• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
2

The Roots of Infamy at Pearl Harbor
by George C. Leef, Posted September 21, 2011

Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy by Percy L. Greaves Jr., edited by Bettina Bien Greaves
(Auburn, Ala., Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010).

December 7, 1941 ­ a day that will live in infamy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was right about that. The attack by the Japanese Navy on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor certainly was infamous. Unfortunately, very few Americans know anything beyond the standard narrative that the sneaky, diabolical Japanese militarists pulled off a successful surprise attack against the peaceful American nation. A few may have heard that the fault lay with the two commanders at Pearl Harbor, who failed to take adequate precautions, thus allowing the aerial bombardment to succeed.

Like so much of the stock knowledge about our history, the Pearl Harbor tale has been crafted to support what Jeff Riggenbach calls the "saintliness" view of the U.S. government ­ i.e., that our leaders do only benevolent things. (See Anthony Gregory's review of Riggenbach's book Why American History Is Not What They Say in the July 2010 Freedom Daily.) The truth is far, far different from the approved, politically sanitized story.

Other books have dug into the details of Pearl Harbor before, but none as thoroughly as this one. Percy L. Greaves Jr. served as counsel to the Republican senators on the Joint Congressional Committee established to investigate the disaster following the end of the war and he amassed an enormous amount of information about it. Greaves worked on the manuscript for years until his sudden death in 1984. He read everything that had any relevance to Pearl Harbor and, thanks to a monetary grant arranged by the great historian Harry Elmer Barnes, was able to travel the country to interview people who had knowledge about the events surrounding the disaster. Now his widow has completed the editing of his work and our understanding of history is much richer for it.

How does the book challenge the standard, pro-Roosevelt account?

Provoking Japan

We should begin with American-Japanese trade relations prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. While Roosevelt had campaigned for reelection in 1940 by telling voters that he had kept the nation out of war and would not send American soldiers to fight in foreign wars, he was eager to aid Britain in its struggle with Nazi Germany. He longed for a reason to enter the war and one of his schemes was to provoke Japan (Germany's ally) into firing the first shot. The crucial part of that strategy was the use of trade restrictions to tighten "an economic noose around Japan's neck bit by bit, forcing her to look elsewhere for the supplies and materials she had been accustomed to buying from the U.S.," Greaves writes.

The most significant part of that tightening was the declaration of an oil embargo against Japan. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold Stark warned Roosevelt that shutting off oil shipments would probably provoke Japan to go to war. But that was exactly what Roosevelt had in mind. When his wife, Eleanor, asked about the consequences of the embargo, he replied to her,

The real answer, which you cannot use, is that if we forbid oil shipments to Japan, Japan will increase her purchases of Mexican oil and furthermore, may be driven by actual necessity to a descent on the Dutch East Indies. At this writing, we all regard such action on our part as an encouragement to the spread of war in the Far East.

Thus, Roosevelt's policy was provocative. He knew it was apt to lead to war.

Roosevelt's military moves were similarly aggressive. The repositioning of the Pacific Fleet was also meant to increase the likelihood of war with Japan. Pearl Harbor had never been the primary base for the fleet. In late 1940, Roosevelt ordered that it leave its base at San Diego and steam to Hawaii. Adm. James Richardson protested that the fleet would be dangerously exposed there, but for speaking out on that, he was relieved of his command.

Another indication that Roosevelt was looking forward to war was that in February 1941, he ordered the Navy to start planning for offensive raids against "the inflammable Japanese cities."

On the diplomatic front also, Roosevelt was trying to push the Japanese to the breaking point. In 1941, the Japanese prime minister was Prince Fuminaro Konoye, who favored peace with the United States. The economic "noose" Roosevelt's administration had put around Japan was putting enormous strain on Konoye's government and he sought to alleviate that through negotiations. Throughout the year, Roosevelt brushed aside his overtures. Finally, on August 28, Konoye requested a personal meeting with Roosevelt in Hawaii. The administration dithered until October 2, at which point Roosevelt, through Secretary of State Cordell Hull, turned Konoye down. The result was that on October 6, Konoye was forced to resign and he was replaced by the militarist Gen. Hideki Tojo. At that point, war was almost inevitable.

The broken codes

Another key aspect of the Pearl Harbor story is the amazing success that American cryptographers had enjoyed in breaking the top Japanese codes. By the fall of 1941, U.S. officials in the administration and the military were reading Japanese communications almost as quickly as the Japanese themselves. Some of the information gleaned was sent to the commanders in Hawaii, Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, leading them to assume that everything of importance that the United States learned about Japanese plans was being shared with them. But that was not the case. Some very revealing transmissions were not forwarded to them, especially information indicating that Japanese agents on Oahu were being asked to send details concerning the precise locations of American ships in the harbor. That would have clearly alerted them to the prospect of a Japanese aerial attack, but for some reason never made clear, the top officials in Washington did not see fit to inform Kimmel and Short.

That brings us to the crucial days just before the attack. Owing to the U.S. government's code-breaking, U.S. officials knew that the Japanese were on the verge of breaking off diplomatic relations in late November. Further intercepts in early December showed that hostilities were probably imminent, especially an order to Japanese diplomats in the United States to destroy their code machines and records, a step that a nation would hardly take unless it was planning war. On December 6, American intelligence intercepted the final transmission from Japan to its embassy in Washington, specifying that its two top officials were to meet with Secretary Hull at exactly 1 p.m. on December 7 (8 a.m. in Hawaii).

The American military officers who read that understood how extremely critical the information was and hurried to distribute it to President Roosevelt and the top military personnel, including Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The clear import of the message, combined with others previously decoded, was that war was imminent, with a strong likelihood that Pearl Harbor would be a target. It is astounding, however, that not until noon on December 7 did General Marshall decide to notify Short and Kimmel of the situation, and he chose to use a relatively slow means of communication (a coded cable) rather than the scrambler telephone to speak directly with the commanders.

