Archive for December, 2011

Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat

December 19, 2011

I watched the mainstream media’s news coverage of the last U.S. troops leaving Iraq.  And what a great day for Obama, on their presentation.

After all, didn’t Obama promise that the troops would come home?  And aren’t they in fact coming home?

A couple things are notably absent; first, that the departure of U.S. troops were in fact negotiated under George W. Bush and NOT Barack Obama; and second, that our military commanders are sick that we aren’t leaving a force behind similar to those that stayed behind in postwar Europe, Japan and Korea to protect the gains we fought so hard to attain.

The überliberal Huffington Post presents the Obama narrative this way:

Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
First Posted: 10/21/11 01:33 PM ET Updated: 10/21/11 05:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Fulfilling a long-held campaign promise, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, as conditioned by the Status of Forces Agreement with the country.

“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said. “So today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.”

“After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he said.

In confirming his plans for troop withdrawal by the end of 2011, the president fulfilled the most memorable pledge he made in securing the nomination of president from his party. There had been reports the administration had been plotting ways to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government so as to prolong America’s presence in the country. Those rumors heightened concerns among Democrats who backed Obama in part because of his pledge to end the war in Iraq.

I mean, wow, it sounds like Obama is an amazing leader, doesn’t it?  And it should never occur to anyone that Obama would have pulled out U.S. forces three years ago when he first came into office if his rhetoric had any validity whatsoever.

But buried in the middle of the story is this:

Under an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in 2008, U.S. troops were due to end their mission in Iraq by the end of 2011. But for much of this year, Obama and his advisers have been trying to find a way to retain some troop presence in the country.

According to people familiar with the negotiations — which were conducted for the Obama administration by some of the same individuals who led the Bush-era process — the main sticking points in recent months were over the precise number of troops that would stay behind, and whether the Iraqi government would agree to provide them with legal immunity.

Experts on the mission in Iraq say that despite the public protestations on all sides, both parties were eager to come to an agreement over a continuing troop presence: the Iraqis because they hoped for help in providing stability, and the Americans because they wanted a futher bulwark against encroachment by Iran.

Which is to say very clearly that 1) why is Obama stupidly taking credit for a withdrawal of forces that he had nothing to do with apart from the fact that he is a man without shame or honor or dignity?  And 2) why is he deceitfully presenting thing pullout as a “win” for America when all we are doing is abandoning nine years of investment of blood and treasure?

I still remember the chutzpah of the Obama administration from this moment when Vice President Biden boasted:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Again, this is an administration characterized by a profound lack of honesty, or shame, or honor, as the FACTS reveal.

Of the Bush decision to employ a surge of U.S. forces in Iraq that turned the war around and resulted in victory, we have this from Obama:

Obama Web site removes `surge’ from Iraq problem
By NEDRA PICKLER – July 15, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

The AP – from which I snagged the article – purged that story from its site.  That is a dilemma I face again and again as leftwing media seem to keep articles that damage conservatives forever and ever, but conveniently lose those articles which paint liberals in a bad light.  It’s just another way the mainstream media demonstrates its naked media bias.  Years ago, conservatives were helpless; now, stories can be preserved even after the leftists purge them.

The fact of the matter is that the United States won the war in Iraq in spite of the idiocy and foolishness of one Barack Hussein Obama; and that Bush demonstrated wisdom and perseverence whereas Obama demonstrated weakness and cowardice.

And to claim credit for the very success he himself vigorously opposed is again an act of dishonesty and dishonor and shamelessness.

Obama tried to claim that the success that “coincidentally” directly accompanied the surge really had nothing to do with the number and courage of our warriors, but merely was the result of an “awakening” of sheiks in Anbar province.  The funny thing about that – apart that it denies American troops any credit whatsoever – was that all the mainstream media stories reporting this “awakening” took place AFTER the Bush surge, and that it was in fact the Bush surge that gave the sheiks the cover and the confidence to rise up against the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s forces.  And that we have faced the same dilemma in Afghanistan; that the locals won’t courageously rise up against terrorism if they don’t believe that America will be around to stand with them.

It’s a helluva lot easier for the oppressed locals to bravely “rise up” if you’ve got thousands of tall, strong and brave American troops coming in to help you.  That’s the bottom damn line that Obama doesn’t understand.

So, the war in Iraq was a huge Bush success – and the very fact that the Obama administration tried to take credit for a war that they did everything possible to undermine when it mattered PROVES that it was a great Bush success.  But what has Obama done with that victory?

He’s turned it into a likely defeat, that’s what:

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’
Others echo call for strength against Iran
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times
Sunday, October 23, 2011

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired Army Gen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

“I think it’s an absolute disaster,” said Gen. Keane, who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus when he was top Iraq commander. “We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace.”

U.S. troops will be vacating Iraq at a time when neither Baghdad’s counterterrorism skills nor its abilities to protect against invasion are at levels needed to fully protect the country, say analysts long involved in the nearly nine-year war.

“Forty-four hundred lives lost,” Gen. Keane said. “Tens of thousands of troops wounded. Over a couple hundred thousand Iraqis killed. We liberated 25 million people. There is only one Arab Muslim country that elects its own government, and that is Iraq.

“We should be staying there to strengthen that democracy, to let them get the kind of political gains they need to get and keep the Iranians away from strangling that country. That should be our objective, and we are walking away from that objective.”

This is a sad day for America and not a victory at all.  It’s the day we walked away from 4,000 American dead and $800 billion in treasure to fight.  It’s no different than what we did in Vietnam, when we bloodied ourselves fighting to take a hill from the communists, AND THEN WALKED AWAY FROM THAT SAME DAMN HILL RIGHT AFTER FIGHTING SO HARD TO TAKE THE DAMNED THING.  Only this time instead of the Viet Cong immediately moving in to retake the hill that America had invested the lives of its soldiers taking, it will be Iran immediately moving in to take Iraq away from us.

Because we’re not there to do a damned thing to stop them, are we?

Hillary Clinton “warned” Iran to watch out as our troops pull out:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday warned Iran not to miscalculate the U.S. decision to withdraw its troops.

“No one, most particularly Iran, should miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis going forward,” she said in an interview with CNN from Uzbekistan.

Yeah, that will do it.  A warning from Hillary Clinton has got to be worth at least as much as 100,000 American warriors dug in and ready to fight, right?

Charles Krauthammer sums up the great Bush victory become the miserable Obama defeat as follows:

Obama loses Iraq, as smart power becomes no power
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted: Sunday, November 6, 2011

Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq War from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with American backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.

Al-Qaeda decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. U.S. casualties at their lowest ebb in the entire war. Elections approaching. Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world’s only democracy.

He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of Dec. 31, the American military presence in Iraq will be liquidated.

And it’s not as if that deadline snuck up on Obama. He had three years to prepare for it. Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force, like the postwar deployments in Japan, Germany and Korea.

Three years, two abject failures. The first was the administration’s inability, at the height of American post-surge power, to broker a centrist nationalist coalition governed by the major blocs — one predominantly Shiite (Maliki’s), one predominantly Sunni (Ayad Allawi’s), one Kurdish — that among them won a large majority (69 percent) of seats in the 2010 election.

Vice President Joe Biden was given the job. He failed utterly. The government ended up effectively being run by a narrow sectarian coalition where the balance of power is held by the relatively small (12 percent) Iranian-client Sadr faction.

The second failure was the SOFA itself. The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself — the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment — with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances.

The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence, now unopposed and potentially lethal. Message received. Just this past week, Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurds— for two decades the staunchest of U.S. allies — visited Tehran to bend a knee to both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

It didn’t have to be this way. Our friends did not have to be left out in the cold to seek Iranian protection. Three years and a won war had given Obama the opportunity to establish a lasting strategic alliance with the Arab world’s second most important power.

He failed, though he hardly tried very hard. The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem, and overcame it. Obama had little desire to. Indeed, he portrays the evacuation as a success, the fulfillment of a campaign promise.

But surely the obligation to defend the security and the interests of the nation supersede personal vindication. Obama opposed the war, but when he became commander in chief the terrible price had already been paid in blood and treasure. His obligation was to make something of that sacrifice, to secure the strategic gains that sacrifice had already achieved.

He did not, failing at precisely what this administration so flatters itself for doing so well: diplomacy. After years of allegedly clumsy brutish force, Obama was to usher in an era of not hard power, not soft power, but smart power.

Which turns out in Iraq to be … no power. Years from now we will be asking not “Who lost Iraq?” — that already is clear — but“Why?”

