FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 2013
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Hillary What Difference Does It Make

It’s no secret to anyone who watches any newscast—even once a week—that the Obama syndicate (aka Executive Branch of the US government) has been flexing its muscles, in order to take over all governmental power, since Obama and his Marxist entourage we installed in the White House in 2009. Obama has successfully cowed the US Supreme Court, as well as an increasingly wimpy and supplicant (until—perhaps—recently) Congress into submission to the dictator in chief. However, with the legitimate and vital-to-the-country’s-survival investigations into Benghazi, the IRS (did you know their agents are now training with AR-15s to be used against us?), extreme data mining (involving at least half of all US citizens’ phone, Internet and email records being seized by the ObamaGov) and the Obama/Holder attempts to silence and “potentially” prosecute reporters—including the Associated Press and Fox News’ James Rosen—in order to end the First Amendment’s freedom of speech)—maybe…just maybe…there is a faint glimmer of hope for us. These investigations must be followed to wherever they ultimately lead—no matter how high the office—or we will be irrevocably lost as a nation. The ObamaScandals are coming fast & furiously (pun both appropriate and intended) with new ones seeming to crop up each day. There is now an (what we’ve known for a long time) exposed scandal involving NSA data mining of hundreds of millions of Americans’ phone records, Internet keystrokes and once-private Email content. Note: The Obama NSA says that they must get a court-order to actually listen to calls. Interesting because, as my friends and colleagues will attest, the well-known “beep” tone that indicates one’s calls are not only being monitored but, also recorded has been my call-companion for over 2 years. Prior to this, I had no idea the ObamaGov considered me to be so dangerous. Hillary Clinton’s State Department has also been exposed as to its apparent prostitution and drug rings (that continued—unabated—during her reign at the US State Department). In the Capitol states from a “leaked” State Department memo: “For starters, the memo states that Belgian Ambassador Howard Gutman “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children,” and that embassy staff were “were well aware of the behavior.” A Diplomatic Security agent that began investigating the allegations was apparently called off the case by Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.” There are no less than four scandals currently in progress at Obama’s EPA. These involve, according to Hot Air, the following: 1. “The EPA gave an ethics award to fake employee, “Richard Windsor,” who was already just an unethically created e-mail alias for the agency’s former head, Lisa P. Jackson 2. “The EPA makes conservatives pay a fortune for FOIAs to be granted while waiving fees for liberal groups 3. “EPA contractors are basically Gym, Tan, Laundrying [sic] in new, swanky rec rooms thanks to your tax money 4. “The EPA leaked confidential information on farmers and cattle facilities to environmental groups. No bigs. [sic]” The Benghazi, apparently, okayed-from-the-highest-position-in-US-government assassinations of four Americans are, again, moving to the forefront of investigations, the Obama-IRS scandal (involving the Gestapo-like “punishment” of those who oppose the Obama syndicate’s dark plans now destroying our country) is still ongoing—while the leftist media begins to backtrack on their original negative stories about it and are now concocting new false ones. And now there is an old one beginning to, again, rear its intimidation head. Although the intimidation and threats were surmised by many (and apparently accurately) when they occurred, that of SCOTUS CJ John Roberts’ siding (unconstitutionally) with the Left on ObamaCare the evidence may now be revealed. Rumors—and they’re just that for now—are that there is a memo (or are memos) in the possession of Glenn Beck showing that CJ John Roberts was blackmailed into voting for ObamaCare. I have been writing since October 2008 that if we don’t get rid of Obama, he will get rid of us and that if we do not rise up as a nation of Constitutionalists and fight the Obama syndicate, the USA will end up being the most corrupt and brutal in human history… Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Will Millions and millions of US citizens will be rounded up and assassinated for their opposition to imposed slavery? Many in the media-celebrity class are now beginning to speak the same thing; what a shame that it took almost five years for them to do so. We have reached the end and there is no more time, folks. The Luciferian takeover is already in progress. Be careful which side you choose and may God bless you and your loved ones. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth”—Rev 15-16

It’s no secret to anyone who watches any newscast—even once a week—that the Obama syndicate (aka Executive Branch of the US government) has been flexing its muscles, in order to take over all governmental power, since Obama and his Marxist entourage we installed in the White House in 2009. Obama has successfully cowed the US Supreme Court, as well as an increasingly wimpy and supplicant (until—perhaps—recently) Congress into submission to the dictator in chief. However, with the legitimate and vital-to-the-country’s-survival investigations into Benghazi, the IRS (did you know their agents are now training with AR-15s to be used against us?), extreme data mining (involving at least half of all US citizens’ phone, Internet and email records being seized by the ObamaGov) and the Obama/Holder attempts to silence and “potentially” prosecute reporters—including the Associated Press and Fox News’ James Rosen—in order to end the First Amendment’s freedom of speech)—maybe…just maybe…there is a faint glimmer of hope for us. These investigations must be followed to wherever they ultimately lead—no matter how high the office—or we will be irrevocably lost as a nation. The ObamaScandals are coming fast & furiously (pun both appropriate and intended) with new ones seeming to crop up each day. There is now an (what we’ve known for a long time) exposed scandal involving NSA data mining of hundreds of millions of Americans’ phone records, Internet keystrokes and once-private Email content. Note: The Obama NSA says that they must get a court-order to actually listen to calls. Interesting because, as my friends and colleagues will attest, the well-known “beep” tone that indicates one’s calls are not only being monitored but, also recorded has been my call-companion for over 2 years. Prior to this, I had no idea the ObamaGov considered me to be so dangerous. Hillary Clinton’s State Department has also been exposed as to its apparent prostitution and drug rings (that continued—unabated—during her reign at the US State Department). In the Capitol states from a “leaked” State Department memo: “For starters, the memo states that Belgian Ambassador Howard Gutman “routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children,” and that embassy staff were “were well aware of the behavior.” A Diplomatic Security agent that began investigating the allegations was apparently called off the case by Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.” There are no less than four scandals currently in progress at Obama’s EPA. These involve, according to Hot Air, the following: 1. “The EPA gave an ethics award to fake employee, “Richard Windsor,” who was already just an unethically created e-mail alias for the agency’s former head, Lisa P. Jackson 2. “The EPA makes conservatives pay a fortune for FOIAs to be granted while waiving fees for liberal groups 3. “EPA contractors are basically Gym, Tan, Laundrying [sic] in new, swanky rec rooms thanks to your tax money 4. “The EPA leaked confidential information on farmers and cattle facilities to environmental groups. No bigs. [sic]” The Benghazi, apparently, okayed-from-the-highest-position-in-US-government assassinations of four Americans are, again, moving to the forefront of investigations, the Obama-IRS scandal (involving the Gestapo-like “punishment” of those who oppose the Obama syndicate’s dark plans now destroying our country) is still ongoing—while the leftist media begins to backtrack on their original negative stories about it and are now concocting new false ones. And now there is an old one beginning to, again, rear its intimidation head. Although the intimidation and threats were surmised by many (and apparently accurately) when they occurred, that of SCOTUS CJ John Roberts’ siding (unconstitutionally) with the Left on ObamaCare the evidence may now be revealed. Rumors—and they’re just that for now—are that there is a memo (or are memos) in the possession of Glenn Beck showing that CJ John Roberts was blackmailed into voting for ObamaCare. I have been writing since October 2008 that if we don’t get rid of Obama, he will get rid of us and that if we do not rise up as a nation of Constitutionalists and fight the Obama syndicate, the USA will end up being the most corrupt and brutal in human history… Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Will Millions and millions of US citizens will be rounded up and assassinated for their opposition to imposed slavery? Many in the media-celebrity class are now beginning to speak the same thing; what a shame that it took almost five years for them to do so. We have reached the end and there is no more time, folks. The Luciferian takeover is already in progress. Be careful which side you choose and may God bless you and your loved ones. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth”—Rev 15-16



If You Love Freedom Then You Are a Mentally Ill Terrorist—Your Government Says So

