If Republicans don't man up soon, the job of fundamentally transforming the United States into a left-wing dictatorship cannot be more than a few short years away.
Robert Ringer explains why the Republicans shouldn't have given Obama the tax compromise, and had they played the game of politics like it was a chess game, they could have done much better. Robert believes that "the most important reason Republicans should not have gone along with the tax compromise is that it was a continuation of their decades-old habit of acquiescing to Democratic blackmail."
Thomas Paine said that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." With Congress' approval rating at a stunning 13 percent, it doesn't appear that many people disagree with Paine's analysis.
Now, with a new Congress ready to take charge, many are excited about the possibility that the accelerating, anti-constitutional power of government over its citizen serfs will be reversed. But what's the likelihood it will really happen?
In an outgoing flurry of activity, Democrats and progressive Republicans flipped one last gigantic bird to America's Main Streeters. Some were shocked at the audacity, but those of us who have become cynical watching decades of political sewage pouring out of Washington were not surprised by the government's contempt for voters.
Now, the big question is, will Republicans be able to start turning things around before 2012? I believe the answer to that question lies in how successful they will be at cornering Obama into no-win situations. Politics, you say? Yes! Do you believe these fire-breathing, anything-goes political animals are going to respond positively to reason? BHO's entire adult life has been one big game of political one-upsmanship.
For example, regardless of which way the economy appears to be going, BHO will be prepared to take the high road. If the tax compromise produces a temporary, illusory effect on the economy, he will claim that he turned things around by endorsing a tax cut for all Americans.
On the other hand, if the illusion of a turnaround does not come about, his position will be, "To show bipartisanship, I decided to give Republicans a chance and go along with their insane idea to give billions of dollars away to the wealthiest Americans, and, predictably, it didn't work. Now we're going to get back to doing things my way so we can grow this economy." That will give him a perfect excuse for returning to policies that are based on a system that all straight-thinking people realize has never worked: socialism.
Let me start you out with the introduction to the column. Ann writes:
Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.
They seem to have replaced "God" with "Government" in scriptural phrases such as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).
This week, we'll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.
In her column this week, Ann Coulter explores the charitable giving habits of the very politicians that so compassionately desire your money to help the poor. I've skipped through all of the details of who (Democrats) gave how much money in the paragraphs that I've excerpted, but I promise, it is in her column that you can read in full. UPDATE, December 30, 2010:
This segment with John Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning, just hours after I had posted this column.
John Stossel: Who does the charitable giving? It might surprise you!
The only way to pry a liberal from his money is to hold ticker-tape parades for him, allowing him to boast about his charity in magazines and on TV.
Isn't that what Jesus instructed in the Sermon on the Mount?
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do. ... But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matthew 6:2-4).
In my Bible, that passage is illustrated with a photo of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
At least the hypocrites in the Bible, Redmond, Wash., and Omaha, Neb., who incessantly brag about their charity actually do pony up the money.
Elected Democrats crow about how much they love the poor by demanding overburdened taxpayers fund government redistribution schemes, but can never seem to open their own wallets.
The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.
I have explored different facets of these security issues in past Technocracy columns. The common thread among all of these articles is a single, merciless and implacable truth: You and your data are under attack from all sides and on all fronts by individuals, governmental entities and even your own fallibility.
~ Phil Elmore, in this column; emphasis my own.
When deciding which part of Phil Elmore's column to reproduce in order to provide the major essence of the column, I decided on going with the last three paragraphs. The first part of the column covers data theft, the illegal use of email accounts, and user ignorance of protecting data. But it was in the last paragraphs where Phil expounds on the threat of people - or the government - that could potentially misuse something called the Patriot App in order to help the government spy on you. I figured that it sounded Orwellian enough to get your attention!
And what of smartphones themselves? It isn't just your own phone and the applications installed on it that must concern you. Now you have to worry about the applications on everybody else's phones, too. Earlier this month, news broke concerning the new "Patriot App" for the iPhone. Intended to "help fight terrorism," the application "taps into federal tip lines," allowing the user to "make reports, using pre-loaded forms, in any of several categories." Users can even include photographs and video with their upload. The software is obviously an extension of the "If you see something, say something" campaign designed to encourage awareness of suspicious activity. But in making snitching on your neighbors so convenient, so quick, so technologically enabled, are we creating the culture of pervasive, pernicious surveillance about which Orwell warned us?
