-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
Americans
are searching for leadership in this election year and they have found it.
Unfortunately, he is not an American politician. Vaclav Klaus, President of the
Czech Republic, who survived the communist
system and now leads a country that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet
empire, is warning of a new form of communism threatening human freedom and
progress.
Like
former President Ronald Reagan, who developed his under-standing of the
communist menace by fighting the communists in Hollywood,
Klaus suffered under them during the communist era in Czechoslovakia.
Because of this experience, however, he came to understand how Soviet-style
communism, which collapsed as an empire and created the circumstances for the emergence
of the Czech Republic as a free and independent nation, never really died as an
ideology and that it has imitators in the West.
His book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, published
by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, charges that the movement to “save”
the environment has been taken over by ideologues who favor total government
control over our lives. He says it can be considered a form of communism,
socialism or even fascism. Whatever you call it, the result will be the
extinction of human freedom.
Fascist Roots
Indeed,
Klaus’s book quotes the authoritative essay, “Fascist Ideology: The Green Wing
of the Nazi Party and Its Historical Antecedents,” by Peter Staudenmaier, as
providing the backdrop for understanding the mentality driving the media-led
hysteria over “global warming” and the alleged necessity for immediate
governmental action at the national and global levels.
Staudenmaier
wrote that “the Nazi movement’s incorporation of environmentalist themes was a
crucial factor in its rise to popularity and state power.” He explained,
“Hitler and Himmler were both strict vegetarians and animal lovers, attracted
to nature mysticism and homeopathic cures, and staunchly opposed to vivisection
and cruelty to animals. Himmler even established experimental organic farms to
grow herbs for SS medicinal purposes. And Hitler, at times, could sound like a
veritable Green utopian, discussing authoritatively and in detail various
renewable energy sources (including environmentally appropriate hydropower and
producing natural gas from sludge) as alternatives to coal, and declaring
‘water, winds and tides’ as the energy path of the future.”
While
the Nazi embrace of these alternative energy or health solutions does not
discredit them, the historical facts should prompt us to consider the
motivations of those promoting these causes in the current context. Are the
attacks on “Big Oil” and the push for alternative energy technologies being
used as a pretext for more government control over the economy? Are the demands
for government action to curb global warming being used to undermine and
subvert free enterprise capitalism and private property rights?
But while
communism was an atheistic system, Klaus notes, modern environmentalism has
assumed a religious dimension and has become a “green religion.”
Liberal Fascism
At the end of Klaus’s remarks on this subject at a Washington, D.C.
dinner hosted and sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI),
master of ceremonies Jonah Goldberg remarked that he wished that we had a U.S.
President who would make such a speech. Tragically, Bush and Senator John
McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have fallen into the
camp, which includes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most of the Democratic
Party, which wants to further erode individual freedom in the name of saving
the environment. It is the modern version of the Marxist, “From each according
to his ability, to each according to his need,” except that the needs of the
environment are now being placed above those of people.
It was
noteworthy and appropriate that Goldberg, who praised Klaus’s remarks, has
written the excellent book, Liberal Fascism, about the totalitarian
tendencies of modern-day liberalism.
For his
part, Klaus writes that “The
environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach
to economics. The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous
evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central
or—using today’s fashionable adjective—global planning of world development.
Much as in the case of Communism, this approach is utopian and would lead to
results completely different from the intended ones. Like other utopias, this
one can never materialize, and efforts to make it materialize can only be
carried out through restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small,
elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.”
In
short, we will not only lose our freedom but economic progress and human
advancement will be stifled. And more people will inevitably die.
Klaus
adds, “In the past 150 years (at least since Marx), the socialists have been
very effectively destroying human freedom under humane and compassionate
slogans, such as caring for man, ensuring social equality, and fostering social
welfare. The environmentalists are doing the same under equally noble-minded
slogans, expressing concern about nature more than about people (recall their
radical motto ‘Earth first’). In both cases, the slogans have been (and still are)
just a smokescreen. In both cases, the movements were (and are) completely
about power, about the hegemony of the ‘chosen ones’ (as they see themselves)
over the rest of us, about the imposition of the only correct worldview (their
own), about the remodeling of the world.”
In an
appendix, Klaus takes on directly the popular congressional push for a
so-called “cap and trade” system, on a national and global basis, giving
bureaucrats the power to decide the “carbon footprint” of people, companies and
nations and limiting their carbon emissions and use of energy. He calls the
proposal completely irrational and unscientific and suggests it is just another
excuse for giving government more power.
The Forces Of Freedom
In the introduction to the Klaus book, Fred L. Smith Jr.,
president of CEI, warns about the attraction that the “intellectual class”
continues to have for “statism” or “collectivism,” which are other names for the threats we
face. Today, Smith says, we are witnessing “cultural warfare against economic
liberty” that requires “pro-freedom voices” to prevent the slide into
totalitarianism.
Klaus came
to Washington, D.C. at the end of May to lead this effort.
But he will return to the Czech
Republic. Various
American conservative political figures, including former Republican Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich, are even trying to appear “green.” Gingrich, for
example, appears in a commercial, financed by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, with
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning about global warming. (The group
Judicial Watch contends the commercial is a violation of federal election law
and an illegal contribution to Pelosi’s campaign).
Gingrich
has become an advocate of “green conservatism” and now proposes a Gore-like “Contract
with the Earth.”