I will stand for life, truth, and freedom, as these realities are in alignment with the universe and God's will If You Love Freedom Then You Are a Mentally Ill Terrorist—Your Government Says So Over the course of its 69-year history, the Soviet Union was notorious for its heavy-handed suppression of political dissent—most infamously through its use of the Siberian GULAGs. But it was during the 1960s and 1970s that the Communist Party took their intolerance for ideological deviance to extremes by diagnosing and institutionalizing so-called counterrevolutionaries with mental illness. It was a frightening episode in Soviet history in which perfectly healthy citizens could be deemed psychotic simply on account of their political views. And indeed, what better way to deal with activists and naysayers than to diagnose them as being mentally unstable. Dissenters, who were often seen as both a burden and a threat to the system, could be easily discredited and detained. George Dvorsky “How the Soviets Used Their Own Twisted Version of Psychiatry…” The definition of “terrorism” seems to be expanding at an alarming rate as the federal government and other left-leaning scholarly institutions are increasingly classifying seemingly harmless actions such as cherishing personal liberty and opposing abortion as potential terrorist activity. Jason Howerton “Homeland Security-Funded Study...” You can imagine my chagrin when I learned that not only are “we the people” being set up like bowling pins to take a fall, but we are also psychotic terrorists—yikes. Apparently we are bad, bad cogs when we fail to meekly fall into mindless, soulless, spineless acquiescence to the almighty General Will. Stubborn free-thinking patriots are the bane of Progressive social engineers and their notorious propensity for pounding square pegs into round holes. How can our “betters” force us to be free when we keep telling them to f—k off and leave us alone? Be that as it may, let me discuss nation-state governments for a moment. Governments eventually end up being run for the benefit of the folks who hold the reins of power (back when the USA was a free republic that would have been “we the people”—but those days are long gone). These days most Western countries are run by the “elites”—a loose consortium of corporate, media, and political agents shilling for the government/banking/corporate cabal that is the power behind the curtain (the preceding list of various types of agents is hardly exhaustive). For some decades now the elites have been pushing globalism on us—the idea that if only the world were one big happy family everything would be groovy—with the elites in charge of it all, of course. (Gee…that makes the elites sound an awful lot like Friedrich Nietzsche’s “master race” doesn’t it)? One need only look at the recent examples of our unresponsive, arrogant, tin-eared US Congress in order to see just how “groovy” a global governing body would be. Instead of many nation-states, the elites envision one humongous planetary state, with themselves running things. Standing in the way of this grand elitist vision are pesky nation-states…that is, countries. The elites decided some time ago that nation-states had to go. Consequently they devised plans such as Agenda 21, and they encouraged citizens of a country to be apathetic if not outright hostile toward their country. The elites utilized a plethora of different methods to accomplish this (no easy task, as most folks tend to bond to their place of birth and upbringing as a matter of course). Patriotism and pride in one’s country has become déclassé, gauche, and so very out of style among the elites and their sycophants. This has all not just happened by chance; it has taken a village, a global village of duplicitous enablers working tirelessly to destroy Western Civilization and Judeo/Christian tradition and ethics. None of what I am saying is anything new to those of you who have been doing their “homework,” but the onslaught of constant propaganda that we face from many directions on a daily basis makes the occasional refresher course advisable. I also mention all this as a lead-in to pointing out that the “Hive” or Collective that the elitist social engineers have drawn up for “we the people,” will only accommodate a limited number of “worker bees,” so, alas, surplus workers will need to be disposed of in order to obtain optimal productivity—nothing personal, it is for the good of the Hive you see. Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and all that. They can take their Hive and shove it, as far as I’m concerned…but I am getting off track here. To get back on message—those in favor of big government, big banks, big corporations and tyranny (i.e. the Left) are masters of manipulating people’s attitudes and feelings; at manipulating words and images. One of their favorite gimmicks is the old leftist ploy of accusing their opponent of doing exactly what they are guilty of (check out journalist extraordinaire Bill Whittle’s “The Lynching”) Are such things the result of projection, transference, or simply cynical manipulation? A bit of all the above I suspect. I’m convinced that most collectivists are a few bricks shy of a full load. They are generally greedy, intelligent, ruthless, amoral, and narcissistic. They are all of that and more—but sane…not so much. So it is entirely in keeping with their blame-game jiu jitsu that they would accuse those who oppose their plans of being crazy. The insidious (and effective) practice of locking away in psychiatric clinics those who oppose Big Government is coming soon to a country near you, trust me. Credit (if that’s the word) for polishing up and refining this method of silencing dissidents goes to the Russians. Notable Russian dissidents who were locked away in psychiatric clinics for “evaluation” included Viktor Nekipelov, Pyotr Grigorenko, Valery Tarsis, Natalya Gorbanevskaya, and Nobel Prize laureates Andrei Sakharov and Joseph Brodsky—there were thousands of other not-so-notable dissidents locked away as well. Andrei Snezhnevsky of the “Moscow School of Psychiatry” came up with a designer disorder which he called “Sluggish Schizophrenia.” An unusual characteristic of this malignant malady is that no one knows you have it, especially you. Some of its more perfidious symptoms are “delusions of reform, perseverance, and struggling for truth and justice.” Luckily the Soviet government had psychiatrists trained to sniff out just those kinds of symptoms. This brings me around to my friend Harry Butler whom I discussed in my last article. Harry was arrested by the Secret Service and spent a year in prison because he rattled some cages while trying to bring attention to what he considered (and still considers) to be Obama’s ineligibility to be POTUS. He attempted to defend the US Constitution, and The Powers That Be felt that he needed to be made an example of. The first thing that government agents did was to visit various members of Harry’s family and tell them that Harry needed psychiatric help. No doubt the agents felt he was suffering from sluggish schizophrenia—fortunately they had the right sort of psychiatrists on hand to diagnose the symptoms (delusions of reform, perseverance, struggling for truth, and so forth). Unfortunately for Harry such a serious diagnosis could not be rushed—it takes time to ferret out the symptoms. So Harry was arrested and then transported in chains from prison to prison in order to be properly “evaluated”—the process took days, and weeks, then months. Most everyone knows the story of the clear-eyed child who sees the truth in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In a similar vein, there’s an old saying that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Unfortunately we live in a time and place where the clear-eyed child and one-eyed man are clapped in chains, thrown in a cell, and “evaluated” by psychiatrists. To paraphrase Voltaire, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” Harry saw the obvious: that in any sane world Obama’s history of radicalism, crafted backstory, anemic private-sector record, hidden history, invisible paper trail, lack of Natural Born status, and bogus “birth certificate(s)” made him ineligible to be POTUS—both constitutionally and commonsensically. The elites cannot allow such “heresy” to gain traction among the masses, of course. The shouts of a one-eyed man must be stilled and the blind encouraged to go back to groping in the dirt. Ridicule often works to still the voices of dissent, and where ridicule won’t work bribery or threats often will—and where ridicule, bribery and threats don’t work, there are always prison cells and psychiatric clinics. Harry was too self-confident to have ridicule affect him, and he was too courageous to be threatened and too honest to be bribed—so it was off to prison and psychiatric “evaluations.” I, like Harry, stand opposed to the elitist dream (nightmare) of a monstrously bloated one-world government and its attendant Draconian bureaucracy. It may very well be too late to stop the implementation of such a horror, but when I pass from this earthly plane I will not be held accountable for how my “team” did, but for what I did. I will stand for life, truth, and freedom, as these realities are in alignment with the universe and God’s will; of this there can be no doubt. That being the case, I automatically stand in opposition to euthanasia, abortion, lies, and enslavement, which are venalities that pull one into alignment with the elites and that which is anti-truth, anti-freedom, and ultimately anti-life. If you ever hear of me being committed to a psychiatric institution because I have sluggish schizophrenia, do not be surprised—send me a card. In the meantime I’ll continue to stand my watch on the wall, while “we the people” barrel toward TEOTWAWKI at an ever-accelerating pace. I will stand for life, truth, and freedom, as these realities are in alignment with the universe and God's will If You Love Freedom Then You Are a Mentally Ill Terrorist—Your Government Says So Over the course of its 69-year history, the Soviet Union was notorious for its heavy-handed suppression of political dissent—most infamously through its use of the Siberian GULAGs. But it was during the 1960s and 1970s that the Communist Party took their intolerance for ideological deviance to extremes by diagnosing and institutionalizing so-called counterrevolutionaries with mental illness. It was a frightening episode in Soviet history in which perfectly healthy citizens could be deemed psychotic simply on account of their political views. And indeed, what better way to deal with activists and naysayers than to diagnose them as being mentally unstable. Dissenters, who were often seen as both a burden and a threat to the system, could be easily discredited and detained. George Dvorsky “How the Soviets Used Their Own Twisted Version of Psychiatry…” The definition of “terrorism” seems to be expanding at an alarming rate as the federal government and other left-leaning scholarly institutions are increasingly classifying seemingly harmless actions such as cherishing personal liberty and opposing abortion as potential terrorist activity. Jason Howerton “Homeland Security-Funded Study...” You can imagine my chagrin when I learned that not only are “we the people” being set up like bowling pins to take a fall, but we are also psychotic terrorists—yikes. Apparently we are bad, bad cogs when we fail to meekly fall into mindless, soulless, spineless acquiescence to the almighty General Will. Stubborn free-thinking patriots are the bane of Progressive social engineers and their notorious propensity for pounding square pegs into round holes. How can our “betters” force us to be free when we keep telling them to f—k off and leave us alone? Be that as it may, let me discuss nation-state governments for a moment. Governments eventually end up being run for the benefit of the folks who hold the reins of power (back when the USA was a free republic that would have been “we the people”—but those days are long gone). These days most Western countries are run by the “elites”—a loose consortium of corporate, media, and political agents shilling for the government/banking/corporate cabal that is the power behind the curtain (the preceding list of various types of agents is hardly exhaustive). For some decades now the elites have been pushing globalism on us—the idea that if only the world were one big happy family everything would be groovy—with the elites in charge of it all, of course. (Gee…that makes the elites sound an awful lot like Friedrich Nietzsche’s “master race” doesn’t it)? One need only look at the recent examples of our unresponsive, arrogant, tin-eared US Congress in order to see just how “groovy” a global governing body would be. Instead of many nation-states, the elites envision one humongous planetary state, with themselves running things. Standing in the way of this grand elitist vision are pesky nation-states…that is, countries. The elites decided some time ago that nation-states had to go. Consequently they devised plans such as Agenda 21, and they encouraged citizens of a country to be apathetic if not outright hostile toward their country. The elites utilized a plethora of different methods to accomplish this (no easy task, as most folks tend to bond to their place of birth and upbringing as a matter of course). Patriotism and pride in one’s country has become déclassé, gauche, and so very out of style among the elites and their sycophants. This has all not just happened by chance; it has taken a village, a global village of duplicitous enablers working tirelessly to destroy Western Civilization and Judeo/Christian tradition and ethics. None of what I am saying is anything new to those of you who have been doing their “homework,” but the onslaught of constant propaganda that we face from many directions on a daily basis makes the occasional refresher course advisable. I also mention all this as a lead-in to pointing out that the “Hive” or Collective that the elitist social engineers have drawn up for “we the people,” will only accommodate a limited number of “worker bees,” so, alas, surplus workers will need to be disposed of in order to obtain optimal productivity—nothing personal, it is for the good of the Hive you see. Can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and all that. They can take their Hive and shove it, as far as I’m concerned…but I am getting off track here. To get back on message—those in favor of big government, big banks, big corporations and tyranny (i.e. the Left) are masters of manipulating people’s attitudes and feelings; at manipulating words and images. One of their favorite gimmicks is the old leftist ploy of accusing their opponent of doing exactly what they are guilty of (check out journalist extraordinaire Bill Whittle’s “The Lynching”) Are such things the result of projection, transference, or simply cynical manipulation? A bit of all the above I suspect. I’m convinced that most collectivists are a few bricks shy of a full load. They are generally greedy, intelligent, ruthless, amoral, and narcissistic. They are all of that and more—but sane…not so much. So it is entirely in keeping with their blame-game jiu jitsu that they would accuse those who oppose their plans of being crazy. The insidious (and effective) practice of locking away in psychiatric clinics those who oppose Big Government is coming soon to a country near you, trust me. Credit (if that’s the word) for polishing up and refining this method of silencing dissidents goes to the Russians. Notable Russian dissidents who were locked away in psychiatric clinics for “evaluation” included Viktor Nekipelov, Pyotr Grigorenko, Valery Tarsis, Natalya Gorbanevskaya, and Nobel Prize laureates Andrei Sakharov and Joseph Brodsky—there were thousands of other not-so-notable dissidents locked away as well. Andrei Snezhnevsky of the “Moscow School of Psychiatry” came up with a designer disorder which he called “Sluggish Schizophrenia.” An unusual characteristic of this malignant malady is that no one knows you have it, especially you. Some of its more perfidious symptoms are “delusions of reform, perseverance, and struggling for truth and justice.” Luckily the Soviet government had psychiatrists trained to sniff out just those kinds of symptoms. This brings me around to my friend Harry Butler whom I discussed in my last article. Harry was arrested by the Secret Service and spent a year in prison because he rattled some cages while trying to bring attention to what he considered (and still considers) to be Obama’s ineligibility to be POTUS. He attempted to defend the US Constitution, and The Powers That Be felt that he needed to be made an example of. The first thing that government agents did was to visit various members of Harry’s family and tell them that Harry needed psychiatric help. No doubt the agents felt he was suffering from sluggish schizophrenia—fortunately they had the right sort of psychiatrists on hand to diagnose the symptoms (delusions of reform, perseverance, struggling for truth, and so forth). Unfortunately for Harry such a serious diagnosis could not be rushed—it takes time to ferret out the symptoms. So Harry was arrested and then transported in chains from prison to prison in order to be properly “evaluated”—the process took days, and weeks, then months. Most everyone knows the story of the clear-eyed child who sees the truth in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In a similar vein, there’s an old saying that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Unfortunately we live in a time and place where the clear-eyed child and one-eyed man are clapped in chains, thrown in a cell, and “evaluated” by psychiatrists. To paraphrase Voltaire, “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” Harry saw the obvious: that in any sane world Obama’s history of radicalism, crafted backstory, anemic private-sector record, hidden history, invisible paper trail, lack of Natural Born status, and bogus “birth certificate(s)” made him ineligible to be POTUS—both constitutionally and commonsensically. The elites cannot allow such “heresy” to gain traction among the masses, of course. The shouts of a one-eyed man must be stilled and the blind encouraged to go back to groping in the dirt. Ridicule often works to still the voices of dissent, and where ridicule won’t work bribery or threats often will—and where ridicule, bribery and threats don’t work, there are always prison cells and psychiatric clinics. Harry was too self-confident to have ridicule affect him, and he was too courageous to be threatened and too honest to be bribed—so it was off to prison and psychiatric “evaluations.” I, like Harry, stand opposed to the elitist dream (nightmare) of a monstrously bloated one-world government and its attendant Draconian bureaucracy. It may very well be too late to stop the implementation of such a horror, but when I pass from this earthly plane I will not be held accountable for how my “team” did, but for what I did. I will stand for life, truth, and freedom, as these realities are in alignment with the universe and God’s will; of this there can be no doubt. That being the case, I automatically stand in opposition to euthanasia, abortion, lies, and enslavement, which are venalities that pull one into alignment with the elites and that which is anti-truth, anti-freedom, and ultimately anti-life. If you ever hear of me being committed to a psychiatric institution because I have sluggish schizophrenia, do not be surprised—send me a card. In the meantime I’ll continue to stand my watch on the wall, while “we the people” barrel toward TEOTWAWKI at an ever-accelerating pace.

Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up?

Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up? The Idiot’s Foreign Policy Rarely has there been a policy as universally supported in Washington and as universally rejected by Americans of all ages, races, genders, incomes and religions as the proposal to send weapons to the Syrian terrorists. The average American who has never heard of the Al-Nusra Front, is utterly in the dark about the differences between the various brigades of the Free Syrian Army and hasn’t the faintest idea that the entire thing has been a Muslim Brotherhood operation of varying degrees of subtlety from Day 1, still thinks that sending weapons to them is a terrible idea. Even a public that is weary of war and not at all enthusiastic about jumping into another one would rather invade Syria than arm the Syrian rebels. At least those are the results of a recent Quinnipiac poll which found that sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats, men, women, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics (and possibly even the mysteriously reclusive White Hispanics) all opposed the proposal to send arms to the rebels; even without being told that rebel is a polite term for Islamic Jihadist and Islamic Jihadist is a polite term for the guy wearing explosive underwear next to them on their vacation flight. The college educated and those who made it through the basic twelve, Protestants and Catholics, those making under 50K and those making over 100K, callow 18-year-olds and superannuated seniors, all came together to oppose an insane policy of giving weapons to terrorists who are certain to use them against us. They came to this novel conclusion without a thorough grounding in foreign policy, without having ever read one of those massive tomes that outgoing secretaries of state throw together to explain their failures, and without even being told anything true and meaningful about the Free Syrian Army. The only analytical tool at their disposal was their common sense. In a time when the country is sharply divided along class, race, gender and hoodie, this was a refreshing show of unity. The United States of America, in town and city, mariachi band, hip hop concert and hoedown, came together to oppose giving weapons to terrorists. And no one in Washington D.C. paid attention. Why should they? They already have it all figured out. The intelligence committees in the Senate and House of Representatives, which had briefly kicked up a fuss over Obama’s plan to send guns to terrorists, withdrew their objections after being promised regular updates. If those updates are nearly as interesting as the ones for Fast and Furious, a program which merely put lighter weapons into the hands of Mexican drug lords, they should make for some entertaining reading. The weapons smuggled into Libya, with the complicity of Uncle Barack, and the ones looted from Gaddafi’s ample storehouses, have already shown up in Gaza, led to the Islamist conquest of Mali (requiring French military intervention), and have, naturally, shown up in Syria. Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up? The real question is where won’t they end up. The Middle East is a giant arms market and the United States is abandoning the policy of plausible deniability that existed during the Libyan War to directly run guns to terrorists. Considering the havoc that a mere 2,000 Fast and Furious guns caused in Mexico, what exactly will come of shipping anti-tank weapons to the same sort of Islamist militias who launched a full blown assault on the American mission in Benghazi? In the great polling game of Ask the Audience played on the set of Who Wants to be President, the answer from the gallery has come in loud and clear. But no one on the stage seems to actually care. And it is that lack of concern that is more interesting than the exercise of common sense by the collective polled mind of America. It is widely accepted wisdom in Washington D.C. that we have to send weapons to the Syrian rebels. How did a notion that is rejected out of hand by the man on the street for reasons of common sense become accepted in Washington D.C. also for reasons of common sense? Is there a different common sense in Washington D.C. than in Peoria, Miami or Fargo? Or is there a lack of common sense? During the heyday of the Arab Spring when we were all supposed to be impressed by posed photographs of protesters gesticulating against a fiery background in Tahrir Square, it was hard to find anyone with policy influence or experience who would agree that we should just stay out of it. Mubarak staying on was equally a non-starter. They all knew that Mubarak had to go. They all knew that democracy in Egypt was inevitable. And they all knew that it would somehow work out because freedom is stronger than tyranny and talking points are stronger than common sense. The consensus on Syrian smacks of that same empty conviction that something must be done, that the golden avatar of progress must be served and that we are on the cusp of historic change. “Inaction is not an option,” say the advocates of every stupid policy from amnesty for illegal aliens to guns for terrorists. But considering the outcomes of their proposed policies, inaction doesn’t seem so bad. The net foreign policy outcome of all our interventions in Egypt to make the Egyptians love us is an Egypt that now hates us more than ever. Hating us is the one thing that Egyptians from all walks of life can agree on. It’s their national equivalent of shipping guns to Syrian terrorists. Not only did Obama’s Cairo speech, his command that Mubarak depart and his latest attempts at pressing for the restoration of the Muslim Brotherhood to power, not win over anyone, the sum of these interventions have made Egypt more unstable and made us more hated than ever. The Libyan intervention, begun to protect the Islamist militias of Benghazi, ended with a burning diplomatic compound in Benghazi and Islamist militias gunning down two Navy SEALS while dragging the body of an American ambassador through the streets in between snapping shots of his corpse with their smartphones. (Officially they were rescuing him by taking him to a hospital controlled by the same Islamist militia that was involved in the attack.) So what’s the worst that could happen in Syria? The most destructive influence on domestic and foreign policy is that sense of inevitability. “Something must be done,” are the four words that have undone the reason of even credible conservative politicians. The next six words, “It will happen even without us” are nearly as toxic. These are the words that have convinced countless politicians to sell out on domestic policy in exchange for having some control over the final outcome. If the entire population of the United States Senate went up to the roof of the Russell Building and jumped off, it would happen because more and more aides would talk up their senators and urge them to go up because if they all jump together, then the dissenting senators will have some control over the process. That false sense of power and even falser sense of consensus is driving an idiotic policy in Syria. Officially we are supporting the Syrian rebels because we support democracy, even though the vast majority of the rebels are Islamists and the only democracy they want will disenfranchise Christians, Shiites, women and anyone else left standing after the black flags sweep into Damascus. Morsi also deserves our support because he was democratically elected, even though during his time in office, he tried to amass total power and tortured and beat up his political opponents. What democracy really means is that Washington D.C. has decided that the Muslim Brotherhood is inevitable and so we might as well get on their good side by helping them take over a few countries, before it’s too late. Never mind that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t have a good side. Peel back the layers of front organizations and you find yourself looking into the hooded eyes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi who enjoys suicide bombings and long walks on the beach. But no doubt that too is inevitable. Bobby Knight once said, “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” That advice seems to be defining our foreign policy in Egypt (where rape is an instrument of domestic policy). The inevitability of the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since they’re bound to win down the road, we should help them win now. And if they start losing, then we have to ship weapons to their militias and maybe declare a No Fly Zone, because while their victory is inevitable, its inevitability must be assured with American weapons against the will of the American people. Washington D.C. is full of Ivy League grads that have spent a lifetime reading about the Middle East, but lack the most basic sort of common sense. It’s not that they can’t comprehend the risks, it’s that they have been taught to think that either they jump off the Morsi building and land in a Syrian rebel camp or the whole thing will happen without them and they will be left out of the loop. And what could be worse than that? Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up? The Idiot’s Foreign Policy Rarely has there been a policy as universally supported in Washington and as universally rejected by Americans of all ages, races, genders, incomes and religions as the proposal to send weapons to the Syrian terrorists. The average American who has never heard of the Al-Nusra Front, is utterly in the dark about the differences between the various brigades of the Free Syrian Army and hasn’t the faintest idea that the entire thing has been a Muslim Brotherhood operation of varying degrees of subtlety from Day 1, still thinks that sending weapons to them is a terrible idea. Even a public that is weary of war and not at all enthusiastic about jumping into another one would rather invade Syria than arm the Syrian rebels. At least those are the results of a recent Quinnipiac poll which found that sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats, men, women, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics (and possibly even the mysteriously reclusive White Hispanics) all opposed the proposal to send arms to the rebels; even without being told that rebel is a polite term for Islamic Jihadist and Islamic Jihadist is a polite term for the guy wearing explosive underwear next to them on their vacation flight. The college educated and those who made it through the basic twelve, Protestants and Catholics, those making under 50K and those making over 100K, callow 18-year-olds and superannuated seniors, all came together to oppose an insane policy of giving weapons to terrorists who are certain to use them against us. They came to this novel conclusion without a thorough grounding in foreign policy, without having ever read one of those massive tomes that outgoing secretaries of state throw together to explain their failures, and without even being told anything true and meaningful about the Free Syrian Army. The only analytical tool at their disposal was their common sense. In a time when the country is sharply divided along class, race, gender and hoodie, this was a refreshing show of unity. The United States of America, in town and city, mariachi band, hip hop concert and hoedown, came together to oppose giving weapons to terrorists. And no one in Washington D.C. paid attention. Why should they? They already have it all figured out. The intelligence committees in the Senate and House of Representatives, which had briefly kicked up a fuss over Obama’s plan to send guns to terrorists, withdrew their objections after being promised regular updates. If those updates are nearly as interesting as the ones for Fast and Furious, a program which merely put lighter weapons into the hands of Mexican drug lords, they should make for some entertaining reading. The weapons smuggled into Libya, with the complicity of Uncle Barack, and the ones looted from Gaddafi’s ample storehouses, have already shown up in Gaza, led to the Islamist conquest of Mali (requiring French military intervention), and have, naturally, shown up in Syria. Where will the weapons dispensed like candy to the Syrian rebels end up? The real question is where won’t they end up. The Middle East is a giant arms market and the United States is abandoning the policy of plausible deniability that existed during the Libyan War to directly run guns to terrorists. Considering the havoc that a mere 2,000 Fast and Furious guns caused in Mexico, what exactly will come of shipping anti-tank weapons to the same sort of Islamist militias who launched a full blown assault on the American mission in Benghazi? In the great polling game of Ask the Audience played on the set of Who Wants to be President, the answer from the gallery has come in loud and clear. But no one on the stage seems to actually care. And it is that lack of concern that is more interesting than the exercise of common sense by the collective polled mind of America. It is widely accepted wisdom in Washington D.C. that we have to send weapons to the Syrian rebels. How did a notion that is rejected out of hand by the man on the street for reasons of common sense become accepted in Washington D.C. also for reasons of common sense? Is there a different common sense in Washington D.C. than in Peoria, Miami or Fargo? Or is there a lack of common sense? During the heyday of the Arab Spring when we were all supposed to be impressed by posed photographs of protesters gesticulating against a fiery background in Tahrir Square, it was hard to find anyone with policy influence or experience who would agree that we should just stay out of it. Mubarak staying on was equally a non-starter. They all knew that Mubarak had to go. They all knew that democracy in Egypt was inevitable. And they all knew that it would somehow work out because freedom is stronger than tyranny and talking points are stronger than common sense. The consensus on Syrian smacks of that same empty conviction that something must be done, that the golden avatar of progress must be served and that we are on the cusp of historic change. “Inaction is not an option,” say the advocates of every stupid policy from amnesty for illegal aliens to guns for terrorists. But considering the outcomes of their proposed policies, inaction doesn’t seem so bad. The net foreign policy outcome of all our interventions in Egypt to make the Egyptians love us is an Egypt that now hates us more than ever. Hating us is the one thing that Egyptians from all walks of life can agree on. It’s their national equivalent of shipping guns to Syrian terrorists. Not only did Obama’s Cairo speech, his command that Mubarak depart and his latest attempts at pressing for the restoration of the Muslim Brotherhood to power, not win over anyone, the sum of these interventions have made Egypt more unstable and made us more hated than ever. The Libyan intervention, begun to protect the Islamist militias of Benghazi, ended with a burning diplomatic compound in Benghazi and Islamist militias gunning down two Navy SEALS while dragging the body of an American ambassador through the streets in between snapping shots of his corpse with their smartphones. (Officially they were rescuing him by taking him to a hospital controlled by the same Islamist militia that was involved in the attack.) So what’s the worst that could happen in Syria? The most destructive influence on domestic and foreign policy is that sense of inevitability. “Something must be done,” are the four words that have undone the reason of even credible conservative politicians. The next six words, “It will happen even without us” are nearly as toxic. These are the words that have convinced countless politicians to sell out on domestic policy in exchange for having some control over the final outcome. If the entire population of the United States Senate went up to the roof of the Russell Building and jumped off, it would happen because more and more aides would talk up their senators and urge them to go up because if they all jump together, then the dissenting senators will have some control over the process. That false sense of power and even falser sense of consensus is driving an idiotic policy in Syria. Officially we are supporting the Syrian rebels because we support democracy, even though the vast majority of the rebels are Islamists and the only democracy they want will disenfranchise Christians, Shiites, women and anyone else left standing after the black flags sweep into Damascus. Morsi also deserves our support because he was democratically elected, even though during his time in office, he tried to amass total power and tortured and beat up his political opponents. What democracy really means is that Washington D.C. has decided that the Muslim Brotherhood is inevitable and so we might as well get on their good side by helping them take over a few countries, before it’s too late. Never mind that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t have a good side. Peel back the layers of front organizations and you find yourself looking into the hooded eyes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi who enjoys suicide bombings and long walks on the beach. But no doubt that too is inevitable. Bobby Knight once said, “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” That advice seems to be defining our foreign policy in Egypt (where rape is an instrument of domestic policy). The inevitability of the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since they’re bound to win down the road, we should help them win now. And if they start losing, then we have to ship weapons to their militias and maybe declare a No Fly Zone, because while their victory is inevitable, its inevitability must be assured with American weapons against the will of the American people. Washington D.C. is full of Ivy League grads that have spent a lifetime reading about the Middle East, but lack the most basic sort of common sense. It’s not that they can’t comprehend the risks, it’s that they have been taught to think that either they jump off the Morsi building and land in a Syrian rebel camp or the whole thing will happen without them and they will be left out of the loop. And what could be worse than that?

