There was an error in this gadget
0
Vice-President Thomas Jefferson
To John Taylor.
Monticello, November 26, 1798.
Dear Sir
We formerly had a debtor and creditor account of letters on farming; but the high price of tobacco, which is likely to continue for some short time, has tempted me to go entirely into that culture, and in the meantime, my farming schemes are in abeyance, and my farming fields at nurse against the time of my resuming them. But I owe you a political letter. Yet the infidelities of the post office and the circumstances of the times are against my writing fully and freely, whilst my own dispositions are as much against mysteries, innuendoes and half confidences. I know not which mortifies me most, that I should fear to write what I think, or my country bear such a state of things. Yet Lyon's judges, and a jury of all nations, are objects of national fear. We agree in all the essential ideas of your letter. We agree particularly in the necessity of some reform, and of some better security for civil liberty. But perhaps we do not see the existing circumstances in the same point of view. There are many consideration dehors of the State, which will occur to you without enumeration. I should not apprehend them, if all was sound within. But there is a most respectable part of our State who have been enveloped in the X.Y.Z. delusion, and who destroy our unanimity for the present moment. This disease of the imagination will pass over, because the patients are essentially republicans. Indeed, the Doctor is now on his way to cure it, in the guise of a tax gatherer. But give time for the medicine to work, and for the repetition of stronger doses, which must be administered. The principle of the present majority is excessive expense, money enough to fill all their maws, or it will not be worth the risk of their supporting. They cannot borrow a dollar in Europe, or above two or three millions in America. This is not the fourth of the expenses of this year, unprovided for. Paper money would be perilous even to the paper men. Nothing then but excessive taxation can get us along; and this will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election.
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year, would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars would be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas. For the present, I should be for resolving the alien and sedition laws to be against the Constitution and merely void, and for addressing the other States to obtain similar declarations; and I would not do anything at this moment which should commit us further, but reserve ourselves to shape our future measures or no measures, by the events which may happen. It is a singular phenomenon, that while our State governments are the very best in the world, without exception or comparison, our General Government has, in the rapid course of nine or ten years, become more arbitrary, and has swallowed more of the public liberty than even that of England. I enclose you a column, cut out of a London paper, to show you that the English, though charmed with our making their enemies our enemies, yet blush and weep over our sedition law. But I enclose you something more important. It is a petition for a reformation in the manner of appointing our juries, and a remedy against the jury of all nations, which is handing about here for signature, and will be presented to your House. I know it will require but little ingenuity to make objections to the details of its execution; but do not be discouraged by small difficulties; make it as perfect as you can at a first essay, and depend on amending its defects as they develop themselves in practice. I hope it will meet with your approbation and patronage. It is the only thing which can yield us a little present protection against the dominion of a faction, while circumstances are maturing for bringing and keeping the government in real unison with the spirit of their constituents. I am aware that the act of Congress has directed that juries shall be appointed by lot or otherwise, as the laws now (at the date of the act) in force in the several States provide. The New England States have always had them elected by their select men, who are elected by the people. Several or most of the other States have a large number appointed (I do not know how) to attend, out of whom twelve for each cause are taken by lot. This provision of Congress will render it necessary for our Senators or Delegates to apply for an amendatory law, accommodated to that prayed for in the petition, In the meantime, I would pass the law as if the amendatory one existed, in reliance, that our select jurors attending, the federal judge will, under a sense of right, direct the juries to be taken from among them. If he does not, or if Congress refuses to pass the amendatory law, it will serve as eye-water for their constituents. Health, happiness, safety and esteem to yourself and my ever-honored and ancient friend, Mr. Pendleton. Adieu.
