In the case of Jack Kingston, should he win the next round, he will be facing Sam Nunn's daughter, Michelle Nunn. Michelle may be a lovely person but like, Obama, she is basically a former community organizer and has little to qualify her other than gender and her dad's name and his ability to raise money for her.
A vote for Michelle Nunn is a certain vote for Harry Reid to continue his unbridled partisanship and to perpetuate Obamacare. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Jack Kingston has over twenty years of government experience, has a conservative voting record and has served his constituents well. Jack has become a close friend and I have no doubt he will make a superb Senator.
The dog fight within the ranks of the Republican Party demonstrate how wasteful and egocentric candidates who cannot possibly win are being. (See 1b below.)
In the case of Bob Johnson, he is fighting an uphill battle against a local pharmacist turned politician who has a checkered history of self dealings. Bob is a 26 year army veteran, a former Ranger, and currently is a practicing physician. Bob is far more suited to represent our district than his opponent and he enters the political fray without any taint and as a true public citizen seeking to help get our nation back on track.
As for Jolene Byrnes, she too is imminently qualified to win against her opponent who, also has been called on the carpet and is under investigation for self-dealing engagements, and, in my humble opinion, does not have the temperament to work in a cohesive manner whereas, I believe, Jolene does.
It is sad that only 15 or so % of registered voters went to the polls and thus, we have only ourselves to blame for our failing government.
When you see what it taking place on college campuses (See 1c below.) and how this administration and president has lied and bungled just about everything they have undertaken it is evident to me that , though liberals may love our country, they do not love the country we once had but prefer their own dreamy world interpretation of how a supplicant government should function.
Liberals believe it is ok to create a dependent society incapable of doing for self. Liberals believe Americans should be like everyone else. Liberals believe in big government which has proven to be totally incompetent when it comes to solving problems. Liberals believe money is the solution to everything and are totally indifferent to the massive debt we have incurred in implementing their ill conceived and failed social policies.
Finally, it would appear to me Liberals prefer a dis-United States rather than a united one because the policies of Obama, which they wholeheartedly embrace, have pitted Americans against each other while seeking the nebulous goal of equality of outcomes.
These are not the values or policies I believe our Founding Fathers intended and which made us a great and powerful nation capable of doing more for more than any nation in history.
Therefore I continue to reject the Liberal Kool Aid. and seek candidates worthy of pursuing solutions through rational policies that are cost effective and uphold our laws and traditions.
We have many serious problems and it is critical, if our Republic is to survive, that elect honest candidates with sane and practical solutions, mindful of the fact that we cannot afford everything we may wish.
===
For someone who has had 3 knee replacements in 2 years, I can relate.
.jpg)
.jpg)
==
While on vacation I read a chilling book entitled "Blackwater"
.The book details the rise of Blackwater USA, a private military company, and the growth of security contracting in the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. In the book, Jeremy Scahill contends that Blackwater exists as a mercenary force, and argues that Blackwater's rise is a consequence of the demobilisation of the US military following the Cold War and its overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan. He describes further how Blackwater (at the time of writing) serves in Iraq and Afghanistan like, in his judgement, a Praetorian Guard, protecting top authority figures and enjoying immunity from the usual constraints and regulations on traditional armies. Scahill argues that Blackwater's leadership was motivated by a right-wing Republican ideology, and that its founder, Erik Prince, has provided significant assistance in that venue. Blackwater is also present in some parts of Pakistan.
What I found so revealing is how Dick Cheney's concept of outsourcing non combat roles of our military, and how Donald Rumsfeld extended this concept, has resulted in many public and private entities raking in billions of tax dollar funds protecting State Department personnel all over the world and are seemingly, immune from our laws and prosecution .
In the case of Blackwater, specifically, Erik Prince operates two facilities: one in N Carolina and the other in California. The N Carolina facility encompasses some 7000 or more acres and is replete with firing ranges, and other extensive training facilities where, not only our own military got to school but organizations from all over the world send people to be trained in security etc.
Because we have engaged in extensive base closings our own military no longer have adequate opportunities to train on government military bases and thus, their training is outsourced and Balckwater is one of many such companies providing this service.
I was also surprised to learn that Blackwater personnel, in black uniforms , boots etc and armed to the teeth paroled many areas of New Orleans after the devastating hurricane and arrived unsupervised.
Prince makes a compelling case that his organization can deliver a force which is far more effective than U.N feckless, costly and wasteful 'peace' operations.
For anyone who is interested in how these private and public military security organizations have embedded themselves into or society I recommend you read this revealing and well researched book.
Now I am reading the wonderful biography of Norman Rockwell as lighter fare.
===
Watch Iran slip off the supposed noose Obama claims to have placed arournd their neck by his fecklessness. (See 2 below.)