In his
book, Klaus calls Gore a hypocrite for his “own wasteful consumption of
electricity” and says the former vice president has no interest in facts or
documentation for his sensational claims.
The
“cultural warfare” Smith warns about can be seen in the almost total blackout
that the liberal media gave to Klaus’s various appearances in Washington, D.C.,
including at the CEI dinner and the National Press Club. Rather than attempt to
refute the arguments of a man who has a wealth of knowledge about economics and
international economic relations, the liberal media tried their best to ignore
him.
Front-Page
Coverage
Fortunately,
the Washington Times highlighted his warnings on page one. “Environmentalism,
says Czech President Vaclav Klaus, is the new communism, a system of elite
command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to
the ash heap of history,” the paper reported in a front-page story by David R.
Sands.
“I
understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human
freedom,” Klaus told editors and reporters at the paper.
In order
to demonstrate the courageous nature of the stand that Klaus is taking
internationally, the book includes a cartoon of someone resembling Klaus being
burned at the stake as three people taunt him, saying, “So, do you believe in
warming now?”
Where are the U.S.
political leaders who will follow Klaus in taking a forthright stand in favor
of human freedom?
THE NETWORK
BEHIND THE BUSH-BASHING BOOK
Publisher
Peter Osnos, who admits personally working with former Bush White House press
secretary Scott McClellan on his new book, What Happened, began his
career as an assistant to I.F. Stone, the pro-communist “journalist” named as a
Soviet agent of influence who was the uncle of Weather Underground communist
terrorist Kathy Boudin.
But the
connections don’t end here. Boudin’s son Chesa was raised by Barack Obama associates
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were Boudin’s comrades in the communist
terrorist group, after Kathy Boudin went to prison for her involvement in an
armed robbery and assault that took the lives of two policemen and a security
guard. Dohrn later served jail time for refusing to cooperate in an official
investigation of the crime.
Obama
stands to benefit from the McClellan book because it was obviously crafted,
under the guidance of Osnos, to inflict maximum damage on President Bush and,
by extension, fellow Republican and Iraq War supporter Senator John
McCain. None of this can be called an accident.
Virtually
all of McClellan’s former friends say that what he is writing and saying now
doesn’t sound like him at all. The obvious explanation is that, for whatever
reason or motivation, he is reading from a script prepared by Osnos and the far
left.
A May 30
Washington Post story reported, “somewhere between proposal and publication, as
McClellan told it yesterday, the scales dropped from his eyes, leading him to
write a book that accuses his former boss, President Bush, and his senior aides
of abandoning ‘candor and honesty’ to wage a ‘political propaganda campaign’
that led the nation into an ‘unnecessary war.’”
But the paper also
quoted Osnos as saying that McClellan “needed editorial guidance to tell the
story he wanted to tell all along.” This even involved the subtitle, which once
ended with “What’s Wrong with Washington,” but
became “Washington’s
Culture of Deception” in the final product. Osnos told the paper the subtitle
“evolved.” The story obviously did so as well.
One
question that has been raised by critics is whether McClellan is in it for the
money. But that’s less important than the fact that the network that has made
this book into a reality incorporates many elements of the far left.
The
network that included Stone, who died in 1989, was the subject of Susan
Braudy’s 2003 book, Family Circle, about the Boudin family’s communist
and socialist ties. Page 185 shows Kathy Boudin and Bernardine Dohrn together,
“after Bernardine’s return from Cuba,”
where she had “a warm meeting with members of the Viet Cong.”
The Line Of Attack
It is significant that Osnos says that every book he
publishes includes a dedication to Benjamin C. Bradlee, I.F. Stone and Robert
Bernstein, former head of Random House. The first two are worth mentioning.
Bradlee was the executive editor of the Washington Post, famous for once
remarking that, during coverage of the Iran-Contra affair under President
Reagan, he was having “the most fun since Watergate.” Bradlee was hoping to
bring down Reagan, as they had brought down President Nixon in the paper’s
coverage of the Watergate scandal.
Nixon had
developed a national reputation as a Congressman and had laid the basis for his
runs for national office by helping expose Soviet spy Alger Hiss in the State
Department and a communist network inside the U.S. Government. Interestingly,
one of Bradlee’s reporters on the Watergate story was Carl Bernstein, whose
parents were members of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party.
Iran-Contra
did not bring down Reagan, but the far-left apparently hopes the McClellan book
will help bring down or further damage President George W. Bush. It can also,
in their view, do some collateral damage to McCain.
It is a
tactic that has been employed time and time again. Pegging their coverage to a
book, the media create the appearance of a “scandal,” this time with a former
“insider,” and try to inflict political damage that benefits the Democrats. The
problem for McClellan is that he appears transparently foolish, reciting
charges about the Iraq War and so forth that have mostly been raised before by
the President’s political enemies. McClellan, who never objected to the
policies when he promoted and defended them, is acting like a puppet.
The Soviet Network
Osnos is the key to understanding the network that is working
behind-the-scenes. Osnos was an assistant to I.F. Stone in the 1960s. Stone
postured as an independent radical writer but was exposed as a Soviet agent in
the transcripts of Soviet messages known as the Venona intercepts and by other
sources.
Former
Soviet KGB Major General Oleg Kalugin had identified Stone as a Soviet agent
but under pressure from Stone’s friends in the media later backed away from
that precise description.
