Viral Video: Flipper’s Greatest Flops Starring Mitt Romney & Friends

(h/t: Bumr50)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by EnHaleCentral on Jan 30, 2012

Says Breitbart:

This new musical parody explores the many position “flip-flops” of Mitt Romney and his supporters.

WARNING: Good luck getting the darn song out of your head the rest of the day!

Mitt Romney is completely amoral and will say and do anything to get and keep money and power. It is just as important to defeat Mitt Romney as it is to defeat Barack Hussein Obama. In all too many respects, they are one and the same.

This comment by CzechRebel deserves to stand on its own:

I can remember Ron Paul’s stance against the Kosovo War very well. He seemed like the only voice of reason in the Congress at the time. However, do we see Ron Paul reaching out to the Serbian community today? During the debates or media interviews, does he ever bring up the fact that we were on the wrong side of the Kosovo War?

Perhaps future historians will look back at the United States and wonder what happened to a group of peoples, united under one government, who were the first to put a man on the moon, and wonder: How did such a great empire fall?

Perhaps some future historian will look back at the spring of 1999 and declare it to be the time when America lost its soul. Yes, lost its soul so much so, that even the one voice of reason during the Kosovo War refused some thirteen years later to acknowledge that it was not that the war was so wrong, but that we had actually fought on the wrong side.

Challenge to Ron Paul: Support the Serbs again and renounce radical Islam.

That is the whole point: we fought on the wrong side in the Balkans. Until we acknowledge the situation and make our best effort to undo the damage we did, the US and Europe will continue to suffer “blowback” from this tragic political and moral error.

We on 1389 Blog staunchly support both the Serbian people and Israel. Ron Paul and his supporters, in true doctrinaire fashion, blame our current global predicament not on our worldwide appeasement of our Muslim enemies, but on our alliance with Israel and on the supposed manipulation of the “Jewish lobby” in the US. They insist that all we have to do is to throw Israel and the Jews under the bus, and the rest of the world will leave us in peace.

While we ourselves are not Randians (indeed, blog admins 1389 and CzechRebel are both Orthodox Christians), we find it ironic that Ron Paul named his son Rand after Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand on libertarianism and Israel:

Ayn Rand, who unintentionally provided the impetus for the movement, disdained libertarians, calling them “right-wing hippies.’ She was unequivocal in her support for Israel, which she explained this way in a 1974 appearance: “When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

We do agree with Ron Paul on one issue: the Senate must explicitly declare war before the US engages in military action. Nothing justifies our current “War Powers Act”; nothing in the US Constitution empowers the Senate to delegate its authority to declare war. Even when Congress is not in session, present-day communications and transportation are so rapid that it would take little time to gather a quorum in the Senate to declare war, even in an emergency situation.

It is not the job of the President or of the State Department to decide when we go to war. It is the duty of the Senate to meet and declare war, without waiting for the President, whenever a foreign enemy declares war on us (via a fatwa or other proclamation) or perpetrates an act of war on us. Then it becomes the President’s duty, as Commander in Chief, to wage war in accordance with the Senate’s declaration. Ever since the Iranian hostage crisis, our Senate has allowed foreign Muslim enemies to walk all over us. That is a disgraceful abdication of responsibility.

Also see:

• Trevor Loudon: Blinded by the Left: How Marxists Wrote Ron Paul’s Defense Cuts Plan
• Don Feder: To Get Ron Paul’s Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism
• Lemuel Calhoon: Ron Paul is an @$& Clown

Jay Sekulow on Fox News discussing Presidential Primary in Virginia

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by OfficialACLJ on Jan 2, 2012

Several candidates failed to meet Virginia’s legal requirements to be on the ballot in the state’s Presidential primary. Is such a high bar to be placed on the ballot for president constitutional?

“Free” Elections?

Oh, I can still remember those public school teachers telling us about “Communist elections.” They used to tell us that, in Communist countries, “You can vote for Joe or you can vote for Stalin.” We were supposed to quiver and think of that Joe Stalin fellow, the Mr. Wonderful who helped us win World War II and who later became Mr. Evil, our first enemy in the Cold War. But they always told us how “free” our elections were. They would tell us how we could “vote for anyone we want.”

Well, that was not a complete lie, in that some voters like to write in ‘Mickey Mouse’, just to push it to its illogical extreme. However, it is a significant enough lie. The United States has pretty much been locked into a two-party system since the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment. I.e., since there is no “second prize” in our national elections, presidential and vice-presidential candidates run on the same ticket, with absolutely no fear that the third most popular viewpoint can capture the second prize. Hence, the best a candidate who is not running as a Democrat or Republican can hope for is to play the role of a spoiler.

So, the Democratic and Republican parties act as great gatekeepers in the same way the Communist Party did back in the days of the USSR. Of course, in the USSR, everyone knew they had only one party and little choice. In the USA, we have the feeling we have some choice–and that is often the case.

What choices do voters actually have?

That said, the elements of dictatorship remain part of the picture on election day. For example, I’d like to ask our Democrat readers: Who will be challenging Obama for the nomination this time? Hmmm? No one? Well, I guess y’all are so happy with this dude that nobody would think of such a thing. OK, back in 2004, who was challenging George W. Bush for the nomination? Doesn’t anyone ever challenge a sitting president in his own party? Well, at least Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter. That was just back in . . . 1976. Like over a third of a century ago!

So, unless a President is retiring, we have a primary election choice in only one party–that is only half of the field, as it is pretty rare to see a partisan challenge of a sitting President. Now let’s look at what choices are available to voters in the party that is currently out of power.

Few would want to grant ballot access to anybody and everybody who signs a few papers and offers to be President. Elections are expensive to run, and ballots with hundreds of names on them would be too unwieldy and time-consuming for each voter and for the election officials. Ballot access should require some indication of a significant amount of support for the candidate. And, generally speaking, each State’s government and that State’s political party should be allowed to create REASONABLE means to determine whether a candidate has a significant enough following to allow the party faithful of its state to consider that individual for their support.

Virginia was the first colony. It was first in freedom. It produced the first President and lead the US in many ways. Leaving the US in 1861, it was first in freedom in the Confederacy, until captured by the Yankee dictatorship. General Robert E. Lee’s home became the great Yankee cemetery. Controlling and Yankeefying Virginians has been the mission of the American dictatorship ever since.

Et tu, Sekulow?

Jay Sekulow is supposed to be one of the good guys. He is a lawyer who fights abortion and homosexual extremism; he defends the rights of Christians and Jews, and seems the type of guy who makes us feel a little guilty when we tell lawyer jokes. So, when the ONLY two candidates who happen to make the GOP ballot in the Commonwealth of Virginia are Mr. Establishment, RINO (Republican In Name Only) from the quintessential all-Democrat-all-the-time-please-disregard-all-party-labels State, and an open and notorious Libertarian, you would think it might raise a red flag in Sekulow’s mind.