Death and Taxes

While Americans go on believing in America, Obama believes only in death and taxes Obama’s Death and Taxes Economy It’s an iron law of nature as certain as the one about an angel getting its wings every time a bell rings or a snowstorm blanketing the area every time Al Gore comes to town to remind the carbon puffing infidels about Global Warming; every time Obama gives a speech; a thousand businesses go out of business. On July 24th, to celebrate Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar Day, Obama delivered yet another economic speech in which he castigated Republicans in Congress for the sequester that he proposed, promised big economic benefits for the entire country from Green Energy and Illegal Immigration and promised to spend every one of his remaining days trying to help working people; at least those days when he isn’t on the golf course, on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard or delivering useless speeches. An Obama speech is a familiar quality that even the scribblers whose limbs once tingled at the touch of the teleprompter have developed a callous contempt for its reflexively dishonest “Let me be clears” and the infinite “I’s” that roll off its assembly line speechmakers. An economics speech, a creature that Barack Obama has been unleashing from his political zoo on the taxpayers, lawmakers and layabouts since his post-election days in 2008 of pretending to be president complete with an imaginary seal with the motto “Vero Possumus”, (which can be translated very loosely as “God Help Us All”), is an entirely familiar breed. It’s an FDR-on-crack assemblage of crackpot social plans masquerading as economic plans and homey testaments to American exceptionalism wrapped around bankrupt Euro ideas about how to run a country into the ground. And in the year 2013, the whole thing smells like last year’s leftovers. There are the warnings about all the old bridges threatening to fall down and kill the trolls living under them. Despite a second term in office, a stimulus plan, a plan to stimulate the stimulus plan and years of assorted pork, there are apparently now more Damocles bridges in the land than there ever were before. In 2009, Obama promised to fix all the crumbling roads and bridges with a $787 billion stimulus plan full of “shovel-ready jobs”. Two years later he joked to the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, led by GE CEO Jeff Immelt, whose company is the 15th biggest government contractor, that the shovel-ready jobs were not shovel-ready. It would have been nice to know that before we spent the $787 billion, but maybe that’s why all the old bridges keep threatening to fall down. And then there are the promises that we can fix all our problems with a Green Energy revolution that drives up electricity rates for everyone in order to buy windmills and solar panels from China. The Green Energy revolution has done a lot for Red China’s middle class while further eviscerating the standard of living for American middle class families who are just trying to keep the lights on. No Obama speech on the economy would be complete without urging us to invest more in education Naturally no Obama speech on the economy would be complete without urging us to invest more in education in order to get our hands on tomorrow’s jobs. “If you think education is expensive,” Obama said, borrowing his line from a bumper sticker, “wait until you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century.” But we don’t have to choose. As Detroit shows us, we can have both. Detroit has 5,000 teachers to 88,000 students. Its biggest challenge has been trying to win back another 5,000 students who escaped to charter schools to justify not laying off all the extra teachers. Its billion dollar school budget is all the more shocking in a city that is deep in debt and suffers from a 47 percent illiteracy rate. Obama’s 6 trillion dollar debt is a testament to the high price of ignorance The education system fosters incredibly expensive ignorance. And that ignorance can not only be found in public schools in Detroit’s ghettos, but in the Ivy League alma maters of Obama and his financial advisers. Obama’s 6 trillion dollar debt is a testament to the high price of ignorance. As are all of his economic speeches calling for more Green Energy, more education and more taxes to solve all of our ills. In his latest speech, he vowed that making “preschool available to every four year-old in America” would make America competitive in the “ocean of tomorrows” and “a sky of tomorrows”. A thinking man must wonder how this backward, racist, soda-swilling country of ours ever got anything done without shoving every four-year-old in America into a “high quality preschool” presided over by the fired public school teachers of Detroit. Incredibly enough we managed to get to the moon, which was a lot closer to tomorrow than we have ever gotten from an Obama speech. Is America’s competitiveness really impeded by the lack of universal preschools? Or is it something bigger that’s in the way? Could we have saved Detroit with more preschools and Green Energy? About the only thing in Obama’s entire 5,000 word speech that was at all interesting was in its opening as he pivoted from discussing the loss of middle class jobs to inveighing against the income inequality of the 1 percent. It was a convenient dodge that his average supporter was incapable of noticing, but it’s at the heart of what’s wrong with Obama’s economic logic. Income inequality is not at all the same thing as lost jobs. It’s not that the two aren’t connected. One reason for income inequality is because many wealthier Americans are profiting from offshore labor. The natural internal economic growth that would be happening here has instead been outsourced to China where the middle class is growing at an impressive rate. Obama’s speech however stayed in familiar class warfare territory Obama’s speech however stayed in familiar class warfare territory. Its implication was that if the wealthy were made to pay their fair share, the lost manufacturing jobs would somehow come back. The economic logic of that is absurd. Even if we assume that the wealthy are the villains of the piece, taxing them at Hollandaise rates seems as likely to bring back the jobs as constructing cardboard factories in a cargo cult ceremony to summon the spirits of the lost jobs would. But Obama, like most of his Socialist brethren, isn’t really interested in repairing the broken relationships of the economy. The logic running through his Bolivarian speech is that forcing the rich, or at least those of their class who haven’t written their timely checks to Organizing for America, to pay more will allow the government to create more jobs. The only thing wrong with that notion is that trying to create more jobs through higher taxes is like trying to save the Titanic by drilling more holes in its hull. It doesn’t work for the same reason that perpetual motion machines don’t work. Any process that promises to create more energy than is put into it is doomed. But Obama’s perpetual motion tax machine isn’t even close to being sensible. If other liberals at least made an effort at spray painting the shoebox black and making “vroom, vroom” noises while it spins, there isn’t even any serious effort at deception here. Obama isn’t even bothering to promise to create jobs by creating more jobs. Instead all he’s offering are the same empty social welfare promises that more social services, more preschools, more free internet, more Green Energy, more ObamaCare, will turn the economy around, while shamelessly claiming that it has already done as much. There are still the occasional nods to all the nation’s broken bridges that are just about to fall down, but mostly it’s the same empty Socialism that proposes to tax a country to death because it’s right and just to do so. “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” Benjamin Franklin wrote to a French correspondent around the time that the United States Constitution took effect. Some two centuries later, government has combined death and taxes into one by taxing the economy to death. Taxing economies to death Taxing economies to death is one thing that we have in common with the French. President Hollande began his disastrous term in office with a proposed 75% tax rate. The move sent some of the country’s most prominent citizens scrambling for the exits, while the newspapers of the left screamed hysterically for their heads like a pack of cut-rate Robespierres. France’s move to tax its economy to death hit a snag when its budget minister, a member of the Socialist Party in good standing, who was supposed to lead the crusade to make the rich pay their fair 75 percent share admitted to hiding some $790,000 in a secret Swiss bank account. Then he was caught having tried to move another $19 million into a Swiss bank around the time that he was appointed Vice-President of the Socialist Group in the French National Assembly. The only thing that would have made the scene more ridiculous is if the group had kept its old name of Socialists, Radicals, Citizens and the Assorted Left. Shameless hypocrisy and corruption Shameless hypocrisy and corruption is another thing that we have in common with France. And every other government on earth. Obama has squandered money like Louis XVI and then pledged to lead a revolution to find where the rest of the money is. Surrounded by some of the most corrupt billionaires in the country, whose think-tanks help write the policy proposals that the teleprompter feeds into his brain, he inveighs against the 1 percent. And he tops it all off by claiming his disasters as successes. Death and taxes are the only certain thing in America. But not in Detroit, where half the property owners simply chose not to pay them/ In Egypt, much of the country doesn’t pay taxes. It is not difficult to imagine an America in which everyone but a handful of corporations no longer pays taxes. This libertarian paradise will be achieved not through reforms, but through social breakdown. Obama taxes Americans. He taxes their incomes, their lifebloods and their patience Obama taxes Americans. He taxes their incomes, their lifebloods and their patience. He has put his entire faith in taxes, in grubbing up enough money to serve as collateral for his latest scheme. And the road that his paradise of amnesty for illegal aliens, Green Energy for electric poverty and more government employees to administer the whole mess leads to is Detroit. Or Egypt. Pick one. It doesn’t really matter.. What escapes Obama, even as he delivers another meandering speech, is that he isn’t really fooling anyone. At least not in the way he thinks. Not even most of his media allies really believe that any plan he proposes will really work. They evaluate it only based on its conformity to their ideology. Most polls show that Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. They don’t believe that Obama can or will fix anything. His bleatings about broken bridges, high tech schools and all the other nonsense that he has been relentlessly telepromptering since 2008 falls on deaf ears. What they believe is that he is well-meaning. That is why they voted for him. In the finest traditions of affirmative action, they tried to give him a second chance, not because they believed that he would succeed, but because he seemed like such a nice guy. Obama does not occupy the White House because the nation believes in him, but because it believes in itself; in its own decency, its own sense of fair play and its own eagerness to show that it is on the side of the better angels. He has been given a chance to destroy America by an America that believes in being kind to its destroyers. All Obama has to offer to America is a promise that consolidating government power through wealth redistribution will build the better country that he hasn’t managed to build yet. While Americans go on believing in America, Obama believes only in death and taxes. While Americans go on believing in America, Obama believes only in death and taxes Obama’s Death and Taxes Economy It’s an iron law of nature as certain as the one about an angel getting its wings every time a bell rings or a snowstorm blanketing the area every time Al Gore comes to town to remind the carbon puffing infidels about Global Warming; every time Obama gives a speech; a thousand businesses go out of business. On July 24th, to celebrate Venezuela’s Simon Bolivar Day, Obama delivered yet another economic speech in which he castigated Republicans in Congress for the sequester that he proposed, promised big economic benefits for the entire country from Green Energy and Illegal Immigration and promised to spend every one of his remaining days trying to help working people; at least those days when he isn’t on the golf course, on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard or delivering useless speeches. An Obama speech is a familiar quality that even the scribblers whose limbs once tingled at the touch of the teleprompter have developed a callous contempt for its reflexively dishonest “Let me be clears” and the infinite “I’s” that roll off its assembly line speechmakers. An economics speech, a creature that Barack Obama has been unleashing from his political zoo on the taxpayers, lawmakers and layabouts since his post-election days in 2008 of pretending to be president complete with an imaginary seal with the motto “Vero Possumus”, (which can be translated very loosely as “God Help Us All”), is an entirely familiar breed. It’s an FDR-on-crack assemblage of crackpot social plans masquerading as economic plans and homey testaments to American exceptionalism wrapped around bankrupt Euro ideas about how to run a country into the ground. And in the year 2013, the whole thing smells like last year’s leftovers. There are the warnings about all the old bridges threatening to fall down and kill the trolls living under them. Despite a second term in office, a stimulus plan, a plan to stimulate the stimulus plan and years of assorted pork, there are apparently now more Damocles bridges in the land than there ever were before. In 2009, Obama promised to fix all the crumbling roads and bridges with a $787 billion stimulus plan full of “shovel-ready jobs”. Two years later he joked to the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, led by GE CEO Jeff Immelt, whose company is the 15th biggest government contractor, that the shovel-ready jobs were not shovel-ready. It would have been nice to know that before we spent the $787 billion, but maybe that’s why all the old bridges keep threatening to fall down. And then there are the promises that we can fix all our problems with a Green Energy revolution that drives up electricity rates for everyone in order to buy windmills and solar panels from China. The Green Energy revolution has done a lot for Red China’s middle class while further eviscerating the standard of living for American middle class families who are just trying to keep the lights on. No Obama speech on the economy would be complete without urging us to invest more in education Naturally no Obama speech on the economy would be complete without urging us to invest more in education in order to get our hands on tomorrow’s jobs. “If you think education is expensive,” Obama said, borrowing his line from a bumper sticker, “wait until you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century.” But we don’t have to choose. As Detroit shows us, we can have both. Detroit has 5,000 teachers to 88,000 students. Its biggest challenge has been trying to win back another 5,000 students who escaped to charter schools to justify not laying off all the extra teachers. Its billion dollar school budget is all the more shocking in a city that is deep in debt and suffers from a 47 percent illiteracy rate. Obama’s 6 trillion dollar debt is a testament to the high price of ignorance The education system fosters incredibly expensive ignorance. And that ignorance can not only be found in public schools in Detroit’s ghettos, but in the Ivy League alma maters of Obama and his financial advisers. Obama’s 6 trillion dollar debt is a testament to the high price of ignorance. As are all of his economic speeches calling for more Green Energy, more education and more taxes to solve all of our ills. In his latest speech, he vowed that making “preschool available to every four year-old in America” would make America competitive in the “ocean of tomorrows” and “a sky of tomorrows”. A thinking man must wonder how this backward, racist, soda-swilling country of ours ever got anything done without shoving every four-year-old in America into a “high quality preschool” presided over by the fired public school teachers of Detroit. Incredibly enough we managed to get to the moon, which was a lot closer to tomorrow than we have ever gotten from an Obama speech. Is America’s competitiveness really impeded by the lack of universal preschools? Or is it something bigger that’s in the way? Could we have saved Detroit with more preschools and Green Energy? About the only thing in Obama’s entire 5,000 word speech that was at all interesting was in its opening as he pivoted from discussing the loss of middle class jobs to inveighing against the income inequality of the 1 percent. It was a convenient dodge that his average supporter was incapable of noticing, but it’s at the heart of what’s wrong with Obama’s economic logic. Income inequality is not at all the same thing as lost jobs. It’s not that the two aren’t connected. One reason for income inequality is because many wealthier Americans are profiting from offshore labor. The natural internal economic growth that would be happening here has instead been outsourced to China where the middle class is growing at an impressive rate. Obama’s speech however stayed in familiar class warfare territory Obama’s speech however stayed in familiar class warfare territory. Its implication was that if the wealthy were made to pay their fair share, the lost manufacturing jobs would somehow come back. The economic logic of that is absurd. Even if we assume that the wealthy are the villains of the piece, taxing them at Hollandaise rates seems as likely to bring back the jobs as constructing cardboard factories in a cargo cult ceremony to summon the spirits of the lost jobs would. But Obama, like most of his Socialist brethren, isn’t really interested in repairing the broken relationships of the economy. The logic running through his Bolivarian speech is that forcing the rich, or at least those of their class who haven’t written their timely checks to Organizing for America, to pay more will allow the government to create more jobs. The only thing wrong with that notion is that trying to create more jobs through higher taxes is like trying to save the Titanic by drilling more holes in its hull. It doesn’t work for the same reason that perpetual motion machines don’t work. Any process that promises to create more energy than is put into it is doomed. But Obama’s perpetual motion tax machine isn’t even close to being sensible. If other liberals at least made an effort at spray painting the shoebox black and making “vroom, vroom” noises while it spins, there isn’t even any serious effort at deception here. Obama isn’t even bothering to promise to create jobs by creating more jobs. Instead all he’s offering are the same empty social welfare promises that more social services, more preschools, more free internet, more Green Energy, more ObamaCare, will turn the economy around, while shamelessly claiming that it has already done as much. There are still the occasional nods to all the nation’s broken bridges that are just about to fall down, but mostly it’s the same empty Socialism that proposes to tax a country to death because it’s right and just to do so. “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” Benjamin Franklin wrote to a French correspondent around the time that the United States Constitution took effect. Some two centuries later, government has combined death and taxes into one by taxing the economy to death. Taxing economies to death Taxing economies to death is one thing that we have in common with the French. President Hollande began his disastrous term in office with a proposed 75% tax rate. The move sent some of the country’s most prominent citizens scrambling for the exits, while the newspapers of the left screamed hysterically for their heads like a pack of cut-rate Robespierres. France’s move to tax its economy to death hit a snag when its budget minister, a member of the Socialist Party in good standing, who was supposed to lead the crusade to make the rich pay their fair 75 percent share admitted to hiding some $790,000 in a secret Swiss bank account. Then he was caught having tried to move another $19 million into a Swiss bank around the time that he was appointed Vice-President of the Socialist Group in the French National Assembly. The only thing that would have made the scene more ridiculous is if the group had kept its old name of Socialists, Radicals, Citizens and the Assorted Left. Shameless hypocrisy and corruption Shameless hypocrisy and corruption is another thing that we have in common with France. And every other government on earth. Obama has squandered money like Louis XVI and then pledged to lead a revolution to find where the rest of the money is. Surrounded by some of the most corrupt billionaires in the country, whose think-tanks help write the policy proposals that the teleprompter feeds into his brain, he inveighs against the 1 percent. And he tops it all off by claiming his disasters as successes. Death and taxes are the only certain thing in America. But not in Detroit, where half the property owners simply chose not to pay them/ In Egypt, much of the country doesn’t pay taxes. It is not difficult to imagine an America in which everyone but a handful of corporations no longer pays taxes. This libertarian paradise will be achieved not through reforms, but through social breakdown. Obama taxes Americans. He taxes their incomes, their lifebloods and their patience Obama taxes Americans. He taxes their incomes, their lifebloods and their patience. He has put his entire faith in taxes, in grubbing up enough money to serve as collateral for his latest scheme. And the road that his paradise of amnesty for illegal aliens, Green Energy for electric poverty and more government employees to administer the whole mess leads to is Detroit. Or Egypt. Pick one. It doesn’t really matter.. What escapes Obama, even as he delivers another meandering speech, is that he isn’t really fooling anyone. At least not in the way he thinks. Not even most of his media allies really believe that any plan he proposes will really work. They evaluate it only based on its conformity to their ideology. Most polls show that Americans believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. They don’t believe that Obama can or will fix anything. His bleatings about broken bridges, high tech schools and all the other nonsense that he has been relentlessly telepromptering since 2008 falls on deaf ears. What they believe is that he is well-meaning. That is why they voted for him. In the finest traditions of affirmative action, they tried to give him a second chance, not because they believed that he would succeed, but because he seemed like such a nice guy. Obama does not occupy the White House because the nation believes in him, but because it believes in itself; in its own decency, its own sense of fair play and its own eagerness to show that it is on the side of the better angels. He has been given a chance to destroy America by an America that believes in being kind to its destroyers. All Obama has to offer to America is a promise that consolidating government power through wealth redistribution will build the better country that he hasn’t managed to build yet. While Americans go on believing in America, Obama believes only in death and taxes.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