Even the application's creators acknowledge that the Patriot App could be misused by individuals hoping to harass or otherwise take revenge on others. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bob Barr sneered that being "a snitch" used to be thought of as "cowardly and craven" (qualities with which, presumably, Barr still associates the reporting of suspicious activity). He derided the "tattletale app" as a means of "squealing on a fellow citizen" while condemning the marketing that associates the application with patriotism.
Attacks on you, your data, your reputation and your civil liberties come from all sides and at all hours. The vigilance you must maintain is, at times, wearying. Everyone from your government to common thieves to your neighbors to your own family could represent a threat. Your only choice is to persevere with your eyes open and your mind active.
When will the political do-gooders realize that the most vulnerable people in society can't take any more of their kindness? (John Stossel, from this column)
John Stossel explains how the law of unintended consequences has affected lower income people with the passage of the CARD Act. When Congress passed the CARD Act, it made it more difficult for many people to get credit, and thus they turn to other sources for emergencies, and end up paying by far more in interest for their money. Todd Zywicki, law professor at George Mason University, says the following to the credit card reformers:
"In the 1960s, the second-biggest revenue source of organized crime was illegal lending. Is that the world we want to go back to, where we get rid of payday lending, and we're so morally outraged that we're going to put people in the hands of the leg-breakers and the loan sharks? They charged an interest rate that was well over 1,000 percent, and their collection techniques were a lot tougher than your local pawn shops."
Last year, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act. It was supposed to really end the alleged abuses perpetrated by the credit-card companies. The law forbids some penalties and interest-rate increases on existing balances.
It is one of President Obama's proudest achievements.
"Enough's enough," he said. "It's time for strong, reliable protection for our consumers."
Reform, he said, would not come at the expense of honest businesses. "Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you've got nothing to fear."
Finally! Protection! A new bureaucracy will stop greedy credit-card companies from unfairly penalizing you. And it won't threaten the credit business. Yippie!
How has it worked out?
Not so well. George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki points out that the new restrictions hurt more consumers than they help.
Since the Card Act passed, mortgage and Treasury bill rates have dropped a little, but credit-card interest went up – from 13 percent to nearly 15 percent. Some banks also stopped offering credit to some people. JPMorgan Chase cut off 15 percent of its customers.
So the real result of this "consumer" regulation? "Hundreds of thousands of people can't get cards who used to be able to have cards, and all the rest of us now have to pay more," Zywicki said.
But maybe the people who can't get credit cards are better off because they couldn't handle credit wisely?
"Just to say they don't have a credit card doesn't mean that they don't have credit," Zywicki retorts. "They'll just go to more expensive places – the local payday lender or the local pawn shop."
Joseph Farah explained in this column how our current administration wants to handle the current Somali pirates and compares it to the way Thomas Jefferson handled the Barbary pirates back in the 17th and 18th centuries. When Jefferson found out that the Europeans were handling the Barbary pirates, he didn't think it made any sense.
"He recognized the purchase of peace from the Muslims only worked temporarily. They would always find an excuse to break an agreement, blame the Europeans and demand higher tribute."
Could the United States make the same mistake in the 21st Century that the Europeans made a couple hundred years ago?
I just heard the U.S. State Department is suggesting we should negotiate with Somali pirates by paying ransom for the release of 26 Bangladeshis on board the hijacked ship MV Jahan Moni.
Washington says "money was the sole objective" behind the hostage-taking, and that the pirates would likely release the captives for far less money than they are demanding because it's the "lean season" for piracy.
Bangladesh has taken a more principled stand – that no nation can pay ransom for piracy.
Next thing you know the U.S. will be contributing to the ransom or paying the whole thing.
This is quite a turnabout in U.S. foreign policy.
In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.
Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as "Barbary pirates."
They weren't "pirates" at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn't drink and chase women, and they really weren't out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannons and ammunition.
Like those we call "terrorists" today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahedeen."
Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy – not a single warship.
Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends – who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom.
Write letters to officials, complain at meetings, get the media on the story, circulate petitions and if necessary, sue them.
Barbara Simpson has had it with the war on Christmas! She is offended by various officials being patsies, and bending over to satisfy those that are "offended" by anything that displays the Christian Christmas message:
That's my New Year's resolution – I'm going to be a holiday rabble-rouser. I'll let the powers that be know that I am offended.
I'm offended by "holiday" trees, decorations and Santa Claus visits for children that don't mention Christmas, the name of the holiday.