However,
in his book, The First Directorate: My 32 Years in Intelligence and
Espionage Against the West, Kalugin still identified Stone as a “fellow
traveler” of the Soviet Union who “made no secret of his admiration for the
Soviet system” over a period of many years and had regular contacts and lunches
with him.
Osnos is
still one among many far-left journalists who do not want to accept the
terrible facts about their hero and icon. But as AIM founder Reed Irvine told
the New York Times back in 1992, “The charge that I.F. Stone was a Soviet agent
does not surprise those who knew that as a fellow traveler, if not a [Communist]
party member, Stone remained a faithful Stalinist through the purges, the
Hitler-Stalin pact and the absorption of Eastern Europe…”
Braudy’s
book about the Boudins, Family Circle, has a lot to say about Kathy
Boudin and her uncle, I.F. Stone, also known as Izzy. Before turning to a life
of crime as a communist terrorist, she had wanted to work for her uncle’s
newsletter, which is also where Osnos worked.
She tells us that Stone tried to organize opposition to U.S. involvement in the Korean War, in order to
make South Korea safe for
communism, and that he would later work to remove U.S.
forces from South Vietnam,
in order to pave the way for a communist military victory there. Stone and his
comrades were successful in the case of Vietnam. His pro-communist record
was clear for all to see, except to Osnos and his ilk.
Defending Reds
According
to Braudy, Stone had “achieved fame in the 1950s for fighting for the rights of
people who were accused of having been members of the American Communist
Party.”
But
none of this apparently bothered Osnos, who went to work for Stone in the
1960s. And Osnos’s tie to Stone didn’t bother the Post. “After working for I.F.
Stone, Peter Osnos became a correspondent around the world for The Washington Post and
the newspaper’s foreign and national editor,” the official I.F. Stone website
proclaims.
In 1980,
Osnos guest-lectured at the pro-Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
during a Karen DeYoung class on “foreign reporting.”
DeYoung,
then a foreign reporter for the Post, is now an associate editor at the paper.
The IPS class was being held during a time when the old Soviet Union and its
surrogate, Communist Cuba, were destabilizing Central
America and hoping to install a series of communist governments.
Reagan had stopped the Soviet takeover at a critical juncture when he ordered
the military liberation of communist-controlled Grenada. However, Reagan was also
supporting the democratic government of El
Salvador, which faced a communist terrorist movement, and
freedom fighters in Nicaragua.
It was the latter that led to the “Iran-Contra affair” when National Security
Council staffer Oliver North arranged for unofficial assistance to the
Nicaraguan resistance when the liberal Congress was attempting to cut off their
aid.
To Karen
DeYoung, as she told the class, “most journalists now, most Western journalists
at least, are very eager to seek out guerrilla groups, leftist groups, because
you assume they must be the good guys.”
For his
part, as AIM editor Cliff Kincaid
noted in an April 1983 Human Events article, “The IPS and the Media: Unholy
Alliance,” Osnos exhibited a strange view of communism. He claimed not to know
why the Soviets behaved as they did. But he had visited Cuba, where he
found no evidence of Soviet control, and came away convinced that there was
“apparently genuine rapport” between Castro and the Cuban people.
On March
12, 2008, as he was preparing publication of McClellan’s book, Osnos found
enough time to pay tribute to I.F. Stone on the anniversary of Stone’s
birthday. Others paying tribute were Robert Kaiser, associate editor and former
managing editor of the Washington Post, and Myra MacPherson, author of a book
about Stone and former reporter for the Washington Post.
This is
the milieu that has spawned the McClellan book. Whatever you may think of Bush,
McCain or the Iraq War, there can be no doubt that Bush’s former press
secretary has fulfilled the function of “useful idiot.”
Once
again, the media are having their fun.
Share This
About the author
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
39 Comments for The New Communism
I completely agree with Vaclav Klaus, however the environmentalists are not the only players in the contest to socialize the United States of America.
The Democrat part is in it to their elbows too. That is one reason they obstruct legislation to allow oil drilling, atomic power plants and renewable energy sources.
They understand that they have to bring our nation to it’s knees so they can save us all from disaster, become heroes and take over our nation’s leadership.
The liberals or so called ‘progressives’ too are in the game. They have taken over our schools, colleges, universities and government agencies.
What we are up against is a SILENT REVOLUTION!
Our nation’s citizens and voters are asleep at the switch, yet they will scream the loudest when our Constitution is discarded by these stealth socialist revolutionaries.
Born in Peru, having suffered under Communist dictatorships and violent terrorism, having Russian relatives tell of their ordeals during the Russia revolution, I praise this article and President Klaus.
Now living in the US, I am witnessing the tendency to silence anything smacking of being anti-liberal or anti “Gore Environmentalism”.
But, the geatest weapon in the totalitarian’s arsenal is consumerism. ‘Career’, ‘Comfort’, ‘Possessions’ and ‘Security’. It is hard for the average American, devoid of the experience of totalitarianism, to comprehend threats, let alone an internal one. And it is harder still to motivate him into action lest he puts himself at risk of living in want.
A lie repeated often enough…
“Bush lied us into war.”
The facts: The “first” Gulf War was never ended, but suspended conditional upon Saddam allowing open and free inspections (including 16 or 17 UN Resolutions, all violated). This is why I put quotes around “first” re the Gulf War: it was ongoing when Bush took office.
