On Friday, February 2, 2007 the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a document titled: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. This is a political document. It is not the supposedly scientific document which is titled: IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
The “scientific” document is still being edited and will not be issued for several months. Yet the buggy whip media is using the political document to gin up hysteria among the gullible masses.
None of the fear mongers in the buggy whip press are bothering to mention the fact that the political document says right in the beginning that the “scientific” document is being edited to conform to the already released summary. That’s right. The U.N. politicians and bureaucrats wrote and released a summary of a report that isn’t written yet and is being edited to conform to their political summary.
The political summary itself says: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.” There is no outcry about this among the fear mongers. Contrast the total lack of reportage on this with the huge outcry in the buggy whip press when some language (no data) was allegedly altered in some US government climate reports.
Nor are the purveyors of panic giving much notice to the scientists like Dr. Chris Landsea who in his own words, resigned from the IPCC because:
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
That’s right. One of their own scientists who worked on the project for years wrote for it previously and was asked to write part of this report quit because the product is driven by pre-conceived agendas and is scientifically unsound.
It’s not part of the politically correct agenda so the buggy whip media relays only the apocalyptic view touted by media darlings like Al Gore rather than give a balanced report including all sides of the debate.
Dr. Timothy Ball’s excellent debunking of the IPCC political document Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? was almost totally ignored by the environmentally correct old media. Dr. Ball’s excellent piece starts with his credentials: “Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhDs. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.”
Other prominent scientists ignored by the hysteria merchants include Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Dr. Wegman’s basic conclusion on the scientific basis for the hypothesis of man-made global warming boils down to; “junk in, junk out”.
Another prominent scientist ignored by the old media is Dr. Richard S.J. Tol who was an IPCC author, is Editor of “Energy Economics”, and board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research at Hamburg University. Dr. Tol believes global warming is real but believes it benefits mankind, especially in the short term.
Duncan Wingham, professor of climate physics at University College London and principal scientist of the European Space Agency's CryoSat Mission, which is designed to measure changes in the Earth's ice masses. Dr. Wigman’s findings show that the scientific evidence to date “is not favorable to the notion we are seeing the results of global warming.”
Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, believes that changes in the sun's magnetic field, is the reason for global warming, not anything man has done. Dr. Nigel Weiss, past president of the Royal Astronomical Society and a mathematical aerophysicist at the University of Cambridge, also believes the Sun, not man, is responsible for changes in the Earth's climate. Adding weight to this view of global warming is the findings of Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatoryin Russia, and others, that Mars is also undergoing global warming. Even Al Gore should know that Mars has no greenhouse conditions and there is no activity by Martians to blame the warming on. Dr. Abdussamatov believes this shows it is solar irradiance, not carbon dioxide, which accounts for the recent rise in temperature.
Nor has the rapidly disintegrating buggy whip media bothered to mention that the U.N. and Ted Turner’s $1 Billion gift to that organization fund the IPCC scientists. Yet, they went ballistic when it was reported that Exxon was offering small stipends to scientists who are not caught up in proving the preconceived agenda of the U.N. and the far left.
Of course, yellow journalism like that is the reason the buggy whip press and the old broadcast media are losing readership, and viewers. They’ve lost credibility with all but the most radical leftists and the Oprah watchers. Still, much of the new media has been slow in getting out the real facts. Giving the fear mongers a bigger edge in the debate than they deserve. One exception in broadcast media has been Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Limbaugh has done yeoman’s work exposing the junk science and the political nature of the hysteria.
None of this will matter to the radical left, the environmental wackos, or to the perpetually scared. The gullible masses who believed the junk science from the same sources now spewing tainted conclusions about global warming when they said the Earth was cooling will now believe it is warming and that the warming is man-made.
Here are just a few quotes the old media used to excite the gullible in the 1970’s:
“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer” -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
“Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion” -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
“This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century” -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
“There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
“This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Nor will it matter to the perpetually scared that many of the scientists contributing to the tainted reports are radical leftists. Many of them belong to the radical Union of Concerned Scientists, a far left-wing activist group. David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom last month told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."
University of Virginia environmental scientist, Dr. Fred Singer, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."
One example of the political agenda of the “scientists at the UCS is this quote from Helen Caldicott; “Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth.” -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
This is the same Helen Caldicott who in 1982 made the ridicules claim that the Hershey Foods Corporation was producing chocolate carrying strontium 90 because of the proximity of the Three Mile Island incident to Hershey's factory. Her assertion was easily debunked and discredited but the fear mongers in the old media never gave the debunking the same coverage they gave the unfounded assertion. One can still find the claim on some environmentalists’ web sites along with the silliness about man-made global warming.
There is plenty of evidence that man-made global warming is no more real than man-made global cooling was. The people who believe professional wrestling is real will dismiss that evidence preferring to believe the tainted junk science put out by the U.N. and the radical left.
The more thoughtful among us will consider the source of the hysterical claims along with their record and their radical agenda and not join the gullible in believing the sky is falling.
###
Monday, February 12, 2007
Sunday, January 7, 2007
A Conservitive in 08?
Right now the prospects of having a conservative nominee in the 2008 presidential race are not looking good. The two frontrunners for the Republican nomination, McCain and Giuliani, are certainly not conservative and while Romney’s words are conservative his record is not.
The only conservative actually in the race right now is Rep. Duncan Hunter, but the MSM and the Republican establishment are ignoring the fact that he is running. Mr. Hunter is going to have to find a way to bypass the drive-by media and the Republican establishment, which is firmly in the hands of what we used to call “Rockefeller Republicans”, if he is going to have any chance at all.
There are delusional suggestions on Republican blogs that Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich might jump into the race. That’s not going to happen. Even if it did, neither of them can win a general election. Santorum couldn’t win reelection in his home state and Gingrich is so damaged by being forced out of the Speakers’ office almost any Democrat could beat him badly in a national race.
Of course, some conservative could still jump into the race, but time is running out for that to happen. The money and campaign staff needed to mount a serious race are quickly being committed to people who already took the plunge. Plus, the campaign is already under way.