Here are a couple of columns from The Anchoress about Zero and his
desire to be dictator. I realize you aren't bright enough to make the
connections on your own but maybe this will do it for you so you realize
the sheer depth of idiocy you are suppporting:
desire to be dictator. I realize you aren't bright enough to make the
connections on your own but maybe this will do it for you so you realize
the sheer depth of idiocy you are suppporting:
The Privileged Call for Limited Dictatorships
May 24, 2010 by Elizabeth Scalia
1tweetretweet
Share
When I read last week that Woody Allen likes the idea of letting
President Obama be a dictator for a "few years" I was repelled; but then
I've found Allen to be a repellent individual for decades–since
Manhattan, at least–so I just shrugged it off as the foghorn bleat of an
over-privileged mediocrity looking for some attention.
But then the equally mediocre Tom
born-wealthy-high-carbon-footprint-lover-of-Chinese-Communist-Capitalism-I've-got-mine-you-should-not-have-yours
Friedman let fly with this on Meet the Press:
I have fantasized–don't get me wrong–but that what if we could just be
China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean,
where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I
do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to
environment. I don't want to be China for a second, OK, I want my
democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness.
But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.
To which Andrea even-more-privileged-than-you-Tom Mitchell chimed in:
"And, in fact, Tom, you're absolutely right . . ."
The leftist party that these people support is currently in control of
both houses of congress and the White House (and they are
well-represented within the federal judiciary) and yet, it is not
enough. The power is not pure enough, it is not invincible enough; their
power is diluted because, dammit, those little people crowing about the
constitution all over the internets are mucking things up!
Although, to be fair to Friedman, his China Fantasy is not new; he
talked about "being China for a day" with Tom Brokaw in 2008. He's been
hoping for a dictatorship ala China, for a while, now as Jonah Goldberg
notes.
Friedman and Mitchell, and even that self-absorbed twerp Woody Allen are
all wringing their hands over something they cannot (yet) control;
alternative media and how it has contributed to the difficulties of
getting things done in Washington.
When the press had a monopoly on information, it was much easier for
them to influence opinion; that in turn made the legislator's jobs
easier, too. Now, yes, things are more difficult for the politicians,
but that's mostly because they insist upon working as they always have
(the incestuous commingling of pols and media freaks on the left, and
pols and business freaks on the right, with back-room-deals-aplenty,
back-scratching galore and pork, pork, pork for everyone) while the
electorate has decided it wants something different.
So, Allen and Friedman–and others who have kept their faces before us
for 40 years by coasting on the work of their youth, because they've
done nothing memorable, lately–are feeling the shifting sand beneath
their feet, and they're wondering why America can't simply submit to a
fantasy of Limited Dictatorship. It's so inconvenient for these elites
to have to deal with the noise of the bourgeoisie – commoners who
presume to opine on anything and who dare to object to the incessant
lecturing from their betters.
So, let's be China "for a little while…" (just long enough to get
everything we want accomplished).
Because what they want must, of course, darling, be the very thing that
needs doing.
Let's allow Obama to be dictator "for a couple of years," because that
preening narcissist will certainly give up his dictatorship once the
nowhere-utopia of which the left dreams is achieved. Right? Of course.
Ann Althouse writes:
A love of autocracy often lurks beneath the liberal veneer. There's this
idea that the right answers are known and the people are just too
deluded and distorted to see what they are and to vote for them.
They propose dictatorship because they are no longer able to get away
with their former arguments, which boiled down to: "shut up. You're
stupid. We're cool."
They propose dictatorship because they know their lives would be
completely unaffected by such a thing. They will still have access to
their Park Avenue doctors; they will be exempt from the rationing of
medical treatment that the Obama administration now admits will take
place. They will continue to be the privileged useful-idiot voices of
the politburo. They will still have their limos and their lunches, where
they will sit together and bloviate about what must be done for the
commoners who cannot be trusted with their own lives.
"And in fact, you are absolutely right…" they will say to each other,
and in their insulated little Pauline-Kaelesque worlds, they will not be
able to imagine that anyone with any sense would possibly disagree.
Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with
some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on
how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just
install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the
world.
It is the ultimate fantasy of the narcissist. And we've got whole
generations of them, in control of our media and our government, all
intent on "remaking America."