As I have stated before (and received validation in the lead piece above), those who would bring down America and strip us of our freedoms NEVER have organizations with names such as “Evil Bad Guys Who Want to Destroy America,” but go with slogan-based nonsense that sounds reasonable, but which may or may not contain a grain of truth.
TownHall.com, a daily, free email newsletter has a splendid group of conservative pundits (although they may disagree among themselves from time to time, where liberal pundits rarely disagree as they toe the party line). The Media Research Center exposes media bias on a daily basis in yet another free newsletter email.
If you’re getting your news from the liberal media (NBC, ABC, CBS, NY TIMES, WASH POST, NEWSWEEK, TIME, etc), color yourself uninformed, trapped in the dark side of The Force. You are being propagandized.
The article is great and the comments are right on.
What I fear above all is the American knee jerk reaction to everything. We have become a nation of sheep meekly following the bellwether to the slaughter house.
All of the great leaders of this country have been like the mountain goats flitting from mountain top to mountain top. Sometimes they fall but they live free and make their own decisions based on faith and a sense of justice unknown to the liberal.
We need the immigrants to help us. They have and believe in strong families, in God, are pro-life, want less governemnt, taxes and regulation. But
above all they have experienced hardship all their lives. They are poor. They walked 1,000 miles for a better life and contrary to current preseptions, they are law abiding and do pay taxes. They can be our best allies in this fight.
Illegals?
No. Legals. Of the 40 million of hispanic heritage about 12 million are illegal another 5 or so million have green cards. That leaves about 20 million, of which maybe 10 miliion (guess) are relatively recent (post war).
But even illegals, the way some state laws are, can have an impact in the schools. For example most latinos are for shool choice and vouchers because they would like their children in parochial schools, but can not afford them. Since they pay taxes and have their children in schools, they can have a voice. We should harness it.
Note:
When I ran for Congress in the gerrymandered NY 12th CD I noticed that even Puerto Ricans were surprised and concerned that God was forbidden in the schools.
Up front, Miguel, we will probably find no common ground on this subject.
First off, only our government is pretending there are only 12 million illegals in this country. Many other organizations, more realistically, puts it at around 30M – some more. I’m thinking 30M is about right.
Being from Texas, people of Mexican ancestry have been here much longer than many of the European families. They have been our neighbors, friends, teachers, doctors, and in my case, family members, since before Texas became Texas. They are not immigrants and no one is an immigrant once he/she becomes a citizens. They are then US citizens. To suggest they will vote some way because of their ancestry is really an insult – isn’t it?
Also, yes, I agree many would very much like for the taxpayers to subsidize their Catholic private schooling. The legals and illegals – remember the illegals will get private schooling as well. Yes, I realize that will get the vote of some of those people. It will not help the children of this nation as a whole. Those rich people who already can afford private school would like the fact taxpayers will subsidize that as well. Not all children will have access to private school, and we will have those forgotten children left in decaying schools.
I am surprised that any politician would come up with and support such a thing as school vouchers. The government is in charge of public school. If it isn’t working, fix it. To suggest vouchers, is an admission they have failed. Actually, it’s a vote getter and another way of destroying this nation.
Also, it upsets me greatly when I see anyone separate the people of this country through labels – that’s counterproductive. But if politicians can keep us divided, they can control us.
You bet illegals have an impact on our school system. It is causing our property taxes to soar in order to pay for their education, the special education needed for them. It is diverting resources from the children of citizens of this country to non-legals.
Not all Hispanics (don’t really know what that means), but I’m guessing Spanish speaking, are family oriented. Not all illeals are family oriented.
Not all Hispanics are hard working. Not all illegals are hard working.
Not all Hispanics have endured hardships all their lives. Not all illegals have endured hardships all their lives.
Not all Hispanics are poor – not all illegals are poor.
Not all illegals walked thousands of miles to get here. Many hopped on board an airplane, some waded the Rio Grande, some climbed the fence, some came to visit for Christmas and stayed, etc.
Illegals are by definition ‘illegal’ – that means they are not law abiding.
Any taxes they pay are offset by the benefits and cost to the taxpayers.
Hispanic citizens, and non-citizens, are like any other citizen – some good – some not so good.
Those are emotional generalizations, and as most generalizations go – not true.
Puerto Ricans are citizens – they are not immigrants.
While I think denying prayer in school was not a good thing – but God is only in school or anywhere else, if we carry Him in our hearts. No one can tell you or your children you cannot talk to God – anytime and anyplace. Christian put their faith in politicians – not God, that’s the problem. These people want something done politically – not spritually. Not a good thing.
I did warn you.
What did you ever warn me about? I do not even know your name.
I responded briefly, not in detail.
Your response is out of order. If you want to discuss this at length then reveal yourself.
But we better be accurate moving forward. For example, schools were the domain of the states until the feds took it over and it has been down hill ever since.
We all pay taxes and should have a choice of schools as we have a choice in everything else. The government is the people, by the people and owned by the people through their taxation, contributions and sacrifice. Less than that and we slide into a totalitarian state….which is the point in the article above and in President Klaus’ book.
You need to read both.
I will gladly debate you if you so wish.
Hispanic comes from the iberian pennisula. It is a generalization
It is no doubt true that many people welcome the global warming theory because it offers an opportunity to increase the role of government in economic life. It is also true that many people welcomed the terrorist outrages of September 11, 2001 because they offered an opportunity to militarize American society. However those who welcomed the terrorist outrages did not invent them, or even exaggerate them. And those who welcome global warming did not invent it, or even exaggerate it. The motives of people reacting to an event has no bearing on whether the event really happened or not.
