This from the Federalist Patriot:

`The Golden State is in such desperate need of gold that residents will have to wait to receive their own money back this year. ABC News reports that "tax refunds are now on hold in California for the first time in state history, according to the state controller's office." California has had no money in the general fund for 17 months and has been borrowing from Wall Street and special interest funds. Even that borrowed money will be gone by the end of February. The state controller's office has called for a 30-day delay in tax refunds beginning 1 February because it needs the extra $1.99 billion to pay for "education, debt service, and other payments that legally have first claim to state funds." Now, color us confused, but if tax refunds are due to individuals, are they really part of "state funds"?`

End excerpt

Will America learn from this? Doubtful.  This is what the philosophy of ``moderation`` in the Republicans accomplished.

To paraphrase the Soup Nazi episode of Seifeld; No soup for California-unless it`s gotten by standing in line!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Wil Wirtanen forwards this piece which has been making the rounds. Interesting point:
 

Interesting  Statistics
 

Professor  Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of  Law,
 St.  Paul,   Minnesota,  points out facts of 2008  Presidential election:
 

 
Number  of States won by: 
  Democrats:  19 
  Republicans:   29
 
Square  miles of land won by: 
  Democrats:  580,000
Republicans:   2,427,000
 
Population of counties  won by:
  Democrats:  127 million
Republicans:  143 million
 
Murder rate  per 100,000 residents in counties won  by:
Democrats:  13.2
Republicans:   2.1
 

  Professor Olson  adds:
  "In  aggregate, the map of the territory Republican  won by Republicans 
    was mostly the land owned by the  taxpaying citizens of the  country.
 
Democrat  territory mostly encompassed those citizens  living in
government-owned tenements  and living off various forms of 
  government welfare. 
 
Professor  Olson believes the United States is now  somewhere
 between  the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor  Tyler's
 definition  of democracy, with some forty percent  of the nation's
 population  already having reached the "governmental  dependency"  phase.
 
If  Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to  twenty million criminal
invaders called  illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye  to
  the  USA in fewer than five  years

Hard  to dispute the taxpaying landowner part  anyway.

While I found that article interesting, I tried to find the provenance of it.... and it comes from a Ministry.  And we go to the link:

http://www.arkhaven.org/democracy_countdown.htm

it looks more like a propaganda than facts.

Sooooooooooooo I went to snopes.com and here is what they have to say:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp  (mostly false....)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 3 kb.

by The Southern Agrarian

Where were these conservatives the past eight years? Finally we have the republicans in the congress, the house anyway, who stood up for America.

For too long principally under the leadership of George W. Bush, the Republican Party morphed into a modern version of the American Whig Party. The ideology of the Republican Party became something called ‘compassionate conservatism’ or better yet ‘big state conservatism.’ The former a term gifted to us by GWB (and Karl Rove) and the latter a boon from the venerable and ideological glad fly Newt Gingrich.

You and I knew neither of these were ‘conservative’ or classically liberal positions, but apparently those in Washington, D.C., the political punditry, sycophant consultants, party leaders and those too smart for the rest of us thought they could simply ignore us. With this ignorance came the debacle of 2006 and then John McCain in 2008.

The immanent political philosophy of the Republican Party under both Gingrich and Bush was not classical liberalism but Whiggism. The general philosophy became basically the acceptance of the State and all of its spending, taxing and regulations as a given. The State existed and as such, it was the job of republicans under this Whig leadership to accept it and try to make it work. They even engaged in renaming it ‘big state conservatism’ and if it existed surely it must be a good and, appealing to our patriotism, they argued we should be in favor of making it work more efficiently and making "it more user friendly" to use one of Gingrich’s nice-nellyisms.

The republican position became a position defined by others, namely socialists democrat’s protecting their programs and spending, while our leadership abandoned the goals of classical liberalism. Republicans in congress and the administration abandoned ultimate goals (ideology) compromising with the whining, naysaying congressional leftists and demonstrating contempt for conservatives (classical liberals). This capitulation to positions and policies of the left while holding classical liberals at arm’s length became a way of maintaining perceived political power. Such behavior by the Whigs underscored and reinforced the perception created by the left’s propaganda machine that classical liberals were radicals, reactionaries, racists, xenophobes, ill tempered and wanting to turn the clock back to some bygone era. The sophisticate Whigs of Washington, D.C. bought into this perception and displayed open contempt for classical liberals because we showed contempt for the State and the radicalism of the left. Whig accommodation became the answer to governing the State and getting along with everyone except us.  It became their circumstance and the resulting consequences we are living with.

The government-media complex, inside the belt way socialists, have an ideology and ruling philosophy and even when they compromise, they win. They win because they hold to their ideology whining and moaning as much as they can to appeal to radicals and beneficiaries to apply political pressure. They understand this principle; Whigs do not. Whigs take compromise positions (e.g., immigration, education, and medicare) with socialists to placate them (they think), then the Whig tries to sell watered down socialism as policy temperance to you and I. That is, they reason the policies could have been far more draconian than they would have been without compromise as if it were a badge of honor. Well let us be real clear - right now - compromising with socialism by the method of incrementalism is just as bad, if not worse, than compromising with socialism by the bayonet.

The party of Reagan gave way to Whiggism believing the Republican Party of Gingrich and Bush should strike a new tone - compromise, admonish our old ways, conform to Washington, and embrace safety rather than pursue "…imagination and dramatic boldness of principle." The Republican Party of Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush became a party without vision and a party headed for collapse because it clung to a stale immanence.

Political parties that make a difference in American history are those holding strong principles rather than holding on to consequences; believe in an ideology appealing to a broad general constituency rather than narrow interest groups; and believe in ideals and not men. The Republican Party morphed into the Whig Party when it stopped arguing for and stopped proposing ideas based on principle. On the one hand, arguing for cutting marginal tax rates, while on the other engaging in profligate, wasteful spending of the State beyond limits destroys any appeal to principle. Arguing for a war against terrorism and then leaving the southern border of the nation undefended undermines principle. Whig’s too often forget that ideas have consequences and the failure to adhere to principles produce circumstances overwhelming not only a party’s philosophy but integrity as well. Barry Goldwater made it clear, "Moderation in the defense of liberty is no vice and I remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." A party taking the middle course of moderation in its governance can not long survive when their sole foundation is laid to oppose so-called extremes, particularly when you consider your base as the extreme, which the party of George W. Bush did. Such moderation, Whiggism, inevitably leads to the collapse, if not the extinction, of your political base and destruction of your political party.

This nation is engaged in not only a world conflict that threatens us but within the nation itself, we are engaged in a great uncivil civil war based on political philosophy.  One party, the socialists show up everyday with their game face on holding to their principles seeking to confiscate more power and assume more rights. Yet, the Republican Party, the modern Whig Party, fails to recognize this and has failed to mount a credible response based on principles. As classical liberals, we must demand change in Republican Party leadership and, furthermore, demand the party adopt and adhere to the nation’s founding principles or else we have to find another home.  It the Whig Party remains as it is, it will wither away, it will pass from the scene leaving the nation with a socialist dictatorship, a one party nation and State.  The Whig Party has become bogged down in the consequences of a failed leadership and chattel to the circumstances of the moment and it will not outlive those circumstances.  It must abandon that failed leadership and move in the right direction - toward principle.

We are in a profound ideological struggle in this nation and we can not afford Whigs determining the direction and principles, such as they are, of our party.  A party promising to make the smallest mistakes when pitted against the extreme party will not endear allegiance, witness John McCain.  The Republican Party must become the party of classical liberalism or else we must found such a party.