Our 24/7 cable news networks, internet newspapers, and talk radio have lengthened the campaign season. It now starts the day after the mid-term congressional elections. That’s when the political insiders, political junkies, and activist groups start looking for a candidate to back in the primaries, and they are the people who choose who gets the nomination.
The elites within the party learned little since 1972, 1976 and 1980 when they condemned Ronald Reagan as too radical to win a national election. Conservatives finally broke the establishment blockade and gave Reagan the nomination in 1980. He won the general election in a landslide. In 1984 he was reelected in an even bigger landslide. Unfortunately, in 1988 the Rockefeller Republicans too back the party and have repeatedly nominated one of their own ever since.
Instead of learning that conservatives aren’t, as Donald Rumsfeld, Ford's chief of staff in 1976, described the Reagan supporters a "bunch of right-wing nuts", but are the ticket to winning big nationally. The Republican elites are still parroting President Ford’s fallacious warning in the 1980 primaries; "A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election", despite the historical evidence against that notion. But, they also learned how to out maneuver the conservatives.
It will be harder to take back the party than it was to take it in 1980. The Rockefeller Republicans now claim they are the conservatives. The MSM also calls them conservatives and the right wing. And the masses believe the deception.
They’ve also infiltrated most of the conservative organizations that backed Reagan against them in 1976 and 1980. Some of them play conservatives on talk radio and the talking head shows on television.
Barring some miracle, or a lot of hard work from conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans will again nominate one of their own in 2008. The results of that nomination will be to loose the White House, or another squeaker of a win.
But all is not lost yet. As late as March of 1980 it wasn’t sure that President Reagan would win the nomination and he was 25 points behind Carter in the national polls. But conservatives kicked up their efforts, won the nomination and won the election in a landslide. We can do it again. It won’t be easy. But it will be well worth the effort.
The country needs a conservative president in ’08. Republicans need to nominate another “right wing nut” like President Reagan if they hope to win another landslide.
Rep. Duncan Hunter may not be the man who can pull it off. He’s a Reagan conservative, a decorated combat veteran whose son served in Iraq. He’s been Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and understands the importance of a well trained, well equipped military in this troubled world.
He may not be the communicator President Reagan was and may not be able to get his message past the media and Republican establishment. Only time will tell. But right now, Mr. Hunter looks like the party’s only hope of nominating a conservative.
##
The only conservative actually in the race right now is Rep. Duncan Hunter, but the MSM and the Republican establishment are ignoring the fact that he is running. Mr. Hunter is going to have to find a way to bypass the drive-by media and the Republican establishment, which is firmly in the hands of what we used to call “Rockefeller Republicans”, if he is going to have any chance at all.
There are delusional suggestions on Republican blogs that Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich might jump into the race. That’s not going to happen. Even if it did, neither of them can win a general election. Santorum couldn’t win reelection in his home state and Gingrich is so damaged by being forced out of the Speakers’ office almost any Democrat could beat him badly in a national race.
Of course, some conservative could still jump into the race, but time is running out for that to happen. The money and campaign staff needed to mount a serious race are quickly being committed to people who already took the plunge. Plus, the campaign is already under way.
Our 24/7 cable news networks, internet newspapers, and talk radio have lengthened the campaign season. It now starts the day after the mid-term congressional elections. That’s when the political insiders, political junkies, and activist groups start looking for a candidate to back in the primaries, and they are the people who choose who gets the nomination.
The elites within the party learned little since 1972, 1976 and 1980 when they condemned Ronald Reagan as too radical to win a national election. Conservatives finally broke the establishment blockade and gave Reagan the nomination in 1980. He won the general election in a landslide. In 1984 he was reelected in an even bigger landslide. Unfortunately, in 1988 the Rockefeller Republicans too back the party and have repeatedly nominated one of their own ever since.
Instead of learning that conservatives aren’t, as Donald Rumsfeld, Ford's chief of staff in 1976, described the Reagan supporters a "bunch of right-wing nuts", but are the ticket to winning big nationally. The Republican elites are still parroting President Ford’s fallacious warning in the 1980 primaries; "A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election", despite the historical evidence against that notion. But, they also learned how to out maneuver the conservatives.
It will be harder to take back the party than it was to take it in 1980. The Rockefeller Republicans now claim they are the conservatives. The MSM also calls them conservatives and the right wing. And the masses believe the deception.
They’ve also infiltrated most of the conservative organizations that backed Reagan against them in 1976 and 1980. Some of them play conservatives on talk radio and the talking head shows on television.
Barring some miracle, or a lot of hard work from conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans will again nominate one of their own in 2008. The results of that nomination will be to loose the White House, or another squeaker of a win.
But all is not lost yet. As late as March of 1980 it wasn’t sure that President Reagan would win the nomination and he was 25 points behind Carter in the national polls. But conservatives kicked up their efforts, won the nomination and won the election in a landslide. We can do it again. It won’t be easy. But it will be well worth the effort.
The country needs a conservative president in ’08. Republicans need to nominate another “right wing nut” like President Reagan if they hope to win another landslide.
Rep. Duncan Hunter may not be the man who can pull it off. He’s a Reagan conservative, a decorated combat veteran whose son served in Iraq. He’s been Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and understands the importance of a well trained, well equipped military in this troubled world.
He may not be the communicator President Reagan was and may not be able to get his message past the media and Republican establishment. Only time will tell. But right now, Mr. Hunter looks like the party’s only hope of nominating a conservative.
##
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Globalists and Neo-cons Deny North American Union
The globalists and neo-cons are in an uproar because the American people aren’t interested in combining Mexico, Canada and the U.S. into a North American Union. The usual suspects are out in strength trying to explain away the evidence available to anyone who takes the time to look at it.
Michael Medved, the Stalinist Democrat turned neo-con, penned a whining rant on his blog about it, saying little except calling conservatives names and offering half truths, and totally irrational misstatements to deny the plan exists. For starters look at his claim about the NAFTA super highway.
