There are two rules regarding political truth: (1) Follow the money; and (2) See who benefits. Such an examination of Save Our Cumberland Mountains, SOCM, proves conclusively that it is a Leftist organization unfriendly to America’s core values and institutions. It is, in effect, the ACORN of Appalachia.
ACORN has been thoroughly exposed and discredited as a corrupt organization that has used taxpayer dollars to perpetrate frauds involving mortgages, voter registration and embezzlement. ACORN was co-founded by Wade Rathke, an influential force with other Leftist groups such as the Service Employees International Union, SEIU, and the Tides Foundation.
SOCM also receives a considerable amount of funding from the Tides Foundation through the Appalachian Community Fund. Is this a coincidence, or are there specific reasons why SOCM is favored by the Sugardaddy of Left-wing politics?
The Tides Foundation began in 1976 as an anti-war group. They have since become involved in a whole host of Left-wing activities including: domestic Islamic groups; pro-terrorist groups; abortion; open borders; homosexual advocacy; anti-trade; and, environmentalism. The Global financier George Soros has given millions to Tides to promote his One World vision. The Soros-created “Democratic Justice Fund” advocates easing restrictions on Muslim immigration, particularly from countries that have been designated as terrorist nations by the State Dept.
Most of the Tides Foundation contributors prefer to remain anonymous. It’s easy to see why once you discover their vast network of anti-American affiliations.
Tides has donated money to the Ruckus Society, an anarchist group responsible for the 1999 WTO riots in Seattle. They have contributed to the Earth Island Institute which called the U.S. response to the 9/11 attack, “self-righteous arrogance.” Tides has given money to the pro-Hamas Council for American Islamic Relations, CAIR.
Tides is involved in funding the National Lawyers Guild which has a long tradition of defending America’s enemies. They also help fund the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR, which defended attorney Lynn Stewart who was found guilty of “providing material support” to 1993’s World Trade Center bomber, the blind Sheikh.
Tides was able to influence ABC into censoring a John Stossel report about radical environmentalism. Tides has given money to MoveOn.org— the Soros-directed 527 that produced the Gen. Petraeus, “Gen.Betray Us” ad. They’ve also been involved in an array of anti-war groups such as ANSWER and the International Action Center which has defended Serbian Communist Slobodan Milosevic and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.
The Tides-sponsored Appalachian Community Fund, passes out grants to groups like SOCM in order to finance their anti-coal campaigns.
Why anti-coal?
Remember, the Left has long desired a policy to destroy America’s industrial might by attacking our carbon-based energy supplies. The scheme, called “Cap and Trade,” is nothing more than a method of wealth redistribution where certain, privileged insiders make a fortune at the expense of heavy taxation and regulation. Poor, undeveloped countries will have a surplus of carbon credits because they use so little carbon-based energy. The industrialized countries, however, like the U.S., will shoulder the largest carbon liability, or tax. As President Obama himself declared, energy prices will necessarily “skyrocket.” Obama, it’s interesting to note, held the position of Director for the Joyce Foundation for 8 years. The Jocye Foundation, which also part of the Tides funding aparatus, helped create the Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX.
The CCX is designed to operate a redistribution brokerage house for the U.S. “Cap and Trade” system. The scam involves such crony capitalists as: Goldman Sachs (Peter Harris), Al Gore (Generation Investment Management), General Electric, BP, and Franklin Raines (former Fannie Mae CEO). Richard Sandor, CCX-founder, has estimated that the “Cap and Trade” legislation will generate $10 trillion per year for his company!
To further connect the dots, take a look at the Appalachian Community Fund web site. It says they are dedicated to “the movement of people toward the establishment of environmental, economic and social justice, and the redistribution of wealth, power and resources.” For comparsion’s sake, I was going to quote the mission statement from the Communist Party USA, but that would be redundant.
Don’t be fooled by the superficial claims of a political movement: follow the money and see who benefits. As Winston Churchill observed, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
“None Dare Call it Socialism”
The word “socialism” has come up a lot in our political debate over the last year. Perhaps you’ve noticed whenever a commentator has used this term – usually in context of some new Obama initiative -- there’s nervous laughter and awkward gestures of embarrassment. Ever wonder why? Let’s take a look at the definition:
Socialism: 1. An economic and political theory that advocates collective or governmental ownership of property with centralized control over the means of production and distribution. 2. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.
After Obamacare passed in the House last week, Al Sharpton appeared on Fox News and was asked if this was socialism. He replied, “The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama.” He added, “I think that this began the transforming of the country the way the President had promised. This is what he ran on.”
Indeed, President Obama promised to transform America. Leading up to election day he said this from the stump, “In five days we are going to fundamentally transform America.” That’s quite a bold statement, but in context of what this administration has been doing it should be clear now what that transformation is — socialism.