Make no mistake about it we are in an epic struggle that will not only determine the direction of this nation but it will also define the political foundation and philosophy directing it.  Will the driver be a socialist ideology or a free market ideology?  The notions of Whigs are to be disregarded as serious and we must pursue a course based on deep-seated principles worthy of consideration for this nation and its future.  We will not become a great party and I maintain a great nation again until we stop accepting the temperance (compromise) of socialist policies.  Whiggism must be driven from the Republican Party or we must leave the party.  We can no longer be the party serving as the brakeman to the movement of socialism, instead, we must take back the train and redirect it based on the principles of classical liberalism. To do that, we must be a party of classical principles.

The decisions we make as classical liberals must redefine a coherent set of principles. We are at a critical juncture in this nation’s history where we can not simply be the party of opposition to a militant socialist party and government. We are witnessing this nonsense among senate Whigs right now, seeking to get this or that crumb offered by the socialist leadership from their table.  The senate Whigs need to stand like the house Republicans did  stand unified against this assault on America.  We are face to face with an aggressive, militant form of socialism seeking to consolidate its power and spread its tentacles into every hamlet and every household in the nation. The Republican Party must become a party with a clearly defined philosophical position arguing against it, not some watered down version of socialism or else we should be forming another party.  As Whigs, its adherents will become the Whigs of 1960-1980 a party out of power.

We can no longer pin our hopes for victory on brilliant personalities. We must begin by establishing dialectically secure positions. There is no Ronald Reagan or Sarah Palin possible without a Barry Goldwater base firmly entrenched in its ideology and doctrine.  Whigs in the vein of John McCain or George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush or Olympia Snow or Lindsay Graham can not and must not be leaders of this party. The party of compromise must be abandoned or the descent into the darkness of socialism will have no brakemen at all, only passengers headed into the abyss.

We do not need more of the same  we do not need more pragmatism and political correctness.  We need leaders who will stand on principle and follow no compromise methods of pushing the principles of the American people, not socialists.  We must enunciate our principles, stand up at our local republican clubs and executive committee meetings, speak up at community assemblies and support those forms of media who support our cause.  Success is not survival of a Whig Party where careerist politicians, sycophants, consultants, party insiders and pundits can continue to make a living trying to moderate the base and giving nonsensical advice and so-called leadership.  Principled positions win elections and build a party, not pragmatism in the face of extremism, then calling compromise a virtue.  We can not win or influence people by being socialist light.

Our aim should not be to gain control of government, it should be to takeover the government and change government to better serve the American people through freedom, not enslavement to the state or the status quo. The socialists and the Whigs have overseen government for too long, they have run it into the ground for their own self-aggrandizement and benefit and the benefit of their interest groups. A party whose only program and philosophy is an endorsement of the status quo and compromise with the other party is a party in decline and will soon disintegrate whenever the course of human events demands a principled stand as these times surely do.

The ideological struggle consuming the United States will become deeper in the days and months ahead. It borders on the struggles seen by our forefathers during the times of the Revolution, the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement. During this crisis the compromisers must be jettisoned as unreliable. Right now the most radical party –the Socialist Party - has taken control and they are in the midst of consolidating power across the nation. The current stimulus bill is nothing more than a socialist consolidation bill, rewarding every municipality in the nation, each island of socialism, with funds in order to buy support. The aim is to further destroy federalism, such as it is, and impose their vision of order on this nation.

We must stand and reject Whiggism within our local Republican Party.  Their position is one of self-stultification and it is why we have a socialists and socialist congress scheming to monetize this nation into a socialist poverty of wage, tax and debt enslavement.

The end.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1969 words, total size 12 kb.

Dana Mathewson

And different one for you.  Classic definition of a liberal, that is.  Our wonderful new president is no exception.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022681.php

Never mind what he said during the campaign -- surely you're not going to hold him to that!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I report, you decide...

