LEFTIST HATRED OF THE ORDINARY MAN

An excerpt from George Will

Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets, because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots and announce - yes, announce - that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by . . . liberals.

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

No. The current issue of the American Prospect, an impeccably progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing something responsible for "lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses" and for having brought "great hardship and despair to people and communities throughout the world."

What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).

********************

THE REALITY DEMOCRATS IGNORE

America's Democrats have failed to face up to the reality of the world that will come if the West's war with militant Islam is lost, if Europe surrenders, if America surrenders, if the Jihad emerges victorious. The world of social, intellectual, religious, and political liberty that America's Liberals and Democrats claim as their own would end with Sharia. America's Democrats, the champions of gay rights and sexual libertarianism, do not face up to the reality that the penalty for homosexuality and extra-marital sex under Sharia is death. They do not face up to the fact that in puritanical Islam, women are not equal. They do not face up to the fact that in puritanical Islam, religious intolerance, discrimination, and bigotry, are ideological imperatives.

America's Democrats, blind drunk on their lust for political power at any price, are blinded to the reality that the price of freedom from the totalitarian barbarians that come in a new guise in every generation, Hitlerian Nazism, Stalinist Communism, and now Islamo-Nazi Jihadism, is the constant willingness to do whatever is necessary to defend our freedoms, and sometimes that price is war. Not surrender, but victory. America's Democrats, chasing the chimerical dream of a world peace that has never been, and will never be, have made themselves the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st Century, who, seeking "peace in our time" at all costs, would rather surrender the Middle East, then Europe, then perhaps America, to the militant threats and demands of Jihadism, rather than fight for the freedom of others, to protect their own.

America will not win or lose the War on Terror, whether fought in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or anywhere else, because its armed forces cannot win. America will ultimately win the War on Terror, if it does, because Americans, Democrats and Republicans, muster up the will to do so. Or America will ultimately lose the War on Terror, if it does, because Americans, Democrats and Republicans, fail to sustain the will to win. America will either choose to win, or America will choose to surrender. By the end of this century, or perhaps by the end of this decade, either Western Civilization, with its freedoms and democracies, will remain, or puritanical Islam, Jihadism, will remain. But not both. One will win, the other will surrender. One will live, the other will die. The one with the greatest will to live, will live.

It may be a stereotype to describe Democrats as "Chardonnay Swilling Surrender Junkies" (which, quite coincidentally, rhymes perfectly with the tag some insensitive souls have pinned on the French as "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys"), but I have a certain image of Liberals, based partly on personal experience, sipping Chardonnay with brie on baguettes, deploring the horror, stupidity, and depravity of George Bush.

But it seems that many, or most, of America's Democrats see the War in Iraq as "another Vietnam." If they regain control of Congress, or the White House, or both, they seem determined to turn that assessment into a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are addicted to the seductive euphoria of the ephemeral "peace" that surrender brings, for a time. They are surrender junkies.

They so covet power for themselves, and the illusion of a "peace" that cannot last, that, rather than join a Republican President, George W. Bush, in a determined war to defeat the anti-Liberal, anti-Democratic, Islamic Jihad, they would rather surrender their own future and freedom, surrender America's future and freedom, and ultimately surrender the entire edifice of Western Civilization, Judeo-Christian Civilization, to an aggressive, intolerant, imperialist, militant, fundamentalist, terrorist Islamic theocracy that will ultimately destroy every freedom Liberal Democrats claim to be for.

More here



*******************

ELSEWHERE

Today's Democrats bungle war: "We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win. Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements. However, when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans."

It's Christians that the Left fear: "Meanwhile, the ecstatically positive reviews that greeted the alarmist documentary film "Jesus Camp" (which explicitly compares an enthusiastic Christian summer program for kids to a terrorist training ground) show the genuine horror of religious revival that pervades much of the secular establishment. In reviewing the film for the New York Times, a horrified Stephen Holden unambiguously equated young Evangelical believers to Communist mass murderers. "It wasn't so long ago that another puritanical youth army, Mao Zedong's Red Guards, turned the world's most populous country inside out," he wrote. "Nowadays, the possibility of a right-wing Christian American version of what happened in China no longer seems entirely far-fetched...."

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************

THE BORING "RELIGIOUS" LEFT

Below is an amused comment on a recent Leftist attack on the "Religious Right" from Assistant Village Idiot. He scores himself on being able to predict what the Leftist will say. Excerpt only:

Randall Balmer has an essay in the most recent Chronicle of Higher Education entitled Jesus Is Not A Republican. Balmer is a professor of religious history at Barnard College. The Assistant Village Idiot puts his fingers to his temples and makes some guesses: (Full disclosure: I read the opening one-sentence blurb, so I did see the phrase "drunk on power." Therefore I made no predictions about what would be written about that, figuring I had an unfair hint.)

