The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment
And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).
The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....
T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???
On Benghazi, Obama's confidence men think Americans are an easy mark…
Confidence men know that their victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence man is long gone.
So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the mark."
The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed, the truth came out -- but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton's own White House aides later called it "telling the truth slowly."
By the time the whole truth came out, it was called "old news," and the clever phrase now was that we should "move on."
It was a successful "cooling out" of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public, the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.
We are currently seeing another "cooling out" process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year.
The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an American drone overhead.
About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.
Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?
The White House knew the facts -- but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the White House needed was a process of "cooling out" the voters, keeping them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.
Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction.
All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the background.
The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the period of distraction and uncertainty -- "cooling out" the voters -- the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came out.
As the Obama administration's video story began to slowly unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on "the fog of war" that initially obscures many events. But there was no such "fog of war" in this case. The Obama administration knew what was happening while it was happening.
They didn't know all the details -- and we may never know all the details -- but they knew enough to know that this was no protest demonstration that got out of hand.
From the time it took office, the Obama administration has sought to suppress the very concept of a "war on terror" or the terrorists' war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood murders "workplace violence," instead of a terrorist attack in our midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.
The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists' attack in Libya exposed that fraud -- and required another fraud to try to "cool out" the voters until after election day.
About the Author:
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Share this information with as many people as you can in the next 24-hours (before they vote) about what really happened in Benghazi and about the cover-up that is going on…
“I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Interesting how Obama purposely gave the voters as little information about himself, his background and his relationships or about his plans as president as possible, if he were to be elected, yet now Team Obama is hounding Mitt Romney for full disclosure on everything, over and above requirements, and for details on his future plans after being elected. A little odd and a lot hypocritical wouldn’t you say?!?
The attack on Herman Cain has escalated. It is now a full out political assassination. While Herman Cain’s candidacy should rise or fall on its own merits, the left does not want that to happen.
What is new?
Gloria Allred, lawyer and professional attention whore, has brought forth one Sharon Bialek to claim that Herman Cain made a pass at her fifteen years ago.
Of course the left wing is going nuts over this, seeing the possibility of destroying another conservative.
Allred wasted no time in going after Cain and trying to build up the credibility of this woman. She is a “Republican” and she saw Cain a few months ago at a “Tea Party” event.
And of course, she threw out the obligatory, if he did this to her, how many others are there?
This story gets even more suspicious as Cain reached out to members of the Chicago Tea Party, since she alleges the a meeting between them occurred at a Chicago Tea party event and shockingly, no one remembers her.
When Sharon Bialek said that he was with Herman Cain at the Chicago TEA Party event with Herman Cain I reached out to one of the key voices and leaders of the Chicago TEA Party C. Steven Tucker and he says “I did not recognize her Chuck and I was there all weekend.”
I have been reaching out to my other friends in the Chicago TEA Party and so far no one recognizes her. Gloria Allred portrayed Bialek as a TEA Party Republican. Having seen her picture Bialek is not someone who goes unnoticed easily.
Tucker comments further:
I have spoken at Tea Party events ALL OVER Chicagoland including TeaCon Midwest 2011 where Gloria Allred says her client “confronted” Herman Cain. I have never seen nor have I ever even heard of a Sharon Bialek.
The media wants to portray this woman as a Tea Party Republican. Can we have some proof of this? And if she is a Tea Party Republican, why is she reaching out to liberal lunatic Gloria Allred?
These allegations are just that. They are allegations without corroboration. Could there be? Allegedly Cain and Bialek were alone in the car in 1997, but what about the confrontation at the Chicago Tea Party event? With all of the cameras that were there and you know they were following Cain around, surely there would be at least one photo of this confrontation.
It is impossible for Herman Cain to prove this did not happen. You cannot prove a negative. It is a he said, she said confrontation. Those are the easiest accusations to make and the hardest to prove.
Some corroboration of her claim would be nice. While there can be none for the 1997, there could be for the Chicago event. The fact that there is not one single photo of her at the event speaks volumes and calls her credibility into serious question.
Chicago Radio Host Amy Jacobson speaking to Fox’s Megyn Kelly said she observed the latest accuser, Sharon Bialek, about a month ago cornering Cain at an Illinois Event where Cain was a speaker. Jacobson said that Bialek gave her the ‘Bum-Rush’ to get to Cain when she saw him and then ran over to hug Cain when she first approached him. Bialek then spent several minutes whispering in Cain’s ear. Jacobson said Cain listened, was stone-faced, and just nodded and uttered uh huh… uh huh. Cain stepped onto the stage to speak right after this event, seemingly unaffected. Bialek went out into the crowd and listened to Cain’s speech.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but this woman looks waaaay to happy for the situation and what she is reporting. She looks to me like she is accepting an award or playing a part. In my circle, as soon as someone hires Gloria Allred it is considered a given that they are either an opportunist, a gold-digger, a liar, or someone Gloria has dug up willing to be a political assassin.