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html

I'd say that at the very least, this teacher needs to be disciplined.

```A parent in the Clark County School District of Las Vegas, Henderson area reported January 27th that his son, who is in 1st grade, came home yesterday saying that he didn't want to go back to school anymore.

When asked why, the boy said that during the Pledge of Allegiance the teacher put up a large image of Obama next to the flag.

Thinking that the boy might be exaggerating, the man asked his son if he was sure, and suggested that by "large" he might mean an 8x10 photo of the president. The boy apparently said "No, it is a large picture of Obama and when we are done, the teacher turns off the image."`

Read More

A note from Dana:

This may turn out to have been bogus -- lots of people on discussion boards have pointed out something that I seem to have missed: there are no names in the article.  Guess my BS detector was turned off, or the batteries needed replacing.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

by Steve Rankin

Rush Limbaugh and the Socialists' Farce

Rush Limbaugh's radio show has been nationally syndicated since 1988. I first heard him in 1990 and found that he usually agrees with me. Rush validates the thinking of those of us who believe in individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. Over the years, I have been amazed at the number of people-- primarily liberals-- who express opinions on Rush without bothering to actually listen to him.

With the help of hip boots and a shovel, I waded through Leonard Pitts Jr.'s recent moronic column on Rush. After toying with the idea of rebutting Pitts, I decided that it wasn't worth the time or trouble. But now one of Mississippi's most influential blogs, Shira bat Sarah, has concurred with Pitts's piece. Idiocy emanating from Florida is one thing, but homegrown misinformation is quite another.

shira begins, "I've never understood the appeal of Rush Limbaugh. He spews garbage and his fans proudly call themselves ditto heads. How many of those ditto heads hope as well as Limbaugh does that Obama will fail?"

If you really wanted to understand Rush's appeal, you would at least listen to him (which is worthwhile for the parodies alone). A substantial number of liberals listen, and liberal callers are usually put at the front of the line. As Ben Stein has noted, Rush has helped to educate millions of people; he's also very funny.

A dittohead is simply someone who enjoys Rush's show-- whether he agrees with Rush or not. It's the most-listened-to radio talk show in history, and Rush didn't achieve that by putting out "garbage."

Before saying that he hopes Obama fails, Rush explained in great detail what he meant. You would think that Pitts, at a minimum, would have read the transcript before attacking Rush as he did. Pitts is either blissfully ignorant of Rush's meaning, or, more likely, just sees this as an opportunity to attempt to discredit Rush.

Obama is the most radical leftist ever to occupy the White House, and we conservatives do indeed hope he fails to implement his socialist agenda, typified by the outrageous spending scheme that has passed the House. Socialism has never worked anywhere: it didn't work in the Soviet Union, and it certainly hasn't worked in Cuba. By turning away from socialism and embracing capitalism, the Chinese have created a booming economy. The Japanese tried eight "stimulus" plans in the 1990s, none of which succeeded in relieving their economic doldrums.

We, do, however, pray that the president succeeds in protecting us from another 9/11-style attack. I'm certainly no fan of George W. Bush's, but I give him credit for preventing such an attack in the last seven-plus years.

The big question is whether Obama and the Democratic Congress will succeed in herding Americans into a health care collective, euphemistically called "universal health care." It's far from perfect, but our health care system is still the best in the world. If socialized medicine is enacted, there will be no turning back.

So unless Obama applies free-market solutions to the economy, he's bound to fail. I've been watching presidents since the 1960s, and I suspect that a lot of people are going to be bitterly disappointed in the next several years, as they discover that this president is not the Messiah that they thought they were electing.

To understand Rush Limbaugh, one must listen to the entire three-hour show every day for at least six weeks. I challenge Leonard Pitts Jr., shira, and all of Rush's other critics to do so before again commenting on his statements.

shira titles her post, "Send in the Clowns." The next to last verse of Stephen Sondheim's song begins with, "Don't you love farce?" and ends with, "... send in the clowns. Don't bother, they're here."

Yes, they're here, and they'll be running the executive and legislative branches of the federal government for at least the next two years.

God help us.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 4 kb.

More proof that Global Warming is not about science. This from CCNET:

SCIENTISTS ADVOCATING AGW ASKED NOT TO DEBATE THE ISSUE

Nicholas Sault [tikouka@yahoo.com]

Hi Benny

Here indeed is what AGW sceptics are up against, especially here in New Zealand.  The following is taken from a debate that was set up by the Avenues magazine of Christchurch.  The debate featured Dr Gerrit van der Lingen as the AGW sceptic and Professor Bryan Storey as the AGW advocate.  Their opposing arguments were then judged by a retired high court judge, Justice John Hansen, who claimed to be an unbiased observer. 

In Dr van der Lingen’s argument, he made the observation that Al Gore refuses to debate the points in his film, An Inconvenient Truth.  In Professor Storey’s response he said, quote:

“Our professional bodies recommend that we do not publicly engage in debates over climate change as it gives a platform for the vocal minority to express their views, often scientifically incorrect or carefully selected to distort a longer term trend. This will undoubtedly be the advice that the former US Vice President Al Gore will have received, influencing his decision not to engage in televised debates.”

If this is not totally unscientific I do not know what is.  The statement unequivocally precludes discussing the issues with anybody, scientists included. It is not as if the TV people would make the mistake of putting a layman up against Gore, and even if they did, he could then be excused for refusing to debate (even though he is a layman himself).  Also it makes nonsense of the judge’s claim of being unbiased, since if New Zealand scientists are told not to debate the issue, the evidence against AGW is going to go unheard by the supposedly unbiased public, to which the retired judge belongs. 

At first I thought Dr Lingen’s comparison of the one-sided reporting of climate change issues with Nazi propaganda a little strong, but if peer debate about climate change is not going to be conducted, the whole issue is an attempt at a scientific whitewash by the AGW proponents. 

For a full transcript of the debate, see http://nzclimatescience.net/images//avenuesdebate.pdf.

Regards
Nick

Nicholas Sault
Director
E-Writers NZ Ltd

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

Found this one on Red State and is good.

Wil Wirtanen

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/01/28/i-dont-want-rush-limbaugh-as-the-voice-of-republican-party/

I Don’t WANT Rush Limbaugh as the Voice of the Republican Party
Posted by Warner Todd Huston (Profile)

Wednesday, January 28th at 6:16AM EST

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of Old Media people like columnist Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post and liberals like Pelosi and Obama who keep claiming that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the only voice of the Republican Party. Imagine. A mere radio guy. Our voice!

I am through with Limbaugh’s supporting the long tradition of rugged American individualism, done with his harping on free trade, and up to here with his going on about the Founders and our American character. I am worn out with his bellicose talk of stopping terrorism, and so done with Limbaugh’s high profile as one of the most listened to conservative advocates in the country that I could just spit. I simply don’t want this Limbaugh character to be the sole voice of the GOP. Stop it now. Make it go away.

Instead, it would be nice if just ONE of our actual, purported Republican politicians would be the voice of the GOP espousing all the conservative ideals that Limbaugh so eloquently expounds upon day in and day out. Wouldn’t it be grand if just one guy with the guts to back up the rhetoric with a voting record would become the voice of the party of conservatism?

Liberals have their Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis that do no compromising. They have their ``Baghdad`` Jim McDermotts that cavort across the globe advocating for murderers and tyrants the world over. They’ve had their presidential candidates ``reporting for duty`` that have in the past been key members of committees advocating for putting our own soldiers in jail and indicting Americans for faux war crimes. For that matter, the left even has an actual ex-president that runs to the support of every tin-pot dictator in the world pretending at being a diplomat.

The left is unapologetic for its support of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the biggest mass murderers in history. They are resolved to turn our foreign policy over to foreign bodies like the UN. The left is four square against freedom of religion and keen to remove uncounted numbers of our Constitutional rights from us. They hate capitalism, property rights and are against open debate in our schools yet they say so proudly and their politicians cultivate voting records that reflect those beliefs.

There’s no ``compromise`` there. The left knows that politics ain’t beanball.

And here we are. With current Republican Senators voting to confirm a tax cheat for Sec. of Treasury. Here we stand with recent presidential candidates that seemed not to have had the first clue about what the Constitution stands for. We had politicians willing to give away some many advantages that the judges we wanted never got seated. We even found ourselves not long ago with a Senate Majority leader in Trent Lott that almost gave more power to the Democrats than he did to his own party (not surprising, I guess, since he started his political life as one of them). There are so many that claim the mantle of Reagan and conservatism that shrink at every opportunity from the principles upon which they campaign that it isn’t even surprising any more.