Of course, we have had Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, and most recently, Santorum garnering major support in the polls. It is hard to say that any of them can be left off the ballot by any REASONABLE method. Of course, the fact that no other State has managed to winnow the field down to two candidates this year also argues pretty loudly that Virginia’s system is not very REASONABLE. In fact, it would probably be more reasonable for Virginia’s Republican leaders to decide who will be the State’s uncommitted delegates in some “smoke-filled room” and send them to the Convention. Heck, if I were a Virginia Republican voter, I would see the “smoke-filled room” as a much fairer system. If I don’t like what the leaders of my local party did, I could take it up with them, in person and/or at the next local election.

But Mr. Sekulow is out there screaming that rules are rules! He says that most years, they have plenty of candidates on the ballot in Virginia. (Irrelevant, because the ballot access law was recently changed.) He says that you Republicans can choose between a Democrat in Republican clothing and a Libertarian who has been nice enough to serve as a “Republican Congressman” for many years.

If the Sekulow the-law-is-the-law argument were absolute, we would have to apologize to the Nazis tried at Nuremberg. Every one of us who has gone to law school knows that we look not ONLY to the law as written, but the interest that the law was written to protect. Every Christian knows there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Jay, if you are shilling for Mitt Romney because you feel he is “the most electable”, I can respect that, though I think you are deeply mistaken. If you are shilling for Ron Paul because you believe that the good he does by promoting libertarianism and limited government outweighs the harm that will be done by the libertines who are promoting him, I would agree that you have a point.

Of course, if you are getting paid for this, all lawyers can understand that. We all heard it during our first year in law school: “If someone is paying you X dollars per hour, you could make an argument for . . . .” So, if a wealthy client is paying you for this, Godspeed, Jay!

However, please spare us your the-law-is-the-law mechanical reaction to this injustice. The Republican voters of Virginia should have an actual Republican on the ballot. In the 2012 Primary, Republican voters in Virginia will be completely disenfranchised and Jay Sekulow is amongst the disenfranchisors.

When even San Francisco has had enough of Occupy, we should be able to stick a fork in it and call it done:

Police clear Occupy encampment in San Francisco

More than 100 police officers gave protesters at the Occupy encampment in San Francisco five minutes to gather belongings before authorities took down about 100 tents and arrested 70 people as the camp was dismantled in an overnight raid.

A few officers remained at daybreak Wednesday as trash crews raked up paper and plastic bottles, removed chairs and other belongings that accumulated at the camp over the past two months and pressure-washed the sidewalks.

Dozens of police cars, fire engines and ambulances surrounded the campsite at Justin Herman Plaza and blocked off the area during the raid, which began shortly after 1 a.m.

Police did not immediately release how many people were in the plaza at the time, but campers put the estimate at 150.

“Most of the protesters went peacefully,” but one officer received minor injuries when two people threw a chair that cracked his face shield, said officer Albie Esparza. They were arrested on suspicion of felony assault. Dozens of others were arrested for illegal lodging in the plaza and failure to disperse. In all, 70 people were taken into custody.

Richard Kriedler with Occupy S.F. said some protesters were also injured, but he didn’t have the details…

More here.

The Commies are still trying to turn the situation around:

Communists Work on a New, Improved, Pro-Obama ‘Occupy’ Movement

While withering under the combined effects of cold weather, public disgust,  and the tiniest hint of  a backbone by some public authorities, the Occupy Wall Street Movement will not be allowed to die.

That is,  if one of the movement’s strongest pillars, the Communist Party USA, has its way.

What will change though, if the Communist succeed in dominating the movement they have so thoroughly infiltrated, will be a new, more disciplined, less anarchic – even electorally focused “Occupy” movement.

In a  report to the National Committee of the Communist Party USA, which met in New York City, Nov. 12-13, 2011, Party National chairman Sam Webb,  laid out his analysis of  the current political climate, and the role of the “Occupy” movement and the Communist Party in moving the “progressive” movement forward…

If there is a divergence between the occupiers and labor’s leadership, it lies in the attitudes towards the 2012 elections. Labor sees the defeat of the Republican Party – the party of rightwing extremism – as the critical terrain on which the class struggle will be fought.

Many of the occupiers, on the other hand, are suspicious of the political process, and see no value in participating in electoral and legislative politics.

What is needed is a friendly dialogue about the place of electoral politics in the larger scheme of things.

By “labor”, Sam Webb mean’s labor’s true champion – the Communist Party. By “friendly dialog” Sam Webb means strictly imposing the Communist Party line on the less disciplined elements of the “Occupy” movement.

Comrade Webb goes on to say how, and by who, this crucial task should be carried out – labor, “people of color” and the young…

Sam Webb seldom issues a statement without some thoughts on how to get “Party “friend’” Barack Obama re-elected to the White house in 2012…

Certainly comrade Webb is terrified of the consequences for his side, if the GOP regains power in America…

Sam Webb’s words should be taken seriously.Though his Party is only an few thousand strong , its influence is felt from the White House on to down to thousands  of precinct committees, labor halls, churches  and “community groups” in nearly every major city in the USA. Further, the help given to the party in terms of guidance (and probably money) from its allies in China, Cuba, Venezuela and even Russia should not be discounted.

“Occupy” will fade away over winter, but will not be allowed to die. It will re – emerge in the Spring, stronger, more disciplined and even more militant. It will be purged to some degree of its anarchist leadership and will become more of an appendage of the labor movement, and by extension, the Communist Party, its allies in Democratic Socialists of America and the Obama Administration.

Much more here.

Can we survive even one term of a president who is both communist and pro-Muslim? Have we survived thus far? The jury is still out on that one. But if anything can help to see us through, it will be public exposure of all of the evil people and organizations that have been backing Obama.

Speaking of which, it’s long past time for a flat-out ban on public employee unions at any level of government.

SEIU Sends #OccupyCongress to Invade the Hill

Sources on Capitol Hill tell Big Government that SEIU has organized a major effort to ‘Take Back the Capitol’ this week with a collective of community, labor and Occupy groups that are dedicated to “show Congress what democracy looks like, shine a light on corporate greed and the human suffering it has caused, and demand justice for the 99%.”

According to Congressional sources, Occupy protestors have been visiting one Congressional office after another and demanding to speak with representatives while loitering in their waiting rooms and chanting. ‘Trackers’ are also being spotted roaming the hills of various Congressional buildings.

Joanna Burgos, Deputy Communications Director for the National Republican Congressional Committee described the trackers as, “people with cameras who are trying to track a member or politician on a certain issue. Its just part of the videos you see used all the time. I think their goal is to get them to say something on camera or say something. They tape a lot of their protests and put them on YouTube.”

Some of those videos have already been posted at a site for Think Progress, which describes itself as nonpartisan organization, but was voted the “Best Liberal Blog,” in the 2006 Weblog Awards.

One Think Progress piece posted at 1:57 pm today featured video of protestors occupying U.S. Representative Joe Walsh’s (R-IL) office, reporting that, “These protesters asked to meet with the congressman. The Chief of Staff, Justin Roth, said that Walsh was busy and could only meet with them later but offered to meet with the protesters himself. ‘“I think we’ll stay,”’ said one protester. Roth shrugged and the protesters sat down and decided to occupy the office until Walsh arrives.”
[...]
According to a PDF of an online itinerary, SEIU has established a weekly schedule for the protestors, having them “set up camp” on Monday, “take back the House,” on Tuesday on Capitol Hill, “make Wall Street pay,” Wednesday, which entails protesting corporate offices in downtown Washington, D.C., and Thursday, “a call for Justice for the 99%” which will involve a vigil being held to extend unemployment insurance compensation benefits.