Just after dawn, the Japanese struck from aircraft carriers that had sailed undetected to within 200 miles of Pearl Harbor. (Another puzzle piece is that in early December, American intelligence had lost track of the Japanese carriers, key naval assets they had been monitoring. That also should have indicated the possibility that an attack was in the offing.) The attack achieved complete surprise and did enormous damage to American ships and planes, causing more than 2,600 casualties. The cabled warning was decoded and presented to Kimmel and Short hours too late.

Roosevelt now had his war. It was the ideal political distraction. Without war and the vast amount of military production it would entail, "the New Deal ... would have been revealed as an illusion and the economic catastrophe it really was," Greaves writes.

The investigations

What if Americans started asking about how this military disaster had come about, though? Roosevelt's administration did not want to risk scrutiny of its actions (and lack of action) leading up to Pearl Harbor; making scapegoats out of Admiral Kimmel and General Short was the apparent solution. On December 16, both officers were peremptorily relieved of command. That same day, Roosevelt named a five-man board to investigate the calamity, headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts. The board was carefully chosen to ensure that it would reach the right conclusion ­ that Kimmel and Short were responsible.

The Roberts Commission worked quickly and had its report finished on January 23, 1942. Its key finding was that Kimmel and Short were guilty of dereliction of duty for having "failed properly to evaluate the seriousness of the situation." The administration hoped that would be the end of the matter, but it wasn't. Both men knew that they were being made scapegoats and wanted to restore their good names. Kimmel in particular wanted a court-martial where he thought he would have a true opportunity to demonstrate that he had not been derelict in his duty.

In 1944, events began unfolding in a way favorable to Kimmel and Short. First, the Navy appointed Adm. Thomas Hart to conduct an investigation. From March through June, he interviewed witnesses and examined documentary evidence. The picture that emerged from Hart's investigation did not fit at all well with that of the Roberts Commission, particularly regarding the efforts of both commanders to prepare for the possibility of an attack.

Hart also heard testimony from Capt. Laurence Safford, who had seen the key decoded Japanese intercepts in the days just before the attack. When Hart asked about the whereabouts of the evidence, Safford had to admit that when he had looked for it, the intercepts had disappeared. The file where they ought to have been was empty. Therefore, all he could do was testify about his recollections.

Safford did not give up his search for the intercepts. Months later, another officer mentioned to him that he had seen a packet of papers labeled "P.H." stowed in a Navy safe. Those were the missing documents. Greaves writes,

No one has ever been able to explain how the four original copies of each intercept ... and held under tight security had been lost or destroyed. Apparently this one set of intercepts survived because of a series of coincidences.

It is at this point that we begin to see that a cover-up was under way.

Shortly after the close of the Hart investigation, both the Army and Navy began new ones. Beginning in July, the Army Pearl Harbor Board and the Navy Court of Inquiry (NCI) investigated the events surrounding the attack. Their reports proved to be very embarrassing to the Roosevelt administration, particularly the NCI's finding that Kimmel had not been at fault and that culpability instead rested in Washington with Chief of Naval Operations Stark. When Roosevelt read the reports, he denounced them as "wicked." He and his top advisors contrived to block release of the reports and appointed other officers to "reassess" the conclusions of the two boards. Those officers reliably found that the two boards had been in error and that is what was released to the public.

The cover-up was gathering steam.

After the close of the war with Japan, Congress, responding to public pressure for a thorough investigation of Pearl Harbor, authorized the Joint Congressional Committee. The JCC consisted of five members of the Senate and five from the House, six Democrats, and four Republicans. (This is where Percy Greaves entered the story, hired with private funds to assist the Republican members of the committee.)

One remarkable aspect of the JCC investigation was the number of officers who had previously testified about Pearl Harbor in a way that was helpful to Kimmel and Short or harmful to the administration who now had memory lapses. It is hard to resist the conclusion that those officers were threatened with ruined careers unless they did as they were told, but of course there was no evidence to prove that.

As the "investigation" proceeded, it appeared more and more likely that the administration's conspiracy to portray itself as having been completely surprised by the Japanese attack and therefore blameless would succeed. Greaves, however, discovered one witness who was willing to testify truthfully, Navy Cdr. Lester Schulz, who had been on duty in the White House on the night of December 6. He had received at 9:30 p.m. from Capt. A.D. Kramer a pouch containing top secret intercepts ­ the decoded messages indicating that the Japanese were about to break off diplomatic relations and that the time 1 p.m. on December 7 was crucial. (Kramer was among those who suffered from a memory lapse regarding the events of that day.) Schulz obtained permission to deliver the pouch to President Roosevelt in his study.

Roosevelt was seated at his desk and his top advisor, Harry Hopkins, was also in the room. Schulz testified as follows:

The president read the papers, which took perhaps 10 minutes. Then he handed them to Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins read the papers and handed them back to the president. The president then turned toward Mr. Hopkins and said in substance, "This means war." Mr. Hopkins agreed and they discussed then for perhaps 5 minutes, the situation of the Japanese forces, that is, their deployment.

The impact of Schulz's testimony was devastating. It demolished the administration's claim that the Japanese attack the next day had come as a complete surprise. The Democratic members of the JCC, Greaves writes, "were stunned" and made no effort at rebutting Commander Schulz's testimony.

Schulz, a junior officer, was dismissed from the president's study after the exchange between Roosevelt and Hopkins. We do not know what took place next, but Greaves believes that Roosevelt summoned his top military officers to discuss the situation. When questioned about the possibility of such a meeting, General Marshall stated that no such meeting took place, but did so in an evasive manner.

Evidence that there was such a meeting surfaced many years later. Navy Secretary Frank Knox had stated to a longtime friend, James Stahlman, that he had spent the night of December 6–7 in a meeting in the White House with Roosevelt and his top advisors, including General Marshall. Stahlman disclosed that in a letter to Adm. Kemp Tolley in 1973. Knowing that war with Japan was about to begin, why did Roosevelt and his inner circle take no action until Marshall's too-late cable? Alas, that's a mystery that will probably never be solved.