Worse we have so-called `aides` to prominent Republicans calling Limbaugh and Sarah Palin ``the extreme right`` and denigrating some of the only voices speaking for our side. Take what John Weaver, former senior aide to Sen. John McCain, told the Washington Post, for instance.

``The Democrats and the far left will do all they can to grab electoral turf,`` said Weaver. ``And one sure way to do it is take some of the most controversial voices on the extreme right-like Limbaugh and [Alaska Gov. Sarah] Palin-and try to insist they speak for all members of the center/right movement.``

Limbaugh and Palin are the ``extreme right``? Does this Weaver dolt have the first clue what it is that Limbaugh and Palin have ever said? No, what this Weaver character is doing is accepting the far left’s view of what constitutes ``the extreme right`` and acting by their rules. Weaver, like his former boss, have turned over the arena of ideas to the enemy and allowed them to determine how things will be defined. The Weavers, McCains, Lotts, Specters and Frists of the GOP spend more time finding things they can agree upon with the left than in advancing the principles of our own side.

No wonder McCain lost.                                                                  

Yes, count me as one that is sick of Rush Limbaugh being the only national voice of the GOP. Not because I hate Rush or disagree with him much, but because the people we’ve actually elected to enact things for which Limbaugh advocates have so miserably failed to stick with those same first principles Limbaugh has voiced to well.

Certainly, its easier for Rush to talk than it is for politicians to vote and govern. Absolutely our system is based on the act of compromise, the art of what is possible. But what we currently have is a lopsided process. Only our side does any of that vaunted compromising. The left bends not an inch. We need a politician that can force the left to give in some of the time, too. And we needn’t allow ourselves to be fooled by the media and the left about support, either. Remember, Obama did not win a lopsided mandate. Despite the candidacy of the Obammessiah, nearly half the electorate still voted Republican. We have support.

Bring on a voice of the GOP that can Reagan-like step forward and legitimately accept the mantle as the voice of the GOP. Let Rush talk, of course, but let’s have someone that has some actual power in government who will also become our voice. After all, as Rush will be the first person to admit, he is just a guy behind a microphone and has no concrete power to wield. But, it simply must be realized that the reason Rush Limbaugh seems to be the voice of the GOP is because no one else is bothering to speak up. The rest are too timid to raise a voice.

Lastly, we have another thing to take away from this whole business. If Rush Limbaugh really is the voice of the GOP at this time, isn’t it because he has the message that the voters of the GOP want to hear? Limbaugh could not be that ``voice`` if he wasn’t being listened to by millions. The sooner some savvy, principled Republican realizes that Rush is not some raving lunatic screaming in the night as the left keeps telling them he is, the sooner some Republican realizes that he is someone that has the ear of millions of Republican voters and the sooner some politician takes up the baton that Limbaugh is holding out for a runner to take, the sooner we will have a voice of the GOP that can put our principles into action.

So, yeah. Bring on that next voice of the GOP. If we had more GOP voices willing to stand on principle, and fewer looking to develop a new era of ``peace in our times`` with the radical left, Limbaugh wouldn’t seem so darn lonely.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1237 words, total size 8 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The ``Party of Death`` aka the Deathocrats have rubber stamped the New Messiah`s spending American tax dollars (this at a time when we are ready to blow over a trillion bucks) to promote abortion in Mexico and abroad. 

George Bush issued executive orders to stop the flow of American dollars to fund overseas abortions and counsel women to murder their unborn children, but our dearly beloved savior BHO has overturned Bush policy, funding the peddlers of infanticide and mass murder. If there is anything that should disquiet America over the choice we have made, it should be the coldly casual manner in which Obama seeks the destruction of the most defenseless of people-and to do so abroad smacks of racist imperialism far beyond the scope of any practiced by the old Colonial powers. If ``ethnic cleansing`` in the Balkans is evil, how much more so is ethnic cleansing throughout the world of those completely innocent?

Yet Obama has never met an abortion he didn`t like, and he will now use our money (which is in short supply these days-whatever happened to Mr. Obama`s pledge to go ``line by line`` to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary spending?) to promote these murderous policies. What, pray tell, is his justification for this? Doubtless he will claim that it is in the security interests of the United States, by restricting population growth and poverty. Well, if George Bush was such a monster because of collateral damage in the War on Terror (something Bush ordered be minimized at the expense of American objectives and American lives) how much worse is ordering the murder of innocent lives abroad?

It comes as no surprise that Congress would rubber-stamp this policy of mass murder; the Deathocrats are a coalition of the very worldly, those who seek to remake Man in their own image. I`ve said it before, and I`ll say it again; the creation of life is outside the power of Man, but the ending of life gives the image of equality with God. That is all one needs to know to understand why those on the Left are so determined to promote abortion. This is the doctrine of materialism, something that must be advanced in order to create the New Man, the world where Man reigns supreme. Antiquated notions of God and the morality imposed from such a higher power must be removed if we are to ``progress`` to the world envisioned by John Lennon ``imagine there`s no heaven, no hell, imagine no possessions...`` To accomplish that the first step is to make people aware that they are animal, purely physical entities. Meat! The value of human life is therefore a coefficient of what that life can do for the greater good of society. This means that the margins are not human at all, because they have no worth save their usefullness. If people can get over this notion of the inherent worth of human life, then they can be molded and shaped, as surely as the children of Huxley`s Brave New World could be molded. Death is the ultimate authority of the State, and if Man can be made to see that as strictly utilitarian, Man will be ready for the State to shape His destiny.

And this, too, fits with the ancient rituals of immolation, the gods of old who demanded a blood sacrifice to appease their wrath. Every woman who has an abortion becomes a priestess in the cause. It is the literal Satanic hijacking of the Eucharist ``this is my body, this is my blood``, except this is the desecration of the body of an innocent, and the shedding of the blood of the most helpless.

Those priestesses, those merchants of death and murder are the core of the Democratic Party in modern America; OF COURSE the Senate will support the Messiah of Murder`s objective to make the world safe for Demonicy!

All the while, Americans are hiding their heads in the sand, not caring  that this cup of abomination is filling because they want ``hope`` and ``change``. I have even met a NUN who voted for Obama! Where is the hope for these innocents being slaughtered?

Even if one is agnostic or atheist, it should still be apparent that my argument is correct. Perhaps one doesn`t believe in a God, but one should be able to understand that others do, and that the whole abortion issue is a direct stab at the moral code and belief system of our Judeo-Christian heritage. As Russell Kirk points out in ``The Roots of Order`` the heritage of the Israelites was a blessing to civilization regardless of whether their religious beliefs were true, because they established a more just social order, one that allows dissent to flourish.

It should furthermore be pointed out that materialism itself should lead one to accept the inherent dignity of the fetus, as this ``lump of tissue`` forms amazing complexity quite quickly; three weeks after the beginning of gestation neurons begin to form. Halfway through gestation the fetal brain is producing on the order of 500 neurons PER MINUTE, and shortly before birth the baby has close to 200 Billion neurons. Arguing that sentiency is the sole criterion for what determines humanity is rather like arguing that a car with a flat tire is not an automobile because it cannot move; all that is needed is a minor change.

But this is ultimately about empowering the State, about molding human attitudes to see our fellow as mere mechanical processes, to be eliminated when inconvenient. If our fellow`s worth is derived from his usefullness, then he actually should be eliminated when no longer of benefit to us, because he becomes a drag. This ultimately means that the collective is the final arbiter of moral decisions, which means that Man in the form of the State has become God. That is what unrestricted abortion is all about.

It is a terrifying Brave New World-just as Terri Schiavo.

And the prophet of that mad god ruling over the twisted kingdom of Man appears to be Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1027 words, total size 6 kb.

Jack Kemp

You gotta love this!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/28/gop-congressman-intros-rangel-rule-eliminating-irs-late-fees/

GOP Congressman Intros 'Rangel Rule,' Eliminating IRS Late Fees
The Texas Republican introduced a bill Wednesday to eliminate all IRS penalties and interest for paying taxes past due.
Mosheh Oinounou

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

        
Americans may be able to rest a little easier this April if Congressman John Carter, R-Texas gets his way.
Rep. Carter introduced a bill Wednesday to eliminate all IRS penalties and interest for paying taxes past due.

The legislation calls for the creation of what he calls the, "Rangel Rule," -- drawing attention to the recent legal issues of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., enabling citizens who fail to pay taxes on time to do so later with no additional fees.

Rangel, who writes the country's tax policies, acknowledged last fall that he failed to pay thousands in real estate taxes for rental income he earned from a property in the Dominican Republic.

As of September 2008 the Harlem Democrat reportedly paid back more than $10,000 in taxes but that did not include any IRS penalties.

