yet so clear
my loving dear
have no fear
I am here
in me you can confide
from the noise outside
that you wish to hide
I will protect you
[Written on October 6, 2008]
Thursday, January 29, 2009
What's So Bad About Socialism Anyway?
This bit from the article summarizes it quite well:
If you believe in the freedom of the press, the right to belong to a political party of your choice, the due process of law, and/or private property, then Che Guevara was a monster, plain and simple.
Readers can observe what is happening with the whole President Barack Obama vs. Rush Limbaugh controversy{1} that the idea of freedom of the media is somewhat at stake here. Or as I noted earlier this morning in another media format:
Well remember XXXXXX, the real threat to the nation is a guy on the radio not a whackjob president of a country which is trying to get nuclear weapons to wipe other countries off the map with to advance "the religion of peace" and who furthermore denies the Holocaust and gets his views about Jews from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Someone should tell President Hussein that the phrase about keeping friends close and enemies closer is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.
Carter II is early on looking somewhat like Carter I with the pandering to extremists in the middle east. I wonder if we will have another hostage situation at this rate -whatever one says about GWB these sorts would never have tried that sort of thing on his watch. With BHO though who the hell knows.
And that is where we are at now folks, with socialism in the form of federal bailouts being the new chic along with presidents who have more respect for sponsors of state terrorism than for opinionated radio personalities.{2} it does not portend for good things politically in the short term.
Notes:
{1} Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has and has maintained the largest audience in talk radio history for two decades now. He has the right to be heard even if his opinion goes against the current political zeitgeist. of lockstep socialism which as Claude Frederic Bastiat so astutely noted nearly 160 years ago is merely the communist tree in an early stage of growth.
{2} See footnote one.
This bit from the article summarizes it quite well:
If you believe in the freedom of the press, the right to belong to a political party of your choice, the due process of law, and/or private property, then Che Guevara was a monster, plain and simple.
Readers can observe what is happening with the whole President Barack Obama vs. Rush Limbaugh controversy{1} that the idea of freedom of the media is somewhat at stake here. Or as I noted earlier this morning in another media format:
Well remember XXXXXX, the real threat to the nation is a guy on the radio not a whackjob president of a country which is trying to get nuclear weapons to wipe other countries off the map with to advance "the religion of peace" and who furthermore denies the Holocaust and gets his views about Jews from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Someone should tell President Hussein that the phrase about keeping friends close and enemies closer is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.
Carter II is early on looking somewhat like Carter I with the pandering to extremists in the middle east. I wonder if we will have another hostage situation at this rate -whatever one says about GWB these sorts would never have tried that sort of thing on his watch. With BHO though who the hell knows.
And that is where we are at now folks, with socialism in the form of federal bailouts being the new chic along with presidents who have more respect for sponsors of state terrorism than for opinionated radio personalities.{2} it does not portend for good things politically in the short term.
Notes:
{1} Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has and has maintained the largest audience in talk radio history for two decades now. He has the right to be heard even if his opinion goes against the current political zeitgeist. of lockstep socialism which as Claude Frederic Bastiat so astutely noted nearly 160 years ago is merely the communist tree in an early stage of growth.
{2} See footnote one.
With President Barack Obama repealing by executive order last Friday the Mexico City policy of President Ronald Reagan{1} allowing for foreign organizations that performed abortions to receive federal aid, it seems appropriate to restate without ambiguity the position of this writer on the subject of abortion; ergo we remind readers of what we wrote two years ago on the matter as being our most detailed exposition thus far on the fundamental rights of man, common law principles, and how abortion relates to them. Here is the link from the archives for those who are interested:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
And here are a few tidbits to provide a taste to whet the reader's appetite a bit on the approach taken to the subject in that posting:
In the usual round of calls for "celebration" of a legal case that directly violates one of the three fundamental rights of man, the predictable "stare decisis" canard was brought out in some circles to justify the decision of the Supreme Court in 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision upholding Roe vs. Wade. This is in essence an indirect appeal to common law to justify this stance as that is where stare decisis has its legal foundation. A problem with this premise is that it ignores certain key factors which went into proper common law interpretation...
[I]f stare decisis is a core principle of the common law, than one has to look to how that principle was understood in common law and not merely say it applies without providing any evidences...
[C]onsider the theory[...] of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further[...] in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is...
If we take seriously (i) Claude Frederic Bastiat's theory on the fundamental rights of man as well as (ii) the words of the Declaration of Independence on which the American Republic was founded on, not to mention (iii) the proper understanding of common law as a check against encroaching upon other persons or their property, then the idea of applying stare decisis to the Roe vs. Wade court interpolation of a presumed "right" to abortion is too ludicrous to be taken seriously...
There is plenty more in the above link but these samplings provide a small glimpse into my mind on this matter and why I would find President Obama's executive order repealing the Mexico City Policy so unspeakably a perversion of law not to mention a violation of the fundamental rights of man as well as (for those reasons) unambiguously evil. And that is the bottom line really.