If you don’t think that General Keane – the author of the successful surge that turned Iraq around – doesn’t completely agree with Krauthammer’s assessment, you are almost as big of a fool as Obama.

Advertisements

Planned Parenthood Trying To Pimp 14-Year Old Kids To Work As Sex Education Workers To Further Their Wicked Agenda

December 17, 2011

Have you no shame, liberals?

Of course you don’t.  Stupid question on my part.

Planned Parenthood Hiring 14-Year-Old Kids to Push Sex Ed
by Steven Ertelt | Madison, WI | LifeNews.com | 12/15/11 2:23 PM

The Planned Parenthood abortion business in Wisconsin is going beyond the pale in its efforts to push its pro-abortion agenda on kids and teenagers — by hiring them to push its sex education agenda on their peers.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin recently posted a job listing indicating it is looking for children as young as 14 to work as sex educators.

“Planned Parenthood of WI (PPWI) is hiring Youth Health Educators at PPWI (there are 7 positions available),” the new listing reads. “Youth must be between the ages of 14-24, hold a current leadership position in a youth-serving Community Based Organization (CBO) or at their school/college, and be able to work at least 10-12 hours/week.”

“This position will further the department’s mission of creating sexually healthy communities with a focus on reducing the rate of teen and young adult pregnancy and STIs, including HIV/AIDS. More specifically, this position will provide one-on-one health education to youth in our Youth Health Clinics, assist with providing direct sexuality education to youth via the youth text hotline and “Youth Nights” programming, and act as community advocates regarding issues of responsible sexuality education among adolescents and young adults,” the listing says.

“Must have successfully completed 8th Grade. Ability to relate to and influence peers required. Public speaking and presentation experience is a plus. Previous leadership role(s) with other youth programs desired. Bilingual (Spanish/English) skills preferred,” Planned Parenthood adds.

The position is a limited one for up to a year and may be renewable after the first year and any teenagers hired by Planned Parenthood would be trained by their staff to promote the abortion business’ agenda.

Rita Diller, the director of the watchdog group Stop Planned Parenthood commented on the listing.

“That’s right, the organization is paying children to promote sex to other children,” Diller said.

The pro-life group Pro-Life Wisconsin says the abortion business is pushing children to urge other children to break the law.

“In Wisconsin, early teen sexual activity, even if consensual, is against the law,” the organization notes. “Wisconsin Statutes 948.02(2) states, (w)hoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class C felony. Violators, including teens, can be placed on Wisconsin’s Sex Offender Registry. It is clear that [Planned Parenthood’s] contraception sex education programs aid and abet our children in the commission of this second degree sexual assault (statutory rape) crime. And then we punish them as sex offenders when they get caught.”

Of course the left doesn’t give one flying DAMN about “the law.”  They demonstrated that with their Occupy Madness in city after city as they flagrently broke the law and ignored police, as they committed rape and theft and arson and vandalism, etc.  Why should they care about turning 14-year olds into sex education workers?

The left has been going after the youth since Adolf Hitler started his Hitler Youth and Stalin and Mao started their Young Communist Pioneers.

Newsflash: Obama Stimulus Was A Leftwing Boondoggle Created To Financially Benefit Obama-Connected Liberals

December 17, 2011

Obama keeps talking about the Republican culture of corruption because he’s the most dishonest man who has ever “occupied” the White House and he knows the media is as dishonest as he is.

The Obama stimulus porker – you know, that thing that didn’t create any jobs but cost the American taxpayers not $862 billion but rather $3.27 TRILLION – keeps looking worse and worse as we get the 20/20 vision to examine it.  Even the CBO is now stating for the record that their previous analysis was off, and that this stimulus turd was in fact a turd.

Obama laid a $3.27 TRILLION turd and nobody’s talking about it.

Well, now there’s this:

Outrage! Author of ‘stimulus’ tied to companies funded by bill: Received hundreds of millions in government grants, loans.
Posted on December 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM EST
By Aaron Klein

An advisor to President Obama who played a key role in developing the energy provisions of the so-called stimulus bill has graced the board of several companies that recently received government funds, including hundreds of million in “stimulus” money.

TJ Glauthier served on Obama’s 2008 White House Transition Team. He is widely credited with helping to craft the energy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the “stimulus.”

In addition to serving on the boards of multiple major energy companies, Glauthier previously held two Presidential appointments during the Clinton Administration.

He was the Energy Department’s Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, the second-highest ranking official.

Earlier, he served in the White House for five years as the Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy and Science in the Office of Management and Budget.

Glauthier is tied to several energy companies that benefited from the “stimulus” bill he helped to craft.

One such company investigated by KleinOnline is GridPoint Inc, where he was appointed to the board in March 2008. GridPoint provides utilities software solutions for electrical grid management and electric power demand and supply balancing.

The “stimulus” provides for $4.5 billion for so-called smart grid projects. GridPoint has benefited from scores of smart grid deals funded by the “stimulus” bill.

The company partnered with the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), Nissan, the Idaho National Laboratory and others in a project to deploy electric vehicles (EVs) and their charging infrastructure in five states. The Energy Department had awarded eTec almost $100 million in “stimulus” funds to support the project.

GridPoint’s role in the eTec project was to supply smart charging and data logging capability to utilities located in strategic markets of eTec’s program in Arizona, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington.

GridPoint also benefited from “stimulus” funds when it recently provided home energy management, load management and electric vehicle management software solutions for a KCP&L’s Green Impact Zone SmartGrid Demonstration in Kansas City, Mo. The project was the recipient of stimulus funding.

Additionally, GridPoint helped the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, or SMUD, to manage power from its customers’ rooftop solar panels.

The Arlington, Va.-based company had landed a contract to help the Sacramento, Calif.-based municipal utility manage renewable power integration, energy storage and home energy management systems. SMUD had won $127.5 million in stimulus funds from the Department of Energy to carry out the project, which also includes deploying 600,000 smart meters in its service territory.

Also, in early 2009, the Energy Department awarded Argonne National Laboratory nearly $2.7 million in stimulus funding for three solar-energy related research projects. In addition, Argonne reportedly shared another $5 million in stimulus funding for projects with GridPoint and other companies and the University of Illinois Sustainable Technology Center.

Besides benefiting from stimulus grants, GridPoint last year won a $28 million contract with the United States Postal Service to install energy management systems in selected post office locations across the U.S.

Glauthier, meanwhile, had come under fire in the conservative blogosphere after Fox News reported the U.S. Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.

HotAir reported last week that Glauthier is a “strategic advisor” to Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy.

HotAir noted Solazyme received a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Also, writing at BigGovernment two weeks ago, Whitney Pitcher found that prior to serving as advisor to Solazyme and after his time as part of Obama’s transition team, Glauthier served of the advisory board of SunRun, a solar financing company.

In October of 2010, just a few short months after Glauthier joined SunRun’s advisory board, SunRun secured a $6.73 million grant from this Treasury Department stimulus program. The company was the ninth largest recipient of such programs through the December, 2010.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Boy, is it ever a small world where Obama’s crony capitalist fascist government-dictated corruption is involved.

We also learn that a big Obama donor had his hand in the same pot: he was the founder of Gridpoint, after all:

The founder of an energy company that benefited from deals involving hundreds of millions in “stimulus” money made the maximum donation allowable to President Obama’s inauguration, WND has learned.

Peter L. Corsell, founder of GridPoint Inc., contributed $50,000 to the inauguration.

I wrote about that Solazyme biofuel boondoggle too. It’s beyond outrageous what Obama and his thieving friends are getting away with.

I say it and keep saying it: this is God damn America, and it will continue to be God damn America until we rid ourselves of this evil despot.

Blacks, Hispanics, women and young people – all the groups most responsible for bringing Obama to power – are the most cursed under this administration (you know, even as all of Obama’s fascist crony capitalist friends PROSPER):

After decades of hard-fought progress, black economic gains were reversed in Great Recession (updated: that link was deleted by WaPo, which is a very common tactic of the revisionist liberal media.  Here is a still-current link to this story)

Hispanics’ Unemployment Rate Soars

Women Losing Ground as Jobs Crisis Rages

U.S. Youth Unemployment At Arab Spring Levels

 With all due respect, it is nothing short of poetic justice.  You voted for an incredibly evil man and one day you will burn in hell for it.  But get you should all get your foretaste of that hell early, SHOULDN’T YOU?