Karl Marx was an atheist who held an evolutionary view of mankind and society. He believed that socialism was merely a pit stop on the way from capitalism to communism. History proves him correct in the notion that the growth of government does indeed increase over time if not checked by an opposing and constraining force. Thomas Jefferson addressed this tendency in explaining the purpose of the U.S. Constitution: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Marx would consider the growth of government as “progress,” but Jefferson viewed it as tyranny.
Socialists create “rights” and bestow them arbitrarily. This is incompatible with the philosophy of America’s Constitution which acknowledges self-evident rights are unalienable and cannot be transferred or abridged. The important distinction is this: rights given by the state can be taken away, rights given by God (i.e. Natural Rights) are everlasting endowments that exist beyond the reach of usurping rulers, no matter how well-intentioned their motives.
Many on the Left claim that our democratic government would never oppress us, because we have the ability to make it respond to our will. Yeah, right! All of the polls showed that the American people did not want this health care bill and what did Congress do? If they’re not responsive to us now, at the time of initiating this gigantic government takeover, what do you think their responsiveness will be once the system becomes entrenched and self-serving?
Apparently, we never seem to remember all of the prior deceptions perpetrated by Big Government. The modern income tax originally applied to just 4% of the population with a top rate of 6%. Social Security was intended to be only supplemental insurance and started with a ratio of about 35 contributors for each recipient. Now it is running at 3:1. This year, for the first time, more money is going out of Social Security than coming in. Common sense says this is an unsustainable condition. As an example of why we’re in such debt, consider that in the 30 years from 1962 to 1992 the budget flip-flopped from 30% non-discretionary spending on entitlements to 63%. Thus, over time we’re engineering an intractable system of “spread the wealth” transfer payments that is bankrupting us.
The government continues to default on Medicare and Medicaid re-imbursements paying only a percentage of what’s due to health-care providers. That’s why Walgreens announced recently they were no longer taking Medicaid patients. In 2006, Medicare went underwater- paying out more than it received. Medicare originally cost taxpayers $3 billion in 1966. The proponents projected it would expand to $12 billion by 1990. Want to guess how close they were? The taxpayer burden for Medicare in 1990 exploded to $107 billion- a mistake of about 700%. So, when someone in government promises you that a new program is going to be cheap, don’t you believe it!
So, why do people snicker and squirm when the word “socialism” is mentioned? I believe it’s because subconsciously we all know that it’s a scam but we just can’t help ourselves from indulging in the make-believe wish for a “free lunch.” Too bad that free lunch often comes with a Gulag dessert. (email comments to: WFC83197@aol.com )
Socialism: 1. An economic and political theory that advocates collective or governmental ownership of property with centralized control over the means of production and distribution. 2. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.
After Obamacare passed in the House last week, Al Sharpton appeared on Fox News and was asked if this was socialism. He replied, “The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama.” He added, “I think that this began the transforming of the country the way the President had promised. This is what he ran on.”
Indeed, President Obama promised to transform America. Leading up to election day he said this from the stump, “In five days we are going to fundamentally transform America.” That’s quite a bold statement, but in context of what this administration has been doing it should be clear now what that transformation is — socialism.
Karl Marx was an atheist who held an evolutionary view of mankind and society. He believed that socialism was merely a pit stop on the way from capitalism to communism. History proves him correct in the notion that the growth of government does indeed increase over time if not checked by an opposing and constraining force. Thomas Jefferson addressed this tendency in explaining the purpose of the U.S. Constitution: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Marx would consider the growth of government as “progress,” but Jefferson viewed it as tyranny.
Socialists create “rights” and bestow them arbitrarily. This is incompatible with the philosophy of America’s Constitution which acknowledges self-evident rights are unalienable and cannot be transferred or abridged. The important distinction is this: rights given by the state can be taken away, rights given by God (i.e. Natural Rights) are everlasting endowments that exist beyond the reach of usurping rulers, no matter how well-intentioned their motives.
Many on the Left claim that our democratic government would never oppress us, because we have the ability to make it respond to our will. Yeah, right! All of the polls showed that the American people did not want this health care bill and what did Congress do? If they’re not responsive to us now, at the time of initiating this gigantic government takeover, what do you think their responsiveness will be once the system becomes entrenched and self-serving?
Apparently, we never seem to remember all of the prior deceptions perpetrated by Big Government. The modern income tax originally applied to just 4% of the population with a top rate of 6%. Social Security was intended to be only supplemental insurance and started with a ratio of about 35 contributors for each recipient. Now it is running at 3:1. This year, for the first time, more money is going out of Social Security than coming in. Common sense says this is an unsustainable condition. As an example of why we’re in such debt, consider that in the 30 years from 1962 to 1992 the budget flip-flopped from 30% non-discretionary spending on entitlements to 63%. Thus, over time we’re engineering an intractable system of “spread the wealth” transfer payments that is bankrupting us.