Speaking of the wonderfulness that is China…
Is it wrong of me to laugh at them? Why are they still in our faces,
week after week? Why must we even entertain their lunacies?
WELCOME: Instapundit Readers! And thanks, Glenn, for the link.
Related:
The Old-Media Template
Enforcing only those laws we like
The Newspeak Dictionary goes Gallic
Can America last when its leaders side with its foes?
Friedman's Fantasy
How to Write Like Tom Friedman
"The point of Democracy, Tom…"
A Thug too Far
Friedman's Power Lust
Joe Biden and the Free World
The Art of the Painless Coup
Posted in 'Remaking' America, Alternative Media, American Genius,
Bloodless Coup, Constitutional Stuff, Crisis & Opportunity, Critical
Thinking, Crooks and Liars, Culture of Treason?, Tea Parties, The Fourth
Estate, The Perpetual Adolescents | 87 Comments
Obama Complains a Lot
July 24, 2011 by Elizabeth Scalia
9tweetsretweet
Share
I've always said his instincts were more inclined toward ruling than
leading. This is not the first time he's suggested that a dictatorship
might be preferable to a presidency.
But for a guy who campaigned for the job, he sure does complain a lot:
"I'm sympathetic to your view that this would be easier if I could do
this entirely on my own. It would mean all these conversations I've had
over the last three weeks, I could have been spending time with Malia
and Sasha instead," President Obama said at a town hall.
If he's so damned unhappy, and so resentful of time taken away from his
family (golfing, apparently doesn't count) then I think we should free
up his time in 2012 and let him get on with the Post-Presidential Life
o' Perks and Privilege he's obviously craving.
Related: The Privileged Call for a Limited Dictatorship
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Election '12, Obama | 8 Comments »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Boehner Plan Doesn't Cut Spending
Chris Edwards • July 27, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
House Speaker John Boehner is scrambling to revise his budget plan after the CBO found that it would only cut spending by $850 billion, not the $1.2 trillion promised.
However, the Boehner plan doesn't actually cut spending at all. The chart shows the discretionary spending caps in the Boehner plan. Spending increases every yearfrom $1.043 trillion in 2012 to $1,234 trillion in 2021. (This category of spending excludes the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
![[]](http://wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net/800873/blog/wp-content/uploads/201107_blog_edwards271.jpg)
The "cuts" in the Boehner plan are only cuts from the CBO baseline, which is an imaginary path of future spending designed as a planning tool for Congress. Boehner can propose to spend any amount in any future year he wants, and in this plan he choose to have a steadily rising spending path.
The Boehner plan also doesn't cut spending in a more fundamental way. It doesn't lay out any particular programs or agencies to terminate. I'm in favor of spending caps as a secondary enforcement mechanism, but actual cuts have to come first. A caps-only plan like Boehner's just kicks the can down the road. At best, it simply nudges future legislators to actually cut something specific.
Why doesn't the House leadership propose real cuts? They've certainly got the resources and expertise to do the job. A single senator Tom Coburn produced a 620-page report last week detailing hundreds of programs to cut and terminate. Coburn and his staff read through thousands of articles and reports on the real-world performance of federal programs, and they made a good case for each particular cut they proposed.
Republican leaders can't hide behind baselines forever. If they really want a smaller government as they keep claiming, they've got to target particular programs and agencies and begin a national debate about terminating them.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/boehner-plan-doesnt-cut-spending/
|
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/slutwalk-toronto-has-come-and-gone-and.html
Strange that these people think the way they dress should not affect
anything because it is their right to dress as they wish. Make sense to
you???