I'm an American. I pay taxes, and I'm tired of being dissed by spineless, elected officials who favor offended atheists and Muslims.
Can they hear me now? They'd better!
We may want to be asking what those that are "offended" by Christmas are really trying to accomplish. Could it just be that it's really a war on Christianity?
I can't believe it! I'd just mailed a check to the Red Cross when I discovered they'd caved to "offended" Muslims. I'll certainly think twice before I write another such check.
Admittedly, the capitulation is by the British Red Cross not the American Red Cross, but I've decided that I'm not going to be a patsy anymore when there are such blatant examples of catering to our veiled and robed friends in the name of ecumenism.
The British Red Cross decided to remove Christmas decorations from all 430 of their fundraising shops on the outside chance Muslims, atheists and others might be offended by a public display recognizing the Christian Christmas holiday.
Really? They did it to protect the sensitivities of those possibly "offended" people? Or did they do it because they feared violent repercussions if they didn't cave to those sensitivities?
Or are they just so cowed by political correctness that they've lost their minds?
Am I the only one to find it strange that Muslims, who are subject to the tough rules of Islam as well as the very strong punishments for believers who break those rules, suddenly develop very thin skins and delicate sensitivities when exposed to visible signs of other religions in the public square?
Oh please.
Some members of this group find it serves their offended selves to riot, destroy, maim and kill in retaliation for perceived offenses against Muhammad – remember the Danish cartoon riots – but when Jews, and particularly Christians, want their religious holidays to be visible in the public square, they're shut down in no uncertain terms when Muslims and others object.
There are times when we need to take things a little less seriously for a change. Joe Kovacs brings us some very bizarre news of 2010, with a lot of help from Barack Obama, Glenn Beck, and a story about true anthropogenic global warming which of course can only be caused by human flatulence... I can just hear Media Matters' shrill shrieking now!
Be sure to read the full story, as there are many more funny (or should that be "weird"?) news stories that will keep you busy reading and watching videos and of course, laughing!!
Greetings everyone, and welcome to another edition of the news you wish were the news every single day of the year.
I have to admit that 2010 has kind of a dark theme to some of the funniest events, especially concerning President Obama and his personal plague of vermin.
I mean, come on. Have we ever seen a commander in chief with such a magnetic attraction for flies, bees and rats?
White House buzz
Let's start with the fly that just couldn't seem to get enough of Mr. Obama. During a speech by the president June 22, this single insect found Obama's words so enthralling, it just had to become one with the face of "the One."
In fact, despite the president's best efforts to shoo the fly away, the pest made a succesful landing on Obama's face, prompting many websites to dub him "Lord of the Flies."
"Lord of the Flies"
Radio and TV host Glenn Beck remarked: "Does he have nerve endings in his face? Seriously, have you ever had a fly walk across your face and you left it there?"
Now that we know Obama's not a no-fly zone, it's also strange to recall how a swarm of bees delayed his important court business on a basketball court.
According to the Hill, a swarm of "thousands of bees" gathered outside the White House in May. The small army of insects hovered as Obama tried to leave 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to shoot hoop at Fort McNair. And by the time the president returned at noon, the bees were mysteriously nowhere in sight.
Just days later, some sort of rodent scurried in front of the president as he was delivering a speech on the steps of the White House.
To this day, no one has said with absolute certainty what kind of rodent it was that upstaged Obama, but "Today Show" host Al Roker noted, "All we know is, these little Secret Service mice wrestled it to the ground."
And once again, with all the critters showing the president such undying love, Glenn Beck proffered: "At some point, the president's gonna come out and go, 'OK, look, I am lord of the underworld.'"
In his column today, Herman Cain wants to remind everyone not to forget all the things that Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have done in the past two years. Herman says that the important thing to do is to make sure to tell people that are willing to listen. Don't let people forget!
Don't forget what President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress did in 2010 – and tell everybody who will listen! And if they do not get outraged, then they are sleeping under a rock, and they can't get out.
Pure politicians have for years depended on voters to forget their misdeeds leading up to the next election. But things are different! Voters are not as stupid and uninformed as they used to be. People are more informed and aware of the arrogance of the current administration and Congress than ever before.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said they needed to pass the health-care deform bill first, so they can then tell us what's in the bill. They passed it, and we now know what's in the bill: an assault on our liberties, increased taxes through fines and an unprecedented expansion of government bureaucracy in our lives. Don't forget!