He writes; “Another delusion usually associated with these fears involves the construction of a “Monster Highway” some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.” This is of course a total lie.
Every conservative web site and commentator opposed to the NAFTA super highway is fast to explain that its purpose is to connect the cheaper ports in Mexico with the markets in the U.S. and Canada bypassing the more expensive U.S. and Canadian longshoremen and stevedores as well as loading more freight on Mexican trucks with their cheaper drivers and fewer safety regulations. Medved acts like no such highway is planned, but one needs only look at the Texas Deportment of Transportation web site to see that it is not just planned but well on the way to being built.
One can also look at the Kansas City Inland Port web site to see that the NAFTA super highway will run through Kansas City and connect to major cities in the U.S. and Canada. The port will also include a Mexican Customs station. Medved mentions none of this in his sniveling whine. He just pretends the NAFTA super highway is a “delusion”.
He goes on to make the ridiculous claim that; “there’s no one anywhere near the Bush administration, the Congress of the United States, Cabinet departments or even major think tanks who believes it’s a good idea to merge Canada, Mexico and the U.S.”
Either Medved is seriously uninformed or he’s a liar. It’s harder to find a high ranking member of the administration who isn’t a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the group pushing hardest for the North American Union.
He then says; “Yes, there was one article in the journal Foreign Affairs that suggested further reducing trade barriers and economic obstacles in the style of the European Union . . . ” He fails to say that there is a whole taskforce at CFR called Creating a North American Community and one of the leaders of that task force is Dr. Robert A. Pastor the author of the 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community", where he also advocated the creation of a North American Union and creation of a common NAU currency, the Amero, as first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert Grubel. Nor does he mention that the taskforce has produced at least three reports including one calling for tri-national working groups to harmonize regulations, rules, and standards, and another praising the three countries for creating the suggested working groups under the title of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
Speaking of the SPP, Medved makes the completely asinine claim; “The then Presidents of the three countries (Bush, Fox and Martin) met in 2005 to pledge to work together on such issues and to initiate open working groups to facilitate cooperation – BUT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OR TREATY OR COVENANT of any kind, secret or otherwise.” However, he never explains how the SPP was created if there is no agreement or treaty or covenant to create it and the working groups that are churning out progress reports. Medved doesn’t explain who created the SPP if Bush, Fox and Martin didn’t agree to do it. Maybe, Medved thinks the government officials working on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America are doing it on their own with no agreement or sanction from those they are reporting to. Or, more likely considering it’s Medved, he thinks the SPP doesn’t really exist, and its web page and its progress reports are fiction put out by some vast right wing conspiracy.
What ever the case, other than name calling, lies and distortions, Medved offers nothing of any substance to counter the information put out by the powerful globalists who are working to merge the U.S. first into the North American Union and eventually into a one world government. But he’s right about one thing, the elitists and globalists are not keeping it a secret that they are planning a North American Union. Their plan is right out in the open for anyone who takes the time to look.
###
Michael Medved, the Stalinist Democrat turned neo-con, penned a whining rant on his blog about it, saying little except calling conservatives names and offering half truths, and totally irrational misstatements to deny the plan exists. For starters look at his claim about the NAFTA super highway.
He writes; “Another delusion usually associated with these fears involves the construction of a “Monster Highway” some sixteen lanes wide through Texas and the Great Plains, connecting the two nations on either side of the border for some nefarious but never-explained purpose.” This is of course a total lie.
Every conservative web site and commentator opposed to the NAFTA super highway is fast to explain that its purpose is to connect the cheaper ports in Mexico with the markets in the U.S. and Canada bypassing the more expensive U.S. and Canadian longshoremen and stevedores as well as loading more freight on Mexican trucks with their cheaper drivers and fewer safety regulations. Medved acts like no such highway is planned, but one needs only look at the Texas Deportment of Transportation web site to see that it is not just planned but well on the way to being built.
One can also look at the Kansas City Inland Port web site to see that the NAFTA super highway will run through Kansas City and connect to major cities in the U.S. and Canada. The port will also include a Mexican Customs station. Medved mentions none of this in his sniveling whine. He just pretends the NAFTA super highway is a “delusion”.
He goes on to make the ridiculous claim that; “there’s no one anywhere near the Bush administration, the Congress of the United States, Cabinet departments or even major think tanks who believes it’s a good idea to merge Canada, Mexico and the U.S.”
Either Medved is seriously uninformed or he’s a liar. It’s harder to find a high ranking member of the administration who isn’t a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the group pushing hardest for the North American Union.
He then says; “Yes, there was one article in the journal Foreign Affairs that suggested further reducing trade barriers and economic obstacles in the style of the European Union . . . ” He fails to say that there is a whole taskforce at CFR called Creating a North American Community and one of the leaders of that task force is Dr. Robert A. Pastor the author of the 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community", where he also advocated the creation of a North American Union and creation of a common NAU currency, the Amero, as first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert Grubel. Nor does he mention that the taskforce has produced at least three reports including one calling for tri-national working groups to harmonize regulations, rules, and standards, and another praising the three countries for creating the suggested working groups under the title of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
Speaking of the SPP, Medved makes the completely asinine claim; “The then Presidents of the three countries (Bush, Fox and Martin) met in 2005 to pledge to work together on such issues and to initiate open working groups to facilitate cooperation – BUT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OR TREATY OR COVENANT of any kind, secret or otherwise.” However, he never explains how the SPP was created if there is no agreement or treaty or covenant to create it and the working groups that are churning out progress reports. Medved doesn’t explain who created the SPP if Bush, Fox and Martin didn’t agree to do it. Maybe, Medved thinks the government officials working on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America are doing it on their own with no agreement or sanction from those they are reporting to. Or, more likely considering it’s Medved, he thinks the SPP doesn’t really exist, and its web page and its progress reports are fiction put out by some vast right wing conspiracy.