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
The Return of the Neocons' Prodigal Son
Anders Behring Breivik and the Axis of Hate
by Justin Raimondo, July 27, 2011
Suggestions that the "counter-jihadist" ideology spread by such websites as Frontpagemag.com, run by neocon David Horowitz, and the affiliated "Jihad Watch," inspired – and provoked – the Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik have been met with cries of outrage by the neoconservative Right. This is hardly surprising: confronted with the sight of someone who put their hateful and inherently violent ideology into practice, what else are they supposed to do? There is, however, a superficially reasonable case to be made against drawing any larger lesson from the Norwegian tragedy. As Gene Healy, a vice president of the Cato Institute, put it:
"In general, invoking the ideological meanderings of psychopaths is a stalking horse for narrowing permissible dissent. Former New York Times columnist Frank Rich provided a classic in the genre with his February 2010 piece 'The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged,' in which he railed against the dangerous climate of anti-government rhetoric and warned that a 'tax protester' who flew a plane into an Internal Revenue Service building in February may be a dark harbinger of Tea Party terrorism to come. (No such luck, Frank.)
"But blaming Sarah Palin for Jared Loughner, or Al Gore for the Unabomber makes about as much sense as blaming Martin Scorsese and Jodie Foster for inciting John Hinckley. There's little to be learned from the acts of 'the obsessed and deranged.' But these incidents ought to teach us not to use tragedy to score partisan points."
All of which is true – up to a point. This is generally true, but in the case of Breivik, however, what Healy misses is the specific content of the ideas expounded in the killer's online manifesto [.pdf], and the video which summarizes his stance. For what Breivik and the counter-jihadists are saying is that Islam is at war with the West – and that a "culture of appeasement" prevalent on our side of the barricades is delivering us to the Enemy. If you go through the material published by Robert Spencer, who is quoted in some 64 instances by Breivik, one central idea leaps out at you: we are at war with the one billion Muslims on the planet Earth. Not that we should be at war, or will be at war – the battle, in Spencer's view, has already commenced, not on account of anything we in the West have done, but because Islamic doctrine is inherently violent and expansionist. Likewise, Pamela Geller, his collaborator in "Stop the Islamization of America" – and its European affiliate, which Breivik supported – denies the very existence of moderates in the Muslim camp. David Swindle, who writes for Horowitz's website, describes the internal debate among counter-jihadists at one of their West Coast retreats:
"Breakfast begin [sic] with a debate between Robert Spencer and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on the prospects for reform within Islam. Andrew McCarthy moderated and begin the talk by explaining that he still debates amongst himself over whether we're at war with Islam or Islamism. This is a healthy debate to have and the position I find myself in at the moment. I'll dissect Spencer and Jasser's engaging back and forth once we have the video posted but in the mean time my position is basically that I embrace Spencer's intellectual skepticism about the challenges reform faces but Jasser's optimism and spirituality about the necessity of the project still wins me over."
Even the hardcore ideologues within the Horowitzian camp find the blanket condemnation of an entire religion a bit hard to take. For if all Muslims are the Enemy, then Breivik's agenda – mass deportations and/or mass murder – takes on an aura of legitimacy.
Spencer seems to realize this, which is why he has been backtracking and fuming over the sudden attention to his "work":
" The hapless Adam Serwer in the Washington Post lies outright when he says that 'most of Geller and Spencer's blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism….assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association.' In ten books, hundreds of articles, and over 25,000 blog posts, I have never "attempted to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism," and challenge Serwer to prove his claim."
Horowitz "defends" Spencer by writing:
"Robert Spencer has never supported a terrorist act. His crime in the eyes of the left is to have told the truth about Islamic fanatics beginning with the Islamic prophet who called for the extermination of the Jews and said in his farewell speech that he was called to fight until all men say that there is no God but allah. ( see Bruce Thornton's article today's Frontpage)."
While not coming right out and saying all Muslims should be deported and/or killed, Spencer – and Horowitz – believe Muhammad's followers pose a deadly and imminent physical threat. Oh, and by the way, go read another Islam-is-evil rant, which supposedly proves Horowitz's point. These people condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
Spencer is a fake-"scholar" whose innumerable polemics are all about the same thing: the intractable evil and danger posed by Islam. He believes there is a conspiracy to impose Sharia law on America, and annex the United States to a "global caliphate." This is the stuff of pure fantasy, and yet anyone who takes it seriously and accepts its premises has to believe that the Muslim world must be challenged militarily – which is precisely what neoconservatives have been urging since well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And they succeeded in their mission, to a large degree: today we are embarked on a worldwide crusade which involves the invasion and occupation of a great deal of the Middle East. Breivik and his collaborators – if any – are simply taking it one step further, and in that they are more consistent than their neocon brethren, who prefer to have other people fight their wars of choice.