To sum up, Roosevelt and his associates tried desperately to project an utterly false view of history to the American people. They wanted to preserve the fairy tale that Roosevelt was trying to keep the peace with Japan and they wanted scapegoats to take the blame for their own failure to warn Kimmel and Short of the likelihood of imminent attack. It was despicable conduct, but perfectly consistent with the primary objective of politics ­ making voters think well of you no matter what you've done.

Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude to Percy Greaves, Bettina Greaves, and those brave men about whom they write who refused to go along with the conspiracy to hide the truth about Pearl Harbor.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1106f.asp









http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/21/uh-oh-government-motors-wants-to-track-you/

Uh-oh: Government Motors wants to track you

Wednesday, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:16 PM EDT

Several years ago Glenn broke ties with GM as a sponsor, in large part because he was worried about their interactions with government.  All that technology and access at the fingertips of the federal government just didn't sit well with Glenn.  At the time, they said they wouldn't be doing any sort of tracking or anything like that.  That was then, this is now.  OnStar is now notifying it's 6 million account holders that it will keep a complete accounting of the speed and location of OnStar-equipped vehicles even for drivers who discontinue the monthly service.  Why?

"Look, we have clients that are GM dealers.  The local dealers are good people.  They're good people.  And GM makes great cars.  What is this?  What is this?  If you own a GM car, you call up OnStar now and say, 'What the hell do you mean by that?  I don't want you keeping track of my speed.  I don't want you to keep track of my location." This is something they told me they would not do: "We'll never do that.  No, this is a service, we do that…' really?  Really?  Why are you keeping records?"

"This General Motors guy says the old and new privacy policies allow OnStar to chronicle a vehicle's every movement and its speed although it's not clear where that's stated in the old policy.  What's changed, that is, if you want to cancel your OnStar service, we're going to maintain a two-way connection to your vehicle unless the customer says otherwise."



--
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 National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it repealed, before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many REALTORS do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.

Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home <http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-
home>


I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.

 


--
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.marketwatch.com/story/afdisioa-chief-pamela-geller-wins-free-speech-victory-over-lawyer-tied-to-hamas-linked-cair-2011-09-21

 

press release

Sept. 21, 2011, 12:40 p.m. EDT

AFDI/SIOA chief Pamela Geller Wins Free Speech Victory Over Lawyer Tied to Hamas-Linked CAIR

NEW YORK, Sept. 21, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- AFDI/SIOA co-founder and Executive Director Pamela Geller has won an important victory for free speech. Omar Tarazi, a lawyer linked to the Hamas front group the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has dismissed his ten-million-dollar libel lawsuit against Geller with prejudice: it cannot be re-filed.

Geller explained: "This is a huge victory for the First Amendment, truth, and the anti-Sharia movement in this country, which is exposing an insidious cancer that brings progressives and Islamic supremacists together in common cause to attack anyone who criticizes Islamic supremacism with the threat of lawsuits, actual lawsuits, or even worse, violence."

"The message," she added, "is that we will not be silent. We will continue to fight the implementation of Sharia blasphemy laws restricting free speech under the guise of the fictional construct of a 'phobia.'"

Tarazi, an Ohio-based lawyer, represented the parents of Rifqa Bary, the teenage girl who fled from her home in fear for her life in 2009, after converting from Islam to Christianity. He sued Geller for $10,000,000 after she criticized him in a series of blog posts at her award-winning website, AtlasShrugs.com, pointing out his ties to Hamas-linked CAIR and his efforts to harass and demoralize Rifqa Bary by, among other initiatives, denying her the Christmas cards that Geller had encouraged her readers to send to the girl.

Geller pointed out the larger implications of Tarazi's lawsuit: "This lawsuit was filed as part of the Islamic supremacist lawfare campaign against critics of Sharia, jihad, Islam's death penalty for apostates, and honor killings, and I refused to capitulate. At the end of the day, Tarazi blinked and folded. The years-long battle is over, and Islamic supremacism has suffered a stunning and well-deserved defeat."

The voluntary dismissal with prejudice followed the filing of a court document by David Yerushalmi of the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C., and Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center (who represented Geller pro bono because of the important free speech implications of this case), asking the court to rule in Geller's favor. It prevents Tarazi from refilling the lawsuit in the future. The settlement requires Geller to pay no money, and stipulates only that she remove five of the dozens of AtlasShrugs.com blog posts about Tarazi's role in the Rifqa Bary case.

Although Geller agreed to remove these posts criticizing Tarazi, dozens of other posts remain at AtlasShrugs.com detailing his conduct in the Bary affair, and the settlement places no restrictions on Geller writing about Tarazi's role in the Bary case in the future. Tarazi had complained that Geller had libeled him by linking him to CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas front group that U.S. Department of Justice has named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case.

However, during discovery, Geller's lawyers established that Tarazi did in fact have personal and professional links to CAIR, and that Geller's statements could not be defamatory because they were true.

Geller also reported information from other sources critical of Tarazi's actions - including allegations that he had perjured himself in court filings in the Ohio juvenile proceedings on the Bary case. Here again, however, Geller's lawyers explained how Tarazi had indeed not been completely honest with the juvenile court, and that Geller's statements were true. Geller thus asked the court to dismiss Tarazi's lawsuit entirely.

The case began when Tarazi sued Geller for libel in September 2010, demanding damages of $10,000,000. He filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Two months later, Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion to dismiss Tarazi's suit on the grounds that Geller's remarks were protected speech under Ohio Free Speech law and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court never ruled on that motion.