What ever the case, other than name calling, lies and distortions, Medved offers nothing of any substance to counter the information put out by the powerful globalists who are working to merge the U.S. first into the North American Union and eventually into a one world government. But he’s right about one thing, the elitists and globalists are not keeping it a secret that they are planning a North American Union. Their plan is right out in the open for anyone who takes the time to look.
###
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Out with the New - In With the Raw
Democrats used to be the party of the New Deal. For over seven decades they held themselves out to be the party of the little guy. They were the champions of the average man. They were the fighting the Republicans and the evil corporations.
Well, that’s no longer true. They still try to make that claim, but anyone who tells you that is a liar.
Today, all but a handful of Democrats are in bed with George Bush and a pack of criminal corporations fighting against the American people. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leadership are not just siding with scum like Bush, McCain, and Specter, to help some criminal corporations screw the American worker; they are the spearhead of that fight.
The New Deal is being replaced with the Raw Deal and Democrats are leading the charge to make it happen. Democrats are working desperately to ram Bush’s amnesty for illegal aliens down America’s throat. Not only that; they are trying to pass amnesty for the criminal companies and executives who have been exploiting the illegal aliens and driving American wages down.
Gone are the days when Democrats sided with labor leaders like Cezar Chavez to keep illegal aliens from coming here and driving down our wages. Mr. Chavez fought tirelessly and valiantly against illegal aliens in his quest to help farm workers. He knew the economics of importing illegal, cheap, unskilled labor. It keeps wages down and gives the employer the opportunity to exploit the workforce with impunity. Mr. Chavez picketed the offices of the I.N.S. and led United Farm Workers in marches and demonstrations against illegal aliens. He led squads of Hispanic-American men in patrols on the border that were much like the Minutemen patrols of today.
Democrat leaders are siding with Bush and the criminal companies and ignoring groups like "You Don't Speak for Me," a national group of Hispanic Americans who also oppose amnesty for illegals and oppose amnesty for their criminal employers.
The Democrat party is also turning its back on its most loyal constituency, Blacks.
Groups like Choose Black America, the Crispus Attucks Brigade, and the Alamo Coalition agree with Rev. Jesse Peterson, that the Bush/Kennedy/Pelosi plan for amnesty and guest workers is “a disaster for all Americans that will hit black citizens the hardest."
In May of ’06 at a press conference Chose Black America held at the Washington Press Club, Bush's line that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans "are not taking" was ridiculed as a "flimsy excuse" by James E. Clingman, a columnist, University of Cincinnati professor and founder of the Greater Cincinnati African American Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Clingman said: "Pay us a living wage, and we will work for those jobs."
But it isn’t just Hispanic-Americans and Black Americans who are hurt by illegal immigration and the sleazy politicians in both parties who support it. As we saw after the raids on the Swift Company Americans of all kinds stood in long lines to get the jobs vacated by the illegals. They wanted those jobs even though wages in the meatpacking industry has gone down over the past decade as more and more Americans were replaced with illegals.
In a telephone interview for this column, Rev. Michael Rodgers of the Alamo Coalition said; “Democrats take the Black vote for granted. They think they can do anything they want to us and we’ll still vote for them. Those days are gone.”
He went on to say; “Look at the last Presidential election. Bush won because of the Black vote in Ohio. He took over 14% of the Black vote in Ohio which was more than his margin of victory in that state. Without Ohio, Florida was meaningless.”
He went on to say that Black Christians in Ohio abandoned Kerry because of his support for abortion and gay marriage. He also talked about how a generation ago Blacks couldn’t work construction jobs because of Jim Crow and today they are losing those jobs because illegals will do the work for less money.
Rev. Rodgers also said “Bush, and the Democrats siding with him, think we’re going to sit back and be last hired, first fired behind a bunch of illegal aliens who shouldn’t even be here are in for a surprise. That ain’t going to happen.”
Democrats who think they can side with Bush against the American people and continue to win elections should take a look at what really happened in the November election instead of what the Open Border Lobby says happened. For example, 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress. But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress
* 9.6% with an A grade lost
* 25.0% with an F grade lost
* 9.2% with a B grade lost
* 6.4% with a C grade lost
* 9.5% with a D grade lost
Nor, is it true that Hispanics voted against Republicans because of their support for enforcing the law and protecting American workers. Gabriel Escobar, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, commenting on their exit polls said; “It is important to note that immigration in the Latino population is never a top-tier issue,”
The Pew Hispanic Center’s exit polling indicated that Hispanic voters turned away from the Republicans because of dissatisfaction with the handling of the war in Iraq, insecurity about the economy and their own middle class jobs. In other words Hispanic voters turned against Republicans for the identical reasons that many non-Hispanic voters did in this election.
Rather than the myth the pro-criminal mainstream media is pushing, the poll results show the driving forces behind the voting decisions of Hispanics, was very much the same as they were for voters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. “It may be that this election was more a reflection of this Democratic wave than any sort of fixed tack to the right or left by the Latino voters,” Escobar said.
So why are Democrats siding with Bush against the American people? It’s most likely because the criminal employers who want to use illegal aliens to drive American wages down even further, have very deep pockets and a virtual monopoly on the mainstream media. The Democrats, and some sleazy Republicans, think they can ride big contributions and good press in the mainstream media to victory in ’08.
My bet is they are wrong!
Well, that’s no longer true. They still try to make that claim, but anyone who tells you that is a liar.
Today, all but a handful of Democrats are in bed with George Bush and a pack of criminal corporations fighting against the American people. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leadership are not just siding with scum like Bush, McCain, and Specter, to help some criminal corporations screw the American worker; they are the spearhead of that fight.
The New Deal is being replaced with the Raw Deal and Democrats are leading the charge to make it happen. Democrats are working desperately to ram Bush’s amnesty for illegal aliens down America’s throat. Not only that; they are trying to pass amnesty for the criminal companies and executives who have been exploiting the illegal aliens and driving American wages down.