"Your citizens back home should have the same rights and benefits that come to you as a member of congress. You shouldn't be treated any differently under the law than your citizens back home," Carter said.

He added that citizens should receive the "same courtesy" that the IRS is allegedly granting Rangel and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who also recently acknowledged a failure to pay taxes.

Carter penned a letter to Rangel earlier this month requesting that he either pay the IRS fees or join him in co-sponsoring the legislation establishing the rule.

"As Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, I believe you set an example for all American taxpayers in your dealings with the IRS, and that you must do so in a way that enforces blind justice without regard to wealth or status," he wrote in the January 6th missive.

A spokesman for the New York Democrat would not comment on the state of the tax issue, which is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, but did respond to the Carter bill.

"This legislation is unnecessary. All taxpayers currently receive equal treatment under the law," Rangel spokesman Emile Milne said.

Carter, a former judge, said he is trying to focus in a what he believes is a double standard and add some levity to the debate.

"I am raising this issue not so much to just push the issue but to open the discussion. I don't think it's wrong for us to start having a free discussion in congress and with a certain amount of humor in it about how should people be treated in congress," he said.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

It has been an article of faith in the Global Warming debate that the rising levels of CO2 in the Earth`s atmosphere are a result of human industrial emissions. But is it?  Roy Spencer from UA-Huntsville has a good blogpost at his website explaining why much of the CO2 piling in the atmosphere may be natural.

Here is a brief excerpt:

<sub>``If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?</sub>

<sub>After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.</sub>

<sub>But since the natural fluxes in and out of the atmosphere are so huge, this means that a small natural imbalance between them can rival in magnitude the human CO2 input. And this clearly happens, as is obvious from the second plot shown above!</sub>

<sub>So, the question is, does long-term warming also cause a CO2 increase, like that we see on in the short term?``</sub>

<sub>[...]</sub>

<sub>``This means that most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around.</sub>

<sub>So, there is at least empirical evidence that increasing temperatures are causing some portion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2, in which case CO2 is not the only cause of the warming.``</sub>

End excerpt

I wonder if this alone tells the story; could not an increase in ultraviolet reaching the Earth-particularly at the poles-increase CO2 release? Certainly more ultraviolet means more plant growth which SHOULD mean dropping O2/CO2 ratios, but could it cause an increase as new growth decays? How about magnetic fluctuations? Could an active sun influence CO2 levels?

Eighty Six percent of CO2 being naturally generated is still an enormous amount.

A Ferdinand Englebeen has written a rebuttal to Dr. Spencer, and his criticism may be viewed at Spencer`s website.

While Englebeen makes some decent points, I fear he takes a rather myopic view, failing to understand the difference between a static and dynamic atmospheric balance.

At any rate, the argument over the C12/C13 balance in the atmosphere is one we have insufficient knowledge to speak about decisively, and to claim that the decrease in Carbon 13 somehow ``proves`` that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic strikes me as dubious.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 4 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Here is a great column at the American Spectator arguing that the Bush policy of a weak dollar has ravaged the economy, costing Republicans politically. The near-shutout of the Republicans at the polls is the result of economic woes triggered by Bush`s monetary policy draining the American economic pool. 

Here is an excerpt:

<sub>``The dollar actually rose during George H. W. Bush’s presidency, making him the outlier here. But the elder Bush got money right and taxes wrong--just the opposite of W. Mr. Bush’s 1990 tax increase created a recession. The U.S. experienced a significant credit crunch from 1990 to ’92 and for the first time since the late 1970s America became an exporter of capital. This led to a temporary trade surplus, but that didn’t help the economy at all, nor did it create jobs. Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. on a message that ``it’s the economy, stupid.``</sub>

<sub>Robert Rubin, Clinton’s economic adviser and then treasury secretary, was an unfailing advocate of a strong greenback. The Clinton administration’s strong-dollar policies, combined with reduced penalties on investment through a capital gains cut in 1997, were a boon to the economy, so much so that Clinton survived the Monica Lewinsky scandal and left office with 60 percent approval ratings.</sub>

<sub>President George W. Bush’s dollar policy never matched his rhetoric. Though it paid lip service to the notion that a strong greenback is in our national interest, tariffs on steel, shrimp, and lumber along with mercantilist stances against China and its yuan/dollar peg strongly signaled to the markets that the administration sought a weaker dollar. Under Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board rate cuts created negative real interest rates in 2005, thus subsidizing credit to banks.</sub>

<sub>The dollar has fallen 40 percent versus major currencies alongside a 240 percent rise in the price of gold since 2001. Bush’s imitation of Jimmy Carter when it comes to dollar policy has blunted not only some of the highly positive effects of his investment tax cuts; unsurprisingly, Bush’s approval ratings resemble those of Jimmy Carter.</sub>

<sub>So why is it that weak dollar policies presage bad presidential outcomes for the incumbent party? We believe that weak dollar policies make Americans poorer--just as tax hikes do. Inflation erodes the earnings of the electorate and has the real effect of a pay cut.</sub>

<sub>As the late Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Robert Bartley wrote in The Seven Fat Years, inflation always creates winners and losers, redistributing wealth. When currencies collapse, capital becomes scarce for entrepreneurs and businesses. Workers are thus bitten twice by inflation; first through the reduced value of their earnings, and second with investment slowdowns that make it impossible for employers to increase their wages commensurate with rising prices.``</sub>

End Excerpt

Yep-the Bush policy was designed to maintain liquidity, on the theory that economic growth is driven by easy credit. Unfortunately, easy credity means bad credit, and in that regard the Bush Administration was at least partly culpable in the Mortgage failure that has tanked the economy.  The President-and his advisers-were fearful of a credit crunch because it could have caused a recession, and that fear was expressed when with the enormous bailout. Bush`s people do not understand that recessions are a part of the business cycle, and postponing them leads to worse down the road.

Of course, the Democrats were pushing hard for bad lending practices to shore up their base, and now want to come in as heroes by bailing out the bad debt, creating bad debt for the U.S. taxpayer.

Oil and gas, too, skyrocketed because of the feeble nature of the dollar, and people were very angry at $4 a gallon gas, something that (unfairly) hurt the GOP in the election (although prices had dropped by that point, the appearance was that Bush didn`t care.) Gasoline is the lifeblood of the economy, and when it is sky high people suffer. Part of Jimmy Carter`s problem was high gasoline prices (which he encouraged to create parity with Europe) much like Obama today.

If America is to improve the economic situation we need a healthy dollar, we need sound fiscal policy, we need to tax cuts, deregulation, and MORE big business. Of course, we are moving in the wrong direction, and will likely have poverty stalking the land for some time to come.

THAT`S change you can believe in!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

Dana Mathewson:

This from the website Public Secrets
http://tinyurl.com/cwupxl

The return of the spoils system
Back in the 19th century, when one party took power they would toss out government employees appointed by the other party in order to give those jobs to their own followers. They were rewards for loyalty. That was called the spoils system, and it came to be widely (and rightly) regarded as corrupt. The Pendleton Act of 1883 put an end to this.

Or so we thought.

Rather than fire officeholders to reward their supporters, however, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are packaging cash bonuses for them in the so-called stimulus bill. One of the biggest beneficiaries is noted Obama ally and voter-fraud specialist community-organizer group ACORN:

ACORN Could Get Billions from Democrats' Trillion Dollar Spending Plan

The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill, approved on January 21 by the Appropriations Committee and headed to the House floor next week for a vote, could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  ACORN has been accused of perpetrating voter registration fraud numerous times in the last several elections; is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that caused a financial meltdown that has cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars since last fall. 

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and other Republicans are asking a simple question: what does this have to do with job creation?  Are Congressional Democrats really going to borrow money from our children and grandchildren to give handouts to ACORN in the name of economic ``stimulus?``

From this spending bill alone, ACORN could reap $4.19 billion dollars.  That's $4,190,000,000 for a group that helped create the financial crisis we face to day and regularly engaged in voter-registration fraud on behalf of left-wing candidates. It's natural the president should want to help his former clients.

That's the Chicago Way.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Dana Mathewson

I think this is the best article I have ever encountered, as far as explaining the long-term mess that comprises the Middle East and the Muslim world in general.

http://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/drinking-from-the-wells-of-dysfunction-and-failure/

(Hint to liberals: Surprise!  The cause isn't Israel, nor the U.S.'s support for Israel)