The president's insistence on passing the health-care deform bill against the will of the majority of the American people was a historic presidential slap in the face of the people. Poll after poll had confirmed that the people did not like this government takeover of our health-care system, but the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress did it anyway. Don't forget!
In the coming debate about immigration reform, or the Dream Act, Tom Tancredo recommends certain questions that should be answered - by Mexico and Mexican immigrants. He says that "[w]e cannot have a rational debate about immigration reform in the U.S. until there is emigration reform in Mexico."
A week ago, the lame-duck U.S. Senate refused to pass the so-called DREAM Act, which had been passed by the House in its lame-duck session. There will be some talk of reviving the bill in the next Congress, but the ground has shifted. The next immigration reform debate will be about Mexico.
The truth is beginning to dawn on amnesty proponents. We cannot have a rational debate about immigration reform in the U.S. until there is emigration reform in Mexico.
Last month I participated in a debate in Denver with Gustavo Arellano, the leftist southern California journalist and author of the "Ask a Mexican" column which runs in a dozen or more left-leaning "alternative weeklies" across the country. The topic of the debate – never formally declared – had something to do with the success – or lack of it – of assimilation into American society by illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America.
Whatever the hopes of the sponsors of the event, the debate turned out to be a long conversation not about politics or pending legislation but about culture – American culture. In retrospect, I wish we had also scheduled a second debate – about Mexican culture.
Given that 70 percent of the 15-20 million illegal aliens in our country are from Mexico, and the fact that Mexico officially encourages and facilitates this exodus, it is natural for Americans to have many questions about Mexico.
I think these questions should be encouraged, and I hope the defenders of illegal immigration can provide some answers.
But above all, this is the time of year when even non-religious folks are forced to remember what started it. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
In her column, Patrice Lewis expresses the fact that even the secularized parts of the Christmas season isn't all that bad of a thing. She writes, "In some ways, Christians have the best of both worlds at this time of year." In other words, the Christian reason for the season can still be celebrated along with the holiday festivities and decorations.
During the weeks leading up to Christmas, there have been a lot of complaints about the ever-increasing commercialization and secularization of this most holy holiday. These concerns are justified, of course. We've also heard far too many reports of ridiculous and absurd restrictions on expressing Christmas joy.
But I'm about to give you a different spin on the subject.
In the introduction to the photo essay "Christmas in America," the publishers wrote: "Just when the air turns frosty and the days shrink into darkness, the Christmas season arrives in America. It begins at Thanksgiving – with families, feasts and football. Then, during the next six weeks we shop and decorate, worship and make merry. Our hearts warm in the winter cold. We find compassion for strangers, and we remember there are miracles. Pious or festive or both, we join together in an extraordinary national festival."
These words neither condone nor condemn the sometimes excessive celebrations, both religious and secular, that take place during Christmas. And, frankly, I don't mind the celebrations, either.
Everyone from conservative Christians to tree-hugging greenies find the consumerism of Christmas offensive. But, in some ways, I find it wonderful. You see, I think it's rather grand that an entire nation can turn itself over for a giant party once a year.
Granted, we live on a farm far away from urban lights. We are surrounded by quiet, devout people who fully recognize the importance and significance of Christ's birth. When we want a dose of holiday hubbub, we go to the city and stroll the sidewalks. Then we drive home again to our quiet rural life.
But the hustle and bustle, the parties and the stores, the decorations and the lights – are these such bad things? Let me explain what I mean.
Like it or not, Christmas has become a secular holiday for many. But no matter how much it's corrupted by the Scrooges who try to squelch any expression of godly cheer, true Christians will never lose sight of the reason for the season. In some ways, Christians have the best of both worlds at this time of year. We have the holy contemplation and devout reading of the Gospels to celebrate the Gift we are given, and we also have the fun of jingle bells and decorated homes and pretty stores when we're in the mood for something festive and lively.
In other words, Christians are automatically granted a richness and depth to Christmas that secular celebrators cannot even begin to fathom.
Now, however, the gossip around our little Beltway-protected village is that Obama has gotten the election message and appears to be taking a page from the playbook of Hope, Arkansas' second-slickest politician, Bill Clinton. Could the stealth Marxist that the American-hating left has been counting on really be letting them down? Not a chance.
What few in the media understand is that in Obama's world, it matters not if gays are allowed in the military or if they're put in concentration camps. Likewise, he has very little interest in what happens in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or with those pesky oil spills, the START treaty, or any other item that excites media pundits.