In August 2011, Tarazi filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that he had proven his case and asking the court to grant judgment on liability and to schedule a trial to determine the amount of damages. On September 19, 2011, Yerushalmi and Muise countered this, arguing that not only had Tarazi not proven his case, but that all of Geller's published statements were true and not defamatory.

On September 20, Tarazi gave up, asking Yerushalmi for a settlement. Geller refused Tarazi's request to keep the terms of the settlement confidential in light of the important implications of the case for the freedom of speech.

AFDI/SIOA is one of America's foremost organizations defending human rights, religious liberty, and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the United States.

Join the AFDI/SIOA Facebook page here.

For more information, contact Pamela Geller at writeatlas@aol.com.

SOURCE American Freedom Defense Initiative

 



--
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.








CAP News
FDA Approves Cigarettes That Taste Like Ass

WASHINGTON (CAP) - Although the Food and Drug Administration has long since banned cigarettes with fruit or candy flavors, the agency is now reporting they have approved the sale of cigarettes that taste like ass, toejam and other atypical flavors. The move is meant to reduce the appeal of smoking to young people who might not like the taste of ass.

"You say toejam, I say Fritos. I think they taste pretty good," said Philip Morris CEO Michael Szymanczyk, whose company recently declared a cure for cancer. "I mean, come on - sweaty jockstrap is just a name. Don't knock it till you try it."

The FDA reports studies have shown that teen-aged smokers are 35 percent less likely to choose a cigarette with an unpleasant taste, like expired milk, than their counterparts who have been smoking for more than a decade. A Philip Morris official who spoke with CAP News on the condition of anonymity said the company made the new flavors as more of an inside joke than anything else.

"We had a good laugh inside the lab, and now we're laughing all the way to the bank," said the official. "Smokers are idiots, they'll friggin' smoke anything. You think their breath and fingers smell bad with regular cigs, wait till they light up one of our new squirrel roadkill flavors. Morons."

According to the official, Philip Morris opted to fight the obvious uphill battle of marketing such an unpleasant cigarette by selling packs at half the price of regular brands. In trial runs at a handful of convenience stores in the midwest, he said the result was nothing short of a "Pavlovian dream come true."

"Smokers were falling all over themselves buying up our premiere flavor, cat piss, just because of the price," the official recalled. "Morons."

Cigarette makers aren't the only ones for whom the FDA allowance applies: cigar, pipe tobacco and smokeless tobacco manufacturers are also getting in on the action. Connecticut-based UST Inc. has announced three new flavors of its popular Skoal brand dipping tobacco: soggy cardboard, rancid meat and rusty nail.

"You go buy your favorite bag of potato chips and it's chock full of additives, preservatives and artificial flavors," said Skoal Vice President of Marketing Terrence Larkin. "Not us. We're 100 percent natural. We didn't come up with rusty nail flavor in a lab. We used a rusty nail."

The FDA is warning consumers to be wary of blackmarket cigarettes sold on the Internet as the agency has no oversight of companies based outside the United States. There have been reports of some people getting bad ass from cigarettes purchased online via overseas outfits.
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
CAP NEWS AUDIO
Infidelity Savings
If you're tired of banking at an institution that frowns upon unethical activities by its patrons, look no further than the one place that won't question how you spend your money.
CAUGHT ON FILM
President Obama reads to a group of schoolchildren from his favorite tome, "My Big Book Of Facebook Friends"
FROM THE VAULT
Lehman Brothers To Return As Discount Clothing Outlet
September 22, 2008

TO UNSUBSCRIBE, HIT REPLY AND ASK TO BE REMOVED FROM FUTURE MAILINGS.


--
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.
0





 
 
Only 4 TICKETS LEFT
 
I have four extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel (son of Evil Knievel) Event
 
at the Ford Center next weekend in Glendale AZ, if anybody wants them.

Robbie is going to try to jump over 1,000 Obama supporters with a Caterpillar
 
D-9 bulldozer.


Should be a good time.
 


--
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.



Under Obama, US Drops to 9th on Economic Freedom Index

As I constantly point out: All things economically are worse under Obama.

From Heritage.org:

The United States' economic freedom score is 77.8, making its economy the 9th freest in the 2011 Index. Its score is 0.2 point lower than last year, reflecting deteriorating business freedom, trade freedom, government spending, and monetary freedom. The U.S. is ranked 2nd out of three countries in the North America region, and its overall score is well above the world and regional averages.

The U.S. economy faces enormous challenges. The government's recent spending spree has led to fragile business confidence and crushing public debt. Interventionist responses to the economic slowdown have eroded economic freedom and long-term competitiveness. Drastic legislative changes in health care and financial regulations have retarded job creation and injected substantial uncertainty into business investment planning.

Ongoing regulatory changes, coupled with fading confidence in the direction of government policies, discourage entrepreneurship and dynamic investment within the private sector. Leadership and credibility in trade have been also undercut by protectionist policy stances and inaction on previously agreed free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 38.9 percent of GDP. Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending has hurt the fiscal balance and placed federal debt on an unsustainable trajectory. Gross government debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010.

Read more>>>

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
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.



Obama, The Epitome of Stupidity, Ignorance and Arrogance

U.S. President Barack Obama waves while standing with other leaders during the Open Government Partnership event at the United Nations September 20 in New York City. The United Nations General Assembly kicks off September 21, with leaders from around the world attending.

Barack Obama joins Open Government Partnership for group photo.

The photo says it all, no other commentary necessary.

Tom in NC

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
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.

Perry's Faith-Based Foreign Policy Directive
God says: 'Put Israel first'
by Justin Raimondo, September 21, 2011

If Rick Perry makes it to the White House, what will American foreign policy in the Middle East look like? We got a clear indication of that, recently, when he stated:

"As a Christian I have a clear directive to support Israel, from my perspective its pretty easy both as an American and a Christian. I am going to stand with Israel."

Earlier, in an interview with the Weekly Standard, he was even more emphatic, averring that "My faith requires me to support Israel."

