is fat and has a bad haircut. Why did some readers believe I earned such derision? It was because I wrote that man-made climate change is a theory and has some ways to go before it is proven.
I admitted I don’t know the cause of carbon-based climate change or even if the small amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere is what is causing long-term climate change because we don’t know whether there has been climate change over the long term — a period of centuries, not decades.
I think I got into hot water with the liberals for saying no one person and no group of scientists can say for certain anything other than that man-made climate change is a theory that President Barack Obama and other progressive leaders are making a huge wager on with our money.
After all, man-made climate change has become the root of all evil, from Islamic terrorism to drowning polar bears. And through it all Obama envisions himself as the man who is leading the charge to save the planet.
Remember when the Soviet Union and the United States were one split second from destroying life on Earth? That was a problem, and it wasn’t a theoretical one. That Ronald Reagan spent the Soviet Empire into bankruptcy and averted a nuclear Armageddon was a major accomplishment. I don’t say this because I am a Republican (I am a libertarian). I say it because it is obvious.
What is not obvious, at least to me, is that the just signed U.N. Paris climate agreement has yet to be demonstrated as a landmark moment. Of course, that doesn’t stop Obama from declaring victory in the war on carbon any more than the facts dispute what former Vice President Al Gore said was his role in creating the Internet.
From a liberal to libertarian
I was having a beer with a friend a few years ago and he looked around the upscale bar we were in. “There is nothing sadder than a young Republican,” he said.
“Except an old Democrat,” I added.
My first political experience, which has stayed with me for half a century, came from Liberal Party leader and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. In 1968, he decriminalized homosexuality. Trudeau said, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”
What I learned during my university years was that the Liberal government wasn’t interested in peeping into my bedroom, what it wanted was to get into my wallet.
After I graduated and moved to the United States, there was a basic dividing line between Republicans and Democrats on what role the government should play in people’s lives. That line could be bent and often was for important legislation. But it has fundamentally split in American politics and even in the way people think over the past 15 years. Both sides have become hardened in their beliefs.
I lived in the United States, and I am an American citizen. How I feel is best summed up by the character Col. Frank Fitts in the 1999 Academy Award-winning movie “American Beauty”: “This country is going straight to hell!”
No one party, let alone one individual, is responsible for the dysfunction of our government, which is spreading throughout our society. But Obama’s brand of liberalism, along with his hubris, deserves some share of the blame. And he has had much help from the environmentalists, who are determined to save the planet even if it means destroying the nation.
While filming “The Revenant” in Calgary, Canada (where I live), renowned actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio experienced a “terrifying” moment with climate change. Variety reported on DiCaprio’s comments at the !&A for the film:
“We were in Calgary and the locals were saying, ‘This has never happened in our province, ever,’” he said to the largely guild and Academy audience. “We would come and there would be eight feet of snow, and then all of a sudden a warm gust of wind would come.”
…
“And of course, I’m not talking about climate change in relation to movies and how difficult it’s going to be to make movies,” he said, “but it was scary. I’ve never experienced something so firsthand that was so dramatic. You see the fragility of nature and how easily things can be completely transformed with just a few degrees difference. It’s terrifying, and it’s what people are talking about all over the world. And it’s simply just going to get worse.”
The locals that DiCaprio was speaking to were certainly pulling his leg. What he experienced is called a Chinook, and it predates the Indians’ arrival to the Great Plains. It’s a much-welcome weather pattern that comes and goes over the course of a winter, and one that most first-grade children know about.
DiCaprio could be excused if he were just a movie star. But he is far more than that. He is the head of a multimillion-dollar environmental lobby group, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, and a producer of documentaries on climate change.
So I’ll address any Greens who are still reading. While I am no scientist, I make only one claim: man-made global warming is at this time a theory.
And oh, yes, DiCaprio is an idiot. Yet DiCaprio is an important opinion maker to tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people through his star power and an estimated fortune close to a quarter of a billion dollars.
The entertainment industry shouldn’t be painted with a single brush, so I leave you with this from a stand-up skit of the late, great comedian George Carlin:
We’re so self-important, so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all: Save the planet. What? Are these f*cking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another. We’re going to save the f*cking planet? I’m getting tired of that sh*t. Tired of that sh*t. Tired. I’m tired of f*cking Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists. These white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the Earth safe for their Volvos.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/liberalism-age-impassioned-ignorance/
23,000 gun laws aren't enough???