Gone are the days when Democrats sided with labor leaders like Cezar Chavez to keep illegal aliens from coming here and driving down our wages. Mr. Chavez fought tirelessly and valiantly against illegal aliens in his quest to help farm workers. He knew the economics of importing illegal, cheap, unskilled labor. It keeps wages down and gives the employer the opportunity to exploit the workforce with impunity. Mr. Chavez picketed the offices of the I.N.S. and led United Farm Workers in marches and demonstrations against illegal aliens. He led squads of Hispanic-American men in patrols on the border that were much like the Minutemen patrols of today.
Democrat leaders are siding with Bush and the criminal companies and ignoring groups like "You Don't Speak for Me," a national group of Hispanic Americans who also oppose amnesty for illegals and oppose amnesty for their criminal employers.
The Democrat party is also turning its back on its most loyal constituency, Blacks.
Groups like Choose Black America, the Crispus Attucks Brigade, and the Alamo Coalition agree with Rev. Jesse Peterson, that the Bush/Kennedy/Pelosi plan for amnesty and guest workers is “a disaster for all Americans that will hit black citizens the hardest."
In May of ’06 at a press conference Chose Black America held at the Washington Press Club, Bush's line that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans "are not taking" was ridiculed as a "flimsy excuse" by James E. Clingman, a columnist, University of Cincinnati professor and founder of the Greater Cincinnati African American Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Clingman said: "Pay us a living wage, and we will work for those jobs."
But it isn’t just Hispanic-Americans and Black Americans who are hurt by illegal immigration and the sleazy politicians in both parties who support it. As we saw after the raids on the Swift Company Americans of all kinds stood in long lines to get the jobs vacated by the illegals. They wanted those jobs even though wages in the meatpacking industry has gone down over the past decade as more and more Americans were replaced with illegals.
In a telephone interview for this column, Rev. Michael Rodgers of the Alamo Coalition said; “Democrats take the Black vote for granted. They think they can do anything they want to us and we’ll still vote for them. Those days are gone.”
He went on to say; “Look at the last Presidential election. Bush won because of the Black vote in Ohio. He took over 14% of the Black vote in Ohio which was more than his margin of victory in that state. Without Ohio, Florida was meaningless.”
He went on to say that Black Christians in Ohio abandoned Kerry because of his support for abortion and gay marriage. He also talked about how a generation ago Blacks couldn’t work construction jobs because of Jim Crow and today they are losing those jobs because illegals will do the work for less money.
Rev. Rodgers also said “Bush, and the Democrats siding with him, think we’re going to sit back and be last hired, first fired behind a bunch of illegal aliens who shouldn’t even be here are in for a surprise. That ain’t going to happen.”
Democrats who think they can side with Bush against the American people and continue to win elections should take a look at what really happened in the November election instead of what the Open Border Lobby says happened. For example, 11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress. But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress
* 9.6% with an A grade lost
* 25.0% with an F grade lost
* 9.2% with a B grade lost
* 6.4% with a C grade lost
* 9.5% with a D grade lost
Nor, is it true that Hispanics voted against Republicans because of their support for enforcing the law and protecting American workers. Gabriel Escobar, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, commenting on their exit polls said; “It is important to note that immigration in the Latino population is never a top-tier issue,”
The Pew Hispanic Center’s exit polling indicated that Hispanic voters turned away from the Republicans because of dissatisfaction with the handling of the war in Iraq, insecurity about the economy and their own middle class jobs. In other words Hispanic voters turned against Republicans for the identical reasons that many non-Hispanic voters did in this election.
Rather than the myth the pro-criminal mainstream media is pushing, the poll results show the driving forces behind the voting decisions of Hispanics, was very much the same as they were for voters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. “It may be that this election was more a reflection of this Democratic wave than any sort of fixed tack to the right or left by the Latino voters,” Escobar said.
So why are Democrats siding with Bush against the American people? It’s most likely because the criminal employers who want to use illegal aliens to drive American wages down even further, have very deep pockets and a virtual monopoly on the mainstream media. The Democrats, and some sleazy Republicans, think they can ride big contributions and good press in the mainstream media to victory in ’08.
My bet is they are wrong!
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Whose Side Are Democrats On
Democrats led the fight to fix the most egregious parts of the misnamed Patriot Act. However, they, along with the conservative Republicans, caved into George Bush and his statist minions and passed Patriot Act II with none of the fixes and some provisions that are even more outrageous than were in the original law.
Now that the Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress, the question is will they go back and repeal the worst parts of these very bad laws, or were they just posturing? Were they serious about protecting liberty or just opposed to a Republican president pushing through a favorite piece of legislation?
Sen. Russ Feingold and Sen. Harry Reid were very outspoken about the evil wrapped in Patriot I and II. Yet, the Senate caved in, including most Democrats, when Bush and Arlen Specter offered a “compromise” that Specter bragged was nothing more than a way to “. . . provide enough cover for Senators to change their vote."
Of course it isn’t just ultra liberals like Feingold who are concerned over the excesses of the misnamed Patriot Act. Rep. Don Young, a conservative from Alaska who has a Kodiak bearskin displayed in his office as a poke at the environmental nut jobs, says the Patriot Act is: (the) "Worst act we ever passed."
Ron Wyden, a liberal Oregon Democrat, and Lisa Murkowski, a moderate Alaska Republican, introduced legislation to cut the Patriot Act back sharply. The war on terror and the rights of Americans must be balanced, said Murkowski, who went on to say: "To date it appears portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales out of balance."
The excesses of the Patriot Act and the insidious Patriot Act II are well known to those who pay attention to what is going on in government and have brought together people from across the political spectrum in the fight against these excesses. The far left ACLU and the conservative groups, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, and the Eagle Forum are all against these affronts to the basic liberties that have defined our nation for 200 years.
Bush, Specter and a cabal of neo-cons and statists have duped the ever fearful among us into accepting as truth their claim that it is necessary to forfeit essential liberties and rights for the illusion of temporary security. Political hacks in both parties have gone along to garner votes from the Jerry Springer-Nancy Grace-Jerry Rivers watchers. Rather than fight for the liberties and rights that have traditionally been the shared values of the Right and the Left, hacks have gone along with the neo-cons and statists for putting their own careers ahead of what’s good for the nation.