The government continues to default on Medicare and Medicaid re-imbursements paying only a percentage of what’s due to health-care providers. That’s why Walgreens announced recently they were no longer taking Medicaid patients. In 2006, Medicare went underwater- paying out more than it received. Medicare originally cost taxpayers $3 billion in 1966. The proponents projected it would expand to $12 billion by 1990. Want to guess how close they were? The taxpayer burden for Medicare in 1990 exploded to $107 billion- a mistake of about 700%. So, when someone in government promises you that a new program is going to be cheap, don’t you believe it!
So, why do people snicker and squirm when the word “socialism” is mentioned? I believe it’s because subconsciously we all know that it’s a scam but we just can’t help ourselves from indulging in the make-believe wish for a “free lunch.” Too bad that free lunch often comes with a Gulag dessert. (email comments to: WFC83197@aol.com )
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Golden Anniversary for Goldwater
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the release of Barry Goldwater’s highly influential book, “The Conscience of a Conservative.” Known as “Mr. Conservative” Goldwater put down in a little over 100 pages the key principles to an entire political movement. Phyllis Schlaffly has stated, “It is hard to overestimate the importance of Barry Goldwater to the Conservative Movement. If there hadn’t been a Barry Goldwater, there wouldn’t have been a Ronald Reagan.”
Goldwater was a five term U.S. Senator from Arizona and the 1964 Republican nominee for President. Though losing in a landslide to Johnson, Goldwater’s candidacy launched the careers of countless conservative activists including the Gipper himself. Reagan, a democrat until 1962—who often said, “I didn’t leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me”-- gave a televised speech on behalf of Goldwater on the evening of Oct. 27, 1964 entitled, “A Time For Choosing.” Known also as the “Rendezvous With Destiny” speech, it lit-up the switch boards of the network and brought in millions of dollars for Goldwater. The oratory skills of “The Great Communicator” were revealed that night and the governorship of California became the immediate pathway for Reagan’s entry upon the national, political stage. The speech is readily available for viewing on YouTube.
Looking back through the pages of Goldwater’s book, one can find many timeless principles that speak to the issues of today, and especially, the Tea Party Movement. It seems rather prophetic in its warnings about the growth of government, the loss of freedom, the threat of high taxes, the dangers of appeasing our enemies and the corrupting influences of: big labor unions, welfare entitlement programs, corporate subsidies and a Supreme Court that ignores the clear meaning of the Constitution.
Goldwater declared, “The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply wisdom, experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today-- principles [that] are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation.” These are the self-evident truths of the Founders.
Russell Kirk believed that, “If one million people would read this book, it would change the world.” Well, with nearly 4 million copies in print and the enduring legacy of the Reagan Revolution and the victory in the Cold War, we now know that Kirk too was prophetic.
The undeniable truth is that these principles today haven’t changed at all, we have! This is why the Bible instructs us to “renew our minds daily.” The tendency is for our human minds to wander and deviate from moral absolutes. Thus, being a Conservative means constantly going back to recalibrate ourselves according to the core principles of this Judeo-Christian worldview that deems government- the imposition of force- a necessary evil.
Goldwater outlines the primary directive of American politics: Constitutionalism. In this discipline, he advocates for the “conservation” of individual liberty in opposition to its natural enemy- government. “Throughout history,” Goldwater explains, “government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men…the Constitution [therefore] is an instrument, above all, for limiting the functions of government.” This attitude is in complete agreement with today’s Tea Party activists. In a way, the Tea Parties are just the latest manifestation of reasserting this American creed.
The opposing political view from the Left tends to see “freedom” differently, as a chaotic sphere of exploitation and cruelty towards mankind. So, it’s natural for them to consider the role of government in a completely different light- as the constructive instrument for social engineering and the progressive liberation FROM freedom and towards collectivist paternalism. Unfortunately, history demonstrates conclusively that such controls are neither desirable nor constructive once put into actual practice. Simply put, investing more power into a centralized authoritarian state does not produce happiness and good tidings for all. As Goldwater expressed it, “The framers of the Constitution…were not only students of history, but victims of it: they knew from vivid, personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority. And that is what the Constitution is: a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.”