1. Balmer will use black-and-white rhetoric to decry the black-and-white thinking of the Religious Right. Their approaches will not be criticized for being unwise or inadequate, they will be condemned as completely without merit. Other sides to any religious argument will simply not exist, because he knows the Bible better than you.

Arggh! I missed one right at the beginning: raised as an evangelical. Minus 1 point Otherwise, perfect score (The Bible I read.) 9 out of 10

1A. Oh, and we're closed-minded, too. Perfect 3 bonus points

2. Ballmer will note that God loves the poor. Therefore, we know the Religious Right has perverted the gospel, because they are in favor of cutting the poor off without a farthing. There will be no mention in Ballmer of what conservative evangelicals want to do for the poor, because it is so obviously a sham that it doesn't bear mentioning. The RR doesn't want to do what the liberals want, therefore they don't care about the poor.

Too easy. 10 out of 10

2A. He will believe every liberal spin of economic statistics as if they are unassailable. Tax cuts for the rich and corporate greed will both be mentioned at least twice each. This will prove that the Religious Right hates the poor.

Perfect 3 bonus points

3. He will complain how today's public Christians are rotten, not like the Christians in the Good Old Days when he was a boy, and were involved with the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war protests.

I was pretty much wrong on this one. There are only hints with the McGovern reference. 1 out of 10 points. Ouch

3A. The 50-50 chance of mentioning the abolitionists will rise to 90-10 because he's a religious history professor. "City on a Hill" will be mentioned. perfect 3 bonus points

4. He will explain that the war in Iraq is unjust because it doesn't adhere to "just war" doctrine, by which he will mean "We didn't get final approval from the UN." The extended examinations of Just War doctrine by other Christians who reached different conclusions, such as over at First Things, will not be mentioned. Conveniently, they won't have to be refuted, either. ".would not meet even the barest of just war criteria."

Score! He doesn't mention the UN (I suspect it's in his head though), which keeps me off full credit. 8 out of 10 points

***************************

ELSEWHERE



Florida GOP names replacement candidate: "Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley sought treatment for alcoholism and 'other behavioral problems' as Republicans on Monday picked a new candidate to salvage the seat Foley abandoned after disclosure of lurid online messages he exchanged with teenage boys. State party leaders chose state Rep. Joe Negron to replace Foley in next month's election. Negron will receive votes cast for Foley, although Foley's name will remain on the ballot in the West Palm Beach district, which is largely Republican."

Partners in plunder: "I keep reading that big business wants government off its back. But that's a myth. Here's the truth: [B]ig business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder). The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. That's Timothy Carney writing in a recent Cato Policy Report. He's the author of a new book, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money. Carney's book shows that government and business are not antagonists but allies. They've always been allies. Politicians like it that way because they get power and prestige, and businessmen like it because they get protection from competition."

Growth is good: "David Cameron says, 'It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB -- General Wellbeing,' by which he means happiness. With Cameron's endorsement, the cockle-warming politics of happiness has officially become a multi-partisan affair, no longer the property of Labour peer Richard Layard and other social democrats. And why shouldn't it be? Certainly no one disputes that there is more to life than money, or more to politics than the size of the economy. However, Cameron's contrast implies that increased GWB might have to come at the expense of GDP growth and economic liberalisation."

A game plan on gas prices: "As we recover from the summer season gasoline price highs, its time for cooler heads to prevail on U.S. energy policy. Despite a lot of grandstanding from the political class about 'Big Oil' and 'price-gouging,' we have seen little effective action from Washington. The laws of supply and demand still govern our energy markets -- the problem is that our tax and regulatory framework for energy is outdated and even counterproductive. There is so little margin for error in the current system that news of unexpected corrosion in the Alaska pipeline instantly sent global oil prices up 2 percent." The most important thing to understand is that gasoline prices are a signal of market supply and demand; Congress should not attempt to control prices directly but should instead address the underlying tax and regulatory factors that affect prices.... The United States should at least allow motorists and refiners the right to source Brazilian ethanol, which is made from cane sugar, or to refine cane sugar into ethanol here in the America. (Refining ethanol from cane sugar is far more efficient than from corn.) But the federal government charges American consumers a 54 cent per gallon penalty on imported ethanol, largely pricing it out of the market. And entrepreneurs interested in refining cane-sugar into ethanol in the United States. are prevented from doing so by the federal sugar program’s import quotas. Corn and sugar corporate welfare programs should not be allowed to stand in the way of our energy security; these tariffs should be repealed to create a competitive market for ethanol."

