Hold your breath, the race to the bottom is ready to escalate. The consequence of the corporate consumerism economy has reached the tipping point. The old rules that mainstream spending will dig the way back to prosperity are permanently dead. The one sure implication that is indisputable is that taxes are set to rise at unprecedented levels. With Obamacare revenue obligations coming into effect, the latest phase of centralized medical socialism spreads like a virus. Under such circumstances, how can the patient regain their health?
The Rino Republicans have proven again their slimy deceit, as demonstrated inHighlights of Senate bill averting ‘fiscal cliff’. The bipartisan house is poised to make another deal with the devil. Such legislation that refuses to enact meaningful and significant spending cuts exemplifies the depth of the efforts to dismantle the economic wellbeing of the average taxpayer.
The only beneficiary out of the tax bill from hell will be the corporate/state axis. By setting aside the automatic sequestration program reductions for a typical irresponsible useless promise the McConnell, Biden reach tentative deal on sequester, con insults the intelligence of any rational taxpayer.
“The negotiating parties reached an agreement to delay it by two months with some spending cuts to offset the delay.”
Without a serious reduction in the rate of growth, much less a real shrinking in federal expenditures, deficit spending will shoot up higher than an addicted junkie. Examine the mess.
“According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.”
This factor alone provides ample evidence that the economy will sustain another substantial hit. Treading water is no way to save yourself when you are swimming inside a whirlpool of spiraling intensity or diving into a pool drained of water.
2013 is likely to be another generous year for the financial vultures. Mergers and acquisitions may well come back ‘with a vengeance’, as international corporatists push hard for even greater consolidation. The suspect “Free Trade” cabal has enormous support and protection from the selected public officials that administer a plutocrat economy. Even under the distractions of higher taxes on the super affluent, their wealth will grow dramatically, as public subsistence becomes more dependent on government handouts.
Business is very good for the governing bureaucrat. This New Year provides immense promises for government expansion. The crowding out of the credit markets for private business will continue as an inevitable result of public sector borrowing hitting new highs.
Private firms will struggle as disposable funds become rarer. The consumer has shown remarkable restrains since the 2008 meltdown, but the internal built up demand for lifestyle replacement standards will not generate the economic activity that so many financial experts tout.
Prospects of an intensified reoccurrence of the persistent recession are far more likely. The sustainability of Federal Reserve monetization has limits. The crucial test of this desperate repurchase of debt created obligations will play out in the bond market.
Another down grade of the U.S. credit status over the next political battle of raising the borrowing limit is a major concern. The potential free fall of the Dollar and international abandonment of the reserve currency standing is probably the greatest risk to the economy.
Any credit-based economy is at the mercy of the central banksters. Disregarding the phony political rhetoric of the governance ideologues, the basic constructs of economic facts cannot be separated from the harsh reality of a credit crunch.
Inflation is embedded in the under reported consumer pricing statistics. Grocery prices will rise, while food stamps proliferate. This SNAP economy is a telltale gauge of the wellness of the basic consumer. How can anyone believe that the prospects for a healthy economy are in the cards for 2013?
The one unassailable conclusion that is born out with every turn of the financial page is that the rich become richer, while the middle class struggles even harder to make ends meet.
Many will fall into the trap that rich people are the cause of the problem. Such social envy misses a proper perspective on wealth creation. The real reason why the economy scrambles to democratize medium affluence is that the monopolists of politically protected conglomerates suppress initiative and originative employment entrepreneurial enterprises.
The entire political and tax system operates to diminish the chances of small business to compete against the virtual unrestricted capital access of major public companies. 2013 will be a watershed year that regretfully will see the systemic demise of privately held endeavors.
The replacement of free enterprise, with state/capitalism has produced a fascist economy.
When the establishment operates under the favoritism principle, the inevitable result is that crony capitalists dig the graves of independent business operators, with publicly funded shovels. How under this formula can the ordinary citizen expect to prosper when the supplanting of individual intuitive is intentionally marginalized?
The financial markets reflect uncertainty in the face of record corporate receipts. The balance sheets of companies have been rebuilt from the depth of the housing implosion, with much assistance from public indebtedness. The globalist banks practice distress acquisitions, deliberately designed to solidify interdependency at the price of personal autonomy.
With this acceleration of financial austerity for the average citizen, the gap between the corporate economy and the main street market grows exponentially. Whatever degree of cash flow that the country enjoys in this New Year, the price that will be paid to stretch out one last celebration of former fortune, will inescapably result in national poverty.
Just blaming the one percent ignores the institutional corruption that perpetrates the war against the middle class. Hoping for a thriving 2013 dismisses the abject State of the Nation. The only relevant question unanswered is whether the beleaguered taxpayer will revolt or just swallow another dose of Obama collectivism.
Who’d have guessed it? When the Chinese aren’t busy effecting forced abortions, persecuting political dissidents, sending contaminated products to our shores, or shipping us other junk that malfunctions a month after you buy it, they concern themselves with our well-being.
In an article published by the Chinese government-front media outlet Xinhua, the Beijing regime calls on the Obama administration to use the Sandy Hook massacre as a pretext for more gun control. The outlet writes, “Every time a tragedy occurs, there are renewed appeals for gun regulation. However, the calls disappointingly always fail.” Gee, we wouldn’t want to disappoint the Chinese fascists again now, would we?
And that’s a good approximation of what they are. When you institute free-market reforms (which is smart), become the most rapacious, money-hungry, product-pirating vulture capitalists on the planet, but yet maintain an iron-fist grip on the private sector and social sphere, you don’t with credibility get to call yourselves socialists or communists. (This isn’t to imply that communism is better, just different.) Take note of this, Jeffrey Immelt and the rest of you dim bulbs who say things such as Chinese “state run communism” “works” a bit. What works for them is being the most cutthroat, playing-for-keeps economic player in the game. They’re communists like Bill Clinton is a celibate.
Back to the issue at hand, Xinhua writes that the Newtown victims’ “blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control,” that “with no re-election pressure, President Obama is currently in the best position to promote it” and concludes with, “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.” Wow, to paraphrase the Rodney Dangerfield character in Back to School, “They really care.
About what I have no idea.”
Perhaps the mercenary Chinese regime sees with every American shooting victim a diminution in their most lucrative market. Or perhaps the Beijing fascists just don’t like the idea of murdering free agents and prefer mass killing government run.
This brings us to the title of the Xinhua piece, “Innocent blood demands no delay for U.S. gun control.” Well, they say write what you know, and the Chinese regime certainly is an authority on shedding innocent blood. Back when they were still giving socialism that old college try and before they made Mao spin in his devilish grave, they murdered 40 to 70 million of their own people (it’s too bad those poor souls weren’t equipped with AR-15s, huh?). I don’t know what the body count is up to now, but I do know this: I trust the American people with arms far more than I trust the Chinese government with them.
And, obviously, Beijing doesn’t trust us with them, either. Maybe they heard about how the Japanese ruled out invading the US mainland during WWII because, we’re told, they knew that Americans were heavily armed. Hey, it would be nice if you never had to worry about such a stumbling block in the future, eh, you Chinese oligarchs?
Ironically, on the very day of the tragic Newtown massacre, a criminal in China slashed 22 schoolchildren with a knife. And I realize, Chinese-government mouthpiece Xinhua, you would no doubt say that because of your laws, his attack wasn’t nearly as deadly as Adam Lanza’s. I would say that because of our laws, our government isn’t nearly as deadly as yours.
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding teachers and teaching in America, one of them holds that in order to be a public school teacher; you are required to become a progressive dolt. This, however, is not necessarily true. While the mainstream educational system is engineered to encourage socialism and dependency in our children, it also has a tendency to condition staff and administration with a collectivist mindset as well. For those who seek out teaching positions, it may feel like joining in with the socialist / globalist ideal makes life in our federalized educational system far easier to cope with. After all, teachers who stray from the establishment curriculum and who break conventions by offering individualist and anti-state views are very often subject to in-house persecution. This peer induced conformity creates a Petri dish of inbred thinking, but ultimately, the final decision of what to believe falls to the teacher and no one else.
While some educators might feel that gun ownership is counter to the yuppie culture they have immersed themselves in, and may fear standing out as the “lone conservative nut” at their workplace, they are going to have to accept that there are far bigger concerns than being a part of the herd. As the events in Newtown, Connecticut reveal, teachers need to start considering their own survival and the survival of their students.
The shooting in Newtown by itself is not the primary issue. The event will be forgotten within a few weeks by a majority of people, just like the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the Aurora Theater Massacre. That might sound cold, but it is reality. The tragedy itself will only stay with the victims and their families. The debate over what to do in the aftermath of the tragedy, though, will plague the rest of us for quite some time, and perhaps this is the root of the problem…
Establishment politicians (Neo-Lib and Neo-Con) and the useful idiots they employ have drawn out the debate on practical solutions beyond all reason. What they have done, time and again, is to exploit the deaths of innocents in order to push the political agenda of control, rather than looking at the hard facts and implementing a strategy that would truly work. If you want to actually fix a problem, you look at the fundamentals and apply what works, not what you WISH would work based on your biased worldview. To get to this point, we have to be willing to admit to those methods which DO NOT WORK. In the wake of the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School, what do we know about the environment on the ground and how it was exploited by the gunman?
1) Federal Laws Guaranteed A Gun Free Zone For The Attacker
Federal laws, including the Gun Free School Zones Act and the Gun-Free Schools Act, prohibit the possession of firearms within 1000 feet of school grounds (some states allow carry with the possession of a CCW, but this does not stop schools from firing teachers who do decide to carry if discovered). The Gun-Free Schools Act imposes a federal requirement on school districts to adopt a gun-free schools position that demands zero-tolerance policies and minimum one-year expulsions from school for gun possession in exchange for federal funds for district schools, meaning, the Feds are paying off school districts to entice them to go along with gun regulation:
Of course only law abiding citizens care about this regulation, and so, in the midst of an attack by a criminal element, teachers, staff and students will be the only disarmed people present. Most violent and mentally disturbed perpetrators still have a deep desire to live, which is why they rarely if ever go on a rampage at a gun range, or a federal building with armed guards, or an NRA convention. These men don’t want to die, at least not until they have finished their heinous act, and so it only makes sense that they would choose movie theaters in cities that have laws against conceal carry or elementary schools that are filled predominantly with progressives who are going to avoid gun ownership and yield to federal dictates. A school is an easy target, nothing more.
2) None Of The Teachers Were Armed
As stated above, people who lend themselves to the educational field have a tendency to gravitate towards so-called “leftist” philosophies of disarmament and dependency. The released information so far indicates that none of the staff present at Sandy Hook were armed. The gunman had free reign to do what he pleased unimpeded by anyone.
3) Quick Police Response Was Meaningless
Initial reports claim that law enforcement arrived on the scene within minutes, perhaps the fastest police response I’ve ever heard of in such incidences. And yet, the quick arrival of law enforcement served no purpose. The gunman had already accomplished a vast number of murders and had apparently committed suicide before they could put boots on the ground. This is the case in almost every mass murder this country has ever seen. When it comes to defending citizens against such mayhem, the police track record is abysmal, and these instances prove that they cannot be counted on to save lives. They appear to be more like janitors who clean up the mess afterwards rather than guardians.
4) Teachers And Staff Were Willing To Defend Themselves
Again, according to early reports, Lanza was charged by staff who attempted to disarm him before he could open fire. There is also no indication that these teachers had any formal self defense training whatsoever. And yet, they were willing to put their lives on the line for their students.
A common argument by anti-gun advocates against the idea of self defense is that most people will be “too frightened, undisciplined, or incompetent” to react anyway, and so arming them is “useless”. As Newtown shows, though, this is absolutely false. Had any of the teachers who did fight back actually been armed and equipped to fight back, the massacre may have never occurred.
These are the facts of the situation on the ground at Sandy Hook as reported. Now, the solution being offered by the establishment is, of course, to create more stringent gun laws, and perhaps even disarm everyone. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has suggested that President Barack Obama institute “executive action” to enforce his own gun prohibitions, bypassing Congress and the Constitution:
My question is, why is the solution of the elites always to remove people’s ability to defend their own lives? Why do they insist that gun control will solve the problem when it never has before? Here are several realities that derail the anti-gun position:
1) They’ll never get all the guns, let alone all other weapons. Criminals always find a way. This is made concrete by the recent attack by a knife wielding man in central China on an elementary school, resulting in injuries to 22 children and one adult:
The idea that one day the establishment will be able to ensure that no one, not even criminals, are able to obtain a means to harm others, is absurdly childish. If the state is incapable of removing all weapons from a highly controlled environment like the prison system, then what makes gun grabbers think they can sterilize all weapons from the entire country?