Well, it’s time to see if Democrats were posturing or were serious about defending liberty. As of today the prospects do not look good.
Rather than announce that he is going to immediately introduce legislation to fix the excesses of the Patriot Act I and II, Harry Reid announced that he will immediately introduce a bill to grant Bush his wet dream of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and immunity for their criminal employers.
He announced that he is siding with Bush and the criminal businesses against the American people. Rather than fighting Bush and these criminal businesses, Reid will join their assault on American workers.
Reid has announced that he will push through S-2611 and that Bush will sign it. This bill will create blanket amnesty for illegal aliens who are raping our welfare system, medical care and schools and driving down wages. It will also give amnesty to the criminal employers who hired illegal aliens instead of American workers.
The bill forgives felonies of illegal aliens who have stolen Social Security card numbers and identities of U.S. citizens and allows past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits. It makes parents of temporary workers who have never paid into Social Security eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits. This is a sure fire way to send our Social Security system into quicker bankruptcy.
So as it stands now, it looks like Reid and his Democrat majority are not going to fight for Americans’ liberty. Instead, they seem hell bent on joining Bush in his attack on the American people.
###
Now that the Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress, the question is will they go back and repeal the worst parts of these very bad laws, or were they just posturing? Were they serious about protecting liberty or just opposed to a Republican president pushing through a favorite piece of legislation?
Sen. Russ Feingold and Sen. Harry Reid were very outspoken about the evil wrapped in Patriot I and II. Yet, the Senate caved in, including most Democrats, when Bush and Arlen Specter offered a “compromise” that Specter bragged was nothing more than a way to “. . . provide enough cover for Senators to change their vote."
Of course it isn’t just ultra liberals like Feingold who are concerned over the excesses of the misnamed Patriot Act. Rep. Don Young, a conservative from Alaska who has a Kodiak bearskin displayed in his office as a poke at the environmental nut jobs, says the Patriot Act is: (the) "Worst act we ever passed."
Ron Wyden, a liberal Oregon Democrat, and Lisa Murkowski, a moderate Alaska Republican, introduced legislation to cut the Patriot Act back sharply. The war on terror and the rights of Americans must be balanced, said Murkowski, who went on to say: "To date it appears portions of the Patriot Act may have moved the scales out of balance."
The excesses of the Patriot Act and the insidious Patriot Act II are well known to those who pay attention to what is going on in government and have brought together people from across the political spectrum in the fight against these excesses. The far left ACLU and the conservative groups, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, and the Eagle Forum are all against these affronts to the basic liberties that have defined our nation for 200 years.
Bush, Specter and a cabal of neo-cons and statists have duped the ever fearful among us into accepting as truth their claim that it is necessary to forfeit essential liberties and rights for the illusion of temporary security. Political hacks in both parties have gone along to garner votes from the Jerry Springer-Nancy Grace-Jerry Rivers watchers. Rather than fight for the liberties and rights that have traditionally been the shared values of the Right and the Left, hacks have gone along with the neo-cons and statists for putting their own careers ahead of what’s good for the nation.
Well, it’s time to see if Democrats were posturing or were serious about defending liberty. As of today the prospects do not look good.
Rather than announce that he is going to immediately introduce legislation to fix the excesses of the Patriot Act I and II, Harry Reid announced that he will immediately introduce a bill to grant Bush his wet dream of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and immunity for their criminal employers.
He announced that he is siding with Bush and the criminal businesses against the American people. Rather than fighting Bush and these criminal businesses, Reid will join their assault on American workers.
Reid has announced that he will push through S-2611 and that Bush will sign it. This bill will create blanket amnesty for illegal aliens who are raping our welfare system, medical care and schools and driving down wages. It will also give amnesty to the criminal employers who hired illegal aliens instead of American workers.
The bill forgives felonies of illegal aliens who have stolen Social Security card numbers and identities of U.S. citizens and allows past illegal work to qualify for Social Security benefits. It makes parents of temporary workers who have never paid into Social Security eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits. This is a sure fire way to send our Social Security system into quicker bankruptcy.
So as it stands now, it looks like Reid and his Democrat majority are not going to fight for Americans’ liberty. Instead, they seem hell bent on joining Bush in his attack on the American people.
###
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Neither Giuliani nor McCain Can Win in ‘08
The MSM and the Christie Todd Whitman- Arlen Specter wing of the Republican Party are falling all over themselves to convince Republican voters that their only choice for the party’s nomination for President in ’08 is between Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. While the MSM and RINOs like Whitman and Specter tell us a conservative can’t win the general election, some posters on Republican blogs are claiming Giuliani and McCain are conservatives.
There is almost a total blackout in the media, on talk radio, and even on the Republican blogs, about the real problems both of these men have in winning the general election. In fact, choosing either of these men is a sure recipe for electing whoever the Democrats nominate.
Both men have a problem with women that will cost votes. The MSM is ignoring these problems but the Democrat attack machine will not.
Giuliani had at least one and probably two, affairs while in office. He denies the one, but his ex-wife makes the case that he had an adulterous affair with Cristyne Lategano-Nicholas, a staff member in his administration. The other he doesn’t deny. In fact, he is now married to the woman he was cheating with.
Multiple affairs may not cause many people in this day and age to not vote for someone. However, in the case of the of the affair he admits, he not only had a very public affair, escorting Judith Nathan around New York while still married, but he announced in a press conference that he was leaving his wife. He never told his wife. She, and his children, learned he was leaving when he announced it publicly at the press conference. Many women will not overlook treating his wife that way. For many Christians, both men and women, who are already put off by Giuliani’s support for abortion, even including partial-birth abortion, Giuliani’s treatment of his wife and children is a deal killer they will not overlook.