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************

The Democrat fantasy-world has some popular appeal

Advertisers of consumer products often structure advertisements to associate their products with a mood or a sense of pleasure, often without providing specifics about the product. Advertisers appear to believe that image, at least in the Baby Boomer world, is everything.

Basing their campaign strategy on the sort of focus-group polling employed by consumer-goods advertisers, Democrats just want voters to associate their party with peace and opposition to anything that might require our military forces to enter dangerous combat. The declared intent of Islamic jihadists to subjugate or destroy all non- Muslim societies must be ignored, as it would conflict with the nebulous image that fighting back is the root cause of terrorism. Appeasement, aka "negotiating" via the UN, is the Democrat's Ned- Lamont socialist answer.

Such was the fantasy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when he met with Adolph Hitler in Munich to sanction National Socialist Germany's seizure of Czechslovakia's Sudetenland. Mr. Chamberlain happily returned to England, on the eve of World War II, proclaiming, "Peace in our time."

Democrats have convinced themselves that dealing with terrorists is the same as stopping ordinary criminals, with arrests after the fact, public trials, and rehabilitation programs. This follows from another liberal-socialist doctrine: crime and war are the result of unequal distribution of income, which creates aggressive behavior among those deprived of their "constitutional rights" to the same level of income as everyone else.

The Democrats, the party of John Dewey's socialistic pragmatism, resolutely oppose the data of real-life experience and cling to the Darwinian doctrine that the world is a matter of chance, producing a process of social evolution. Yesterday's "truth" (of course, with the exception of socialism and pragmatism) will not be today's or tomorrow's "truth." With everything in a continuous state of flux, according to that theory, there is no truth, merely valid or invalid propositions. If an action works to your advantage, regardless of what happens to others, it is "valid." If their campaign to destroy President Bush succeeds, no matter what happens to our troops around the world or to our nation in the future, the necessary actions are, by Democrats' pragmatic lights, "valid."

Given liberal-socialist control of most of the opinion-forming media - newspapers, magazines, TV, movies - Democrats may win on image without substance. After three quarters of a century of educational indoctrination in the religion of socialism, too few Americans have been given the historical knowledge necessary to distinguish fact from fiction.

More here



*****************************

Where'd all the "It's Just Sex" Democrats Go?

The Seattle Times reports "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants the House Ethics Committee to put Republican leadership under oath to find out what they knew about Congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate communications with Congressional pages.". In a statement, Minority Senate leader Harry Reid (D) described the allegations against Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) as 'repugnant.' "Equally as bad," the Nevada Democrat said, "is the possibility that Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew there was a problem and ignored it to preserve a Congressional seat this election year."

Now wait a minute... Then-President Bill Clinton had not been sending inappropriate suggestive emails and instant messages to a young intern, an act certainly repugnant no matter the authors' politics. He had reduced the previously revered Oval Office, to just a personal sexually perverted play pen.

Democrats didn't sit silent as the news broke of Clinton's repeated and continuing sexual misconduct, they rushed to his defense with some dreamed up right-wing conspiracy theory intended to misdirect public attention away from Clinton's life-long sex addiction, throwing every person disgusted by his irresponsible conduct under the bus. They were not innocent bystanders, they were actively complicit, even enablers.

As Clinton wagged his finger in the nose of every American, assuring the world that he "did not have sex with that woman", he and his closest advisors knew better. As he sat under oath before a court committing outright perjury before a world-wide audience, Democrats stood firmly at his side, crying foul, insisting that any lie about sex isn't a lie at all really.

Even once Clinton was impeached and disbarred for perjury - Democrats insisted that none of this had anything to do with his ability to hold the highest office in the land. Many of those now seeking to make political hay out of Foley's disgracefully stupid indiscretions once blocked any effort to remove a convicted perjurer from the White House.

Foley certainly screwed up, BIG TIME! But he at least had the decency to resign, a decency neither Clinton himself nor his many Democrat supporters ever demonstrated. Now we are supposed to listen as Democrats try to cash-in on what can only be described as inappropriate sexual activities between consenting adults?

When former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey was busted cheating on his wife and family with a young male office assistant, Democrats again rushed to his side to defend his actions as that of a closet homosexual who did not deserve to be tossed from office on the basis of his sexual misconduct alone.