2) The authorities are not and never will be in a position to “make you safe”. Safety under the wing of government is an illusion. Governments enact laws and then enforce punishment, but rarely do they ever actually “protect” anyone. Law enforcement will never be able to reduce response time to the point in which they would be a superior option to you defending yourself. You will always be there when the trouble occurs; they will most likely not show up until you are dead.
3) If gun free zones are such an effective method, then why doesn’t the Obama Administration suggest a gun free zone in the White House? Surely, he can put his money where his mouth is and grab the guns away from his Secret Service protection first, right? What about Bloomberg? When is he going to fire his cadre of armed bodyguards, since he has such an aversion to guns?
Obviously, Obama and Bloomberg won’t adopt this policy because they both believe armed people on site act as a deterrent to possible attacks! So then, why wouldn’t armed people on site at an elementary school act as a deterrent to possible attacks? How can the White House and its lackeys claim that further disarmament of the law abiding public makes them safer when they don’t believe this themselves?!
It is clear to anyone with any common sense that there are massive gaping holes in the theory that gun control and disarmament helps protect the citizenry in the slightest. Even with more strict regulation, it is inevitable that another attack like the one in Connecticut will take place. That said, in the face of this information, what do we do?
My Solution – Teachers Must Break The Law And Arm Themselves
Numerous people have in the past suggested a change in federal law meant to allow teachers to conceal-carry on school property (some states and municipalities even have loopholes that make this possible), but I can say with general certainty that this is not going to happen, at least not for many years to come. When a law is unconstitutional or puts innocent people at physical risk, the only option left is nullification by the citizenry. If federal law is preventing teachers from saving their own lives and the lives of their students, then they have two choices: tempt fate, gamble on death, or break the law, defy school policy, and carry a weapon.
The establishment will claim that teachers are not capable of entering into a combat situation with an armed perpetrator because they “lack the training”. Yet, anyone in this country can take self defense or combat gun courses that surpass military and law enforcement standards if they have a little money and a little time.
The establishment will claim that teachers entering into a combat situation with an attacker would put innocent bystanders and schoolchildren at risk with stray fire. First of all, if a murderer is being shot at, wouldn’t his attention be on taking cover, rather than killing children? Does this not reduce casualties? Isn’t this what the police are supposed to do?
I would respond by asking the people in Newtown whether they would, in retrospect, go back and arm the teachers at Sandy Hook? Is there a risk of stray fire? Absolutely. But survival is often about odds and increasing the odds in your favor. By disarming teachers, the death of many children during an attack is guaranteed because there is no chance of the attack being thwarted. By arming teachers, the odds of the attack being stopped become much higher. With effective training on the part of the teachers, and with the knowledge that this training is taking place, the potential attacker may never risk violence at all.
Anti-gun quasi-hippies will claim that the very presence of firearms is “evil”, and that it “invites” catastrophe, like some kind of half-assed karmic voodoo. I’m sorry, but subscribing to this nonsense does not make you safer. Disarmed people are assaulted and killed far more frequently than armed people, by murderers, and sometimes their own governments. That is life. Debating the unseen metaphysical mechanics of the universe did not save the children of Newtown, and suggesting that a gun, an inanimate tool, attracts the dark forces, is an incredible waste of time.
Frankly, I’m tired of hearing the pundits and the politicians argue about what must be done for three weeks after every gun related calamity. It’s getting tiresome and I believe it is actually hurting this country far more than helping it. They never discuss that which is concrete. They never suggest that the right path may well be in the hands of average people, instead of government. They purposely avoid the topic of self defense, and drive the debate towards questions of regulation. This is not about regulation, folks. This is about you and the man with a weapon pointed at your face. To teachers I say:
Forget the law. If you’re not armed, you won’t get them before they get you and the children around you. That is all you need to worry about.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market
When the Corporate Elite tells us we need to be afraid of something, they almost always expect to make some money off our fear.
From the same people who brought us the “Ground Zero Victory Mosque,” FEMA concentration camps, and every single George Soros conspiracy theory, comes a brand new hyper-paranoid threat-to-America’s-sovereignty that, they say, should scare the hell out of all of us.
It goes by the name of Agenda 21, which just so happens to be the title of Glenn Beck’s new dystopic novel.
Billed as, “more frightening than anything Orwell could have envisioned,” Beck’s Agenda 21 paints a disturbing picture of America following the implementation of the United Nation’s Agenda 21, which is actually a real life UN initiative, though not nearly as nefarious as Beck would have us all believe.
The book’s tagline reads: “This used to be called America. Now it is just ‘the Republic.’ There is no president. No congress. No freedom.”
Over at GlennBeck.com you can watch a movie trailer made specifically for the book featuring grizzled Americans lined up on the streets in a post-Soviet winter landscape reeking of desperation, waiting for tiny morsels of food to be parceled out by “the authorities.” Reminiscent of both Nazi concentration camps and the Book of Revelation, everyone’s foreheads are tattooed with identification numbers – and in homage to Sarah Palin’s “death panels,” one scene in the trailer depicts an emaciated, scraggly-haired old man loaded on to a conveyor belt and sent into a burning furnace.
Of course, this is all fiction. Whether you like him or not, Beck has made a fortune off sensationalism – and more recently televangelism – and this book will tap into a wellspring of paranoia on the fringe Right that will undoubtedly make a lot more money for multimillionaire Mr. Beck himself.
But whether Beck really believes in his depicted Agenda 21 future for America isn’t all that important. What’s important is that a lot of other powerful people do believe in it. To them, there’s nothing fictional at all when it comes to Agenda 21.
On October 11th this year, the Georgia state Capitol building hosted a four-hour briefing for Republican state senators on the issue of…Agenda 21. It was emceed by a man named Field Searcy who, according to MotherJones, is a local Conservative activist, whose Tea Party leadership was revoked after endorsing birther and truther conspiracy theories. But on that day, Searcy had the attention of his state’s most powerful lawmakers – including the Republican Party’s Senate Majority Leader, Chip Rogers – to warn them of President Obama’s wicked plot to use Agenda 21 to hand the United States off to the United Nations.
Searcy told the Georgia Republicans, and later spoke of it on the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, that President Obama is using a mind control procedure known as the “Delphi Technique” to slowly condition Americans to submit to the control of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, which will, according to Searcy, force mass migrations of Americans out of the countryside and into the cities, while handing over control of our rural lands to an international, one-world government.
The goal of the presentation was to influence Georgia lawmakers to follow in the footsteps of Tennessee and Kentucky Republican lawmakers who’ve already passed legislation to block Agenda 21 from being implemented in their states. In fact, earlier this year Republican Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers introduced legislation in Georgia to do just that.
Also on the “Fear Agenda 21″ bandwagon is newly-elected Tea Party Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. He devoted an entire section of his website, TedCruz.org, to Agenda 21 fearmongering. Under the title, “Stop Agenda 21: The Constitution should be our only ‘Agenda,” Cruz writes:
“The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property… Agenda 21 attempts to abolish ‘unsustainable’ environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. Everyone wants clean water and clean air, but Agenda 21 dehumanizes individuals by removing the very thing that has defined Americans since the beginning—our freedom.”
Oh no! Not the golf courses! Luckily for the golfing community, Ted Cruz is headed to the United States Senate to stop George Soros and the UN from confiscating Augusta National.
Though, hopefully, someone will notify Cruz, perhaps by removing his tinfoil hat, that the United Nations has no interest whatsoever in turning Augusta National into a sustainable bio-dome. Likewise, hopefully someone will tell Mr. Field Searcy that the UN has no interest in forcibly removing Americans from the country-side, either.
Concerns coming from the Right about American sovereignty in the face of the United Nations aren’t anything new.
It’s true that FDR pushed the idea after World War Two, and Democratic President Harry Truman signed us up for the UN in 1945, and it’s also true that in signing up for the United Nations, the United States surrendered a small amount of our sovereignty, inasmuch as we can no longer unilaterally declare war on another nation – unless they attack us first – without getting the approval of the UN. Of course, this is true of every other nation in the UN as well. The UN was created to promote world peace, an idea that doesn’t sit well with the neocons and chickenhawks.
But, here’s what Agenda 21 really is. Standing for “Agenda 21st Century,” it’s a completely non-binding UN agreement that aims to address climate change and inequality by calling on local and federal governments, NGOs, and businesses, to develop plans to create more sustainable environments in their respective nations. The UN believes that by working together, and giving financial assistance to developing nations to promote sustainable living, wealth disparities can be reduced, indigenous populations can be protected, and the deterioration of ecosystems around the globe can be reversed.
If you ask the environmentalists who are growing more and more concerned with a warming, crowded planet what they think of Agenda 21, they’ll say it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Especially after new reports by the UN about record levels of greenhouse gases and the atmosphere, and a report by the World Bank on the global economic impacts of a planet that’s 7-degrees warming by 2100 as a result of climate change.
But, as you’d expect from a plan to reduce poverty worldwide and use resources and land in more eco-friendly ways, wealthy oil barons and banksters are opposed to it. When people, governments, or organizations talk about things like sustainable energy, corporate responsibility, and educating the world’s children, billionaires like the Koch brothers get a little uneasy.
So, right-wingers have employed their best charlatans in America, people like Glenn Beck, to reinvent Agenda 21 as something completely different: a nefarious plot by communist globalists to force redistribution of wealth and confiscation of private property, and ultimate devour American sovereignty. Or, according to Glenn Beck, an Orwellian takeover to purge the nation of its sick and elderly.
And it just so happens that legislation passed in Tennessee and Kentucky to block Agenda 21 comes straight from model legislation produced by the notoriously loony, yet well-funded, John Birch Society. The Koch Brothers dad, Fred Koch, who had no problem with state-controlled economies when he made his fortune working with Joe Stalin in the Soviet Union, was one of the founding members of the Jon Birch Society back in 1958.
The UN has provided right-wing fear mongers a lot of grandstanding opportunities over the years, but the UN has never lived up to their warnings that it’s coming to destroy America. Most people think of it as a toothless international body that’s been hijacked by the United States to protect its own interests and the interests of its allies.
And while the Bircher billionaire class continues to fret over the UN, they stay silent over the actual threat to our nation’s sovereignty in the form of the World Trade Organization, which has enforced free trade agreements through international courts that have overturned laws passed by our elected Congress and signed by our elected President. For example, laws banning the importation into the United States of poisonous additives to gasoline, products made by child labor, and tuna caught at the expense of dolphins have all been overturned by the “one-world government” that is the WTO.
Yet, not a peep from the same wealthy elite who are warning us about Agenda 21. That’s because there’s a lot of money to be made in so-called Free Trade, and not so much to be made in promoting sustainable living.
The same is true of why Glenn Beck isn’t writing a book about the $67 trillion global shadow banking system, which is extremely dangerous to our sovereign economy – yet making billions of dollars for banksters.
The point is, this latest scheme by the Corporate Elite to scare the hell out of all of us with Agenda 21 is just like every other scare tactic by the Corporate Elite – it’s meant to distract us. It’s a sleight-of-hand technique to keep us focused on bogeymen, while their ranks of Texas oilmen, outsourcing CEOs, and Wall Street banksters carry out the true destruction of the United States of America: the pillaging of the Middle Class at home and the construction of a WTO-style one-world corporate government to promote unfettered capitalism and free trade everywhere on the planet.
And in the process, useful quacks like Glenn Beck and Field Searcy can make a lot of money feeding the paranoid, Fox News-watching masses their latest conspiracy theories.
Corporate America has the largest cash reserves in recent memory. The product of the first Obama administration, the boards and management of the biggest companies, foregone mergers and acquisitions and cleaned up their balance sheets. Fear was the operative sentiment after the 2008 financial meltdown. Business confidence was marginal at best. Lacking consumer confidence was a natural result of a high unemployment and an insecure job environment. The modest improvements in the economy were a direct outcome of increases in government spending, especially an expansion in public employee endeavors.
For the beleaguered middle class, the Bush blame of an inherited awful economy was little relief. That shabby self-justification excuse is officially over with the prospects of a second presidential term.
The Wall Street Journal predicts in What an Obama Win May Mean for Stocks that watching monetary prescriptions of the Fed is crucial.
“Anyone who has been following the markets over the last few years knows how important Fed policy has been to the direction of everything from stocks to bonds, oil, gold and other assets. From record-low interest-rate policies to multiple rounds of quantitative easing, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has been about as dovish as it comes enacting policies to jumpstart the economy.”
Equities have benefited amply over the first Barak Obama term. The WSJ continues, “No matter your beliefs, the Dow is up more than 50% since Obama took office during the depths of the financial crisis.” The zero interest rate setting and the sparingly granting of business loans caused stocks to advance from a distressed level.
Now with Obama’s re-election, his ownership of economic circumstances will be hard to escape. The slide in stocks that started as soon as the ballot counting was over, forecasts the lack of confidence that the fiscal cliff will be resolved sufficiently to foster conditions to grow the economy.