One Congressional staffer on the U.S House side told Big Government that some of the protestors were moving from office to office chanting, and others “were just chilling.”

More here.

Considering that the Democrats in Congress are already a wholly-owned subsidiary of the SEIU, the labor goons simply want to remind their representatives who’s boss.

‘Trespassers’: Occupy Wall St. Protesters Begin Taking Over Foreclosed Homes

…Seattle has become a leader in the anti-foreclosure movement as protesters took over a formerly boarded-up duplex last month. They painted the bare wood sidings with green, black and red paint, and strung up a banner that says “Occupy Everything – No Banks No Landlords.”

While arrests have already been made in a couple of squatting cases in Seattle and Portland, it remains to be seen how authorities will react to this latest tactic.

In Portland, police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson said he’s aware that the movement called for people to occupy foreclosed homes, but said it’s difficult to distinguish between the people who would squat in homes as a political statement and those that do it for shelter.

“The vacant property issue is of concern in cities nationwide,” Simpson said. “We’ll treat them all as trespassers.”

In Seattle, protesters took over a boarded-up warehouse slated for demolition last weekend. In an announcement, the protesters said they planned to make the warehouse into a community center, and hosted a party the night they opened the building. Police moved in soon after, arresting 16 people in the process of clearing it out…

While the banking industry should never have made loans to people who couldn’t afford houses, they did so only at the behest of Barack Hussein Obama, ACORN, and Barney Frank. In other words, the very same lefty agitators and organizers who are promoting and supporting Occupy are the ones who caused the real estate collapse to begin with.

‘Occupation’ Is Not ‘Speech’: #OccupyBoston, #OccupyDenver Lose in Court

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Frances McIntyre, who was prematurely panned for granting Occupy Boston a temporary reprieve (and for being a Mitt Romney appointee), delivered an elegant decision against the protestors today:

Plaintiffs claim that their occupation of the site and the community they have established thereon are protected by the First Amendment. They seek a preliminary injunction against their removal by the defendants.

But the injunction is denied because, while Occupy Boston protesters may be exercising their expressive rights during the protest, they have no privilege under the First Amendment to seize and hold the land on which they sit…[T]his court seriously doubts that the First Amendment permits the plaintiffs to seize and hold a public forum to the exclusion of others. (1, 15)

Judge McIntyre noted that “the setting up of tents, sleeping, and governance” on a public square is “expressive conduct,” albeit subject to local regulations that have a merely “incidental” impact on free speech, and which are consistent with established time, place, and manner restrictions on the First Amendment. However, the fact that protesters sought to “Occupy” that public square crossed the line from speech into land seizure.

(Time to rename that movement, perhaps?)

Meanwhile, in Denver, a federal judge ruled against Occupy Denver’s request for a restraining order to stop city policy from ticketing them, ahead of a lawsuit to decide the substance of their claim.

The Denver Post reports that U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn (a George W. Bush appointee) ruled that Occupy Denver had failed to show evidence that the police were acting in retaliation to the protestors’ opinions.
[...]
(Time to try a different legal strategy, perhaps?)

Uh, no. Time to pack up and go home while you still can. The American public has a long fuse, but that fuse has burned far enough.

Camping without permission on property not one’s own, along with littering, urinating, and defecating whenever and wherever one pleases, have nothing to do with Constitutionally-protected freedoms of speech and peaceable assembly. Government officials far too often tolerate unlawful and harmful activities that are entitled to no Constitutional protection, while making inroads upon conservative and counterjihad political speech or Judaeo-Christian religious expression. Those officials who fail in their duty to defend our society under the rule of law will find themselves voted out.

YouTube: The Forgotten Man – Jon McNaughton

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SethAdamSmith on Sep 7, 2010

What has President Obama done? Visit: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com

Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, “What have you done?” Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

For my take on the painting (and to find out who the Forgotten Man is) click here: http://sethadamsmith.com/2010/09/07/the-forgotten-man/

The only quibble I have with The Forgotten Man is that Abraham Lincoln would not have been been all that perturbed by Obama, or anyone else, trampling on the US Constitution, owing to the fact that Lincoln had quite a history of flouting the Constitution himself. Ironically, Lincoln would have been far more upset by seeing a mulatto in any position of political power. For that reason only, Lincoln’s facial expression and stance in the painting makes sense.

Be that as it may, The Forgotten Man is a poignant visual portrayal of our current plight. More about the painting here. Click the image to enlarge, then mouse over each image in the portrait for details.

By Sher Zieve

Today may mark the real beginning of the end of the United States of America. We-the-People are being forced into the deadliest phase of the Obama Plan, yet – that of his overwhelming implementation of his US Police State.

Obama and his syndicate have now declared the usurpation of the State of Tennessee and its melding into the Obama government to be official. After extensive testing to see how far employees of Obama’s perverse TSA (Transportation Security Administration) would go with their sexual groping of even small children, Obama has now seen that they will do virtually anything they are tasked to do and “The One” has judged them worthy of the questionable honor of checking for US citizens’ papers on US highways, buses, trains and wherever else the now official dictator-in-chief decides he wants to exhibit his power and control over the American people.

Tennessee – which is the scene of multiple unconstitutional test cases with its completely corrupt Monroe County – has been chosen as the State that will begin the official Obama Police State. The former USA has now become either East Germany or the Stalinist USSR – take your pick.

And, this move by the Obama syndicate has nothing – whatsoever – to do with terrorists (unless you’re finally waking up to the fact that the Obama syndicate members are the terrorists). It is, however, Obama pushing hard for the final forced submission of We-the-People into the US Slave State, which has now arrived with nary a whimper.

Note: I never realized how thoroughly submissive to totalitarianism we had become, until recently. I thought we still had a chance to survive. I actually thought we would fight. On one thing Obama is correct. We have become soft.

Now, in a secondary move to seize all power in the country for himself and his syndicate, Obama has decided that he will confiscate all television and Radio broadcasts for a supposed “test” of the EAS (Emergency Alert System). Communication for both US television and Radio will be cut off on 9 November 2011 for at least 3-4 minutes.

This is both unprecedented in our history and constitutes the final phase of Obama’s testing of his ability to seize communications in the USA at will.

In the past, real Presidents of the USA have asked for time from the various broadcast networks when there was an emergency and they needed to speak. No more. We are now firmly in the bowels of the Obama dictatorship and said tyrant is violating each and every principle and law contained with the US Constitution.

The Obama-supported and implemented “Occupy Wall Street’ flea circus has provided Obama with both an “if you don’t give us what we want, we’ll turn violent” crowd and an almost perfect cover for his implementation of the finalization of his Police State. Anyone still think Obama is naïve and incompetent? Not a chance.

As I’ve been writing since before he usurped the Office of POTUS, Obama has been hired to destroy the USA and once he’s in power we may not be able to get rid of him. He knows precisely what he’s doing. [emphasis added]

Any more questions?

More at Gulag Bound.