They kept him in office to avoid the mid-term appointment of a Republican Governor, buying time for the Party to come up with his Democrat replacement. That replacement was Senator John Corzine, who personally bought both his senate seat and the governorship with his own personal wealth.

Democrat Representative Barney Franks didn't get busted sending private messages to his boy friend - he was busted paying a male prostitute for services. He was busted while using his elected position of power to clear his boy friend from his felony past, with convictions for cocaine possession, oral sodomy and "production of obscene items involving a juvenile." Again, Democrats across the country ran to defend Franks and make excuses for his perverted and irresponsible if not bizarre behaviors.

Yet today, we are to believe that these same Democrats are so upset by private email exchanges, that they must have a full-scale FBI investigation into not just Foley's personal misconduct, but every Republican in congress too?

Give me a BREAK!!! We're talking about Democrats here... Democrats! - People who don't know the difference between innocent human life and a stomach tumor. People who declare that ALL sexual perversions be given equal status under the law and equal rights under the time-honored name of Marriage. People who have rushed to demand First Amendment protection of pornography, at the same time claiming that the bible has no such protections... Democrats...!

Any Republican who didn't call for Foley's resignation isn't a conservative. But for Democrats to try to capitalize on a republican SEX SCANDAL is hilarious! I mean we're talking about a Party that idolizes JFK and Clinton on the basis of their sexual prowess. A Party still led by gin-soaked Teddy Kennedy. Come on...

Today's Democrats aren't only shameless... They're STUPID! Believing that they can buy votes with promises from the treasury is one thing. But believing they can capitalize on someone else's sexual misconduct is just plain insane... Are you kidding me???

Foley should be finished... So should any politician looking to cash-in on Foley's follies, especially if they are a Democrat! Get out a here... I really have seen it all now! "I deeply regret and accept full responsibility for the harm I have caused," Foley said. Foley has already begun taking responsibility for his actions. Democrats never have and never will!

Source

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************

THE LEFTIST AGENDA

Liberals hate an armed society. Liberals hate an educated society. Liberals hate a society that says "I can do this on my own." What is the easiest way to defeat a society that is armed, educated, and free? Take away the guarantees of all 3 and you have it. Disarm them and they are no longer citizens, they are subjects. Control the educations system and you no longer have free-thinkers you have state-educated subjects by indoctrination. Slowly erode their rights and you have a collective mass.

If this sounds eerily familiar it should. It was tried before in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. This experiment has been tried and has failed miserably. The names of the parties from the past have faded away, only to be replaced in this country by a party whose sole purpose is to make these anti-freedom positions a fixture in a free society. Democrat liberals often champion their love for a free society, but by their actions they have defined themselves as enemies of true freedom. They want God to be replaced by the state. They want to experiment again with a test that will result in total failure. Our choice is clear of what must be done to preserve what is merely a shadow of true freedom granted to us by God. Our Founding Fathers did not sacrifice their lives for us to lay down now and not fight for a true government based on constitutional principles...

Liberals have successfully allowed some of these arguments to be discussed where they are allowed to choose the wording. You see, liberals understand they cannot win the arguments by their stance on issues. In order to win, they have to redefine words to make them look as non-threatening as possible. They aren't pro-murder, they are pro-choice of a woman. They aren't anti-American, they are pro-U.N. They are pro-family, meaning gay couples can adopt and get married. They are pro-religion as long as it isn't Christians. Muslims aren't the most dangerous followers of a religion in this country. It's those darn Christians. They must be stopped. We can't allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed!

We just don't understand a liberal's mind because we are one of the masses. We aren't elite enough to lead but rather follow. They know what is best for us. We just need to trust them on this one. Government can solve all of our problems. The Constitution is an outdated document that has no relevance in this 21st century of enlightenment. How can we not see that? Let us put our trust and faith in Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean to make us the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

More here

**************************

ELSEWHERE

Prudent Bear has a thoughtful column about how the process of EU enlargement is going and what the prospects for future enlargement are.

Nutty Church of England blames Christians, not Muslims for abuse of women: "Misguided and distorted versions of Christian belief have contributed to domestic abuse in Britain, says the Church of England. And the Church itself has not done enough to protect victims. The report, which has been backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, says that domestic abuse is as "prevalent among Christians" as among other groups and identifies problem areas in Christian tradition."