Add in the rapid breakdown in international stability and the prospects that the European Union will implode, does not bode well for the engines of wealth creation. Equities gain in value when the products or services of their underlying companies prosper. Without the reasonable expectation that actual economic prosperity is on the rise the basic conditions for an advance in stock pricing is simply wishful thinking.
Yet, under a fundamental standard, the lack of favorable circumstances does not mean that stocks will simple lose value. Volatility in pricing, often with no distinct connection to price performance, is the norm. The perfect storm for speculative betting seems the more probable course for the markets in the coming years.
The backstop of the Federal Reserve that comes to the rescue of too big to fail conglomerates, is the operative criterion used to keep the financial bubble inflating. As the currency is debased and loses purchasing value, the price of stocks must rise just to stay even.
In addition, the negative aspects of tax increases especially on capital gains and dividends are unmistakable. Investing Daily’s Roger S. Conrad recently reported inStick With Dividend Stocks.
“Since Election Day last week, the S&P 500 has lost 4.5 percent of its value. And the Dow Jones Utility Index is off more than 5 percent.
But let’s suppose there really is a fiscal cliff and that the worst case forecasts of a 4 point drop in gross domestic product (GDP) prove on target. Such a shock could also trigger a tightening of credit conditions in the US, making it more difficult to borrow.
In such an environment, two things would really count for companies. One is reliable revenue, a business that will continue to produce cash flow come what may. The other is a lack of near-term debt maturities, so management can step back from a temporarily frozen credit market and wait for bond buyers to come back.”
The point is that stocks may not go up in real value while their relative pricing may mirror the overall lack of confidence in the economy in a persistent down market. However, a company with sound financial reserves and low or no debt will have a chance to survive in a depression.
As credit becomes non-existent, cash will be king in the short term. Notwithstanding this message from previous panics, the complexity of debasing the currency adds a new dimension to familiar lessons. Hyperinflation of price stability results in a slowdown of the real economy. Adding further government spending with monetized debt from the central bank cannot infuse productive commerce into an economy where consumer cash is fickle or nonexistent.
Stocks can only be a sensible investment when domestic mercantilism is oriented towards fostering prosperity of the national economy. Foreign trade will plunge as the worldwide financial upheaval exports its turmoil around the globe.
Solid companies that actually produce necessary items or endeavors have the best chance to retain some semblance of treasure. Nevertheless, the definitive risk for owning equities lies in the danger that the federal government will recall the counterfeit Federal Reserve Dollar, in a desperate attempt to forestall debt repudiation.
Only algorithmic trading with super computers will squeeze out fractions of price movement and generate returns on capital, because the equity exchanges are now structured to penalize or purge the individual investor from having any chance of profiting.
Market risk is nothing compared to the political hazard of collectivist policies slated for imposition in a second Obama term. In order to generate tangible wealth, the private sector must navigate around all the pitfalls that excessive taxation and destructive regulations impose on voluntary commercial transactions. Equities cannot reward stockholders under a command and controlled – centralized and imposed government. The expectations of an uncurbed Obama dogmatic executive order administration guarantees that stocks will suffer under all the restrictions of any socialistic economy.
When the conditions are unknown, uncertainty runs havoc with equity markets. Conversely, when the socialism of Obamaism is widely verbalized for all to digest, the gamble of stock ownership equates to your level of confidence in the future of the country and the economy. Good luck.
The rapid approach of the Thelma & Louise bipartisan plunge into the financial abyss is upon us. It is simply unbelievable, that the prospects of rational tax salvation by the end of the year, measured by every statement coming out of the Washington political cabal, will materialize. Extending the current tax rates from automatic rescission on January 1, 2013, as a stopgap method for an enactment of a lasting political rapprochement, is the best that might occur. The net effect will be a perspicacious downturn in economic activity, a new round of layoffs, rising permanent unemployment and a plunge in consumer confidence. Wall Street will make hay by shorting the market while placing blame on the uncompromising hacks that refuse to cut a deal.
As for the message from the latest election, let no one forget. With all haste during four more years, the implementation of expansive socialism from an Obama administration is inevitable.
The backbone from the establishment loyal opposition is well known for their spineless tendencies. The righteous outrage from the Tea Party representatives, silenced during much of the last campaign, is slated for confinement to a corner room in the basement. The careerist political class, in all their sordid glory, readies their next heist and tax increases.
Curtailing entitlements is unthinkable to the Obama collectivists. Cutting back on government baseline budgets only pass through the distorted image of a fun house mirror. The discipline of automatic sequestration reductions is too much for big government, so look for the final bargain to cost the taxpayer dearly.
Remember the current administration is quite content to operate their criminal syndicate without passage of a budget. By what stretch of the imagination would anyone accept that there will be changes to this equation? Obama wins by default and the business community gets to pay the tab.
The prescription of Speaker John Boehner relies upon a medicine that will kill you softly. The House of Representatives is so fearful of a federal government shutdown that capitulation to the hardball of the Obama’s central government regime will be the end result. Good faith negotiations under these circumstances are like begging for crumbs from a banquet feast of Henry VIII.
Going back to the government shut down, when Newt Gingrich was speaker, illustrates the dilemma. President Clinton skated from responsibility and blame for shutting down portions of the federal government. The unreliability of the House to keep the gravy train rolling was the condemnation heard by the mass media.
Gingrich offered a different assessment under the Government Shutdowns section of his Get the Facts site.
“While the shutdown produced some short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. The discipline imposed by this 1996 budget let to a balanced-budget deal in 1997, the first of four consecutive balanced budgets – an achievement Congress and the White House had not achieved since the 1920s. Overall spending grew at an average of 2.9 percent a year while Newt was Speaker, the slowest rate in decades, and Americans created 11 million new jobs…”
The triangulation strategy of Bill Clinton allowed for absorbing budgetary reforms, while still keeping his appeal to his political base. Barack Obama has no such need for misapprehension. Taxmageddon is another opportunity to take advantage of another manufactured crisis. The facts constitute that a second Obama term is a recipe for total economic warfare against productive businesses.
Add the destructive increases of taxation from Obamacare and the consequences of a full-blown recession in 2013 are unmistakable. Surely, the RINO’s within Congress want cover to share the pain while pointing the finger at the newly elected second term administration and Democrats in Congress.
Holding hands while jumping off the cliff makes good politics for the entrenched‘pols’ of both parties that are destroying the economy.
Ron Paul sums up nicely, Election shows U.S. ‘far gone’.
Paul “said in the wake of this week’s elections that the country has already veered over the fiscal cliff and he sees no chance of righting ship in a country where too many people are dependent on government.
People do not want anything cut,” he said. “They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing the money. And they don’t believe that we’ve gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with some magic solution. But you can’t have a budgetary solution if you don’t change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to police the world and run this welfare state, all we are going to argue about is who will get the loot.”
Taxmageddon is just a mere illusion for the voters who re-elected Obama. The sugar daddy will get those bigoted fiscal conservatives to keep the checks in the mail. Somehow, the precarious financial status of the postal service escapes those 47%ers.
When the double-dip recession begins, the nonexistent mortgage loans will trash the “so called” housing market recovery even harder. Soon the economic destruction of many middle class neighborhoods will take on the appearance of the Rockaway backyard after a visit from Sandy, the hurricane.
Yet, the advantages of embracing taxmageddon as a grand occasion for soaking the rich will be the excuse to increase revenue enhancements on what is left of Middle America. Yes, the public voted for cooperative government. That often heard “fair shared” demand to pay higher taxes is exactly what is in store for an already broke country.
Big government wins and independent financial wealth loses. Remember according to Obama, you never earned your money to begin with. Driving off the cliff together will bond citizens to the same fate as those famous female desperadoes, T & L. Maybe this is fitting, since the feminine vote got Obama re-elected. All hail the pimp-in-chief, four more years in hell.
Writer Sam Francis said, “You cannot separate a culture and its attendant civilization from the genetic endowments of its founding people, nor can you expect to transfer it to another people, i.e. [immigrants.]”
Today in America (as well as other Western societies), African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans and European-Americans share an uneasy if not cautious tolerance for each other across the land. The news reports didn’t talk about the American vote. They discussed the Hispanic vote, the black vote, the white vote and with the addition of another 20 to 30 million Muslims in a few decades—the Islamic vote.
As the American people allow themselves to be transformed into another kind of culture, i.e., a multicultural society, neither democrats who pander to the new cultural paradigm or the republicans who are trying to extend the old successful one—understand the destructive forces facing future generations of an “incompatible mixed bag” of a confusing and forthcoming American non-culture.
This phenomenon also occurs in Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and most of mainland Europe
About half the American electorate feels freaked out by Obama’s re-election. They pray for the next four years to go as fast as possible so they can replace Obama with a republican.
But they fail to understand the direction of America. Within the next four years, somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal alien migrants will gain full citizenship by Obama’s executive orders or Congress’ lay-down. Another 8 to 10 million immigrants will be imported through legal immigration—in the next four years. Millions of them will tap into Social Security, food stamps and assisted housing. Millions of them will be able to chain-migrate their families into America. Millions will legally displace Americans from their jobs.
Millions of them will become voters and millions of them will elect another person just like Obama. In the land of milk and honey, the minority voter will become the new power in the White House—until, of course, the Fractured States of America collapse via socialism.
Multiculturalism is unworkable and illogical in any society
“A multicultural society is a physical and sociological impossibility,” said Satoshi Kanazawa, professor at the University of Washington. “It is rare that one learns anything important from the pseudo-science of sociology, but one thing it does teach us is that there is no such thing as “multicultural society.”
“When I taught “Introduction to Sociology” at the University of Washington, I had back-to-back lectures during the first week on culture and society. I explained to my students that culture and society were two sides of a coin; one cannot exist without the other. Culture needs society (and its inhabitants) to sustain its existence and initiate its change, and society needs culture to hold it together and survive. Just as there is no such thing as a coin with only one side, there is no such thing as culture without society or society without culture. It is physically impossible to construct a coin with only heads without tails or a coin with only tails without heads. It is equally impossible to have a culture without society or a society without culture.”
While Kanazawa introduces the logical failure of the multicultural model, Francis illustrates that immigrants from incompatible cultures cannot change their own paradigms, cultures and languages to mesh with the host country. It’s an anthropological impossibility. It’s like asking a tiger to lose its stripes to fit in with a pride of lions.
“Nobody disputes these truisms about culture and society from the social sciences, yet the same people also claim that we now live in a “multicultural society,” said Kanazawa. “If you think about it for a moment, you’d realize that the notion of “multicultural society” is a logical and physical impossibility. It is similar to a coin with only one head but several tails. It is physically impossible to construct such a coin.
“That culture needs society to sustain its existence means that multiple cultures require multiple societies. That society needs culture to hold it together means that multiple societies require multiple cultures. There must be exactly the same number of cultures as there are societies, just as there must be exactly the same number of societies as there are cultures. In any bag of coins, regardless of how many coins there are, there are exactly as many heads as there are tails, and vice versa. One culture, one society. “Multicultural society” is a physical (and sociological) impossibility.”
In virtually all Western countries attempting multiculturalism today, immigrants rely on welfare, subsidies and food stamps to exist because they lack the tools to contribute to those societies. Most arrive without the intellectual horsepower to evolve quickly from third world systems to first world complexities.
Great Britain’s Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
As it stands today, 47 million people in America feed themselves off the backs of American workers. Millions more accept unemployment checks. The United States sinks like the Titanic from $16 trillion in debt on its way to $20 trillion within four years—under Obama. Barack Obama has become the “great emancipator” of those who avoid or lack skills to work on a daily basis.
The ones that won’t work or can’t work or suffer illiteracy and can’t hold a job, ride this U.S. Titanic down into the depths.
The result of mass amnesties and mass immigration can be summed up in these two short videos:
In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of endless immigration. Take five minutes to see for yourself:
“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a few words “Mind boggling!” www.NumbersUSA.org
But they fail to understand the direction of America. Within the next four years, somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal alien migrants will gain full citizenship by Obama’s executive orders or Congress’ lay-down. Millions of them will tap into Social Security, food stamps and assisted housing. Millions of them will be able to chain migrate their families into America. Millions will legally take jobs from Americans.
Millions of them will become voters and millions of them will elect another person just like Obama. In the land of milk and honey, the minority voter will become the new power in the White House—until, of course, the Fractured States of America collapse via socialism.
Great Britain’s Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
As it stands today, 47 million people in America feed themselves off the backs of American workers. Millions more accept unemployment checks. The United States sinks like the Titanic from $16 trillion in debt on its way to $20 trillion within four years.
The ones that won’t work or can’t work or suffer illiteracy and can’t hold a job, will ride this U.S. Titanic down into the depths.