Gun Laws We Follow.. and Gun Laws We Ignore
By Rob Morse
Louisiana - Ireland, and later India, were once under British rule. At one point in their rebellions, they ignored the outside laws they didn’t like. We are doing that again in the United States. It is hard for me to imagine gun owners breaking the law. Once you’ve been around the gun culture for a while you learn that licensed gun owners are the rule-following type. Many gun owners would like to follow the law all the time, but they can’t. Gun owners are not alone. Neither the lawyers nor the judges who work with firearms law every day can keep up with the 23 thousand gun laws. Breaking our gun laws is more than a matter of ignorance. The very prosecutors charged with enforcing our firearms laws routinely ignore them as well. On second consideration, the government lawyers ignore far more firearms laws than do gun owners. Remember that when you hear a politician say we need more firearms restrictions.
I’ll start with gun owners first.
•The city council of Cleveland, Ohio imposed gun transfer registration with the police. Cleveland gun owners ignored those laws.. completely.
•Sunnyvale, California passed a measure outlawing all ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges. No one turned in their old magazines to the Sunnyvale department of public safety.
•The Los Angeles city council passes a law similar to the one in Sunnyvale. Look for similar results.
•Washington State passed a law requiring universal background checks for every firearms transfer. Neither law enforcement nor gun owners knew how to obey the law at first. Now, both the state police and the honest gun owners of Washington simply ignore the law.
•Oregon passed a similar background check law. Several law enforcement agencies have already said they would not enforce it. Some counties went further and passed resolutions telling their sheriff he must ignore the law.
•Both Connecticut and New York mandated registration of modern rifles. Only a few percent of gun owners complied with these laws. The state looked at its records and realized that only a few percent of law enforcement officers had registered their personally owned rifles as well.
•Knife laws are more widely ignored than firearms laws.
Think about that for a minute. Gun owners are rule-followers. They are a bunch of boy scouts and girl scouts. They want to obey the law. We know licensed gun owners are more law abiding than the police! Gun owners obey the law until the law doesn’t make any sense, until the law punishes honest gun owners rather than punishing criminals.
As a gun owner, I almost felt guilty for a second, but then I realized that prosecutors ignore firearms laws hundreds of times a day.
•The Illinois State Police routinely exceed the 30-day time limit allowed for them to issue a state mandated firearms owners ID card. It is easier to count the few instances when Illinois returned an ID card on time rather than tally the many times they were late.
•Firearms purchase permits are delayed well beyond the 30-day maximum period in New Jersey. New Jersey citizens were murdered while they waited for state permission to buy a gun for self-defense. As the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has shown, any excuse will do when a government official denies a citizen’s request. The government officials are NEVER prosecuted for breaking these laws.
•Concealed carry applications in California routinely exceed the state mandated response time.
•Prosecutors routinely ignore the straw purchases that put guns into the hands of criminals. Even the criminal isn’t usually prosecuted for possession of a stolen firearm. That is the first charge prosecutors bargain away. In the rare case of prosecution, straw purchasers receive minor sentences. In contrast, many gun owners were sentenced to the maximum extent of the law for minor paperwork violations.
•The right to keep and bear arms is written into the constitution of 44 of our 50 states. I can only recall a few instances where a state attorney general or a local prosecutor pursued charges when the state or city abused the law and denied our human right of self-defense. Imagine if you said you were too busy to file your permits on time.. or too busy to pay your taxes. That lawlessness is a sad legacy to leave our children.
Remember that when you hear them call for even more laws.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/no_author/23000-gun-laws/
By Rob Morse
Louisiana - Ireland, and later India, were once under British rule. At one point in their rebellions, they ignored the outside laws they didn’t like. We are doing that again in the United States. It is hard for me to imagine gun owners breaking the law. Once you’ve been around the gun culture for a while you learn that licensed gun owners are the rule-following type. Many gun owners would like to follow the law all the time, but they can’t. Gun owners are not alone. Neither the lawyers nor the judges who work with firearms law every day can keep up with the 23 thousand gun laws. Breaking our gun laws is more than a matter of ignorance. The very prosecutors charged with enforcing our firearms laws routinely ignore them as well. On second consideration, the government lawyers ignore far more firearms laws than do gun owners. Remember that when you hear a politician say we need more firearms restrictions.
I’ll start with gun owners first.
•The city council of Cleveland, Ohio imposed gun transfer registration with the police. Cleveland gun owners ignored those laws.. completely.
•Sunnyvale, California passed a measure outlawing all ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges. No one turned in their old magazines to the Sunnyvale department of public safety.