No, the thought that consumes all else in Obama's mind is his late father's statement that 100 percent taxation is justified. And why not? Barack Obama Sr. was a proud communist, and communism is 100 percent taxation.
It's important to understand that this is not a financial issue with Obama. He made that clear during one of the primary debates when Charlie Gibson, of all people, asked him – five times! – to explain why he would raise the capital-gains tax when the historical evidence proves that higher capital gains taxes actually lower government revenues.
Trapped by the facts, Obama finally said, "It's a matter of fairness." That's right – even if raising taxes doesn't help the poor, it's justified so long as it punishes "the rich." And there is little doubt in my mind that the Emperor of Envy who now occupies the White House remains committed to preaching the age-old, wealth-is-evil message of left-wing revolutionaries.
Which is why conservatives had better start manning up and challenging the premise that the wealthiest among us are fair game and start defending them on a moral basis. They have to understand that if you enter into an argument based on a false premise, you've already lost the argument.
When the Republican presidential candidates begin to step forward in the next few months, I'll be watching closely to see which ones, if any, have the courage to defend America's most oppressed minority, the wealthy. Will any of them be willing to explain that the wealthiest among us have the same natural rights as every other citizen?
The fact is, America needs more wealthy people, not less, because they are a sign of a healthy economy and, more important, a truly free nation.
6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:
"They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever."
2 Corinthians 9:6-9 (NIV)
Ann Coulter explains why Conservative Christians give more money to charities than secular liberals. Liberals try to cite the Bible "to demand the redistribution of income by government force." And what the liberals don't bother to tell you is that our taxes don't really go to "the poor." Actually, our taxes end up going mostly "to government employees who make more money than you do."
It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?
Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.
But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).
Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.
The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do (unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity).
Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.
This article by Shane Conner, CEO of www.ki4u.com - consultants and developers of Civil Defense solutions to government, NPOs and individual families - is extremely important for you to read. In fact, you should make sure that you also share it with others, as Shane suggests. As you will learn in this column, a "defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any competing alternatives to their ban-the-bomb agenda, like Civil Defense." The good news is that many more people would be able to survive a nuclear detonation if they are prepared and know the right and wrong things to do.
What possible "good news" could there ever be about nuclear destruction coming to America, whether it is dirty bombs, terrorist nukes, or ICBMs from afar?
In a word, they are all survivable for the vast majority of American families, If they know what to do beforehand and have made even the most modest of preparations.
Tragically, though, most Americans today won't give much credence to this good news, much less seek out such vital lifesaving instruction, as they have been jaded by our culture's pervasive myths of nuclear un-survivability.
Most people think that if nukes go off then everybody is going to die, or it'll be so bad they'll wish they had. That's why you hear such absurd comments as: "If it happens, I hope I'm at ground zero and go quickly."
This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any competing alternatives to their ban-the-bomb agenda, like Civil Defense. The activists wanted all to think there was no surviving a nuke; banning them all was your only hope. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '50s and '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans saw neither a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good. Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism and nuclear saber-rattling from rogue nations, we see emerging among the public either paralyzing fear or irrational denial. People can't even begin to envision effective preparations for ever surviving a nuclear attack. They think it totally futile, bordering on lunacy, to even try.
Ironically, these disarmament activists, regardless their noble intent, have rendered millions of Americans even more vulnerable to perishing from nukes in the future.
The biggest surprise for most Americans, from the first flash of a nuke being unleashed, is that they will still be here, though ill-equipped to survive for long, if they don't know what to do beforehand from that first second of the flash onward.
In this column, Henry Lamb explains the liberal/progressive ideology. But the question then becomes: What could possibly cause people to be liberals or progressives? Is it a genetic defect?
"Black hats" may not be bad people; they may just have a genetic defect that prevents them from understanding that they are no better than the "white hats." They may be incapable of understanding that their ideas could be wrong. They may not have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a proposal. They seem to possess only the desire to prevail, whatever the cost, regardless of how stupid the proposal may be.
The world has always had "black hats" and always will. The nation should, as a collective New Year's resolution, resolve to pity the "black hats," and by all means, to keep them out of government.
Some people believe they have a right to take what another has earned. Another distinguishing characteristic of this group is their eagerness to dictate the behavior of others. These people are called progressives, socialists, communists, dictators, kings and sometimes gangsters. We'll refer to these people as "black hats."