Intractable poverty and cultural poverty create the perfect storm for America
I interviewed Canadian population expert Tim Murray. He said much the same occurs in Canada as to poverty, immigration and cultural fracturing.
“More distressing than the Presidential results were the lessons that both Republican and Democratic pundits drew from it,” said Murray. “The common thread that ran through most commentaries was that the demographic foundation of the Republican Party was no longer broad enough to capture a majority of votes. “The numbers just aren’t there anymore, and never will be” was a common refrain.
“The remedy offered by friend and foe alike was for Republicans to “modernize” their party. Translation–they must jettison some their traditional baggage and appeal to those voters who might be prepared to accept the party’s core economic message. Lower taxes, limited government, fiscal prudence and encouragement to small business.
“The problem is, however, some of the policy positions thought expendable to some conservative voters are regarded as vital to others.
“Imagine the Republican coalition as a zeppelin that is losing altitude in the mid-Atlantic. It has become apparent to the crew that the air ship will not make it to shore unless some baggage is tossed out. Not much. A mere 5% would probably do. Some luggage is labeled “right-to-life”, some “opposition to gay marriage”, some “no corporate tax hikes”, some “no amnesty”. Obviously something has to go. But what?
“I think it was most telling that the favored scapegoat for the party’s demise was its failure to relate to “Hispanic” voters, which is code language for the failure to surrender to illegal immigration and to open the doors even wider. After all, we’re told, Hispanics are a “growing demographic” soon to form 25% of the population, and the GOP cannot afford to concede 73% of Hispanic voters to the Democrats and expect to win elections. Most commentators made a particular point of saying that the Republican Party should be the natural home of Hispanics, for Hispanics tend to be quite conservative people. They are hard working, believe in traditional family values and are anxious to “get ahead”.
“If only the Republicans would ditch these old fashioned ideas about a nation having the right to control its borders, or that cheaters should never prosper, or that illegals should not be able to vote or drive a car or hold a job or make a claim on health care and educational services—Hispanics would run to them with open arms. If Republicans pushed for the kind of immigration reform the open borders lobby wants, and made Marco Rubio their next Presidential nominee, victory in 2016 should be in the bag. Or so goes the reasoning.
“Canadian conservatives have joined this chorus with some unsolicited advice of their own. What Republicans need to do is what Canada’s Conservative Party did. They need to “outreach” to ethnic communities. Encourage them to join, to nominate, and to run. They need to include them as an integral part of a new conservative multi-ethnic, multicultural coalition.
“The Republicans don’t have to open the floodgates. They don’t have to accelerate the displacement of more American-born workers and the suppression of their wages. They don’t have to cave in to bilingualism and threaten the cohesion of the nation. They don’t have to add to the net fiscal burden that unskilled, poorly educated migrants impose on American taxpayers. They don’t have to lead America further along the road to ecological and economic ruin by contributing to the addition of another 100 million people to the country’s population by mid-century.
“All they have to do is accept the fact that the culture war should not be fought in Congress. All they have to do is not use the law to prevent women from choosing abortion and homosexuals from choosing marriage. That’s it.
“Does that mean that conservatives should not attempt to persuade people that abortion and same sex marriage is wrong? No. It only means that they should wage their arguments outside the offices of government, if only for pragmatic reasons. As Prohibition should have taught us, moral conduct cannot be legislated if there is not a broad and strong societal support for it. Laws against theft work because theft is universally regarded as wrong across all religious, cultural and racial lines. Laws against marijuana use are unworkable because they do not enjoy such universal support. I think recreational use of cannabis is ill-advised and dangerous for a great many people. But I don’t think it is a matter for the law.
“There is no moral consensus in favor of restricting abortion rights. But there is, however, substantial support for an end to illegal immigration, and a reduction of legal immigration. Even among Hispanics. Or do we forget that 46% of Hispanics voted for Arizona’s Proposition 200, and that a majority of Hispanics polled in Colorado favored an immigration law modeled on Arizona’s? And it should be remembered, after all, that Caesar Chavez stood on the Mexican border to protest the traffic of illegal immigrants from Mexico.
“How ironic is it that the very people who tell us not to engage in ethnic stereotyping are so quick to tell us what “Hispanics” want, as if they are a monolithic entity that can be moved around a political chessboard by one or two concessions.
“Republicans don’t need to modernize. They just need to take their own belief in limited government more seriously. Guard borders, not morals.”
I have never been so unhappy to be right. I’ve long said that Barack Obama would win re-election, and two weeks ago I stated as much in print. In making this prediction, I was almost alone among traditionalist pundits, with some, such as Dick Morris (Mr. Batting Zero), actually forecasting a Mitt Romney landslide. And, no, I’m not pointing this out to numb despair with some perverse kind of gloating, like a man consumed in flames looking to suck on an ice cube. It’s because of why I knew that Romney would lose:America is lost. And there is something to be found, but not unless good people understand what truly lies ahead.
America is heading toward a dark winter. Of course, I can’t give you a Mayan-like prediction of a precise time of reckoning; details are always sketchy, which is why I wasn’t entirely right on the micro of the election. But this is much like how it’s difficult to predict the weather for two Wednesdays from now, but easy to forecast cold in February. And of our civilization’s overall weather pattern, there is no doubt. Now let’s discuss what prevents conservatives from seeing the clouds on the horizon.
Many conservatives probably knew better in their hearts than to predict a Romney win, but just couldn’t come to terms with the depressing reality of a second Obama term. Rationalization is common among man; it’s how we avoid unwelcome truths. But it also blinds us to danger. Just think, for instance, of Jews who saw their coming winter in 1930s Germany and emigrated; then think of those who didn’t because they couldn’t face reality. This is how dangerous rationalization can be.
Likewise, for years I and a few others have been warning that fighting in the political arena while losing the culture is like trying to grow beautiful leaves on a tree whose roots are beset by steady rot. Sure, we may win some battles, but they’re merely a rightward movement of deck chairs on a ship steadily drifting left. Yet even when this phenomenon’s specifics are explained to simplicity, they’re often rationalized away by conservatives. Most would rather talk about Obama this and Romney that, about how we just, by gum, need a real conservative. But this is for naught without a real conservative electorate. We can’t elect a better government when we’ve bred a worse people.
And just as I knew Obama would win last night, I’m quite sure of something else.
No truly “conservative” Republican will ever win nationally again.
(Don’t click that mouse and grab the hemlock, because there is hope. I’ll get to that later.)
To understand a major reason why, read my piece, “Does the GOP’s Demographic Death Spiral End in a Texas Graveyard?” And to understand why I put “conservative” in quotation marks, click “Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism.” I’ll give many such recommendations in this piece, as they’re necessary background for a proper understanding of our coming dark days.
But let’s start with a simple fact: Mitt Romney is a photogenic, articulate, moderate Republican who was up against a scandal-ridden leftist radical presiding over a listing economy and foundering foreign policy. Still he couldn’t win.
Or, I should say, voters chose to lose.
Because what the American people were before, they are no more.
I know, I know. The media deceived the citizenry. Romney started playing not to lose instead of to win. There was vote fraud. There was that storm and Chris Christie playing Misty for Mr. Limp Wristy.
Oh, it’s not that the above isn’t true. But no candidate is tactically perfect; Obama certainly made his share of mistakes. There also will inevitably be unforeseen events during any campaign, and they don’t matter when enough people can distinguish good from evil. And the left does steal hearts and minds through the media and votes through electoral sleight-of-hand, but this merely reflects our cultural decay. And it’s only getting worse.
If You Can’t Get Elected, Appoint a New People
This variation on a Bertolt Brecht line gets at our problem. And our new people has been forged via both importation and domestic production.
While conservatives complain about illegal migration — ever more tepidly — I’ve been warning that it was merely an exacerbation of a larger problem: legal immigration, through which statists have been importing reliably socialist voters. This I have explained thoroughly over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet most conservatives won’t touch the issue. This is partially due to “immigrationism,” dogma stating that immigration must be a permanent and unquestioned fixture of American life (death?); partially due to pundit cowardice; and partially due to rationalization. After all, immigration is here to stay, we think, so better to shunt its scary implications to the mind’s recesses, where the rest of the wild things are.
But I’ll make this simple: remember the pre-election stories about how Obama was wildly popular overseas? The English are enchanted, the French are all aflutter,Indonesia is infatuated, and Kenya is kvelling. Obama isn’t foreign to foreigners, and do you think this will change because the foreigners come here? Just as with religion, people bring their ideology with them. And unless you think you could talk a Muslim jihadist out of Islam, why suppose you could talk a socialist out of socialism?
The world’s consensus political orientation is no surprise, mind you. Note that nascent, adolescent, and young adult America was the rarest of anomalies, as man’s historical default is tyranny. And as geriatric America has proven, it’s difficult enough instilling the mindset that birthed her into the native born, never mind those who come here in the hardened clay of adulthood. Having said this, there is a reason why we are being, as Alan Keyes put it, “colonized….”
“Israel hath cast off the thing that is good; the enemy shall pursue him. They have reigned, but not by me: they have been princes, and I knew not….” — Hosea 8:3-4
As a people’s morality goes, so go its fortunes. You simply cannot be one kind of people but have another kind of government (see “Written in the Eternal Constitution”). And what has happened to our sense of virtue in America? So lost it is that even the word has been replaced with “values,” that fixture of the atheistic literary style. For decades we have instilled children with leftism, nihilism, hedonism, relativism, and atheism through academia, the media, and popular culture; we have seduced them into sin and made them, as Ben Franklin wrote, “more corrupt and vicious, [so] they have more need of masters.” For sure, masters will be one’s lot if he has not mastered himself.
And this inner anarchy has outward manifestations: the imagery of pagan barbarism. Like primitive tribesmen, the young today deface themselves with tattoos and body piercings; the tramp stamp has become a stamp of youth-generation membership, while even large earlobe rings, something the West previously reserved to Discovery Channel documentaries, are now worn. And this physiognomy correlates with a certain voting pattern. Do you know what it is?
Speaking of voting patterns, for my atheist friends…
“It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains” — Patrick Henry
Like many reading this, I once was that rare breed: a conservative agnostic. And, like so many who bristle when I now promote faith, I probably didn’t realize how rare I was — and always would be.
Fox News alluded to this when trying to explain Obama’s win last evening, pointing out that religiously unaffiliated people are 20 percent of the U.S.for the first time ever. And does a poll showing that this burgeoning group of Americans favors Obama surprise you? It shouldn’t. There is a strong atheism-statism correlation the world over, which is why it’s no coincidence that “conservatives” in heavily secular Western Europe are simpatico with our liberals. Take note of this before you cheer the diminution of faith and fancy it can be replaced with Ayn Randism. Without the Christian right, there is no right at all.
So where do we go from here? First, we must stop rationalizing and look truth in the eye. There are no national ballot-box solutions, and America’s winter is nigh. And will we, as all civilizations eventually do, soon go the way of ancient Rome? It’s possible. Remember, however, that when Rome fell there were still people living in her lost lands. They still had to forge societies. And some did a better job than others.
And what of the immediate future? Well, I’ll write more about that in the coming months. For now I’ll leave it at this: what would you do if you were part of an organization whose leadership became ever more tyrannical and intransigent?
We must focus on our states and localities, on uncompromisingly doing the right thing within them. Are you with me? Because all I can say is that if I were a governor, I would certainly make news. What else can you do when caught in the course of human events?
You’ve got to hand it to that Joe Biden. He certainly has chutzpah. After all, what do you call it when a man who was banned from receiving Communion diocese-wide by a bishop chastises an apparently more faithful Catholic for a lack of doctrinal purity? I’m of course referring to the vice-presidential debate and Biden’s comment that Paul Ryan had an “issue” with “Catholic social doctrine.”
Biden’s approach is nothing new; it’s a copout frequently used by liberal—or, as they used to say, heretical—Catholics. It goes like this: self-conscious that they’re being criticized for violating definitive Church teaching and accused of being in a state of grave sin, they hang their hats on the idea that they make up for it by going heavy on “social teaching.” Furthermore, they lean on the notion that no one should point fingers at them because, by their lights, conservatives fall terribly short of the glory of that social teaching. It’s the theological version of “Oh, yeah?! But look at what Bush did!”
The most obvious problem with this is that it’s like saying your theft is okay because Tom commits adultery, a callow appeal of the kind mature people leave in childhood. Obviously, we’re responsible for our own walk with righteousness, our own sins, not others’. Why, do you think the attempt to justify bad behavior by citing other (supposedly) bad behavior will pass muster when we meet our maker any more than it would before a judge? Imagine saying, “Yes, Your Honor, I broke my wife’s jaw. But, look, I’m tellin’ ya’, there’s this guy down the street who beats up his wife and his girlfriend.” In the same way that courts judge us based on the law and not other criminals’ behavior, a person of faith understands that he is to measure himself with the Perfect Law from above, not the imperfect and flawed next to us.