McCain has a similar problem. He left his wife, who stayed with him throughout his captivity and fought fiercely for his release when she became crippled in a car accident. Making matters worse, he married a junkie who, instead of spending her own money for her drugs, stole them from a charity she worked for.
Leaving a healthy wife is one thing. Leaving your wife when she becomes injured is another. Leaving your crippled wife for a junky thief is the kind of thing that political operatives dream of using against an opponent.
Democrats are chomping at the bit to go after either Giuliani or McCain on this issue. They are still smarting from Republican pundits saying that Clinton’s affair showed that he didn’t have the character to be president. They can’t wait for James Carville or some other pundit to throw out the character issue against Republican pundits who attacked Clinton for being unfaithful and accuse them of hypocrisy when they try to defend this.
After the 2000 election Karl Rove spoke often about the 4 million Christians who didn't turn out in to vote. He made a big push to get them out in 2004, including an unprecedented push in Black churches.
The strategy paid off. In 2004 Bush won more than double the number of Black votes in Ohio as he won in 2000. The 14% of the Black vote he won in Ohio gave him the state and the election. Had he lost Ohio, the Florida vote would have been meaningless.
If Republicans lose a substantial number of Christian votes plus lose some conservative voters who, for one reason or another, will not vote for Giuliani or McCain, the election is lost. There aren’t enough swing votes to make up the difference. Nor are there enough “character doesn’t matter” voters to make up the difference.
Nominating either Giuliani or McCain is political suicide for the Republican Party. That’s probably why the MSM is pushing them so hard.
###
There is almost a total blackout in the media, on talk radio, and even on the Republican blogs, about the real problems both of these men have in winning the general election. In fact, choosing either of these men is a sure recipe for electing whoever the Democrats nominate.
Both men have a problem with women that will cost votes. The MSM is ignoring these problems but the Democrat attack machine will not.
Giuliani had at least one and probably two, affairs while in office. He denies the one, but his ex-wife makes the case that he had an adulterous affair with Cristyne Lategano-Nicholas, a staff member in his administration. The other he doesn’t deny. In fact, he is now married to the woman he was cheating with.
Multiple affairs may not cause many people in this day and age to not vote for someone. However, in the case of the of the affair he admits, he not only had a very public affair, escorting Judith Nathan around New York while still married, but he announced in a press conference that he was leaving his wife. He never told his wife. She, and his children, learned he was leaving when he announced it publicly at the press conference. Many women will not overlook treating his wife that way. For many Christians, both men and women, who are already put off by Giuliani’s support for abortion, even including partial-birth abortion, Giuliani’s treatment of his wife and children is a deal killer they will not overlook.
McCain has a similar problem. He left his wife, who stayed with him throughout his captivity and fought fiercely for his release when she became crippled in a car accident. Making matters worse, he married a junkie who, instead of spending her own money for her drugs, stole them from a charity she worked for.
Leaving a healthy wife is one thing. Leaving your wife when she becomes injured is another. Leaving your crippled wife for a junky thief is the kind of thing that political operatives dream of using against an opponent.
Democrats are chomping at the bit to go after either Giuliani or McCain on this issue. They are still smarting from Republican pundits saying that Clinton’s affair showed that he didn’t have the character to be president. They can’t wait for James Carville or some other pundit to throw out the character issue against Republican pundits who attacked Clinton for being unfaithful and accuse them of hypocrisy when they try to defend this.
After the 2000 election Karl Rove spoke often about the 4 million Christians who didn't turn out in to vote. He made a big push to get them out in 2004, including an unprecedented push in Black churches.
The strategy paid off. In 2004 Bush won more than double the number of Black votes in Ohio as he won in 2000. The 14% of the Black vote he won in Ohio gave him the state and the election. Had he lost Ohio, the Florida vote would have been meaningless.
If Republicans lose a substantial number of Christian votes plus lose some conservative voters who, for one reason or another, will not vote for Giuliani or McCain, the election is lost. There aren’t enough swing votes to make up the difference. Nor are there enough “character doesn’t matter” voters to make up the difference.
Nominating either Giuliani or McCain is political suicide for the Republican Party. That’s probably why the MSM is pushing them so hard.
###
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The Fight For Liberty Never Ends
Back when George Herbert Walker Bush and was in office, and continuing through the years that Clinton was in office, the Republican spin machine bemoaned the Democrat calls for investigations of Republicans when there was scant evidence a crime occurred. “It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.” They told us was the Democrat mantra, but it was not a reason to launch an investigation. They continued this whine every time a Democrat called for an investigation into the actions of George Walker Bush or one of his minions.
Now they are following the same path. “It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.”: is now their mantra, just like it was for Democrats not all that long ago. But today, they aren’t using this excuse to investigate possible corruption in government, or misdeeds of public officials. They are using this rant to gut the Bill of Rights.
Under the ridiculously misnamed “Patriot” Act and the even more odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, any American can be spied on, detained without access to a lawyer, or habeas corpus, imprisoned indefinitely without a trial, or even any presentation of evidence against him. All that’s required for any American to be held indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, without charges being brought, and without access to our courts, is for the President, the Attorney General, or some designated bureaucrat, to declare him an illegal enemy combatant or a terrorist. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.
There are no hard and fast rules as to what offences the accused must commit to be treated this way. Nor, is there any oversight by Congress or the courts. It goes without saying, there is no provision for punishing a President or Attorney General who unjustly declares a political opponent an illegal combatant and jails him for nothing more than political dissent. We are told to trust the government that this power is not, and will never be, abused.
The Bush administration, and their apologists in Congress, and the media, tell us this power is needed to keep us safe. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of any evidence; they opine as they demand ever greater, more intrusive, power with ever fewer safeguards, and ever fewer individual rights.
Federal agents no longer need a court issued warrant and probable cause to spy on U.S. citizens. They can issue their own “administrative warrants” just because someone looks suspicious to them.
The administration and their sock puppets claim this loss of freedom is necessary to save lives from people who want to kill us. They claim that we can no longer afford the freedoms we’ve enjoyed for the past 200 years because the world is different now. And the ever fearful, sheep who prize security above freedom and liberty don’t just accept these assaults on our human freedoms, they embrace them. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.