From the Associated Press article:

Gay judge, Vaughn Walker, strikes down a bill passed by a majority of California voters that upheld a ban on gay marriage.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Proponents of California’s same-sex marriage ban filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate the historic ruling that overturned Proposition 8 because the federal judge who wrote it is in a long-term relationship with another man.

Lawyers for the ban’s backers said that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case, or at least disclosed his relationship status, to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.

“Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case,” attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote.

They are now asking the judge who inherited the case when Walker retired at the end of February to toss out Walker’s August 2010 decision. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already is reviewing its legal merits at the request of the voter-approved measure’s sponsors.

Walker has said that he did not consider his sexual orientation to be any more a reason for recusal than another judge’s race or gender normally would be. A spokeswoman said Monday that the judge wouldn’t comment on the motion.

American Foundation for Equal Rights President Chad Griffin, whose group has funded the legal effort to strike down Proposition 8, scoffed at the notion that the judge’s personal life could imperil his ruling.

There is a legal condition known as “similarly situated” that helps establish when certain parties share common circumstances that might indicate the presence of a conflict of interest. How Judge Walker’s long standing homosexual relationship does not make him “similarly situated” defies all reason. Only his recent retirement should provide him with any opportunity to escape judicial censure for such an obvious violation of ethics.

Where are the gays who think that such a blatant conflict of interest should be scrutinized for judicial misconduct? It is remarkable how the Left continues to selectively demand legal action only in cases that challenge their own agenda.

American gays are doing their cause tremendous harm by not monitoring their own ranks for violations of ethics. In recent years my own support for gay rights has undergone some serious recalibration due to this exact sort of activism.

There are numerous parallels with respect to this issue. American Blacks seem to have no problem with the so-called “reverse” racism ― in reality, just plain old racism ― of Affirmative Action, despite how it clouds the record of true achievers within the Black community.

American Muslims have no problem with undermining Freedom of Speech even as they use that Constitutional right to protest any censorship of their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Nor do American gays have the common sense to raise any hue and cry over blatant cases of dubious ethics, such as the case of efforts being made by Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel to have their 11-year-old adopted son undergo sex change surgery.

Again, the parallels are as disturbing as they are numerous. How do gays think that they can remain silent over such egregious parental misconduct and still retain the trust or respect of heterosexual America?

One may as well ask how it is that American Muslims can hope for any respect or trust while they, too, remain largely silent over the more than 17,000 fatal terrorist attacks since the 9-11 atrocity.

As a Spanish journalist once said:

“AFTER A WHILE, TO REMAIN SILENT IS NO LONGER JUST CONSENT. TO REMAIN SILENT IS TO LIE.”

Author’s note: This is the third of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

How will it end?

Short answer ― The Muslim holocaust.

There is a proverb whose thread is found both in Aesop and the Bible. It reads:

“The clay pot should keep its distance from the iron kettle.”

Instead of keeping its distance, Islam has cozened its way into Western civilization and, parading under false colors as an alleged religion, it flies a counterfeit Liberal standard of interfaith Multiculturalism. Besotted with its own temporary successes and newfound “purity” ― through a recent reformation leaving it even more violent, intolerant, misogynistic and puritanical ― Islam is in the process of infiltrating Western civilization to an unprecedented degree. However, in this respect, it is the non-industrial Islamic clay pot that is getting too close to the militarily advanced Western iron kettle.

A Talmudic variation of this fable provides a different perspective: “If a pot falls upon a stone, woe to the pot; if a stone falls upon a pot, woe to the pot; either way, woe to the pot” (Esther Rabbah, 7:10). For Islam’s clay pot, violence is the stone. As Islam continues to embrace terrorism it is eagerly drawn to that stone with a dangerous degree of impetus. In its love of death and martyrdom, Islam puts the stone in precipitous motion, which just as often falls upon the heads of Muslims themselves.

In either case ― much as with so-called Islamic martyrdom ― Islam imprudently brings itself into proximity with danger and eventually this will prove its own undoing. Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies.

Like a candle that sputters and flares, Islam casts outsized shadows which too many in the West mistake for genuine military potency. The exact opposite is true and it is only by using the asymmetrical warfare of terrorism that Islam holds any sway. It is a schoolyard bully writ large and every bit as cowardly. The brittleness of Islamic doctrine is too often confused with strength and its fanaticism taken for authority.

In a recent Berlin speech, Swiss Member of Parliament, Oskar Freysinger, noted that, “Islam is only as strong as we are weak.” One glimpse of how Islam remains almost entirely reliant upon Political Correctness to drive its Western agenda reveals that this parasitic entity’s success wholly depends upon the frailty of a civilization debilitated by Multiculturalism and self-doubt. This is underscored both by the physical compulsion and violence that lies beneath so much of Islamic doctrine and the fact that no nation in history has ever voluntarily adopted Islam without an application of force being involved.

Politician Barrack Obama epitomizes the danger that Liberals pose to Islam. Not only do they appease and cower before Islamic bullying but Liberalism also infantilizes Muslim men through the soft racism of lowered expectations. Thus enabled by such hollow victories, Islam is capable of duping itself into believing its own propaganda; a perilous mistake at the best of times and often fatal in a time of conflict.

Little do Liberals understand how they will be among the first who go to the wall should Islam prevail. Nor, in their haste to disarm the world, do they understand that such military ineptitude on their part will see them left with few responses other than nuclear Armageddon when confronted by WMD terrorist strikes. Through appeasement and facilitation, Liberals are Islam’s most dangerous “friends”.

This same Politically Correct doctrine has seen ineffectual campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost the multinational coalition on the order of two trillion dollars, with America shouldering a lopsided $1.36 trillion share of the burden. That is the cost of keeping in check just two of some fifty Muslim majority countries. Subduing the other four dozen Islamic nations represents at least another staggering $96 trillion dollars of expenditure and countless more military casualties. No single nation or combination of international economies can possibly afford this sort of expenditure.

This inordinate cost of conventional war needed to obtain even a modicum of peace is, perhaps, the grimmest thing about Islam’s future. As the mask slips and “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam are revealed to be mainstream and fully compatible with regularly accepted Islamic doctrine, Total War ― something Muslims continue to boast of declaring against the West ― looms evermore probable. However, the economic factors alone point directly away from conventional war.

Truth be told, in the absence of that $96 trillion dollars, there is only unconventional warfare left as a survival option. Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Like a proverbial trout in the milk pail, this one simple fact is difficult to ignore. Basic economics dooms perpetually hostile Islam to utter annihilation.

Any expectation of Islam pacifying, moderating or reforming itself must be dismissed out of hand. Islam has already undergone a recent reformation from which it emerged as an even more intolerant, more violent, more puritanical and more misogynistic creed. Those Muslims who do seek any pacification or sincere moderation of Islam’s violent doctrine are usually put to death by more devout believers.

Lending some much needed perspective to this nettlesome debacle is a quick estimate of the death toll that reasonably could be expected if Islam somehow managed to take over the world. Here are several, admittedly, rough estimates of what to anticipate from the establishment of a global caliphate.

1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 million people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Execution of all homosexuals:
We will use what some call a “wildly exaggerated figure” for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other sexual deviants who would all be put to death under shari’a. Therefore, some 10% of the world’s population or 600 million people would fall into this category.