But even this misses the point here, because the reality is that these liberal Catholics can only claim moral parity with (or superiority to) those they criticize by putting Church teaching, and their own minds, through the durable-press spin cycle. And the proof is in the pudding: neither Paul Ryan nor any other conservative has been denied Communion, unlike some liberal politicians.
Before examining why, I should explain for those not conversant in Catholic teaching that denial of Communion is a very serious matter. It means that the individual in question is in a state of “mortal sin,” which is sin grave enough to separate him from God. And, of course, if a bishop has gone so far as to forbid priests in his diocese from dispensing Communion to the person, it means that the violator’s defiance of definitive teaching is overt and consistent.
But what does this teaching say? Is there actually an equivalence between advocating abortion and opposing big-government social programs?
Any such implication is ridiculous. The Church teaches that direct abortion is always wrong, as it is the murder of innocent human life. In contrast, while Catholic social doctrine dictates that we must help the less fortunate, there’s no specificity as to how this must be done. There is no injunction to create government social programs—or not to do so. The Church does, however, state how it mustn’t be done. As Pope Pius XI put it, Socialism…cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth, and “[N]o one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
So while Catholics have a lot of latitude in deciding how to best administer charity, they may not disagree on abortion and remain in union with the Church—hence the aforementioned denial of Communion. So, it’s ironic, but the “personally opposed, no values imposed” argument pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians love so much could only rightly be used by those they criticize. We could truly say, “Personally, I believe in giving charity, but I don’t want to impose this on others through government.”
Lastly, there’s something else Biden should know about Catholic doctrine. The Church teaches—and this was reaffirmed by the Pope several years ago—that politicians who publicly support abortion automatically excommunicate themselves.
If I have chutzpah for saying that, then we have something in common, Mr. Biden. The difference is that I place mine in the service of Truth.
Before one can understand the nature of partisan or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential.
“Contemporary Political Ideologies is a text book that has been around for a long time. Many of the usual suspects are covered: Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Conservatism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Marxism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Feminism and Environmentalism. Since written, additional offshoots have come to include: Neoconservatism, the Paleo versions of Conservatism and Libertarianism and what we will call “Inherit Populism”.
These broad based viewpoints have distinctions, sometimes subtle, often dramatic. The reason why partisan politics is a blood sport is that it is waged to achieve a false party line. BREAKING ALL THE RULES advocates a paleo-conservative philosophy based upon traditional values and moral principles. Consistent with the historic legacy of the founding of this Nation is a lament that most inhabitants are oblivious to our ingenious heritage and purpose of the American Revolution.
The article, Ideology Matters, But What Is It?, clearly repudiates the destructive ideologies that result in the suicidal course this country has taken, especially in the last century.
“The test for valid support is simple. The legacy of the New Deal to the Good Society has constructed a total reputation of American ideals. To deny this reality, is to associate yourself with the cause of depravity. There is no room to compromise on this axiom. The lines are clear, distinct and irrefutable. Career operatives rationalize their support for destructive policies as the price for civility. The notion that getting along with the opposition that is bent upon the destruction of the Nation is psychotic. When polls are cited that the public wants less ranker, leadership sinks into the cauldron of deceit and treachery of our heritage. Those of us who advocate a State responsive and accountable to the citizen, are left with few champions to carry the banner of limited government.”
Rejecting an artificial left/right template for a deeper analysis of the publically accepted nomenclature of liberal vs. conservative is a constructive leap to appreciate the differences that are so prevalent among different factions within society.
How individuals assess politics often rests upon their own personality and outlook. From a report in Clinician’s Digest, the following insights are useful.
“Personality differences are a leading candidate in the race toward understanding the rift between political liberals and conservatives. Using data compiled from nearly 20,000 respondents, Columbia University researcher Dana Carney and colleagues found that two common personality traits reliably differentiated individuals with liberal or conservative identifications. Liberals reported greater openness, whereas conservatives reported higher conscientiousness. This means that liberals (at least in their own estimation) saw themselves as more creative, flexible, tolerant of ambiguity, and open to new ideas and experiences. Across the political personality divide, conservatives self-identified as more persistent, orderly, moralistic, and methodical.
Evidence suggests that these personality differences between liberals and conservatives begin to emerge at an early age. A 20-year longitudinal study by Jack and Jeanne Block showed that those who grew up to be liberals were originally assessed by their preschool teachers as more emotionally expressive, gregarious, and impulsive when compared to those who became conservatives, who were considered more inhibited, uncertain, and controlled. Liberals may show greater tolerance for diversity and creativity, but they may also be more impulsive, indecisive, and irresponsible. On the flip side, conservatives may be organized, stable, and thrifty, but also have stronger just-world beliefs (leading to a greater tolerance for inequality), and stronger fears of mortality and ambiguity. Even recent neuroscience work published in Current Biology from University College London identifies fundamental differences in the partisan brain. Brain scans revealed a larger amygdala in self-identified conservatives and a larger anterior cingulate cortex in liberals, leading the researchers to conclude that conservatives may be more acute at detecting threats around them, whereas liberals may be more adept at handling conflicting information and uncertainty.”
Partisan party proponents, both Democrats and Republicans are practicing Statists. Mutual lust to control the levers of government closes ranks, when an external threat comes from dissenting citizens. This background brings us to examine the essay, Speaking Out Against Government is a Mental Disorder, by Susanne Posel.
“According to the psychiatric manual, the DSM-IV-TR, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a mental disease wherein free thinkers, non-conformists, civil disobedience supporters, those who question authority and are perceived as being hostile toward the government are labeled mentally ill. Psychiatrists refer to this mental defect as “Mentality III”.
This mental disorder is defined as: “a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”
Ms Posel continues:
Symptoms of ODD include:
- negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent stubbornness
- resistance to directions
- unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults or peers
- defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds
- hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder)
If this alleged ailment has, any legitimate clinical application, it seems that these warning signs, foremost apply to elected officials and party organizations. Reinforcing the practice of the partisan political psychopathic art, John D. Mayer in Psychology Today asks two questions. The first is relevant while the second is naive.
“If members of Congress and the executive branch extended genuine respect to one another, wouldn’t they recognize that it is more important to vote for that which is best for the country rather than for that which may promote their political party? If they truly respected one another, wouldn’t the best and brightest among them join in a thoughtful give-and-take to promote good legislation above partisanship?”
Where is the evidence that government has the objective of “doing what is best for the country”? Frankly, the body of facts is so overwhelming that every successive administration builds upon the treason of the last government, that only a faint memory of a constitutional Republic exists. The notion that power hungry grabbers are capable of transcending partisan rhetoric for a good purpose is patently absurd. The only cooperation that ever unites the party politics is to protect the despotism of the State.
“Haidt helped devise a questionnaire that gauged moral views by eliciting test-taker responses to statements in five categories: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt likens these moral groupings to the five taste receptors of the tongue (sweet, sour, bitter, savory, salty). It turns out that liberal receptors failed to engage on questions of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Conservatives, on the other hand, reacted to all five moral categories more or less equally. Haidt’s conclusion is that his fellow liberals are morally tone deaf. “Republicans understand moral psychology,” Haidt concedes. “Democrats don’t.”
It gets worse for liberals. Haidt and colleagues asked their subjects to answer their questionnaire as if they were liberals, as if they were conservatives, and as themselves. Liberals don’t know their political adversaries nearly as well as the right knows them. “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” Liberals see caricatures when they see conservatives.
The thesis may prove cathartic for Republican readers. But it’s more useful to Democrats.”
As long as partisan political parties, ignore moral principles, and the “States Rights” framework of limited government the psychological disorders of the ultimate Statist mental illness will spread. It is always amusing when partisan critics rant about the lack of condemnation against opposing party foes, when their silence about the abuses of their patron party hacks goes unspoken.
It is bad enough how ignorant the average voter is when they cast their ballot. As long as people accept and tolerate the two party diatribes against viewpoints that challenge the establishment power cabal, there are no viable prospects for elective solutions. As of this writing, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has, “Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.”
How can any thinking and responsible American vote for either candidate? Both are tyrannical teammates for the globalist franchise. Those who speak out against the establishment order are not the ones with a mental illness. Those who vote for their own demise are one-step removed from the infective treachery coming out of the federal government. Paleo-conservative ideology is the righteous political philosophy for a Free People. What is the state of your own mental health?
Recent attacks on American embassies and consulates in numerous Muslim countries are claimed to be irrational and undue reactions to a film portraying the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a degraded manner. The film is intentionally sacrilegious and incendiary toward Islamic beliefs and seems intended to add fuel to the rage of a Muslim world already incensed at the U.S. for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for destructive American drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia and multiple other nations, and one-sided support for Israel accompanied by platitudes for Palestinians. Thus, the roots of widespread anti-Americanism are much deeper than can be explained merely by recent events. Instead, Muslim fury can be traced to the ever increasing intervention by Washington in Muslim countries since the end of World War II. Prior to that, the U.S. was considered a non-interventionist, even anti-imperialist, friend in much of the region. Yet, even before the war ended President Roosevelt made a secret deal with the Saudi king to provide American protection (and ultimately arms as well, used primarily to suppress his own population) to the Saudis in return for unobstructed American corporate access to the recently discovered Saudi oilfields.
Few today remember American policies during the Iranian crisis of 1946, when the U.S. obliquely threatened to force Soviet Troops out of Iran. American, British and Soviet troops occupied Iran in 1941 because it had tilted toward the Nazis under the father of the later American client, Shah Reza Pahlavi. The Soviets occupied the oil fields of northern Iran with Washington’s approval during the war to prevent them from falling into Nazi hands. The Soviets were supposed to withdraw in March of that year but refused until a deal could be arranged whereby the USSR could purchase Iranian oil in order to begin rebuilding its war-ravaged society. Initially the Truman Administration encouraged the Iranian government to accept the deal. Then when the Red Army did withdraw also encouraged the Iranians to renege on the arrangement. It is worth noting that the Red Army did not then re-occupy the territory, thereby putting the lie to the claim made immediately after WWII that the Soviets were bent on world domination. There was nothing, not even employing atomic weapons, that the U.S. could have done to stop the Red Army had it chosen to reoccupy Iran’s oilfields since that would have destroyed the very resources that were being contested. The Soviets were only one of the principal obstacles to American post-war plans- though they were trumpeted as the prime mover. Equally important was nationalism, especially the sort of national independence craved by countries possessing vital resources that the U.S. coveted. Few also realize that until WWII the U.S. was the prime exporter of petroleum. By war’s end the U.S. had used so much of its domestic oil, and its hydrocarbon-based economy had grown so exponentially, that from that point on the U.S. was impelled to begin importing oil.
Many do remember the overthrow of the prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeqh in 1953. Exceeding its legal mandate to gather intelligence, the newly minted Central Intelligence Agency, initiated its first successful overthrow of a constitutional and elected government because that government decided that Iranian oil belonged to the Iranians and not to the British oil company that would eventually become British Petroleum. The American scheme was calculated to ensure that American companies would thereafter dominate Iranian oil production and get rid of most British competition in Iran as well. The Shah and his brutal government was then installed to act as Washington’s gendarme in the region. To ensure his rule the U.S. military and CIA then trained his dreaded secret police in the fine arts of torture and terror.
Meanwhile the CIA was active in similar efforts across the planet to undermine any form of nationalism, socialism, or communism that would interfere with the overarching American agenda, which was not the promotion of “democracy” but the installation of friendly clients into positions of power in countries considered strategic for their resources or geographic position. Space does not allow a complete catalog but of importance to current events is certainly the role the “Company” played in the overthrow of the British client king of Iraq in 1958, an intrigue in which Saddam Hussein played a role and that led eventually to his dictatorship, one with which Washington was happy to cooperate after the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979. The famous film of Donald Rumsfeld warmly shaking Saddam’s hand perfectly illustrates the lower depths to which Washington has too often stooped to achieve its ends. The U.S. provided highly technical intelligence to Iraq against Iran, aiding the mass slaughter that ensued, and when he used poison gas made from chemicals provided by American corporations against Iraqi Kurds during the war with Iran, Washington prevented sanctions against his regime. At that point he was assisting the American agenda to weaken Iranian fundamentalism so his crimes could be whitewashed. However, his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 became the perfect rationale to inject what evolved into a permanent American military presence in the Persian Gulf.