Old farts have learnt nothing: "Iraqi war demonstrators in their 60s don't see why today's young people seem so uninterested. The protesters were furious. Occupying the senator's office, they chanted antiwar slogans and demanded an immediate end to the war. The police moved in, warning protesters they would be arrested if they didn't disperse. Most left, but 11 activists were cuffed, charged with criminal trespass, and taken to jail. This model for antiwar activism was perfected in the Vietnam era. Today it is employed to protest the Iraq war. Yet, in accounts of this recent protest in the office of Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Me.), one telling statistic stood out: the youngest protester arrested was 52, and most were in their 60s. Where were the kids? The answer provides insight into a key dynamic happening in the American public sphere. A new generation gap exists. In a perfect inversion of the 1960s generation gap, today's is marked by angry, activist elders and a more quiescent youth."

More media deception: "Friday's Good Morning America featured a segment with Robin Roberts in Memphis with three Southern women, identified as Republicans, who are all supposedly "having second thoughts about their party" and now plan to vote for Democrats. But a quick Internet search found that two of the three have backgrounds which raise questions about their fidelity to the GOP.... while Herbison was Press Secretary to Republican Tennessee Governor Donald Sundquist, best known for a failed effort to enact a state income tax, she was also the Press Secretary for the Tennessee House Democratic Caucus. The other, Robin Rasmussen, who insisted that "I voted Republican in every election since I was 18," appears to be on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood, which doesn't make it impossible for her to be a Republican, but certainly suggests she's long been politically active for a liberal social cause."

Tom Friedman gets this right: "Thanks to pressure from Midwest farmers and agribusinesses, who want to protect the U.S. corn ethanol industry from competition from Brazilian sugar ethanol, we have imposed a stiff tariff to keep it out. We do this even though Brazilian sugar ethanol provides eight times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it, while American corn ethanol provides only 1.3 times the energy of the fossil fuel used to make it. We do this even though sugar ethanol reduces greenhouses gases more than corn ethanol. And we do this even though sugar cane ethanol can easily be grown in poor tropical countries in Africa or the Caribbean, and could actually help alleviate their poverty."

Illegals hurt the young: "Over the 2000-2005 period, immigration levels remained very high and roughly half of new immigrant workers were illegal. This report finds that the arrival of new immigrants (legal and illegal) in a state results in a decline in employment among young native-born workers in that state. Our findings indicate that young native-born workers are being displaced in the labor market by the arrival of new immigrants."

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************

Unclear and present danger

The public is still not fully aware of the gravity of the threat posed by Islamist extremists, Britain's anti-terror supremo says:

Britain's top counter-terrorist cop has no doubt the nature of the threat has changed dramatically. Peter Clarke, Scotland Yard's 51-year-old head of counter-terrorism, talks with quiet resolution about the challenge of Islamist terrorism and how it has turned British policing upside down. People often say to Clarke how well placed the British authorities must be to deal with Islamist terror given their long experience of Irish Republican Army killers. No, he responds emphatically. It's a whole new ball game with no defined rules of engagement or carefully delineated boundaries. "The current terrorist threat is almost the reverse of all those parameters," Clarke said in Canberra this week. "What we see is global in origin, global in ambition, global in reach. The networks are loose, they are fluid and they are incredibly resilient," Clarke told a security conference.

Defeating the threat demands a level of resources, including sustained surveillance, unprecedented in modern law enforcement. "Unless you have pace and scale on your side, you will fail to deal with these terrorist conspiracies that we are currently seeing," he stressed. Clarke tells Inquirer the threat posed by radical Islamists in Britain is growing in scale and complexity. "I think the only sensible conclusion is that it is ... because if you look at the pace of terrorist activity since 9/11, it's clearly unabated and there appears to be a consistency, almost a regularity, in the attack patterns. "I don't want to sound unnecessarily gloomy, but I don't see many positive signs in terms of it being diminished." He points out that British authorities have managed to foil four or five attacks in the past 12 months. But the "sad probability" is that another attack will get through at some time....

Clarke says Britain's experience of Islamist terror, including last year's London bombings and the recently thwarted plot to blow up airliners flying to the US, is driving far-reaching changes in the way police now operate. It used to be that police would only intervene in the final stages of a terrorist plot, making arrests at or near the point of attack, with the strongest possible weight of evidence to put before a court. However, Clarke says the scale of the threat means "we can no longer afford to wait until that moment". "It's a complete shift in scale. Mentally we have had to completely change our response in terms of interdiction and intervention to prevent an increased risk to the public."

Clarke says earlier action to pre-empt a mass casualty attack also dictates the need to engage closely with local communities as a key element of counter-terrorism strategy. He believes the British public is still not fully aware of the gravity of the threat posed by Islamist terror groups. This is despite the fact there are now 90 people awaiting trial on terrorism charges. "We have a whole series of trials which over the coming months and years will unfold in the UK. When that hard evidence is produced the public are able to see what has been planned over the last months and years, that will contribute to their understanding of the threat."

