Q: Anything else folks should know about this or about Andrew Breitbart?
A: Believe it or not, one of my primary motives on this planet is to stop this racism, and to stop the Democratic Party’s use of race that divides us intentionally. Google me and Clarence Thomas. I went from left to right because I watched this tactic happen to him and I aligned myself with black conservatives. Free thinkers recognize the Democratic Party will do or say anything to instill fear into black Democratic voters. . . . Shirley Sherrod in that video said those who disagree with Obamacare are coming from a racist point of view. That is a troubling racist sentiment.
And this is the greatest tragedy–the greatest crime–that the neo-feudalist left has committed against this country with the Sherrod affair–and with so many other instances of rabidly shouting “RAAAAACIST!” as a craven political tactic to shut up and shut down opposing voices. The dirty secret is that the festering pus of lingering racism in the United States is flowing from the left–from the “progressives”–from the very same neo-feudalists who organize intellectual lynch mobs against anyone who really, really took to heart Martin Luther King’s words about judging people on the content of their character.
What the neo-feudalist “progressives” do to the “national conversation on race” is obscene. They’re the ones who should be shouted down–not the brave few on the Right like Breitbart who stand up to the neo-feudalists. North Korea declares “sacred war” on U.S. and South [*2]
Rorschach Test [*3] — What your reaction to the Shirley Sherrod affair can tell you about yourself, perhaps . . .
Refudiate Liberalism! Sarah Palin was on to something. [*5] — Refute + Repudiate = Refudiate. Because in today’s post-modernist world, it does not necessarily follow that something that has been refuted will also necessarily be repudiated. Counterexamples abound . . . “intelligent design,” “anthropogenic global warming,” “Keynesian economics,” “big government,” “socialism,” “the Democratic Party,” “the Republican Party,” etc., etc.
Journolist [*7] — Should be viewed with the sound on. My main editorial comment would be that the chirping birds should probably have been crickets . . .
I’ll also just point out in passing that this comes from a site run by folks that were, during the 2008 Presidential primaries, STAUNCH hard-core Democrats. Before Obama happened to them. Before they discovered the truth behind the lies told by Democrats and leftists.
Once your eyes have seen, you will never truly be blind again.
Things like this always sound like good ideas until you’re the one staring down the barrel of a police-state gun pointed at you. Be careful what you wish for, CNN . . . “there but for the grace of God” and all that . . .
The case against Elena Kagan [*10] — Is it really too much to ask that Supreme Court justices actually, you know, uphold the actual Constitution–the one on paper–rather than the one swimming around in their heads? Sadly, apparently, the answer to that question is yes, it really is too much to ask.
In Chicago, the Liberals around him cringed, as that excitement and energy reverberated through the large screens and smacked them in the face.
K. will never forget two Liberal women, clutching each other, faces blanched, with true dread in their eyes.
“What are we going to do now? She’s incredible. He can win now, with her. What are we going to do?”.
“We need to destroy her. We need the media to destroy her”.
“They need to do their job. They need to destroy her”.
And try to destroy her the Media did.
Just like those two Chicago Libs wanted them…expected them…to do.
When in doubt, destroy, seems to be the standing policy of the “progressives” of the neo-feudalist left.
‘A Commandeering of the People’ [*12] — Does political power come from the people in this country, or does it come from the neo-feudalists who would be your lords and masters? You still have a choice. For a little while longer, anyway.
Breaking: Anita MonCrief to File FEC Charges Against Obama Administration [*13] — Actually, the Obama campaign not the Administration, but still, in a country with a truly free and independent press, this would be a bombshell of enormous magnitude. This is Watergate-level corruption. Bigger than that, actually . . . not that the Coverup-Media will bother to notice it. And you can bet the FEC will be instructed to bury this, too. It’s the Chicago Way.
Obama’s Soft-Core Socialism [*14] — I’m not sure that this isn’t really full-frontal socialism. Actually, the more technically correct term for what Obama and the Democrats are busily implementing would be “fascism,” but since the shrieking Left has rendered that word as meaningless “racist” as a useful description of human behavior, I’ve had to go with “neo-feudalism.”
“Creative Destruction” [*15] — A classic essay on the complex emergent organizing behavior of free people freely associating in an economy of free exchange. Note the word “free” in the previous sentence. There is no political freedom without economic freedom. There is no economic freedom without political freedom.