The remaining factors that follow are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
It’s safe to say that nearly everyone in the counterjihad movement would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America or Europe. Worldwide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We’ll place it at a meager 100 million.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because, under Islamic law, women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world’s medical practitioners. We’ll use the figure for global female cancer mortality rates as an example of how reduced early intervention would escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure amounts to more than 3 million per year.

5.) Liquidation of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 million dead. Remember, Islam has many enemies, be they perceived or real.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
We shall use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death instead. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure approaches over 1 billion.

We now have a total of 1.726 billion people who would die within the first year or so of Islam establishing its global caliphate. This figure is larger than the world’s Muslim population. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its excessive demand for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants; be they political, religious or otherwise.

Concealed in all this is a small yet meaningful number of so-called “honor killings” that typically involve young Muslim girls or wives who ― through premarital sexual activity or inappropriate dalliances ― have disgraced their families and are put to death for it, typically by their own family members. In a global caliphate, over one million of these murders per year would not be an unexpected figure. Do not think for one moment that Western women would magically be immune from this stricture. Imams and Islamic mutaween (“morals police”) would cheerfully put to death any youthful or adult offenders regardless of their race or belief.

Hidden even deeper in these figures is a calculation which will probably fail to evoke much sympathy amongst knowledgeable Westerners; yet, humanity demands that it be recognized. Should the global Islamic caliphate arrive, there also would be countless more Muslim deaths, just as there are today throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East); except for now these executions would proceed briskly, unfettered by any condemnation from the world community that they, at least marginally, receive today. Rape victims being given lashes or stoned to death and other appalling injustices would flourish.

However crude the above projections are, they do not even account for a world suddenly stripped of many modern technologies considered haram (“forbidden”) by Islam. A sharp drop in agricultural productivity, reduction in medical services ― as noted above ― along with the elimination of food supplies derived from haram animals, such as pigs (including rennet, gelatin, whey and alcohol), would see mass starvations and medically preventable deaths soar upwards. These are just a bare few examples of the unknown death toll that would accompany an Islamic caliphate. Unimaginable as it may seem, imposition of global shari’a could result in the death of up to half this world’s population.

None of this deals with the tremendous loss of Western and world heritage in the form of buildings, monuments, paintings, sculptures, books and priceless documents that would be heaped upon bonfires or pulverized into rubble. The Magna Carta, America’s Constitution plus innumerable other ephemera would go up in smoke. Notre Dame’s fabulous Rose Window would follow the Bamiyan Buddhas into oblivion. They would be just the start of unparalleled and inconceivable vandalism on a global scale.

Rarely, if ever ― even among counterjihad fora ― is there any mention of either the massive death toll or the loss of heritage that would accompany global shari’a law. There remains, especially in the larger public, an almost intentional ignorance of these two devastating potentials. Eventually, in the face of so much stark evidence, it becomes difficult to deny that there exists the will not to believe.

This will not to believe carries its own loathsome price tag. Recent events in Norway show that long before Muslims manage to demographically displace native Europeans there will begin a serious backlash against the Multiculturalists who have imposed this lethal burden upon the West. It is rather doubtful that American and European culture will go quietly into the Politically Correct Islamic night.

Ironically, as Muslims continue to financially drain the West ― through exorbitant military campaigns, increased security measures, petroleum sales and abuse of social benefits in host countries ― they only increase the eventual appeal of cost effective measures that will be required to subdue Islam. There will also come a time when Western nations begin to recoil at the prospect of sending any more soldiers to die for the sake of letting Muslims erect yet another shari’a government and terrorist production facility.

Complicating all of this is how the concept of military deterrence is essentially nonfunctional as regards Islam. A culture that glorifies and worships death is more than difficult to deter. For every bit that the West shrinks from waging Total War, the necessity of posing an existential threat to Islam only increases. When it comes to the ineffectuality of deterrence, no better example exists that of modern day Iran. The ramifications of Ahmadinejad’s tutelage under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pose some serious issues. Recall Khomeini’s words during his 1980 speech in Qom, the Shi’ite spiritual hub:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

When Ahmadinejad threatens to “wipe Israel off the map” it is with the implicit knowledge that Iran, as a country, may perish as a result. In effect, he is turning his entire nation into a gigantic suicide bomber. Neither is this the end of it. Iran’s reckless pursuit of genocide against the Jews could precipitate the Muslim holocaust all by itself. Little known to most people is Israel’s Samson Option. If true, the Jewish state has quietly informed its Arab neighbors that a single WMD strike against Israel will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being incinerated in nuclear plasma. Hundreds of fusion warheads along with newly acquired Dolphin class submarines and cruise missiles back this up.

There is cold comfort in this for Israel but it also has quite worrisome implications for the West. At a recent pan-Arab conference Saudi Arabia’s king essentially told Ahmadinejad to “sit down and shut up” with his genocidal ravings before the entire MME is annihilated. Should he take this admonishment to heart, then the question is beggared as to who else might be targeted for an Iranian nuclear strike.

It bears mentioning how simple statistics indicate that, beyond a certain as yet undetermined number of Islamic nuclear warheads, there emerges a non-zero probability that one or more of them will fall into terrorist hands. Keeping that in mind, America ― better known to Iranians as “The Great Satan” ― suddenly materializes as a grim alternative target to Israel. What’s more, the Obama administration’s abject appeasement of Islam can only have strengthened Muslim perceptions that the United States lacks sufficient political will to respond in kind should it experience a nuclear terrorist attack.

As noted earlier, Obama and most of his cabinet have little to no military experience. With their being so unlettered in war fighting doctrine, could it not be possible that these appeasers might abruptly discover ― after repeated military budget cuts ― that massive nuclear retaliation was their sole playing card? Again, pro-disarmament Liberals rate as the most dangerous kind of “friends” that Islam could have.

Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt. Information hoarding is a way of life in the MME and even more so with terrorist leaders. Break enough strands in their networks and they will no longer function. A useful side effect of such a program would be to create numerous power vacuums that would draw violent contenders like moths to a candle’s flame. Subsequent infighting might even match the original fallout with equally fruitful results.

As noted in Part II of this essay, Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it. Belmont Club’s Richard Fernandez (Wretchard), was one of the first to note this in his 2003 magnum opus, “The Three Conjectures”:

The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is not going to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere.

Fernandez goes on to observe:

Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Remember that for eight long years, Iran and Iraq fought to a bloody stalemate using chemical weapons and even ten year-old boys as human minesweepers. Less conservative estimates cite up to a million Muslim fatalities with both nations sending the flower of their youth into an insatiable meat grinder. Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.

Given that the global caliphate is forever out of reach, whither Islam? What of its obsessive quest for global supremacy? Handily, Israel provides us with a micro synopsis of the macro global problem. Imagine a tiny nation like Costa Rica routinely beating America’s military posterior like a cheap dime store drum. That is the equivalent of Israel defeating the combined military might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Please remember that, in Arab culture, humiliation is worse than death. Abandoning conventional warfare in favor of terrorism, the Arab nations intentionally selected a strategy of low-intensity conflict whose upper limit would not trigger direct intervention by the global community.