The fact of global warming has been demonstrated hundreds of times over by the official statements of scientific bodies all over the world, by detailed reports, articles, speeches. Not a single professor of meteorology or climate science questions the reality of global warming, nor denies that it is caused – at least in part – by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases. Even scientists widely quoted by global warming skeptics (“glowaks”) accept the fact of global warming. For example Professor Dinzel (chk spelling) of MIT, a favorite of the glowaks, has never denied global warming. He has merely criticized certain measures proposed to counteract global warming. These critiques were often repeated by glowaks. However they carefully refrain from quoting his assent to the fact of global warming itself.
This behavior is characteristic for glowaks. Every time I verify a glowak quote of some scientist allegedly questioning global warming, it turns out that the scientist was quoted out of context or even directly misquoted. The isolated cases that occur of challenges to global warming are emphasized out of all proportion to their significance. The scientific facts are selectively cited, leaving gaps into which the reader is encouraged to insert the interpretation that suits the glowaks. An example of their mendacity: “NASA released a study indicating that the receding of the Arctic sea ice has nothing to do with global warming and has to do with wind patterns.” (James Taylor, Heartland Institute, Nov 2007). I check the NASA web site, 15 Nov 07: “A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.” Repeat: “not all changes … are results of … global warming”; ergo SOME ARE RESULTS OF GLOBAL WARMING. However Taylor says “has nothing to do with global warming”. HE GROSSLY MISQUOTES NASA. Morison, the NASA spokesman, continues: “While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the ‘wet’ part of the Arctic—the Arctic Ocean—circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s,” he added.” So Morison even seems to imply that the decline in sea ice is indeed a result of global warming, since he says “…some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent…”.
It’s like that every single time. Glowaks are hard-core liars, like the people who deny the Nazi gas chambers. Every time they open their mouths a lie comes out.
“Klaus adds, “In the past 150 years (at least since Marx), the socialists have been very effectively destroying human freedom under humane and compassionate slogans, such as caring for man, ensuring social equality, and fostering social welfare.”
I found out how true this is several years ago.
I saw a Mensa ad in the paper offering IQ tests to see if you are smart enough to join “The High IQ Society.” I took the test, scored 99th percentile, and sent in my membership fee.
Soon enough the latest issue of their monthly journal showed up in my mailbox. Was I shocked! Every article, opinion piece, and letter to the editor was arguing to the effect that Mensans needed to take every position of leadership and political power possible in order to force people to live how Mensans felt was “best for their own good.” They called it “noblesse oblige” which translates as “nobility obligates.”
I gave them the benefit of the doubt that that particular issue was an out-lier. When the second issue full of the same fascist crap hit my mailbox, I mailed them a letter renouncing my membership and demanding a refund of the membership fee.
Miguel,
I warned you that we would have no common ground on your post about needing immigrants and the assertion they all shared certain virtues, etc.
My response was in order. In fact, it was necessary when such generalizations and inaccurate statements are made.
As to where Hispanic comes from, I know the derivation – just don’t know how suddenly a lot of people were classified as such.
What I said, I said openly.
As to school belonging to the states originally – you bet. Yes, the federal government took control of the schools and it has been downhill since. A novel idea, give the schools back to the states.
This latest idea of the federal government to force taxpayers to fund private school education for part of the populace while leaving many, including many taxpayers, languishing in even worse public schools than they now have, is truly horrible. It’s a vote getter -yes, for the elite and for those who do have access to private schools. Not everyone does or will. You, yourself said the ‘immigrants’ would choose that. So taxpayers are to pay for the church education of others, illegals?
Private schools are a wonderful idea, church schools are a wonderful idea. My daughter went to one. We asked no one to pay for it – we cut back, I worked, we paid for it.
The government certainly should be owned by the people, if we are honest, we know it isn’t. Yes, everyone should have a choice of schools, but not at the expense of others. Everyone should have a choice of anything legal – as lon gas they can pay for it. Does anyone truly think our property taxes (most funding for schools in Texas) will diminish when we have the added burden of providing some with private school education? That’s realistically not going to happen.
Totaltarian? I’m not sure. What do you call forcing some to pay for the private education of some others? Just plain wrong – no ism needed.
“A novel idea, give the schools back to the states.”
Here’s an even better idea: get the government (state and federal) out of the education business entirely. Nobody will be raising Hell about school prayer or lack thereof if the government and tax money aren’t involved.
Let the schools and teachers compete for students and their tuition. Eliminate the property and general revenue taxes that are extorted from citizens under threat of imprisonment to pay for inferior government education.
This is already going on to a certain extent in post-secondary education with private colleges, specialized training academies, and trade schools although without the benefit of tax elimination. Level the playing field and spur competition in education. Society, students and excellent teachers will be the winners.
In primary and secondary education, parents do make the choice to pay for their kids’ education in parochial schools and private academies. Not all of those parents are wealthy either. They value superior education so much they are willing to pay for it twice: once through taxation from which they derive no benefit and once through tuition.
As to arguments about education for the poor and less-fortunate, that’s where voluntary charity comes in through sponsoring scholarships and school endowments. I’m sure there are very many wealthy people who value education enough to fund excellence through such benevolence, particularly if they are not forced by the government to buy the inferior product through taxation.
Just look at all the alumni giving that already goes to state-sponsored and state-subsidized universities. Imagine how much greater such benevolence would be if people were allowed to keep more of their hard-earned property through tax elimination.
John, you and I are in total agreement there.
If, however, we are going to have publicly funded education – and I’m thinking we always will have – then why not allow the states and to a larger extent, local school boards make the decisions.
School vouchers are not the answer – unless private schools are available for everyone who wishes to attend. It would take years for that to be done.
I’m wondering if school voucher advocates would be willing for homeschoolers to get paid for teaching their own children?
If we revert education back to the states, then each state can decide whether they can or not have school choice and vouchers.
How many excluisve private schools are there that do not or would not accept vouchers? I would assume that incentives would encourage those that do not.
There is no question in my mind either that home schoolers should get some (tax) benefit for providing good solid education at zero cost to the state or feds. Also, we should consider the forfeited second family income that is sacrificed inorder to provide an education deemed unattainable in most other schools.
AS to global warming, I know little about. My impression is that there are vested interests in it. I do know that the planet repeatedly warms and cools over a long period of time. I do not know if we need to be too concerned about it though.
A fairly good opinion piece on WSJ today:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121314078329762429.html
A quote from it:
“In contrast to what some people seem to believe, having the government take over the health-care system is not change. It’s just a culmination of previous moves by government. And the areas with the worst problems today are areas that have the most government interference – education, health care and energy.”
My sentiment exactly. The government can’t fix anything. All they can do is pile more regulation and restriction on top of failed regulation and restriction, drive the costs up quality down.
Miguel, we agree concerning homeschoolers.
As to states deciding on vouchers or not – at least the people would have more access to the process of deciding and that’s never a bad thing.
There is no fair way to decide, however, that some people are forced to subsidize private education for some and not have it available to all. There is nothing right about that.
It isn’t a matter of whether private schools will accept vouchers. It is a matter of simply not being enough private schools in existence to accomodate those who wish to go. There just aren’t.
Actually, there are many things pushing the idea of vouchers. Certainly, churches would like to have some taxpayer dollars. I’ve always thought it was more profit than faith that caused so many churches to support this President.
I’m thinking the elite would certainly like for the schooling of their children to be subsidized by taxpayers.
Then I’m thinking, back in the shadows, there lurks some very big contributors just waiting to build a lot of ‘for-profit’ private schools, based on the promise of taxpayers paying for the schools? This may be why the proponents are not concerned about lack of schools – maybe?
Always follow the money—-
The idea of disbanding publicly funded education totally, return the taxes to the people and then allow them to decide, sounds good. That’s choice. The other is simply privilege for some paid for by others.
John, exactly!!! The government never fixes anything.
As far regulations, I’d have to think on that one. Certainly, I think some are bad, but mostly I’m thinking any regulation that gets passed also contains a loophole. I’m thinking the cost involved is that of purchasing politicians and the cost of lobbyists to write those loopholes. I’m thinking most regulations and rules are hype for the public. But, then right now, I probably haven’t considered all regulations.
Some thoughts over lunch, perhaps consider that until churches started educating children, most were educated at home, especially the elite and nobility (Europe).
Curiously home schooling is really very elite education complete with tutoring etc.
Perhaps home schooling should be incentivized so as to become the norm?
“In an appendix, Klaus takes on directly the popular congressional push for a so-called “cap and trade” system, on a national and global basis, giving bureaucrats the power to decide the “carbon footprint” of people, companies and nations and limiting their carbon emissions and use of energy. He calls the proposal completely irrational and unscientific and suggests it is just another excuse for giving government more power.”
How much power? This article gives an indication:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121296591703855687.html
Total blatant power and money grab by politicians. Too bad McCain thinks it’s a good idea.
“I’ve always thought it was more profit than faith that caused so many churches to support this President.”
Yes. When Bush started talking about “compassionate conservativism” and “faith-based solutions” I immediately saw specter of involuntary taxpayer support of religion.
I agree with the premise that charity might be best handled by religious organizations, but I totally disagree that money should be extorted from taxpayers and given to religious organizations. Charity by definition must be voluntary.
“Elite” “Nobility” “Old Money”
Strange how such words are used and what they originate from.
Nobility were the thugs who murdered, raped, plundered, and pillaged in the name of the king. They were tapped on the head with the sword of state, awarded lands, human chattel (serfs) and riches for their efforts to grab power and treasure for the king.
How “noble” they were.
Dear John,
Some did, some did not. There are good people and bad people in every walk of life throughout the ages.
Miguel
John, we are agreeing a lot today.
Whatever the reason, it’s a bad one. The government should not be involved in religion and God’s Church should not be involved politics. There would be no better way to destroy the Church.
Yes, there are good people in all walks of life – some more than others, though.
Republicans wake up!
There is now way but to embrace the scientific findings. Environmentalists are only speaking of what findings are pointing to.
Republicans, by history, are not opposed to Science. Even the hardliner Conservative Christians were a product of “Open-Mindness” and Reasons. Your fathers were the bravest people who assessed their faith and their former religion (Catholism) and implemented changes. You are a product of the sons of Reformation, the Reformists.
Science and Religion can co-exist. Prophet Daniel even prophesied about the unprecedented growth of Knowledge. Christianity is in fact part of that growth of Knowledge as it opened a new political ideology far better than the traditional, imperialistic viewpoints of the past.
In this regard, Sen. McCain is bold enough to stress to the American People that Republicans are also attuned to modern times and not “out-of-touch” to present realities.
Given his lead, we need to embrace that. Global Warming should be a concern for everybody. Why? Because it is “common sense”. If World heats up, what will the most likely outcome be? Logic would indicate that we need to support its mitigation. Its level of importance will be dictated by present situation still. But please don’t make a wrong message that the Republican Party, by its principle, does not support the concept behind mitigating Global Warming.
We are already putting too much pressure on this Party that people are moving away from us.
I believe that this the reason why there has already been a major fallout on the Republican Party in the last 3 years.
Your focus of attention is somewhere else. Why not combat the real major enemy…. COMMUNISM at the very heart of America.
Americans are sytematically being brainwashed to support or become activists for environment, women, gay liberation, unionism, World Peace (sound like in Ms. Universe but this is actually Anti-War ideology) and universal freedom, etc. Once they embrace it, they are also embracing a new ideology of Communism.
That is the strategy of Democratic Party whose major forces working behind it are the Democratic Socialists of America, Communist Party of USA, Young Democratic Socialists, Young Communist Party, Progressive Alliance, AFL-CIO, Rainbow/PUSH, CODEPINK and so on.
They have successfully used Anti-War sentiments to successfully recruit people to their mother Party, their Democratic Party.
2006 Election was their major success. They are the forces being referred to by Bill Clinton that caused the fall of Hillary Clinton. They are in fact biased to Obama, the first protege of Chicago DSA.
That’s your biggest problem. The Communists have made the Republicans focused in minor issues of War in Iraq and Economy and blind to their major stratagem of converting America to Socialism. Please realign your priorities.
THOSE WHO CAN DIRECTLY TALK TO MCCAIN CAMPAIGN… tell them that War In Iraq, Economy, Oil Prices and Race are minor issue.
The real issue is Communism successfully invading America.
We need to talk directly to the people and tell them it’s isn’t the Democrats/Republicans/Communist that we need fear. It is the complete destruction of country and sovereignty. If there are communists involved, they are being used just as the people who call themselves Dem/Rep are being used.
The war in Iraq, is not a minor issue. It, the economy and oil prices are what is being used to bring this country to it’s knees. It is part of the problem.
Then as if the mythical differences of party affiliation wasn’t enough of a divide, then we get baited with racial divide – once again. It worked very well for 40 years, and can again.
Communism is not our enemy – apathy, belief in politicians, lack of belief in ourselves and allowing ourselves to be divided by things that really don’t exist – are the enemy.
Actually, division is our enemy. We focus on our differences – not on the fact that what we all, I hope, want and that is a free, safe country, for future generations. We won’t get it through being divided – only by working together.
If we had not been divided and blinded by the mythical idea of party and race – would we ever have allowed
I don’t know about global warming, but we do have many other things we need to address that are more immediate – the pollution of our water and air – and consequently our food supply.
Science, or the ‘teaching’ of it, like religion, is easily manipulated.
Ladytexan.
I disagree with you based on what is happening now and how political climate in this country is changing.Things are moving. One day, you will wake up with the Government already controlling everything.
When I say “minor issue”, I mean there are things working behind and are taking advantage of us while we are focused on particular issues.
I see influences of forces under the guise of benevolence, pacifism, and so on who have forced the people not to believe in their own Government. These forces are now working against the current system and making the people too vulnerable to new ideas…even changing the current make up of our economic and social system.
Communism has become a reality nowadays under the guise of socialistic goals that are appealing to the people, especially to the masses. This development threatens the very foundation of our existence as a nation.
If the majority of the people decide on the change of the structure and embrace socialism, that’s fine with me. But blinding the people in making choices by hiding into one traditional party is morally unacceptable.
I repeat. Democratic Party of today is nolonger the party of the past. The dominant forces behind it are the communists and socialist third parties who have successfully experimented “political fusion” with the said Party.
Freedom from ideology is okey. But in political arena, “transparency” is very important and political institutions must honestly explain what they are offering to the people.
There will never be understanding and acceptance unless each and everyone of us shall be honest to ourselves and to others.
Apathy will always be within us unless we establish our common understanding of what is good or what is bad in our country.
I believe that we have had a great stride in the racial issue. I would love to have a non-White, female leader. My misgiving is the lack of effort to reveal one’s true identity to make an informed decision.
RodPatrick, I’ll start with your last statement and ask why would you ‘love to have a non-white female leader’?? What about being female or non-white that would make one a better person to carry out the wishes of the people?
Why is it OK to make statements that are clearly race/gender defined and it isn’t offensive – as long as it is talking about non-white or non-male?? That kind of thinking bothers me.
We are a long way away from equality as long as people even consider one’s ability to do a job in terms of race or gender.
Also, we don’t need leaders. If they are ‘leaders’, that makes us followers and we should not be followers. WE should be the employers and they should be our employees.
Politicians pay people really good money to think up words, because words have meaning and have an effect on us.
Actually, though, we are closer in thinking than you realize.
Yes, I think we will wake up one morning and find the government is controlling everything. We are just a one executive order away from that now. The only thing, I don’t think it will be communism, I think it will be corporatism or the corporations running the governments – of the world, not just in this country.