As the saying goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” In this era of dramatic change and misplaced hope, it’s comforting to find some eternal truths that can lead us, once again, back to the Right Track! In your heart, you know Conservatism is right. (email comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Goldwater was a five term U.S. Senator from Arizona and the 1964 Republican nominee for President. Though losing in a landslide to Johnson, Goldwater’s candidacy launched the careers of countless conservative activists including the Gipper himself. Reagan, a democrat until 1962—who often said, “I didn’t leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me”-- gave a televised speech on behalf of Goldwater on the evening of Oct. 27, 1964 entitled, “A Time For Choosing.” Known also as the “Rendezvous With Destiny” speech, it lit-up the switch boards of the network and brought in millions of dollars for Goldwater. The oratory skills of “The Great Communicator” were revealed that night and the governorship of California became the immediate pathway for Reagan’s entry upon the national, political stage. The speech is readily available for viewing on YouTube.
Looking back through the pages of Goldwater’s book, one can find many timeless principles that speak to the issues of today, and especially, the Tea Party Movement. It seems rather prophetic in its warnings about the growth of government, the loss of freedom, the threat of high taxes, the dangers of appeasing our enemies and the corrupting influences of: big labor unions, welfare entitlement programs, corporate subsidies and a Supreme Court that ignores the clear meaning of the Constitution.
Goldwater declared, “The Conservative approach is nothing more or less than an attempt to apply wisdom, experience and the revealed truths of the past to the problems of today-- principles [that] are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation.” These are the self-evident truths of the Founders.
Russell Kirk believed that, “If one million people would read this book, it would change the world.” Well, with nearly 4 million copies in print and the enduring legacy of the Reagan Revolution and the victory in the Cold War, we now know that Kirk too was prophetic.
The undeniable truth is that these principles today haven’t changed at all, we have! This is why the Bible instructs us to “renew our minds daily.” The tendency is for our human minds to wander and deviate from moral absolutes. Thus, being a Conservative means constantly going back to recalibrate ourselves according to the core principles of this Judeo-Christian worldview that deems government- the imposition of force- a necessary evil.
Goldwater outlines the primary directive of American politics: Constitutionalism. In this discipline, he advocates for the “conservation” of individual liberty in opposition to its natural enemy- government. “Throughout history,” Goldwater explains, “government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty. Government represents power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men…the Constitution [therefore] is an instrument, above all, for limiting the functions of government.” This attitude is in complete agreement with today’s Tea Party activists. In a way, the Tea Parties are just the latest manifestation of reasserting this American creed.
The opposing political view from the Left tends to see “freedom” differently, as a chaotic sphere of exploitation and cruelty towards mankind. So, it’s natural for them to consider the role of government in a completely different light- as the constructive instrument for social engineering and the progressive liberation FROM freedom and towards collectivist paternalism. Unfortunately, history demonstrates conclusively that such controls are neither desirable nor constructive once put into actual practice. Simply put, investing more power into a centralized authoritarian state does not produce happiness and good tidings for all. As Goldwater expressed it, “The framers of the Constitution…were not only students of history, but victims of it: they knew from vivid, personal experience that freedom depends on effective restraints against the accumulation of power in a single authority. And that is what the Constitution is: a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.”
As the saying goes, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” In this era of dramatic change and misplaced hope, it’s comforting to find some eternal truths that can lead us, once again, back to the Right Track! In your heart, you know Conservatism is right. (email comments to: WFC83197@aol.com)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Goldman Sachs ‘Too Big’ To Care
Have you heard about the recent economic threat to the European Union coming from Greece? Greece has a debt problem that could cause a domino effect in the Euro nations. The Greek currency has been debauched through deficit spending and now countries such as France and Germany are being compromised because their currencies are linked and vulnerable. The intricacies of EU currency agreements for the Euro have made this a ticking time bomb. Creeping away from the crime scene, once again, is that manipulator of markets- Goldman Sachs. Sound familiar?
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke commented last week, “We are looking into a number of questions related to Goldman Sachs and other companies in their derivatives arrangements with Greece. Obviously, using these instruments in a way that potentially destabilizes a company or a country is counterproductive.” You think? Well, we’ve all seen this movie before, haven’t we?
Specifically, Goldman Sachs has operated a “currency swap” exchange in Greece that has served to disguise their debt, not unlike the method used in America where credit default swaps helped strategically to disguise and inflate the housing bubble. The financial marketing of these derivatives conveniently began in 2001 when Greece was trying to meet the debt-criteria stipulations of EU admission. Goldman Sachs reminds me of that AC/DC song, “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” except the deeds don’t come cheap to innocent taxpayers who must foot the bill.
Goldman Sachs have long been protected and served by Washington insiders who are connected to both political parties. TARP-champion Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin are the most noted. Paulson was Bush’s Sect. of Treasury and Rubin was Clinton’s. Both men were executives of Goldman Sachs. Is that a conflict of interest? You bet!