===
Calling it like it is. (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Don't Stop Thinking About ObamaCare
More problems, and arguments, lie ahead
By James Taranto
President Obama keeps insisting the debate over ObamaCare is "over." That declaration, wish, exhortation or command does not correspond with reality. A newPolitico poll of voters in "hotly contested areas"--states and congressional districts thought to have competitive Senate or House contests--finds that 60% "say they believe the debate over the law is not over," whereas only 39% "echo the president's position" that the "debate has effectively concluded."
The areas sampled are probably a bit more Republican than the nation as a whole: Of the 16 states chosen on the Senate side, Obama carried only seven in 2012. (On the other hand, they include Minnesota, Oregon and Virginia, which most handicappers currently list as "likely" Democratic holds.) Obama's approval rating among the Politico respondents is 40%; RealClearPolitics had his nationwide average at 44% as of yesterday.
"At the same time that the health care law is plainly a political anchor for Democrats," Politico's Alexander Burns argues, "the poll signals that fully killing the ACA"--that's the abbreviation for the law's euphemistic formal name, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--"may not be a slam-dunk as a political proposition":
Among voters who had an opinion of the ACA, the electorate was almost exactly split between those who want to repeal the law entirely and those who favor either leaving it alone or keeping it in place with modifications.
Forty-eight percent of respondents endorsed repeal, versus 35 percent who wanted to modify the law without repealing it and just 16 percent who said it should be left unchanged.
Of course the vast middle ground of "modify the law without repealing it" is terra incognita. It is as accurate as Burns's formulation, and no less precise, to say that those who want to leave the law as it is are outnumbered more than 5 to 1 by those who want to repeal or change it.
There's an additional ambiguity: What does it mean to leave the law "unchanged" when the Supreme Court has already struck down parts of it and the administration has declined to follow or enforce others? That's not a salient question for immediate electoral purposes; in terms of voting intention, "left unchanged" can be taken as a statement of support for the Democrats. But even if the statutory language proves resistant to any effort at modification, there will be a new administration after 2016. That could mean more discretionary (or extralegal) changes and perhaps the end of ObamaCare as we know it.
"ObamaCare as we know it" is also an ambiguous turn of phrase, to say the least, for what do we know of ObamaCare? A few provisions are relatively straightforward, such as the expansion of Medicaid eligibility (in those states that have gone along with it) and the mandate that family insurance plans cover 23-, 24- and 25-year-old children of policyholders.
But the whole of ObamaCare is an insanely complicated scheme that even experts are still struggling to understand. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it--away from the fog of the controversy," then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said in March 2010. We'll be finding out for many years to come, and there's no reason to think that "fog" will ever lift.
Here's one example, reported the other day by the Washington Post:
The government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health plans in the new federal insurance marketplace and has been unable so far to fix the errors, according to internal documents and three people familiar with the situation.
The problem means that potentially hundreds of thousands of people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve. They are part of a large group of Americans who listed incomes on their insurance applications that differ significantly--either too low or too high--from those on file with the Internal Revenue Service, documents show.
The government has identified these discrepancies but is stuck at the moment. Under federal rules, consumers are notified if there is a problem with their application and asked to upload or mail in pay stubs or other proof of their income. Only a fraction have done so, according to the documents. And, even when they have, the federal computer system at the heart of the insurance marketplace cannot match this proof with the application because that capability has yet to be built, according to the three individuals.
"Deserve" is an odd choice of words in the first sentence of that second paragraph. Has anyone done anything to deserve any of this? (Maybe so: As H.L. Mencken observed: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.")
The point is that as many as a million people have claimed subsidies to which they are not entitled under the law, and the administration hasn't figured out what to do about it.Adrianna McIntyre of the pro-ObamaCare site Vox.com explains that the framers of ObamaCare included a provision to give it to these people good and hard:
Intentionally lying about income to boost your Obamacare tax credits could get you into hot water--$25,000 to $250,000 of hot water. That's a key takeaway from guidance recently released by the Obama administration. . . .
According to the regulation, the $250,000 penalty is for "knowingly and willfully" providing false information. The more modest $25,000 fine can apply in cases where people provide incorrect information without malicious intent. In both cases, these are the maximum penalties that the government can impose. . . .
These regulations were just finalized, but the Obama administration did not design the penalties; they are spelled out in the text of the Affordable Care Act itself.
"But will the federal government actually take advantage of their legal capacity to prosecute offenders?" McIntyre asks. Probably not, she answers: "After all, if people are lying on their insurance applications because they can't afford insurance, it's not likely that they can cover these fines."
"The IRS isn't likely to bring such proceedings to earn a pittance," Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, tells McIntyre. Then again, it wasn't money the Obama IRS was after when it embarked on a campaign of harassment against conservative nonprofit organizations. These ObamaCare penalties may be too draconian to be applied generally, but applied selectively, they could be a powerful weapon of an abusive administration.