Stimulus An Even Bigger Treasonous Failure Than Americans Thought It Was, Says CBO

December 14, 2011

Obama spent $862 billion dollars of our money and our children’s money and their children’s children’s children’s money. 

A more precise estimate of what Obama spent is actually $3.27 TRILLION.  Because a lot of the stimulus required more expenditures down the road.

That bought Obama a lot of political payback as his crony capitalist fascist buddies who benefitted from all of this pork slush gave him over a billion dollars in camaign warchest money.

But did it help the United States?  Did it help the American people?

Stupid question, frankly.  It was never really intended to help anybody but Obama and his friends.

New CBO Reports Show Stimulus Even Less Effective Than Previously Believed
Kevin Glass   Managing Editor, Townhall.com
Dec 14, 2011

Buried within the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent report on the progress of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a surprising admission: the CBO now estimates the stimulus might have been only half as effective as previously thought.

You wouldn’t know it from the headlines. “Stimulus added up to 3.3M jobs,” reads a representative piece from Politico reporting on the November CBO report. This headline is accurate for the high-end estimate. That estimate, however, is essentially unchanged from previous reports. In the past, the CBO’s low estimate for jobs “created or saved” was 1.2 million which, in this report, has dropped to only 600,000.

A particularly unusual requirement in the stimulus was that the CBO issue regular reports on its estimates of the legislation’s economic effectiveness. Standard neo-Keynesian macroeconomics, to which the CBO has long seemed to subscribe in its economic modeling, posits that government spending creates a “multiplier effect” that ripples throughout the economy and creates more growth than it would normally appear to. The CBO’s newest report cuts one of their estimates in half, validating conservative criticism that they’ve been overestimating the effect of the stimulus.

If the debate about the law was shaped by the possibility that a $825 billion spending law would yield only six hundred thousand jobs, the debate may have been a lot different. Over $1.3 million dollars per job “created or saved?” That’s not a number that Democrats are eager to be touting on Capitol Hill.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put together a chart representing the CBO’s revised estimates:

It might be difficult to find those who would argue that the stimulus was worth it if the CBO’s new low-end estimate of jobs “created or saved” is accurate. The left will always have Paul Krugman and similar ideologically-aligned colleagues arguing that the CBO is wrong, that the economic multipliers are higher, and that the CBO is actually underestimating the growth that comes from a massive injection of government money into the economy. The problem for Krugman et. al is that the economics on such undertakings are far from settled.

Studies attempting to estimate the effects of countercyclical fiscal policy have found an incredibly wide range of possibilities. While the CBO estimates a multiplier effect between 0.5 and 2.5, academic literature is even further apart. IMF economists writing about recent studies found estimates that government spending could be either significantly harmful or even more effective than the most optimistic CBO scenario. In summing up the state of macroeconomics, they found this to be an “embarrassingly wide range of estimated multipliers.”

“Usually, the CBO is very careful when they apply the range of jobs created because they don’t really know for sure,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director and president of the American Action Forum. “I think it says a lot about the confidence of the profession in their ability to provide these estimates. There’s simply no consensus about the size of multiplier effects in the best of circumstances, and for those that were introduced in the midst of a large financial crisis-induced recession, it’s even more uncertain.”

The CBO’s modeling represents the wide range and uncertainty surrounding the economic community. It’s also not simply a matter of splitting the difference between the best-case and worst-case scenario being represented. The range presented is so wide precisely because economists are genuinely unsure of their methods and projections. New York Times economics reporter Ed Glaeser discussed this in writing,

The fundamental problem with acquiring certainty about Keynesian intervention is that anti-recessionary spending is just not very amenable to clean, compelling empirical evaluation… And so we are left wading in ignorance. It is a great tragedy that the most important area of economic decision-making is also the area where we will always know the least.

Economics was famously coined as “the dismal science” – and while the CBO is a nonpartisan, trustworthy institution, its estimates nonetheless represent value judgments and certain assumptions. Their willingness to revisit those assumptions in the wake of a stimulus that has not followed the models for what was promised by the Obama Administration is admirable. “They should be applauded for going back and reviewing on the basis of new research and new evidence,” Holtz-Eakin said.

Neither party has a monopoly on economics, despite what Obama’s economists may have claimed during the stimulus debate, and what the president himself regularly implies. Republicans who argue that the stimulus had no effect at all on employment are likely just as wrong as the news media that takes the CBO’s high-end estimates as fact. It’s difficult to spend that much money and have absolutely no effect on employment, no matter how strong a crowd-out effect might occur. The important thing is that the CBO effectively admitted their critics were correct that they have been overly optimistic in their economic estimates of the stimulus. Conservatives should applaud.

“Half as effective as previously thought”???  And this new analysis comes what, only what, three years after it passed?

In anothe couple of years, it’s going to be regarded as only half as effective as it was before they realized that it was only half as effective as they’d thought.

It’s an unmitigated disaster.

Obama foolishly and wickedly gambled away everything this country had – and like his good pal and trusted advisor Jon Corzine did HE LOST OUR MONEY.

Barack Obama is the worst national disaster in American history.  He is the Antichrist’s useful idiot.  He may have already so crippled America that it will never be able to recover, and one more Obama term would certainly leave us guaranteed to collapse in the next ten years.

The Obama Navy Illustrates Why America Is Sinking: PC Navy Buying Biofuel At $16 A Gallon

December 14, 2011

In Obama’s God damn America we do truly breathtakingly stupid things and then keep doing them until we collapse.  And then of course we can also add a healthy mixture of Obama’s crony capitalist fascism:

Navy buys biofuel for $16 a gallon
posted at 7:00 pm on December 11, 2011 by J.E. Dyer

This is going to help the Defense Department weather looming budget cuts, for sure. Teaming up with the Department of Agriculture (which has a cheery Rotary Club ring to it), the Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.

You won’t be surprised to learn that a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a “strategic advisor” at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy. Glauthier worked – shock, shock – on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.

The Navy sale isn’t Solazyme’s first trip to the public trough, of course. The company got a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Solazyme’s partner in the biofuel sale is Dynamic Fuels, a Louisiana company owned jointly by Tyson Foods and Tulsa-based Syntroleum. Tyson and Syntroleum are distinguished by having profitable lines of business that do not rely on government grants to unprofitable “green” projects. This does not make their biofuel product price-competitive with fossil fuels, however. (They were induced to develop biofuel manufacturing processes by a combination of subsidies and tax breaks.)

The Dynamic Fuels plant was opened for business in Geismar, LA in 2010, becoming by far the largest biofuels plant in North America – and reportedly, in combination with a plant in Finland, a producer of 94% of the world’s biofuels. This is great boosterism stuff, but the biofuels produced by Dynamic Fuels are still considerably more expensive than the fossil-fuel alternative. Dynamic Fuels has begun supplying aviation biofuel to KLM, the Dutch flag carrier, but of course, the use of more-expensive biofuels by commercial carriers has to be subsidized by governments.

If governments stopped subsidizing biofuels, their artificial “profitability” would disappear overnight. Price-wise, they can’t compete with fossil fuels. The day may come when they can, but subsidizing them while they don’t is not a method with any record of success for encouraging price efficiency. What it does instead is create languishing public dependencies and tremendous opportunities for cronyism, as demonstrated in the Solyndra scandal.

As the Institute for Energy Research article (top link) indicates, the US has enormous reserves of both conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas resources. Opening them up for exploitation would, among other things, ensure that the US armed forces could buy cheaper fuel – cheaper than today’s prices – produced in the USA. At a time when federal debt is spiraling and the Defense Department is facing budget cuts that are guaranteed to gut the fighting forces and render them ineffective, it seems to border on insane to eschew a ready, significantly cheaper alternative and require the armed services to quadruple what they pay for fuel as a proof of concept – apparently with the idea that the forces should buy more of the 4-times-as-expensive fuel. This is, after all, our national security we’re talking about.

While Obama is making the Navy shoot itself in both feet by buying fuel that costs FOUR TIMES what they need to spend, he is simultaneously demanding that the military’s budget be gutted by $600 billion – AFTER he already gutted it $450 billion the year before.

And to “pay for” forcing the Navy to purchase fuel that costs four times more than what they had been buying, Obama is going to lay off more than 3,000 valuable mid-level sailors who make up the heart of our armed forces.

Hopefully all that biofuel is for ships with names like “The USS Dodo Bird.” Because that’s the way we’re going under this president’s leadership. Or maybe the “USS Teapot Dome” in honor of Obama’s in-your-face blatant corruption.