I am a storyteller of the world

No fairy tale I am a storyteller of the world I have seen this shift coming for a long time. I just love witnessing and illuminating inspiring stories of how WE are co-creating the new world. A brave new world... What I can see, whether individuals walking their authentic path and surrendering to their life calling or communities transforming through collective intelligence and solidarity fired by love and compassion, humanity's rite of passage . There once was a kingdom, established when the people of that nation abdicated their responsibility to a ruler to whom the people entrusted complete control of the government. It was no sudden decision but came about after a period in history called the Transformation. For decades previous, the people sent representatives to Central City to legislate for their nation, even though many they sent were doing it out of self-interest, hoping that some day they could set up sub-kingdoms under the king. As time went by, more and more of those sent to Central City began entrusting their decision-making to those they had hired to write the legislation. No concern as to what the writers submitted, as long as it permitted their sub-kingdoms to continue and drew power away from the people. As the people were promised Openness and Transparency, the opposite happened. A shroud of Secrecy fell over Central City. At the same time, the people gave up their privacy, willingly sending all knowledge about themselves to the Data Mine, in the hopes they would ward off the great threat called Terror. As it turned out, that did little to diminish the threat, since the proponents of Terror were all eliminated from the search process and were left to continue their efforts at creating new ways to commit violence against the people. Then came the Invitation. It was not like previous invitations, even though for years many of those invited had been getting away with extending their stay far beyond the terms of their Visa. Little was done to change this situation, even though a tragedy called Nine Eleven was perpetrated by those who had stayed beyond what their Visa allowed. So the Invitation was decreed by the king, and all those who were disciples of Terror were allowed to join in among those with honorable intent who had been invited to come. The kingdom was on its way to a tragic end, but more and more of the people were no longer satisfied with a king. They began to realize that, once again, Taxation without Representation stood in the way of Freedom. They saw there was a way, and city by city, state by state, the Republic could be restored. The Founders, though much maligned, had wisdom far beyond that of the self-serving elite who had worked their way into the power structure. As the Founders had, the people turned to God for help, for wisdom and direction, and the tragic ending was averted. ...if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 On September 11, 2013, there will be a national day of prayer and repentance. No fairy tale I am a storyteller of the world I have seen this shift coming for a long time. I just love witnessing and illuminating inspiring stories of how WE are co-creating the new world. A brave new world... What I can see, whether individuals walking their authentic path and surrendering to their life calling or communities transforming through collective intelligence and solidarity fired by love and compassion, humanity's rite of passage . There once was a kingdom, established when the people of that nation abdicated their responsibility to a ruler to whom the people entrusted complete control of the government. It was no sudden decision but came about after a period in history called the Transformation. For decades previous, the people sent representatives to Central City to legislate for their nation, even though many they sent were doing it out of self-interest, hoping that some day they could set up sub-kingdoms under the king. As time went by, more and more of those sent to Central City began entrusting their decision-making to those they had hired to write the legislation. No concern as to what the writers submitted, as long as it permitted their sub-kingdoms to continue and drew power away from the people. As the people were promised Openness and Transparency, the opposite happened. A shroud of Secrecy fell over Central City. At the same time, the people gave up their privacy, willingly sending all knowledge about themselves to the Data Mine, in the hopes they would ward off the great threat called Terror. As it turned out, that did little to diminish the threat, since the proponents of Terror were all eliminated from the search process and were left to continue their efforts at creating new ways to commit violence against the people. Then came the Invitation. It was not like previous invitations, even though for years many of those invited had been getting away with extending their stay far beyond the terms of their Visa. Little was done to change this situation, even though a tragedy called Nine Eleven was perpetrated by those who had stayed beyond what their Visa allowed. So the Invitation was decreed by the king, and all those who were disciples of Terror were allowed to join in among those with honorable intent who had been invited to come. The kingdom was on its way to a tragic end, but more and more of the people were no longer satisfied with a king. They began to realize that, once again, Taxation without Representation stood in the way of Freedom. They saw there was a way, and city by city, state by state, the Republic could be restored. The Founders, though much maligned, had wisdom far beyond that of the self-serving elite who had worked their way into the power structure. As the Founders had, the people turned to God for help, for wisdom and direction, and the tragic ending was averted. ...if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14 On September 11, 2013, there will be a national day of prayer and repentance.

Pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die

Pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness Abandon the United Nations? What are we going to do about the United Nations? Exactly what has the U.N. accomplished? I will grant that the U.N. began with the most noble and loftiest of intentions, but does it still embody those intentions? It’s ineffectual, it’s corrupt, it’s unelected, it’s dominated by scores of tiny countries which have learned that if they claim discrimination or claim that their “human rights” are being denied, they can make the wealthy, successful nations feel enough guilt (thanks to the leftists within those countries who rarely if ever made any contribution to either the wealth or the success) to shovel money at them even as they declare their undying hatred for the countries who are being shaken down. That makes the United Nations sound like it has a lot in common with the U.S. Congress, doesn’t it? In essence, the United Nations doesn’t work. But then the predecessor of the U.N., the League of Nations, didn’t work too well. The European Union isn’t working out too well. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a pattern emerging. Every attempt to take a bunch of disparate nation-states and use normal (i.e., bumbling and power hungry) bureaucrats to create a one-size-fits-all new world order has always failed. And we pay an awful lot for their ineffective failures. According to an Office of Management and Budget report to Congress, the United States spent at least $7.7 billion dollars supporting the U.N. in 2010, the latest data available. Does anyone believe that spending that $7.7 billion is making them safer or reducing the dangers of war? Anyone? We spend more on the United Nations than any other member nation. For instance, the cost of the U.N.‘s “peacekeeping” missions is apportioned among all member states. Now that sounds fair, doesn’t it? Except that the formula used by the U.N. is similar to a formula for taxing Americans—the wealthier you are, the more they’re going to take. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ According to the United Nations itself,http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml the top ten nations (out of 191 member states) are supposed to pay 81% of the total costs of “peacekeeping”. And would you like to guess who the U.N. considers to be the “wealthiest” nations, the ones who will be making those payments? Here they are (with the percentage of the total peacekeeping budget they are liable for): •United States—(27.14%) •Japan—(12.53%) •United Kingdom—(8.15%) •Germany—(8.02%) •France—(7.55%) •Italy—(5.00%) •China—(3.93%) •Canada—(3.21%) •Spain—(3.18%) •Republic of Korea—(2.26%) With the exception of the People’s Republic of China, the list of nations that bear the bulk of the financial responsibility for “peacekeeping” appears to be the United States and its allies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As an aside, given the method used to apportion the obligation for these nearly useless “peacekeeping” missions, it’s interesting, again with the exception of the PRC, all the nations on the list are capitalist democracies. What a coincidence, huh? And even at that, the PRC is the most capitalist non-democratic nation around. Of course the United Nations does a lot more than just fund ineffective efforts to keep the peace. In 2003, for example, the United Nations adopted a resolution, signed by over 140 General Assembly nations, titled the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Keep in mind that resolution was adopted nearly ten years ago. Have you noticed a massive decrease in government corruption anywhere on the planet? It seems that their anti-corruption efforts are just as ineffective as the U.N.‘s peacekeeping efforts. The U.N. has, in the past twelve months alone, drafted resolutions that: •Speak out against female genital mutilation. •Reaffirm the United Nations strong commitment to the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Mali. And to really prove they weren’t kidding around, this resolution came out of the Security Council. •The creation of an Assistance Mission in Somalia in order to “[provide] policy advice to the Federal Government and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) on peacebuilding and state-building in the areas of: governance, security sector reform and rule of law (including the disengagement of combatants), development of a federal system (including preparations for elections in 2016), and coordination of international donor support.” All that, in just twelve months! Busy little beavers aren’t they? And of course no one could possibly forget that it was the United Nations that drafted, voted and approved the draft treaty for arms control. The one that the Obama administration is so anxious to sign. The one that could be used as an excuse to eviscerate the Second Amendment. The major stated goal of the Arms Treaty is, obviously, reducing armed conflict. But like most U.N. resolutions, it is written in such a way as to give a great deal of latitude for member states to interpret it as they choose. The treaty regulates the international transfer of all conventional arms within the following categories: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. One can only wonder if the language of the treaty would prevent (or at least provide an excuse for the administration to cease) all arms shipments to Israel. Or to Poland, South Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic or any other nation or nominative ally anywhere that is threatened by a totalitarian regime. When the overall ineffectiveness of the United Nations is combined with treaties that limit the United States to actions that require the approval of our enemies it is a wonder that we remain as members. Yes, America was a founding member of the United Nations, but we were also a founding member of the League of Nations. When the League of Nations was a failure, we recognized reality and let it die. It may be time to recognize reality again and let the U.N. simply die. Should the United States withdraw from the United Nations, there might be several beneficial side-effects. If the Presidents of Iran or Venezuela want to come to speak at the U.N. to attack the United States well, they can, but only if they speak in Geneva. They would no longer be entitled to speak at the U.N. in New York since the U.N. building in New York would no longer be a diplomatic site. It would simply be a large, ostentatious office building. It would be subject to property taxes. The Ambassadors to the U.N. would no longer have diplomatic immunity. (Mayor Bloomberg could probably balance New York City’s budget by just getting them to pay their parking tickets.) Yes, it may finally be time to pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness. Pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness Abandon the United Nations? What are we going to do about the United Nations? Exactly what has the U.N. accomplished? I will grant that the U.N. began with the most noble and loftiest of intentions, but does it still embody those intentions? It’s ineffectual, it’s corrupt, it’s unelected, it’s dominated by scores of tiny countries which have learned that if they claim discrimination or claim that their “human rights” are being denied, they can make the wealthy, successful nations feel enough guilt (thanks to the leftists within those countries who rarely if ever made any contribution to either the wealth or the success) to shovel money at them even as they declare their undying hatred for the countries who are being shaken down. That makes the United Nations sound like it has a lot in common with the U.S. Congress, doesn’t it? In essence, the United Nations doesn’t work. But then the predecessor of the U.N., the League of Nations, didn’t work too well. The European Union isn’t working out too well. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a pattern emerging. Every attempt to take a bunch of disparate nation-states and use normal (i.e., bumbling and power hungry) bureaucrats to create a one-size-fits-all new world order has always failed. And we pay an awful lot for their ineffective failures. According to an Office of Management and Budget report to Congress, the United States spent at least $7.7 billion dollars supporting the U.N. in 2010, the latest data available. Does anyone believe that spending that $7.7 billion is making them safer or reducing the dangers of war? Anyone? We spend more on the United Nations than any other member nation. For instance, the cost of the U.N.‘s “peacekeeping” missions is apportioned among all member states. Now that sounds fair, doesn’t it? Except that the formula used by the U.N. is similar to a formula for taxing Americans—the wealthier you are, the more they’re going to take. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ According to the United Nations itself,http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml the top ten nations (out of 191 member states) are supposed to pay 81% of the total costs of “peacekeeping”. And would you like to guess who the U.N. considers to be the “wealthiest” nations, the ones who will be making those payments? Here they are (with the percentage of the total peacekeeping budget they are liable for): •United States—(27.14%) •Japan—(12.53%) •United Kingdom—(8.15%) •Germany—(8.02%) •France—(7.55%) •Italy—(5.00%) •China—(3.93%) •Canada—(3.21%) •Spain—(3.18%) •Republic of Korea—(2.26%) With the exception of the People’s Republic of China, the list of nations that bear the bulk of the financial responsibility for “peacekeeping” appears to be the United States and its allies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As an aside, given the method used to apportion the obligation for these nearly useless “peacekeeping” missions, it’s interesting, again with the exception of the PRC, all the nations on the list are capitalist democracies. What a coincidence, huh? And even at that, the PRC is the most capitalist non-democratic nation around. Of course the United Nations does a lot more than just fund ineffective efforts to keep the peace. In 2003, for example, the United Nations adopted a resolution, signed by over 140 General Assembly nations, titled the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Keep in mind that resolution was adopted nearly ten years ago. Have you noticed a massive decrease in government corruption anywhere on the planet? It seems that their anti-corruption efforts are just as ineffective as the U.N.‘s peacekeeping efforts. The U.N. has, in the past twelve months alone, drafted resolutions that: •Speak out against female genital mutilation. •Reaffirm the United Nations strong commitment to the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Mali. And to really prove they weren’t kidding around, this resolution came out of the Security Council. •The creation of an Assistance Mission in Somalia in order to “[provide] policy advice to the Federal Government and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) on peacebuilding and state-building in the areas of: governance, security sector reform and rule of law (including the disengagement of combatants), development of a federal system (including preparations for elections in 2016), and coordination of international donor support.” All that, in just twelve months! Busy little beavers aren’t they? And of course no one could possibly forget that it was the United Nations that drafted, voted and approved the draft treaty for arms control. The one that the Obama administration is so anxious to sign. The one that could be used as an excuse to eviscerate the Second Amendment. The major stated goal of the Arms Treaty is, obviously, reducing armed conflict. But like most U.N. resolutions, it is written in such a way as to give a great deal of latitude for member states to interpret it as they choose. The treaty regulates the international transfer of all conventional arms within the following categories: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. One can only wonder if the language of the treaty would prevent (or at least provide an excuse for the administration to cease) all arms shipments to Israel. Or to Poland, South Korea, Japan, the Czech Republic or any other nation or nominative ally anywhere that is threatened by a totalitarian regime. When the overall ineffectiveness of the United Nations is combined with treaties that limit the United States to actions that require the approval of our enemies it is a wonder that we remain as members. Yes, America was a founding member of the United Nations, but we were also a founding member of the League of Nations. When the League of Nations was a failure, we recognized reality and let it die. It may be time to recognize reality again and let the U.N. simply die. Should the United States withdraw from the United Nations, there might be several beneficial side-effects. If the Presidents of Iran or Venezuela want to come to speak at the U.N. to attack the United States well, they can, but only if they speak in Geneva. They would no longer be entitled to speak at the U.N. in New York since the U.N. building in New York would no longer be a diplomatic site. It would simply be a large, ostentatious office building. It would be subject to property taxes. The Ambassadors to the U.N. would no longer have diplomatic immunity. (Mayor Bloomberg could probably balance New York City’s budget by just getting them to pay their parking tickets.) Yes, it may finally be time to pull the plug on the United Nations and allow it to die. It has obviously outlived any usefulness.

Profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind

Profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind Do I “Profile” People? Yes, but Everyone Does Profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind I profile people constantly. All that really means is that I like to be fashionable, because apparently the fashion of profiling other human beings is pretty much a universal constant. It has existed for millennia, and it is certainly transnational as well as being found in every race and culture on the planet. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ We even have proverbs and folk saying that recognize its existence, like “You only have one chance to make a good first impression.” Don’t believe me? Well, think about this for a second. If you have a daughter, and this beautiful, perfect, adorable, lovable daughter has a date with a young man for the first time, and this young man rings the doorbell, what do you do when you open the door? You look this potential rapist over, searching for clues as to whether or not you should immediately slam the door shut and then rush to the phone to dial 9-1-1 or you should give him a slight benefit of the doubt and let him step inside. Then this young swain is subjected to a searching appraisal that lasts all of three seconds. How is he dressed? Does he have tattoos? If the answer is yes, what kind of tattoos are they? If this aspirant to keeping company with your beautiful, perfect (etc., etc.) daughter has a tattoo that is of an American Flag with the words “Semper Fi” inked below it, is your evaluation different from that of seeing a tattoo in the same location that says “Born to be Bad”? If the visual clues about the wannabe boyfriend regarding general appearance, choice of clothing (for instance, are they wearing a suit to pick up your little princess, or are they dressed up for a costume party, while your daughter isn’t?), the prominence of any facial hair, length of the hair on his head (Is it a fashion statement, or is he too poor to afford a haircut), his tattoo status, the presence or absence of jewelry (particularly jewelry embedded in his body), and the like pass scrutiny, the next is the paternal or (in the case so often today in single parent households) maternal interrogation. “So, what grade are you in?” “Are you going to college in the fall?” “What are you going to major in?” And depending on the answer to the last question, “What career opportunities are there in that field?” (For the truly dense, this last translates to: “So, how much money will you be making?”) Or “What does your father do for a living?” (If Mom asks the same question, it would be “What does your father do for a living, dear?”) These, and many more, questions that “profile” the young aspirant to your daughter’s company. As for you men out there who are thinking, “I only have sons, I’ve never done that”, I can only assume that you suffer from a severe short term memory disorder if you can’t remember being subjected to such profiling yourself when you were young and picking up your date at her parent’s house. If you ladies are thinking that you’ve really gotten off lucky not having to go through that instant profiling that your boyfriend had to suffer at the hands of your parents, get a grip. If you don’t have one of those memory deficit disorders, think back on the first time you met his mother. In my experience, and if you ask your husband (even if he’s your ex-husband now, ask him anyway) how his mother spoke about you after the first time you went to a family dinner at his house before you got married, I’m sure he could confirm that his mother provided the rest of his family with an evaluation how short your skirt was, or how tight it was, or how tight your sweater was, how you were wearing too much make-up, etc., etc., etc. You should think back on the questions his mother asked you while you’re at it. “So, do you like children, dear?” (Translation: Am I going to have grandchildren, you hussy?) Or “So what kind of career are you planning to have, dear?” (Translation: Will you have a job that you can set aside to give me grandchildren?) “How many brothers and sisters do you have, dear?” (Translation and warning: If you say four sisters and four brothers, you’re golden. You’re used to lots of kids around. If you say you’re an only child, well that would be: “Danger, Will Robinson!”) The instantaneous evaluation of visual clues as to whether you can offer any trust at all to another human being has been going on for tens of thousands of years. And as shown, it’s not always about race. It’s simply a way that people evaluate the risk potential of another human being. Not necessarily risk only in the sense of a danger of bodily harm, but any risk. Again, it can be a concern for those you love. And that risk evaluation is nearly instantaneous. Granted it might be incorrect, but it is instantaneous and shifts the burden of proof to the individual being profiled. If you were seeking a mortgage, and you met you banker and he was dressed as if he were an entrant in an M.C. Hammer look-alike contest, would you really feel comfortable discussing your finances with the guy? The point is that profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind inhabiting this ball of rock. Since it has been passed on through our DNA through thousands of generations, one can only assume that it has, at its heart, some survival benefit. Acting blindly on an instantaneous profile is stupid, though. Even if the response to seeing a stranger is to immediately profile them, and it is almost an instinctive response, there might be some value in (a) recognizing that such subconscious profiling exists, (b) realizing that until we can modify human DNA to eliminate it that it will always occur and (c) perhaps through educating people that if there is time, hold those initial evaluations in abeyance. Give the stranger a bit more time to determine how much trust you’re willing to offer. We, being humans, will apparently profile other human beings until the sun explodes and wipes us all out, but we don’t have to demonstrate our inability to control our conscious thoughts and allow our subconscious minds full authority over our actions. Profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind Do I “Profile” People? Yes, but Everyone Does Profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind I profile people constantly. All that really means is that I like to be fashionable, because apparently the fashion of profiling other human beings is pretty much a universal constant. It has existed for millennia, and it is certainly transnational as well as being found in every race and culture on the planet. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ We even have proverbs and folk saying that recognize its existence, like “You only have one chance to make a good first impression.” Don’t believe me? Well, think about this for a second. If you have a daughter, and this beautiful, perfect, adorable, lovable daughter has a date with a young man for the first time, and this young man rings the doorbell, what do you do when you open the door? You look this potential rapist over, searching for clues as to whether or not you should immediately slam the door shut and then rush to the phone to dial 9-1-1 or you should give him a slight benefit of the doubt and let him step inside. Then this young swain is subjected to a searching appraisal that lasts all of three seconds. How is he dressed? Does he have tattoos? If the answer is yes, what kind of tattoos are they? If this aspirant to keeping company with your beautiful, perfect (etc., etc.) daughter has a tattoo that is of an American Flag with the words “Semper Fi” inked below it, is your evaluation different from that of seeing a tattoo in the same location that says “Born to be Bad”? If the visual clues about the wannabe boyfriend regarding general appearance, choice of clothing (for instance, are they wearing a suit to pick up your little princess, or are they dressed up for a costume party, while your daughter isn’t?), the prominence of any facial hair, length of the hair on his head (Is it a fashion statement, or is he too poor to afford a haircut), his tattoo status, the presence or absence of jewelry (particularly jewelry embedded in his body), and the like pass scrutiny, the next is the paternal or (in the case so often today in single parent households) maternal interrogation. “So, what grade are you in?” “Are you going to college in the fall?” “What are you going to major in?” And depending on the answer to the last question, “What career opportunities are there in that field?” (For the truly dense, this last translates to: “So, how much money will you be making?”) Or “What does your father do for a living?” (If Mom asks the same question, it would be “What does your father do for a living, dear?”) These, and many more, questions that “profile” the young aspirant to your daughter’s company. As for you men out there who are thinking, “I only have sons, I’ve never done that”, I can only assume that you suffer from a severe short term memory disorder if you can’t remember being subjected to such profiling yourself when you were young and picking up your date at her parent’s house. If you ladies are thinking that you’ve really gotten off lucky not having to go through that instant profiling that your boyfriend had to suffer at the hands of your parents, get a grip. If you don’t have one of those memory deficit disorders, think back on the first time you met his mother. In my experience, and if you ask your husband (even if he’s your ex-husband now, ask him anyway) how his mother spoke about you after the first time you went to a family dinner at his house before you got married, I’m sure he could confirm that his mother provided the rest of his family with an evaluation how short your skirt was, or how tight it was, or how tight your sweater was, how you were wearing too much make-up, etc., etc., etc. You should think back on the questions his mother asked you while you’re at it. “So, do you like children, dear?” (Translation: Am I going to have grandchildren, you hussy?) Or “So what kind of career are you planning to have, dear?” (Translation: Will you have a job that you can set aside to give me grandchildren?) “How many brothers and sisters do you have, dear?” (Translation and warning: If you say four sisters and four brothers, you’re golden. You’re used to lots of kids around. If you say you’re an only child, well that would be: “Danger, Will Robinson!”) The instantaneous evaluation of visual clues as to whether you can offer any trust at all to another human being has been going on for tens of thousands of years. And as shown, it’s not always about race. It’s simply a way that people evaluate the risk potential of another human being. Not necessarily risk only in the sense of a danger of bodily harm, but any risk. Again, it can be a concern for those you love. And that risk evaluation is nearly instantaneous. Granted it might be incorrect, but it is instantaneous and shifts the burden of proof to the individual being profiled. If you were seeking a mortgage, and you met you banker and he was dressed as if he were an entrant in an M.C. Hammer look-alike contest, would you really feel comfortable discussing your finances with the guy? The point is that profiling has been practiced by all races, in all countries, throughout the history of human kind inhabiting this ball of rock. Since it has been passed on through our DNA through thousands of generations, one can only assume that it has, at its heart, some survival benefit. Acting blindly on an instantaneous profile is stupid, though. Even if the response to seeing a stranger is to immediately profile them, and it is almost an instinctive response, there might be some value in (a) recognizing that such subconscious profiling exists, (b) realizing that until we can modify human DNA to eliminate it that it will always occur and (c) perhaps through educating people that if there is time, hold those initial evaluations in abeyance. Give the stranger a bit more time to determine how much trust you’re willing to offer. We, being humans, will apparently profile other human beings until the sun explodes and wipes us all out, but we don’t have to demonstrate our inability to control our conscious thoughts and allow our subconscious minds full authority over our actions.