The Calculus of Racism [*21] — If the neo-feudalists really, really want to make racism an issue, I think the liberty movement is more than willing to take them on. They won’t win the argument. Because when it comes down to it, it is the “progressive” neo-feudalists who are the racists.
There is nothing racist about liberty. In fact, liberty is the exact opposite of racism.
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care [*22] — You know that feeling you have when you’re the only person walking one way when everybody else is going the other direction–that sort of “salmon-swimming-upstream” feeling? . . .
The Liberal Tax Revolt: Is it a Game-Changer? [*26] — No. “Progressives” and taxes are almost exactly like hard-core alcoholics and alcohol. Even when they begin to suspect that it’s killing them, they still can’t resist another drink. The “progressives” will have to hit rock-bottom before they can hope to begin the long, slow process of recovery. In the context of the present political situation, “hitting rock bottom” means, to begin with, being totally purged from the Republican Party in favor of the classical Republican coalition of the Constitution-based liberty movement and the traditional faith-based community of the country. But that by itself is not hitting bottom for the “progressives.” They need to be pushed out of all of their currently dominant positions in academia, entertainment, the media, and the popular culture. The Democratic Party needs to be demolished–erased from American political culture, gone the way of the 19th Century Whigs. Businesses need to stop donating to Democrats. All of them. People need to stop buying or watching “progressive”-dominated media and entertainment. Approval and donations need to be withdrawn from all of the bastions of “progressive” academia–the Ivy-League, Big-10, Big-12 and other “elite” universities.
If you haven’t noticed the recent “news,” you blissfully missed another week of Beltway navel-gazing, of self-referential media stories, holier-than-thou sermonizing about journalistic ethics, and the usual bipartisan accusations of race-baiting.
Which, unfortunately, you could say about just about any week in recent memory . . . (except for the bipartisan accusations of racism–that’s a relatively recent development) . . .
This is gonna be a long one . . . stuff has been piling up . . .
‘JournoList’ E-mails Show Media Plotting to Kill Stories about Reverend Jeremiah Wright: Daily Caller [*1] — Almost all national journalists for the “mainstream” media are lying to you. On purpose. With reasons they think are good and proper. But the fact remains that they daily–hourly lie to you, in order to advance what they think is the “correct agenda.” After all, these people went into journalism to “make a difference in the world.” If they have to lie and deceive in order to do it, well, the ends justify the means, don’t they?
Refudiate [*4] — What can you say? It’s July. The Dog Days. The Silly Season.
Value Is Knowledge [*5] — The worth of anything you happen to have is exactly, precisely what somebody else will freely pay you for it. Government only screws up the process:
The State is exceptionally poor at analyzing the true value of anything. The lens of ideology is filled with clouds of hatred, occasionally sundered by blinding flashes of righteousness. The actual value of health care and medical insurance was almost completely invisible to the architects of ObamaCare. The market is beginning to react as their legislation shudders and screeches to life… by canceling the health benefits[*6] of employees entirely, because it’s much cheaper to pay the ObamaCare fines. The Democrats will learn absolutely nothing from this. Their most likely response will be to slander these employers as heartless misers. The masterminds behind ObamaCare will quietly relish the collapse of the private health insurance industry, which was one of their primary objectives all along. No data will be transmitted into the government from this market disaster. Value will not become knowledge.
If you want to be a partisan, then be a partisan. Don’t pretend to be objective or unbiased. Don’t lie to us. That’s really all we ask. Be as stupidly, myopically “progressive” as you want to be. Just don’t lie to us about what you really are.
The Decline Of TV Network News Into Ignorance [*13] — . . . and the body blows to the “profession” of journalism just keep coming. There’s a reason why “journalist” rivals “politician” as one of the jobs held in deepest contempt by the American people . . .
Hoover’s Dam Folly [*14] — As a feat of engineering, the Hoover Dam is a marvel. As an economic and ecological force, it has been a near-complete disaster–and I think that most people who do not live in the American Southwest (and, perhaps, many who do) are maybe beginning to see this. This is one of the things that horrifies me when I visit Las Vegas. There really isn’t supposed to be that much green in the middle of the desert. That water is supposed to be in the Colorado River, where it belongs. Harrumph.