•The Los Angeles city council passes a law similar to the one in Sunnyvale. Look for similar results.
•Washington State passed a law requiring universal background checks for every firearms transfer. Neither law enforcement nor gun owners knew how to obey the law at first. Now, both the state police and the honest gun owners of Washington simply ignore the law.
•Oregon passed a similar background check law. Several law enforcement agencies have already said they would not enforce it. Some counties went further and passed resolutions telling their sheriff he must ignore the law.
•Both Connecticut and New York mandated registration of modern rifles. Only a few percent of gun owners complied with these laws. The state looked at its records and realized that only a few percent of law enforcement officers had registered their personally owned rifles as well.
•Knife laws are more widely ignored than firearms laws.
Think about that for a minute. Gun owners are rule-followers. They are a bunch of boy scouts and girl scouts. They want to obey the law. We know licensed gun owners are more law abiding than the police! Gun owners obey the law until the law doesn’t make any sense, until the law punishes honest gun owners rather than punishing criminals.
As a gun owner, I almost felt guilty for a second, but then I realized that prosecutors ignore firearms laws hundreds of times a day.
•The Illinois State Police routinely exceed the 30-day time limit allowed for them to issue a state mandated firearms owners ID card. It is easier to count the few instances when Illinois returned an ID card on time rather than tally the many times they were late.
•Firearms purchase permits are delayed well beyond the 30-day maximum period in New Jersey. New Jersey citizens were murdered while they waited for state permission to buy a gun for self-defense. As the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has shown, any excuse will do when a government official denies a citizen’s request. The government officials are NEVER prosecuted for breaking these laws.
•Concealed carry applications in California routinely exceed the state mandated response time.
•Prosecutors routinely ignore the straw purchases that put guns into the hands of criminals. Even the criminal isn’t usually prosecuted for possession of a stolen firearm. That is the first charge prosecutors bargain away. In the rare case of prosecution, straw purchasers receive minor sentences. In contrast, many gun owners were sentenced to the maximum extent of the law for minor paperwork violations.
•The right to keep and bear arms is written into the constitution of 44 of our 50 states. I can only recall a few instances where a state attorney general or a local prosecutor pursued charges when the state or city abused the law and denied our human right of self-defense. Imagine if you said you were too busy to file your permits on time.. or too busy to pay your taxes. That lawlessness is a sad legacy to leave our children.
Remember that when you hear them call for even more laws.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/no_author/23000-gun-laws/
"My advice: Don’t believe the first official government report. Suspend judgment. Keep snooping. Things are not always what they seem."
Eyewitnesses in San Bernardino: “Three Tall White Men”
By Gary North
The CBS Evening News ran this interview.
This has been dropped down the memory hole.
So has this.
Note: he spoke of a black SUV. Note also that he got verbal confirmation from off-camera. This indicates that there were other eyewitnesses.
The only eyewitness identifications that I can find speak of three white men.
I looked at several published timelines of the shootings. You can, too. Search for “timeline,” “Farook,” “San Bernardino.” No victim identified the two suspects immediately after the shootings, which had ended by the time the police and firefighters arrived at 11:05 a.m. The police had no clues regarding Farook and his wife. The two were shot in a firefight at 3 p.m. They were in a black SUV . . . four hours after the attack.
Four hours. What were they doing during this time? Where were they?
The New York Daily News reported this: “The suspects had escaped the blood-spattered murder scene without swapping a single gunshot with the horde of law enforcement descending on the center, a social services facility for people with developmental disabilities.”
The SUV was spotted four hours later, two miles from the crime scene. How did the police find this SUV? The Daily News says only this: “a tip.”
Think about this. Two people shoot 35 people, and escape unnoticed the police. They then disappear for four hours. Then “a tip” informs the police of their whereabouts: two miles away from the crime scene.
Here is what the London Daily Mail reported.
As the police close in on the vehicle, which is traveling surprisingly slowly, it is not clear whether the gunshots heard are being fired by cops or by the suspects.
‘They’re killing that guy,’ the man taking the video shouts as he ducks for cover.
Just moments later, after the recording ended, police stopped the SUV and killed the two suspected shooters in a gun battle that left an officer injured.
Note: the report does not say that a policeman was shot, only injured.
Watch this video. There is an introduction by a reporter, then the video. As the SUV drives slowly down the street, the driver is turning the headlights off and on. Why? There is no shooting at this point. The SUV passes by. Then the shooting starts.