And because ObamaCare leaves in place the law giving states the authority to regulate the insurance industry, Washington isn't the only prospective source of incompetence and abuse. Last Wednesday we noted that Seattle Children's Hospital had sued Washington state's insurance commissioner for approving plans that excluded it from their networks, thereby leaving some Washington families without access to pediatric care. The next day, the Puget Sound Business Journal published this report:
The Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) has placed an administrative judge on paid leave after she blew the whistle, accusing the agency's second-in-command of inappropriately trying to influence her decisions.
Chief Presiding Officer Patricia Petersen filed a document Tuesday stating that Chief Deputy Commissioner James Odiorne contacted her repeatedly over several months, which she contended was a violation of state law intended to preserve judicial independence.
Petersen said in the document that she believed Odiorne contacted her in an effort to influence her decision on cases related to the Affordable Care Act, including a suit that Seattle Children's Hospital filed against the OIC.
Meanwhile, Reason's Steven Greenhut reports that "in California, the biggest threat to the program's implementation now is coming from the left":
An initiative that has qualified for the November 2014 ballot, called the "Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act," would impose the kind of price controls on health insurance that exist on California auto, property and casualty insurance. And Obamacare's champions fear that these rules would strangle the state's health care exchange, called Covered California, with profiteering, delays, and too much regulation.
Talk about ironies!
They have reason to worry. Thanks to an adversarial insurance pricing system that pays consumer groups to serve as "intervenors" who challenge rate hikes in the regulatory and legal process, it can take a year or more for companies to get government approval to adjust rates. Such long delays could hobble a rapidly changing and complex health insurance market.
Greenhut reports that "some say" Proposition 103, the initiative applying price controls to auto insurance, "actually has boosted the profits of insurers": "No insurer wants to face that legalistic rate-changing process. So when prices are falling, insurers sit on their higher, regulated rates--rather than lowering them to lure new business."
The new initiative may not pass; Greenhut reports that "a broad political coalition is growing to oppose the ballot measure." Thanks to ObamaCare, liberals are beholden to insurance companies as well as vice versa (talk about ironies!).
Even so, it seems clear that the complications of ObamaCare--some intended, some not--will continue to multiply in the years to come. That makes it fanciful to think the debate will end anytime soon.
1a) Harry Reid hides behind Constitution to hit Koch brothers
By Charles Hurt
When the founders included the “Speech or Debate” clause in the U.S. Constitution, they wanted to protect members of Congress from the whims of any outside tyrant who might abuse the power of his office to harass, control or destroy his political enemies.
Today, in this putrid era of Senate history, we realize it was a gross oversight that the founders did not extend such protections to ordinary private citizens from members of Congress. Even in their deep cynicism about the human nature of politicians, the founders apparently never dreamed that a man like Majority Leader Harry Reid would one day control the U.S. Senate.
The specific purpose of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution was to ensure that lawmakers could carry out their duties in Congress without being delayed, arrested or jailed on trumped-up charges by political enemies.
Further, “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
This gave members of Congress the freedom to speak as faithfully and truthfully as they could without concern that their political enemies might later levy retribution against them. Members of Congress, in other words, were protected before, during and after any official business from the unbridled bullying of tyrants outside of Congress.
So what protections are there for the tax-paying American citizen from a tyrannical bully if that bully happens to be a member of Congress using his powerful position to slander, smear and slime that citizen’s character and motives? Nothing, apparently.
Take Charles and David Koch. They employ some 50,000 Americans and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on charitable causes, education and political advocacy. Yet at the end of the day, the wealthy and successful brothers amount to nothing more nor nothing less than the most treasured American assets: private, taxpaying citizens.
What respect does this earn from Harry Reid, the man who once publicly expressed relief at the completion of the $621 million Capitol Visitor Center (that you paid for) because he would no longer have to “literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol?”
It has earned the Kochs more than 100 mentions on the floor of the U.S. Senate in disjointed, confusing tirades by Mr. Reid.
He has called them “power-drunk billionaires,” accused them of lying and questioned their motives. There was a time in this country when Harry Reid would have been shot dead in a duel over less.
“It is too bad that they’re trying to buy America,” Mr. Reid said in one particularly incoherent diatribe.
“It’s time that the American people spoke out against the terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine.”
Mr. Reid has smeared the Kochs with such calumny, it is a wonder the Kochs have not sued him for slander.
Oh yeah. They can’t. Because Harry Reid’s slanderous speech is protected in the well of the Senate.
Not only is Harry Reid protected by the Constitution for slandering private American citizens, he is also protected from the wrath of any other member of Congress who might want to rebuke him for such weaselly behavior. (Forgive me. I don’t mean to insult weasels.)