Risky Business: Mothers Against the Madness: Women help restore the America we’ve known and loved. [*18] — The “mama grizzly” meme has legs. A wise person does not get between a mama grizzly and the future of her cubs. Democrats should ponder this thought as they watch their Congressional majorities evaporate this November. (I’ll add, a wise husband knows that there are certain things, at certain times, when you simply do not argue with your wife. Mostly, it’s a sense of self-preservation. Guys–smart ones–will recognize “yes, dear” moments for what they are, and act accordingly.)
Does Government Spending Stimulate Economies? [*23] — Did you know that academic studies show that tax cuts have a multiplier of 3–that is, a tax cut (TO THE RICH!!!!) of one dollar generates three dollars in economic activity. The best guess of economists for the multiplier due to stimulus spending is somewhere from 1 to 1.5. So, tell me again, my friends in the Democratic Party, how awfully terribly bad tax cuts are, when people are out there without jobs. Because if you really wanted to stimulate job growth, you’d be slashing taxes left and right, because that’s where the “bang for the buck” is when you’re talking about stimulating an economy.
So what should you do if you’re taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop? First, be polite. Security people have tough jobs and probably mean well. Ask them what legal authority they have to make you stop. (If you’re in a public place, like a street, a park, etc., they have none; if you’re in a private place, such as a shopping mall, they may have a basis for banning pictures.) Krages advises those hassled by security guards to threaten to call law enforcement. If it’s an actual police officer who’s telling you to stop shooting, ask to speak to a superior. And remember–you never have a legal duty to delete pictures you’ve taken.
The fundamental weakness with President Obama’s theory of racial healing and social progress is that has assumed that America would always have the means to pay for its grand ambitions. With the arrow of redistribution flowing along racial lines from the relatively well-off whites to the latinos and blacks, ‘progressive politics’ in a depression may just be another word for “division and tension between black and white Americans”.
You have to wonder why Obama and the Democrats want to play with this particular fire.
Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions [*80] — Our government is failing. Actually no, that’s not correct. Our politicians are failing to properly run our government. Maybe they should start with actually reading and understanding that document that they swear that they will preserve, protect, and defend . . .
Suppose There Were Food Insurance [*83] — Now, shouldn’t this be “Suppose there WAS food insurance?” Was? Were? What? (OK, the article makes a pretty good health care insurance point, if you can get past the whole was/were issue . . .)
The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy [*90] — The left always–ALWAYS accuses the right of what they themselves, the left, are doing–or want to do: Being racist; creating vast conspiracies (*cough* JournoList *cough* the Soros-funded echo-machine of think tanks and media screechers *cough*); fomenting violence at Tea Party rallies; politicizing the Department of Justice; etc., etc., etc. . . the list just goes on and on and on.
Sherrod Wants BigGovernment Shut Down, Thinks She Should Sue Breitbart [*103] — I direct Ms. Sherrod’s attention to: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t sound like a racist. It’s not nearly so much fun when you’re the one on the receiving end, is it, Ms. Sherrod?
Black racism: a real problem, or pure politics? [*104] — If you accept (which I vehemently do not) that racism is only possible when one group has power over another . . . what is the race of the sitting President of the United States? The current Attorney General? If you want to go down that nonsensical road where personal prejudices against other races are only a problem when one group has power over another, then it makes no difference. In fact, as long as Obama is President, then blacks by the racism-power definition can indeed be racist.
It is time for the black community to face their own demons, the way that whites have for the past forty or fifty years, if not more.
A good start would be suspending the use of race as an excuse for every single little god-damned thing that’s wrong in your lives.
“First They Call You A Whore…” [*122] — The ongoing character assassination of South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley . . . just like the left tries to assassinate the character of all who stand against them.
Why Are We Discussing Racism? [*126] — Two reasons: 1: To distract people from the continuing economic problems that the Democrats have actively worked to prolong–whether or not that is their goal, that’s the effect–and 2: To try to activate their lethargic, dispirited base for the 2010 elections. In other words, there’s nothing noble about it–this is pure, cynical politics.
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege [*134] — A sighting of the rare, almost extinct Moderate Democrat. Somebody invoke the Endangered Species Act . . . perhaps we should start some sort of captive breeding program, lest this relic of a bygone age vanish forever in the mists of extinction . . .
Time to be bored with race [*140] — Actually, time to point and laugh heartily at people who start throwing around the “racist” word for cynical political gain–which actually is just about everybody nowadays . .