The post-shootout photo of the SUV shows the windshield riddled with bullet holes. These bullet holes came from in front of the SUV. The media report says this: they fired 76 rounds, while police fired 380.
Who did the counting? When? Who verified this?
How did they shoot at police from inside the SUV? For how long? How long would it take to fire 76 rounds with semi-automatics? This time includes replacing empty clips. We are supposed to believe that it took 380 rounds to kill them. If so, these are not sharpshooters.
The two are dead. So, there is no legal liability for naming them the killers. There is no “alleged” visible in the media. This ends all discussion. Of course they acted alone. Everyone knows this.
“What are you, a conspiracy theorist?” Yes, I am. We conspiracy theorists — revisionist historians — have a highly developed sense of smell, developed over years of sniffing around. We know when official accounts do not pass the smell test. This story does not pass it.
Here is what I have been waiting for: a forensics report that identifies some of the estimated 100 spent bullets at the massacre with at least one of the rifles recovered in the SUV. I have searched the Web for this report. I have not found it. Is this too much to ask of the authorities? You bet it is.
We need more unofficial investigations. We are not going to get any further official investigation. Case closed. “Move along. There’s nothing to see here.”
My advice: Don’t believe the first official government report. Suspend judgment. Keep snooping. Things are not always what they seem.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/gary-north/really-happened-san-bernadino/
By Gary North
The CBS Evening News ran this interview.
This has been dropped down the memory hole.
So has this.
Note: he spoke of a black SUV. Note also that he got verbal confirmation from off-camera. This indicates that there were other eyewitnesses.
The only eyewitness identifications that I can find speak of three white men.
I looked at several published timelines of the shootings. You can, too. Search for “timeline,” “Farook,” “San Bernardino.” No victim identified the two suspects immediately after the shootings, which had ended by the time the police and firefighters arrived at 11:05 a.m. The police had no clues regarding Farook and his wife. The two were shot in a firefight at 3 p.m. They were in a black SUV . . . four hours after the attack.
Four hours. What were they doing during this time? Where were they?
The New York Daily News reported this: “The suspects had escaped the blood-spattered murder scene without swapping a single gunshot with the horde of law enforcement descending on the center, a social services facility for people with developmental disabilities.”
The SUV was spotted four hours later, two miles from the crime scene. How did the police find this SUV? The Daily News says only this: “a tip.”
Think about this. Two people shoot 35 people, and escape unnoticed the police. They then disappear for four hours. Then “a tip” informs the police of their whereabouts: two miles away from the crime scene.
Here is what the London Daily Mail reported.
As the police close in on the vehicle, which is traveling surprisingly slowly, it is not clear whether the gunshots heard are being fired by cops or by the suspects.
‘They’re killing that guy,’ the man taking the video shouts as he ducks for cover.
Just moments later, after the recording ended, police stopped the SUV and killed the two suspected shooters in a gun battle that left an officer injured.
Note: the report does not say that a policeman was shot, only injured.
Watch this video. There is an introduction by a reporter, then the video. As the SUV drives slowly down the street, the driver is turning the headlights off and on. Why? There is no shooting at this point. The SUV passes by. Then the shooting starts.
The post-shootout photo of the SUV shows the windshield riddled with bullet holes. These bullet holes came from in front of the SUV. The media report says this: they fired 76 rounds, while police fired 380.
Who did the counting? When? Who verified this?
How did they shoot at police from inside the SUV? For how long? How long would it take to fire 76 rounds with semi-automatics? This time includes replacing empty clips. We are supposed to believe that it took 380 rounds to kill them. If so, these are not sharpshooters.
The two are dead. So, there is no legal liability for naming them the killers. There is no “alleged” visible in the media. This ends all discussion. Of course they acted alone. Everyone knows this.
“What are you, a conspiracy theorist?” Yes, I am. We conspiracy theorists — revisionist historians — have a highly developed sense of smell, developed over years of sniffing around. We know when official accounts do not pass the smell test. This story does not pass it.
Here is what I have been waiting for: a forensics report that identifies some of the estimated 100 spent bullets at the massacre with at least one of the rifles recovered in the SUV. I have searched the Web for this report. I have not found it. Is this too much to ask of the authorities? You bet it is.
We need more unofficial investigations. We are not going to get any further official investigation. Case closed. “Move along. There’s nothing to see here.”