Note:
{1} President Reagan instituted the policy which was repealed by President Clinton and reinstituted by the second President Bush.
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
And here are a few tidbits to provide a taste to whet the reader's appetite a bit on the approach taken to the subject in that posting:
In the usual round of calls for "celebration" of a legal case that directly violates one of the three fundamental rights of man, the predictable "stare decisis" canard was brought out in some circles to justify the decision of the Supreme Court in 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision upholding Roe vs. Wade. This is in essence an indirect appeal to common law to justify this stance as that is where stare decisis has its legal foundation. A problem with this premise is that it ignores certain key factors which went into proper common law interpretation...
[I]f stare decisis is a core principle of the common law, than one has to look to how that principle was understood in common law and not merely say it applies without providing any evidences...
[C]onsider the theory[...] of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further[...] in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is...
If we take seriously (i) Claude Frederic Bastiat's theory on the fundamental rights of man as well as (ii) the words of the Declaration of Independence on which the American Republic was founded on, not to mention (iii) the proper understanding of common law as a check against encroaching upon other persons or their property, then the idea of applying stare decisis to the Roe vs. Wade court interpolation of a presumed "right" to abortion is too ludicrous to be taken seriously...
There is plenty more in the above link but these samplings provide a small glimpse into my mind on this matter and why I would find President Obama's executive order repealing the Mexico City Policy so unspeakably a perversion of law not to mention a violation of the fundamental rights of man as well as (for those reasons) unambiguously evil. And that is the bottom line really.
Note:
{1} President Reagan instituted the policy which was repealed by President Clinton and reinstituted by the second President Bush.
Revealed: the letter Obama team hope will heal Iran rift
This just goes to show that the old mantra about educating leftists but not being able to teach them how to think is still operative. I cannot imagine what President Obama and his associates think will come out of this except to embolden someone who has been a state sponsor of terrorism against our troops and others, has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and who has denied the Holocaust on not a few occasions.
We are truly in the hands of geopolitically naive (at best) people and lets just say I am not thinking for the best on this right now (to put it nicely).
This just goes to show that the old mantra about educating leftists but not being able to teach them how to think is still operative. I cannot imagine what President Obama and his associates think will come out of this except to embolden someone who has been a state sponsor of terrorism against our troops and others, has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and who has denied the Holocaust on not a few occasions.
We are truly in the hands of geopolitically naive (at best) people and lets just say I am not thinking for the best on this right now (to put it nicely).
Hollow victory: Republicans deliver slap in the face to Barack Obama (UK Telegraph)
Unlike the Democrats who egregiously abused this option in the Senate during the tenure of President George W. Bush{1}, the Republicans in the Senate would be well within the right to use the filibuster for what it was intended for: to stop legislation from getting to the floor for a vote. And I for one hope they do it because this boondoggle will do nothing to help the economy -only line the pockets of political prostitutes and attempt to enslave more people to the Democratic party welfare voting block. Show some spine Senate Republicans and that goes for you also Senator John McCain.
Note:
{1} Or to reference one of the times in the past where I spoke on the issue of judicial filibustering:
[T]here is no provision in proper Constitutional thought for judicial filibustering... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 8, 2005)]
No more needs to be noted on this than that; ergo that is all I will say for now.
Unlike the Democrats who egregiously abused this option in the Senate during the tenure of President George W. Bush{1}, the Republicans in the Senate would be well within the right to use the filibuster for what it was intended for: to stop legislation from getting to the floor for a vote. And I for one hope they do it because this boondoggle will do nothing to help the economy -only line the pockets of political prostitutes and attempt to enslave more people to the Democratic party welfare voting block. Show some spine Senate Republicans and that goes for you also Senator John McCain.
Note:
{1} Or to reference one of the times in the past where I spoke on the issue of judicial filibustering:
[T]here is no provision in proper Constitutional thought for judicial filibustering... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 8, 2005)]
No more needs to be noted on this than that; ergo that is all I will say for now.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(For Preserving the Historical Record on Iraq)
I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.
So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.
Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.
You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.
I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten. [Bryan Preston as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa June 17, 2004)]
(For Preserving the Historical Record on Iraq)
I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.
So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.
Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.
You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.
I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten. [Bryan Preston as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa June 17, 2004)]
Middle-Class Dream Eludes African American Families Many Blacks Worse off Than Their Parents, Study Says (Michael A. Fletcher)
Those who wonder why I have more respect for prostitutes than I do for much of the mainstream media need only consider the above article and the survey it intends to cover.
Nearly half of African Americans born to middle-income parents in the late 1960s plunged into poverty or near-poverty as adults, according to a new study -- a perplexing finding that analysts say highlights the fragile nature of middle-class life for many African Americans.
"There is a lot of downward mobility among African Americans," Mincy said. "We don't have an explanation."
Well, how about the problems of black culture overall being one such reason??? That is certainly the message of concerned parties such as Bill Cosby and MC Hammer to name two of many that could be mentioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)