The Aristocracy Of The Left [*1] — They want nothing more or less than to re-establish a kind of feudalism–with them as the lords and masters, and you and me as the peasants. That’s the game. That’s why they’re so upset at the Tea Parties. They see it as simply a revolt of the peasants. At some point, they will put it down–probably with the traditional tactics used throughout history with unruly serfs and peasants–all the while loudly claiming that it’s all the peasant’s fault, and we had it coming, for daring to challenge our “betters.” Unless, that is, the peasants can manage to “storm the castle” via the ballot box in the next couple of national elections. If not, it will be a future of either resignation to feudalism, or revolution. Seems to me like voting the bums out is by far the preferable strategy and outcome for everybody concerned–even for the neo-feudalists themselves, who in that scenario will not be at any risk of being lined up against a wall should they actually provoke a popular revolution which and succeeds in overthrowing them in the USA (which is, as always, the “last hope of Man on Earth.”)
Everybody’s got skin in this game. It’s all a matter of understanding what the game actually is.
Newsweek: Maverick Scott Brown Is The New McCain [*6] — So, Brown is the new weak-minded, easily-duped straw-man Republican that can be manipulated by the Ruling Class whenever they need a token Republican to provide “bipartisanship?” Do I have that right?
Governor Palin and the Pink Elephants [*7] — Particularly ironic that the actual cure for the hangover we’re going to have from the current binge-spending bender that the Ruling Class has been on will be Pink Elephants. Almost poetic in its sense of ironic justice.
the primary qualification of journalism will soon be, if isn’t already, the power of the reporter’s reputation. Right now reputation is derived in part from who he works for. In the future it will be largely correlated with who he is. This further suggests that no two ‘journalists’ — if the phrase may still be used — are going be funded or ‘employed’ in quite the same way. Each writer will find himself supported by a combination of patronage from readers, fees from publication, advertising revenues and his own day job earnings and consulting. He will be his own brand. Perhaps no one, except a very few, will ‘work full-time’ for a newspaper any more in the coming decades. Strangely this may be a harbinger of the general state of affairs. Individuals will still work for companies, but maybe they will be less defined by them than in the past. If so, one of the hardest things to do in the near future — and not just for journalists — will be write an old style resume.
Contributed by: filbert Monday, July 19 2010 @ 11:03 AM CST
One of the most irritating of Obama’s rhetorical traits is the straw man. The latest one: on the top-of-the-hour radio news, he was talking about extending unemployment benefits, and comparing that (unfavorably) to extending tax cuts “to the richest.”
Well, first of all, let’s talk about who all that money belongs to in the first place: taxpayers. Now, because of how the federal tax system is set up, most payers of federal taxes are “rich.” Or at the very least, they are not the poor.
The poor do not pay federal income taxes.
Now, what Obama wants is to take money from the rich and give it to the unemployed. This is not charity. It is not a virtue to be “charitable” with other people’s money. This is–pure and simple–Marxist-style redistribution of wealth. There is no virtue attached to this act. This is plain, blatant, naked political pandering.
If Obama was really serious about extending unemployment benefits, he would ask Congress to end a government program–close some government agency–decide between competing interests. You know, actually make the “hard choices” that all of those Washington politicians claim that they make all the time when all they’re actually doing is deciding to take more money from the people who earned it, and give it to people who didn’t.
Put your money where your mouth is, Obama. Propose to close some government agency, in order to fund the more-important government work of extending unemployment benefits.
Or, IS EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS ANYTHING ELSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES right now? Because that is exactly, precisely what Obama is saying. If you’re one of those current unemployed whose benefits have or are about to run out, how do you NOW feel about Obama’s naked political pandering, instead of his actually making tough decisions on your behalf?
Contributed by: filbert Monday, July 19 2010 @ 04:28 AM CST
This one collects a lot of threads flying around the past couple of days and weaves them into . . . well, I don’t exactly know. Probably that I don’t trust Obama and the Democrats in Washington (or most of the Republicans there, for that matter) half as far as I could throw them.