Of course, this contest between those who value liberty over supposed security, and those who love “the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,” is not new. It’s been around longer than our Republic. William Pitt warned: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
President John Adams warned against letting politicians erode freedom; “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
Samuel Adams was less tolerant of the fearful who were satisfied to be British subjects; after all, they were citizens of the freest country on earth at that time. No other people had the Magna Charta or the protections Blackstone called “The Rights of Englishmen.” Mr. Adams, in a speech in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776 told the ever fearful: “. . . go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
In our own lifetime the ever fearful wanted security more than liberty. In the ‘50s I can remember standing up to a teacher who was telling us that freedom meant nothing if we were dead. She was one of the “better Red than Dead” whiners of that day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower confronted the ever fearful and told them; “If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.”
In previous generations, those who valued liberty and freedom more than the supposed security of an all powerful, intrusive government prevailed. But that started to change in the ‘70s and accelerated since then. Today the tide has turned against the freedoms our forefathers shed their blood and treasure to pass down to us. Security is all important. Liberty and freedom are the bastard step-children in this new Orwellian society the ever fearful are creating.
It’s well past time to change this. Let the ever fearful snivelers take their leave from us. Instead of going to prison as President Eisenhower suggested, let them move to North Korea or Cuba where they will be safe from terrorists and violence. They should feel safe there. There has never been a terrorist attack in North Korea. The government is powerful enough and intrusive enough to keep the population safe from these criminals.
Leave America to those of us who value freedom and liberty more than life and who care more about our rights than who is dancing with the stars or who got thrown off the island. Leave America to those of us who prefer the challenge of liberty to the chains of a government strong enough and intrusive enough to protect us from every peril.
The Mohammedan hoards cannot enslave us any more than the Communists could a generation ago. They might kill us, but they can never enslave us or take our freedom.
Our own government can enslave us and can take our freedom, but only if we allow it. The ever fearful and the statists are not just accepting our loss of liberty, they are demanding it. Conservatives must stand up to them and fight their fascist, big government, agenda. Conservatives must stop the weak and fearful from turning our Republic into the police state they covet.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Now they are following the same path. “It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.”: is now their mantra, just like it was for Democrats not all that long ago. But today, they aren’t using this excuse to investigate possible corruption in government, or misdeeds of public officials. They are using this rant to gut the Bill of Rights.
Under the ridiculously misnamed “Patriot” Act and the even more odious Military Commissions Act of 2006, any American can be spied on, detained without access to a lawyer, or habeas corpus, imprisoned indefinitely without a trial, or even any presentation of evidence against him. All that’s required for any American to be held indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, without charges being brought, and without access to our courts, is for the President, the Attorney General, or some designated bureaucrat, to declare him an illegal enemy combatant or a terrorist. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.
There are no hard and fast rules as to what offences the accused must commit to be treated this way. Nor, is there any oversight by Congress or the courts. It goes without saying, there is no provision for punishing a President or Attorney General who unjustly declares a political opponent an illegal combatant and jails him for nothing more than political dissent. We are told to trust the government that this power is not, and will never be, abused.
The Bush administration, and their apologists in Congress, and the media, tell us this power is needed to keep us safe. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of any evidence; they opine as they demand ever greater, more intrusive, power with ever fewer safeguards, and ever fewer individual rights.
Federal agents no longer need a court issued warrant and probable cause to spy on U.S. citizens. They can issue their own “administrative warrants” just because someone looks suspicious to them.
The administration and their sock puppets claim this loss of freedom is necessary to save lives from people who want to kill us. They claim that we can no longer afford the freedoms we’ve enjoyed for the past 200 years because the world is different now. And the ever fearful, sheep who prize security above freedom and liberty don’t just accept these assaults on our human freedoms, they embrace them. It’s the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the presence of hard evidence.
Of course, this contest between those who value liberty over supposed security, and those who love “the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,” is not new. It’s been around longer than our Republic. William Pitt warned: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
President John Adams warned against letting politicians erode freedom; “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
Samuel Adams was less tolerant of the fearful who were satisfied to be British subjects; after all, they were citizens of the freest country on earth at that time. No other people had the Magna Charta or the protections Blackstone called “The Rights of Englishmen.” Mr. Adams, in a speech in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776 told the ever fearful: “. . . go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
In our own lifetime the ever fearful wanted security more than liberty. In the ‘50s I can remember standing up to a teacher who was telling us that freedom meant nothing if we were dead. She was one of the “better Red than Dead” whiners of that day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower confronted the ever fearful and told them; “If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.”
In previous generations, those who valued liberty and freedom more than the supposed security of an all powerful, intrusive government prevailed. But that started to change in the ‘70s and accelerated since then. Today the tide has turned against the freedoms our forefathers shed their blood and treasure to pass down to us. Security is all important. Liberty and freedom are the bastard step-children in this new Orwellian society the ever fearful are creating.
It’s well past time to change this. Let the ever fearful snivelers take their leave from us. Instead of going to prison as President Eisenhower suggested, let them move to North Korea or Cuba where they will be safe from terrorists and violence. They should feel safe there. There has never been a terrorist attack in North Korea. The government is powerful enough and intrusive enough to keep the population safe from these criminals.
Leave America to those of us who value freedom and liberty more than life and who care more about our rights than who is dancing with the stars or who got thrown off the island. Leave America to those of us who prefer the challenge of liberty to the chains of a government strong enough and intrusive enough to protect us from every peril.
The Mohammedan hoards cannot enslave us any more than the Communists could a generation ago. They might kill us, but they can never enslave us or take our freedom.
Our own government can enslave us and can take our freedom, but only if we allow it. The ever fearful and the statists are not just accepting our loss of liberty, they are demanding it. Conservatives must stand up to them and fight their fascist, big government, agenda. Conservatives must stop the weak and fearful from turning our Republic into the police state they covet.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)