Clarke warns it is vital that the aviation industry examines the implications of the foiled plot for air travel. The plotters had been planning to smuggle liquid explosives on board several planes. "I can't go into details about the methodology except to say its very innovative. That will give a clue to the fact that now in response ... new protective measures are required. The methodology is such that there must be an enduring threat to air transport." So a serious threat to aviation safety remains which has to be addressed? "Absolutely," comes the reply.

More here

********************

ELSEWHERE

Some blotted-out history: "It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools."

Alabama blacks unhappy with Donks: "Black Democrats will meet today to discuss their future with the state party and if they should support candidates with an "unacceptable agenda," a move one political analyst said could hurt the party in the Nov. 7 general election. The meeting is detailed in a letter by Alabama Democratic Conference Chairman Joe Reed to the leadership of the Alabama Democratic Conference and other party officials. A copy of the Sept. 12 letter obtained by the Montgomery Advertiser states the meeting in Prattville is dedicated to determining the "quality and status" of the group's relationship to the party and "whether it is in our best interest to continue to maintain our present relationship.... Although the letter questions whether the conference should endorse certain Democratic candidates, the meeting has "nothing to do" with the state party granting its nomination to state legislative candidate Patricia Todd, said Jerome Gray, the conference's field director. Todd is white and openly gay. She was chosen over Gaynell Hendricks, a black candidate".

Homosexuals Prey on Young Boys (Comment by Dick McDonald): "Don't give me any crap about the political correctness of my headline. I was reared in West Hollywood, CA and can tell you as a young blonde athlete of the many encounters I had with homosexuals trying to blow me. Luckily my girlfriend's father was the Chief Commander of the Hollywood Police Station and gave me simple hints how to handle their approaches. One of the simplest was to reply to their standard line "I hear there are a lot of fags in Hollywood" to a hitch hiker like me was by emphatically stating "Yeah I turned one in last night" whereupon the car would screech to a halt and the "fellow" would tell me he wasn't going "my way" anymore. He had to turn. So what do we have now? Representative Tom Foley (R), the Co-Chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, resigned today with the disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he sent to a 16 year-old page and the hint that he has a history with other pages as well. Tom wrote the young page to inquire "Do I make you a little horny?" How sick is that? Apparently it was well known in Washington that Foley was light in the shoes. How he got to manage "exploited" children is a mystery; a serious management error by the Republican leadership. If you think about it, it is stranger than fiction. Democrat supporters of gay rights are going to forget their support temporarily, the political advantage is just too delicious."

Chris Brand has just done a new lot of posts on his usual themes of race, IQ and political correctness -- with particular emphasis on the British scene.

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************

HATE IS BASIC TO LEFTISM

Let's face it, when you get right down to it, all of liberalism is fueled by a singular strategy-a strategy which has been continually perfected and relentlessly executed over the past forty years. That strategy is to promote and exploit divisiveness. Everything liberal politicians do is based on this simple principle. Tell the people that are given to hating the most, that they are the ones who are hated. Tell the people who expect the most, that they deserve more. Tell blacks to hate whites. Tell women to hate men. Tell the lazy to hate the motivated. Tell the poor that only conservatives are rich, and then be sure to tell them to hate them for it.

Class warfare, race baiting, name calling and man-hating-all with a singular goal: to get themselves in power by promoting and exploiting divisiveness. Of course, once this divisiveness turns into frenzy, these same people suddenly act as if they actually want to solve a problem that didn't even exist before they did everything they possibly could to create it. To liberals, every issue, every situation is an opportunity to divide. History, religion, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the death of a soldier, a political debate, the hurricane which devastated New Orleans. Every tragedy exploited to divide. Every victory belittled to divide. Every incident, every word, every distorted statistic, every holiday-you name it, they will find some way to divide it.

Unfortunately, it's not just the politicians who promote and exploit divisiveness; it is the people as well. Malcontents, jealous of anyone with any sort of success, come up with any way they can to attack those who are more successful then they are. Someone is rich only because they stole something from them. Certain groups are more successful only because they took advantage of them. Work has nothing to do with it. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Planning ahead has nothing to do with it. Even luck has nothing to do with it.

And what do these kinds of people view as the solution to this imaginary injustice? Why special rights, privileges and opportunities for themselves, of course. Level the playing field. Get something for nothing. Take from the rich, the white, the male dominated, homophobic society that has already given them everything. Take what they have, what they built, what they earned-whether it be money, property, liberty or opportunity-and find some way, some justification, some cause or some guise to redistribute it to the people who have done nothing to earn it. To people who refuse to compete on merit. To people who insist on taking more out of society than what they put in to it. To people who don't give a damn that their inclusion comes only at the expense of someone else's exclusion. The strategy is simple, really-promote divisiveness and then exploit it for your own benefit.

But differences have given liberals the perfect opportunity to stop any rational discussion dead in its tracks. Differences have led to polarization. Differences have led to countries within a country. Differences have led to the dreaded xist-ism-monger-phobia. Differences have allowed liberals to add any of these four sounds to the end of any word they choose, virtually guaranteeing that they can get away with anything they want.

Worse yet, liberals actually have the nerve to turn around and endlessly accuse conservatives of divisiveness. To them, conservatives- who believe everyone should be held to the same standards-are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives-who believe everyone should have the same rights regardless of the guises used to justify different ones for different people-are somehow divisive. To them, conservatives-who sacrifice their time, money, careers and often their lives to defend the true meaning of freedom and liberty-are somehow divisive.

But the reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who are trying to make some contribution to our society. The reality is that divisiveness does not come from those who expect others to at least try to do the same. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something out of a society far beyond what they are willing to put back in. The reality is that divisiveness comes from those who are always trying to get something for nothing.

More here. See also here

*********************

ELSEWHERE



Korea: Test tube on socialism vs capitalism: "Permit me to add something to Secretary Rumsfeld’s observations on the different results in North and South Korea. (Living in South Korea for a year was one of the things that cured me of my youthful leftism.) The Korean people may be the most ethnically homogeneous people on earth. About 60 percent have one of only three surnames: Lee, Kim, and Park. North and South Korea had the same history from the dawn of history until 1945. The Korean peninsula is small, and about 45 percent constitutes the South. At the time of partition through about 1960, I’d say, the economy of the North was more developed than that of the South. The North had a smaller population, but one that was arguably better educated than the South’s. The North had more industry, too. During the 1950s, the South was absolutely destitute, and survived on food donations from the United States. Thus, in 1945, an “experiment of nature” was carried out. Take a small, homogeneous country and divide it arbitrarily more or less in half. Then install one kind of government in the north and another kind in the south. Close the curtain. See what happens. The results speak for themselves, don’t they? Fifty years of Communism produced famine, or near famine. Fifty years of an increasingly free-market system produced prosperity and wider political freedom. What more does anyone need to know about socialism?

New disclosure rules reveal where union bosses spend: "For the first time, federal disclosure rules are shining sunlight upon union spending priorities, and many rank-and-file members won't like what they reveal. Fortunately, they can do something about it. Among other pursuits, unions such as the AFL-CIO and National Education Association (NEA) spent 60% or more of their discretionary dollars on partisan political activities in 2004-2005, compared to 40% or less on actual work-related representation activities."

Increasing freedom increases growth: "States that have lower taxes, smaller government and flexible labor markets tend to have comparatively more economic growth. An annual report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and Canada's Fraser Institute attempts to quantify each state's economic freedom, and then examine what this means for economic growth. This year's report points to good news for all but a few states, most notably New Mexico."

The Antifederalists were right : "September 27 marks the anniversary of the publication of the first of the Antifederalist Papers in 1789. The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But that does not mean they were wrong or that we are not indebted to them."

From Far Left to libertarian : "The question of how I became a libertarian ultimately is a question about how I changed my mental model of the political system from one of 'good guys vs. villains' to one of the importance of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. I travelled the route from Far Left to libertarian. I think that quite a few libertarians have travelled that route, and yet I cannot think of anyone who has gone the other direction. This leads me to suspect that: 1. Far Leftists and libertarianism have much in common. 2. Libertarians know something that Far Leftists do not."

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************

LEFTISTS NEED CONTROL

One can't exaggerate how large Fox looms in the liberal imagination. They see it as huge and mighty and credit it with almost mythical powers. It is a propaganda channel whose mission it is to destroy the Democratic Party. That's part of why Clintons' performance had such salience. Finally he was standing up to an evil empire. It is odd that they are so spooked. In October America is set to become a nation of 300 million. What a big country. Fox News's average evening prime-time viewership is less than two million. Its average daytime is less than a million. And if my mail is an indication, they're already Republicans. Fox's power is that it is an alternative to the mainstream media. It did not take its shape by deeply inhaling liberalism and slowly breathing it out.