That is because Senate debate rules specifically prohibit any member from “directly or indirectly” suggesting another senator’s “conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”
So Harry Reid is above the law when he slimes the Kochs from the belly of Congress and he is cocooned in protection from being justifiably slimed by others.
Is there any description for this truly dishonest, un-American, treasonous conduct other than “cowardly bully?”
For some time now, people in the corridors of Congress and outside observers have increasingly wondered whether Harry Reid is going insane. Is he losing his mind? Is he in the grips of dementia?
If so, I hope to be forgiven for my harsh assessments of a sick man.
But you know what is even scarier than a crazed, power-drunk lunatic abusing his high office to torment private American citizens? That there are 54 other duly elected senators who again and again vote to make Harry Reid one of the most powerful men in the world.
1b) Georgia Senate runoff: Nasty, brutish — and long
Republicans in Washington got the result they wanted in Georgia: Two candidates viewed as the strongest contenders to keep a Senate seat central to the fight for the majority.
But the runoff between Rep. Jack Kingston and businessman David Perdue will be nasty, brutish – and long. As in the lengthiest in the state’s political history — a nine-week intra-party slugfest at a critical moment in the battle for control of the Senate.
The “good part” of a longer contest is that it allows campaigns to restock their respective war chests for the runoff, said Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who lost a three-week runoff in 1996 for the Senate GOP nomination.
“The bad thing is it’s nine weeks, and it’s really a third race,” Isakson said Tuesday. “Now you got a runoff that is the length of some general elections — endurance-wise, organizationally and cost-wise, it’s really going to put a burden on whoever is in it.”
Republicans will have a choice between Kingston, an 11-term congressman who has the backing of the likes of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Sean Hannity — and Perdue, a first-time candidate who boasts of turning around Fortune 500 companies and being an “outsider.” The winner will take on Democrat Michelle Nunn, who has yet to be tested after skating to her party’s nomination Tuesday night.
Both the 59-year-old Kingston and the 64-year-old Perdue carry considerable assets and risks for the GOP. With Perdue, Republicans have a wealthy candidate with the ability to self-fund his campaign and no voting record to have to defend. He can argue he’s out to fix a gridlocked Washington, potentially neutralizing one of Nunn’s central selling points. And like his Democratic opponent, whose father was a popular senator, Perdue has a last name famous in the Peach State: His cousin, Sonny Perdue, was a former two-term governor of Georgia.
But as a first-time candidate, David Perdue has committed gaffes on the trail. Plus, his critics say his business record and deep pockets will allow him to be portrayed as an out-of-touch elitist.
As a longtime congressman, Kingston has a strong fundraising network in Washington, the fervent backing of the business community and the demonstrated ability to win even in Democratic years. He has conservative bona fides that he can use to unite the party.
But his conservative voting record on issues like Medicare could be used against him in a general election, and his longtime service in an unpopular Washington give his critics on the right and left ample ammunition.
The two men have engaged in a bare-knuckle fight over the past several weeks — with Kingston questioning Perdue’s Republicanism and business acumen and Perdue comparing Kingston to a crying baby causing the mess in Washington.
The runoff is bound to intensify those differences.
For the first time, a Georgia Senate runoff will be nine weeks long — rather than three weeks as it has historically been. That’s due to an Obama Justice Department lawsuit in 2012 arguing that the three-week runoff disenfranchised overseas and military voters.
The nine-week race ahead of July 22 is certain to not only be a bruising affair — but also entirely unpredictable. It will force the two candidates to run full-fledged campaigns. They’ll launch hard-hitting ads against one another and barnstorm to Republican strongholds mainly in Northern Georgia, courting the small set of activist voters who traditionally dominate runoff elections.
That recipe could produce a stronger candidate for the fall, or it could drain the eventual nominee of critical resources for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
The primary race was unpredictable from the start. Reps. Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey, two fiercely conservative congressman once viewed as the most likely to get into the runoff, petered out at the end of this campaign. And even in recent days, it appeared that Perdue had begun to shed support after he suggested to a local newspaper that raising revenue was an appropriate way to cut the deficit. (After his GOP critics pounced, he reaffirmed his opposition to raising taxes.)
The third place finisher was Karen Handel, the former secretary of state who tapped into the Sarah Palin wing of the party and had gained momentum in recent weeks after Perdue seemed to knock her educational background. But she failed to raise enough cash to compete with Kingston and Perdue in the expensive Atlanta media markets.
Kingston, who hails from Savannah, pulled in strong numbers in the southern part of the state while the results in Northern Georgia were more split among the top contenders. With 87 percent of precincts reporting, Perdue won 30 percent of the vote, with Kingston at 26 percent and Handel at 22 percent. Both Broun and Gingrey were just under 10 percent of the vote. A candidate needed to top 50 percent to avoid a runoff.