At the time of 9-11 Michael Scheur was the CIA’s foremost expert on Al Qaeda. His writings emphasize that Americans had to take seriously the reasons spelled out by Osama Bin Laden for Al Qaeda’s antagonism toward the U.S. One of those principal motivations was the American military presence in Saudi Arabia during and after Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden said clearly that the presence of “infidel” troops on sacred Islamic soil was a desecration. Thereafter, all American forces were to be driven from all Islamic lands. The widespread perception in the Muslim world that Americans had defiled the holiest sites of Islam and were exploiting Muslim resources while propping up corrupt dictatorial apostates like the rulers of the Arab Gulf states contributed to the relative ease with which al Qaeda could recruit new Jihadis to its cause.
Scheur also noted that bin Laden said that the attacks on 9-11 were intended to promote further intervention by Washington in the region and thus promote more of the anti-Americanism that he hoped would fuel his movement. To a great extent American actions have worked almost precisely to Bin Laden’s plan and the current explosion of violence around the world toward the U.S. is a direct outgrowth of the increasing resentment and hatred long stored in memory across the Middle East. Washington is reaping the violent whirlwind sowed by itself.
The so-called “Arab Spring” represented an upwelling of long-simmering opposition to numerous dictatorships in the region, most of them propped up by Washington with a few exceptions that rankled like Libya and Syria. Though President Obama and Hillary Clinton mouthed piously about popular democracy and the “will of the people,” such didn’t help the hapless residents of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, where instantaneous and brutal repression followed, with mere sighs from Washington. Remember that at first, President Obama supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt until the intensity of the demonstrations in Cairo forced the U.S to abandon him. But not before the Egyptian military high command stepped up to reassure the State Department that it would take his place. Then they threw Mubarak “under the bus.” Nevertheless, the sheer pressure of popular demand for a voice necessitated an election. Since the Egyptian Army is financed and armed by Washington, and Egypt receives the second largest sum of foreign aid (after Israel) widespread knowledge that the Egyptian Army is a creature of the U.S. led to victory in the elections by the despised Muslim Brotherhood. After the election the Egyptian courts sought to prevent the seating of this Parliament dominated by the Brotherhood and with representation by the even more vehement Salafists, but the newly seated president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, does indeed represent the Brotherhood. One reason the Army allowed the elections was because its leadership feared that rank and file troops would not support repression in the face of such an uprising from the depths of their own social origins. Morsi is being very careful now. It remains to be seen how the new configuration of power, of Islamists vs. the Army, will evolve.
The killing of the American ambassador and three other Americans in Libya prompted an embittered Secretary Clinton to ask how those who owed their “liberation” to the U.S. could be so ungrateful to their emancipators, thereby confirming how little she understands of the circumstances fostering the Libyan uprising, nor those her government has wrought, or the degree to which the planned outcome of U.S. intervention islikely to fail utterly. The standard interpretation of what transpired in Libya is that the U.S. and its European allies in NATO conducted a humanitarian intervention to rid Libya of another brutal dictator. It is true that Muammar Qaddaffi ruled autocratically but in this he was supported by a substantial majority at least in western Libya, where traditional tribes were loyal.
Libya came into existence as an independent state only in 1951. Before that it had been an Italian colony, or rather three separate colonies cobbled together and given the name the ancient Romans called most of North Africa. In its efforts to subdue these colonies Italy became the very first European empire to use the airplane in primitive bombing runs on resisting tribes. In this they were soon followed by the French in Syria and Lebanon, and by the British in Iraq and Afghanistan, facts still well remembered in the region. Therefore, like so many nations that acquired independence after World War II, Libya was an artificial construct, merging mutually suspicious or hostile ethnic groups and tribes into a configuration designed by former colonial masters to serve their interests. When Qaddaffi overthrew the corrupt king of Libya in 1969, who made sweetheart deals with western oil companies, and hoarded revenues from Libya’s newly discovered oil, he took over a country already riven with tribal animosities. One of his difficulties was that much of Libya’s oil was in the east, where tribes different from his own loyalists dwelled. He suppressed opposition brutally.
Another problem which Quaddaffi dealt with successfully – and which brought him the unending hostility of the west and led to a deadly cat and mouse game that played out over forty years- were those western oil companies that dominated the industry and reaped the greatest share of profits. Qaddaffi immediately nationalized oil but allowed some companies to remain. However, he imposed significantly higher taxes and royalties on those, like the American company Occidental, resulting in a considerable increase in revenues available to him but he used these to raise the standard of living substantially, mainly for his loyalists, but also to an extent for the entire population. Whether his example stimulated what followed is unclear but the facts are that numerous other former oil producing colonies of the western powers subsequently initiated their own nationalizations, thereby upsetting longstanding and profitable western arrangements. He also refused to peg the Libyan currency, the dinar, to the International Monetary Fund, and refused to submit to the World Bank and International Bank for Settlements. Qaddaffi also styled himself the champion of pan-Arabism, the movement to unify the entire Arab world and funded many nationalist movements hostile to the west.
During all this time the CIA was actively involved with Qaddaffi’s opponents to find a way to overthrow him. This lethal contest led to mutual terrorism (though most American media and scholarly accounts omit the U.S. actions) and culminating in the atrocity of Lockerbie, followed by the bombing of Libya, including Qaddaffi’s house where his adoptive three year old daughter was killed. Qaddaffi then intensified efforts to acquire chemical weapons, and even undertook a nuclear program. However sanctions led him to submit the Lockerbie suspects for trial in the UK, and later to give up these WMD programs. At that point western media reports declared that Qaddaffi had “normalized’” affairs with the west.
Whatever he imagined about his new relations with former enemies, the CIA had other ideas. So when the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and soon spread across the entire region, many Libyans followed suit and Libya descended into the civil war that Washington and NATO then leapt upon in order to accomplish finally what the western governments and energy corporations had desired all along- the overthrow of Qaddaffi and his replacement with an installed government essentially of handpicked clients who would restore Libyan resources to western corporate domination. In the midst of fighting the private global intelligence company STRATFOR published and circulated a detailed map showing most of Libya’s oil was located in the eastern area of Benghazi. It was also well known that the oil Libya produced was of a type that is refined easily into the gasoline required in European automobiles. South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham waxed feverishly over the lure of profits, braying “Let’s get in on the ground. There’s a lot of money to be made in Libya. Lots of oil to be produced. Let’s get on the ground and help the Libyan people establish a democracy and a functioning economy based on free market principles.” Even before the “revolution” had succeeded and a new government was installed, the rebel group claiming authority announced the dissolution of Qaddaffi’s national bank and replaced it with a new central bank tied to international institutions, which, of course, are dominated by the western financial establishment.
As media images showed clearly, Qaddaffi still had enormous support. The “rebels” included eastern tribal members long hostile to rule from western Libya, but also ethnic minorities like the Berbers, but also Libyan members of al Qaeda as well as al Qaeda jihadists from around the Arab and Muslim world. Included in the toxic mix were CIA operatives and covert American Special Forces. Without western arms supplied to Qaddaffi’s opponents, and especially the U.S. led bombing campaign it is likely Qaddaffi would have hung on. The result we see today, however, was utterly predictable.
The so-called government installed in Tripoli, in the west of Libya, has no control over anything, especially in eastern Benghazi. In May the interim prime minister’s offices were attacked with four aides killed. In June a bomb exploded in the same consulate building where Ambassador Stevens was killed. The British ambassador narrowly escaped assassination last spring. The January ransacking of the National Transition Council offices provides evidence that factions in Benghazi want independence, not the unified state. What more would it have taken for Washington to realize that its best laid plans were going awry? Writing in the Guardian, Benjamin Barber notes that at minimum 100,000 militants of one faction or another, all armed with American and NATO weapons (including the rocket-propelled-grenade launchers used against the American consulate) continue to wage war or jihad upon each other, and that al Qaeda is as much a home –grown faction as any other. Indeed, al Qaeda raised its flag over the Benghazi courthouse the day after Qaddaffi was killed.
On March 2, 2007 Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces, and 2004 Democratic contender for the presidency, appeared on Amy Goodman’s televised program Democracy Now. In the interview he revealed that shortly before the invasion of Iraq a highly placed Pentagon officer divulged a secret plan to him to overthrow the governments of seven countries-Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Speaking in San Francisco the following October Clark repeated this and added commentary about a conversation he had in 1992 with Paul Wolfowitz, a prime architect of George W. Bush’s policies, who at the time was number three in the Defense department. Quoting Wolfowitz Clark said: “One thing we learned [in the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region- in the Middle East- and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq- before the next superpower comes along to stop us.”
The Neo-Conservatives were supposed to have been swept from power by the new Obama Administration, and yet the withdrawal (that is not really a withdrawal) from Iraq was negotiated by Bush, and the “surge” in Afghanistan ordered by Obama out neo-conned the neo-cons, just as the “liberation” of Libya certainly followed their template if not their foolish expectations. Syria awaits our humanitarian ministrations. But that may prove the most disastrous escapade of all.
Source: Paul Atwood | CounterPunch.org
Now, in the monsoon season, Cambodia is verdant, cool and relaxed. The rice paddies on the low hill slopes are flooded, forests that hide old temples are almost impassable, rough seas deter swimmers. It’s a pleasant time to re-visit this modest country: Cambodia is not crowded, and Cambodians are not greedy, but rather peaceful and relaxed. They fish for shrimp, calamari and sea brim. They grow rice, unspoiled by herbicides, manually planted, cultivated and gathered. They produce enough for themselves and for export, too — definitely no paradise, but the country soldiers on.
Socialism is being dismantled fast: Chinese-owned factories keep churning tee-shirts for the European and American market employing tens of thousands of young Cambodian girls earning $80 per month. They are being sacked at the first sign of unionising. Nouveau-riches live in palaces; there are plenty of Lexus cars, and an occasional Rolls-Royce. Huge black and red, hard and precious tree trunks are constantly ferried to the harbour for timber export, destroying forests but enriching traders. There are many new French restaurateurs in the capital; NGO reps earn in one minute the equivalent of a worker’s monthly salary.
Not much remains from the turbulent period when the Cambodians tried to radically change the order of things in the course of their unique traditionalist conservative peasant revolution under communist banner. That was the glorious time of Jean Luc Godard and his La Chinoise, of the Cultural Revolution in China sending party bonzes for re-education to remote farms, of Khmer Rouge marching on the corrupt capital. Socialist movement reached a bifurcation point: whether to advance to more socialism Mao-style, or retreat to less socialism the Moscow way. The Khmer Rouge experiment lasted only three years, from 1975 to 1978.
Surprisingly, Cambodians have no bad memories of that period. This is quite an amazing discovery for an infrequent visitor. I did not come to reconstruct “the truth”, whatever it is, but rather to find out what is the collective memory of the Cambodians, how do they perceive the events of the late 20thcentury, what narrative has been filtered down by time gone by. The omnipotent narrative-making machinery of the West has embedded in our conscience the image of bloody Khmer Rouge commies cannibalising their own people over the Killing Fields and ruled over by a nightmarish Pol Pot, anybody’s notion of ruthless despot.
A much quoted American professor, RJ Rummel, wrote that “out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,000 …almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children were murdered …most of these… were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge”. Every second person was killed, according to his estimate.
However, Cambodia’s population was not halved but more than doubled since 1970, despite alleged multiple genocides. Apparently, the genocidaires were inept, or their achievements have been greatly exaggerated.
The Pol Pot the Cambodians remember was not a tyrant, but a great patriot and nationalist, a lover of native culture and native way of life. He was brought up in royal palace circles; his aunt was a concubine of the previous king. He studied in Paris, but instead of making money and a career, he returned home, and spent a few years dwelling with forest tribes to learn from the peasants. He felt compassion for the ordinary village people who were ripped off on a daily basis by the city folk, the comprador parasites. He built an army to defend the countryside from these power-wielding robbers. Pol Pot, a monkish man of simple needs, did not seek wealth, fame or power for himself. He had one great ambition: to terminate the failing colonial capitalism in Cambodia, return to village tradition, and from there, to build a new country from scratch.
His vision was very different from the Soviet one. The Soviets built their industry by bleeding the peasantry; Pol Pot wanted to rebuild the village first, and only afterwards build industry to meet the villagers’ needs. He held city dwellers in contempt; they did nothing useful, in his view. Many of them were connected with loan sharks, a distinct feature of post-colonial Cambodia; others assisted the foreign companies in robbing people off their wealth. Being a strong nationalist, Pol Pot was suspicious of the Vietnamese and Chinese minorities. But what he hated most was acquisitiveness, greed, the desire to own things. St Francis and Leo Tolstoy would have understood him.
The Cambodians I spoke to pooh-poohed the dreadful stories of Communist Holocaust as a western invention. They reminded me of what went on: their brief history of troubles began in 1970, when the Americans chased away their legitimate ruler, Prince Sihanouk, and replaced him with their proxy military dictator Lon Nol. Lon Nol’s middle name was Corruption, and his followers stole everything they could, transferred their ill-gotten gains abroad then moved to the US. On top of this came US bombing raids. The peasants ran to the forest guerrillas of Khmer Rouge, which was led by a few Sorbonne graduates, and eventually succeeded in kicking out Lon Nol and his American supporters.