Niger Innis, friend of Herman Cain, volunteer at the Cain Campaign and spokesperson for CORE, Congress of Racial Equality said that the GOP elites should be careful before throwing Cain under the bus or ignoring this situation for it will not just stop. Sexual harassment is part of the new leftist toolbox, just like racism and political correctness. Innis also agreed that Sharon Bialek looked far too ‘happy’ as she made her allegations against Cain.
Video: Clarence Thomas: High Tech Lynching - Clarence Thomas responds to sexual harassment accusations by Anita Hill in front of the Senate Judiciary committee.
Someone at long last has had the courage to tell the plain, honest truth about race.
After mobs of young blacks rampaged through Philadelphia committing violence -- as similar mobs have rampaged through Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and other places -- Philadelphia's black mayor, Michael A. Nutter, ordered a police crackdown and lashed out at the whole lifestyle of those who did such things.
"Pull up your pants and buy a belt 'cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt," he said. "If you walk into somebody's office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won't hire you? They don't hire you 'cause you look like you're crazy," the mayor said. He added: "You have damaged your own race."
While this might seem like it is just plain common sense, what Mayor Nutter said undermines a whole vision of the world that has brought fame, fortune and power to race hustlers in politics, the media and academia. Any racial disparities in hiring can only be due to racism and discrimination, according to the prevailing vision, which reaches from street corner demagogues to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Just to identify the rioters and looters as black is a radical departure, when mayors, police chiefs and the media in other cities report on these outbreaks of violence without mentioning the race of those who are doing these things. The Chicago Tribune even made excuses for failing to mention race when reporting on violent attacks by blacks on whites in Chicago.
Such excuses might make sense if the same politicians and media talking heads were not constantly mentioning race when denouncing the fact that a disproportionate number of young black men are being sent to prison.
The prevailing social dogma is that disparities in outcomes between races can only be due to disparities in how these races are treated. In other words, there cannot possibly be any differences in behavior.
But if black and white Americans had exactly the same behavior patterns, they would be the only two groups on this planet that are the same.
The Chinese minority in Malaysia has long been more successful and more prosperous than the Malay majority, just as the Indians in Fiji have long been more successful and more prosperous than the indigenous Fijians. At various places and times throughout history, the same could be said of the Armenians in Turkey, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Parsees in India, the Japanese in Brazil, and numerous others
There are similar disparities within particular racial or ethnic groups. Even this late in history, I have had northern Italians explain to me why they are not like southern Italians. In Australia, Jewish leaders in both Sydney and Melbourne went to great lengths to tell me why and how the Jews are different in these two cities.
In the United States, despite the higher poverty level among blacks than among whites, the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. The disparities within the black community are huge, both in behavior and in outcomes.
Nevertheless, the dogma persists that differences between groups can only be due to the way others treat them or to differences in the way others perceive them in "stereotypes."
All around the country, people in politics and the media have been tip-toeing around the fact that violent attacks by blacks on whites in public places are racially motivated, even when the attackers themselves use anti-white invective and mock the victims they leave lying on the streets bleeding.
This is not something to ignore or excuse. It is something to be stopped. Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia seems to be the first to openly recognize this.
This needs to be done for the sake of both black and white Americans -- and even for the sake of the hoodlums. They have set out on a path that leads only downward for themselves.
Although much of the media have their antennae out to pick up anything that might be construed as racism against blacks, they resolutely ignore even the most blatant racism by blacks against others.
That includes a pattern of violent attacks on whites in public places in Chicago, Denver, New York, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Kansas City, as well as blacks in schools beating up Asian classmates -- for years -- in New York and Philadelphia.
These attacks have been accompanied by explicitly racist statements by the attackers, so it is not a question of having to figure out what the motivation is. There has also been rioting and looting by these young hoodlums.
Yet blacks have no monopoly on these ugly and malicious episodes. Remarkably similar things are being done by lower-class whites in England. Anybody reading "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple will recognize the same barbaric and self-destructive patterns among people with the same attitudes, even though their skin color is different.
Anyone reading today's headline stories about young hoodlums turning the streets of London into scenes of shattered and burning chaos, complete with violence, will discover the down side of the brotherhood of man.
While the history and the races are different, what is the same in both countries are the social policies and social attitudes long promoted by the intelligentsia and welfare state politicians.