Goldman Sachs has paid out billions in bonuses this year and it’s all come dishonestly through the bailout scam, on the backs of the taxpayers.
AIG was the number one counterparty for Goldman Sachs’ credit default swaps. This all sounds rather complicated and “inside baseball,” but the gist of it was simple: these financial instruments were analogous to you buying an insurance policy on your neighbor’s car and then going out to his driveway and pounding it with a sledgehammer in order to collect the claim. Goldman Sachs took out what amounted to billions of dollars worth of “insurance policies” on these toxic assets, which were the bad home mortgages all bundled-up in securities, and then collected the “claim” when the U.S. taxpayer was put on the hook for repairing the damage.
To make things worse, Goldman Sachs took advantage of the Glass Steagall regulatory removal in 1999. The move allowed Wall Street investment firms to take on the nature of banks with all of the attending Fed privileges. These privileges resulted in Goldman Sachs obtaining Fed loans at near zero rates that were subsequently loaned back to the government at a spread of about 3%. This huge, no risk profit amounts to a license to steal!
But, it takes two to tango. The “drunken sailor” spending in Washington is driving up demand for more taxpayer debt. The Bailout mania along with the Stimulus spending is creating record deficits that are fundamentally unsound and unsustainable. Goldman Sachs and their cronies in Washington don’t seem to care, and that’s why there’s something called a Tea Party Movement. Now that these citizens have proven their impact in races such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, even Nancy Pelosi is starting to “warm up” to the Tea Party activists. “Some of it,” Pelosi explains, “is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests.” So what she once derided as “astroturf,” “un-American,” and full of “Nazi symbolism,” she now recognizes as part of her own shared concerns! Amazing.
“It’s government by Goldman Sachs and for Goldman Sachs,” says Steve Milloy, portfolio manager for the Free Enterprise Action Fund. No doubt about it, America is being railroaded. It’s nothing new, but it requires a level of understanding among the citizens so that we can take our country back, before it’s too late! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke commented last week, “We are looking into a number of questions related to Goldman Sachs and other companies in their derivatives arrangements with Greece. Obviously, using these instruments in a way that potentially destabilizes a company or a country is counterproductive.” You think? Well, we’ve all seen this movie before, haven’t we?
Specifically, Goldman Sachs has operated a “currency swap” exchange in Greece that has served to disguise their debt, not unlike the method used in America where credit default swaps helped strategically to disguise and inflate the housing bubble. The financial marketing of these derivatives conveniently began in 2001 when Greece was trying to meet the debt-criteria stipulations of EU admission. Goldman Sachs reminds me of that AC/DC song, “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” except the deeds don’t come cheap to innocent taxpayers who must foot the bill.
Goldman Sachs have long been protected and served by Washington insiders who are connected to both political parties. TARP-champion Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin are the most noted. Paulson was Bush’s Sect. of Treasury and Rubin was Clinton’s. Both men were executives of Goldman Sachs. Is that a conflict of interest? You bet!
Goldman Sachs has paid out billions in bonuses this year and it’s all come dishonestly through the bailout scam, on the backs of the taxpayers.
AIG was the number one counterparty for Goldman Sachs’ credit default swaps. This all sounds rather complicated and “inside baseball,” but the gist of it was simple: these financial instruments were analogous to you buying an insurance policy on your neighbor’s car and then going out to his driveway and pounding it with a sledgehammer in order to collect the claim. Goldman Sachs took out what amounted to billions of dollars worth of “insurance policies” on these toxic assets, which were the bad home mortgages all bundled-up in securities, and then collected the “claim” when the U.S. taxpayer was put on the hook for repairing the damage.
To make things worse, Goldman Sachs took advantage of the Glass Steagall regulatory removal in 1999. The move allowed Wall Street investment firms to take on the nature of banks with all of the attending Fed privileges. These privileges resulted in Goldman Sachs obtaining Fed loans at near zero rates that were subsequently loaned back to the government at a spread of about 3%. This huge, no risk profit amounts to a license to steal!
But, it takes two to tango. The “drunken sailor” spending in Washington is driving up demand for more taxpayer debt. The Bailout mania along with the Stimulus spending is creating record deficits that are fundamentally unsound and unsustainable. Goldman Sachs and their cronies in Washington don’t seem to care, and that’s why there’s something called a Tea Party Movement. Now that these citizens have proven their impact in races such as New Jersey and Massachusetts, even Nancy Pelosi is starting to “warm up” to the Tea Party activists. “Some of it,” Pelosi explains, “is hijacking the good intentions of lots of people who share some of our concerns that we have about the role of special interests.” So what she once derided as “astroturf,” “un-American,” and full of “Nazi symbolism,” she now recognizes as part of her own shared concerns! Amazing.