Yes, it's a long one, but you can't explain a complex situation in two paragraphs.  And I think I need to spend more time checking this blog!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

And believe me, it ain't pretty!

Here's an in-depth analysis.  If you aren't sick now, you will be when you finish reading it.

http://tinyurl.com/ccr2s7

Here`s an excerpt:

``Destruction Through Universal Health Care
 
vote nowBuzz up!For anyone who missed it yesterday, and I can't see why you wouldn't miss it, considering it's been relatively buried so far underneath the Blago circus and the Stimulus, Conyers & Co. introduced their Universal Healthcare Bill.

The text of the bill can be found here.

Eliminating Private Health Insurance

The gist of the whole thing is to eliminate the private insurance for healthcare industry altogether. For-profit insurers are given the option to convert to not-for-profit organizations if they wish. All things considered I can't imagine why they'd want to.

The bill goes on to make it illegal to offer private health insurance for anything not considered to be "medically necessary" under the terms of the bill. Essentially the industry will be limited to providing insurance for cosmetic surgeries and laser vision correction. The bill covers everything else.

The bill recognizes that this will eliminate a tremendous number of jobs, and therefore gives the people working those jobs 2 years of unemployment benefits and first crack at the newly minted government positions filling the void.

Also created in the bill is a centralized electronic database for medical records. Considering the creation of this system, one wonders how many fewer jobs there will be for admin/clerical positions due to the lessened amount of paperwork. This will undoubtedly not be a one-to-one replacement of private workers with government workers.``

Read the whole thing at http://organizedexploitation.blogspot.com/2009/01/destruction-through-universal-health.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The late William F. Buckley`s brother Reid has an essay at the American Conservative bemoaning the vacuous nature of the modern Conservative movement.  His argument is that Conservativism has become a stale exercise in chewing ABC gum, that it has become filled with platitudes and slogans at the expense of real philosophical and intellectual moorings, and that the Devil`s pact with the Republican Party has doomed our movement to the status of yes-men. He makes some good points.

But some I cannot agree with at all. For example:

<sub>``Tell me quickly: what is new in conservative political thinking since 1955? Can you come up with a single tenet that rises fresh to the mind in treating vicissitudes that were undreamed of back when my brother founded National Review, the worldwide torrent of the Internet, bursting through ethnic, national, and ideological barriers, maybe reducing all philosophies of government to chauvinism; or the impact of economic globalization, which snatches some Third World peoples from penury but as suddenly dumps them back into it; or the acceptance of infanticide and euthanasia by a majority of the American people, upon whom, according to populist conservative creed, descending from Ronald Reagan, intoned from all platforms, we conservatives exhort ourselves to depend; or the religious and imperial irredentist menace of Islamic terrorism, which threatens a 100-year war of civilizations? What have conservatives to hurl at these urgent historic challenges other than the same bromides? For 40 years, smug, snide right-wingers have made merry mocking Greenpeace fanatics and ecological doomsayers without learning a blessed thing about the precariousness of the ecology and the effect of human action (not to speak of avarice) on it, as when we promiscuously exfoliate the rain forests or condemn yet one more green acre on the southeastern shore of New Jersey to the desolation of heedless urban development. We conservatives are so self-satisfied that we have incapacitated ourselves from peering beneath the antics of idiots and the wild exaggerations of scruffy environmentalist kooks to the gathering of real dangers that their hysterical rhetoric obscures. The climate is most probably changing, and the human impact on it should be studied.``
End excerpt</sub>

Now, the very fact that we are CONSERVATIVE means that we do not chase after trendy new philosophies. As William Buckley put it, the purpose of Conservatives is to stand athwart history and yell ``stop``, which means that we shouldn`t expect the Conservative movement to be producing new and radical concepts; ours is a belief in the Permanent Things, in the concept of eternal truths. Novelty is the province of the transient, and Mr. Buckley surely cannot suggest that we should play in that league. Granted, there is plenty of room for new ideas in the application of those basic Permanent Things, but the real trick is to teach, not to pioneer, as the basic principles of God and Man remain the same; we just need to find ways to explain them to new generations.

Ronald Reagan did that, based on the work of Buckley, Hayek, Kirk, and others. Limbaugh continues in that vein, albeit with an emphasis on the common folks.  Therein lies the rub; the elites disdain the ``coarsening`` of Conservatism, the entry of the rubes into the intellectual discussion that they had formerly dominated. Conservatism fissured, in no small part because of this very thing; the old guard Paleocons did not welcome the newcomers, the Neos whom they should have been acting as guides in the new world of Conservative exploration. There are many Paleos who have simply removed themselves from the playing field rather than sully their purity of essence. Consider the many aristocratic Paleos who hold a visceral dislike for Sarah Palin, for example. Now, we need intelligent, well-spoken people in the movement, but a movement without the appendages to manipulate the political reality is like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; no arms or legs, and Arthur can simply walk around him. For decades Conservatism was a trunk with no appendages. There was an active brain, but no way of implementing what that brain cooked up. Many paleocons today want a return to that era, because it made them more important; they don`t like having been shunted aside for these hillbilly neocons.

But life doesn`t work that way, and purity will carry one only so far. Unfortunately, the Conservative movement swung the other way (or, I should say, the political wing) and began making common cause with those who were actively working against it. George W. Bush was an example; Conservatives jumped on the Bush wagon not because he offered a superior position but because he could win. Granted, John McCain was the alternative, but Bush gave us McCain in the end, and much good he did us. Once we got behind Bush we were stuck with his vision of reaching out to the enemy, and of co-opting the liberals on spending and general policy. A thing must be what it is, and it usually serves quite poorly when employed as something else.  Yes, you can use a milk crate to serve as a chair, but who among us wouldn`t buy a nice leather armchair rather than prop ourselves on milk crates? The Republicans became milk crates, serving the wrong purposes and paying at the ballot box. Voters would be fools to continue to sit on milk crates when they can have the leather armchair courtesy of Uncle Sam and the Democratic (sic) Party. Voters may be ignorant, but they are rarely fools.

Buckley seems to understand this, but he is calling for a renewal of the intellectual snobbery that held Conservatism in minority status. No, a proper balance must be found, something that holds the Neocons, invites the uncommitted, and yet maintains the principles of our movement. What is needed is a better way of explaining what we are about and why it is in the public interest to accept our vision.

This is very difficult, given the total blackout of Conservative viewpoints in the mainstream media. While the internet provides the opportunity for young people to learn these things, the internet is an active media, requiring that these kids actually go there and READ. They are absorbing Liberalism passively through television, music, movies, their schooling, etc. It is the broad and easy path, and so these young people are buying into the attitudes and beliefs-not necessarily the arguments-of the Left.  There is where our challenge lies.

Mr. Buckley continues:

<sub>``Are we not perhaps talking too much to ourselves? Are we not writing too much for the applause of our fellows? Is any of us-with few exceptions-saying anything that we have not heard before, and are we not, all of us, submitting intellectually to conservative political correctness and the inertia of the modern super state?``
End excerpt</sub>

Certainly true, and this submission comes because of a sense of futility.  Nobody wants to be disliked, yet being a Conservative means being hated by the dominant Liberal culture. That has been the problem with the Conservative movement for a long time; we haven`t taken any real steps to BECOME the dominant culture, because we have spent our entire lives as opposition. Whenever a mainstream media outlet goes on sale Conservatives stand idle while Liberals snatch it up. Conservatives have made some attempts to establish alternative institutions-such as Ave Maria University-but then have backed down when criticized, hiring Liberal professors and acquiescing to demands that they extend a more open ``collegial`` policy, thus ending in becoming just one more Liberally dominated institution.

Fear is the ultimate motivation for Conservative inaction-fear of public rebuke. The Conservatives who went to Washington became liberal over the years because they feared social ostricism. Nobody wants to be a pariah.  If Conservatives are to be strong, they must stand together and encourage one another. Unfortunately, a more ``philosophical` approach will do nothing of the sort.

But leadership is how we move the masses, and the Conservatives have had a dearth of leadership.  There is much discussion in Conservative circles about the need to move to ``the center`` because America is a centrist nation. Well, why is that? America is centrist because the Left has been pushing them that way, and our side has stopped explaining and leading. Why did John McCain lose in the last election? Because he did not want to lead, but preferred to follow the initiative of his Liberal opponent. America is only centrist because nobody is showing them why they should be Right.

More from Mr. Buckley:

<sub>``So with the conservative movement. We must ask ourselves: is there in the thousands upon thousands of pages of conservative scholarship being ground out every year sufficient original critical thinking about conservative premises, conservative social and political principles?</sub>