I’ve thought for some time that the liberty community has been marginalized from the various avenues and expressions of political power, to the extent that the tactics that they–we–must apply have a great similarity to those of an insurgency–in this case, a political (no, not yet a military) insurgency against totalitarian, neo-feudalist “progressivism.” In 2010, the “progressive” neo-feudalists hold all of the traditional avenues of communications and levers of power. The goal of the insurgency against the neo-feudalists is nothingn less than insure that they do not succeed in (re-)creating their favored, class-stratified society of lords and peasants. The tactic is–should be–to re-take as many of those traditional avenues of communications and levers of power–and to build alternatives to those avenues and levers–so that the neo-feudalists do not succeed. Richard Fernandez goes down a similar intellectual road: Pawn to King Four, Pawn to King Four. [*1]
But a secure base does not have to be defined by geography. It can be built on human terrain and augmented, subject to some constraints, as a meme in cyberspace. Therefore a conservative strategist who is concerned that Charles Krauthammer’s dire prognosis will happen cannot go far wrong building up a widespread, grassroots organization with extensions into the online world. This is separate and distinct from building up the ordinary party machinery. In that way even if the traditional political forms of conservatism are scattered, defeated or machined out of existence in 2010 and 2012 there may survive a core of opposition that can organize a series of coalitions against the men who would be permanent leaders. But more importantly it will remove the temptation to go for the whole hog. By strengthening the grassroots on terms not bound to the party affiliation but independent of the leftist infrastructure, conservatism can create a defense in depth. This has a stabilizing effect. The further complete and total victory is placed from the grasp of even the most ambitious activists of the Democratic Party the less likely they are to persuade their more moderate colleagues to roll the dice. And that’s good. Because all realistic worry about one side completely dominating the other can be effectively dismissed to the probable benefit of everyone. Politics was never meant to be winner-take-all.
Now, it’s my fervent hope that the political insurgency stays 100% completely peaceful–fought through votes, words, and persuasion. But, honestly, I don’t think that decision is in entirely the hands of liberty-community of insurgents–I think it’s in the hands of the neo-feudalist “progressives” in power, who intend to just keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing, and pushing in full knowledge that at some point, somebody, somewhere, will push back. That will then give them an excuse to really crack down–on people like me who want everybody in this country to pursue their dreams to the best of their abilities without government or anybody else really getting in the way any more than is absolutely necessary. In these days, thoughts like mine qualify as dangerous, fringe radicalism, I’m afraid. And, I’m not the only one who’s starting to think rather dark thoughts, actually. See America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution [*2] — which begins thus:
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Essential reading for anyone who cares about what happens to this country, what happens to this world, or what happens to themselves.
The main, pre-eminent reason why I’m registered Republican is not that I think Republicans are wonderful and amazing–I don’t, and they’re not. But I think they’re somewhat better than Democrats, who are a toxic and dangerous combination of utterly clueless about economics and utterly arrogant about being Right About Everything All Of The Time despite overwhelming objective evidence in the real world to the contrary. When Democrat policies fail, it is inevitably because We Have Not Tried Hard Enough. But as Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a good definition of insanity. The Republicans are the Stupid Party. The Democrats are the Insane Party.
I think the “progressives” (aka the “ruling class” aka the “neo-feudalists”) that dominate the Democratic Party but are also entrenched as the “moderate” wing of the Republican Party, are courting a popular rebellion right now. An actual, real, live, bullets-flying-in-the-air and angry crowds throwing Molotov cocktails at riot police kind of popular rebellion. And they have absolutely no clue how close they are to it, right now. There are an awful lot of people all over this country who have Just About Had Enough of the “ruling class.” If that “ruling class” doesn’t pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, then the people will at some point do it for them. The former will be much the preferable road to go down–for everyone. I am not advocating this–far from it–in fact the very thought that it could get this bad scares the hell out of me.
An armed revolt is never, never, NEVER the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth option to bring a “ruling class” into alignment with the larger population. But that larger population is starting to find its options being limited by that “ruling class.” This is an exceptionally stupid thing for the “ruling class” to do, but that’s what they’re hell-bent on doing right now. The people of this country are much, much angrier than the “ruling class” seems to want to realize. That situation is extremely unstable and untenable. It will change. The change will begin–peacefully–this November, when the “ruling class” begins to be expunged from Congress.
One of my fears is that the “ruling class,” in an attempt to hold onto power and further disenfranchise the greater population, will choose to affect the November elections with massive vote fraud and voter intimidation. If that should happen–if that sort of thing should even be widely suspected by the people, then we will have turned the corner into an even more dangerous phase, and it will truly be time to begin to batten down the hatches for what could be a very, very ugly few years in this country. I do not predict. I do not advocate. I’m just afraid of the continuing, persistent stupidity of the “ruling class.”