“It’s government by Goldman Sachs and for Goldman Sachs,” says Steve Milloy, portfolio manager for the Free Enterprise Action Fund. No doubt about it, America is being railroaded. It’s nothing new, but it requires a level of understanding among the citizens so that we can take our country back, before it’s too late! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Something Rotten in Denmark
Jacques Chirac, former president of France, once called global warming “humanity dancing on a volcano.” Well, that volcano has now erupted into one gigantic fraud thanks to the leaked e-mails coming from the Climate Research Unit, (CRU), in Great Britain- a facility which has been the primary source for all global warming data.
This development is just in time for the Copenhagen convention meeting this week that will attempt to impose a radical global treaty limiting the use of carbon-based energy. The 15,000 delegates using 1,200 limos and 140 private jets will produce a carbon footprint equal to the size of several small countries. They will be working to implement what they call “global governance” that basically amounts to an assault on capitalism under the guise of saving the planet.
But what if the only “heat” in global warming is the cooking of the books to manipulate the so-called evidence?
The University of East Anglia maintains the CRU and in recent days their computers suffered a breach in security revealing the hoax of the century: gobal warming is indeed a fabricated crisis. This should finish off the debate since there had already been a growing trend against the global warming hysteria. A recent Rasmussen poll, taken before these devastating revelations, showed 59% of Americans already skeptical of global warming science.
In 2000, Jacques Chirac indirectly related the true motive behind the deception when he said, “Cap and trade is the first component of an authentic global governance.” Al Gore agrees: “It is the awareness itself [of Climate Change] that will drive the change. And one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
Therefore, once you remove any authentic evidence for global warming, the only thing left is global governance and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. So, the net result is a new political entity to govern the world irrespective of environmental problems, real or imagined. Does this sound oddly like the old Communist game plan? It should. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Czech President Vaclav Klaus:
“They [the Global Warmists] do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back. The idea of global warming is an excellent political idea. You must compare communism with the ideology of global warming alarmism…they are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom, they are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our faiths, they are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do, what we cannot do, and so on.”
Why would so-called, legitimate scientists participate in this propaganda? The answer: follow the money.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the University of East Anglia's CRU could barely make ends meet for most of the years since it was founded in 1972. This all changed in 1994 when the U.N.’s climate change convention came into being. This was the beginning of large government grants to finance global warming research.
Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, received $19 million worth of research grants between 2000 and 2006. This was a sixfold increase over the previous decade. Michael Mann, another prominent figure named in the e-mails, helped Penn State University obtain an additional $35 million per year for their environmental research.
It turns out, the only consensus for global warming is the one that’s paid for. There are currently 31,000 American scientists who have signed the Petition Project that refutes the bogus claims of global warmists.
Carol Browner was President Obama’s choice for “Global Warming Czar.” The Washington Times reported that she was “listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for ‘global governance’ and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.”
Establishing a new, global government that would usurp our Constitution for a crisis that doesn’t exist is something that concerns even Dem. Sen. Jim Webb. He wrote a letter to Obama warning that “only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment [as proposed by Copenhagen] on behalf of our country.”
We should all pray that the truth prevails. If not, get ready for global redistribution of wealth under a ruling class of unaccountable Elitists who have no respect for honesty, freedom or individual rights. More Hope and Change. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
This development is just in time for the Copenhagen convention meeting this week that will attempt to impose a radical global treaty limiting the use of carbon-based energy. The 15,000 delegates using 1,200 limos and 140 private jets will produce a carbon footprint equal to the size of several small countries. They will be working to implement what they call “global governance” that basically amounts to an assault on capitalism under the guise of saving the planet.
But what if the only “heat” in global warming is the cooking of the books to manipulate the so-called evidence?
The University of East Anglia maintains the CRU and in recent days their computers suffered a breach in security revealing the hoax of the century: gobal warming is indeed a fabricated crisis. This should finish off the debate since there had already been a growing trend against the global warming hysteria. A recent Rasmussen poll, taken before these devastating revelations, showed 59% of Americans already skeptical of global warming science.
In 2000, Jacques Chirac indirectly related the true motive behind the deception when he said, “Cap and trade is the first component of an authentic global governance.” Al Gore agrees: “It is the awareness itself [of Climate Change] that will drive the change. And one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
Therefore, once you remove any authentic evidence for global warming, the only thing left is global governance and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. So, the net result is a new political entity to govern the world irrespective of environmental problems, real or imagined. Does this sound oddly like the old Communist game plan? It should. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Czech President Vaclav Klaus:
“They [the Global Warmists] do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back. The idea of global warming is an excellent political idea. You must compare communism with the ideology of global warming alarmism…they are structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom, they are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our faiths, they are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do, what we cannot do, and so on.”