The results in Georgia are the latest indication of Washington Republicans having their ways over tea party foes in the primary season so far. But in Georgia, tea party activists and outside groups were divided over the crowded field — and big-spending groups like the Club for Growth and Senate Conservatives Fund sat out of the race altogether. It’s doubtful those groups will get heavily involved in the GOP runoff, given concerns over Kingston’s previous embrace of earmarks and Perdue’s past comments on issues like Common Core and taxes.
Both Perdue and Kingston have dropped close to $2 million apiece on ads during the course of the race, according to media trackers. Through the end of April, Kingston reported $1.3 million in his campaign account — almost four times the $337,000 Handel had in the bank at that time. Perdue, meanwhile, had just $467,000 left, but his figure is not as significant because he has tapped his vast personal fortune to replenish his coffers. Already, he’s poured $2.7 million of his own cash in the race.
Asked if there was a limit to the amount of his own cash he’d invest in the race, Perdue said in an interview last week: “I honestly don’t know the answer to that. It depends on a lot of things we are going to get to in the next few weeks.”
Perdue’s minimum net worth is estimated at $11.9 million, but he’s trying to point to his more humble upbringing — as the son of public school educators — to counter claims that he’s lived a life of privilege.
In recent weeks, Kingston has accused Perdue of being a bad businessman, running a North Carolina-based textile company into the ground, outsourcing jobs to Mexico after shuttering Texas clothing-manufacturing plants and inflating his accomplishments as CEO of Dollar General. He accuses Perdue of personal enriching himself off the economic stimulus bill.
Kingston has aggressively tried to portray Perdue as a squishy moderate — if not a liberal altogether. He criticizes past statements Perdue has made praising the intent of Common Core and raising the specter of a federal solution to health care. He even dredged up a $500 donation Perdue once made to a Massachusetts Democratic congressman.
“I think he puts into risk a seat that should not be at risk,” Kingston said in an interview last week.
Asked if he’s worried the two candidates would be forced to move too far to the right in a runoff, Kingston demurred.
“I don’t think it will be too hard to out-conservative him,” Kingston said.
Perdue has responded by calling the charges wrong and Kingston an out-of-touch Washington insider. Make no mistake, Perdue says: He opposes Common Core, Obamacare and new taxes. And he says he’s been a big donor to the GOP, pointing to some $50,000 he’s donated to various Republicans over the years. After projecting himself for much of the race as an “outsider,” Perdue has attacked Kingston in the final days of the campaign, including in one ad over the weekend calling the congressman a “big spending” Washington politician.
“The anti-incumbent theme is really out there,” Perdue said in the interview. “Our message strikes into the nerve.”
1c)The Age of Academic Ruin
Now that we can see through a glass more clearly, which of us can deny that the American Academy surrendered without a shot to its barbarous and intellectually unwashed, following a rough descent into slavish cultural Deconstruction? As such, the old guard’s aptitude for disinterested inquiry was seized and corrupted via a balkanized identity politics and a postmodern worldview that has wildly succeeded at dividing society into alienated warring camps.
As a witness to that bloodless capitulation, I found that this new progeniture of professorial triumphalists were markedly inferior in both erudition and gravitas to their predecessors and that the ranks of these Young Turks were generously constituted with perpetually dissatisfied utopians. In fact, these tin-plated revolutionaries were little more than partisan shills with an ax to grind and a seething animus against the gods of the greater culture. Consequently, there should have been little surprise when they denounced their detached search for objective truth and embraced liberalism’s political jihad to remake the world in Humanism’s feeble image.
As the crowning result of the Left’s long march through the academic institutions of the Humanities, the dinosaurs of the ancient regime fled into retirement or were unceremoniously purged as the earth’s ideological poles reversed. With the forces of “reaction” spent, the academy’s once august positions were filled by a more dogmatic, less intellectually tolerant species -- whose ends were no longer the assault of ignorance or in moving from opinion to knowledge, but as a brood of carnal monastics dedicated towards the advocacy of the One True Path.
Any student who has had the misfortune of enduring these insufferable Jacobins knows intimately of what I speak. For the crime of slandering liberal orthodoxy, one could be called out or relegated to the outer darkness by the effortless rolling of eyes, the condescending grin or the boisterous laugh -- followed shortly by the dry expressionless question: designed not towards engaging in dialogue, but to firmly put you in your place. And if shyness or the possession of a nonconfrontational nature did not therein quiet you, one could always count upon the True Believers amongst your brethren who possessed the selfsame pack mentality as the famished coyote. These lockstep drones intuitively understood the court etiquette of ideological tyrants, and knew well that the act of hectoring and humiliating the Master’s cowed and cornered prey could only enhance one’s academic standing.