But let’s say that they want to try something just a little more subtle than the baton-wielding-thug approach to stealing the election. What about some kind of October Surprise? Is something really scary coming in October? [*5] — I’m inclined to believe that something quite nasty, financially, might very well happen in October. There is something of a pattern–a previous history–which is a bit ominous . . . the article itself is a bit rocket-sciencey to me, but the implication that October might not be a lot of fun for investors is one that I’m quite receptive to . . . one of the questions that suspicious and cynical people like me insist on asking is: will whatever happens happen in spite of or because of this current government’s policies? Are they planning on some kind of October economic disruption? Or is even bigger game than that afoot?
Nuking Westphalia: Obama’s Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran [*7] — Which brings to my mind this dark, wild, conspiracy-theory thought: Is a war with Iran this year’s October Surprise to ensure Democrat (or at least, “progressive”) control of Congress? Would you put it past Obama and “never let a crisis go to waste” Rahm Emmanuel? Really? Really-really? Governments in trouble throughout history have often turned to external enemies to suppress internal dissent. And what country wears a black hat (or turban?) for Americans–those common Americans who are coming to despise Obama and everything he stands for–more than the mullahs of Iran?
Final thought: In a time of declared war, don’t Presidents assume additional “emergency” powers? Do you really think that Obama wouldn’t jump at the chance to seize additional power under pretext of “saving the world from a nuclear Iran.”
Yeah, I do think he, and the Democrats, could be that cynically power-mad.
We are about to conduct an election about the very philosophy of our government. It is our last chance to avoid the Great Crash[*2] which Obama has brought to our doorsteps… but which would have lurked twenty or thirty years in the future even without him. The Obama presidency has begun a fundamental transformation of the relationship between Americans and their government. The groundwork for this transformation was laid over many years, by politicians from both parties. Government bloat has accumulated for decades. The State isn’t really changing all that much under Barack Obama. It’s working to change us.
Without really thinking about it very much, the American people have basically repealed the entire Constitution–at least, they continue to elect both Democrats and Republicans who continually pass laws, enforce those laws, and judge those laws with little or no regard to the actual, easily understood (to a NORMAL person) text of the Constitution. Some people have decided that this is, perhaps, not such a good idea any more. Those people are called, collectively, The Tea Party.
For the NAACP and their allies and apologists: Note the total lack of any kind of racial statement or implication in the above statement. “A Nation of Laws, Not Of Men” mean that the laws–starting with the Constitution, are actually understood and rigorously, aggressively enforced on EVERYBODY.
The Next Great Wave [*1] — Featuring this, which brings into sharp focus the fact that the “progressive” agenda is now, in the 21st Century, actually quite backward-looking. You might almost say . . . “conservative” . . .
The Progressive ideology much of the western world has labored under for a century or so is a product of the industrial revolution. It will die and be replaced by something else as the technological revolution sweeps all before it. Political wonks live in the sort of bubble where they give primacy to politics over everything else, little understanding that politics grow from more basic factors, and those factors are currently being rearranged, rebuilt, newly created or destroyed by forces far more powerful than politics or ideology. Even the oldest ideology of all – religion – sways and teeters in the face of the oncoming storms.
The fact is, if you hold “progressive” political views, you’re not anywhere near the cutting edge of political thought. In fact, what you believe is largely a return–not a return to the Progressive days of the late 19th and early 20th century, the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but a return to a kind of feudalism last ascendent in European culture after the fall of Rome. Let’s call it neo-feudalism. Consider the society of the early European Middle Ages, where those few who, by wisdom and intellect are chosen as the Wise (that would be them) lead the many, the poor, the ignorant. That would be you. The last time around, the few, wise people represented the Catholic Church. Now, they represent “progressive, compassionate policies.” But in operation, there is very little difference. The rulers, and the ruled. It is this system against which the American Revolution was a decisive–if momentary–defeat, and ever since, the rulers have been seeking another path to unlimited power. They think they’ve found it. Are they right?
My Biggest Mistake in the White House [*9] — I’m inclined to agree with Karl Rove on this one–at least on a political level . . . although not having Bush and his entire Cabinet all piloting Coast Guard choppers to pluck people off New Orleans roofs after Katrina might be right up there–or perhaps, he should have just moved the desk and chair from the Oval Office to the Louisiana coast and, like King Canute commanded the tide not to come in, simply ordered Hurricane Katrina to begone . . . it’s a tough call, here–
Drowning in Debt[*10] — wherein we find that denial is not just a river in Africa . . .
Media Matters: Arbiters of Legitimacy? [*15] — I’ll go with “brazen leftist/”progressive,” George Soros-funded attack and smear machine” as a brief but descriptive definition of Media Matters as an organization. I think they’re soulless, amoral, cynical, scheming evil people, True Believers in their rightful place as the lords and masters (and your rightful place as the serfs and servants) of the New Feudal society that they refer to as “progressive.” Just in case you’re in doubt what I think about the loathsome Media Matters.I loathe anyone who has ever sent money to, or worked for or with that organization. That’s sorta the definition of “loathsome.”
For the sake of civilization itself, Mises urges us to discard the mercantilist myths that pit the prosperity of one people against that of another, the socialist myths that describe the various social classes as mortal enemies, and the interventionist myths that seek prosperity through mutual plunder. In place of these juvenile and destructive misconceptions Mises advances a compelling argument for classical liberalism, which sees “economic harmonies” — to borrow Frédéric Bastiat’s formulation — where others see antagonism and strife.
Suppose a peasant have three sacks of corn: the first, A, for his support; the second, B, for seed; the third, C, for fattening poultry. Suppose sack A was destroyed by fire. Will the peasant on that account starve? Certainly not. Or will he leave his field unsown? Certainly not. He will simply shift the loss to the least sensitive point. He will bake his bread from sack C, and consequently fatten no poultry. What is, therefore, really dependent upon the burning or not burning of sack A is only the use of the least important unit that may be substituted for it, or, as we call it, the final utility.
In other words, final utility is simply a kind of opportunity cost, viewed from another direction. How much does it cost the farmer with three sacks of corn to lose one of those three sacks? It costs him basically what he would do with the third of the three sacks, not what he would do with the first one.
One of the key observations that a reasonable person makes about the economic policies of the neo-feudal “progressives” is that those policies show an almost complete ignorance of, or even denial of the concept of opportunity cost. This is why the neo-feudal “progressives” are economically illiterate.
Ignorance of history is no excuse for racism [*19] — Throughout American history, the political party which was the comfortable home of racists was the Democratic Party. This has not changed. The racists have just learned to use bigger words, and to actually convince minority races that racism is good for them.
Fans of the Limbaugh show tune in not just to hear right-wing opinions but for the host’s on-air persona (he plays an over-the-top egotist) and the world he constructed around it (his show has its own jargon and catchphrases, a horde of running gags, and a set of customs for the callers). Even the mic technique is distinctive: Limbaugh punctuates his comments with coughs, shuffles his papers noisily at the appropriate junctures, and, in general, gives his show a sound that is as singular as its viewpoint.
Yesterday I chatted with an old friend in Philadelphia. The man is well-connected and knows everyone of consequence in town. A loyal Northeast Republican, he lives in an upper-end condo, and during the last election, his neighbors were all solidly pro-Obama, so he had to endure constant ridicule for wearing McCain buttons. (He says it got pretty rough, too, which I do not doubt.) Yet he says that now, all of these same very wealthy, erstwhile Obama supporters just hate Barack Obama. He mentioned a variety of reasons for their anger, and Obama’s Mideast policy seems to rank high as an irritant.
Bear in mind that this guy’s neighbors are the sort of people who can normally be depended upon to pull out their checkbooks at Democratic functions.
If they hate Obama, the Democrats are in dire straits.
Stephen Glass, Redux? ThinkProgress.org Publishes Completely Fraudulent Video Labeling Tea Partiers Racists [*28] — Democrats . . . neo-feudal “progressives” . . . lie. It’s what they do. Many of their lies consist of their blithe, ignorant assumption that everybody behaves like they do, and therefore everybody else is lying too. Unfortunately for them, there are some few people left who think that lying is a bad thing and should be avoided, especially in important things–the more important, the more crucial it is to tell the truth. This concept seems foreign to Democrats and neo-feudal “progressives,” judging from their actual behavior.