America’s Enemies Saying, ‘Thanks For Giving Away BILLIONS In Hi-Tech Stealth Technology, Obama!’

December 13, 2011

Barack Obama said something a few days ago that festers like a nasty strain of brain cancer.

When mainstream media “reporters” handed Obama a softball question about Republicans calling him out for appeasement (in a question that failed to mention ANY of the reasons the Republicans had given for accusing Obama of appeasement in the first place), Obama said:

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that,” the president said during a news conference.

Now, it’s hard to find because our media is so in the pocket of liberalism, but the Republcians’ charge occurred during a Republican Jewish Conference forum.  They put a little content into their charge; for instance, pointing out that – due to Democrats in general and Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular blocking George Bush from confronting Iran over its growing nuclear program, and due to Obama’s weakness and appeasement since taking office – Iran is now six months away from a nuclear weapon and it is too late to stop them from getting one.  Which of course exalts Islam and directly threatens our ally Israel.

Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon SOON.  That day will be a dark and terrible one, because Iran will ultimately be able to a) shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send oil prices skyrocketing above $14 a gallon; b) launch an international wave of terrorism; or c) even attack Israel with IMPUNITY when they get nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.  Because if we attack a nuclear – and frankly crazy and truly evil – Iran, we get to kiss a few cities and tens of millions of Americans goodbye.

There were several other reasons the various GOP rivals rightly accused Obama of appeasement.  But let’s just ask ourselves: if those biased leftist hyper-partisan psuedo-journalists had confronted Obama with the disgrace of Iran’s nuclear program in the context of their question about “appeasement,” wouldn’t that have made it just a little bit harder for a biased leftist hyper-partisan pseudo-president to give us such a smash-that-lob response???

In any event, Obama is a great, strong, powerful leader and NOT a timid appeaser because he got Osama bin Laden – and just don’t you mind the rest of the foreign policy disasters he’s presided over.  That’s the Obama line.

Let’s forget about your apology tour (see also here) when you went around the rest of the world damning America.  Let’s forget about how you repeatedly insisted on a timetable for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that would make any victory possible.  Let’s forget how you abandoned commitments made to Czechoslovakia and Poland to needlessly appease Russia.  Let’s forget that even Europe has recognized your spinelessness.  Let’s forget how you refused to denounce Iran even as that country was massacring its own people for demonstrating for freedom.  Let’s forget that you are demanding that the U.S. pull out its troops from Iraq after we fought so hard for it to the shock and disgust of our generals.  Let’s forget the many times you have undermined Israel, such as when you demanded Israel return to indefensible 1967 borders after America promised Israel it would NEVER do such a thing.  Let’s forget how you undermined valuable ally Egypt under Mubarak and proceeded to give us a country instead that will be run by terrorists and based on Shariah law.  Let’s forget that Iran initiated an act of war against the United States – and you spinelessly did NOTHING about it.  Let’s forget that you actually are DEMANDING that the defense budget be gutted $600 billion more than the $450 you already gutted it.

Let’s forget that, mainstream media, so we can lob Obama a softball question devoid of any context at all – and allow Obama to say something like, oh, “Ask Osama bin Laden if I’m an appeaser.”

So let’s consider Obama’s answer: does Obama being the brave, brave Sir Robin who happened to be the carbon-based lifeform inhabiting the Oval Office at the time we got Osama bin Laden make up for all of the above appeasement???

Well, first consider the FACT that the waterboarding Obama opposed, demonized and in fact actually tried to criminalize-after-the-fact was ESSENTIAL to finding out where Obama was (see also here).  If Obama had got his way, and Bush had not waterboarded terrorist suspects, we can toss out the only link we had to Obama (courier) and we can toss out the city where he was hiding (Abbottabad):

Oops.  Did I forget to mention that Obama has actually had many more acts of appeasement than what I had above?  Because not only did he denounce the very waterboarding that got us Osama bin Laden, but he also denounced the Gitmo where we got that information.

So why does Obama get all the credit for getting Obama and Bush none?

Please refer to my previous statements regarding the level of bias in American pesudo-journalism.

But then there’s also “the decision” to get Osama bin Laden.  Wasn’t that like really brave?

Well, I’m going to the dentist this week to get some really painful work done.  I’m just as brave as Obama was to get in my car and show up at that dentist office.

Imagine if Obama had REFUSED to get Osama bin Laden (after making a campaign promise that he would do so if he knew where bin Laden was hiding).  What do you think are the odds that that information would never get out?  What are the odds that no so much as one single member of the armed forces or the intelligence community would be outraged by such an act of cowardice and not leak the fact that Obama refused to get the world’s number one terrorist in the world?  And what are the odds that Obama would have been re-elected with Republicans running that ad again and again and again like Bush Sr.’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” line???

It wasn’t “brave” for Obama to approve that mission; it was an act of self-political-survival.

And that mission to get Osama bin Laden had some huge consequences that for some strange reason the media has refused to lay at the door of the guy they gave all the credit for getting him to. 

If Obama deserves the credit, does he not also deserve the blame?

For one thing, U.S. relations with vital partner in the war on terror Pakistan are at an all-time-low because of the thing that Obama claims so much credit for having done.

Imagine if Mexico launched a commando raid into the heart of the United States to kill someone their government was after.  Or imagine if Canada did that to us.  How would we respond to the fact that soldiers with guns flew into our country without our knowledge or consent to start shooting people?

Combine that with the fact that Obama “air raided villages and murdered innocent Pakistani soldiers” – to the tune of 24 dead Pakistani soldiers killed in their own country by Obama – and our relations with Pakistan couldn’t get much lower if we started firing nuclear missiles at each other.

Do you remember when Obama falsely and in fact demonically attacked Bush for bringing down the U.S. image to the rest of the world.  Now the world hates us more than it ever did under Bush.  Even the ARAB WORLD hates us more, because they at least had some respect for Bush.  Versus Obama who is just a simpering – and yes, appeasing – scrawny-necked dumbo-eared little weasel.

But hey, I’m not a “journalist” or a “reporter,” so I can bring facts like that up, can’t I???

There was another casuality to Obama’s grand mission that everyone gave him total credit for: we gave away BILLIONS in stealth technology to our enemies in China and Russia.

Remember that helicopter tail section Obama left behind in Pakistan?

Pakistan Shares US Stealth Technology With China: Did That Bring Down The Chinook With SEALs?
Posted by Jason Bradley Aug 15th 2011 at 9:10 am

Several of us at Big Peace have reported in the past about the noticeable warming relationship between China and Pakistan. This has concerned the US because of the amount of cooperation and assistance – worth billions of dollars — given to Pakistan. It was eventually decided that that we would have to accept Pakistan’s warts if we were to have a regional partner in the War on Terror. It was an uneasy concession from the start and hard pill to swallow. In fact, that pill hasn’t fully worked its way down.

Just recently there were immediate questions over the successful downing of Chinook that did more damage to US forces in an instant in what otherwise could not be accomplished by the Taliban in over ten years of war. Those questions were directed to the highest reaches of the Pakistan government and its intelligence arm, the ISI.

Now comes in what appears to be an open betrayal by our so-called mission partners.

The US employed new stealth technology in the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Special Forces used a previously unknown capability, and so far as we know, is unduplicated by any other country, when they swooped down on Osama’s compound in stealth-modified Blackhawk helicopters. One of those helicopters had a mechanical malfunction and crashed on site as a result. Despite urgent requests by the CIA and the US government, Pakistan allowed China to view the new machine.

“The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI, gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad,” the paper quoted a person “in intelligence circles” as saying.

Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed chopper as well as take samples of its special “skin” that allowed the American raid to evade Pakistani radar, Reuters reported.

No one from the Pakistani army was available for comment, but the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan’s top spy agency, denied the report. The paper said Pakistan’s top general, chief of army staff Ashfaq Kayani, denied that China had been given access.

Do you know how much it cost to develop that technology that China can now easily reverse-engineer for pennies on the millions of dollars?

You don’t want to know.  Seriously.

Our enemies can not only reverse engineer our stealth technology and make their own stealth helicopters to use against U.S. interests, but it can also now devise better countermeasures against our stuff to leave us weaker in the future.

And Obama isn’t through on that score.  He just left behind a hi-tech radar-evading stealth drone for Iran to find.

Now, again, being a weak, appeasing COWARD Obama isn’t going in and GETTING his damned drone; he’s saying, “Please, pretty, pretty, pretty please, Mr. Ayatollah, can I have my drone back?”