What kind of faith requires knee-jerk support for a foreign country? Apparently, Perry is a follower of a Protestant brand of Christianity known as " dispensationalism," which holds that the End Times are approaching – and that one of the signs of the imminent apocalypse is the gathering of the Jews in the land of Israel, as supposedly foretold in the Bible. Some dispensationalists equate this with the founding of the Israeli state, in 1947, and the subsequent migration of many Jews to that country. According to dispensationalist theology, this phenomenon prefigures the start of an earth-shattering war, one that will pit Israel against the Forces of Darkness, herald the rise of the Anti-Christ, and ignite a battle that will take place on the field of Armageddon – after which Christ will return to earth and the faithful will be "raptured" up into Heaven.

Now, I don't intend to disparage anyone's religious beliefs, nor do I want to engage in the kind of snickering that usually accompanies commentary on this subject: everyone is entitled to their own faith, and, aside from that, there is something a little unsavory about the smugness and self-righteousness that is usually attached to discussions of the impact of Christian fundamentalism on American politics. There is no religious test for holding office in these United States, and it seems to me that some liberals have been trying their best to establish one – a test of ir religion – in order to marginalize millions of Americans. This kind of intolerance is mirrored, on the right, by some – like GOP presidential aspirant Herman Cain, for example – who have raised questions about the ability of religious Muslims to have their voices heard, or even to hold office.

However, the idea that a US President's religious convictions will compel him to support a foreign government, regardless of whether that support serves specifically American interests, is appalling – and dangerous. And we can see how dangerous it is by looking at Governor Perry's attacks on the Obama administration for supposedly not kowtowing to Tel Aviv with sufficient obeisance. At a press conference held in New York City, where he appeared with an Israeli government official, Perry declared:

"It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians to strengthen our ties to the nation of Israel, and in the process establish a robust American position in the Middle East characterized by a new firmness and a new resolve."

What, exactly, does this "policy of appeasement" consist of? The Obama administration is determined to veto the Palestinian statehood proposal being advanced in the UN Security Council, and has made it clear that the US government stands behind the Israelis in their attempt to grab as much land – via the construction of " settlements" – as they can, all of it funded by generous dollops of American "foreign aid."

Who is being "appeased" here – the Palestinians, or the Israelis?

Perry supports continued "settlements" of Palestinian lands, and also says he wants to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – a symbolic affirmation of Israel's claim to the "undivided" capital of the Jewish state. This contradicts the policies of two Republican presidents – both named George Bush. It also violates the essential meaning and function of US foreign policy – to protect specifically American interests. We gain nothing by weighing in on where the capital of the state of Israel shall be – although I'll note that nearly every successful presidential aspirant made such a promise during the campaign season. That this promise was summarily broken once they got in the White House speaks volumes about the politics – and the reality – of this issue.

Perry says we should "stand by Israel," our faithful ally and the only state in the region with a long democratic tradition, and this proposition seems reasonable enough – until one begins to examine it a little more closely. Because the Israel of yesteryear – the Israel of Exodus, of the " peace process," of the liberal humanistic tradition out of which Labor Zionism sprang – is not the Israel of today.

The foreign minister of the Jewish state is one Avigdor Lieberman, a fanatic whose bigotry and aggressively nationalistic views have made him an embarrassment even to the hardline government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For example, when relations with Turkey soured, Lieberman threatened to arm the PKK – a Kurdish terrorist group that has been attacking the Turks for years. Netanyahu tried to distance his office from such irresponsible ranting, but when I awoke, this morning, to the news that a bomb had gone off near government offices in Ankara, I wasn't all that surprised.

This raises serious questions about who, exactly, is in charge in Tel Aviv – the crazies, represented by Lieberman and the "settlers," or Netanyahu?

However, a larger question needs to be raised: what has Israel become in the years since the signing of the Camp David Accords? Since that time, the Israeli electorate has moved so far to the right – that is, in the direction of expansionist nationalism – that there seems to be no room for moderates of any stripe. After years of nurturing, subsidizing, and otherwise encouraging the "settler" movement – which is imbued with the ultra-Zionist dream of establishing a " Greater Israel" – the chickens, so to speak, have come home to roost. The settler movement represents almost as great a threat to the stability and authority of the Israeli government as the radical Palestinian factions – greater, perhaps, because the danger is coming from within.

Perry is encouraging this tendency in Israeli politics: he appeared at the press conference with Israeli Knesset member Danny Danon, an ultra-nationalist rival to Netanyahu who wants to revoke the citizenship of Arab Knesset members on dubious grounds, and heads up the wing of Likud that considers even a hardliner like Netanyahu a sell-out. Danon is the darling of the settler movement, and enjoys more support outside of Israel than he does on his home turf. He headed up the ultra-extremist Betar group – an organization which has its origins in an early wing of the Zionist movement that modeled itself on the example of Italian fascism, merely draping a "Zionist" façade over an authoritarian vision of a homogenous volkish state. He is a regular on America's "Israel First" circuit, lecturing to groups of born-again dispensationalists – Perry's crowd – as well as more mainstream venues, updating Betar's authoritarian stance by calling for legal sanctions against those who organize "anti-Israel" boycotts, which apparently also means boycotts of "settler" products.

By appearing on the same stage with Danon, Perry is legitimizing and encouraging the worst impulses in Israeli society – and putting our own interests at risk. If Israel should implode in civil war – and, with the settlers getting increasingly militant, and in open rebellion against the Israeli government – it is numbskull opportunists like Perry who will bear a large part of the blame. By egging on the Israeli equivalents of the Aryan Nations, they will wind up with blood on their hands.

Aside from that, it hardly seems all that presidential for the would-be Republican nominee to be onstage with Bibi's rightist rival in the Likud party – not someone who came in second in the bid for the party leadership, but Danon, who came in third!