A Communist Economy,alive and well in America

a Communist Economy In the former Soviet Union, the joke was “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” It took over four decades of the Cold War to finally put an end to the lie that Communism as an economic system works. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the Soviet Union came to an end on December 25, 1991. By then Communism worldwide had killed hundreds of millions of people. Now, it is true that America is not a Communist nation, but by doggedly pursuing the theories put forth by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, as well as the historically failed theories of Keynes, a British economist who believed that the government must pump money into the economy to keep it afloat, Obama has been trying to turn our Capitalist economy into a Communist one, Calling our economy “Communist” may seem unduly harsh, but under Obama and his predecessors, the government is in charge of the banking sector, the health and insurance industries, General Motors was nationalized, the government is deeply involved in mortgage lending and now controls student loans. Now stand back and ask if the government—the State—is not now more Communist than Capitalist? Wedded to failed economic theories, Obama has utterly failed to turn around the economy after the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession. Writing in the August 2012 edition of Forbes magazine, Louis Woodhill said, “If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accept the gold medal. Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but, under Obama, the worst recession since the 1930s has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in the history of the republic. In a very real sense, there has been no recovery at all—things are still getting worse.” Obama still has three and a half years to make things ever more worse than they are. A Marxist in every sense of the word, Obama is so wedded to his belief in “redistribution” of wealth, that he spent the first term blaming his failed economic policies in George W. Bush and blathering endlessly about “millionaires and billionaires.” If the government confiscated all their wealth, it would barely pay for its operation for a month, if that. The way most people experience a bad economy is whether they are employed or not. The self-employed feel it in reduced income, It is always one of the best indicators of the success or failure of whether things are improving or not. As of July 2013, the United States has been in 54 straight months with an unemployment rate at 7.5% or higher. As Terrence P. Jeffery, the managing editor of CNSnews, recently noted, it is “the longest stretch of unemployment at or above that rate since 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started calculating the national unemployment rate.” Under normal circumstances, Obama would have been defeated by Bozo the Clown in 2012, but he has had the support of the mainstream media from the day he started campaigning for the presidency. That is a powerful instrument of influence, but there is nothing to say it will continue what Bernard Goldberg called its “slobbering love affair” with Obama. In June CNSnews reporter Elizabeth Harrington noted that there is still “a near record 89 million Americans not in the labor force.” The BLS put the number at 89,705,000 in May. “9.3 million Americans have left the workforce during the presidency of Barack Obama.” When broken down into categories, it means that Afro-Americans saw a rise in May to 13.5% or 11,599,000. Even the employer of last resort, the federal government, saw a decline to a mere 20,361,000. In a Communist society, in theory everyone works for the state. Where the government becomes the source of all good things, it is worth noting that, as of April, the Department of Agriculture reported that a record number of 23 million households in America are now on food stamps. There are, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 115,310,000 households, meaning that one in five is receiving this government handout. Virtually everyone knows someone who has lost their job and is searching for a new one., but life under Obama has been especially harsh for the newest generation coming out of high school and college. Generation Opportunity, a non-partisan youth advocacy organization announced its “Millennial Jobs Report” for June, specific to 18-to-29 year olds. With the overall unemployment rate at 7.5%, for this cohort, it is 16.1%! It is worth keeping in mind that a nation—any nation—with a large group of unemployed youths, the prospects for protests and other problems are a historic fact. They have a lot of energy and no place to apply it. They are also easily manipulated. In addition to bad economic policies, the government is going all-out to impose thousands of new regulations on all aspects of the economy and our lives. Historian Niall Ferguson, writing in a June edition of The Wall Street Journal, cited the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Clyde Wayne Crews’ annual survey of the federal regulatory state, noting that “the 2012 Federal Register—the official directory of regulation—today runs to 78,961 pages. Back in 1986 it was 44,812 pages. In 1936, it was just 2,620.” This is national death by regulation strangulation and the President recently unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency even more by declaring “climate change” is a top priority. The EPA is in the process of killing coal-fired plants responsible for just under 50% of all the electricity we use. It wants to increase the amount of ethanol in our gasoline, damaging our auto’s engines at the same time it reduces the mileage they produce. So, if you think we are still functioning in a free market economy, it is as great an illusion as was Communism in the former Soviet Union. When it was no longer defensible, that nation collapsed and was replaced by a truncated former empire, the Russian federation. If the United States should face total financial collapse, there will be no real freedom left anywhere in the world. Just as any true Communist would want. a Communist Economy In the former Soviet Union, the joke was “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” It took over four decades of the Cold War to finally put an end to the lie that Communism as an economic system works. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the Soviet Union came to an end on December 25, 1991. By then Communism worldwide had killed hundreds of millions of people. Now, it is true that America is not a Communist nation, but by doggedly pursuing the theories put forth by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, as well as the historically failed theories of Keynes, a British economist who believed that the government must pump money into the economy to keep it afloat, Obama has been trying to turn our Capitalist economy into a Communist one, Calling our economy “Communist” may seem unduly harsh, but under Obama and his predecessors, the government is in charge of the banking sector, the health and insurance industries, General Motors was nationalized, the government is deeply involved in mortgage lending and now controls student loans. Now stand back and ask if the government—the State—is not now more Communist than Capitalist? Wedded to failed economic theories, Obama has utterly failed to turn around the economy after the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession. Writing in the August 2012 edition of Forbes magazine, Louis Woodhill said, “If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accept the gold medal. Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but, under Obama, the worst recession since the 1930s has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in the history of the republic. In a very real sense, there has been no recovery at all—things are still getting worse.” Obama still has three and a half years to make things ever more worse than they are. A Marxist in every sense of the word, Obama is so wedded to his belief in “redistribution” of wealth, that he spent the first term blaming his failed economic policies in George W. Bush and blathering endlessly about “millionaires and billionaires.” If the government confiscated all their wealth, it would barely pay for its operation for a month, if that. The way most people experience a bad economy is whether they are employed or not. The self-employed feel it in reduced income, It is always one of the best indicators of the success or failure of whether things are improving or not. As of July 2013, the United States has been in 54 straight months with an unemployment rate at 7.5% or higher. As Terrence P. Jeffery, the managing editor of CNSnews, recently noted, it is “the longest stretch of unemployment at or above that rate since 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started calculating the national unemployment rate.” Under normal circumstances, Obama would have been defeated by Bozo the Clown in 2012, but he has had the support of the mainstream media from the day he started campaigning for the presidency. That is a powerful instrument of influence, but there is nothing to say it will continue what Bernard Goldberg called its “slobbering love affair” with Obama. In June CNSnews reporter Elizabeth Harrington noted that there is still “a near record 89 million Americans not in the labor force.” The BLS put the number at 89,705,000 in May. “9.3 million Americans have left the workforce during the presidency of Barack Obama.” When broken down into categories, it means that Afro-Americans saw a rise in May to 13.5% or 11,599,000. Even the employer of last resort, the federal government, saw a decline to a mere 20,361,000. In a Communist society, in theory everyone works for the state. Where the government becomes the source of all good things, it is worth noting that, as of April, the Department of Agriculture reported that a record number of 23 million households in America are now on food stamps. There are, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 115,310,000 households, meaning that one in five is receiving this government handout. Virtually everyone knows someone who has lost their job and is searching for a new one., but life under Obama has been especially harsh for the newest generation coming out of high school and college. Generation Opportunity, a non-partisan youth advocacy organization announced its “Millennial Jobs Report” for June, specific to 18-to-29 year olds. With the overall unemployment rate at 7.5%, for this cohort, it is 16.1%! It is worth keeping in mind that a nation—any nation—with a large group of unemployed youths, the prospects for protests and other problems are a historic fact. They have a lot of energy and no place to apply it. They are also easily manipulated. In addition to bad economic policies, the government is going all-out to impose thousands of new regulations on all aspects of the economy and our lives. Historian Niall Ferguson, writing in a June edition of The Wall Street Journal, cited the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Clyde Wayne Crews’ annual survey of the federal regulatory state, noting that “the 2012 Federal Register—the official directory of regulation—today runs to 78,961 pages. Back in 1986 it was 44,812 pages. In 1936, it was just 2,620.” This is national death by regulation strangulation and the President recently unleashed the Environmental Protection Agency even more by declaring “climate change” is a top priority. The EPA is in the process of killing coal-fired plants responsible for just under 50% of all the electricity we use. It wants to increase the amount of ethanol in our gasoline, damaging our auto’s engines at the same time it reduces the mileage they produce. So, if you think we are still functioning in a free market economy, it is as great an illusion as was Communism in the former Soviet Union. When it was no longer defensible, that nation collapsed and was replaced by a truncated former empire, the Russian federation. If the United States should face total financial collapse, there will be no real freedom left anywhere in the world. Just as any true Communist would want.

Faith in nothing but the power of racism leads to a hopeless future.