My advice: Don’t believe the first official government report. Suspend judgment. Keep snooping. Things are not always what they seem.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/gary-north/really-happened-san-bernadino/
"In trying to make a profit, capitalists produce what people want. Cohen unfathomably is repelled by this, wrongly taking it to be an endorsement of greed."
The Dreary Utopia of the Socialists
By David Gordon
Jason Brennan, a remarkably prolific libertarian political philosopher, has a good eye for the essence of an argument. He puts this ability to effective use in Why Not Capitalism? In the book he challenges the defense of socialism in Why Not Socialism? by G.A. Cohen, whom Brennan rightly considers “the leading Marxist philosopher — and one of the leading political philosophers, period — of the past 100 years.”
At first, one might think that arguments in political philosophy over the merits of socialism and capitalism have no importance. If by socialism one means collective ownership or control of the means of production in a large-scale economy, there is nothing to debate. Mises and Hayek showed with the socialist calculation argument that socialist planning “cannot work, even if people were motivated to make it work, because planners do not have a workable substitute for prices.” If socialism cannot work, what is the point of comparing its ethical merits with its capitalist rival? Unless we desire economic chaos, socialism must be rejected and the free market affirmed.
Mises viewed matters in exactly this way. Before his calculation argument, the most effective challenge to socialism appealed to incentives. If people were not allowed to profit from their productive endeavors but were instead subjected to egalitarian imperatives, they would lack motivation to work. Socialism was incompatible with human nature. Mises thought that socialists could answer that the limits of current human nature might be overcome. They could not respond in this way, he thought, to the calculation argument. Once we grasp that socialism is impossible, there is no further room for philosophical discussion.
Cohen recognized the force of the economic argument that socialism cannot work, though he implausibly hoped that future developments in technology might alter the situation. He did not agree, though, that this renders otiose comparison of the ethical merits of socialism and capitalism. We can ask, “If socialism is unrealizable, is this a matter for regret? Is socialism ethically better than capitalism?” Cohen says that it is, and this is what in Why Not Socialism? he endeavors to show. Cohen believes that “even if socialism were infeasible, it would remain intrinsically desirable and the best way for us to live together.”
Cohen carried out his ambitious project by telling a story. It portrays people on a camping trip, who view their excursion as a common enterprise. They share in the work of the trip according to their abilities and do not demand extra benefits because of greater talent. Equality and community are their governing values. “The principle of socialist equality of opportunity eliminates all inequalities resulting from undeserved advantages or disadvantages … the campers also abide by a socialist principle of community. The campers care about one another, and care that they care about one another.”
Not so under capitalism. Here self-interest rules: people produce for the market in order to earn a profit, and the more profit the better. The drive to accumulate, not equality and community, governs society. Cohen would apply to capitalism Wordsworth’s familiar lines: “The world is too much with us, late and soon; Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers. … We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!”
Brennan accepts the ground on which Cohen has laid out his challenge. Ideal theory, i.e., asking what is best without regard to feasibility, is indeed relevant, and Cohen’s question is a good one that does not go away when one accepts that socialism cannot be put into practice.
Precisely in the domain of ideal theory, though, Cohen has fallen into error. He compares socialism as an ideal with actually existing capitalism. Community and equality are more valuable than greed; hence the superiority of socialism to capitalism. This will not do, counters Brennan. Ideal socialism must be compared with ideal capitalism, not actually existing capitalism. “The problem is that Cohen is not comparing like to like. … It’s not that interesting if an idealized version of one type of regime ends up being better than a non-idealized, realistic version of another type of regime.”
To bring home the force of his objection, Brennan ingeniously parodies Cohen’s argument. He constructs a capitalist utopia, which he calls the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village. The residents of the village pursue creative projects, which often involve the use of private productive property, as they see fit. If, as a result of these projects, some are wealthier than others, this arouses no envy. The villagers are not selfish, but devoted to one another’s welfare. If someone is in need, his neighbors will rush to his assistance. He contrasts his utopia with actually existing socialism, characterized by mass murder and brutal dictatorship. Is not capitalism far better than socialism?
This, it needs to be said, is not Brennan’s actual argument for capitalism; it is, as already mentioned, a parody. It brings out very well the flaw in Cohen’s argument; to compare an ideal system with a non-ideal system is fallacious. Ideal must be compared with ideal, and real system with its counterpart real system.
What is the result of such comparison? Brennan holds that capitalism wins on both counts: its ideal is better than the ideal of socialism; and, to descend to the real world, the issue does not admit of doubt at all.