The neoconservative agenda [.pdf] is about one thing and one thing only: the desirability and necessity of a war to the death against the Muslim Enemy. Their relationship with Breivik is identical to the links between the "theoreticians" of yesterday's New Left – Herbert Marcuse, Franz Fanon, etc. – and the activist rank-and-file, the college professors and the kids. Spencer is the theory: Breivik is the practice.
A screed posted on Horowitz's website defends Spencer as being a mere "researcher" whose job it is to "monitor" the Muslim Threat. The pose of impartiality is supremely unconvincing. Spencer is a "researcher" in the same sense as Breivik: both start out with a foregone conclusion and then "research" assiduously to rationalize their preexisting agenda.
Breivik's hate, expressed in terms of violence, is repulsive and therefore "fringe" – and yet Spencer and his ilk are the "respectable" proponents of the same basic ideology. Breivik was consigned to the margins, a member of a small sect – the "Knights Templar Europe" – which may very well have consisted of one member, himself. Spencer, on the other hand, has achieved a measure of quasi-respectability – or, at least, respectable enough to be included in a " training session" for military intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Do we really want the man who inspired the worst mass murder in recent memory "training" our military and instructing our police in the intricacies of "Jihad in America"? That is just asking for trouble.
I have to add that there is one person who accurately foresaw this coming, and it is none other than my old adversary Charles Johnson, of the "little green footballs" website. Johnson is a former counter-jihadist who balked when his former buddies, like Geller, began palling around with the English Defense League and their continental co-thinkers around the "Gates of Vienna" and Brussels Journal sites. Johnson warned, more than once, that this could lead to nothing but bad-and-crazy, and raised the alarm: unfortunately, no one listened. While I have absolutely nothing in common politically with Johnson – indeed, quite the opposite – I have to give him credit for his remarkable prescience in calling out the dangerous transatlantic alliance between our homegrown haters and the Euro-crazies of Breivik's sort.
Breivik, Spencer, and the burgeoning anti-Muslim mini-industry that sprang up after 9/11 constitute an Axis of Hate, one that inevitably grew out of the "axis of evil" rhetoric employed by the Bush administration and their neoconservative Rasputins to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. For over a decade, the West has been awash in a sea of propaganda targeting the Muslim world as a " swamp" which has to be "drained" for the good of humankind. Is it any wonder that some took seriously the comparison of Muslims to mosquitoes and embarked on an eradication campaign?
Which brings us to the oddest aspect of this tragedy: instead of turning his murderous hatred on the congregants of a mosque, Breivik slaughtered defenseless children attending a Norwegian Labor Party youth camp – all native Norwegians, and not a likely venue in which to find Muslims. The camp, held yearly, is a rite of passage for the children of the ruling Norwegian Labor Party elite – and this reflects another measure of the influence Breivik's American co-thinkers had on him. Central to the analysis offered by Spencer, and the Islamo-haters in general, is the idea that the West is asleep, and their job is to awaken it to the imminent danger posed by Islam. And this isn't a benign sleep, in their view, or a natural one: the public has been liberally dosed with the poison of "multiculturalism" by the "elites," who have engendered a "culture of appeasement." This sort of language, echoed in Breivik's "European Declaration of Independence," is a common theme in counter-jihadist circles. In an interview with Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, Frontpage's Jamie Glazov asks:
"Glazov: Describe for us Britain's culture of appeasement. What do you think engendered it?