Faith in nothing but the power of racism leads to a hopeless future. Fear of a Racist Country For the last 150 years this country has been on a long strange trip and the one and only thing that we know about it anymore is that it’s racist. Racism has become an indisputable fact of the universe. When everything else is in doubt, racism isn’t. It can’t be. It’s become the anti-weather, the thing we discuss because everyone knows that it exists and everyone knows that everyone is racist. America is racist. Just look at Segregation, the Trail of Tears and whatever happened last week that is already being analyzed on Salon, broken down at Atlantic Wire, trending on Twitter, spun on Think Progress and then chewed and digested by the slower eaters on CNN, MSNBC and the surviving outposts of the print media. Everyone and everything is racist. When the racism microscope is turned on or a racism signal is beamed to the giant orbiting racism satellite launched last week by that fortress of white extraterrestrial privilege, NASA, or a special racism submersible is dropped into the ocean, their enhanced analytical powers reveal that racism is everywhere in America. That may seem unlikely to anyone who actually travels to any of the places in the world that still have slavery. They are much less concerned with media images of black people over in Mauritania which still has slavery. There’s not a lot of interest in white privilege over in Sudan, where actual genocide is still taking place. And if you get a chance, stop by Papua, where Obama’s friendly Indonesian step-folks are still killing black people. But that’s actual racism. We don’t have real racism. What we have are cashiers writing insulting things on receipts, landlords who occasionally prefer not to rent to black people and the occasional drunken idiot who starts shouting slurs at a black man. It’s not exactly up there with genocide, but fortunately the racism industry has supplemented it by denouncing every movie and television show ever made and every police or even non-police shooting involving a black man as racist. A hundred years ago educated people subjected themselves to psychoanalysis sessions which proved conclusively that their fear of heights was caused by wanting to kill their fathers and rape their mothers. And if you didn’t dabble in some amateurish psychoanalysis, the intellectual elites of New York or Chicago wouldn’t even bother sneering in your direction. These days racism is the new psychoanalysis. Educated people check their privilege and discover that they are the reincarnation of Simon Legree. They are horrified to find that they take it for granted that people in movies look like them and talk like them. They gasp as they realize that they actually manage to get through the day without thinking about race and weep in shame as they are told that black people are constantly thinking about race and their failure to do the same thing is a form of privilege that makes them no better than Jefferson Davis or Archie Bunker. Black people don’t actually spend all their time being racially conscious, much as factory workers in the 19th century didn’t actually go around being class conscious all the time. That was just one of the things that Marxists successfully convinced the eagerly guilty elites of. About the only people who do spend all their time viewing everything through a toxic prism of race are MSNBC analysts, and like prostitutes and people who test dangerous cosmetics on rabbits; they only do it because they’re paid to. Our search for racism has become an inner spiritual search for the racist within. The new racism is an unawareness of racism, which says all that there is to say about the prevalence of this terrible threat. When the biggest issue with racism is that not enough people are constantly thinking about it, then the real problem is that there isn’t a problem. That candidly sums up the state of American racism, which is a problem searching for a problem. But that is different than the state of American race relations, which is characterized by suspicion, irritation, guilt and occasional explosions carefully stirred up and set off by an entire field of professional provocateurs in academia and the media. One of the greater fallacies of racism is to assume that it equates to race relations. It does not. The problem of racism involved the way that governments and people behaved toward each other. That’s different than how people see each other. That form of racism, like the monsters that began pouring out of the brains of patients lying cushioned on the psychoanalyst’s couch, is not something that we can or should be dealing with. If we look back at the countries that we all came from, we find that once upon a time we all hated each other. The English, the Irish and the Welsh, the Spanish and the Portuguese, the Norwegians and the Swedes, the French and well everyone else. And turning east, the Chinese and the Japanese, and over to Africa, where no one got along, resulting in slavery, and where no one still gets along, resulting in genocide. Some of these differences were smoothed over by the melting pot. Some weren’t. It might be nice if these things went away, but we can’t make them go away without also making our histories and identities go away too. For example, making black racism go away would require removing slavery and the civil rights movement from their history. That’s not a price that they’re willing to pay and with good reason. Everyone has their histories, their identities and their resentments. Those things are part of them. They explain how they got there and who ripped them off along the way and what scores need to be settled in some still undetermined future. It’s not a problem so long as those scores aren’t being settled on a street corner right now. As multicultural countries go, we’re doing pretty well. Especially compared to Africa where relatively minor differences between people that we would all lump together as African-American result in genocide. We’re also doing pretty well compared to the histories of the English and the Irish or the Jews and the Russians and the endless number of similar ethnic historical time tombs in our backgrounds. America works pretty well when it comes to the unofficial form of race-relations that involves people working and living together without killing each other. It would work even better without a racism industry whose entire reason for existence is to turn racism into the thing that we should always be talking about and always be conscious of at any time of the day. Racial consciousness is grievance consciousness. Take any members of two ethnic groups with an ugly history and tell them that they constantly need to think about those old grudges and discover how those grudges lead to them being mistreated in the present and you would have the same perfect storm of outraged entitlement, racial paranoia and grievance theater that you do when it comes to race relations. America does not have a racism problem. It has a problem obsessing about racism. The obsession isn’t black or white, it comes out of the ranks of academics and activists who use it to disrupt society while profiting from the havoc. The Trayvon Martin case is only one of countless cases dug up and deployed by the racism industry to maintain this perpetual consciousness of grievance at the expense of social harmony. Grievances don’t go away when you constantly demand an absolute justice that no human being is equipped to provide. They go away when you let go of the grievances and try to live together. It may seem easier for white people to say that, but reducing the complex mix of identities and histories of the vast majority of the population, many with their own histories of oppression, to “white people” is exactly the kind of facile unthinking bigotry that the racism industry cultivates. Everyone has their history of being oppressed and discriminated against either here or in their home country. Not everyone is still conscious of these grievances and these grudges. And that’s a good thing and a bad thing. A little consciousness of their own history by the descendants of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant immigrants would prevent them from grasping at senseless post-racial shibboleths like White Privilege. Forgetting isn’t a privilege. Black people know that. When you forget, then you no longer know who you are. But there’s a fine line between forgetting and hating. There’s a difference between knowing your own history and insisting on overlaying it completely over the present because you lack the tools for dealing with the present. America is a second chance. Not a place to forget who you are, but a place to discover who you might have become without that historical boot on your chest. That’s not what it always was, but that’s what it is today. It suffers from social dysfunction, but it is probably the least racist place in the world. Like its technological and cultural achievements, this social achievement is buried under a million tons of hate, denial and venom from a left that exists only to undermine America. There is no bright future waiting for those who choose to become collaborators in fulfilling the self-fulfilling prophecies of the Anti-American left. The very cynicism and pessimism embodied in that worldview, the certainty of failure implicit in its obsession with racial consciousness, is pregnant with their doom. The morass of Detroit, the miasma of Newark and the wreck of Oakland isn’t the labor of white racism; it’s that same self-fulfilling prophecy that too many in the black community have chosen to collaborate in bringing about. Faith in nothing but the power of racism leads to a hopeless future. Faith in nothing but the power of racism leads to a hopeless future. Fear of a Racist Country For the last 150 years this country has been on a long strange trip and the one and only thing that we know about it anymore is that it’s racist. Racism has become an indisputable fact of the universe. When everything else is in doubt, racism isn’t. It can’t be. It’s become the anti-weather, the thing we discuss because everyone knows that it exists and everyone knows that everyone is racist. America is racist. Just look at Segregation, the Trail of Tears and whatever happened last week that is already being analyzed on Salon, broken down at Atlantic Wire, trending on Twitter, spun on Think Progress and then chewed and digested by the slower eaters on CNN, MSNBC and the surviving outposts of the print media. Everyone and everything is racist. When the racism microscope is turned on or a racism signal is beamed to the giant orbiting racism satellite launched last week by that fortress of white extraterrestrial privilege, NASA, or a special racism submersible is dropped into the ocean, their enhanced analytical powers reveal that racism is everywhere in America. That may seem unlikely to anyone who actually travels to any of the places in the world that still have slavery. They are much less concerned with media images of black people over in Mauritania which still has slavery. There’s not a lot of interest in white privilege over in Sudan, where actual genocide is still taking place. And if you get a chance, stop by Papua, where Obama’s friendly Indonesian step-folks are still killing black people. But that’s actual racism. We don’t have real racism. What we have are cashiers writing insulting things on receipts, landlords who occasionally prefer not to rent to black people and the occasional drunken idiot who starts shouting slurs at a black man. It’s not exactly up there with genocide, but fortunately the racism industry has supplemented it by denouncing every movie and television show ever made and every police or even non-police shooting involving a black man as racist. A hundred years ago educated people subjected themselves to psychoanalysis sessions which proved conclusively that their fear of heights was caused by wanting to kill their fathers and rape their mothers. And if you didn’t dabble in some amateurish psychoanalysis, the intellectual elites of New York or Chicago wouldn’t even bother sneering in your direction. These days racism is the new psychoanalysis. Educated people check their privilege and discover that they are the reincarnation of Simon Legree. They are horrified to find that they take it for granted that people in movies look like them and talk like them. They gasp as they realize that they actually manage to get through the day without thinking about race and weep in shame as they are told that black people are constantly thinking about race and their failure to do the same thing is a form of privilege that makes them no better than Jefferson Davis or Archie Bunker. Black people don’t actually spend all their time being racially conscious, much as factory workers in the 19th century didn’t actually go around being class conscious all the time. That was just one of the things that Marxists successfully convinced the eagerly guilty elites of. About the only people who do spend all their time viewing everything through a toxic prism of race are MSNBC analysts, and like prostitutes and people who test dangerous cosmetics on rabbits; they only do it because they’re paid to. Our search for racism has become an inner spiritual search for the racist within. The new racism is an unawareness of racism, which says all that there is to say about the prevalence of this terrible threat. When the biggest issue with racism is that not enough people are constantly thinking about it, then the real problem is that there isn’t a problem. That candidly sums up the state of American racism, which is a problem searching for a problem. But that is different than the state of American race relations, which is characterized by suspicion, irritation, guilt and occasional explosions carefully stirred up and set off by an entire field of professional provocateurs in academia and the media. One of the greater fallacies of racism is to assume that it equates to race relations. It does not. The problem of racism involved the way that governments and people behaved toward each other. That’s different than how people see each other. That form of racism, like the monsters that began pouring out of the brains of patients lying cushioned on the psychoanalyst’s couch, is not something that we can or should be dealing with. If we look back at the countries that we all came from, we find that once upon a time we all hated each other. The English, the Irish and the Welsh, the Spanish and the Portuguese, the Norwegians and the Swedes, the French and well everyone else. And turning east, the Chinese and the Japanese, and over to Africa, where no one got along, resulting in slavery, and where no one still gets along, resulting in genocide. Some of these differences were smoothed over by the melting pot. Some weren’t. It might be nice if these things went away, but we can’t make them go away without also making our histories and identities go away too. For example, making black racism go away would require removing slavery and the civil rights movement from their history. That’s not a price that they’re willing to pay and with good reason. Everyone has their histories, their identities and their resentments. Those things are part of them. They explain how they got there and who ripped them off along the way and what scores need to be settled in some still undetermined future. It’s not a problem so long as those scores aren’t being settled on a street corner right now. As multicultural countries go, we’re doing pretty well. Especially compared to Africa where relatively minor differences between people that we would all lump together as African-American result in genocide. We’re also doing pretty well compared to the histories of the English and the Irish or the Jews and the Russians and the endless number of similar ethnic historical time tombs in our backgrounds. America works pretty well when it comes to the unofficial form of race-relations that involves people working and living together without killing each other. It would work even better without a racism industry whose entire reason for existence is to turn racism into the thing that we should always be talking about and always be conscious of at any time of the day. Racial consciousness is grievance consciousness. Take any members of two ethnic groups with an ugly history and tell them that they constantly need to think about those old grudges and discover how those grudges lead to them being mistreated in the present and you would have the same perfect storm of outraged entitlement, racial paranoia and grievance theater that you do when it comes to race relations. America does not have a racism problem. It has a problem obsessing about racism. The obsession isn’t black or white, it comes out of the ranks of academics and activists who use it to disrupt society while profiting from the havoc. The Trayvon Martin case is only one of countless cases dug up and deployed by the racism industry to maintain this perpetual consciousness of grievance at the expense of social harmony. Grievances don’t go away when you constantly demand an absolute justice that no human being is equipped to provide. They go away when you let go of the grievances and try to live together. It may seem easier for white people to say that, but reducing the complex mix of identities and histories of the vast majority of the population, many with their own histories of oppression, to “white people” is exactly the kind of facile unthinking bigotry that the racism industry cultivates. Everyone has their history of being oppressed and discriminated against either here or in their home country. Not everyone is still conscious of these grievances and these grudges. And that’s a good thing and a bad thing. A little consciousness of their own history by the descendants of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant immigrants would prevent them from grasping at senseless post-racial shibboleths like White Privilege. Forgetting isn’t a privilege. Black people know that. When you forget, then you no longer know who you are. But there’s a fine line between forgetting and hating. There’s a difference between knowing your own history and insisting on overlaying it completely over the present because you lack the tools for dealing with the present. America is a second chance. Not a place to forget who you are, but a place to discover who you might have become without that historical boot on your chest. That’s not what it always was, but that’s what it is today. It suffers from social dysfunction, but it is probably the least racist place in the world. Like its technological and cultural achievements, this social achievement is buried under a million tons of hate, denial and venom from a left that exists only to undermine America. There is no bright future waiting for those who choose to become collaborators in fulfilling the self-fulfilling prophecies of the Anti-American left. The very cynicism and pessimism embodied in that worldview, the certainty of failure implicit in its obsession with racial consciousness, is pregnant with their doom. The morass of Detroit, the miasma of Newark and the wreck of Oakland isn’t the labor of white racism; it’s that same self-fulfilling prophecy that too many in the black community have chosen to collaborate in bringing about. Faith in nothing but the power of racism leads to a hopeless future.