I think that Brennan is right: his village is indeed better than Cohen’s camping trip. But why should we think so? It may be that he wants us to take it as intuitively obvious that his ideal is better. One has only to consider the two ideals carefully to see which one gains the victory. If this is his line of thought, I should certainly assent to its conclusion; though Cohen would no doubt demur.
I suspect, though, that Brennan wishes to go beyond an appeal to moral intuitions; and, if I have correctly understood what he has in mind, I am not sure he is right. He may be arguing in this way: “My utopia includes the good features of Cohen’s and other goods as well. Just as in Cohen’s camping trip, the residents of my village care about one another and value community. But to altruism, creativity is added: the residents are devoted to their individual projects and pursue them without let or hindrance. On the principle that more goods are better than fewer, so long as the goods do not interfere with each other, is not my utopia better?”
Here Cohen would likely respond that Brennan’s utopia does not include all the values he deems of supreme importance. True enough, the residents of the village are devoted to each other; but they do not insist on equality. To the contrary, they willingly accept inequality, if such be the outcome of their various creative projects. For Cohen, though, the value of creative work is subordinate to the goods of equality and community, as he makes clear in his discussion of choice of jobs in his magnum opus, Rescuing Justice and Equality. If you are really committed to equality, he thinks, you may not always be able to engage in the work you like best. Again, I much prefer Brennan’s values to Cohen’s; but the argument from inclusion does not show that Brennan is right.
I suspect, though, that Brennan would give more weight to another argument. He has been much influenced by the third party of Robert Nozick’s great work Anarchy, State, and Utopia; and like Nozick, he stresses that the free market utopia is a “‘framework’ in which many different utopias could co-exist in peace and mutual respect.” Within this framework, groups of people are free to organize as they wish, so long as they commit no rights violations. If so, then a different version of the argument from inclusion shows the superiority of Brennan’s utopia. In it, those who agree with Cohen on the place of solidarity and equality in the hierarchy of values would be free to form a community as they deem best. Those who do not accept Cohen’s values would form communities of their own, in multifarious ways. Once more, then, does not the capitalist utopia include all the goods of Cohen’s, as well as others?
But again Cohen would not be satisfied. He does not think people should be forced to accept his egalitarian values; but, if they do not, he thinks that they will have chosen wrongly. Faced with the meta-utopia of Nozick and Brennan, he would say that all those not resident in an egalitarian community should forthwith join one.
Those of us who do not share Cohen’s intuitions will of course disagree; and I think that we can go further. Is Cohen’s ideal egalitarian system better than capitalism in the actual world? The latter should be characterized not as totally driven by the desire to accumulate, as Cohen’s Marxist myth has it, but rather by a mix of motives. The question will not here be pursued, but I am convinced the answer is that it is not. Cohen’s utopia strikes me as a most unpleasant place in which to live, with people constantly looking over their shoulders, lest they surpass others in wealth; but readers must judge for themselves.
Not content with one argument against Cohen, Brennan offers another; here he follows the political theorist Sharon Krause. Why should we think that the ideal system Cohen depicts has anything to do with socialism? In socialism, the means of production are centrally owned; but this tells us nothing about the values that prevail under this arrangement. In particular, socialism must not be equated with “moral virtue or community spirit.” (Brennan’s utopia escapes a parallel observation, because in it, individuals are explicitly allowed to own productive resources.) If so, Cohen has not succeeded in showing that, from the viewpoint of ideal theory, socialism is better than capitalism. He has not compared capitalism with an alternative economic system, whether ideal or actual. If this is right, Cohen has failed to show the moral superiority of socialism to its capitalist rival; but neither has Brennan shown, by his comparison of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village to Cohen’s camping trip, that ideal capitalism is better than ideal socialism. Brennan has described an ideal capitalist system, but it has not been compared to a socialist alternative. On this construal, Brennan’s portrayal of the village is best taken as a challenge to practitioners of socialist ideal theory to construct an ideal that is both better than the village and recognizably socialist.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that Cohen has wrongly converted an advantage of capitalism into its prime defect. In a famous passage from The Wealth of Nations, quoted by Brennan, Adam Smith says that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Smith’s point was that the free market does not depend on benevolent behavior. Altruism is a scarce resource, and the market can function well even if it is in short supply. In trying to make a profit, capitalists produce what people want. Cohen unfathomably is repelled by this, wrongly taking it to be an endorsement of greed.