Being a Conservative in the belly of the Social Science beast is a thing to behold, like a Dante descending into Hell’s circles of torment. Within the orthodox confines of graduate seminars, one could not find more “accommodating” intellects -- apt pupils who would have fit in quite nicely as guardians of Soviet re-education camps. One could not find a duller and less introspective brute, especially in the lairs of any courses involving Identity politics. Within this arena, progressives had by far the lowest possible cumulative GPAs and were constantly speaking in the brogue of justice and emotion. All discourse was tainted with the same illiterate Marxian/Materialist thread of analysis that permeated even the most apolitical of discussions. The pursuit of respect through power seemed to be an obsession with the True Believer. Moreover, this sham of Identity Politics allowed for a maximization of political posturing with a minimum of work and collectively created an ideological echo chamber of closed circular minds fed on a diet of bitterness against a backdrop of grievance. Nevertheless, what could never be fully articulated was the nascent understanding that their Leftist project was purely personal and that these types of courses fundamentally embraced an affirmative action clientele whose talents were near universally shallow and subpar.
Today, the content of these memories, against a backdrop of so many years, have not abated like a bad dream. nor has reason reasserted itself in the Academy. Indeed, students within the humanities are measurably less literate and more propagandized -- although the indoctrination they suffer from has not been so much a function of undergraduate education, but flows from the subtleties of a squalid elementary classroom. In truth, the contemporary mind has been incrementally inoculated against the foils of God and Reason, and the culprit is not so much the wild-eyed Leninist professor who spewed lies and vitriol to the educationally unbalanced neophyte, but the smiling 3rd grade teachers who exuded “nice” and whose vacant philosophies demanded that the world, by definition, should be a place of puppy dogs, rainbows, and equal outcomes. With such effeminate tools are today’s socialists made Indoctrination no longer requires the blunt cunning of force or fraud: for the 10,000 little subliminal lessons attained from the schoolhouse are enough to ensure that the young human mind is waylaid and bound for its lifetime to the hive. And this parched catechism of ignoble half-truths, along with the gargantuan power of the media, will guarantee that few will ever escape, except by way of the unyielding recitations that accompany the knock-out punch of nature and reality.
How perilous the minefield of public education has become since the days ofMcGuffey’s Reader. Although information has increased exponentially, humanity is all the more stupid in things that truly count, while the conceptions of truth and value have fallen by the wayside -- leaving the entire enterprise of education in doubt. Knowledge thus becomes an instrumentality to a temporal end and is as divorced from the classical search for the Good Life as it is of moral excellence or Man’s metaphysical ends. Against all earthly prudence, the pursuit of truth and the First Things of being have been sacrificed in the service to ideology and those sworn to the service of education have becoming little more than the State’s High Priests of Orthodoxy with each passing generation.
Soon, with the benediction of the Common Core, or whatever pedagogical shakedown is offered from our Centralized Masters, a great homogenization will flow across the land. We shall not see an increase in understanding, but a narrow leveling of vision and wisdom that renders the farm boy in the Bible Belt and the bastard child of the ghetto as interchangeable as bolts on a Chevy. As such, America will have finally gotten what the Progressive’s have dreamed of: a substantive equality of result: not only in economics, but of the mind. Without the impediments of a thousand competing voices pleading for their share of the human soul, the State will finally have the monopoly of hearts and minds it needs for attaining its quest of the Universal Homogenous State. Having firmly dispensed with Socrates’ “Unexamined Life,” that great tower of Nimrod can once again be attempted:
One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them…….
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He welcomes your correspondence at arete5000@dslextreme.com
2)Iran’s Latest Nuclear Gamble Seems Safe
By Jonathan S. Tobin
Last week’s nuclear talks between Western negotiators and representatives of Iran concluded on Friday with no discernable sign of progress toward an agreement that would end the standoff over Tehran’s quest for a nuclear weapon. Though sources in Vienna were predicting that the whole point of this latest session and those to follow would be to draft another agreement to follow up on the weak nuclear deal signed last November, the talks yielded no sign that a successful conclusion to the diplomatic effort was anywhere in sight, either before the July deadline or after it. Both sides spoke of large gaps between their respective positions on how much of a nuclear infrastructure Iran will be allowed in the future. With Iran demanding that it be allowed to keep 50,000 functioning centrifuges for enriching uranium—a number that would make a mockery of any safeguards to ensure against a “breakout” to a bomb after the deal is struck—the chances of an accord seem remote unless either side substantially alters their positions.