"Phillips: Various factors. First, the kind of moral inversion and cultural slide I've just been talking about. Next, sheer funk. Then there's Britain's deep reluctance – which it shares with the US – to get stuck into issues of religion. It's a kind of fastidiousness that religion represents private space into which a liberal society should not intrude –which is fine, all other things being equal, but which of course here they are not.…
"Finally, don't forget that before a certain Winston Churchill came along and inspired the 'bulldog breed' who stoically endured the Blitz and saw off Hitler, Britain in the 1930s was cheering to the echo Neville Chamberlain's 'peace in our time'. There is an insularity to the British that leads them to think that, provided they don't upset anyone beyond their island fastness, nasty people in far-away places will leave them alone. And besides, the British ruling class have always done appeasement. Think of their betrayal of the Jews and kowtowing to the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine."
Besides an admiration for Winston Churchill, Phillips and Breivik share the same obsession with enforcing cultural purity and blaming decadent liberal elites for a loss of national identity:
"Multiculturalism has turned Britain's values inside out – and the root cause of the problem is the deconstruction of Britain's identity. For decades, the British elite has been consumed by loathing of its national identity and values which it decided were racist, authoritarian and generally disagreeable. Much of that was due to our old friend, post-colonial guilt. The elite was therefore vulnerable to the predations of the left, which had signed up to Gramsci's insight that a society could be suborned by replacing its normative values by the mores of those who transgressed them or were on society's margins."
Breivik, too, targets Gramsci and the Frankfurt School as the conspiratorial bogeymen behind the Western elite conspiracy to eradicate traditional culture and – quite improbably – raise the crescent flag over "Londonistan." So the main enemy, it turns out, isn't Muslims at all – it's the "elites," as Phillips (and Breivik) characterize them, our own leaders who are betraying us. That's why Breivik turned his gun on the youth camp at Utoya island: he was eliminating future progenitors of the "culture of appeasement," which Phillips describes with such gusto in her interview with Glazov, describing it as the idea that:
"All cultures were equal to each other and which thus provided minorities with an enormous weapon with which to force the majority to give in to their demands. One of the consequences of this was moral inversion, which holds that since minorities are weak they must always be victims of the majority because it is strong. So even when minorities behave badly, it's always the majority's fault. Translate that onto the world stage, and you arrive at the view that even when third world people commit terrorist outrages against the west it must be the west which is to blame. That's why multicultural Britain said, after 9/11, that America 'had it coming to them' – and why, after the London bombings last July, it said the reason British Muslim boys had blown up the London transit system was because of Britain's support for the US in Iraq."
As one of Britain's few but loudmouthed neocons – they actually have a Henry Jackson Society over there! – Phillips couldn't help putting a foreign policy gloss on her point, because that, indeed, is the point. To the counter-jihadists, such as Phillips – and the David Horowitz types in this country – the goal is to provide enough ideological fuel to keep the flagging "war on terrorism" going. With a war-weary public, and even many Republicans, calling for US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and cuts in the military budget, the War Party is in a panic. They are going into overdrive pushing this "stop the Islamization of the West" campaign as a counterweight to the overwhelming desire of Americans to attend to our own business right here at home.
As the temporary madness imbued by the 9/11 terrorist attacks wore off, a systematic campaign of anti-Muslim provocations was launched, starting with the Muhammad cartoons and ending in the growth of anti-Muslim gangs like the English Defense League. One could attribute this to spontaneous forces acting without direction, but when it comes to the intrigues of nations, I can't help but think of what Ayn Rand said in, I believe, The Fountainhead: Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes.
Who benefits from a wave of anti-Muslim hysteria and terrorism carried out by previously unknown groups such as Breivik's "Knights Templar Europe"? This is the first but not the last question one has to ask, and other questions naturally follow, such as: how did Breivik manage to finance his terrorist operation, which was begun, full-time, starting in at least 2009? Aside from his own boasting about having started several successful companies, we don't really know how Breivik made a living through all the years of preparation for his day of terror, except what's on the public record: his Facebook page, and official records, some of which are coming to light. We know he is the sole director of Breivik Geofarm, a business with 790 employees engaged in growing vegetables. I see no evidence of his having seriously worked for a living, although he did get a degree in management. But what was he managing – and who were the investors? There are also rumors he gave a lot of money to the counter-jihadist movement. Where did it come from?
Aside from these mysteries, however, another point needs to be made, and that is the key link between the theorists of the counter-jihadist movement, such as Phillips, Horowitz, et al., and its practitioners, or street-level activists, such as Breivik. In her Frontpage interview, Phillips is asked what inspired her to write Londonistan. Her answer unlocks the mystery of why Breivik chose to slaughter Norwegian children, whose declining birth rate he decries in his magnum opus, and in particular the children of Norway's political elite:
"I was just appalled by the fact that, not only had Britain become the key European hub of Islamist extremism and terrorism during the 1990s under the noses of the British authorities, but even after both 9/11 and last year's suicide bombings in London the British political and security establishment is still appeasing Islamist extremism, and remains in a state of denial about the threat to the west. After the London bombings, when home-grown British Muslim boys set out to murder as many of their fellow British citizens as possible, a senior London police officer went on TV and said that the words Islam and terrorism did not go together. If a threat is so badly misunderstood in this way, it will not be defeated."
If the British – or Norwegian – political and security establishment has, in effect, gone over to the enemy, then Breivik's actions – in the context of this implacable Spencerian war between Islam and West – are entirely justified. If the security and political establishment won't defend the West against the Muslim Threat, then the Knights Templar Europe surely must. Given Phillips' thesis that the authorities had gone over to the enemy, Breivik could depict himself as a Crusader out to save the West. Along with Phillips, Breivik believes that Western elites aren't merely inadequate – they're treasonous Quislings.
Let American neocons try to scramble out of taking responsibility for their European offspring all they want, for all the good it will do them. The family resemblance is too strong to be denied.
And please don't give me any guff about "guilt by association." The neocons have been playing that game for years: indeed, they may have invented it. They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it – well, isn't that tough?
The neocons should embrace their Prodigal Son, who is at last returning home, and the proof of parentage is right there in front of our eyes: in Breivik's by now very public utterances, of which we have probably not heard the last. I'm counting the moments until he starts quoting Robert Spencer at his trial.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/26/the-return-of-the-neocons-prodigal-son/
Immigration Chaos
by Fergus Hodgson, July 27, 2011
The presence of illegal immigrants in the United States continues to generate ineffectual political initiatives, from employment verification mandates to referendums against in-state tuition access.
These fail to resolve the underlying causes for the presence of illegals, such as the arbitrary (see the immigration lottery), expensive, and humiliating immigration process (and I speak from experience). They also tend to ignore what happens to the individuals caught in the bind the supposed deportation process as though they'll just disappear from America.
Last week, however, the Center for Immigration Studies released a lengthy report, "Deportation Basics: How Immigration Enforcement Works (Or Doesn't) in Real Life." This report is particularly revealing because CIS scholars tend to oppose "current, high levels of immigration," in favor of a "low-immigration, pro-immigrant" vision.
Despite the apparent low-immigration, pro-immigrant contradiction, CIS scholars deserve credit for at least addressing the touchy deportation subject. In doing so, they present the thinking of those who sincerely believe stricter enforcement of the prevailing laws is the way to go, and they are perhaps the most prominent organization with that perspective.
That perspective, though, is fraught with confusion and prejudices, and it begs for a rebuttal.
The author uses a pseudonym, "W.D. Reasoner," which seems unnecessary, but he notes that he is a retired government employee with many years of experience in immigration administration. Presumably, that allowed him to observe what he admits is a cumbersome and dysfunctional process of deportation.
That description leads to his and CIS's most important confusion. Despite the abject failure of federal officials to curb illegal immigration about 11 million live here even with multiple agencies on the job, he wants to divert more Justice Department resources to them. The call for expanded budgets goes to show how these agencies have an incentive to maintain the problem, not end it.