Why Not Capitalism? is an outstanding contribution to political philosophy. It will delight libertarians and will instruct socialists willing to read it with an open mind, though I fear that their number will be few.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/david-gordon/equality/
By David Gordon
Jason Brennan, a remarkably prolific libertarian political philosopher, has a good eye for the essence of an argument. He puts this ability to effective use in Why Not Capitalism? In the book he challenges the defense of socialism in Why Not Socialism? by G.A. Cohen, whom Brennan rightly considers “the leading Marxist philosopher — and one of the leading political philosophers, period — of the past 100 years.”
At first, one might think that arguments in political philosophy over the merits of socialism and capitalism have no importance. If by socialism one means collective ownership or control of the means of production in a large-scale economy, there is nothing to debate. Mises and Hayek showed with the socialist calculation argument that socialist planning “cannot work, even if people were motivated to make it work, because planners do not have a workable substitute for prices.” If socialism cannot work, what is the point of comparing its ethical merits with its capitalist rival? Unless we desire economic chaos, socialism must be rejected and the free market affirmed.
Mises viewed matters in exactly this way. Before his calculation argument, the most effective challenge to socialism appealed to incentives. If people were not allowed to profit from their productive endeavors but were instead subjected to egalitarian imperatives, they would lack motivation to work. Socialism was incompatible with human nature. Mises thought that socialists could answer that the limits of current human nature might be overcome. They could not respond in this way, he thought, to the calculation argument. Once we grasp that socialism is impossible, there is no further room for philosophical discussion.
Cohen recognized the force of the economic argument that socialism cannot work, though he implausibly hoped that future developments in technology might alter the situation. He did not agree, though, that this renders otiose comparison of the ethical merits of socialism and capitalism. We can ask, “If socialism is unrealizable, is this a matter for regret? Is socialism ethically better than capitalism?” Cohen says that it is, and this is what in Why Not Socialism? he endeavors to show. Cohen believes that “even if socialism were infeasible, it would remain intrinsically desirable and the best way for us to live together.”
Cohen carried out his ambitious project by telling a story. It portrays people on a camping trip, who view their excursion as a common enterprise. They share in the work of the trip according to their abilities and do not demand extra benefits because of greater talent. Equality and community are their governing values. “The principle of socialist equality of opportunity eliminates all inequalities resulting from undeserved advantages or disadvantages … the campers also abide by a socialist principle of community. The campers care about one another, and care that they care about one another.”
Not so under capitalism. Here self-interest rules: people produce for the market in order to earn a profit, and the more profit the better. The drive to accumulate, not equality and community, governs society. Cohen would apply to capitalism Wordsworth’s familiar lines: “The world is too much with us, late and soon; Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers. … We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!”
Brennan accepts the ground on which Cohen has laid out his challenge. Ideal theory, i.e., asking what is best without regard to feasibility, is indeed relevant, and Cohen’s question is a good one that does not go away when one accepts that socialism cannot be put into practice.
Precisely in the domain of ideal theory, though, Cohen has fallen into error. He compares socialism as an ideal with actually existing capitalism. Community and equality are more valuable than greed; hence the superiority of socialism to capitalism. This will not do, counters Brennan. Ideal socialism must be compared with ideal capitalism, not actually existing capitalism. “The problem is that Cohen is not comparing like to like. … It’s not that interesting if an idealized version of one type of regime ends up being better than a non-idealized, realistic version of another type of regime.”
To bring home the force of his objection, Brennan ingeniously parodies Cohen’s argument. He constructs a capitalist utopia, which he calls the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village. The residents of the village pursue creative projects, which often involve the use of private productive property, as they see fit. If, as a result of these projects, some are wealthier than others, this arouses no envy. The villagers are not selfish, but devoted to one another’s welfare. If someone is in need, his neighbors will rush to his assistance. He contrasts his utopia with actually existing socialism, characterized by mass murder and brutal dictatorship. Is not capitalism far better than socialism?
This, it needs to be said, is not Brennan’s actual argument for capitalism; it is, as already mentioned, a parody. It brings out very well the flaw in Cohen’s argument; to compare an ideal system with a non-ideal system is fallacious. Ideal must be compared with ideal, and real system with its counterpart real system.
What is the result of such comparison? Brennan holds that capitalism wins on both counts: its ideal is better than the ideal of socialism; and, to descend to the real world, the issue does not admit of doubt at all.