A recent study in England found 352,000 households in which nobody had ever worked. Moreover, two-thirds of the adults in those households said that they didn't want to work. As in America, such people feel both "entitled" and aggrieved.
In both countries, those who have achieved less have been taught by the educational system, by the media and by politicians on the left that they have a grievance against those who have achieved more. As in the United States, they feel a fierce sense of resentment against strangers who have done nothing to them, and lash out violently against those strangers.
During the riots, looting and violence in England, a young woman was quoted as saying that this showed "the rich" and the police that "we can do whatever we want." Among the things done during these riots was forcing apparently prosperous looking people to strip naked in the streets.
The need to bring people down in humiliation that marked the mass violence against the Armenians in Turkey nearly a century ago, and that later marked the Nazi persecutions of the Jews in Germany, is still alive and well in people who resent those who have achieved more than they have.
A milder but revealing episode in England some time back involved burglars who were not content to simply steal things but also vented their hostility by scrawling on the wall: "RICH BASTARDS."
In the United States, young black thugs attacked whites with baseball bats and took their belongings in Denver, while voicing their hatred of whites. But it is all a very similar attitude to what has been found in other countries and other times.
Today's politically correct intelligentsia will tell you that the reason for this alienation and lashing out is that there are great disparities and inequities that need to be addressed.
But such barbarism was not nearly as widespread two generations ago, in the middle of the 20th century. Were there no disparities or inequities then? Actually there were more.
What is different today is that there has been -- for decades -- a steady drumbeat of media and political hype about differences in income, education and other outcomes, blaming these differences on oppression against those with fewer achievements or lesser prosperity.
Moreover, there has been a growing tolerance of lawlessness and a growing intolerance toward the idea that people who are lagging need to take steps to raise themselves up, instead of trying to pull others down.
All this exalts those who talk such lofty talk. But others pay the price -- and ultimately that includes even those who take the road toward barbarism.
Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race-card fraud is an even bigger problem.
Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.
No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons- and it worked.
This year's target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.
All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.
When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable- indeed, unbelievable- that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.
The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.
This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race-card fraud is especially painful to see.
Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.
Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.
Among people who voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought that they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.
Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.
On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does.
As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.
You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer- Ring Lardner, I believe- once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."
You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote.
In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody- even the members of Congress- to know what was in those bills.
Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that.
Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.
Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.
A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.
Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn't know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.
Examiner Columnist Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, one of the most respected voices or our time and is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate, Author of The Housing Boom and Bust
Many American, if only subconsciously, voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the hope that his election would finally put an end to the racial tensions in America. Instead racial tensions have not been higher in decades than they are now with Obama at the helm. And the reason for that is Obama and the Progressive left’s consistent use of the race card since he had been in office. Obama and his minions are the ones who have been divisive and derisive… not white main street America, not the tea party and not republicans. Here is just another example:
Sheila Jackson Lee’s question and insane if you use any logic and facts at all and her insinuations are race driven. Nancy Pelosi’s support of Lee’s statements and ideologically driven, for she is one of the most ideologically left politicians on the Hill. The left is obsessed with race and using it as a tool to control and divide people for their purposes and they are rewriting history to serve their purposes. The race card, divide and conquer, multiculturalism and political correctness are all tools of the division and of the left!
The reason Obama’s and buddy Geithner’s latest debt ceiling increase request was such a fight has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is half black, but rather that he has doubled our national debt in 18 months and is bankrupting our country with his spending and ideology.
Star Parker, a black author, former GOP Congressional candidate, and political activist, radio personality and speaker, who used to be a welfare recipient, will tell you (and often does) that the whole divide and conquer philosophy and keeping minorities on the government dole is part of the progressive left’s plan and ideology and we all bought into it…. blacks and whites!
‘A SLAVE HOLDER NAMED THOMAS JEFFERSON’: IS SMITHSONIAN‘S NEW ’RACE’ EXHIBIT - FAIR TO FOUNDING FATHER? HARDLY!!!
Which major government-funded U.S. museum currently features an exhibit that classifies Thomas Jefferson as simply “a slave holder”?
The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History currently features an exhibit titled "Race: Are We So Different?"
That would be the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, located in the heart of nation’s capital.
Developed by the American Anthropological Association, “Race: Are We So Different” offers “an unprecedented look at race and racism in the United States,” according to the Smithsonian’s website.
The Blaze visited the exhibit and found a couple of things that might surprise you.
A five-minute video at the front of the hall sets up the visitor’s experience, which in addition to describing Christopher Columbus as someone who only “colonized and conquered” the natives he encountered, refers to Jefferson merely as a “slave holder”:
“Race,” the narrator says, “is a powerful idea that was invented by society.”