<sub>I am not asking this question rhetorically. I don’t know the answer. What is certain is that I do not find the post-Reagan/Buckley revelatory iconoclastic vision I seek in the pages of any conservative journal today, though I glimpse snatches of it in a Daniel Henninger or a Charles Krauthammer, and I am deeply respectful of such as Michael Novak and Roger Scruton. Charles Murray possesses a rare original mind, but we cannot claim him as our own-would that we could. Has there been published in conservative literature a single scholarly tome as provocative as Brent Bozell’s essay in National Review over 40 years ago on the tension between virtue and liberty, an ideological dilemma that has never been bridged, but only, under the Soviet threat during the Cold War, glossed in the interest of unity? (Bozell’s famous essay was, in essence, a carefully reasoned restatement of Plato’s dictum that money does not come from virtue, but from virtue comes money and every other good of man, including personal freedom. The sole justification for freedom, in Bozell’s view, is that freedom permits human beings to act virtuously in the sight of God, to do God’s will, not theirs. In those early days of the renaissance of the conservative movement, when all allies were precious-and a precious few-this reasoning put him at odds with libertarian conservatives and was thus, for its divisiveness, respectfully read though not pursued. But the argument has been vindicated by the solipsistic permissiveness of the sexual revolution of the New Left under the aegis of libertarianism.)``</sub>

Yes, scholarship is admirable, but once again we are rechewing ABC gum; the scholarship has already been done by others, and much of what these scholarly bloviations accomplish is to update the language. Yes, there are new things that must be addressed, but the principles are the same-or should be. I remember a couple of years ago, when America was riding the tech bubble, that much was said about the economic boom being the end of the business cycle and the beginning of eternal prosperity. This was echoing the ``End of History`` theme of Francis Fukuyama. But history does not end, nor does the business cycle, and that provided us with a teaching moment, one we squandered. The Clinton DOJ lawsuit against Microsoft burst that bubble, leading many investors into the Real Estate market which then bubbled and has now burst. Had we explained that there really is nothing new under the Sun, we would have been able to weather this collapse without the panic that has given us TARP, but we failed to act then, and are paying now. Conservatism doesn`t need to be reinvented so much as refreshed. We have stopped refreshing it.

And I agree with Buckley that the rather unsteady alliance between Conservative and Libertarian has cost Conservatives in some ways, most notably the social aspects, which are, after all, the bedrock of Conservtism and of society in general. But, like Catholic and Protestant, we need each-other whether we agree or not; the fight between the branches of Christianity has given us the resurrection of Islam and the rise of Secular Humanism, and today we have to bond with each other or we will surely be held in bondage.

Certainly the Liberal movement has disparate groups with different motivations and different goals, yet they have overcome such differences.

Again, I am not suggesting a watered-down Conservatism, but that we not completely rebuff those who would stand with us. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the old Arab proverb goes-but we must take caution lest our friends prove to be Trojan Horses.

Again from Mr. Buckley:

<sub>``I wonder-I am nagged by the doubt-has the disheartening failure of the conservative movement on the domestic front, dating from the second Reagan administration, been anywhere sufficiently acknowledged or analyzed by our great conservative institutions of scholarly learning? Has sodomy become the groovy kinkiness in our society? Is prayer ever to be restored to our schools? Are the unborn in America never to be safeguarded? And our infirm or derelict elderly, are they now to be at the mercy of the avariciousness of their heirs or the parsimony of the state? Will ever an amendment to the Constitution win through defining the Republic now and forever as Christian bred and born and deliberately affirmed at the founding, putting the quietus to secularists, who seek to desacralize society as well as life?``
End Excerpt</sub>

Not if we roll ourselves in our intellectual piety and ignore the practical matters of power politics-something that requires allies and leadership. Had the Paleocons been more engaged, had they taken a more active roll in shaping the political landscape then the drift into accomodationism in the Republican Party would not have happened-and the failures they bemoan would have been triumphs. Our very success was our failure, with the intellectual elites essentially proclaiming ``mission accomplished`` and folding up shop. We declared the Cold War ended when the Soviet Union collapsed, ignoring the Bolsheviks in the Russian government and the Red Chinese. We proclaimed victory when George W. Bush was elected President with a Republican Congress, and Karl Rove was hatching out his plan to ``finish off`` the Democrat Party. Well...
That finishing off strategy finished off the Republicans by severing the ties inside of the Party between the different factions. Bush spent huge sums of money, alienating fiscal conservatives. He pushed ``comprehensive immigration reform`` pleasing the Libertarians but alienating the majority of Conservatives. He reached across the aisle to Democrats to show America how bipartisan he was, and he alienated the entire party.  Much like Cornwallis at Yorktown, Bush and Rove were caught in their own trap, a disaster of their own making.

By trying to please everyone Bush pleased no-one, and accomplished little of lasting value. Had he acted as a leader with principle, rather than as a political healer, he would have made gains on these fronts. His failure illustrated the fragility of Conservatism, and I cannot help but believe that George W. Bush was not a man like his father; patrician, moderate, and that he may have WANTED the power of the Conservatives broken; it certainly has been the goal of all of the Old Guard, of whom George H.W. Bush was a proud member.

Buckley continues:

<sub>``Judging from the political deportment of the Republican Congresses and the White House in domestic matters since that time, has anyone had the audacity, courage, and honesty to tell the bald truth—which is that the Republican Party has failed the cause to which my brother Bill and so many other brilliant souls Frank Meyer, Jim Burnham, John Chamberlain, to mention just a few, gave unstintingly of their lives? Is any establishment conservative organ today declaring unequivocally that conservatives who have any respect at all for the political philosophy they profess must forswear the Republican Party and on many major issues break ranks with government-trusting (and agnostic) neocons? Or is that fresh young mind this minute deciding that whatever the right wing says about anything is tired polemics from which candor and the imagination have long since leaked out?’``</sub>

I couldn`t agree more!

So, what is the upshot of my argument here? I want more Conservatism, and I want it proclaimed far more boldly and proudly. Christianity grew because Jesus proclaimed boldly what the intellectuals of the day spoke of with timidity, and His disciples did likewise. Today, the religions that are growing are the ones that speak with conviction and strength-be they Islam or Evangelical Protestantism. The timid and the ``inclusive`` churches are the ones with empty pews. If Conservatism wants to become the dominant philosophy, we have to speak with temerity, with passion and verve and sound logic. We have to LEAD and not follow. We have all the tools to accomplish this, except for the means to adequately disseminate our message. That can change if we can light the fire.

But we must avoid being Inquisitors, too; in the Gospel Jesus` disciples rebuked some guys casting out demons in Jesus` name because they weren`t members of ``their`` party, and Jesus rebuked THEM because these ``others`` were acting for the greater good in His name. Jesus sought unity where such unity moved the ball forward. He opposed where compromise was sought for it`s own sake. He was the very definition of a leader!

Our problem has been a willingness to compromise with moderation, not with courage.

In short, we must stand together but not compromise. Courage, strength, and a big tent provided the tent is filled with those of common purpose. I think it is equally wrong to bemoan the loss of Conservative intellectual tradition as it is play the political game without a proper underpinning; both have their role. Much like the human brain, we have two hemispheres, both of which are needed by an adult to function fully. We should embrace the dichotomy, not reject it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2968 words, total size 19 kb.

Environmentalist and co-founder of Greenpeace takes on the green notions of Obama:

The climate change safari park

Bjorn Lomborg,

Barack Obama in his inaugural speech promised to "roll back the spectre
of a warming planet." In this context, it is worth contemplating a
passage from his book Dreams from My Father. It reveals a lot about the
way we view the world's problems.

Obama is in Kenya and wants to go on a safari. His Kenyan sister Auma
chides him for behaving like a neo-colonialist. "Why should all that
land be set aside for tourists when it could be used for farming? These
wazungu care more about one dead elephant than they do for a hundred
black children." Although he ends up going on safari, Obama has no
answer to her question. That anecdote has parallels with the current
preoccupation with global warming. Many people - including America's new
President - believe that global warming is the pre-eminent issue of our
time, and that cutting CO2 emissions is one of the most virtuous things
we can do.

To stretch the metaphor a little, this seems like building ever-larger
safari parks instead of creating more farms to feed the hungry.

Make no mistake: global warming is real, and it is caused by manmade CO2
emissions. The problem is that even global, draconian, and hugely costly
CO2 reductions will have virtually no impact on the temperature by
mid-century. Instead of ineffective and costly cuts, we should focus
much more of our good climate intentions on dramatic increases in R&D
for zero-carbon energy, which would fix the climate towards mid-century
at low cost. But, more importantly for most of the planet's citizens,
global warming simply exacerbates existing problems.