I think that Brennan is right: his village is indeed better than Cohen’s camping trip. But why should we think so? It may be that he wants us to take it as intuitively obvious that his ideal is better. One has only to consider the two ideals carefully to see which one gains the victory. If this is his line of thought, I should certainly assent to its conclusion; though Cohen would no doubt demur.
I suspect, though, that Brennan wishes to go beyond an appeal to moral intuitions; and, if I have correctly understood what he has in mind, I am not sure he is right. He may be arguing in this way: “My utopia includes the good features of Cohen’s and other goods as well. Just as in Cohen’s camping trip, the residents of my village care about one another and value community. But to altruism, creativity is added: the residents are devoted to their individual projects and pursue them without let or hindrance. On the principle that more goods are better than fewer, so long as the goods do not interfere with each other, is not my utopia better?”
Here Cohen would likely respond that Brennan’s utopia does not include all the values he deems of supreme importance. True enough, the residents of the village are devoted to each other; but they do not insist on equality. To the contrary, they willingly accept inequality, if such be the outcome of their various creative projects. For Cohen, though, the value of creative work is subordinate to the goods of equality and community, as he makes clear in his discussion of choice of jobs in his magnum opus, Rescuing Justice and Equality. If you are really committed to equality, he thinks, you may not always be able to engage in the work you like best. Again, I much prefer Brennan’s values to Cohen’s; but the argument from inclusion does not show that Brennan is right.
I suspect, though, that Brennan would give more weight to another argument. He has been much influenced by the third party of Robert Nozick’s great work Anarchy, State, and Utopia; and like Nozick, he stresses that the free market utopia is a “‘framework’ in which many different utopias could co-exist in peace and mutual respect.” Within this framework, groups of people are free to organize as they wish, so long as they commit no rights violations. If so, then a different version of the argument from inclusion shows the superiority of Brennan’s utopia. In it, those who agree with Cohen on the place of solidarity and equality in the hierarchy of values would be free to form a community as they deem best. Those who do not accept Cohen’s values would form communities of their own, in multifarious ways. Once more, then, does not the capitalist utopia include all the goods of Cohen’s, as well as others?
But again Cohen would not be satisfied. He does not think people should be forced to accept his egalitarian values; but, if they do not, he thinks that they will have chosen wrongly. Faced with the meta-utopia of Nozick and Brennan, he would say that all those not resident in an egalitarian community should forthwith join one.
Those of us who do not share Cohen’s intuitions will of course disagree; and I think that we can go further. Is Cohen’s ideal egalitarian system better than capitalism in the actual world? The latter should be characterized not as totally driven by the desire to accumulate, as Cohen’s Marxist myth has it, but rather by a mix of motives. The question will not here be pursued, but I am convinced the answer is that it is not. Cohen’s utopia strikes me as a most unpleasant place in which to live, with people constantly looking over their shoulders, lest they surpass others in wealth; but readers must judge for themselves.
Not content with one argument against Cohen, Brennan offers another; here he follows the political theorist Sharon Krause. Why should we think that the ideal system Cohen depicts has anything to do with socialism? In socialism, the means of production are centrally owned; but this tells us nothing about the values that prevail under this arrangement. In particular, socialism must not be equated with “moral virtue or community spirit.” (Brennan’s utopia escapes a parallel observation, because in it, individuals are explicitly allowed to own productive resources.) If so, Cohen has not succeeded in showing that, from the viewpoint of ideal theory, socialism is better than capitalism. He has not compared capitalism with an alternative economic system, whether ideal or actual. If this is right, Cohen has failed to show the moral superiority of socialism to its capitalist rival; but neither has Brennan shown, by his comparison of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village to Cohen’s camping trip, that ideal capitalism is better than ideal socialism. Brennan has described an ideal capitalist system, but it has not been compared to a socialist alternative. On this construal, Brennan’s portrayal of the village is best taken as a challenge to practitioners of socialist ideal theory to construct an ideal that is both better than the village and recognizably socialist.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that Cohen has wrongly converted an advantage of capitalism into its prime defect. In a famous passage from The Wealth of Nations, quoted by Brennan, Adam Smith says that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Smith’s point was that the free market does not depend on benevolent behavior. Altruism is a scarce resource, and the market can function well even if it is in short supply. In trying to make a profit, capitalists produce what people want. Cohen unfathomably is repelled by this, wrongly taking it to be an endorsement of greed.
Why Not Capitalism? is an outstanding contribution to political philosophy. It will delight libertarians and will instruct socialists willing to read it with an open mind, though I fear that their number will be few.
Link:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/david-gordon/equality/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)