“Many of the ideas we now associate with race originated during the European era of exploration. Europeans like Christopher Columbus traveled overseas and encountered and then colonized and conquered peoples in Africa, Asia and the Americas who looked, talked and acted much differently from them.
“In the American colonies, the first laborers were European indentured servants. When African laborers were forcibly brought to Virginia beginning in 1619, status was defined by wealth and religion, not by physical characteristics such as skin color. But this would change.
“By 1776 when “All men are created equal” was written into the Declaration of Independence by a slave holder named Thomas Jefferson, a democratic nation was born with a major contradiction about race at its core. As our new nation asserted its independence from European tyranny, blacks and American Indians were viewed as less than human and not deserving of the same liberties as whites.”
A display in another part of the exhibit features a historical timeline of slavery. The entry for the year 1784 states: “Thomas Jefferson, future U.S. president and likely the father of at least one of the slaves he owned, publishes ‘Notes on the State of Virginia.’” It quotes Jefferson’s writing, where he posits whether blacks are a distinct, inferior race from whites and if that would be an obstacle to their emancipation.
Jefferson did of course own slaves — hundreds throughout his lifetime. But his feelings on slavery were also much more complex than the exhibit suggests — in other writings he called it “an abominable crime” and “moral depravity.” He drafted Virginia’s 1778 law banning the importation of enslaved Africans and separately proposed slavery be outlawed in the new Northwest territories.
But “Race: Are We So Different?” does not cover any of that. None of the exhibit’s written displays examines these nuances; the only other details offered are on a looped video with a historian who says Jefferson knew it was “a massive contradiction” to both own slaves while professing the “lofty ideals” of America — a brief distinction that is easy to miss.
When contacted by The Blaze, Kelly Carnes of the Natural History Museum‘s press office said she could not speak to the exhibit’s content because it was not created by the Smithsonian. Damon Dozier of the American Anthropological Association did not respond to requests for comment.
At the end of the day, a casual Smithsonian visitor is likely to come away from one of the nation’s preeminent museums thinking that one of the Founding Fathers was truly nothing more than a racist slave owner — and remember, since it’s a government-funded museum, you as a taxpayer are paying for it.
Other features of note:
A display titled “Racism’s effects on health“ says ”numerous studies have linked the stress of racism on African Americans to high blood pressure, adding evidence to the claims that racism contributes to the high rates of hypertension among them.“ It adds that racism may also affect health through ”limited access to nutritious food and safe environments for exercise; increased exposure to environmental toxins; reduced quality of health care.”
A display about the history of affirmative action in the U.S. declares, “The legacy of white privilege still runs far ahead of efforts to compensate for it.” It features a note about two 2003 Supreme Court affirmative action rulings, which it says upheld “the limited use of race as a factor in reviewing student [university] applications.” While Grutter v. Bollinger did uphold the use of race for admissions, the ruling in the second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, actually held that the use of simply assigning “points” to someone based on their race was unconstitutional. Beside the display’s text is a photograph of the 2003 court, including Clarence Thomas, the sole African American justice. Thomas has long maintained his views opposing affirmative action, something nowhere to be found on the display.
You can take a virtual tour of the exhibit here. “Race: Are We So Different?” will be on display at the Smithsonian through Jan. 2. 2012
They Who Live by the Race Card Die by the Race Card
Due to Obama's declining poll numbers, Democrat tongues loosened by cocktails at parties are quietly suggesting,"Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could primary Obama out with Hillary? Darn it, we can't because Obama is black!"
I say, "Hallelujah -- a perfect example of divine justice." They who live by the race card die by the race card.
Almost three years ago, the Democrats offered their equivalent of a Trojan Horse to America in the form of a shiny, new, extremely well-crafted, beautiful black man. Its mega-internal speakers broadcast a hypnotic message, heavily reverbed to create a godlike effect and looped 24/7, promising "Hope and Change."
A "perfect storm" of circumstances led to America's enthusiastic embrace of the Democrats' ebony idol Trojan Horse: white guilt, black racism, and perhaps even the popularity of the American Idol TV show. Obama was the first "rock star" American Ebony Idol presidential candidate.
Democrats were elated by their good fortune.
Obama would be the key to implementing all of their liberal-academia, utopia-producing theories, his black skin insulating him from any and all opposition. Oppose Obama? You're racist!
The Democrats keep their R-for-racist branding iron red-hot and ready to apply swift retribution to any feisty, uppity conservative or Republican who dares challenge Obama.