Thus was tiny Israel left alone to defend itself against continuous terrorist attacks the like of which no other nation on earth save, perhaps, India has had to endure. What of the much vaunted peace negotiations; the Oslo “Road Map” and so forth? What about the “land for peace” concessions that Israel has so often made in the pursuit of a negotiated settlement?

Few people understand that any sort of “negotiated peace” with Israel would serve to unravel the entire Islamic Arab consciousness. Reaching even the least sort of peace agreement would be a frank admission that jihad had failed. Furthermore, any recognition of a Jewish state would contravene the genocidal doctrine that is a cornerstone of Islam. Acceptance of Israel’s continued existence contradicts Islamic canon on so many levels that any such thing is unimaginable.

Piled on top of this is Israel’s continuous string of military victories against often overwhelming Arab forces. How then to explain that away without an indisputable annihilation of Israel tucked under their Islamic belt? Deprived of any concrete proof that Islam actually can prevail against the eternally hated Jew, please do not begin to imagine that there will be any near term cessation of hostilities, if ever.

Thus we are presented with the micro model of global terrorism. Withdrawal, surrender, in fact, peace of any sort with Islam is simply out of the question. In reality, Islam offers nothing that remotely resembles an actual “peace treaty”. Instead, there is only hudna, a temporarily cessation of hostilities that is specifically designed to permit Muslims the rearming needed to then break that “truce” at their convenience. Whither Israel … whither the global community where Islam is concerned.

So long as the West does not pose an existential threat to Islam’s continued presence on earth, there will be no accommodation of any sort. This is the bottom line. That degree of political will is sorely lacking in the West and, even if it existed, there is little likelihood that anyone involved would appreciate how any such pact with the unbelievers would be broken at the first instant of advantage for Islam.

Islam has always demanded to be paid in its own bloody coin. Violence is the only tender it recognizes and all other currency is scorned as a coward’s coinage. Hudna, taqiyya and kitman all assure that there is no hope of an honorably negotiated peace. Islam wants no such thing. Global domination is its imperative and any re-scripting of those priorities is simply out of the question.

Hardest of all to remember is that this has been Islam’s central doctrine from the very beginning of its existence. The West’s opposition or threat to Muslims has no bearing on why Islam wages its barbarous terrorism against us. The hammer of violence remains Islam’s only tool and we are all nails in its sight. Islam has already determined how it will end. It is merely a matter of survival for the West and to let Islam’s chips fall where they may. Muslims will forever be cannon fodder for Islam’s eternal jihad. Until they realize this and rebel for once and all time against their warlord masters nothing will ever change.

Remember … as always; Islam wouldn’t have it any other way.

That is how it will end.

Part I: “When Will it End?”

Part II: “Why Will it End?”

Big Government: Years Later, Land Seized in Kelo Decision Used for Debris Dump

by Brian Garst
In 2005, Kelo v. City of New London made eminent domain infamous. The widely reviled Supreme Court ruling gave the go ahead for the city of New London to use eminent domain for taking private property in order that it be given to a private company for “economic development.”

The public response was one of outrage. Facing the potential wrath of voters, politicians across the country moved to add new protections against such abusive seizures. But that wasn’t enough to save the homes of the folks in New London, whose property never would be developed. Pfizer, the intended beneficiary of the land theft, walked away years ago from their development plans.

Now, to add new insult to injury, the vacant lot is a dump. Literally.

Following hurricane Irene, the city designated the site as a place to dump storm debris, and citizens can be seen doing just that in this video on the local paper’s website.

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm inside? The Supreme Court reassured us in Kelo that the government orchestrated theft “would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan.” What they forgot to mention is that careful consideration from politicians is worth about as much as the city’s new debris dump, which is to say: diddly squat.

Read the rest.

More here:

• Wikipedia: Kelo v. City of New London
• Pfizer’s R&D Cuts Render Kelo v. New London Eminent Domain Case a Waste of Time

Sustainable Development: Transforming America

This is a United Nations initiative that has some very terrifying implications for those countries who sign up to UN treaties.

It seems clear that should this come to pass all our liberties are profoundly threatened.

Although this article was written some time ago there is a lot of information available online.

As the “sustainable development” movement continues to gain momentum, it is worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad brush to reveal what the United States might look like as the movement’s vision is more fully implemented over the next 50 years or so.

The picture painted here is based on official documents published by several government agencies and non-government organizations during the last decade. These documents were rarely reported in the news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the United States will be quite different in the future.

The Vision

Half the land area of the entire country will be designated “wilderness areas,” where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by “corridors of wilderness” to allow migration of wildlife, without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia and Pennsylvania as they are now in Idaho and Montana. Panthers and alligators will roam freely from the Everglades to the Okefenokee and beyond.

Surrounding these wilderness areas and corridors, designated “buffer zones” will be managed for “conservation objectives.” The primary objective is “restoration and rehabilitation.”

Rehabilitation involves the repair of damaged ecosystems, while restoration usually involves the reconstruction of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As areas are restored and rehabilitated, they are added to the wilderness designation, and the buffer zone is extended outward.

Buffer zones are surrounded by what is called “zones of cooperation.” This is where people live – in “sustainable communities.” Sustainable communities are defined by strict “urban growth boundaries.”

Land outside the growth boundaries will be managed by government agencies, which grant permits for activities deemed to be essential and sustainable.

Open space, to provide a “viewshed” and sustainable recreation for community residents will abut the urban boundaries. Beyond the viewshed, sustainable agricultural activities will be permitted, to support the food requirements of nearby communities….

Read the rest at Freedom.Org and do some more research.

UN’s Agenda 21 forcing society back to the Ghetto

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Monday, August 15, 2011

I came across an article from Baton Rouge, LA, with a sugary title like an elementary singsong, “Grow Forth and Prosper.” Then I zoomed in on the subtitle, “Smart Growth proponents say building up may save Baton Rouge – but only if we do it the right way.” I am not sure which way Kendra R. Chamberlain understands it, but it is obviously the UN Agenda 21 way.

Such articles supporting Smart Growth, Smart Meters, and Sustainable Development have started to appear across the country with regularity in support of UN Agenda 21’s goals of destroying our economy, control and reduce our population, control our land use, redistribution of wealth, under the guise of protecting our environment. Slowly but surely, they have made great strides across the U.S. with very little opposition or understanding from the population. None of the articles mentions UN Agenda 21 at all.

Take Smart Meters for example, they have been installed in Maryland with the help of power company bribes ranging from $40-100, being sold as good for the environment. Now people are suffering six hours every day when their electricity is remotely cut off at consumption peaks.

How many people will have to die of heat stroke? How will electronics fare, especially computers? What would happen to food in the fridge? How will the A/C units cope with power surges? How will homes deal with the humidity that will build up in basements since de-humidifiers will be idle? How will sump pumps route water away from home foundations? There will be a lot of mold growing.

Dominion Power is going to install Smart Meters in Virginia and is telling customers who want to opt out that it is not optional. Really? Who decided that a homeowner could not opt out of a particular device? Since these Smart Meters stream data from homes 24/7 to a remote location, telling somebody everything about your life cycle in that house, when has home surveillance without a warrant become legal in this country?