Those pondering what the next step is for both parties must understand that the interim deal fundamentally altered the dynamic of the negotiations in Iran’s favor. With the sanctions regime weakened, Iran is more confident than ever. Tehran is currently negotiating as if both the potential use of force by the West and the impact of sanctions are not major factors. By standing their ground and refusing to agree to terms that would already give them the chance to build a bomb and insisting on being granted a far larger nuclear infrastructure, the ayatollahs are gambling that the West is bluffing about both the use of force and reinstating, let alone strengthening, sanctions. Given the circumstances, that seems prudent.
It must be understood that what the two sides have been negotiating about in Vienna is not whether the Iranians will have the capacity to build a bomb. That was already substantially conceded in the November interim deal when the West tacitly granted Iran the “right” to enrich uranium. With that point no longer in question and with the Iranians possessing the ability to reactivate their stockpile of nuclear fuel any time they like, the only variable in the bomb equation is how long such a breakout will take. The Obama administration’s goal in the talks is apparently to lengthen the current time for a breakout from a few weeks to a few months. That’s not insubstantial, but it also isn’t anything like a guarantee that Iran won’t get a bomb, especially when you realize that Western intelligence about the nuclear program is, at best, fragmentary.
Any idea that the West could parlay their sanctions or a failed diplomatic initiative into justification for the kind of pressure that could really bring Iran to its knees was thrown away in the interim deal. While the talks are reportedly being conducted in a congenial manner and in English, the negotiators seem to be quite comfortable with the process. But the problem with the West’s position is that no one seriously believes they have any more leverage over Iran. The notion that after the process of loosening sanctions has begun the U.S. can cajole a reluctant Europe to tighten the noose on Iran in the event of a diplomatic breakdown is risible. It can’t and won’t be done and the Iranians know it. Just as important is that Tehran knows President Obama will not order a strike on their nuclear facilities no matter what happens in the talks.
Thus, Iran’s seemingly “unrealistic” position on the centrifuges, as one Western negotiator described it to the New York Times, is actually nothing of the sort. Iran knows the only two possible outcomes of the talks is a breakdown that will let them get to a bomb but won’t produce a devastating response from the West or an agreement that will allow them to get to their nuclear ambition a bit more slowly.
Given the possible impact of sanctions on the Iranian economy as well as the danger from an attack, either from the West or from Israel, that would appear to be quite a gamble. But Iran seems to think that the West is bluffing and that Israel is unlikely to contradict President Obama’s demand that they stand down or is too weak to achieve a military task that perhaps only the U.S. can accomplish.
Since President Obama has already shown that he can sell the American people on the virtues of a weak Iran deal, Tehran figures that he can be pushed harder. Rather than come away from the upcoming rounds of talks with nothing and be forced to confront a foe that he would rather engage, the Iranians are of the opinion that he will give in and give them what they want. That might be a miscalculation that could lead to more suffering from the Iranian people. But this is what happens when tyrants negotiate with a democracy led by a weak leader. Even if Obama comes to his senses now and refuses to provide a diplomatic fig leaf to cover an Iranian arms push, it may be too late to convince Tehran’s leaders that he means business. If Iran is gambling that it can force another weak deal, it is hard to argue with their assessment of Obama. Right now it looks like their gamble is the safest possible bet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Militant Islam: Enemy of Civilization
Most bullies run like rats when you confront them head-on, and this includes the purveyors of the toxic ideology they (not I) call Islam -- at least in a civilized country where they cannot run to compliant and/or corrupt jurists who will enforce a speech code. The agenda of using Islam as a cover for a war against human rights, and Civilization itself, stops here, and it stops now.
General Patton said, "It is difficult to make our fine American youth understand that the enemy wants to kill him. …I use the language of soldiers who are ready to kill." It is similarly difficult to make Euro-Americans understand that certain people who call themselves Muslims want to kill our civilization, our society and our way of life. The power to name a thing is the power to control or destroy it and, if we are afraid to so much as name the enemy, we are helpless against him.
Militant Islam is the enemy, plain and simple. An Islamist may claim to be a Muslim, wear Islamic clothing, and engage in Islamic rituals, but he is as inferior to a Muslim as an ape is to a human. Islamists are to Islam what Nazis were to Germany; practitioners of a despicable and subhuman behavioral choice that is as much a menace to decent Muslims as Nazism was to decent Germans. Most victims of senseless Islamist violence are, despite spectacular examples like 9/11 to the contrary, Muslims.
Before anybody invokes Godwin's Law, consider this video from Hamas. It talks openly about annihilation of Jews, and Islamic domination of the entire world. The last ideology to promote extermination of Jews along with world domination came with a swastika, and it meant every word it said.
Why Must We Use the Language of War?