And what did it cost us to develop that thing?  A bunch.  What’s it going to cost Iran – and its allies Russia and China to develop?  Nada.

But, hey.  That kind of thing gets in the way of the mainstream media narrative that anything that we don’t want to credit Obama for we will blame Bush for.

We’re back in the days of the Marxists and the Nazis (fellow socialist travellers) rising to power.  All it would have taken for the ugliest period in the history of the human race to have been averted was a little honest reporting by the medias of those countries.  But the media had become ideological pawns of totalitarian agendas.  It had become an actual ally of those agendas.

Deja vu all over again.

Read Up On USSR And Decide What You Think About It – Because Obama Is Trying To Bring It To America

December 13, 2011

What do you think about the White House getting to decide what kind of widget to produce and how many widgets businesses should make?

I’m going to go on the record stating that I’m not so keen on moving in that direction.

But that’s the direction Barack Obama wants us to go in, as most recently illustrated by his attempt to create a new “Office of Manufacturing Policy.”

Obama establishes an Office of Manufacturing Policy
By John Schmid of the Journal Sentinel
Dec. 12, 2011 9:42 a.m.

At a time when economists say U.S. manufacturing policy is in “disarray,” the Obama administration on Monday said it has created a new Office of Manufacturing Policy to be co-chaired by the Commerce Department Secretary and the director of the White House National Economic Council.

“At this make or break time for the middle class and our economy, we need a strong manufacturing sector that will put Americans back to work making products stamped with three proud words: Made in America,” President Barack Obama said in a statement.

Wisconsin leads the nation with the highest share of its workforce employed in manufacturing.

The new office expands on a previous appointment for a government adviser on manufacturing, known as a “manufacturing czar.” Washington has had no fewer than three such “manufacturing czars” installed as White House advisers in the course of two administrations. Ron Bloom, Obama’s policy adviser on manufacturing, resigned in August.

This is illustrative of how liberals operate.  Yes, we DO need a strong manufacturing sector in America.  It is literally a matter of our continued survival that we turn around the trend of America losing its ability to manufacture.  But it’s NOT because we didn’t have a damn “czar” or enough government control over manufacturing.  Rather, it is because we have the second-highest corporate tax rate on the entire planet; it is because Obama has tried to saddle employers with shocking levels of regulation that amount to a massive hidden tax of $1.7 TRILLION; and it is because labor unions have either crippled or outright destroyed every single industry they have been allowed to penetrate.  And we are not manufacturing anything because we cannot compete with the rest of the world wearing the giant anchor around our necks that Democrats have insisted we wear.

You need to make up your mind.  You either think, “Dang, if we just had more centralized government planning.  Because Obama knows how to run a company in Texas better than anyone in that company possibly does.  If we could only have one more czar that would solve our problems.”  Or else you think, “Get this stupid government monstrosity off our backs so we have at least have a damn chance to compete against the rest of the planet!”

You either agree with Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama that the following is good for our economy and our productivity and our ability to create new jobs –

December 12, 2011 10:08 PM
Occupy shuts down 3 West Coast ports
(CBS/AP)

OAKLAND, Calif. – More than 1,000 Occupy Wall Street protesters blocked cargo trucks at some of the West Coast’s busiest ports Monday, forcing terminals in Oakland, Calif., Portland, Ore., and Longview, Wash., to halt operations.

While the protests attracted far fewer people than the 10,000 who turned out Nov. 2 to shut down Oakland’s port, organizers declared victory and promised more demonstrations to come.

“The truckers are still here, but there’s nobody here to unload their stuff,” protest organizer Boots Riley said. “We shut down the Port of Oakland for the daytime shift and we’re coming back in the evening. Mission accomplished.”

Organizers called for the “Shutdown Wall Street on the Waterfront” protests, hoping the day of demonstrations would cut into the profits of the corporations that run the docks and send a message that their movement was not over. 

The closures’ economic impact, however, wasn’t immediately clear.

The longshoremen’s union did not officially support the protests, but its membership cited a provision in its contract that allowed workers to ask to stay off the job if they felt the conditions were unsafe.

Some went home with several hours’ pay, while others left with nothing.

From Long Beach, Calif., to as far away as Anchorage, Alaska, and Vancouver, British Columbia, protesters beat drums and carried signs as they marched outside the gates.

Rain dampened some protests. Several hundred showed up at the Port of Long Beach and left after several hours.

The movement, which sprang up this fall against what it sees as corporate greed and economic inequality, is focusing on the ports as the “economic engines for the elite.” It comes weeks after police raids cleared out most of their tent camps.

The port protests are a “response to show them that it’s going to hurt their pocketbooks if they attack us brutally like that,” Riley said. […]

“Disrupting port activities makes it harder for U.S. manufacturing, the farm community and countless others to sell to customers and contribute to our nation’s economic recovery,” EGT chief executive Larry Clarke said. […]

A long line of big rigs sat outside one of the entrances, unable to drive into the port. Police in riot gear stood by as protesters marched in an oval and carried signs. Protesters cheered when they learned about the partial shutdown and then dispersed.

– or you think this crap is completely INSANE.  Particularly if you actually want to buy your kids something for Christmas – as this is time to hit when it will hurt our economy the most.

If you agree with Barack Obama that the Supreme Court is to be condemned because it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” and you think it would be good for government to “put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change,” then you know who to vote for.

Me, I know damn well who to vote against.

If you agree with Obama that “I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot,” then vote for him to just go ahead and replace the worthless document.

Me, I agree with founding father James Madison:

“That is not a just government … where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

I agree with Samuel Adams:

“The utopian schemes of leveling [wealth redistribution] and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

I agree with Thomas Jefferson:

“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.”

The same Thomas Jefferson who also said:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

The same Jefferson who said:

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

The same Jefferson who said:

“Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance.”

The same Jefferson who said:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And the same Jefferson who said:

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

I also agree with Abraham Lincoln:

Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

Either these men and all of our other founding fathers have an “enormous blind spot,” or Barack Obama is beyond blind.  It’s simply one or the other.

It’s time to choose what and who we believe in and what and who is a liar.

I have repeatedly challenged Democrats to explore Karl Marx’s central statement on communist economic philosophy:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means.”

and then compare it with some of Barack Obama’s statements:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

and explain precisely how these statements reflect a fundamentally different philosophy.

Because the simple fact of the matter is that they don’t.  What Obama is saying today is merely a slightly different way of saying what Karl Marx said – representing a philosophy that has since failed in every single nation and culture in which it has ever been tried or applied – more than a century ago.

If you want to live in the U.S.S.R., I would say please just move to North Korea or Cuba and leave America the hell alone.  But there is no question that you know which president will give you your U.S.S.R.

If you don’t want to live in the U.S.S.R., then please, PLEASE vote Republican so you won’t have to live in the U.S.S.R.

I’m With Newt Gingrich On Palestinians Being An ‘Invented People’

December 12, 2011

As far as I’m concerned, Newt Gingrich nailed this one.

The “Palestinians” exist for everyone who has a spiritual and ideological hatred of Israel, and that is the ONLY reason it/they exist. It NEVER existed prior to the existence of Israel and no Arabs even bothered to TRY to create it/them. The so-called “Palestinians” could have and should have gone to the 99-plus percent of the land that was controlled by Arabs; but the Arabs in their rabid hatred of Israel decided it was better to create a festering sore by leaving people in camps and ghettos as a deceitful way to denounce Israel.

Gingrich Gets It Right
Posted by David Horowitz Bio ↓ on Dec 12th, 2011

In an interviewon Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Newt Gingrich’s gutsy statements — if he will hold to them — could change the nature of the debate not only about how to deal with the Islamic terrorists of the Middle East but with the Islamic jihad itself. For the campaign to destroy Israel is at bottom a campaign to restore the Muslim (not Arab) ummah — as it was under the Turkish empire and the caliphate.

According to CNN, a Palestinian spokesman called Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are “an invented people” quote “the most racist I’ve ever seen.” This just shows what brazen liars Palestinian spokesmen are. Everything that Gingrich said was obvious fact. For nearly 2,000 years “Palestine” referred to region not a people — just as “New England” refers to a region not a people. In 1948 the Arabs of the Palestine region were not talking about a Palestinian state and were not referring to themselves as Palestinians. That came in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, engineered by the KGB and the Jew-hating dictator of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser​. Even then the PLO charter (which is still available on the web) did not call for the liberation of the West Bank or Gaza (annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively) but for the destruction of the Jewish state. Jew hatred is what has driven the conflict in the Middle East which is more precisely described as a genocidal war against the Jews.

Here’s another article on the subject from another guy I listen to when it comes to this region:

Newt Gingrich and the “Invented” Palestinian People
by Daniel Pipes
December 10, 2011
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that “there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places.”

Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as “Palestinian” until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.

For details, see a long article of mine from 1989 on the topic or a short one from 2000. (December 10, 2011)

I was frankly appalled at the criticism Newt Gingrich received from rival Republicans competing for the GOP nomination.  The only candidate who supported Gingrich’s completely accurate and factual statement was Rick Perry. 

The idea made by Mitt Romney and seconded by most of the candidates that covet Gingrich’s poll numbers that this somehow is “speaking for Israel” is simply asinine.  Newt Gingrich isn’t speaking for anybody; he’s a private citizen and doesn’t even speak for “America,” let alone Israel.  Rather, Newt Gingrich was speaking for “truth.”  And I’m on board with that.

Since Newt said this, I have laughed at the snooty “journalists” who huffed that countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were “invented,” too, as though somehow that means that we can’t oppose allowing “Palestinians” to be similarly invented.  Because as we all know, the world would obviously have been just so much worse off without the many blessings provided by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to world harmony.  And the more dictator-controlled hellholes, the better, right?

Al Jazeera puts it this way (you know, after citing the “wisdom” of Vladimir Lenin):

The modern Middle East was born in crisis. Remnants of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires of the 19th century, the countries of this realm only took the form of modern nation states after passing through the brutal mill of European colonialism. Whereas state formation in Europe took centuries to develop, countries in the Middle East were created by the veritable stroke of a pen; by a line drawn on a map; by a decision taken in a smoke-filled boardroom.

So what the hell, let’s get back into that smoke-filled boardroom and invent another country.  Because it’s just worked so damn well in the past and all.  And you know how great the United Nations is about getting things right, right?

Most of the countries “created with the stroke of a pen” are hellholes.  So one question worth serious discussion is why do we want to create another hellhole?

It’s almost as if the left is arguing, “We have a chance to repeat the mistakes of history, and let’s not be timid about doing so.”

Fwiw, when Newt Gingrich says (and when I agree with him) that Palestinians are an “invented people,” neither of us is trying to argue that the Arab people living in the West Bank, etc., are not “real people.”  What we are claiming is the FACT that there had never in history existed a people with a “Palestinian” identity, nor had there ever existed a nation-state with that identity.  EVER.  There is no legitimate historical reason to ascribe to them the idenity that the United Nation and liberals and various other enemies of Israel have been attempting to ascribe to them.  And these people – who have genuine needs and are genuinely suffering – should have been absorbed by the many surrounding regions and nations out of which they came from in the first place.  And I further submit that it is not Israel, but those Arab countries, to whom the real blame ought to be directed for ignoring the plight of the “Palestinians” and abandoning them to neglect.  Because these their own people literally WANTED these people to suffer simply so they could point a finger at Jews and say, “See what you did?”

For more than sixty years Arabs have allowed the “Palestinians” to suffer in ghettos and camps because they would not take care of their own people.  Rather than give a damn about their fellow Arabs in need, they preferred to keep hating on Israel and say, “We want nothing to do with these Arabs because we frankly have no respect for human life whatsoever, but YOU ought to care more about our people than we do and provide for them.”

So before you attack me as a “racist” or an anti-Palestinian “bigot” or whatever, realize that I will merely re-direct those charges right back at you and state that in fact YOU are the hater who wants these poor people to suffer just so you can point a finger of blame at the Jews you so rabidly despise.

What’s So Terribly Wrong About Obama’s And Democrat Party’s Socialism, In Words Of Many Great Thinkers (Well, And Two Not So Great Ones)

December 12, 2011

I was looking for a particular quote (Winston Churchill’s just below) and found it.  I also found a lot of other quotes that I had to do my little part to help preserve for posterity about the evils of everything the modern Democrat Party stands for and the destruction it has already done and surely will continue to do the the United States of America:

On speaking about communism: “We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us.” — Vladimir Voinovich

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. — Winston Churchill (1903)

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. — Margaret Thatcher

Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves. — Benjamin Constant, Brazilian statesman

There are severe limits to the good that the government can do for the economy, but there are almost no limits to the harm it can do.  — Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate

Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves.  — Benjamin Constant, Brazilian statesman

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. — Barry Goldwater

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — Robert A. Heinlein

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away mans initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.  — William J. H. Boetcker.

Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. — Ludwig von Mises

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. — P. J. O’Rourke

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it, A politician who portrays himself as “caring” and “sensitive” because he wants to expand the Government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money – if a gun is held to his head. — P. J. O’Rourke

The Tenth Commandment [thou shalt not covet] sends a message to collectivists, to people who believe wealth is best obtained by redistribution. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell.  — P. J. O’Rourke

Government’s view of the economy should be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. — Ronald Reagan (1986)

Give me control over a man’s economic actions, and hence over his means of survival, and except for a few occasional heroes, I’ll promise to deliver to you men who think and write and behave as I want them to. — Benjamine A. Rooge

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend of the support of Paul. — George Bernard Shaw

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. — Thomas Sowell (1992)

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. — Norman Thomas – Socialist Party Presidential candidate (1948)

No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. — Mark Twain (1866)

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of citizens to give to the other. — Voltaire (1764)

No republic has long outlived the discovery by a majority of its people that they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. — Alexander Tytler

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, CONFUSES the distinction BETWEEN Government AND Society. As a result…EVERY time We object to a thing being done by Government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.  — Frederic Bastiat

Here are a few others that expose the corrupt heart of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party:

“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.”–Thomas Jefferson

“That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world” — John Adams

Is it not High Time for the People of this Country explicitly to declare, whether they will be Freemen or Slaves? It is an important Question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than any Thing in this Life. The Salvation of our Souls is interested in the Event: For wherever Tyranny is establish’d, Immorality of every Kind comes in like a Torrent. It is in the Interest of Tyrants to reduce the People to Ignorance and Vice. For they cannot live in any Country where Virtue and Knowledge prevail. The Religion and public Liberty of a People are intimately connected; their Interests are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together. For this Reason, it is always observable, that those who are combin’d to destroy the People’s Liberties, practice every Art to poison their Morals. How greatly then does it concern us, at all Events, to put a Stop to the Progress of Tyranny. It is advanced already by far too many Strides. We are at this moment upon a precipice. The next step may be fatal to us. Let us then act like wise Men; calmly took around us and consider what is best to be done. Let us converse together upon this most interesting Subject and open our minds freely to each other. Let it be the topic of conversation in every social Club. Let every Town assemble. Let Associations & Combinations be everywhere set up to consult and recover our just Rights. — Samuel Adams, 1772

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” — Samuel Adams

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. — Benjamin Franklin

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. — Thomas Jefferson

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” –Patrick Henry

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”  — Thomas Paine

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”  — Thomas Jefferson

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”  — Thomas Jefferson

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” –Thomas Jefferson

“The Tenth Amendment [i.e., “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”] is the foundation of the Constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson

“He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing.”  — Benjamin Franklin, from his writings, 1758

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” — Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” — Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753

“To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones.”– George Washinton, to James Welch, April 7, 1799

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible.” George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse.” — James Madison, to Henry Lee, April 13, 1790

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… they may appoint teachers in every state… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.” — James Madison

“Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

“Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible.  Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. No nation has a right to contract debt for periods longer than the majority contracting it can expect to live.” — Thomas Jefferson

“It is a miserable arithmetic which makes any single privation whatever so painful as a total privation of everything which must necessarily follow the living so far beyond our income.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Hay, 1787

“The same prudence, which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public monies.”–Thomas Jefferson, to Shelton Giliam, June 19, 1808

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” –Noah Webster

“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” — Benjamin Franklin

“I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt, and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every device, the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing.” — Thomas Jefferson

“If the debt which the banking companies owe be a blessing to anybody, it is to themselves alone, who are realizing a solid interest of eight or ten per cent on it. As to the public, these companies have banished all our gold and silver medium, which, before their institution, we had without interest, which never could have perished in our hands, and would have been our salvation now in the hour of war; instead of which they have given us two hundred million of froth and bubble, on which we are to pay them heavy interest, until it shall vanish into air… We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of ‘a public debt being a public blessing,’ and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper.” –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813.

“I sincerely believe… that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”  — Thomas Jefferson

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” — Thomas Jefferson, to Thomas Cooper, January 29, 1802

“We are endeavoring, too, to reduce the government to the practice of a rigorous economy, to avoid burdening the people, and arming the magistrate with a patronage of money, which might be used to corrupt and undermine the principles of our government.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mr. Pictet, February 5, 1803

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” –Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Still one thing more, fellow citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”– Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791.

“The maxim of buying nothing without the money in our pockets to pay for it would make of our country one of the happiest on earth.” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1787.

And in light of our Washington leaders stated goal of re-inflating the housing bubble: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”–Thomas Jefferson

Mind you, all of these men’s views can be summarily dismissed if you consider the following man a “great thinker”:

“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” — Barack Hussein Obama

A few great non-founding father quotes regarding the socialism of the modern Democrat Party:

“The collectivist mindset, as embodied by the necessity to be organized through a centralized, bureaucratically-dominated, legislatively-driven authority, where accountability for individual welfare is subservient to the required acquiescence demanded by the tenets of Marxism, is contrary and in diametrical opposition to America’s core mandate for personal freedom and the naturally inherent psychological need to have ownership in life’s outcomes. The road to dictatorship can start with the most noble of beginnings and can be, ironically, augmented by the very people it ends up controlling. For it is so that an orientation of dependence becomes an addiction to need.” — O.D. Harrisson

“There are many who are losing faith in God and Government. For some, God may be a question, but for all of us Government is a fact.
Our government was intended by our Forefathers to be a tool of the people, used to facillitate our freedom and provide for our common good. Government was to exist to administer our will, not to become our administrator.

          Because this is the people’s government, not a political party’s government or any one individual’s government, we do not look to it to solve all societal ills or install perfection among us. That is the way our founders designed it, that is the way it has worked for well over two centuries and that is the way we want it.

          When taxed inappropriately we lose our economy, when regulated beyond need we lose our freedom, when treated like children we lose our self respect and when lied to we lose our rights. So when government goes wrong, it is we who are wronged, but also it is we who are wrong for letting it happen” — O.D. Harrisson

What were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats.” — Rep. Jeb Hensarling

“Rarely in history has a nation so passively accepted such a radical change in the military balance. If we are to remedy it, we must first recognize the fact that we have placed ourselves at a significant disadvantage voluntarily. This is not the result of SALT. It is the consequence of unilateral decisions extending over a decade and a half. By a strategic doctrine adopted in the ’60s, by the bitter domestic divisions growing out of the war in Vietnam, and by choices by the present administration.

          All these actions were unilateral-hence avoidable. They were not extracted from us by clever Soviet negotiators. We imposed them on ourselves by our choices, theories and domestic turmoil. It is therefore in our power to alter them.” — Henry Kissinger

“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.” – Thomas Sowell

“It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. … They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.” — Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations,” Book II, Chapter II

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

“Some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.”  — George Orwell

“Life’s tough. It’s even tougher if you’re stupid.” — John Wayne

And one that is particularly important to read and understand today:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 9, 1939

An eerie prediction of false messiahs and the stupidity of “intellectuals” who believe them:

A journalist named Stephen Laurant had been jailed circa 1935 for questioning Nazism:
“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Jewish doctor Herta Knotwolf: “So many worship him [Hitler] as their savior, their redeemer from unbearable poverty.  Many are filled with some worry, but all are united in the words, ‘Now things will change.'”

While it is unlikely that posterity will ever regard me as a great thinker in comparison to the numerous great thinkers I cited above (with the one singular exception of Barack Obama above), I hope you don’t mind me quoting myself:

“If you tax people who work and give it to people who don’t work, you will end up with fewer and fewer people who work.”

:)

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

December 12, 2011

Karl Marx summed up American liberalism better than anyone else (when he was actually writing about communism):

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

I have often challenged Democrats to explain how their philosophy had nothing whatsoever to do with this essence-of-communism on this very blog.  Never once have I had a response.  Rather, I am greeted with the equivalent of the sound of “one hand clapping.”

We can all remember back to how the Obama regime, the Democrat Party and the mainstream media (the propaganda wing of the Obama regime and the Democrat Party) savaged the Tea Party.  Obama went so far as to classify us as “terrorists” via his Department of Homeland Security.  You know, along with combat veterans coming back from fighting for our liberty.  But then there’s the liberal and Democrat-blessed Occupy movement, with all of its rapes, drug overdoses, crime, violence, criminal defacement, mass arrests, contempt for authority and law, destruction of public property, not to mention giant piles of garbage rats and lice and all sorts of other parasites attracted by these parasites.

Journalists and reporters are the worst kind of liars, and fully deserve to “occupy” the lowest level of hell.  They posture themselves as “objective” and “neutral” when in fact they are shameless ideological tools of the left.  And in fact we can look back over history and see how the media has again and again been used to justify the rise of all of the regimes that were the most vile and murderous in human history.

This is the Occupy movement:

Occupy San Diego Holds Communism Seminar
The continuing appeal of history’s worst idea.
by John Hayward
12/05/2011

The San Diego chapter of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement has always been one of its more… colorful outposts.  They’re the ones who held a moment of silence in solidarity with the guy who shot at the White House, after all.  In the twilight of the Occupy saga, when only the hardcore crazies are left, places like San Diego are giving us a closer look at the “core beliefs” of the movement.
 
To that end, Occupy San Diego held a little seminar on the virtues of communism on Sunday.  The fun begins about six minutes into the clip.

[see video posted at Human Events]

There are a few things to be learned here, besides the astonishing historical ignorance and poor critical thinking skills of the Occupiers.  (Remember, a lot of these people are students.)  The enduring romantic appeal of a heavily sanitized communism should not be underestimated.  Communism and fascism were history’s worst ideas, but they experienced very different fates in the postwar era.  Communism evaded the deep grave in which fascism was rightly buried in Western society, and is still credited with marvelous good intentions, not least because it promises to free gullible young people from material concerns… by robbing them blind.
 
Thus, when the introductory speaker in San Diego repeats the hoary old promises that communism “seeks to eliminate the conditions in which the majority of workers live only to increase capital to fulfill the interests of the ruling class,” and “under communism, society’s wealth would be used in the interests of the workers,” she’s making it sound like advanced Obamanomics
 
Those ideas have not been discredited in the public mind, after causing a century of poverty and bloodshed, because Western academics will not allow them to be discredited.  Instead of reviewing the grisly wreckage of communist dungeon states and examining why those glittering visions of “everyone sharing everything” lead directly to gulags and enforced starvation, they ask their students to forget about all the unpleasant “mistakes” of totalitarian rulers who didn’t really understand the true communist genius, and restore full faith and credit in the good intentions of an invariably brutal and squalid system.
 
Later, the featured speaker muses that under socialism and Marxism, “everybody has a say, and all working-class people run society.”  Nothing could be further from the truth, and this delusion lies at the core of everything from the 80-proof Marxism sold at university lectures, to the white-lightning bathtub brew guzzled by the Occupiers… and the watered-down and focus-grouped socialism Barack Obama​ sells on a daily basis.  These people are simply ignoring the staggering amount of compulsive force necessary to make collectivist systems function.  The more “re-distributive” society becomes, the more force it must deploy against its people, and the less of a “say” they have in what occurs.
 
No amount of political activism, during the increasingly rare and ineffectual trips to the ballot box afforded under collectivist systems, can possibly replace the “say” working-class people exercise through the full ownership of their private property, and the accompanying economic liberty this provides.  What a dismal cultural and educational failure it is, to see so many young people who not only fail to understand this, but believe their ignorance makes them morally superior.  The Occupy Wall Street tragedy lies in its loss of appreciation for economic liberty, and the failure to appreciate that all other liberties ultimately spring from it, because if you own nothing, you can refuse nothing
 
Of course, since their defining act is the forcible appropriation of property they don’t own, and the refusal to contribute to its maintenance and repair, that’s not really a surprise.  The approval of compulsion for “righteous” ends is written into this movement’s DNA.

As to the final paragraph, it’s right on the money, fact-wise.  Here is the Occupy Movement leaving a million dollars in damage at just one protest sight; here is the Occupy Movement leaving thirty tons of literally toxic filth at just one sight; here’s the Occupy Movement destroying small businesses (see also here and here) and saying, “You don’t matter; your rights and your property don’t matter.  All that matters is our beloved movement.”