Why would so-called, legitimate scientists participate in this propaganda? The answer: follow the money.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the University of East Anglia's CRU could barely make ends meet for most of the years since it was founded in 1972. This all changed in 1994 when the U.N.’s climate change convention came into being. This was the beginning of large government grants to finance global warming research.
Phil Jones, the director of the CRU, received $19 million worth of research grants between 2000 and 2006. This was a sixfold increase over the previous decade. Michael Mann, another prominent figure named in the e-mails, helped Penn State University obtain an additional $35 million per year for their environmental research.
It turns out, the only consensus for global warming is the one that’s paid for. There are currently 31,000 American scientists who have signed the Petition Project that refutes the bogus claims of global warmists.
Carol Browner was President Obama’s choice for “Global Warming Czar.” The Washington Times reported that she was “listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for ‘global governance’ and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.”
Establishing a new, global government that would usurp our Constitution for a crisis that doesn’t exist is something that concerns even Dem. Sen. Jim Webb. He wrote a letter to Obama warning that “only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment [as proposed by Copenhagen] on behalf of our country.”
We should all pray that the truth prevails. If not, get ready for global redistribution of wealth under a ruling class of unaccountable Elitists who have no respect for honesty, freedom or individual rights. More Hope and Change. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Liberalism in Decline
A Gallup poll released this week shows Americans are firmly on the Right side of the ideological spectrum. By a margin of two to one, Americans identify themselves now as conservative over liberal. 36 percent are self-described moderates, 40 percent are conservative, and only 20 percent claim to be liberal. This is a 10 percent shift to the Right over last year’s poll. It’s the best rating for conservatism since 2004. So what’s the reason for the change? Obviously, having an extreme liberal agenda emanating from the White House and Congress has not set well with most Americans. The Tea Party and Town Hall protests have demonstrated the serious depth of this realignment.
The liberal label continues to lose its appeal even among traditional liberals like Hillary Clinton who chooses now to describe herself as a progressive. Anytime a brand gets a makeover like this, it usually means there’s something desperately wrong with the current one. So what’s so bad about liberalism and being liberal?
The liberalism of the 19th century, known as “classical liberalism,” is a reflection of the original meaning of the term. It described a person favoring a more laissez faire system of free markets and private enterprise. This older form of liberalism was more authentically libertarian espousing the individual’s liberty above the interests and designs of the Leviathan state. Most Americans recognize this as Reagan’s conservatism. In a 1975 Reason magazine interview, Ronald Reagan explained it this way:
“If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer of liberals- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is…again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”
It’s interesting that Reagan chose the example of the Tories, or Royalists, to represent today’s liberals. The ideology of the Left is one drawn from Thomas Hobbes and his 17th century treatise: “The Leviathan.” Hobbes sought to establish the absolute power of an imperialistic government invested with a civic and spiritual authority over the people. This is the starting point or premise of today’s liberal elites. They consider themselves infallible and a hundred percent benevolent. Their ill consequences have absolutely zero effect upon their nanny-state, good intentions. Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for a government program gone bad.
It was the progressive politics of Woodrow Wilson that began transforming the term “liberal” into this current perversion. The power of liberation was shifted from the perspective of the individual to the perspective of the state. This convenient political maneuver meant that an ever-enlarging government would operate for the benefit of the individual. This was turning the politics of our Founding Fathers upside down. Now, for the first time in human history, the expansion of government power was incredibly being sold to the public as a simultaneous expansion of individual empowerment. This is nonsense. These powers are inherently in conflict and can’t possibly coexist on a scale that proposes to increase both! Of course, there is an ideology that came to prominence during this same time that sought to maximize this exact philosophy of government. It’s called Socialism where the state determines the means of production in a planned, or command, economy with a re-distributive tax system: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Karl Marx 1875. This top-down imposition of absolute authority is justified, as liberalism is, on the basis of “doing good” for the individual.
Norman Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He acknowledged this co-opting terminology as a method of purposeful deception:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Earlier this year, Newsweek magazine published a cover story entitled, “We Are All Socialists Now.” The current shift in the polls proves that Americans don’t like this kind of big government, no matter what you call it! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
The liberal label continues to lose its appeal even among traditional liberals like Hillary Clinton who chooses now to describe herself as a progressive. Anytime a brand gets a makeover like this, it usually means there’s something desperately wrong with the current one. So what’s so bad about liberalism and being liberal?