I’m thinking communism, socialism are real, but they are just convenient tools, maybe even just boogeymen. There is no way that corporations are going to allow communism to dominate. They just won’t. They may use it, but it won’t be the end – just a useful tool. That’s why I think the fear tactics of talking about communism and socialism are just smokescreen. I do think they are doing things behind our backs while they talk of communism, socialism, terrorism, etc. One hand is shaking a spector of these things, while the other is giving away our country and future.
Yes, the charade has been to label the Democrats as socialist and let them push that agenda, and the Republicans get to push the capitalism agenda. The sad fact is, as I talked about concerning welfare, both are working for the same goal – to take more power for the government and give more power to and create bigger and bigger corporations, to take more monies from (and thus control) the populace.
I am not advocating freedom from idealogy – I am advocating freedom of thought. I’m advocating freedom from political parties. We don’t have that now, far too many people are being told what to think and how to think by virtue of the political party loyalty. I want idealogy, but what we have with the party diehards, is lack of idealogy and simply party loyalty.
What we have now is being presented with a choice of two people to elect as President. We have been getting the choice of the lesser of two evils, as they say. The ‘party’, and I think there is only one, knows that it doesn’t matter if they get their men/women at the head of the ticket of both parties. They know that people are not going to stray from the party vote. They may sit home, but they won’t revolt and vote for anyone else. That’s control.
Things didn’t just change, they changed 50 years ago and have been moving forward with that agenda. Maybe farther back than that, but certainly 50 years.
People should not believe in the government, they should believe in themselves and believe in their ability to elect good people to run the government based on character, honesty, respect for the laws of the country and it’s people. They should not depend or be swayed by a political party to tell them who that is.
We will not have a common understanding of what is good unless and until government becomes what it is supposed to be. It is not a benevolent organization to ‘give’ money and things to people and businesses. AS long as the government is considered an entity to ‘give’ things, then each is going to want a government that ‘gives’ them what they want.
What we need is a basic understanding of what government is supposed to do.
Thank you for reading my post.
Does your thinking then point to the possibility that what we need is more selve government at the State level leaving the Federal government in charge only of defense and currency?
There are things plainly stated in the Constitution that is the job of the federal government. They are very limited.
If all other things were left to the state and local level, the people would have greater input and a better chance of having self-governance.
It would not be easy and would be messy for a while.
“Communism has become a reality nowadays under the guise of socialistic goals that are appealing to the people, especially to the masses. This development threatens the very foundation of our existence as a nation.
If the majority of the people decide on the change of the structure and embrace socialism, that’s fine with me.” – Rod Patrick
That right there is an example of the inconsistent and fuzzy thinking that is ruining this country. On the one hand you say that communism threatens our existence as a nation and in the next breath you say if the majority embrace it, it’s fine with you.
DOH!
So….Lincoln should have listened harder
About what?
“What we have now is being presented with a choice of two people to elect as President.”
C’mon people choose! Karl Marx or Captain Queeg?
Step right up and pull the lever. (Make sure you pull hard, we don’t want no pregnant chads this time.)
It would be hilarious if it weren’t so scary.
John, you said it.
Re:
That right there is an example of the inconsistent and fuzzy thinking that is ruining this country. On the one hand you say that communism threatens our existence as a nation and in the next breath you say if the majority embrace it, it’s fine with you.
#####
That’s not what I am trying to say. If the majority wants make a drastic Change of the system on what they believe is good or better, in a “well-informed, well discussed, completely transparent arena”…. then I will accept it because it is done in a “fair and honest” manner.
Then, it is up to me to make decision whether to stay in the resulting system or go somewhere else.
But at the rate things are going, fusion strategy initiated by Harrington and now, the main strategy of Barack by consolidating his base at Chicago, under the guise of Anti-War sentiment, is not exactly FAIR to the people.
Some discussion blogs are so against in discussing socialism and trying to make everyone believe that discussions should be limited to common, centric issues. But those who advocate for that brand of media communication are actually the one who have hidden motive because they do not want their hidden agenda to be exposed and scrutinised by the public.
Given that, the strategy of New Party (of which Barack) of putting their agenda in the table of the public, in slow and stealth manner is therefore unacceptable. Because some information are missing when the so-called Progressive Change is being presented to the people. There are “Add Ons”.
Ethics indicates that this a very dangerous “lie”, because the scheme is to remove other details on focus on a particular issue that will assure “vote”.
Many of us are being forced to make decisions at very limited information available. It is supposed to be the role of mass media in this country to validate and assess facts better judgment of the people.
In the case of third parties and their motives and their level of success within a major political party here in United States….
I conclude that the media itself has failed.
Unfortunately, the majority of the people for whatever reason choose not to be well-informed or to discuss rationally the issues that confront the nation. The rely on propaganda and loud-mouthed bloviaters on radio and TV to form their opinions for them. It’s the path of least effort.
The reporters and opinion-makers either parrot what they’re told (or paid to parrot), or they attempt to promote their own views and agenda. There never has been and never will be a totally neutral, rational media.
This used to be called “yellow journalism:” now it’s “mainstream media.” Same pig, different lipstick.
Dear John didn’t you use to the thought and reality that peoples used to live under the influence of the others – it’s like the rule of this world or laziness to think with the help of one’s own head;)
I agree with John, there will never be a neutral, rational media ever.
Having relatives who lived in Vienna Austria during WW2 , I believe they would agree with this article. I think most people in the USA live in an illusion of the Garden of Eden! In reality it is like the photograph by Arthur Rothstein of melting snow on a dirt road in Utopia, Ohio.