UN Agenda 21 has decided that America has too much urban sprawl; we have to cut back, de-grow, and return to the pre-car era of the early 20th century. Kendra enthusiastically says that urban sprawl makes us “suffer economically and in terms of peace of mind.” Who knew that giving up our cars, suburban homes, and moving into high-rise tenements pre-determined and built by supporters of UN Agenda 21, will make us happy and pain free?

In Kendra’s liberal view, suburbia has caused a bankrupt bus system, ghost neighborhoods, crumbling infrastructure within the city, “while development in the surrounding suburbs is flourishing.” Kendra, could it be the high crime rate, high school dropout rate, drug use and dealing, lack of societal responsibility for one’s children, lack of work ethic, creation of perennial welfare generations?

The Center for Planning and Excellence, a UN Agenda 21 approved organization, will hold its annual Smart Growth Summit, “a conference of some of the most brilliant and bold minds – both local and national – in urban land use and development in Baton Rouge.” I have news for Kendra, the local and national minds that are making policy for Baton Rouge in conjunction with UN Agenda 21 are in violation of the Constitution.

Smart growth is indeed the “anti-American” dream. The ideals of a white picket fence and two-car garage have not lost appeal, Kendra, to most Americans, perhaps to UN Agenda 21 lap dogs.

The city is aligning with the tenets of Smart Growth, moving people from suburbs, their homes, and their cars, into high-rise ghetto tenements within five minute’s walk or bike from work, shops, school. Buses and trains become the main mode of longer distance transportation because UN Agenda 21 says that agricultural land must be reclaimed for unspoiled nature and roads will be abandoned and no longer repaired. Nobody objects to walking except that you will be trapped like a rat in a five-minute walk maze, which will be your world every day. No spur of the moment trips, no hopping in your car for a 25-mile ride to a friend’s house.

The Dulles Corridor in D.C., when completed, will cost $17-25 toll in one direction, a way to encourage locals out of their cars and into trains. The out-of-country developers do not really care as long as their investment pays off.

Traditional washing machines are disappearing. If you purchase one in the future, the water level will be preset and so will the type of detergent that you can use, all in compliance with UN Agenda 21 goals. Cap and trade is alive and well within UN Agenda 21.

Kendra repeats the pre-scripted sales pitch of UN Agenda 21 NGOs (non-governmental organizations), “public-private partnerships are the key to establishing successful smart growth projects.” She has no idea what it entails, it just sound good, warm and fuzzy.

Kendra, we live in a thriving country, with thriving communities and, until recently, a thriving economy that bureaucrats and politicians in Washington have destroyed, we do not need to re-engineer the UN Agenda 21’s “sustainable thriving community.” There is no such thing – most developing countries that have concocted this monstrosity live in substandard conditions because corrupt politicians have filled their coffers with wealth stolen from the UN coffers.
[…]
All these grants given to communities and local governments come with strings attached, read the fine print, the main string is the loss of your freedom, land use, cars, and homes. Taking funds away from fixing and building roads in order to buy more buses and build high-rise tenements is not the way most Americans want to live.
[…]
“The smart growth philosophy is rooted in urban designs that dominated the first half of the 20th century, before the automobile became a household commodity.” Why would anyone want to go back to those times, Kendra? Do you have a sick wish to destroy one hundred years of progress?

UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth has five tenets:

Existing Infrastructure (rehabilitate areas already established in the city) Maybe Americans like living on their farms, why force them into ghettoes?

Low Auto Dependence (no driving within a community, offering trolley, buses, walkways, bike paths, rails) What if I don’t want to give up my car? What if I cannot bike, walk, take bus, or train?

High Density (anti-sprawl, plucking us from the suburbs and placing us forcefully into tenements with specific boundaries)

Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income (multi-income community with multi-problems, disease born by overcrowding and close proximity, schools, supermarkets, retails, pharmacies, and work within the confines of the boundaries of the community; if it sounds Orwellian, it is).

Whole Community (all this crowding and proximity is supposed to create a wonderful kumbaya sense of togetherness and community) Yes, I remember the sense of community we had in our communist tenements, noise, dirt, disease, everybody spying on everybody else for a little extra food handouts from the ruling elite, beatings, and disappearances…
Read it all.

Allen West: First Principles for National Security

Allen West spoke at a Center for Security Policy event in New York City on the national security threats America faces, specifically in the Middle East.

Just for starters: Libya DOES NOT fit within the War Powers Act, and was unconstitutional from the get-go.

Rep. West exposes the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and its role in the “Arab Spring,” predicts the result of the draw-down of US troops, explains the need for secure borders for Israel, and warns of the dangers of Islamic infiltration and political correctness in the US.

He also points out that the rivalry between Iran and Turkey for hegemony over the Muslim world brings NATO into a potentially deadly conflict.

Watch it all; there’s much more in the video.

Where do Barack Hussain Obama, Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, Gen. Petraeus, and US military policy really stand when it comes to Islam, Christianity, Shari’a, and the First Amendment? Hear them in their own words!

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

Uploaded by Acts17Apologetics on Apr 14, 2011

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
The U.S. government condemns burning the Qur’an. Yet the U.S. government burns Bibles. This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

By 1389

1. It is NOT your job to pander to whatever nonsense the voters have been told that they should want. As soon as you let the leftist media and academia define the terms of the debate, you have already lost.

Instead, it is your job to follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan by EDUCATING your constituents about which policies make sense and which don’t, and WHY this is so.

That is the difference between a venal political hack and a statesman.

2. Islam is NOT a religion in any sense of the word that America’s founders understood a religion to be. Instead, it is an expansionist, enemy, totalitarian political ideology that is very much akin to National Socialism (Nazism), and that seeks to rid the world of everything but itself.

Be ready to deal with Islam much as we dealt with Nazism seven decades ago – except more thoroughly this time around.

3. The Constitution is intended to limit the power and activities of the government. Respect those limits, and stop looking for loopholes.

4. Socialism violates the US Constitution. If you genuinely believe that socialism is a good thing, then put your money where your mouth is, drop out of the US political scene, and move to North Korea.

5. Be prepared to re-evaluate all government programs and actions. If you, or your predecessors, have made a policy error, be a big enough person to admit it, and to do whatever is necessary to roll it back and reverse it completely.

Gates of Vienna: The Farce Continues

Reprinted with permission.

Geert Wilders took a bit of a vacation earlier this month, visiting Canada and Tennessee. Now everything has returned to normal, and he’s back in the dock in the Netherlands.

The Amsterdam court that is trying Mr. Wilders is engaged in a surgical operation for political purposes under the mandate of the Dutch ruling class. Its task is to excise the PVV leader from the Dutch body politic and restore the multicultural state to its previous dominance.

If there were ever any doubt that this is a kangaroo court, and that the verdict was determined well in advance, the following brief article would lay it to rest. Many thanks to our Dutch correspondent H. Numan for this translation from De Telegraaf:

Court: Wilders trial continues

AMSTERDAM – the court of Amsterdam decided on Monday the trial against PVV leader Geert Wilders will continue. At the beginning of this month, Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz stated his client isn’t getting a fair trial and the case must be declared inadmissible by the prosecution.