In 1975, Pol Pot took over the country, devastated by a US bombing campaign of Dresden ferocity, and saved it, they say. Indeed, the US planes (do you remember Ride of the Valkyries in the Apocalypse is Now?) dropped more bombs on this poor country than they had on the Nazi Germany, and spread their mines all over the rest of it. If the Cambodians are pressed to name their great destroyer (and they are not keen about burrowing back into the past), it is Professor Henry Kissinger they name, not Comrade Pol Pot.
Pol Pot and his friends inherited a devastated country. The villages had been depopulated; millions of refugees gathered in the capital to escape American bombs and American mines. Destitute and hungry, they had to be fed. But because of the bombing campaign, nobody planted rice in 1974. Pol Pot commanded everybody away from the city and to the rice paddies, to plant rice. This was a harsh, but a necessary step, and in a year Cambodia had plenty of rice, enough to feed all and even to sell some surplus to buy necessary commodities.
New Cambodia (or Kampuchea, as it was called) under Pol Pot and his comrades was a nightmare for the privileged, for the wealthy and for their retainers; but poor people had enough food and were taught to read and write. As for the mass killings, these are just horror stories, averred my Cambodian interlocutors. Surely the victorious peasants shot marauders and spies, but many more died of American-planted mines and during the subsequent Vietnamese takeover, they said.
In order to listen to the other side, I travelled to the Killing Fields of Choeung Ek, the memorial where the alleged victims were killed and buried. This is a place some 30 km away from Phnom Penh, a neat green park with a small museum, much visited by tourists, the Cambodian Yad va-Shem. A plaque says that the Khmer Rouge guards would bring some 20 to thirty detainees twice or thrice a month, and kill many of them. For three years, it would amount less than two thousand dead, but another plaque said indeed that they dug up about eight thousand bodies. However, another plaque said there was over a million killed. Noam Chomsky assessed that the death toll in Cambodia may have been inflated “by a factor of a thousand.”
There are no photos of the killings; instead, the humble museum holds a couple of naïve paintings showing a big, strong man killing a small, weak one, in a rather traditional style. Other plaques read: “Here the murderous tools were kept, but nothing remains now” and similar inscriptions. To me, this recalled other CIA-sponsored stories of Red atrocities, be it Stalin’s Terror or the Ukrainian Holodomor. The people now in charge of the US, Europe and Russia want to present every alternative to their rule as inept or bloody or both. They especially hate incorruptible leaders, be it Robespierre or Lenin, Stalin or Mao – and Pol Pot. They prefer leaders keen on graft, and eventually install them. The Americans have an additional good reason: Pol Pot killings serve to hide their own atrocities, the millions of Indochinese they napalmed and strafed.
Cambodians do say that many more people were killed by the invading Vietnamese in 1978; while the Vietnamese prefer to shift the guilt to the Khmer Rouge. But the present government does not encourage this or any other digging into the past, and for good reason: practically all important officials above a certain age were members of the Khmer Rouge, and often leading members. Beside, almost all of them collaborated with the Vietnamese. The present PM, Hun Sen, was a Khmer Rouge commander, and later supported the Vietnamese occupation. When the Vietnamese went home, he remained in power.
Prince Sihanouk, who was exiled by the Americans, also supported the Khmer Rouge. He returned home to his neat royal palace and to its adjacent silver temple with Emerald Buddha after departure of the Vietnamese. Unbelievably, he is still alive, though he transferred the crown to his son, a monk who had to leave monastery and assume the throne. So the royal family is not keen on digging up the past, either. Nobody wants to discuss it openly; the official story of Khmer Rouge alleged atrocities is entrenched in Western conscience, though attempts to try the perpetrators bore scant results.
Looking back, it appears that the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot failed in their foreign policy rather than in their internal one. It is fine that they canceled money, dynamited banks and sent bankers to plant rice. It is fine that they dried up the great blood-sucking leech, the big-city compradors and money-lenders. Their failure was that they did not calculate their position vis-à-vis Vietnam, and tried to push beyond their own weight. Vietnam was very powerful – it had just defeated the US – and would brook no nonsense from their junior brothers in Phnom Penh. The Vietnamese planned to create an Indochinese Federation including Laos and Cambodia under their own leadership. They invaded and overthrew the stubborn Khmer Rouge who were too keen on their independence. They also supported the black legend of genocide to justify their own bloody intervention.
We talk too much about evils committed under futurist regimes, and too little about the evils of the greedy rulers. It is not often we remember Bengal famine, Hiroshima holocaust, Vietnam tragedy, or even Sabra and Shatila. Introduction of capitalism in Russia killed more people than introduction of socialism, but who knows that?
Now we may cautiously reassess the brave attempts to reach for socialism in various countries. They were done under harsh, adverse conditions, under threat of intervention, facing hostile propaganda. But let us remember: if socialism failed, so did capitalism. If communism was accompanied by loss of life, so was and is capitalism. But with capitalism, we have no future worth living, while socialism still offers hope to us and our children.
The supreme illicit fraud of central banking embodied in the Federal Reserve, acts as a private piggybank for favored cartel thieves. The liquidity of unlimited credit transfers to banksters, especially at zero interest, financed by unimaginable new Treasury Bonds, indebting the American public; is a crime committed by outlaws. The significance of the evidence for the extent of the crony financial manipulations, that the controllers of international capital use to maintain their power strangle hold on humanity, needs to be fully exposed. Only when the beleaguered and downtrodden become sufficiently indignant to usury incarceration, will heads start to roll.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announces on his web site page, The Fed Audit.
“The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
Yes, you read that correct, 16 TRILLION DOLLARS. When originally disclosed, there was minimal outrage.
The United States Government Accountability Office report on the Federal Reserve Audit on page 203-204 reveals proof positive of the magnitude of the transfer of trillions in bailout credit to the money center international banks.
“The FOMC approved these swap line arrangements to help address challenges in the global market for interbank lending in U.S. dollars. Many foreign banks held U.S. dollar-denominated assets and faced challenges borrowing in dollars to fund these assets. In contrast to U.S. commercial banks, foreign banks did not hold significant U.S. dollar deposits, and as a result, dollar funding strains were particularly acute for many foreign banks. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) staff memos recommending that the FOMC approve swap lines noted that continuing strains in dollar funding markets abroad could further exacerbate strains in U.S. funding markets. For example, foreign banks facing difficulties borrowing against U.S. dollar assets may have faced increased pressure to sell these assets at a time of stress, potentially putting downward pressure on prices for these assets. The dollar swap lines allowed foreign central banks to make dollar loans to banks in their jurisdictions without being forced to draw down dollar holdings of foreign exchange reserves or to acquire dollars directly in the foreign exchange market. An FRBNY staff paper noted that the dollar reserves of many foreign central banks at the start of the crisis were smaller than the amounts they borrowed under the swap lines and that efforts by foreign central banks to buy dollars in the market could have crowded out private transactions, making it more difficult for foreign banks to obtain dollars. This paper further noted that the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Banks collectively) was in a unique position to provide dollars needed by foreign central banks to provide lender-of-last-resort liquidity to banks in their jurisdictions. The increase in reserves was offset through sales of Treasury securities and increasing incentives for depository institutions to hold excess reserves at FRBNY.”
The last statement regarding using Treasury securities to increase banking reserves admits that monetizing the balance sheet of the FED, to unheard of levels, continues unabated. The absence of mainstream media reports on this historic, more than doubling, of the officially disclosed debt is beyond belief. Now that the Federal Reserve openly acknowledges that, the privately held banking cabal is buying up Treasury Notes, because the marketplace has refused to accept and buy the excessive float of new Treasury obligations, should be the most sobering consequence of the greatest bubble of all time.
This off the books concealment reporting by the FED illustrates the importance of the audit.
Watch the video, REAL DEBT that provides a short analysis of the Fed audit.
The Wall Street Journal, in The Federal Reserve’s cult of secrecy is unmasked, reveals a disgusting culture of self-aggrandizement.
“The recent audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office is particularly disturbing if read alongside the last report to Congress by the Fed’s Inspector General.
The GAO audit found a huge number of serious conflicts of interest at the Fed. Employees and contractors were allowed to own stock in the companies receiving financial assistance from the central bank.”
The fact that the FED and their enablers in Congress prevented a complete and comprehensive forensic audit of the books of the “Jackals of Jekyll Island” indicates just how much is at stake.
None other than the formidable blog, The Economic Collapse, expresses the sentiment that most of us should share.
“Another mystery that I would like to see addressed is the trillions of dollars of “off balance sheet transactions” that are unaccounted for at the Federal Reserve. This was brought up once during a Congressional hearing, but nobody seemed to have any answers.”
The $9,000,000,000,000 MISSING From The Federal Reserve YouTube captures the absurdity of Congressional oversight. The financial community that created fractional reserve banking is in total control of the political election process. As long as there is no accountability and consequences for outright theft, the money magicians continue to operate their fraudulent scheme of deception as the cornerstone of international economic transactions.
The FED’s grip on the global moneychangers’ racket is based upon maintaining the U.S. Federal Reserve funny money, as the reserve currency for the planet. The value and worth of Treasury Bills and Bonds are on the path to have the value of Reichsbank marks. Recognize the enemy that is destroying the country and world economy.
Now that the Democrat Party convention concluded their class warfare rally, those with saner minds are left with the task of identifying the magnitude of the sociopathic disease that infects the vast mindset of the worship government sect. The rhetoric of the Left has little trouble with identifying the ills of the world, but when the collectivists start to rattle off their measures to make the world safe for democracy, the ugly fascist face of totalitarianism emerges. The bond among statists, span all ideological spectrums. Commies and Nazis share the same gene. In Amerika, that same defiled DNA proliferates in all the half-wits that still believe that government is or can be a force for good. Essentially, the people are a herd of corruption enablers.
Maybe the most ridiculous spin out of the mouths of the entitlement strivers references a CNN report, that a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 0 percent of African American voters intended to support Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama. On face value, this claim is absurd. However, by digging deeper into the attitude that the mainstream media characterizes for the black community, the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw, is that the true racism resides in the controllers of the popular culture and its perverted message.In order to appreciate the linkage between bigotry and subservience, the role of stupidity needs acknowledgment. Multitudes of all races share idiocy, often in the same way, by the institutional levers of control. The inference that any particular people would give consent to a betrayer of individual rights, based upon the shared color of their skin, is an insult to everyone.
The executive order practices of the Obama administration are inherently authoritarian. The coercion used by the State to enforce the power of the ruling elite is integral to the survival of the regime. The ridiculousness that gives fake relief and promises phony rewards, is often called – democracy.
This subject, seldom analyzed in a vacuum, takes on the persona of the ideologue. Richard Lichtman provides one such example, in an essay, Totalitarian Democracy, which cites the work of Sheldon Wolin.
“Since the time of the Civil War and the formation of the American colossus and its dual economy of corporate domination and social remainder, the course of capitalist domination has been set. Whatever further “progressive” change has been achieved has forfeited its full potentiality to the tendencies of an expanding corporate control. In this process, democracy has been more and more corrupted, as Sheldon Wolin notes in “Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism,” a work that has been blatantly ignored.
The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed. This has come about not through a Leader’s imposing his will or the state’s forcibly eliminating opposition, but through certain developments, notably the economy, that promoted integration, rationalization, concentrated wealth, and a faith that virtually any problem from health care to political crises, even faith itself – could be managed, that is, subject to control, predictability, and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the product. Voters are made as predictable as consumers; a university is nearly as rationalized in its structure as a corporation; a corporate structure is as hierarchical in its chain of command as the military. The regime ideology is capitalism which is virtually as undisputed as Nazi doctrine was in 1930s Germany.”
This topic, examined in more detail in the essay, Inverted Totalitarianism and the Corporate State, is worth a review. Mr. Lichtman being the “Predictable Progressive” concludes his remarks with a stunning attitude that perverts the natural order of the meaning of individual liberty.
“The Tea Party and other such calamitous confusions will eventually come to the sort of end that has destroyed all those who do not understand just who is the master and who the servant. But a great deal of suffering can be visited on the nation while this defeat is being enacted. Now is the time for all of us to engage in the intellectual activity of understanding what forces are in play and the practical task of forcing back and destroying the monstrous army of these protofascist directors and retainers.”
Ivory tower utopians march in the ranks of statist totalitarians by choice. Many seek to lead the charge. The “rank and file” that digs the ditches, usually lacks the skills to think independently for their self. Nonetheless, they are usually the first to rally to the cause of their sanitized Führer that preaches hope and change, with every loss of freedom. No one political theory has a monopoly on despotism. Yet the “peaches and cream” slogans of fairness and equality, that come from the ultra extreme wing of the Democratic Party, out does the worst of the GOP civil libertarian destroyers.
Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest is the end product of the collectivist education system that indoctrinates impressionable brains with reverence for the dependency society. Mush minds come out of this corrosive process. Voting for entitlements and the expansion of the democratic totalitarianism becomes the norm.
The short DNC Video: “The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To“, is an anti-intellectual message that appeals to government thugs and parasites. The underprivileged are permanent wards of the state. Those that lack self-esteem are usually products of government school pedagogy.
The Democratic Party Platform is just as immaterial as that of the GOP. However, the DemocRATS are more adapt at pushing the most collectivist policies that consistently strip away the last remnants of a constitutional republic. Democracy for the progressive statist translates into direct democracy, because they are the most adamant about open borders.Do not deduce that RepubliCANTS are protectors of traditional values or states rights. The fusion of the despots is systemic because both power structures rely upon a false dialectic, while both just wear different style uniforms.
One of the trademarks of the presidential imposter is viewed in the YouTube, Obamas Domestic Army? Recruiting new legions of mercenaries for domestic social control, from the gangs of idle hoodlums awaiting their “just due”, typifies the abnormal mindset of democratic despotism.Watching the culture of prerogative democratic diatribes, advocating the entitlement society, could never take root unless the peasants were conditioned to demand their total cradle to grave guarantees. The pandering is intolerable. The trade off enslavement that is conditional for receiving benefits goes unnoticed to most of the bottom feeders. What little rationality and critical thinking remaining on the Progressive Left, erodes with every election cycle.
The remorseful lesson that the majority of voters fail to admit is that the election pageant never provides the alternative to rid the country of collectivist politicians. The obvious reason is that the dependent masses crucify any candidate that dares champion the principles of liberty and personal responsibility.
The Democratic Party is especially adept at pimping for the welfare state. The utter failure of the crazy schemes, self-indulgent programs and social benefits, at taxpayers’ expense; has primed the public for surrender. Sacrificing individual dignity is a small price to pay for a place in the government check queue. The dire net results from the “Great Society” are all around us. It resembles the conditions that gave rise to Charlie Chaplin’s, The Great Dictator.Ironically his egalitarian political views, lent criticism that he was a Commie. From Chaplin’s famous speech, his words run amok, when applied to the requirements of the Democratic Totalitarianism that now engulfs every aspect of the Obama version of socialism.
“Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate – only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers – don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty.”
What kind of conduct should you expect from a Reich that wants to field an AmeriCorps, civilian national security force. This is the Obama standard for pledging your “Good AmeriKan” credentials for a national socialist passport. Have we not learned from the European experience? The oath to the psychopathic beloved leader is creating our own domestic holocaust.
The idolization of Hitler is reminiscent of the flaunting over Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Today, there are no excuses for not knowing that this demigod is a tyrant or that his plan is to enslave the nation. Pride in America the Stupid is a badge of admission to the Democrats Delusional Worldview. The Democrat convention of 2012 is just as pathetic as that of the GOP. The language and emphasis may seem to differ, but when you strip away all the empty words, you have a phony competition to head up the omnipresent corporate state.The ruling class and the suck-ups that pledge their allegiance to a State adoration, despise the defense of liberty. The metaphysical question of our age is, Why are we here? How will you answer this eternal and political question? It is evident how the useless-idiot will respond.
Liberals are responsible for much of the evil in America. But in their zeal to “Reclaim America for Christ” some well-intentioned pro-family conservatives have been introducing evil into the Church. I’m speaking of the “New Religious Right” (NRR) a term I borrowed from Brannon Howse. Ironically, in order to bring society back to its Judeo-Christian values, groups such as the American Family Association and the Family Research Council have brought out-and-out heretics and cultists out of the darkness into the limelight.
The NRR evolved out of the Religious Right (RR) of days gone by. Howse, who was acquainted with the founders of the movement, has gotten a lot of heat for voicing his concern over some of the people the NRR has chosen to unite with since the passing of the old guard. “I do not believe,” he said, “that many of the now deceased leaders of the religious right from the 1970s and 1980s would agree with the theological and doctrinal compromise of many of the leaders of today’s ‘New Religious Right’.”
The leaders Howse is speaking of are D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers and Tim LaHaye. LaHaye, author of the blockbuster Left Behind series, is still very much alive and supports the NRR. It seems he is willing to set aside theological and doctrinal differences to accomplish what he set out to do over 40 years ago. Has Dr. LaHaye forgotten 2 John 9:11?:
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (Bold mine)
I share Brannon Howse’s concern over the NRR. In their zeal to defeat the far-left’s anti-God agenda, they’ve been partnering with those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ.
The NRR has convinced a large number of evangelicals that if we can just change the system we will be able to influence human behavior and restore some moral sanity to this country. In order to achieve this lofty goal, conservative people of faith must become engaged in the culture war. To this end, casting our vote is of primary importance.
So far so good.
The NRR urges conservatives to become involved in politics at state and local levels; participate in special interest groups; take an interest in government schools and our institutions of higher learning; take part in lawful demonstrations and publicly held events. All of this must take place so that conservatives will play a larger role in influencing public policy.
I have no problem with any of this for the reason that we are told in Psalm 24:1 “The earth is the LORD’S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” Thus, “both the state and the church are under God,” says R.C. Sproul, “The state is not sovereign; the state never has the right to do wrong. The state is always under the authority of God. God institutes government, God ordains government, and God will judge government. He holds government and all other institutions in our society responsible for doing what is right.” Later Sproul says, “God tells me as a Christian to pay my bills on time. He tells me not to use false weights and balances in my business. I think that it’s perfectly appropriate to recommend that the state have sound currency and not destroy the weights and balances of our society, to have honorable contracts and to do what is right. In other words, in those spheres of ethics that are right for all people, I believe it is a Christian’s responsibility to remind the state to stand for what is right.” (Source)
In my view, God’s people, including pastors, should speak publicly through whatever means possible — to include the pulpit. One reason for Christians being involved in politics and the culture war is to see that the state does what is right for all people. Another is to help the victims who are being enslaved by government and by wicked people. Michael A. Milton believes that the clergy must speak out because they speak with “biblical authority to other Beast-like powers when there are souls at risk or the honor of Christ and His Church is under siege.” (Source)
WHEN THE DEVIL COMES A KNOCKIN’…
” … I can visualize times when the only way to make plain the seriousness of what is involved in regard to a service or an activity where the gospel is going to be preached is not to accept an official part if men whose doctrine is known to be an enemy are going to be invited to participate officially. In an age of relativity, the practice of truth when it is costly is the only way to cause the world to take seriously our protestations concerning truth.” –Francis A. Schaeffer
To help further their political agenda the NRR has thrust evangelicals into syncretism as we merge with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, New Agers as well as with Social Justice Christians (I’ll cover this in part 3), false teachers, and those who are caught up in cults. So it’s no surprise to see NRR leaders sharing a stage with those in radical fringe groups such as the New Apostolic Reformation(NAR), International House of Prayer and Word-faith/prosperity preachers. The NRR has been warned by discernment ministries and Christian apologists who study the cults, the occult and aberrant movements that these people are teaching rank heresy. For instance, the aforementioned groups hold to “positive confession,” a belief that is firmly rooted in the metaphysical cults. In spite of what the Bible says in I Corinthians 10:20-21, NRR leaders have no problem uniting with modern day “apostles” and “prophets” who are in high positions in the NAR and with New Age Mormon Glenn Beck as they attempt to save America from the ravages of liberalism. Which begs the question: Why is the NRR not making every effort to save the Church from liberals, false teachers, New Agers, and the cults?
Instead of doing what is right in God’s eyes, the NRR has helped a host of heretics and cultists gain credibility not only with evangelicals but with Catholics, the conservative media, politicians, entertainers and the Tea Party. Partnering with the wicked is unacceptable for the reasons that: (1) God opposes the wicked; (2) The wicked should not be given a platform — especially when professing Christians provide that platform!
“Knowingly or unknowingly,” says Brannon Howse, “the New Religious Right is being used as “useful idiots” by which to implement the goals of the progressives. Please understand, I am not calling anyone a name. This is a historical term used to describe people that are knowingly or unknowingly used by socialists. (Source)
Therein lies the problem.
To “bring America back to God” the NRR has embraced the technique of pragmatism or “whatever works.”
“Some in the religious right,” says Phil Johnson, “seem to think the primary duty of the church in secular society is political lobbying. Evangelical politicians have displayed a frightening willingness to compromise spiritual principles, forge partnerships with unbelievers, and shift the focus of their message away from the gospel in favor of more broadly-appealing moral and political themes. Some seem willing to take whatever pragmatic means are necessary in order to influence the vote—as if the advancement of Christ’s kingdom depended on the American electoral process.” (Source)
THE CHRISTIAN WORLD, THE MEGA-CHURCH, AND THE DEVIL
Pragmatism is also popular among pastors. Blogger Tim Challies warned that pragmatism “has reared its ugly head throughout the Christian world. It is found in statements about evangelistic techniques such as “if it only reaches one person it is worth it.” It is found in Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Church, a textbook for church growth, where he writes “Never criticize any method that God is blessing.” He also says “We must be willing to adjust our worship practices when unbelievers are present. God tells us to be sensitive to the hang-ups of unbelievers in our services.” These ideas are not Biblical; they are rooted in the perceived consequences. Pragmatism is found wherever Christians run to join programs and hurry to change their worship services because of what they expect to see happen because of the changes they make. In short, it is found anywhere the emphasis is removed from what Scripture says and where the emphasis is placed on the expected results.” (Source)
In Part 1, I suggested ways in which evangelicals can offer a way back to a time when Americans knew the difference between right and wrong, before our beloved country started down the road to socialism, before she took a nose dive into moral depravity. The number one most important thing for the committed Christian to do is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the lost. (Rom 1:15-7) People are not going to change unless hearts and minds are changed. We love and forgive because we have been loved greatly and forgiven much.
Someone’s values are going to prevail in America. Will it be godless secular humanist/moral relativistic values of the Left we’re seeing today? Or the solid biblical values of yesteryear?
Presently, liberals are winning the culture war – and if they’re winning, conservatives are losing. Liberals are winning through the courts, when liberal judges rule in their favor; through elected officials who pass laws that line up with the Left’s agenda for society; and through bullying and fear mongering. And as I pointed out in Part 1, the liberal agenda has the full support of the entertainment industry as well as the mainstream media. They’re also winning because very few believers even know what a biblical worldview looks like anymore. Sadly, the visible Church has adopted an unbiblical worldview.
How could this happen?
My finger is pointed directly at Church leadership for the reason that many of them have failed to equip the Body of Christ with a decidedly Christian worldview. But what’s even worse is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is rarely preached in churches. In our postmodern world many so-called ministers of God are hip, cool people pleasers, preferring to preach a culturally “relevant” sermon that makes the audience feel good about God – and themselves.
Tim Challies made the point that instead of sticking to biblical orthodoxy, church leadership has adopted pragmatic methods to appeal to the consumer. Their main aim is to grow their church but in order to accomplish this, pastors must sell the benefits of Christianity to the consumer. So they have to come up with ways to entice “unchurched (unsaved) Harry and Mary” onto the church campus. They hope that once Harry and Mary are inside the auditorium they’ll realize all the “fun” things the church has to offer. Things like espresso bars…live bands that play contemporary worship music loud enough to blow the doors off the hinges…praise band singers whose voices could rival any America Idol winner…drama sketches with stage lighting and props – and I’ve just scratched the surface! Harry and Mary love the trendy church. Moreover, they love their non-judgmental pastor who sincerely believes his (or her) “calling” is to take care of people’s feelings.
In his piece, The Market-Driven Church, Gary Gilley underscores that, “fun has replaced holiness as the church’s goal. Having a good time has become the criterion of an excellent, growing church, since fun and entertainment is what church consumers want. Yet Scripture references encouraging churches to become havens of fun are, as one may suspect, sadly lacking.” (Source)
Pragmatism ushered in the church growth “Purpose-Driven” movement. Adopting a marketing strategy to grow the church has been hugely successful! As a result many churches are well attended. Problem is, pseudo Christians are the ones filling the pews…oops! Auditoriums.
Paul’s dire warning to Church leaders has fallen on deaf ears:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous [vicious] wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)
Part 1… part 3 coming soon!
No compromise ever, episode 1—Mike Abendroth’s discussion with James White, Carl Trueman and Phil Johnson on the Elephant Room 2 controversy
Worldview Weekend Training—Brannon Howse
Liberals changing word meanings with intent to deceive—By Marsha West
The Consumer-Driven Church—By Matt Slick