Sheriff Joe’s War: Now More War-ry! [*30] — I wish those on the right were a little more open to discussing and criticizing Arpaio’s various excesses while pursuing an otherwise laudable “law-and-order” agenda . . .
Great: List Of Illegals Came From Utah Foodstamp, Public Benefits Lists [*32] — I’m not sure why people accepting public assistance should not have their names publicized. If you want to remain private, don’t take government assistance. If you’d rather be private than eat, you have that option. Public assistance should not come without some kind of responsibility. A minimum level of responsibility would be the other members of your community simply knowing that you are benefiting from their tax dollars. The people who pay taxes take the responsibility to do so. The people who benefit from those taxes should, I think, be willing to stand up before their fellows and at least acknowledge that benefit–if not daily thank those taxpayers for their assistance.
I’m sure that there are many who will consider this attitude to be callous and uncaring.
I think that the people who want to allow people benefiting from public assistance to remain private are the callous, uncaring ones. They don’t want to see those less fortunate–they don’t want to know who they are. They want to help “the poor,” they don’t really give a damn about each individual specific person’s story–why they’re where they are in life–and what, maybe, the community around them could do, outside of the realm of governmental authority and force, to improve that individual person’s life. They don’t want to see how destructive and corrosive public assistance can be, especially when accompanied with the lack of responsibility which is the natural corollary of keeping such a transfer payment secret.
None of which should be construed to justify somebody violating state law by releasing such names, if the law required them to stay secret. If that’s the law, the law should be changed, but until it’s changed, it should be obeyed. Which pretty much summarizes my view of immigration laws–and all laws–in the first place, actually.
Principles of Bizarro Economics [*40] — Which, oddly enough, happen to coincide almost exactly with the principles of economics followed by the Democratic Party (and, sadly, all to many Republicans as well) . . .
Obama casts Republicans as party of the rich [*48] — to which mocking laughter is the best response. Is that all you got, Barry? Is that all you and your eco-friendly jet-set Hollywood actor friends and Wall Street power broker buddies and shady Chicago financiers and pols, and Federal government workers who make significantly more than private sector workers for the exact same jobs—is that all you got? Is that really all?
Why do these myths persist? Because they make great copy and because there is something mesmerizing about a statistic that freezes journalistic brains, especially when the statistics bolster common cultural biases or trends. And one especially pejorative but persisting cultural trend is the impunity with which all men can be demonized. The moral of these hoaxes is to view statistics that paint a negative picture of unusually high numbers of men with deep suspicion.
Emphasis mine. What you hear from the Old Media is, more often than not, a carefully selected subset of what happened, presented in an astonishingly slanted, biased way to favor one set of policy prescriptions (generally “progressive”) and breathlessly presented with a desperate “the sky is falling!” breathlessness. (Sometimes it’s not even necessary for something to happen–it’s enough for somebody, somewhere to say that something happened–like for instance Congressmen being verbally abused or intentionally spit on, on the Capitol Steps) . . . America loses faith in Obama [*2]
A decade of spiraling deficits [*3] — Turns out that it never was the deficits that the Democrats in Washington were worried about–it was that fact that they were only spiraling upwards, rather than shooting straight up like a rocket.
President Obama, White House: Al Qaeda Is Racist [*9] — See, they’re setting up the argument that the Tea Parties are the equivalent of Al Qaeda–both of them are RAAAAACIST! Just watch . . . somebody on the left will try this, now that the NAACP and the White House have teed up the argument . . .
In 1860, liberalism meant classical liberalism — the moral and political tradition of individual liberty understood as the right of individuals to be free from coercion so long as they respected the equal liberty of others. According to the liberals, the primary aim of government was to secure individual rights from force and fraud, which included enforcing laws of contract and private property. They thought the moral and intellectual character of human beings was properly formed not by governmental coercion, but in the natural and voluntary associations of civil society.
NAACP had no business condemning tea partiers [*31] — Yes, racists exist. Yes, there are some who attend Tea Party events. There are also some who attend NAACP events. The only thing the NAACP has done is sabotage any reasonable discussion of individual equality and liberty, and further marginalized the very term “racism.”
Election looms for Democrats: How bad can it be? [*34] — Sadly, not as bad as they deserve. After all, at least one Democrat will probably win election to Congress. They don’t deserve even that, given that political party’s overall performance the past few years.