What gets me is that these people actually believe they are helping Israel, when their actions are the quickest way to destabilize that country I can think of. A Christian of the dispensationalist variety, who truly believes that the safety of Israel is of paramount concern to God, would have no reason to incite an extremist element to violence against the legitimate government of Israel. And even if that government came to embrace that extremism – and, say, was taken over by the Liebermans and the Danons – their policies would endanger Israel's very existence, and deliver the country to the Devil.

So, even in their own theological terms, Perry and his fellow dispensationalists are wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm just sayin'…

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/09/20/perrys-faith-based-foreign-policy-directive/
0
"Another factor here is that statists view the federal government as a daddy or a god, one that provides them with retirement, healthcare, education, food, jobs, training, and all sorts of grants, not to mention protecting them from drug dealers, profit-seekers, entrepreneurs, the rich, speculators, big oil, corporations, greed, illegal aliens, communists, terrorists, and other such dangers.
"Therefore, statists really resent it when someone criticizes their daddy or their god, much as a child resents it when one of his friends criticizes the child's daddy. "You can't say that about my daddy! Take it back!" is the standard reaction among the statist child-adult upon hearing libertarian criticism of the federal government."

Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Blaming America
by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most fascinating aspects of the post-9/11 debate has been the "Blame America" phenomenon. Whenever libertarians have pointed to the role that U.S. foreign policy played in producing the anger and rage that ultimately manifested itself with terrorist retaliation on 9/11, statists have responded, "Oh, so you're blaming America for the attacks."

Here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, we experienced this phenomenon first-hand immediately after the 9/11 attacks. A couple of weeks after 9/11, I wrote an article entitled, "Is This the Wrong Time to Question Foreign Policy?" We have never been inundated with more nasty emails as we were then, with virtually all of them attacking us for "blaming America" for the attacks.

The phenomenon manifested itself 4 years ago during the first GOP presidential debate. Ron Paul pointed out that the 9/11 terrorists came over here to kill us because the U.S. government was over there killing them. Immediately, Rudy Guliani pounced, criticizing Paul for blaming America for the attacks.

Most recently, Rick Santorum issued the same sort of attack against Paul based on Paul's contention in his weekly column that the 10-year deadly occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were leaving America vulnerable to a permanent threat of terrorist retaliation. Santorum suggested that Paul was blaming America.

It's hard to imagine anything so ridiculous. Why is it that these people automatically jump to the conclusion that when one blames the federal government for the consequences resulting from its bad policies, he is, automatically, blaming America for such consequences?

One reason is the collectivist mindset of statists. In their minds, the federal government and the country are conflated into one big entity. Imagine a great big bee hive. The hive is the federal government, with the structure of the hive consisting of the military and the CIA. All of us in the private sector are the drones, who exist to serve the government -- the greater good -- society -- the collective.

So, given that mindset of the statist, it makes sense that he would conclude that a person who condemns the wrongful actions of the government is condemning his country. For him, it's just one big hive, with the national-security state providing the framework and with the maintenance of the welfare state being the goal of the hive.

Another factor here is that statists view the federal government as a daddy or a god, one that provides them with retirement, healthcare, education, food, jobs, training, and all sorts of grants, not to mention protecting them from drug dealers, profit-seekers, entrepreneurs, the rich, speculators, big oil, corporations, greed, illegal aliens, communists, terrorists, and other such dangers.

Therefore, statists really resent it when someone criticizes their daddy or their god, much as a child resents it when one of his friends criticizes the child's daddy. "You can't say that about my daddy! Take it back!" is the standard reaction among the statist child-adult upon hearing libertarian criticism of the federal government.

Finally, there's the patriotism factor. Statists have the warped concept of patriotism that has long characterized European countries -- the one in which the citizen is expected to support his government, especially in time of crisis or war, regardless of whether the government is in the right or not. In fact, during such times the citizen is not even expected to make that determination, according to the statist concept of patriotism. His mindset is expected to be, "My government, right or wrong" or, even better, "My government, never wrong, at least not in foreign affairs."

A good example, of course, is World War II, when German citizens came to the support of their government even though their government was in the wrong. Like statists here, most German citizens didn't bother making that determination. It had been inculcated in them, especially in German public schools, that the good citizen and the good patriot come to the support of their government, especially during crisis or war.

That's why some statists have no reservations is saying that the German people who supported their government during World War II were genuine patriots and that the White Rose Germans were bad people for taking a principled stand against their government in the midst of war.

Thus, libertarians, needless to say, view patriotism in an entirely different way from statists. We view patriotism in the way that the signers of the Declaration of Independence viewed it. Contrary to popular opinion, those signers were not great Americans but rather great Englishmen. They were as much English citizens as you and I are American citizens.

The revolutionaries in 1776 were willing to stand up against their own government because their government was doing bad things and refused to stop doing such bad things. Libertarians consider those revolutionaries to have been the real patriots because they had the courage to take a stand against the wrongdoing of their own government. Statists, on the other hand, side with those who considered Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the others as traitors or bad people for refusing to support their government in time of crisis or war.

An interesting question is whether American statists are inherently incapable of recognizing that the federal government and the private sector are not one and the same thing and that the real patriot is the person who is unafraid to take a principled stand against the wrongdoing of his government. My feeling is that many of them are incorrigible but that some of them are still able to break free of the statist mindset that holds them in its grip.

We libertarians must just continue doing what we're doing ­ standing against government wrongdoing, not only because it's the right thing to do but also because it's the best chance we have to protect our country from the consequences of the federal government's bad policies, both foreign and domestic.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-09-21.asp
0

How the "Great War" Began
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
by Anders Mikkelsen

[Introduction to The Myth of a Guilty Nation]

Albert Jay Nock wrote one of the first American books of World War I Revisionism -- revising the received story of why WWI began. As a lover of history, what I find particularly fascinating about his book The Myth of a Guilty Nation is not whether this is the best explanation for WWI. What is fascinating is the great contrast Nock makes between two wholly different views of the origin of the war. What "everyone knew" about the origins of The Great War at the time is quite different from what "everyone knows" now.

The common American notion was that Germany was responsible for the war. No less a personage than David Lloyd George declared,
What are we fighting for? To defeat the most dangerous conspiracy ever plotted against the liberty of nations; carefully, skilfully, insidiously, clandestinely planned in every detail, with ruthless, cynical determination.
By reading the book we start to see just how differently people viewed the origin of the war at the time, especially in the United States. Since WWI the revisionists won many of the battles, WWI is usually viewed today more as a tragedy, a pointless disaster, the effect of secret diplomacy, general militarism, etc. The reader today is therefore unaware of how many Americans understood the war as the sole outcome of a German conspiracy for plunder. While today we know Europe was an armed camp, the pro-allied propaganda claimed that Europe was unprepared for war. Nock makes the reader aware of the great extent to which the allied politicians continually lied to blame Germany and justify the war, or at least told stories with no regard for the truth. No wonder Hitler found British propaganda so inspiring. In fact the story at the time made it sound like Germany was trying to overrun Europe the way Hitler temporarily did a few decades later.

What Nock brings to the fore is the extent to which WWI may be viewed as the opposite of a conspiracy by Germany. If there was a conspiracy it would have been by the allied Entente powers. To a large degree it was blundered into by state officials, whose desire for peace was fatally undermined by their imperialist ambitions.

We should first note that Nock also touches on how many powerful parties simply wanted peace. However, small powerful parties in France, Britain, and Russia all pushed for war and created secret treaties amongst each other. As Ralph Raico has pointed out, English foreign policy was dominated by a small, secret clique no more answerable to Parliament and the people than a dictatorship like Nazi Germany. Those who knew of England's secret obligations lied to Parliament and denied their existence.

As Nock shows, English, French, and Russian foreign policy was directed against Germany and Austria-Hungary, and military spending was quite large, and much greater than Germany and Austria-Hungary's. All three had powerful cliques who were aggressive towards the Central Powers. They were bound by secret treaties, though this alliance was not publicly acknowledged.

In Nock's book, this is roughly what happened to start WWI: Serbia and the Balkans had a foreign policy dominated by Russia. The assassins of Archduke Ferdinand were linked to the Russian prowar clique. Russia had been "test" mobilizing since the spring of 1914, and its army alone was equal to Germany and Austria-Hungary combined. Russia had a secret treaty with France calling for France to support Russia if Russia mobilized and went to war. The UK had a secret treaty with France calling for it to support France during war, and, to a much lesser but important degree, Russia. Bound by secret treaties, all three powers found themselves thrust into war. Germany saw itself encircled by superior numbers. (Therefore it had to defeat France and Russia in decisive battles before it succumbed in a war of attrition.)

The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, conveniently for the prowar Entente cliques, set off the train of powder to the powder keg of a general European war of France, Russia, and England against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

For sources, Nock makes great use of Belgian diplomatic correspondence, which noted little evidence of German aggression. The Soviet Union also released many embarrassing secret documents from the Tsarist archives. Nock highly recommends English Liberals Francis Neilson's and E.D. Morel's works of WWI revisionism. (Neilson's How Diplomats Make War is hard to read, while Nock's is a breeze. Neilson focuses more on how English and other nations' diplomats created uncertainty.) It should be noted too that Nock shows evidence that Belgian neutrality was a fig leaf to justify unpopular UK involvement.

Having documentation of a push for war by cliques in Russia, France, and England, Nock shows how German war guilt is a myth and, if anything, prowar cliques in Russia, France, and England were successful in conspiring for war.

What makes this book worth reading is not whether this is the best explanation for WWI. It is worth seeing how small groups of state officials engaged in secret actions that led to a catastrophic war, and continually lied throughout the whole process to provide themselves ideological cover. What is fascinating is the great contrast Nock makes between two wholly different views of the origin of the war. While history and reality seem settled and known, people at different times have radically different understandings of the exact same events.

Anders Mikkelsen is a cost-management consultant in New York City.

http://mises.org/daily/5617/How-the-Great-War-Began
0
Yep, They would starve to death at a tea party rally...
Booooooooom!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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.


Solyndra Executives to Plead the 5th During Congressional Hearing

doctorbulldog | 21 September, 2011 at 9:02 am | Categories: Environ-mental-ism, Obama Sucks, politics | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7kQ

Hm...  If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to plead the 5th.  Come to think of it, notoriously, the only guys who seem to consistently plead the 5th during congressional hearings are mob bosses and communists.   How apropos:

Solyndra execs will decline to testify at hearing

Sept 20 (Reuters) - Solyndra LLC's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a Congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters.

In the letters sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, attorneys for Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W. G. Stover said they advised their clients not to provide testimony during the hearings.

The bankrupt company's $535 million federal loan guarantee is being investigated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Harrison is represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Stover is represented by Keker & Van Nest.

Solyndra's offices were raided by the FBI two days after the company filed for bankruptcy, although the FBI did not say what prompted the raid.

I'll tell you what I think prompted the FBI raid:  Obama and his cronies in the Justice Department who are desperately trying to keep any incriminating documents away from Darrell Issa...

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
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 Revenge Of The HillBillies?
September 20, 2011
by Robert Ringer

Early in 2009, I started writing about the possibility of the HillBillies -- the world's first and only two-for-the-price-of-one political combo -- challenging Barack Obama once it became obvious to a majority of the anesthetized public that the would-be emperor had no clothes.

Don't get me wrong. BHO has accomplished almost everything I expected of him: universal healthcare; a trillion-dollar stimulus giveaway; debt-ceiling increases that have brought the United States ever-closer to default; business-crushing regulations intended to bring the private sector to its knees; encouraging union thugs to engage in violent uprisings from coast to coast; appointing far-left radicals to important positions in the White House; sending a thumbs up to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the PLO, while constantly chastising Israel. There's no need to go on, as your own list is probably longer than mine.

But now Chairman Obama is in danger of stumbling before he can carry the ball across the left goal line and declare victory over America. Witness the humiliating Democratic defeats in Nevada and New York City's District 9. The Solyndra scandal is threatening to spin out of control. Obama refuses to utter a word about Jimmy Hoffa's introducing him at a union event in Detroit by saying, "Let's take these (Tea Party) sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong." The list goes on. The next thing you know, the world may even find out that Laura Ingraham was right about the White House garden being just another example of Obama razzle-dazzle.

As James Carville said in his recent warning to Democrats, "It's time to panic." And that, I think, is where Obama's weakness lies. When panic sets in, he comes across as a frustrated, tantrum-throwing child; and each time he does, it awakens another batch of "independents" from their "yes we can" coma. To put it mildly, it's childish to go on tour and shout "Pass this bill" to audiences of college kids, but when you yell it out more than 100 times in a week, it's beyond childish; it's pathetic.

Enter the HillBillies ­ and, yes, when you buy one, you do get the other one for free. It's getting late in the campaign game and, granted, it's a tough decision for them to make, but they have to do it relatively soon if they really want to have the opportunity to finish trashing the White House (i.e., when they move out for the second time).

If Hillary announces, it will be one of the biggest bombshells in modern political history. It will also tear the Democratic Party apart. Nevertheless, I believe she would beat the current White House Grand Mufti rather handily.

Why? Because there are enough rational Democrats out there who know that not only is their party going to lose the White House in 2012, they also are in danger of losing their own seats. That creates a strong motivation to distance themselves from Obama and fall in line behind savior Hillary.

Now for the bad news: If Hillary did secure the Democratic nomination, she would probably beat either Rick Perry or Mitt Romney in a landslide. Like Obama in his stealth 2008 campaign, she now has most of the public completely fooled. The majority of Americans no longer see her as a radical 60s hippie who came to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue focused on implementing her own version of universal healthcare but, rather, as a moderate, well-meaning liberal.

They forget that she's the sweet little gal who once said, in a campaign speech, that she would take $5 billion from oil companies ­ that's right, take it (as in, force) ­ and use it for whatever. And if she can take money that belongs to oil companies, she certainly can take it from you.

The public has already forgotten her abstract progressive rants about "environmental rights," "I can create shared prosperity," and "It takes a village." Hillary would still move to the left if she got into office, but slower and smarter than the current Emergency-in-Chief. She may not have gone to a church for 20 years where the pastor shouted such goodies as "G__ damn America" week in and week out, but she is a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the collective over the individual.

That said, I hasten to add that she is also something else: totally amoral. Hillary and hubby have clearly demonstrated that they will do anything, anytime, anywhere, to anybody if it's in their best interest.

A lot has happened in the movie-like saga of the HillBillies over the past decade, not the least of which is the discovery of how nice the payoff can be when you succeed in the capitalist system ­ in fact, more than $100 million worth of nice.

On the road to weaving hippie values into government at the highest levels, the Clintons found that wealth and prestige are not all that hard to get used to. Hobnobbing with the rich and famous among Washington's elite and on New York's Upper East Side is something one learns to tolerate, even if he or she starts out as a genuine flower child.

What I'm saying here is that when push comes to shove, Hillary's ego and materialistic instincts might just win out over her desire to be a model "new American progressive." After all, that "shared prosperity" schmaltz is really just for the dolts who are looking for more government handouts. I've always believed that, behind the flowery phrases, Hillary actually harbors an enormous contempt for the lower echelons of society.

What I'm talking about here is a $3 million wedding for daughter Chelsea, $250,000 speaking fees as far as the eye can see and invitations to royal dinners as a normal way of life. Speaking of $250,000 speeches, you and I may have thought that we'd never live to see it, but the fact is that Hubby Bubby, the first of two world-class bull slingers from Hope, Ark., is now the face of the Democratic Party.

People have short memories. They've apparently convinced themselves that his cigar tricks in the Oval Office were nothing more than a collective aberration. Groper Bill is now a revered elderly statesman. Like it or not, he and Hillary have morphed into an elite establishment couple.

All this means that if Hillary does challenge Obama and ends up back in the White House, she might just drop the "taking from the oil companies" blather and posit herself as the great middle-of-the-road state capitalist. Sort of a female version of John McCain or Orrin Hatch.

Sure, the U.S. will still eventually go under, because neither the mathematical realities nor the entitlements that drive them can be overcome by anyone ­ especially a politician. But if businesses are fooled by Hillary into believing otherwise, the free market is so robust that entrepreneurial activity could postpone the inevitable for another couple of decades.

That's important, because in a couple of decades the world will look much different than it does today. Depending on how things unfold with the Tea Party, we might even have a civil war that ends with the good guys winning. Or perhaps there will be some other solution ­ preferably one in which government is relegated to a minor role in society ­ that we can't see from our present vantage point.

The Marxist crowd knew from the moment they gained control of both houses of Congress and the White House that they were unlikely to get another opportunity to finish the job if they didn't move quickly. That's why the left's leading nut case, Paul Krugman, recently said, "I'm trying to make this progressive moment in American history a success."

Ironically, it was none other than James Carville (the guy who now is warning the Dems that it's time to panic) who predicted after the Democrats won it all in 2008 that the Democratic Party would rule for 40 years. For a long time, I thought he would have to eat his words, but if Hillary challenges Obama for the Democratic nomination, he might just turn out to be a prophet ­ albeit via a route he probably didn't think possible.

Having said all this, for those of us who are still intent on resisting a left-wing police state in America, I think we would be wise to be careful what we wish for. Obama can be beaten, but probably not Hillary.


http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/the-revenge-of-the-hillbillies/

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
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.