The unfair trial was caused by amongst others Tom Schalken, councillor of the court, and in that position responsible for issuing the order for the prosecution to continue the trial against Wilders. The politician is on trial for sowing hatred and discrimination and insulting a group.

The order to continue the trial is according to Moszkowicz a conviction. Also, Schalken had tried to influence the expert-witness Hans Jansen, Arabist. Other influential magistrates had influenced the trial, by publicly voicing their own personal opinions.

The court rejected the arguments of the lawyer.

Comments at GoV: Does any nation deserve admiration?

The comments on this article are well worth reading. One in particular, from Sagunto in Amsterdam, caught my attention:

Sagunto said…

John in Cheshire -

wrote:

"I used to think the Dutch were a nation to be admired. Not any more."

Why admire any nation at all, one would think. One might – as an outsider – take a shot at understanding a foreign nation, but anyway..

Considering your judgement of nations is obviously based on the behaviour of its political and cultural elites, is there any nation left in the West today, that is worthy of your admiration?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

My take on American Exceptionalism

I comment fairly often at GoV, and attempted to post a reply to Sagunto’s comment. Unfortunately, Google Blogger seems to be having technical issues with their comment function again, so my comment could not be posted at that time. Here is what I would have liked to say:

As an Orthodox Christian, I believe and understand that we live in a fallen world, and that no country and no government deserves uncritical admiration. A quick glance at any newspaper, newscast, or news website, anywhere in the world, suffices to confirm that. The refusal to accept this as a basic principle is at the root of the errors of modern-day liberals.

It is up to each of us to rein in evil and to mitigate suffering and injustice wherever we can. We can never rely on governments to rein in evil and do justice on our behalf unless we hold their feet to the fire at every turn. Geert Wilders was free to speak his mind in Tennessee, and his audience, both in person and on the Internet, has the freedom to watch and listen. The question is, how long will we preserve our First Amendment rights for freedom of speech, assembly, and the press in an age of “political correctness”?

Whenever I hear the phrase “American exceptionalism,” I remind people that American exceptionalism is all about our Judaeo-Christian heritage and adherence to the US Constitution. Lose those, and it’s all over.

The Obama Administration is attacking not only Boeing, but also the State of South Carolina and the US Constitution.

Real Clear Politics: The Newest Labor War: Union, Feds Attack Boeing

(h/t: vagabond trader)

April 22, 2011
By Tom Bevan

Welcome to South Carolina, the newest front in America’s organized labor wars.

On Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against Boeing, seeking to prevent the aircraft manufacturer from opening a second production facility in Charleston, South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner.

The NLRB alleges that Boeing violated the law, opening the non-unionized South Carolina plant in retaliation against union workers for past strikes at its facility in Everett, Washington and also as part of an effort to discourage future strikes. The NLRB wants an administrative court to force Boeing to relocate its second production line back to a unionized plant in Washington.

Needless to say, with labor controversy still roiling some states across the country, particularly in Wisconsin, news of the story rang out like a shot at Fort Sumter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint denounced the move as “nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama’s reelection campaign.” DeMint vowed to “use every tool at my disposal to stop the president from carrying out this malicious act.”

His GOP colleague in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, called the NLRB’s complaint “one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen.”

On the other side, the International Association of Machinists District 571, which filed the grievance in March of last year, predictably hailed the filing as “a victory for all American workers.”

At issue is not whether companies can retaliate against union workers – they can’t – but whether they have the right to open new facilities (or relocate old ones) where they choose based on a variety of business factors, including the consideration of potential labor strikes in the future.

The IAM has had a collective bargaining agreement with Boeing since 1975, and in that time has led five strikes in the Seattle plants, two of them in the past six years. Boeing CEO Jim MnNerney has been open about his desire for “dual sourcing” capabilities so that the company can meet its obligations with “strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound.”

The union contends that the opening of the new non-union facility in South Carolina amounts to intimidation, and that its workers will now be forced to either to accept employment concessions or face the prospect of seeing more and more production migrate from Everett to Charleston. Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon fully embraced with the union’s novel legal theory, and stated in his Wednesday order that he will seek an order requiring Boeing to build the second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in Washington.

In response to the uproar Thursday spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland responded in an e-mail: “As Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon made clear in his statement yesterday, this is about the law. The right to strike is guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, and employers must stay within the law in making their business decisions.”

Boeing’s lawyers slammed that claim as “legally frivolous” and said the NLRB’s effort to restrict the company’s business represents a “radical departure” from precedent. They were quick to point out two 1965 Supreme Court cases affirming employers’ right to consider potential strikes in making business decisions, and they refuted the union’s claims of intimidation by pointing out that in the eighteen months since the announcement of the South Carolina plant, Boeing has added more than 2,000 union jobs in the Puget Sound area.

The NLRB’s complaint is controversial because of its conspicuousness – labor experts can’t seem to recall any similar complaints or comparable court cases – and also because of the board’s inherently political nature. With Democrats taking control of the five-member board in 2008, the New York Times described the move against Boeing as “the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama.”
[...]
Unlike Wisconsin, however, the battle in South Carolina is unions and the federal government pitted against private business and “right to work” states. At stake is whether unions have the power to effectively veto companies’ decisions about where they choose to do business.

Also unlike Wisconsin, South Carolina is a critical – some would even argue determinative – early primary state in the Republican presidential nominating process, which is just getting under way. Some, but not all, of the prospective Republican presidential hopefuls are scheduled be in South Carolina in less than two weeks for the first televised debate of the primary season, hosted by Fox News.

The subject of the NLRB’s complaint will surely arise. This issue might even prompt candidates who hadn’t figured on attending the South Carolina debate to tinker with their schedules. And because of South Carolina and Wisconsin, the war between the federal government and unions versus states and the private sector is sure to be a defining issue of next year’s presidential race.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics. Email: tom@realclearpolitics.com

Read it all.

This evil attempt to impose tyranny on Boeing and on the State of South Carolina is nothing more than liberal fascism combined with institutionalized union thuggery. Whether or not the NLRB ultimately succeeds, the very fact that they even attempted such an infringement will encourage our few remaining US-based manufacturers to move their entire operations overseas. Once outside of the jurisdiction of the US federal government, their companies will no longer be subjected to the malicious whims and depredations of American democracy – and yes, I do mean mob rule in every sense of that word. The US was founded as a republic, not a democracy, with the powers of the federal government strictly limited to those provided in the US Constitution. Evidently, the Constitution in general, and the Tenth Amendment in particular, has gone by the wayside.

Chile is looking better and better! (See 2.0: The Blogmocracy: Chile Says No to Collective Bargaining.) Unlike the US, the nation and people of Chile love and respect liberty.

If at first you don’t secede, try, try again!

As for South Carolina and the other States of the American South, I would suggest that it is long past time to consider secession once again. The outcome will be very different this time around. It is painfully obvious that the US federal government is bankrupting itself through egregious fiscal irresponsibility and is destroying American society in every possible way. The federal government is not sustainable and a collapse and breakup cannot now be avoided. The time has come for each liberty-loving State to assert its rights.