The liberalism of the 19th century, known as “classical liberalism,” is a reflection of the original meaning of the term. It described a person favoring a more laissez faire system of free markets and private enterprise. This older form of liberalism was more authentically libertarian espousing the individual’s liberty above the interests and designs of the Leviathan state. Most Americans recognize this as Reagan’s conservatism. In a 1975 Reason magazine interview, Ronald Reagan explained it this way:
“If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer of liberals- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is…again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”
It’s interesting that Reagan chose the example of the Tories, or Royalists, to represent today’s liberals. The ideology of the Left is one drawn from Thomas Hobbes and his 17th century treatise: “The Leviathan.” Hobbes sought to establish the absolute power of an imperialistic government invested with a civic and spiritual authority over the people. This is the starting point or premise of today’s liberal elites. They consider themselves infallible and a hundred percent benevolent. Their ill consequences have absolutely zero effect upon their nanny-state, good intentions. Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for a government program gone bad.
It was the progressive politics of Woodrow Wilson that began transforming the term “liberal” into this current perversion. The power of liberation was shifted from the perspective of the individual to the perspective of the state. This convenient political maneuver meant that an ever-enlarging government would operate for the benefit of the individual. This was turning the politics of our Founding Fathers upside down. Now, for the first time in human history, the expansion of government power was incredibly being sold to the public as a simultaneous expansion of individual empowerment. This is nonsense. These powers are inherently in conflict and can’t possibly coexist on a scale that proposes to increase both! Of course, there is an ideology that came to prominence during this same time that sought to maximize this exact philosophy of government. It’s called Socialism where the state determines the means of production in a planned, or command, economy with a re-distributive tax system: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” Karl Marx 1875. This top-down imposition of absolute authority is justified, as liberalism is, on the basis of “doing good” for the individual.
Norman Thomas was a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He acknowledged this co-opting terminology as a method of purposeful deception:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Earlier this year, Newsweek magazine published a cover story entitled, “We Are All Socialists Now.” The current shift in the polls proves that Americans don’t like this kind of big government, no matter what you call it! (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Like a Thief in the Night
Our Republic is being stolen. It is being done systematically in the cover of darkness – bills that give more power to Washington and special interests and less to “we the people.”
It is being done with radicals in Congress and the White House setting up a shadow government using czars to usurp the authority of Cabinet members and Congress. Even Hillary has complained.
It is being done with the state-run media, which ignores over a million tea party protestors in Washington, ignores the corruption of radical groups like ACORN, ignores the czars with extremist ties and ignores the corruption and out-of-control spending in Congress.
It is being done by taking our tax dollars and giving them to others through bailouts, special favors and entitlements. Thomas Jefferson said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Would you mind if someone robbed you, spent your money and took the credit for everything they did with it? Politicians call it “investments.” The Bible calls it stealing.As the New Hampshire flag states, “Live Free or Die.” We have to stand up and say, “too much is too much.”
Our federal deficit grows at rate of $20 billion per week! Politicians love to talk about “doing it for the children.” Leaving them riddled with our debt is “doing it to the children.”
Jefferson also said, “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.” We’re passing ours on to future generations.
We can’t sustain this type of spending. One has to wonder if that is the plan. “You never want a good crisis to go to waste” is part of the Cloward-Piven strategy as is “making a weak economy even worse.”
The Cloward-Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. Their goal was to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis would provide the impetus to bring about radical political change. Ring a bell?
Is this the change that 53% of the people voted for? Do we actually want Socialism? Is this the change that Obama was talking about when he said he was going to “fundamentally transform America?”
By definition, Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Think “collective.”
In Marxist theory, Socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of Capitalism and the realization of Communism. Remember the Cloward-Piven strategy?
Liberals and big government proponents want the same government that has bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to spend over a trillion dollars on a government healthcare takeover that may bankrupt our country.
Conservatives know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
We have to be Constitutionalists and stand up for the principles and beliefs upon which this country was founded. Our founders were willing to put their lives on the line for our country – are we?
In 1943, four chaplains aboard the USAT Dorchester representing four religions were seen holding hands, praying and singing as their ship sank in the Northern Atlantic. They had just assisted in evacuating the ship, calming down the soldiers and loading them on the lifeboats after giving away their life jackets. These were men of the “greatest generation.” Now, it’s our turn.
Are we willing to get off the couch and call or write our Congressmen? Are we willing to get on our knees and pray for our country? Are we willing as the Revolutionary Flag stated, “Appeal to Heaven?”
If not, we are going to lose our Liberty. We are going to lose our country. This is a time in history that we will look back on one day and wish that we had done more. We will wish that we had made that call to our Congressman, went to that town hall meeting or contacted the White House.
The Tea Party March on Washington was a wake-up call. Stop the out-of-control spending of our money. Stop the corruption. Stop the madness.
Our democratic republic may be in its final hour. I our voices are not heard now, they may be silenced forever.
Send Comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