All across the country – in flagrent disregard of government orders – the Occupy movement “occupied” publicly owned areas and demonstrated the fact that they are quintessentially fascist.  When they blockaded streets, they were in effect saying, “We are usurping your rights to public streets that you paid for because we the fascisti trump you.  You have the right to do what we let you do, and nothing more.”

Keep in mind, while Barack Obama and Democrats self-righteously pretend that only they care about jobs that they ENDORSED and BLESSED this Marxist movement:

Occupy Ports: West Coast occupiers unite
For the first time, OWS movements plan a coordinated protest. Will it work?
Stephanie RiceDecember 9, 2011 06:26

OAKLAND — As anti-Wall Street protesters attempt to regroup and settle in for winter after a series of police raids that stripped much of the movement of its signature camps, protesters on the West Coast are staging a comeback.

On Dec. 12, Occupy movements from Seattle to San Diego say they will shut down their local ports, temporarily stopping the flow of capital on the West Coast. Organizers say they aim to disrupt the business of the “1 percent” — in this case, the corporations that own shipping terminals and do business at the ports.

If successful, shutting down the West Coast port system would be a massive show of power for a movement that in some cities seems to have lost some of its momentum along with the camps. It would also mark the first time the loosely organized and very decentralized Occupy movements have coordinated in a major way.

Occupy World: What OWS is really about

The action comes at a pivotal moment for the two-month-old movement, with protesters facing down a chill both from dropping temperatures and authorities who are increasingly losing patience with tents outside City Hall.

In recent weeks, police have cleared large encampments in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and elsewhere. In Boston, protesters were ordered Thursday to clear out by midnight, although the deadline passed and police did not evict them.

“It’s a really incredible opportunity to build infrastructure for communication between the different movements,” said Jed Johnson, a 26-year-old baker and barista who attended a recent port-shutdown planning meeting in Oakland.

Occupy World: Curtains for Occupy Boston?

“There’s a little bit of a lull right now,” he added. “Stuff like this is important to keep people out here.”

The move has also galvanized Occupy movements in other cities. Texas occupiers have called for protesters to gather in Houston and march on that city’s port. Even landlocked Denver is trying to get in on the action, with plans to protest at a local Wal-Mart distribution center.

In Oakland, protesters like Johnson are hoping for a repeat of Nov. 2, when tens of thousands converged en masse on the Port of Oakland, successfully stopping the flow of goods overnight.

It could be more complicated this time. The powerful International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents most of the port workers whom protesters say they are supporting, has publicly rejected the blockade effort.

“It appears here that outside groups intent on driving their own agendas outside of the ILWU and the Coast Longshore Division are attempting to co-opt the Union,” ILWU leaders wrote in a Nov. 21 memo to union locals.

Some protesters say they believe the rank-and-file port workers are with them and that union leaders are simply being careful to avoid legal problems that could arise if it appeared they were endorsing the shutdown.

Others are taking pains to avoid potential conflicts they worry could strain the warm relationship Occupy has shared with labor groups so far.

In Vancouver, Canada, Occupy member Mya Mayhem said protesters are still talking with local ILWU members and haven’t decided whether their demonstration that day will include attempting to halt port business.

“It is definitely our plan to send as much of a message as we can to union busters and environmental polluters but (we) are striving to maintain a good working relationship with our unions at the same time,” Mayhem wrote in an email.

“As soon as we find out what method will best represent the 99 percent we will go ahead,” Mayhem added.

In Oakland, officials are taking the threat of a second shutdown seriously. Port commissioners recently took out a full-page ad in local papers, reading in part:

“Shutting down the Port of Oakland is a bad idea. Another shutdown will only make things worse — diverting cargo, tax revenue, and jobs to other communities. It will hurt working people and harm our community.”

To bring port traffic to a standstill, protesters need to have enough people blocking terminal entrances so that a local arbitrator declares the situation a health and safety hazard, which will effectively stop port activity until the crowds dissipate or are cleared away.

In Oakland, it remains unclear whether protesters can mobilize those numbers the way they did on Nov. 2, when massive crowds streamed into the port and easily shut it down.

Unlike on Nov. 2, these days there is no camp outside City Hall. A small number of protesters — including at least one “tree-sitter” perched in a Sycamore — have been maintaining a vigil at the quiet plaza. But the space no longer provides the sense of community and visible reminder of the movement’s existence it did when there were 180 tents in it.

Numbers have been dwindling at general assemblies, the meetings where protesters discuss and vote on proposals. At several recent general assemblies, protesters have struggled to keep at least 100 — the number required to bring proposals to a vote — in the outdoor amphitheater that at one point swelled with crowds of more than 1,000.

“There is a sense of loss,” said Lucas, a member of Occupy Oakland’s finance committee who, like many protesters, gave only his first name. “What the camp did was provide a sense of place.”

But Lucas said he has faith that protesters will carry on without their tents. “The fact that the camp is not here does not change that we are living in a time of the most radical increase in inequality in history,” he said.

In economically hard-hit California, the movement does appear to have traction with the public. A recent Field Poll of 1,000 Californians found that 58 percent agree with the underlying reasons for the protest. A little less than half — 46 percent — said they personally identify with the movement.

For now, the toughest challenge may be simply building enough momentum to get through the winter, when protest activities — especially those by campus groups — are generally expected to quiet down.

And for those holdout cities still maintaining camps, the dropping temperatures pose a major obstacle.

Reached by phone earlier this week, Occupy Denver member Jeannie Hartley said she had more immediate concerns than her group’s involvement in the port shutdown day — mainly the roughly 50-75 people, a mix of homeless and activists, she said, who remain outside in record-cold temperatures.

“It’s going to be minus-6 degrees tonight,” Hartley said, “and we’ve got people camping.”

Check out GlobalPost’s full coverage on Occupy Wall Street here.

There’s a story that came out in the Associated Press that started like this:

Los Angeles—The Occupy LA protesters are gone, but Susan Hutchinson wonders if her customers will ever come back.

The manager of a downtown farmers market stared toward a barricaded City Hall park Thursday, where vendors until recently sold baskets of plump strawberries and tomatoes, buttery croissants and bunches of fresh-cut roses. The weekly, open-air market was uprooted from the park by the two-month Occupy LA protest, and merchants suffered when relocated across the street from what became a squalid encampment of earnest activists, disenchanted youth, the homeless and drug abusers.

“We were collateral damage,” Hutchinson lamented about the political protest that became “more like a refugee camp.” A quarter of vendors stopped coming and business fell off by as much as 50 percent for those that remained.

Hutchinson’s complaints were among scores heard by City Hall leading up to the decision by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to evict hundreds of protesters from the park in a late-night raid, resulting in nearly 300 arrests last week. The behind-the-scenes pressure added weight to more obvious problems, from illegal drug use to seeping portable toilets to lice.

The left is as filthy and parasitic as the lice that inhabit their bodies.

They crush little people in the name of the little people.  And then count on other little people to be too ignorant to understand that fact.

Further down the article, there’s another quote:

Occupy activists are unapologetic and say critics are missing the big picture by focusing on inconveniences instead of the broader problems of society and the camp’s efforts to raise awareness.

You see, under Marxism and under fascism, the ends justify the means.  People who demand that we have more and more and more government power and government control have the right to ignore government power and government control in order to push their agenda.  They have the right to shut down and destroy your business and the livelihoods of your employees to demand more “jobs.”

Hypocrisy is their quintessential essence.

Here’s the cost of just the Occupy L.A. movement alone as estimated by a liberal Democrat mayor:

Last week the park looked like a faded industrial yard—concrete barriers topped with chain-link fencing walled off what was left of the lawn, once popular with sunbathers and tourists. Villaraigosa has said the cleanup and repair to the park might cost more than $1 million.

And somehow they started out with a beautiful park paid for with Other People’s Money and they turned it into a representation of what is truly in their own ugly souls: a Berlin Wall in microcosm.

This is the true soul of liberalism and the true soul of the Democrat Party.  The more power they get, the uglier they become.

These people don’t want jobs and they don’t give one damn about the little guy.  All they want is power and control and the ability to decide who wins and who loses.  The essence of the right is individual liberty based on the principles of free-markets and limited central government.  The essence of the left is totalitarianism.

The Russian people and the German people got what was coming to them, and we’re getting what is coming to us, too.  Because we all made the same mistake; we trusted in leftists to take control of our government and thus take control of our economy and our lives.  The only question as to how long we will suffer and how bad our suffering will be is merely a question as to how long we are willing to allow the people that I describe above to have power.