The left sees Fox as a symptom and promoter of anarchy. The old unity, the old essential unity one used to experience when one turned on the TV in 1950 or 1980, has been fractured, broken up. We are becoming balkanized. Fox, blogs, talk radio, the Internet, citizen reporters--it's all producing cacophony, and heralds a future of No Compromise. No one trusts the information they're given anymore, as they trusted Uncle Walter. This is bad for the country.

It is an odd thing about modern liberals that they're made anxious by the unsanctioned. A conservative is more likely to see what's happening as freedom. It isn't that honest and impartial news lost its place of respect, it's that establishment liberalism lost its journalistic monopoly. And it was a monopoly. Not everyone believed Uncle Walter. Uncle Walter, and Chet and David, were all there was. But while they reigned, Americans were buying "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, and Reagan was quietly rising way out in California, and Spiro Agnew and Bill Safire were issuing mainstream hits like "effete snobs" and "nattering nabobs." In the time liberals think of as the last great unified era, Americans were rising up.

The new media did not divide us. The new media gave voice to our divisions. The result: more points of view, more subjects discussed, more data presented. This, in a great republic, a great democracy, a leader of the world in a dangerous time, is not bad but good.

More here

********************

ELSEWHERE



UT: Trio asks court to overturn polygamy ban: "A Utah couple and a woman who wants to become the second wife in their family are asking a Denver-based federal appeals court to overturn Utah's ban on polygamy, saying it violates their rights to religion, association and privacy. A Salt Lake County clerk refused to issue a marriage license in December 2003 when G. Lee Cook and the second woman -- accompanied by Cook's wife -- applied. About a year later, a federal judge dismissed their lawsuit, saying the clerk properly followed state laws and rejecting arguments that those laws violate the rights of people who believe in plural marriage. On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals formally accepted written arguments submitted earlier this year. There was no indication when they might rule."

Argentina: Pupils to learn Britain "colonised" Falklands: "A new history book describing how Britain illegally 'colonised' the Falkland Islands is to be distributed to every secondary school pupil in Argentina. The book accuses British forces of arriving secretly on the islands in the 18th century and taking it by force from the Spanish. Since then the British have refused offers to discuss the islands' sovereignty with Argentina, the book claims. ... According to the Argentinian version of events, the Falklands became part of Argentina after it declared independence from Spain in 1810. The new Argentinian government 'considered [the Falklands] an integral part of its territory, inherited from Spain by succession,' the book says. The British version of events reads differently. It maintains that an expeditionary force led by the Royal Navy reached West Falkland in 1765 and, on finding it unoccupied, took formal possession of the Falklands."

UK: "Anti-junk mail" postman keeps job: "The rebel postman who became a populist hero when he championed the case against junk mail is to keep his job, it was announced yesterday. Roger Annies, 45, won praise from customers and environmental campaigners when he told householders on his route how to avoid some of the 21 billion pieces of junk mail which are put through Britain's letterboxes each year. Taking matters into his own hands the father-of-one, from Barry, south Wales, designed and circulated a leaflet highlighting Royal Mail's opt-out clause for unsolicited mail. ... Mr Annies was suspended and faced a disciplinary hearing for his intervention. Yesterday, however, a company spokesman said he had been reinstated."

Taxachusetts still very taxing: "Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday. Michael J. Widmer -- president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances -- said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as 'closing loopholes.' Widmer's figure is about $500 million more than what Romney asserted yesterday when he sharply disputed charges by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deval L . Patrick that the GOP administration had raised millions in taxes. But it is also tens of millions less than the $985 million that Patrick cited."

Arnie vetoes drivers' licence bill: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation Thursday to allow illegal immigrants to obtain California driver's licenses, marking the eighth consecutive year such proposals have died. Senate Bill 1162 was a far weaker proposal than had been pushed in years past, recognizing the string of defeats and bitter political friction over the issue in an election year. The veto marked one of dozens of actions taken Thursday by Schwarzenegger, who is racing to meet a deadline of midnight Saturday to sign or veto about 500 bills remaining on his desk".

Neuro wine in old bottles : "In the September 18 edition of The New Yorker magazine, writer John Cassidy leads a fascinatin-g tour through parts of the new field of neuroeconomics, the study of the neurological underpinnings of economic decision-making. Sadly, a number of the economists Cassidy interviews are stuck in a conceptual quagmire about the relationship between reason, emotion, and paternalistic public policy. Cassidy, a good journalist, inherits their confusion. There is, in fact, nothing in the research Cassidy reviews that helps to justify, in his words, 'a new political philosophy based on the idea of saving people from the vagaries of their limbic regions.'"

For more postings, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and EYE ON BRITAIN. (Mirror sites here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

**************************

"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

****************************