The rest of the world knows inherently that it is morally wrong to take anything from another without their permission. They also know that they have no right to direct the affairs of other people. Their unspoken motto is: "Any right that I claim for myself, I will gladly grant to all others." We'll refer to these people as "white hats."
Washington is full of both, but since they rarely wear a hat, it is hard to identify them until they open their mouth, or vote.
Consider this scenario: A man is born into this world with nothing. He works hard and becomes a gazillionaire, paying a healthy tax on every penny he earns all his life. Then he dies. One group says his estate must pay 35 percent to the government; another group says, no, his estate must pay 55 percent. These are the "black hats," regardless of the political party they profess.
Another group says: His estate should pay nothing. There is no moral reason why the estate owes the government another dime. Taxes were paid at the time the person earned his fortune. Why do the "black hats" believe they have a right to take what another has earned?
The younger generations of America are known to use the term, "TMI," meaning "Too much information." In other words, they are saying, when using the term, that a conversation is providing more personal information than they really want to know, and they want to turn off the flow of that information. This is basically what Phil will suggest to you, when he writes, "You can, however, take a break from information overload. You can take a holiday. You can catch your breath. I urge you to do just that." Merry Christmas!
The technology that saturates contemporary society, the technology that pervades modern existence, is overwhelmingly information technology. It reflects how easily we share data and communicate opinion to one another. It facilitates the transfer of words, video and sound to every corner of the globe and in every room of our homes. It is in our televisions. It is on our computers. It is in our pockets, on our belts, and in our purses on our phones. News, entertainment, information, infotainment and fully interactive real-time communication: This is the information technology that now shares both waking and sleeping minutes with us.
There is no way to cut yourself off from modern technology. You can try to avoid it, yes. You can refuse to be informed. You may even be successful in your willful ignorance. I spoke, not long ago, with a man who did not know the name of our state's current governor, nor was he aware of the prostitution scandal that forced the previous governor of New York to resign. Yet ignorance of current events and politics is not safe harbor from modern technology; the same man was interrupted twice during our conversation by his wireless phone.
There are religious communities in the United States who refuse to use modern technology – but in many cases, those same communities actively trade both goods and services with people who do. A local group who shuns technology, for example, trades their hand-crafted sheds and other outbuilding structures for the use of their neighbors' machine tools – tools they themselves refuse to own, the services of which they nonetheless avail themselves. In an interwoven, increasingly interconnected society whose members are a text message, an e-mail, or a Voice over IP (VoIP) call away, even self-described Luddites are kidding themselves when they try to disconnect from the socio-technological network of networked networks that holds us all in its thrall.
What? The U.N. has something to do with this? Jerome Corsi brings this report on the highly controversial moves to "censure" the internet to prevent us from getting our news from anywhere but government controlled or regulated news media.
Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi's Red Alert(requires free registration) the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and senior managing director of the Financial Services Group at Gilford Securities.
The United Nations is now joining the Obama administration and Democratic commissioners on the FCC in an attempt to regulate the Internet, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
"The U.N. is reacting to concerns of member governments, including the United States, that the Internet has made companies like WikiLeaks possible, while the FCC is more concerned about conservative news outlets on the Internet that are increasingly undermining government attempts to control the news through sympathetic mainstream media outlets," Corsi wrote.
"What is at stake is the future of electronic free-speech rights, as governments around the world realize how much less control government authorities have with a robust and critical press able to operate freely on the Internet."
Of course, when Larry Klayman's column is read, most people will undoubtedly say, "That can't happen here." With all of the things going on that Larry discusses in this column, will you still be able to say, "what is there to worry about?"
And, we all know the reaction that the progressives had about the Tea Party movement. Tea partiers were criticized and called derogatory names by the leftists, with claims that tea partiers were potential domestic terrorists. Why all the leftists' lies about the tea party movement? Could it be because they are concerned that the "tipping point" could be reached soon with all of their tyrannical and socialist agenda being passed, like ObamaCare? Of the various signs of dark times to come that you will read about in this column, do you know if any of them will push this country over the edge and spark a violent revolt? Will you be prepared if it happens?
President Ronald Reagan used to say that the scariest words in the English language are: "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Two hundred or so years earlier, our Founding Fathers had essentially the same thoughts when they declared independence from the British Crown based on its refusal to take into account the grievances of the colonies and its peoples, and instead attempted to beat them into submission.