Reasoner notes at least 20 required forms to initiate an immigration charge, greater than one-year backlogs for hearings (which only 41 percent of defendants attend), and a scarcity of detention space. This fecklessness matches that of the E-Verify program, where even U.S. Customs and Immigration admits 54 percent of unauthorized workers receive approval for employment. Yet, he does not call for legislative changes, nor does he acknowledge that they are fighting a futile battle.
Reasoner also points to a "significant review and restructuring" of another agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This has been going on for nearly two years, and its claim to success is the cancellation of many contracts, but total spending has continued to climb.
Reflective of the entire report, the term "alien," which legally refers to any non-citizen, appears throughout. Even jargon such as "alienage" arises whatever that means. Offensive to many, "alien" dehumanizes immigrants and promotes a fallacious us-versus-them mentality that undergirds the report.
This collectivist mentality manifests itself with repeated calls for the dismissal of due process "trappings" in immigration disputes. Apparently, benefit of the doubt and presumption of innocence are less relevant when someone may be born outside of the country.
Additionally, the supposed adverse impacts of illegal immigrants on health and social service systems merit mention, while their cultural and economic contributions do not. Contrary to popular perception, illegal immigrants are not heavy users of welfare, and the majority pay income taxes. Cato Institute research also suggests that legal status would enable higher wages and greater tax contributions.
The irony is that what Reasoner describes as "thousands of productive hours" toward deportation are a waste of time, and they divert our attention from real problems. Already Puerto Ricans immigrate to and work in the United States without impediment. And any Cuban that arrives here receives permanent residence status within one year. Do we lose sleep at night over that reality?
Of course not; nor should we just as we would not seek to impede someone moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. Far from being a plague, migration elevates human prosperity and helps to hold governments in check.
I remember a visit to Ellis Island, the place where so many people without documentation once found welcome in the United States. Sadly, millions of people now assume grave risks to immigrate illegally, and they testify to a legal route that no longer greets immigrants with open arms.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107t.asp
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/swiftvets-revenge.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_18558439?source=email
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DriBYQvG_4&feature=relmfu
they have forgotten who they work for
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
that the US government killed JFK, MLK and MalcomX?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIuDPdLzDQ&feature=player_embedded#at=60
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
| |||||||
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
William N. Grigg:
The proposed Balanced Budget Amendment would be a "straitjacket on Congress," and therefore a "solution" to the debt crisis, some Republican slogan-spewer said on the Mark Levin program today.
Can he, or anyone else, name one thing forbidden by the Constitution that Congress refrains from doing, *because* it is thus forbidden?
*Maine Governor Paul LePage Did Not Start Out With A Silver Spoon In His
Mouth: *In fact, the Republican governor had a very rough start
<http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/25/from-the-streets-to-the-governors-mansion-paul-lepage-embraces-fiscal-conservatism-for-survival/>.
Mouth: *In fact, the Republican governor had a very rough start
<http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/25/from-the-streets-to-the-governors-mansion-paul-lepage-embraces-fiscal-conservatism-for-survival/>.
LePage was the oldest of 18 children in a dysfunctional family. At
age 11, his father put him in the hospital with a broken nose and a
dislocated jaw. When his dad showed up to the hospital, he flipped
LePage a 50-cent piece and told him to say he'd fallen down the stairs.
Instead, LePage decided he'd had enough. He slipped out of the
hospital and lived on the streets of Lewiston, Maine, for two years,
sleeping where he could — cars, stairwells, hallways, even a brothel.
He's kept that 50-cent piece in his pocket every day since 1960 as a
reminder of where he came from. For LePage, fiscal conservatism
wasn't so much a political philosophy as a survival strategy.
There's a man who knows the value of a half dollar.
How did he get out of that hole? Hard work, and the help of two
families, one of them connected by marriage to Senator Olympia Snowe.
(From what I can tell, he's doing a pretty good job as governor, though
he ran into a bump or two at the beginning. And I love an executive who
understands how destructive regulations can be.)
- 12:36 PM, 26 July 2011 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2011_4.html#jrm10112>
From Jim Miller on Politics
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006652
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