Consider malaria. Models shows global warming will increase the
incidence of malaria by about 3% by the end of the century, because
mosquitoes are more likely to survive when the world gets hotter. But
malaria is much more strongly related to health infrastructure and
general wealth than it is to temperature. Rich people rarely contract
malaria or die from it; poor people do.

Strong carbon cuts could avert about 0.2% of the malaria incidence in a
hundred years. The other option is simply to prioritise eradication of
malaria today. It would be relatively cheap and simple, involving
expanded distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets, more preventive
treatment for pregnant women, increased use of the maligned pesticide
DDT, and support for poor nations that cannot afford the best new
therapies.

Tackling nearly 100% of today's malaria problem would cost just
one-sixtieth of the price of the Kyoto Protocol. Put another way, for
each person saved from malaria by cutting CO2 emissions, direct malaria
policies could have saved 36,000. Of course, carbon cuts are not
designed only to tackle malaria. But, for every problem that global
warming will exacerbate - hurricanes, hunger, flooding - we could
achieve tremendously more through cheaper, direct policies today.

For example, adequately maintained levees and better evacuation
services, not lower carbon emissions, would have minimised the damage
inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. During the 2004 hurricane
season, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, both occupying the same
island, provided a powerful lesson. In the Dominican Republic, which has
invested in hurricane shelters and emergency evacuation networks, the
death toll was fewer than ten. In Haiti, which lacks such policies,
2,000 died. Haitians were a hundred times more likely to die in an
equivalent storm than Dominicans.

Obama's election has raised hopes for a massive commitment to carbon
cuts and vast spending on renewable energy to save the world -
especially developing nations. As Obama's Kenyan sister might attest,
this could be an expensive indulgence. Some believe Obama should follow
the lead of the European Union, which has committed itself to the goal
of cutting carbon emissions by 20% below 1990 levels within 12 years by
using renewable energy. This alone will probably cost more than 1% of
GDP.

Even if the entire world followed suit, the net effect would be to
reduce global temperatures by one-twentieth of one degree Fahrenheit by
the end of the century. The cost could be a staggering $10 trillion.

Most economic models show that the total damage imposed by global
warming by the end of the century will be about 3% of GDP. This is not
trivial, but nor is it the end of the world. By the end of the century,
the United Nations expects the average person to be 1,400% richer than
today.

An African safari trip once confronted America's new president with a
question he could not answer: why the rich world prized elephants over
African children. Today's version of that question is: why will richer
nations spend obscene amounts of money on climate change, achieving next
to nothing in 100 years, when we could do so much good for mankind today
for much less money? The world will be watching to hear Obama's answer.

(The author, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is the
organiser of the Copenhagen Consensus.)

Thanks to CCNet

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:59 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 5 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I`ve argued that Barack Obama is a monstrous man, on the par with serial killers Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. not because of any personal malice or sick perversion but because of a cold, rigid vision of ideology. Obama believes in abortion, believes in the efficacy of abortion and the need to keep it ``safe and legal`` at all cost. The great monsters of human history have not been the Bundys and Dahmers, but the Hitlers, the Stalins, the men who are prepared to sacrifice innocent human life for the sake of their vision of a better world.
After all, Hitler did not seek to wipe out Jews and other ``undesirables`` out of any great personal malice per se, but because he believed in the importance of maintaining a pure racial stock. He had fallen for the arguments made by the Eugenics movement, that there was ``good stock and bad stock`` and, much like a rancher looking to produce a superior breed of cattle, he sought to employ traditional Mendelian genetics to the human race, weeding out the ``poor stock`` while cross fertilizing the ``good``.  That he was the one to determine the fit and unfit-rather than God-is what made him such a monster. His heart was too small; he did not care about the suffering he was causing. He cared about a vision he had, of a greater Germany of pure ``Aryan`` stock. His vision and lack of kindness is what made him a monster.

Ditto Stalin, who murdered at the drop of a hat to advance his Messianic vision of Communism. The Kulaks in the Ukraine proved to be an embarassment to his vision of the New Man, so he took their food, leaving them to starve by the millions. This was an object lesson to others who refused to cooperate; classic reward/punish psychological approach.

Arthur Koestler`s ``Darkness at Noon`` illustrates the cold-bloodedness of International Communism well; the hero (Rubashov) is executed for treason to the Soviet state, despite having been an old guard hero. His problem was that he developed a conscience, and felt that the coldly analytical approach taken by Stalin and the others was too rigid. The creation of the New Man meant Darwinian-style selection albeit artificial rather than natural, and this meant making those who did not fit into the mold essentially die out. The end justified the means, and Rubashov`s developing conscience was problematic for the movement. Number One was at the top because his logic was strongest, so the argument went. Those below had to toe the line or face their end.

We see this throughout history; tyrants and villains do not believe they are tyrants and villains, but that they serve a greater good. Rare is the despot who admits that he is doing it for his own aggrandizement; generally there is some overriding vision that excites and compels others, and that vision then metastasizes, leading to murder and mayhem to feed this malevalent beast. Think of the French Revolution, the Cult of Reason, Robespierre, etc.  Even Ghenghis Khan, that most ruthless and brutal of warriors (Khan would annihilate whole cities to avoid having an enemy at his back) believed he was conquering for the sake of world peace.

Which brings us to the culture of death that Barack Obama embraces; he was the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, rejecting the most basic of restrictions (such as the ban on partial birth abortion, the grisly proceedure whereby a child is born except for the head and the ``doctor`` james a forceps into the base of the skull to kill the child, and Obama opposed the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which banned the practice of delivering children after botched abortions then tossing them on a table to die of exposure.) Why does Obama oppose any and all restrictions? Because he believes abortion is a fundamental right, and he fears a slippery slope to restrict it. In his zealotry to protect a woman`s ``right to choose`` he is prepared to take a child`s right to life, the one thing that most assuredly can be inferred in the Constitution as it appeared in the Declaration of Independence. His rigidity places him on a par with the aforementioned tyrants of history; he will kill in huge numbers innocents to advance his leftist ``hope and change`` vision for America. 

And not just for America; Obama has already rescinded the Bush Administration ban on American taxpayers funding abortions overseas.

Now, why should Americans pay to abort foreigners babies? Modern Liberalism has had a strong stream of this, going back through Paul Ehrlich`s ``The Population Bomb`` and the Club of Rome study which claimed the Earth`s resources were about exhausted, and in fact goes back to Thomas Malthus (it was Malthus who inspired Charles Darwin`s theory, I might add, and it was Darwin`s theory that inspired the Nazi Holocaust via the ``science``  of Eugenics.)  To Obama, living in an intellectual world where overpopulation is the cause of poverty, which is the cause of all of the rest of the world`s maladies-including terrorism and war, this is a no-brainer; abortion frees the impoverished in the Third World by giving them fewer mouths to feed, and thus they can advance in a material sense and can help reduce global carbon emissions. See!  It all makes perfect sense!

But it is little more than what Hitler sought to do, save it is not intended to wipe out a race of people. No, but it is intended to fundamentally change the culture of other nations, intended to bring the citizenry into the fold of Western thought via the sacramental employment of abortion. Many ancient religions had blood sacrifices to their gods, and the religion of liberalism is no different; a woman who has had an abortion is one of them, and cannot be free of that mark on their souls. Obama may not be conscious of this fact, but below the eloquent speechification lies the ancient parts, and there he is aware of this fact.

In any case, Obama will end millions of lives for ``the greater good`` as he defines it. Bundy and Dahmer were amateurs next to this guy.

Below is an article from Lifenews about the Messiah`s funding of murder abroad:

``Barack Obama Forces Taxpayers to Fund Foreign Abortions

Washington, DC -- Barack Obama promised during the presidential
campaign that he wanted to reduce abortions and said as much in a
statement yesterday in association with the anniversary of Roe.
Today, however, he betrayed that promise by forcing taxpayers to
fund groups promoting and performing abortions overseas.

In an executive order, the president officially scrapped the
Mexico City Policy that protected taxpayers from involvement in
overseas abortions for eight years. Now, Obama will send hundreds
of millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote
abortions on a worldwide scale.

Obama was slated to overturn on Thursday the protections
President Bush put back in place following the Clinton
administration, but Obama decided to wait.

He hoped his decision today to force taxpayers to fund foreign
abortions will somehow make him seem less radical because he
decided to wait until after the pro-life movement mourned the
thirty-sixth anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

More at http://www.LifeNews.com/nat4781.html``

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1220 words, total size 8 kb.