Today, as we observe the holidays and ready ourselves for a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the New Year, in the face of continued control of the Senate and White House by the Democrats and President Barack Obama, these words and thoughts ring louder than ever. Never before in the history of our sacred nation has the "State of the Union" been worse and indeed more hostile to the needs of the American people. And both Democrats and Republicans are responsible!
I have written in earlier columns that I sincerely believe that we have entered a new revolutionary period in American history. With each passing day, I become more convinced of it. And, regrettably, I believe that we are only a year of so from violent revolt if things do not radically change "on a dime."
Here are the signs of the violent revolution to come:
First, the economy continues in a tailspin, with unemployment increasing. Families do not have the financial means, even assuming they are able to bring home a salary, to pay for their children's higher education, buy a new car, much less put good wholesome food on the dinner table. Couple this with glacial growth in the economy, our dependence on foreign capital to keep the nation afloat and the continued real-estate crisis and the picture is more than bleak. And God forbid we have another large terrorist attack or an oil field or two in the Middle East blows up – the entire world economy could easily go down for the count. People get real upset when they do not have money; plain and simple. Just ask any employer who has missed or is late on a pay period for his employees. He or she is lucky not to be lynched. Our government has not only missed several pay periods, it is taxing the populace into submission and wasting these revenues on projects and graft that return nothing but more hardship.
Secretary Napolitano should do two things on Monday morning. First, she should order all Border Patrol agents to be issued weapons adequate for both self-defense and apprehension of armed drug smugglers. The second thing she should do Monday morning is resign.
~ Tom Tancredo, from this column
I'm not saying he's wrong about the facts of the case of the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, but the information in Tom Tancredo's column doesn't match up with what I had been seeing and hearing in the news. For instance, every news story I've seen had the Border Patrol up against FIVE bandits, with one escaping and being sought. There has been no mention of the bean bag rounds that the Border Patrol are ordered to use. There has been no mention of the EIGHT attackers, but rather, just five. None of the reports have mentioned the BORTAC team (Border Tactical unit) tracking drug smugglers. Why would this be?
Well, Tom gives us a hint of why the full truth of the incident hasn't been told in the media (until now). As you will read in this column, it's all about politics, and the failed Dream Act vote on Saturday. The politics trumped the real truth from being known.
Another Border Patrol agent on the Arizona border was shot and killed by Mexican drug smugglers last Tuesday. Of the eight attackers, four are in custody and a fifth is under surveillance by Border Patrol Blackhawk helicopters as he tries to make his way back to the Mexican border.
BP Agent Brian Terry was part of a BORTAC team (for border tactical unit) tracking armed drug smugglers 15 miles northwest of Nogales, Ariz., (and only three miles west of Interstate 19) when they were attacked with automatic weapons fire. The area is well-known as a major drug-smuggling corridor, and the smugglers are known to frequently be armed with AK-47s and other long rifles.
Here's the part Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Border Patrol management are trying to hide: Border Patrol Agent Terry and the BORTAC team were under standing orders to always use ("non-lethal") bean-bag rounds first before using live ammunition. When the smugglers heard the first rounds, they returned fire with real bullets, and Agent Terry was killed in that exchange. Real bullets outperform bean bags every time.
The larger, ugly truth Napolitano and senior managers in the Border Patrol want to hide is that the rules of engagement and inadequate weaponry of the Border Patrol place the lives of all agents at grave risk. The National Border Patrol Council, which represents over 15,000 field agents, believes the border is too dangerous for officers to patrol without body armor, armored vehicles and automatic weapons.
Another aspect of this story that is not being reported is that the site of the shooting, Peck Canyon, is inside the area Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., has proposed to designate as the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness reserve. If Grijalva's bill is enacted into law, what is now a well-established drug smuggling corridor will become a drug-smuggling superhighway, because the Border Patrol will be prohibited from patrolling the region. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah has proposed legislation that will remove the restrictions on Border Patrol jurisdiction on such public lands within 50 miles of the border.
On Thursday, Secretary Napolitano and several aides flew to Tucson to meet with local Border Patrol brass. The Obama administration obviously has a mess on its hands, and Napolitano does not want it to blow up before today's U.S. Senate vote on the Dream Act. They know another murder on the southwest border will not help garner needed votes for the Dream Act, because senators supporting that bill must be able to say with a straight face, "The border is as secure as it has ever been."
Posts