Basking in their tactical genius, Democrats thought, "We did it! We pulled off the perfect exploitation of race to implement our socialistic agenda; a liberal black man in the White House." Someone at the DNC even broke out their old Commodores record as they partied: "Ce-le-brate good times, C'MON!"
As America slept, one night under the cover of darkness, a hidden door in the ebony idol opened; out rushed an army of vicious liberal minions, freedom-killing mandates, and socialistic policies. Their mission: destroy our capitalist system and massacre America as we know it.
Totally unexpected and to the horror of the Democrats, We The People rose up. Patriots, via divine inspiration, formed the Tea Party. Patriot freedom-fighters began winning skirmishes around the country -- governorships in New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida -- and defeating the tyrannous teachers' union in Wisconsin, to name a few. We took the House. We will take the Senate and are predicted to take the White House in 2012.
The Democrats' ebony idol, their so-called gift to America, has been exposed for the fraud it truly is -- a hollow, soulless shell of empty liberal ideology, its internal recorded message malfunctioning and distorted, stuck repeating the phrase, "I blame...I blame...I blame..."
Seeing the handwriting on the wall via polling, the Dems wish they could abandon their disastrous ebony race card for Hillary, their gender card.
But alas, they cannot. After spending the last three years, assisted by their media minions, convincing Americans that any and all criticism of or opposition to Obama is racist, Democrats find themselves victims of their own trap. Fearing the repercussions, Dems do not dare display the slightest abandonment of Obama. I love it! They who live by the race card die by the race card.
Despite the media's relentless attempts to brand us otherwise, the Tea Party has never been about race. Our focus and sole desire have been to uphold the Constitution and restore our freedom, liberty, and culture. The Tea Party's goals are much higher than the Democrats' bottom-feeding agenda of exploiting race for political gain. This is why it is so sweet that they are stuck with their loser black candidate.
You leftists, do not try to spin my comment as being racist. I, along with millions of my white Tea Party brothers and sisters, would gladly cast a presidential vote for blacks such as Herman Cain and Col. Allen West in a heartbeat. So don't even go there.
Ironically, the Democrats who claim ownership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shamefully dishonor his dream. The Tea Party, vilified by the Democrats, fully embraces MLK's dream by judging and selecting their candidates by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Thus, the Tea Party, much-hated by Democrats, is the realization of MLK's dream. And for the record, MLK was a Republican.
Photo: Sarah Palin and Dr. Alveda King, both speakers at GB’s Restore Honor Event on 8.28.10, on the Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s… instead of walking with opportunist Al Sharpton
The Democrats played the ultimate race card -- an incompetent affirmative-action president, and now they are stuck with him. The faux finish on their once-shiny ebony idol is rapidly deteriorating, peeling off daily. Come 2012, Obama is a sure loser. "Ce-le-brate good times, C'MON!"
I’ve heard quite a few descriptions of the current debt ceiling debate lately, using the old teenage dependent’s credit card analogy. That analogy is not a bad one, I reckon, but it needs a little tweaking … in my opinion.
The analogy goes like this:
The Dhimmicrat Congress, having reached the legal limit of it’s spending capabilities and demanding a raise of the debt ceiling is like your teenage son maxxing out the credit card you gave him and now is asking for an increase in his credit limit. Since you’ve raised the limit so many times and he’s maxxed it each and every time, you’re getting a little peeved that he can’t grasp the concept of limiting his purchases.
That’s purdy close, but there’s more to it…
Your son didn’t just charge up the card, he also managed to talk several of your neighbors into loaning him even more money to blow – more money than you will earn in a lifetime. And he fully expects to pay back those loans with his credit card.
Those neighbors that he owes money to; hey hate your guts.
Your son has been boarding outlaws and hoodlums in your basement. He’s feeding them, clothing them and providing them entertainment, drugs and hookers. He’s using your money to support these people, in your own home, and they also hate your guts.
Your son has been buying expensive, custom-built guns and giving them to another set of your neighbors. These particular neighbors hate your guts also, and have actually assaulted you personally in the past on multiple occasions. Now they have some really cool weaponry to use on you – that you paid for.
Your son has hired someone to control what you can and cannot eat.
Your son has hired someone to control what you drive.
Your son has hired someone to control what you listen to on the radio.
Your son has hired someone to steal all your personal guns.
Your son has hired someone to control all those other controllers.
And each and every one of those controllers hate your guts.
Your son is now demanding that if you can’t afford extra credit card payments that you get another job. Although your son has never had a job of his own and can’t even spell the word, he’s convinced that by spending more of your money he can create some jobs for you. You will be able to work for him. He’ll pay you with your own money so you can afford to raise his credit card limit. And just to make sure that plan works smoothly he’s also subsidizing a union for you to join as his employee. The union will make sure your son treats you right because you’re paying them too. And of course, they’re giving some of that money to your son for landing them the contract.
You are getting ready to kick the living crap out of your son.
There. That’s a fine tuned analogy for ya…
Update: Your job description as your son’s employee is to think up new innovative ways your son can swindle you.
Rather than going from the sublime to the ridiculous… we are now going the other way to here what Thomas Sowell has to say":
Many of us never thought that the Republicans would hold tough long enough to get President Obama and the Democrats to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income tax rates. But they did -- and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt desires much of the credit for that.
Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.
How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, "the rich" are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.
Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas -- and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.
All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.
Now that the Republicans seem to have gotten the Democrats off their higher taxes kick, the question is whether a minority of the House Republicans will refuse to pass the Boehner legislation that could lead to a deal that will spare the country a major economic disruption and spare the Republicans from losing the 2012 elections by being blamed -- rightly or wrongly -- for the disruptions.
Is the Boehner legislation the best legislation possible? Of course not! You don't get your heart's desire when you control only one house of Congress and face a presidential veto.
The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one's power. Nor is it selling out one's principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.
That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.
There would not be a United States of America today if George Washington's army had not retreated and retreated and retreated, in the face of an overwhelmingly more powerful British military force bent on annihilating Washington's troops.
Later, when the conditions were right for attack, General Washington attacked. But he would have had nothing to attack with if he had wasted his troops in battles that would have wiped them out.
Similar principles apply in politics. As Edmund Burke said, more than two centuries ago: "Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational endeavors."
What does "rational" mean? At its most basic, it means an ability to make a ratio, as with "rational numbers" in mathematics. More broadly, it means an ability to weigh one thing against another.
There are a lot of things to weigh against each other, not only as regards the economy, but also what the consequences to this nation would be to have Barack Obama get re-elected and go further down the dangerous path he has put us on, at home and abroad. Is it worth that risk to make a futile symbolic vote in Congress?
One of the good things about the Tea Party movement is that it resisted the temptation to actually form a third political party, which has been an exercise in futility, time and time again, under the American electoral system.
But, if the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion.
Writers can advocate things that have no chance at the moment, for their very writing about those things persuasively can make them possible at some future date. But to adopt the same approach as an elected member of Congress risks losing both the present and the future.
By Thomas Sowell – posted at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people." But neither the Constitution nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.
Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.
Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counseling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.
Republican Congressman John Boehner, soon to become Speaker of the House, objected to this provision in 2009, saying: "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed provision in Medicare legislation, the Constitution of the United States makes the elected representatives of "we the people" the ones authorized to make such decisions. But when proposals explicitly rejected by a vote in Congress are resurrected and stealthily made the law of the land by bureaucratic fiat, there has been an end run around both the people and the Constitution.
Congressman Blumenauer's office praised the Medicare bureaucracy's action but warned: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we are not out of the woods yet."
In other words, don't let the masses know about it.
It is not only members of Congress or the administration who treat "we the people" and the Constitution as nuisances to do an end run around. Judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, have been doing this increasingly over the past hundred years.
During the Progressive era of the early 20th century, the denigration of the Constitution began, led by such luminaries as Princeton scholar and future President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, future Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
As a Professor at Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson wrote condescendingly of "the simple days of 1787" when the Constitution was written and how, in our presumably more complex times, "each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day."
This kind of argument would be repeated for generations, with no more evidence that 1787 was any less complicated than later years than Woodrow Wilson presented-- which was none-- and with no more reasons why the need for "change" meant that unelected judges should be the ones making those changes, as if there were no elected representatives of the people.
Professor Roscoe Pound likewise referred to the need for "a living constitution by judicial interpretation," in order to "respond to the vital needs of present-day life." He rejected the idea of law as "a body of rules."
But if law is not a body of rules, what is it? A set of arbitrary fiats by judges, imposing their own vision of "the needs of the times"? Or a set of arbitrary regulations stealthily emerging from within the bowels of a bureaucracy?
Louis Brandeis was another leader of this Progressive era chorus of demands for moving beyond law as rules. He cited "newly arisen social needs" and "a shifting of our longing from legal justice to social justice."
In other words, judges were encouraged to do an end run around rules, such as those set forth in the Constitution, and around the elected representatives of "we the people." As Roscoe Pound put it, law should be "in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public."
That is still the vision of the left a hundred years later. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER - Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have "a duty to die," rather than become a burden to others.
This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.
Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.
There was a time-- fortunately, now long past-- when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their family and community to face their fate alone.
But is that where we are today?
Talk about "a duty to die" made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady-- a relative of ours-- was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.
She was called "Aunt Nance Ann," but I don't know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.
A "At that time, we didn't have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table-- and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.
Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had "a duty to die."
I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air-conditioning.
It is today, in an age when homes have flat-panelled TVs, and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites-- rather than the masses-- have begun talking about "a duty to die."
Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about "a duty to die."
Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.
But my son didn't have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?
The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from the Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.
Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values, and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which "a duty to die" is just one.
These efforts at changing values used to be called "values clarification," though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed "clarification" had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this "clarification."
(Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell and Ben Stein are considered 3 of the top thinkers of our time, by many)
It's better to be paralyzed from the neck down, than to be paralyzed from the neck up....
Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.
Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults.
He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a Fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The Cap and Trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future.. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.
Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!
When a baseball player has come to bat after failing to get a hit twenty times in a row, some fans say he is "due" for a hit. But statisticians say he is no more likely to get a hit in this at bat than at any other time. In other words, there is no such thing as being "due."
After the Republicans went from being the dominant party, at both the state and national levels, just a few years ago, and got clobbered at the polls by the Democrats two elections in a row, some people think the Republicans are "due" to make a comeback in this fall's elections.
Maybe it will happen. The polls show that the voting public is getting more and more fed up with the Obama administration and with both houses of Congress that are dominated by Democrats. But, when election day comes, nobody can vote for polls. It still takes a candidate to beat a candidate-- and the question is whether the Republicans come up with the kinds of candidates that can win.
Those of us who are not Republicans nevertheless have a huge stake in this fall's elections, because the current administration in Washington is not merely deficient but dangerous, both at home and abroad.
In just one year in power, the Obama administration has not merely tripled the deficit and circumvented the Constitution with their "czars" who rule by decree, but have moved to dictate the medical treatment of all Americans-- which is to say, they are moving toward getting the power of life and death, to add to all the other powers they have seized.
Increasing numbers of Americans are saying that they are having trouble recognizing the country in which they were born and grew up. They will have even more trouble recognizing America if the Washington juggernaut does not lose a substantial part of its power in this year's election.
The dangers are not only in domestic policy but even more so in the Obama administration's foreign policy. Their diddling around while fanatical leaders of a terrorist-sponsoring nation like Iran are moving toward producing nuclear bombs can take us and the world to a point of no return.
No nation on earth will let three of its cities be annihilated by nuclear bombs without surrendering. The fact that the United States has never surrendered may make it difficult for Americans even to imagine that it could happen, much less what a horror it would be to live under hate-filled fanatics like the current Iranian leaders. But Japan had likewise never surrendered in its entire history until it was hit with two nuclear bombs.
Unlike us, Iranian leaders -- going back to the Ayatollah Khomeini-- have said plainly that they are willing to see their country destroyed as the price of destroying the enemies of Islam-- which, in their view of the world, includes the United States.
Perhaps serious sanctions might have been enough to stop the Iranian nuclear program a few years ago, by crippling their economy. But nobody in the West had the stomach for that.
The longer we wait, the higher the price goes-- the price of either action or inaction.
Just three years ago, the people currently at the top in Washington-- including President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton-- were ready to turn tail and run in Iraq.
Former Ambassador John Bolton has written a book titled "Surrender is Not an Option." But that is an option for the kind of people at the top in the Obama administration.
It would take a leader with extraordinary courage, pride in America and dedication to the values, traditions and the people of America, to stand up to enemies who could annihilate Los Angeles, Chicago and New York with nuclear weapons.
Does this sound anything like the president who has gone around the world apologizing for this country and literally bowing to foreign leaders?
The stakes in this fall's elections go far beyond the fate of either the Republican party or the Democratic party. The fate of America is on the line. The Republicans need to understand that-- and to understand that they are not simply "due" because of polls.
They have a job to do, and what will happen to our children and grandchildren will depend on how well they do it.
by Thomas Sowell, considered by many as one of clearest thinkers of our time. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust and Intellectuals and Society.
There has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society. When intellectuals who generate ideas are surrounded by a wide range of others who disseminate those ideas-- whether as journalists, teachers, staffers to legislators or clerks to judges-- the influence of intellectuals on the way a society evolves can be huge. Trying for years to understand the nature of that influence eventually led me to write the book "Intellectuals and Society," which has just been published.
Intellectuals generate ideas and ideas matter, whether those ideas are right or wrong, and they matter far beyond the small segment of society who are intellectuals. Ideas affect the fate of whole nations and civilizations. Nowhere is that more true than in our own times, when some people make suicidal attacks to kill strangers who have done nothing to them, as on 9/11, because the attackers are consumed with a set of ideas-- a vision-- and driven by the emotions generated by those ideas and that vision.
Whether in war or peace, and whether in economics or religion, something as intangible as ideas can dominate the most concrete things in our lives. What Karl Marx called "the blaze of ideas" has set whole nations on fire and consumed whole generations.
Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas-- the intellectuals-- have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.
The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, for the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on net balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers or apologists among the leading intellectuals-- not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted to.
Given the enormous progress made during the 20th century, it may seem hard to believe that intellectuals did so little good as to have that good outweighed by particular wrong-headed notions. But most of those who promoted the scientific, economic and social advances of the 20th century were not really intellectuals in the sense in which that term is most often used.
eam of human beings flying, were by no means intellectuals. Nor were those who conquered the scourge of polio and other diseases, or who created the electronic marvels that we now take for granted.
All these people produced a tangible product or service and they were judged by whether those products and services worked. But intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public.
Whether their ideas turn out to work-- whether they make life better or worse for others-- is another question entirely.
The ideas that Karl Marx created in the 19th century dominated the course of events over wide portions of the world in the 20th century. Whole generations suffered, and millions were killed, as a result of those ideas. This was not Marx's intention, nor the intentions of many supporters of Marxian ideas in countries around the world. But it is what happened.
Some of the most distinguished intellectuals in the Western world in the 1930s gave ringing praise to the Soviet Union, while millions of people there were literally starved to death and vast numbers of others were being shipped off to slave labor camps.
Many of those same distinguished intellectuals of the 1930s were urging their own countries to disarm while Hitler was rapidly arming Germany for wars of conquest that would have, among other things, put many of those intellectuals in concentration camps-- slated for extermination-- if he had succeeded.
The 1930s were by no means unique. In too many other eras-- including our own today-- intellectuals of unquestionable brilliance have advocated similarly childish and dangerous notions. How and why such patterns have existed among intellectuals is a challenging question, whose answer can determine the fate of millions of other people.
thecommunists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, I did not protest; I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Election 2014 - What Is Really At Stake
Help Stop Voter Fraud!! Stand for the Constitution and God
Time to remember that: "We Surround Them", not the other way!
Stand Up Against Voter Fraud... Demand Re-Counts and Verification Until It is Right!! A Little Ink Goes a Long Way Toward Honesty... 1 Person 1 Vote... No More Mickey Mouse or Dead People Voting
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about IT! --Albert Einstein
Call Congress Today and Tell Them To Vote Against Cap and Trade
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain
Thanks for calling the Congressional switchboard. Keep up the pressure: "NO on Cap and Trade"!!! "NO Vote on Obamacare", NO on another Stimulus Bill, NO to the never ending parade of "Power Grab Bills", and ABSOLUTELY NO on the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen!!
"No" on Cap and Trade and "No" on Government Controlled Healthcare!!! And Keep up the good fight! Keep up the Pressure on both the House and Senate! These are 2-fights the American People cannot afford to lose!!!
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
We apologize in advance for any Videos or links that are not functioning in these or other older posts. Internet information... like 'true' history in our student's textbooks are under constant attack by the Progressive Movement and even more so under the present administration. Try to save what you can to your own computer.
"...there comes a time, ladies and gentlemen, when ideology can cause death. I am so tired, so tired, of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans. Do you think the brave soldiers and Marines operating in dangerous areas right now want [unreleased photos of alleged abuse of prisoners] all over al-Jazeera and the terror websites? So let's look out for the military, OK? Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to get the loons in her party under control. If the Speaker can't do that, she doesn't deserve her position." ... Bill O'Reilly
Updated:If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.
![clip_image001[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_zgcO5WkMQ39ul-8WBpIStl2QZBhO4OsQ8rNYKHWyssRiCEqGn3nGMf5dU5Tlh2LjxY1coe2I3pS76NEp8SDuRjQ7Pm4lzqtUIx7a_9oOeypH2-Wez5gp59ENlx2PfcLw0AhEh8ZTG-vD/s1600-h/clip_image001%25255B1%25255D%25255B3%25255D.jpg "clip_image001[1]")
![clip_image001[4]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB0CZzT7CMCLoFzViB81I4raaRuF27b6zODBtkq7f2sQk6tsd5a7ub8UuPY_3keKBuDmQcv0MzIw-8jIgeLMIIO7MlbuNuOyk1-W8oxrvcf-LLjtVSbJIliRtfDHRO4QTPnD_2qjJqazOB/s1600-h/clip_image001%5B4%5D%5B3%5D.jpg "clip_image001[4]")