Refusal to name or even acknowledge the enemy, whether an aggressor like Hitler or lethal defects in Genral Motors ignition switches, kills people.Lord Voldemort, whom J.K. Rowling modeled on Adolf Hitler, became almost too powerful to stop because everybody called him "He who must not be named." Political correctness enforcer Dolores Umbridge punished Harry Potter for naming Voldemort, and a complicit press similarly defamed Albus Dumbledore (modeled partially onSir Winston Churchill) for doing the same. Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge refused to acknowledge Voldemort's existence the way his real-world counterpartNeville Chamberlain pretended that Hitler didn't mean every word he said.
Speech codes at General Motors, including rules against words like "safety," "defect," "failure," and "problem," may have contributed to the deadly ignition switch fiasco. Militant Islam, and its useful idiots in academia, government, and the media, have made it quite clear that Islamic fundamentalism is similarly not to be named despite its central role in many of the world's problems.
- Barack Obama dismissed the Fort Hood massacre as "workplace violence," which denied the victims of an obvious act of terrorism the Purple Heart medal. While Obama and his cohorts were eager to blame Adam Lanza's rampage on access to firearms, they did everything possible to downplay the fact that Soldier of Allah Nidal Hasan brayed to Allah while he slaughtered American military personnel in a purportedly gun-free zone.
- The Los Angeles Times reports, "Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau galvanized the disdain with a chilling boast: 'I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by God.'" This is not what he said. He said, "I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah." Boko Haram means that Western education is forbidden, which underscores militant "Islam's" need to keep its followers dirt-ignorant, superstitious, and mindlessly compliant.
- Islamists define the non-Islamic world, including the wrong kinds of Muslims, as the Dar-al-Harb, or House of War. "...it is permitted to kill him, because he is a Harbi [enemy] and the Harbi spreads corruption throughout the face of the earth." Harbi is simply the Islamist counterpart of the Nazis'Untermensch (subhuman), and so are kafir and infidel.
- Penn State's Muslim Student Association (MSA) tried to get the university to censor an art student's display of anti-terrorist artwork, and also invited aNeo-Nazi to speak on the campus. The Muslim Student Association was also behind Tufts University's infamous act of censorship against an on-campus newspaper, and Brandeis' decision to withdraw Ayaan Hirsi Ali's honorary degree.
- As reported by Pamela Geller in American Thinker, "Daniel Mael, a student at Brandeis and a courageous defender of truth and freedom, reported Thursday that 'the editorial board of Al-Talib, the [Islamist] Newsmagazine at UCLA, called on Jewish student Avinoam Baral to disassociate himself from the pro-Israel program Hasbara Fellowships due to the group's alleged Islamophobia.'"
- A Sudanese "religious judge" sentenced a Christian woman to hang for being a Christian. In addition, "Ibrahim’s story reminds me of a dear friend of mine, Mary Achai, whose [Islamist] slave master set her on fire, along with three of her children, because she ran away when she learned that he planned to sell her 10-year-old daughter as a virgin bride." I replaced "Muslim" with "Islamist" to underscore that the word's purpose is to disown on Islam's behalf individuals like this pimp, human trafficker, and accessory to child rape.
- Dutch politician Geert Wilders was maliciously prosecuted for "inciting hatred and discrimination" against Islamists.
- Political correctness has promoted racist depictions of Islamist rapists as "Asians." Hindus, Sikhs, and peaceful Muslims from Central Asia are not the problem, and we ought to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
It is therefore necessary to treat the enforcers of political correctness with the respect they deserve. This is to deploy a simple, precise, and in-their-faces wartime pejorative for the enemy.
Choose the Right Word
Colonel Paul Linebarger's Psychological Warfare makes it emphatically clear that is counterproductive to demonize people who are not our enemies, and who might even want to be our friends. Many American Muslims immigrated to get away from the Islamists, the same way German Jews tried to immigrate (Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt sent them back) to get away from the Nazis. It is vital to use a word that identifies the enemy through the content of his character as opposed to the color of his skin, or ethnicity, or legitimate religious beliefs, and segregates him very clearly from neutrals and friends. "Islamist" acknowledges the enemy's similarity to a Muslim, but refuses to acknowledge his equality to one.
To recap:
- Islamists are to Islam what Nazis were to Germany.
- Islamists are to Islam what the Westboro "God Hates Everybody but Us" Baptist Church is to Christianity, except the latter does not advocate violence.
- Islamists are to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Caucasians.
- Islamists are to Islam what Al Sharpton's National Action Network is to Black people.
- Islamists are to Islam what cancer is to healthy tissue.
Furthermore, a behavioral choice, as in "By their works shall ye know them," is not a race, a religion, or an ethnicity. A behavioral choice is not entitled to the tolerance and nondiscrimination that decent people give to races, religions, or ethnicities, and it is past time that we denounce the Islamists for the self-made dregs of humanity they are. Any questions?
William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment