The Progressive Movement; Genocide for the Right Reasons

The Progressive Movement had much of it's start with Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912. The party's platform promised a new contract with the people The platform was the same as it is with Progressives today. It believed in big government to regulate industry and protect the working class. This included; social welfare, health insurance, higher and more taxes (inheritance and income), more strength to unions and bank reform. The Progressives also saw what they believed were serious flaws with the current structure of the government, called for ways to recall judicial decisions that they did not agree with and easier methods to amend the US Constitution. It is no coincidence that this Progressive Movement started at a time soon after Charles Darwin and Karl Marx published their nihilistic works, and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia that would end in victory in 1917.

With the Origin of the Species, Darwin finally allowed science to remove the exceptionalism of mankind that exists in religion and Marx redefined the value of human life by it's ability to serve the communist society,"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust". This in turn led to the Eugenics movement by Darwin's half cousin, Sir Frances Galton. Galton never justified genocide, but dehumanized the population into those that deserved life and those that don't. Margarette Sanger, the founder of Planned parenthood and an avid Eugenicist, remarked, "We can not improve the race until we first cut down production of it's least desirable members." Sanger wrote extensively on population control, encouraging forced sterilization and abortions. One of her greatest fans was Adolf Hitler who praised her writings and is believed to have had a strong influence on Hitler's "Final Solution".

The Progessives continue to extol the the philosophy of Marx, Mao and Stalin and yet recoil in horror at National Socialism and Adolf Hitler? The reason is both complex and simple. The simple answer is the Progressive movement, after embracing pre-war fascism, immediately distanced itself, once the Holocaust was publicized. While genocide may seem the obvious rational, history has shown that reasoning to be faulty; Progressives have no problem with genocide as long as it suits their agenda. The real answer is twofold; the first was the lack of deny-ability. When Progressives find themselves on the wrong side of history (as the always do), they deny the facts and/or rewrite history. While Stalin and Mao kept their genocide hidden behind closed doors for decades, Dwight Eisenhower ordered "Document everything"..."because the day will come when this will be denied".

Other than capitalism however, fascism contains all the philosophy of Progressives. First you have Eugenics, the belief that the cultural elite is genetically superior and the useless eaters of the world need to be extinguished. As George Bernard Shaw said, “If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the big organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.” The Progressive Eugenics purveyors included Shaw, Julian Huxley, Charles Darwin, HG Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Marie Stopes (co-founder of planned parenthood with Margaret Sanger) and George Orwell. The Eugenic forced sterilizations in the United States of blacks in the 1920's, peaked the interest of Hitler, which he incorporated in his book Mein Kampf.

Then you have Anti-Semitism of the intellectual left; even those that are Jewish themselves. Karl Marx was the personification of the self hating Jew. Prior to the establishment of Israel, the Arab Muslim members of the United Nations had already declared Israel an illegal state that had to be destroyed; the UN further ordered an embargo of any weapons into the area presuming it would lead to Israel's annihilation. The UN has always been the dream of the Intellectual left and their progressive plan for world government. Since that time through 2002, the Security Council "condemned", "censured", "deplored"or "strongly deplored". Israel 49 times; the Arabs: Zero. And while it has been impossible to deny the Holocaust, the progressive continue to court deniers such as Iran's President Ahmadinejad who was asked to speak at Columbia University a few years ago. Finally there is failure of the intellectual left criticize Islamic Terrorism. Recent school curriculum's, always a product of the intellectual left, defines Jesus (of Nazareth) as a young Palestinian and the 9/11 murderers were not Islamic Fundamentalists but simply a generic "teams of terrorists." Hitler also promoted universal healthcare (for productive citizens). One could say that fascism took capitalism from the right and socialism and genocide from the left

One of the core beliefs of the Progressive movement is "Sustainable Development"; this is a code word for population control. The United Nations has Agenda 21, which basically says to deny resources until the population is sustainable. The Malthusism take on population control is there are two checks; positive ones, which raise the death rate, and preventative ones, which lower the birth rate. Interestingly enough, Marx never talked of genocide. Marx believed that over-population was a byproduct of capitalism. Marx talked of the The Revolution, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Destruction of the Capitalist State, the Liquidation of the Bourgeoisie, and the Creation of Socialism; of the Bourgeoisie class Marx said it should be, " swept out of the way and made impossible". While he meant this figuratively, Stalin, Mao and Pot did not. The Point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, was to regenerate man to perfection,"In communist society, where no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic." Marx believed that science would create the environment for this perfect man, dwelling in this perfect society. What became apparent to all subsequent communists dictators is, it is much easier to kill a man than re-educate him; so they did so by the tens of millions. Further if one was to live in the Socialistic perfection of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is much easier with a reduced population; the. After 2-3 million Cambodians died from the forced evacuations of the cities, Pol Pot's foreign ministered stated, "As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new man." The Progressives distanced themselves from Hitler, because he annihilated the Jews out of hatred. But deaths of ten times the Jewish Holocaust, are acceptable means as non-regenerated masses are sub-human and the end will be an improved, regenerated species. This is the second answer; the rationalization of the elite, that they the Progressives will be the administrators as mankind is perfected.

Hitler-13 million
Stalin- 43 million
Mao- 50-70 million

The swastika, the hammer and sickle, or the red star; they represent the Intellectual left and progressives attempts to wrest the worker from the rich industrialist so they can administer their annihilation; it's how it always turns out. Once again we learn that Einstein was right, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So much for intellectualism and the Progressive agenda.

Alex Jones; A Skewed World View

Alex Jones is the best there is at what he does. Not since Mae Brussell has someone emerged capable of digesting so much information and then present it a recognisable and logical form that can be understood. Unlike Mae however, I take issue with some of Jones' conclusions. It seems like the Global Warming scientists, he massages the data to produce the desired outcome. But unlike those scientists, he also gives you all the raw data to figure it out for yourself. Jones always encourages his audience to look up everything themselves and come to their own conclusions. So there is no attempt to decieve with Jones, he just has a Worldview that he firmly believes in and it is nice to find someone in Alex Jones position with a value system still intact.

We live in dangerous times. Starting with the end of the Clinton Presidency, the bankers were turned loose to rape and pillage with the help of the Federal Reserve and Congressional Banking and Financial Committees; throw in the American Dream Commitment, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and suddenly we were threatened with Martial Law unless we pay the bankers $700 billion (some say a lot more). We have the United Nations and our President pushing for World Government and redistribution of wealth, masquerading as science. The American people are angry and stunned to see a Congress, seemingly wanting to commit political suicide rather than kill a healthcare bill that 65% of the country doesn't want. All this and we still have Islamic terrorist waging a world wide war against democracy and capitalism. And more than anything else, there is Eugenics, the plan to remove the useless eaters from the planet. But, Mae Brussell once warned of Mark Lane, conspiracy theorist and attorney for Jim Jones, calling him a clearing house for conspiracy theories and that seems to be what Alex Jones has become. He mixes in-depth and legitimate investigations and guests with the improbable lunacy that is the 911 Truth conspiracy. Here he has had to lie, tell half truths and edit out contrary evidence. Alex Jones rambles on about how Global Warming doubters are always passed off as being in collusion with "Big Oil", then brands anyone who is vocal about their disbelief that 911 was an inside job, as stooges of the new world order. I have seen all the tapes and read all the books and the 911 conspiracy makes no sense at all. In this case Alex Jones seems involved in the bank robbery gone bad, but has no choice but follow-up through with it to the end (his analogy). This is not to say that Glenn Beck is always accurate. The other day he presented in mock disbelief that the Federal Reserve made $45 billion profit in 2009, more than the combined totals of all private banks in the US. What he didn't tell you is all profit by the Federal reserve goes into the US Treasury. The majority of this profit was from The Federal Reserve buying up discounted agency bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; turns out these assets were worth much more than anticipated My test of a conspiracy is this, if it takes thousands of people to stay quiet or lie, if no one can give you a cohesive time line, and the conspiracy is of such immense complexity, that it is unimaginable, and no one ever does come forward to explain it (like the Manhattan Project), than it is likely a fraud.

I am a retired Police Officer after 27 years and an Assistant Scout Master with my sons Boy Scouts Troop. Alex Jones views this as an abomination. When it comes to public safety, Jones is simply an anarchist. Jones saves his most passionate and visceral hate rants for the police. Jones antipathy for authority is a central part of his personality (hatred of authority this extreme usually has it's roots in ones upbringing (but it is not my intent to psychoanalyze Jones). Still, videos of Jones being arrested, shows him being loud and obnoxious prior to is arrest and then meek and compliant once he's out of ear shoot of the cameras. This is not to say there are not abuses by the police, but especially in a crowd control situation, the police are usually far outnumbered and can only hope to control these situations by intimidation; without the fear instilled by the appearance of "Jack Booted thuggery" the police would quickly loose control. While Alex Jones may think his megaphone rants and DVD's are the savior of the Republic, the truth is (and always has been), it is Law Enforcements adherence to the Constitution that protects the citizenry from tyranny. For, if the police do not respect civil rights of the citizenry, then by definition, there are no civil rights. Our founding fathers were very clear about the need of, and enforcement of, the rule of law; something Jones just doesn't get. The police are often called upon to keep the peace in unpopular situations and can be left looking like the bad guy; but that's their job, and no cop ever took an oath to public safety to win a popularity contest. But, as usual, when his ranting and raving is over and he has been victimized, Jones will turn to police for help as every citizen does.

When it comes to members of the Armed Services, Alex Jones is at the height of his hypocrisy. When Janet Napolitano released the Homeland Security Bulletin, Jones rightfully had a field day with her identifying returning veterans as prone to radicalization. But Jones only uses this indignity when it suits his current rant. The truth is Jones is much more prone to make our armed service members the focus of an ugly viseral rant, branding them a willing arm of the New World Order. Jones has even proclaimed that he has more courage utilizing his free speech, then those willingly in harms way to protect that right. Apparently he views lower ratings a greater sacrifice than the blood of the true freedom fighter, the American soldier.

Another problem I see with Jones is his tendency to extrapolate trends from isolated incidents, especially when it has to do with Law Enforcement (I know, you're shocked).

Police officers are stopping and shaking down motorist.Yes, but this occurred only in a small town in Texas (Tenaha), near the Louisiana state line. There the police where obviously violating the 5th amendment and abusing asset seizure laws. This is a town with a population of about 1000; it is hardly a national trend;

Cities only hire police officers with low IQ's, less than 100. Again, Yes; but this only happened in one small town in Connecticut. My experience is there is a dumbing down of the of the testing and vetting process, which might give the same result, but comes from a completely different direction.

The police routinely ignore the crimes of Hispanic Illegal Aliens. Jones says this happens in Austin, TX. I have a close friend who works fro Austin PD, and while the city is a Sanctuary City, and INS is not routinely called when Mexican Nationals are arrested, the idea that the police ignore crimes committed by Mexican Nationals is ludicrous. At most, there is a lack of tenacity in properly identifying Mexican National arrestees. If properly done, a majority of these illegal aliens would be held held (incarcerated) for the the most minor offense, due to their in-ability to properly identify themselves. However, there is no authority to do this, with mandatory cite and release statuses. Jones latest rant, was illegal aliens are only fined one dollar for DUI. Since this would violate 14th amendment, equal protection statutes, I suspect it is more of a "blood from a turnip" case; and since you can't imprison someone for their inability to pay a fine, they are simply setup on a low monthly payment;

When illegal aliens are turned over to ICE they are routinely given a green card and a job. This one seems to be from 2006 where a fence building company was fined for using illegal aliens to build fences, including the Mexican Border fence. He then apparently made up the ICE/green card part to make it sound like a conspiracy;

Boy Scouts are being trained by Homeland Security to carry out anti-terrorists raids; again let me again qualify this by admitting to be an Assistant Scoutmaster. Yes, this one has some truth. But that is a very qualified “yes”. The scouts in question are not the rank and file Boyscouts; they are a small sub-section called Explorer Scouts. There are about 4 million Boyscouts, of which 148,000 are Explorer Scouts. The age requirements of Boy Scouts is 10-17 years old; the age requirements for Explorer scouts is 14-20. The stated purpose of the Explorer Scouts is to expose them to career related programs, including aviation, medicine, science and law enforcement. Of the 148,000 Explorer Scouts, about 35,000 choose law enforcement and it is these scouts that are exposed to all aspects of law enforcement, including Homeland Security branches and anti-terrorism techniques;

The police are being federalized. 7.5 years LASD, with the Los Angeles Sheriff, 19 yrs with Santa Cruz Police. I have worked with SWAT, other police agencies, county and state attorneys and have seen no sign of the feds; heck the FBI doesn't even investigate non-violent bank robberies anymore. There were only two signs of possible federal intrusion. The first was a presentation about the NRF (National Response Framework) teaching a standardized method for response and documentation of Incident Management, known as the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The other was another presentation on the NSA/CSS and the matrix used for the National Intelligence Agencies in the United States. The idea that Homeland Security can come in on a training day and turned us into Federal Agents after watching a few videos is just ridiculous;

The story of the 10 YO girl arrested for a plastic knife; this seems to be combination a 10 YO girl who was arrested for bring a steak knife to school in Ocala, FL, (to cut her steak lunch; still way stupid of the school) and a 1 YO who kept a plastic knife from lunch and brought it into his class room in Youngstown, OH (this one had a better ending as school dropped all charges after the parents said they would sue the school for supplying their child with a deadly weapon);

The Bush Administration, through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and TARP, actually paid off the banks to the tune of $23.7 trillion. Well no, that's not what happened. The figure was based on testimony by Neil Barofsky who is the head of the TARP oversite agency (SIGTARP). The Wall Street Journal reported on this; "Mr. Barofsky also estimated the government's potential exposure to programs aimed at fixing the financial crisis at $23.7 trillion. To get to that figure, Mr. Barofsky combined direct spending with all the government guarantees and programs and assumed the "gross exposure" the government could face if all the programs were tapped to their fullest potential. "These numbers may have some overlap, and have not been evaluated to provide an estimate of likely net costs to the taxpayer," his report noted". So the report says the $23.7 trillion figure is not an estimate of likely cost to the taxpayer, only possible exposure. Still a horrifying amount, but not a government payout to the Banks.

There is probably no person who cares more than his country than Alex Jones. He talks about the many sleepless nights he spends worrying about "us"; the citizens of this republic. I too am a Constitutionalists (it comes with the job) and know we must have an educated electorate to survive. One does not have to be a 911 Truther, to know we live in dangerous times and we have more to fear from our government than any foreign source. I know Alex Jones does not expect anyone to just blindly believe everything he says, but you do have to wade through a very skewed world view to get there.

Pres Obama, America Already Knows it's Core Values

-->

“And, you know, If there's one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And that I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here --” President Obama

What are our core values? The question is fraught with esoteric rhetoric. The truth is, every person has a unique collection of elements that make up their personal core values. I'm not going to spend any time on the importance of one value over another or what values lead to successful moral life. What I am going to spend a little time on is, what I see are the unique core values of the American psyche. Simply stated personal values are those behaviours and world views that one gives a higher level of worth (or value). “Personal core values are at the very core of your being. They are the values you hold closest to your heart, the values that resonate most completely with your soul”. However there are also cultural core values. In the United States, we as Americans have some very unique core values. Interestingly enough, many of these core values come from our form of government. In no other country, does government play so intrinsic a role in core values, as in the United States. A definition of cultural core values is, a basic framework you can use to understand, analyse simple beliefs, or rules about what a culture represents and how it solves problems. The first part of this definition is striking, because few nations really care what their culture represents, but in the US, we have been raised with the idea that we are the bastion of Democracy and in some corners, the “United States is the last best hope for the preservation of freedom and liberty throughout the world”.

Ask an American what it means to be an American and he will tell you it's about living in a free country. This is what sets us aside from the rest of the world; we define ourselves not by the fact we were born here, not by our language or love of Queen, but by a form of government that guarantees freedom. Back to my definition of cultural core values; so what are the rules that defines what our culture represents? The rules are enumerated as inalienable rights due all people, guaranteed to American citizens and protected by the United States Constitution; inalienable are rights given, not by a king, not by a government, but by our creator. Finally, the cultural core value definition includes how a culture solves its problems. All this talk of freedom and liberty are hollow words, unless the culture determines how its decisions are made. Do we allow dissenters to burn flags, allow hate speech, and free criminals because of government misconduct? Or, do we not turn our backs on tyranny and genocide throughout that world? Cultural problem solving is a measure of honesty and integrity, which in the final analysis is a determination of the maturity of a culture.

These are the core values of the American people, so when you hear what President Obama said at the beginning of this blog, all Americans should pause for a moment to realize what he is actually saying; particularly, “..I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are”. Here you actually have the President of the United States regretting that he was negligent in the progressive necessity of redefining the core values of the American People. President Obama could have said, he regretted not speaking directly “with” the American people about what their core values are, but what he said was, not “speaking directly 'to' the American people". The first is a fact finding mission and the latter is indoctrination. It might be enlightening that President Obama gave over 400 speeches last year; that's more than one speech a day! One has to wonder, how many speeches he would have given if he hadn't been “just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us”.

I'll leave you with this; if the President and the Democrats were legislating reforms that conform with American core values, then it would not have been necessary for him to try and redefine them; American core values come from the bottom, up not the top down. We have the Declaration Of Independence, that defines that freedom and liberty comes from a power greater than man and a Constitution that protects and defends these rights, we don't need the progressive relativism that the President is trying to force on this country. The progressives are not the first to try and rob the American people of their liberty for a promise of safety or in this case, entitlement. We have all seen it before and it has been said over and over,“We don't want what you're are selling”.

The Boston Massacre and Socialism

With the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, many of the old arguments regarding healthcare and socialism have been coming back, as the American people one again see the prospect of real bi-partisan heathcare reform, less the special deals and bribery that have part and parcel of Obamacare. If there is one question that continues to resonate over and over it's Rodeny King's, “Why can't we all just get along?” Why not indeed. Some of the reasons are as basic as perspective and decisive as the belief the Bourgeoisie continue to hold down the Proletariat and neither are capable of governing themselves. The primary argument though, tends to center around freemarket vs socialism. While the term socialism is still, not well tolerated in arguments in healthcare, they usually try to redefine socialism as any and all government services. First, lets not forget that by definition the government is “We the people”. But, our founding fathers were not so deluded, that they believed that government would always be the people. In fact, they foresaw the “government” becoming the tyrannical entity that it has become today. Our government was designed to work from the bottom up. The power and influence was to be delegated to the individual states and limited central of federal government have only those powers that were delineated in the Constitution, and there was even added a list, or Bill of Rights to further protect the individual from the federal government. There can really be no tyranny without a far reaching federal government , which our founding fathers attempted reel in at every step. There was even an argument that the United States should have no standing army, as a standing army is the most common vehicle used to overthrow a free people. In what is probably the strongest argument for an armed citizenry, James Madison (the primary author of the Constitution) said that he felt the states had nothing to fear from a standing army due to the existence of state militias (an armed citizen army).

The reason I have spent so much time is the tyranny of collectivism (the needs of the masses over the rights of the individuals; socialism, communism, fascism), relies on a strong central government. As I said before, there are those that would argue that local and state services are a form of socialism. This is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Socialism is a system of government, in which a central government controls the means of production and all social services. Compare that to the citizens of a city or county, empowering a police force or paying for a fire department.. These services are paid for by local taxes and are directly accountable to not only a local board of supervisors or city council, but to the average citizen himself. Compare that to a federal bureaucrat, who sits on a board deciding how much your doctor will be paid for services or what services are eligible to a person your age and physical condition. In the first case the citizen dictates the type of police or firefighter they want and are directly accountable to the same citizens. With socialism there is no accountability, because the rights and needs of the individual has been abrogated for the needs of the collective. With socialism there is no room for exceptionalism, as the collective dictates demands that the quality level of service is always lowered, so there is the illusion of equal care; I say illusion, because there is always an elite requiring something better for “expediency” sake.

Geithner-gate 101

At the end of 2008, Congress approved $700 billion dollars, Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, to buy up so called, toxic mortgage securities, that were stopping the banks from making loans. However, then Treasury Security Henry Paulson along with Ben Bernanke, the new head of the Federal Reserve under Obama, decided that it would be better to just loan the money to struggling "banks and non (Investments) banks”.  At the time it is alleged Timothy Geithner President of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve (and heir apparent to the Obama's Secretary of the Treasury)  signed off on $1.2 trillion to be channeled through the investment bank AIG, to some these troubled financial institutions, not just in the US but throughout the EU. Wall Street Aristocracy got 1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans 

Early January, 2010, Congressman Darrell Issa, released information he received from his own federal Freedom of Information request, regarding the exchange of money between the Federal Reserve and AIG. What was discovered was shocking and most likely illegal. As it turned out, AIG funneled the money to national and international banks whom they owed money. The debt owed by AIG was in the form of stock derivative called a Credit Default Swap or CDS. A CDS is similar to a insurance policy, AIG did not have to have any money in reserve in case the insurance had to be paid out and the beneficiary doesn't have to have any connection to the property.

According to a series of emails obtained and made public by Congressman Darrell Issa, AIG had planned to inform investors in a regulatory filing published on December 24, 2008, that it had paid counter-party banks owed money at a rate of 100 cents on the dollar. The banks were owed the money for credit-default swaps they had entered into, mainly on behalf of clients.
AIG Told to Keep Quiet About Payments

These CDS' only value, is that of a marker to his bookie; in this case the bookie had to pay out.
The companies in the United States that invested in these CDS were, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citibank and Wachovia. The International banks were in France, Germany, Britain and Switzerland; $30 billion of AIG stock was bought, along with purchases of stock from "RBS, based in Edinburgh. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), Barclays Plc (BARC) and UBS AG (UBSN) each borrowed at least $15 billion (using stock as collateral), according to the graphs, which reflect deals made by 12 of the 20 eligible banks during the last four months of 2008.
Fed Gave Banks Crisis Gains On Secretive Loans

At a time when the economy of the country was teetering on the verge of collapse, these banks colluded with each other to pay off these CDS, these derivatives serve no other purpose, than enriching these elitist bankers who already destroyed the economy.

Hours earlier, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee said his panel will investigate bailout decisions Geithner signed off on when he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York....The New York Fed quietly funneled billions to banks to satisfy financial commitments AIG had with them. The deals might have cost taxpayers billions more than necessary because Geithner declined to demand concessions from the banks, an earlier watchdog report said.
Treasury and the Federal Reserve refused to say which banks benefited from the “backdoor bailouts” or how much money they got until after it was disclosed in news reports. Banks including Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale benefited from the deals...AIG had been negotiating the values of banks’ contracts before the government took it over in September 2008, according to published reports. Geithner considered reducing the payments for two days before paying the banks off in full.

Geithner to Testify on Secretive Bailout Deals

Unfortunately, Geithner is having some problems with this defense. One looming issue are emails from New York Fed Lawyers, at the time Geithner was still president, that instructed AIG not to disseminate how the funds were distributed. While there is no smoking gun or email with Geihtner's name on it yet, it is beyond  reasonableness to believe that the third most powerful economist in the world, who was moving up to be the Secretary of the Treasury, in what was described as a seamless transfer,  turned a blind unknowing eye to AIG and Goldman Sachs, while he continued overview of the New York Fed.

Cass Sunstein: Obama's Truth Czar

Cass Sunstien is President Obama's Czar of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that “people” (not him of course) as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to “nudge” them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as“ education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”; yes happiness, government knows better than you, what direction you need to be nudged to be happy. Sunstien also believes there are problems with the concept of freedom of speech. Sunstien believes that citizens with mutual interests, should not exchange ideas as “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another.” Sunstien basically believes that the government needs to control the information you hear and that he “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.

The following is another example; "conspiracy theories are a subset of the large category of false beliefs, and also of the somewhat smaller category of beliefs that are both false and harmful. Consider, for example, the beliefs that prolonged exposure to sunlight is actually healthy and that climate change is neither occurring nor likely to occur. These beliefs are (in our view) both false and dangerous, but as stated, they do not depend on, or posit, any kind of conspiracy theory. We shall see that the mechanisms that account for conspiracy theories overlap with those that account for false and dangerous beliefs of all sorts, including those that fuel anger and hatred". Here, Sunstein seems to be insisting that one plus one equals three, and if you don't agree, you have dangerous beliefs. Why someone would write that prolonged exposure to the sun is a problem belief (it isn't) or that anyone denies that climate changes (they don't), shows that government defining a belief they determine both false and harmful, is completely arbitrary.

Sunstien further says the Constitution is a hindrance to his ideology and belief that, “There is no liberty without dependency”. Let me say that again, “There is no liberty without dependency”. No one with this belief belongs anywhere near the President of the United States. The only way it could happen, is if the President believes it also. Now, the reason I say this, is because President Obama was a Constitutional scholar and views the Constitution flawed; he stated, “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf”. Here, Pres Obama is being intellectually dishonest because, the Constitutional is nothing near a “charter of negative liberties”, unless you believe that “there is no Liberty without dependency”. The only true “negative liberties” in the Constitution are the protections it gives us from a tyrannical government.

Sunstein has said, “If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected”. In other words, only the government can protect your freedom and liberty and; “Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the fisc (services supported by taxes) ”. What Sunstein and the President seem to be ignoring is that the American citizenry have tasked government to protect us. We should be as dependent on government as a business owner is dependent on an employee. But, for this to have any meaning, than the American people need to have the ability to protect itself without government, this is specifically why our founding fathers guaranteed citizens the right to bare arms. To allow any politician to say we need to protect our Second Amendments rights by allowing firearms for sport and hunting, completely mis-states the meaning of the Constitution. It's pretty clear, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. Our founding fathers wanted us to have firearms to protect ourselves and the liberty guaranteed in the Constitution. The meaning of Militia is an army made up of citizenry, not trained soldiers. There is no reason why any sane and law abiding citizen should not have access to a military rifle and be part of a local militia.

Sunstein's war on the First Amendment is particularly extreme against conspiracy theorists. Sunstein believes that conspiracy theorists are dangerous, “and raise significant challenges for policy and law”. He defines "extreme conspiracy theories" to include, " the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus, ; that the 1996 crash of TWA was caused by a US military missile; (or) that the theory of Global Warming is a deliberate fraud”. Oops, well I guess 3 out of 4 ain't bad; apparently he wrote this before the hacked emails showed some “deliberate fraud” going on with amongst the Global Warming scientists. There's a problem defining what is appropriate for the American citizen to believe; the government may just wind up being wrong, usually is, and many times the censoring is deliberate; it's called fascism.

Since, as I explained before, Sunstein believes the idea that , “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another”, is bad and does not serve “democratic goals”, then this kind of free exchange of ideas needs to be subverted by the government. Sunstein's method for this is called, “Cognitive Infiltration”; defined as not just the “1960s-style of infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information” but rather, “breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.” Does this sound like an America you want to live in? Sunstein explains his plan in detail, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real space groups and try to undermine percolating conspiracy theories.” If you haven't figured this out yet, what Sunstein is talking about is using the tactics the FBI used in the 50's and 60's to undermine the communist party, the civil rights movement and anti-war demonstrators. There was evidence that the agents not only infiltrated these groups, but helped to increase their radicalization and incite them to escalate their levels of violence. It was illegal then and it is illegal now; and again it is the definition of fascism.

But Sunstein is an intellectual and a scholar, I'm sure these ideas and concepts were written decades ago, and he was dealing with the purely theoretical; yes this was written all the way back in 2008. The only way we can protect ourselves from those who want to destroy our country is to stay informed, get involved, vote for representatives that believe them same as you, and continue to exercise the freedoms and liberty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution; as the saying goes, use it or lose it.

Reid's Core Racism Comes Out

There has been a recent uproar regarding statements made by Senator Harry Reid, that showed up in a recently published book. The statement was, "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one'”. The statement is racist on so many levels it boggles the mind. First, the statement says that white America is racist and would not vote for a dark skinned black presidential candidate, especially if he had a “Negro dialect" (whatever that is; Ebonics?), that blacks will only vote for a black candidate with ghetto credentials, and third is condescending to the Black America, implying they are be so easily manipulated. It was the same when Vice President Biden said of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Both statements present candidate Obama, not as member of the white political elite, of which both Reid and Biden see themselves as members, but a black electable figurehead.

I was raised with an almost politically correct mindset; not the PC that prohibits critical thinking, but the PC that recognizes that one can not be sensitive to race, while they continue to entertain racist thoughts; your core beliefs always find a way of coming out. Both Reid and Biden show that they have a core belief that whites are superior to blacks, as blacks are somehow not clean or are mired in an uneducated world view that is personified by what they view as form of black specific speech. As Janeane Garofalo said, “This is racism, straight up”.

TSA Naked Body Scans

When I was a young teenager there were ads for various items in the back of my comic books. They included pimple syringes (remove blackheads with suction), some apparatus that would give you big muscles and my favourite (at the time anyway) X-ray glasses. To drive home the intended use for the glasses, the ad showed some young man looking at an attractive female through the glasses; his tongue was hanging and eyes popping out. Anyway, I never bought any of these items (except for a stop watch that was really cool), but as a young man I fantasized how cool it would be to have those glasses. Well, the technology has finally caught up, but it is the size of a phone booth. Phone booth? Oh yeah I forgot, cell phones. Anyway, the next time you go flying on a commercial airlines, they are going to walk you through a square fish-bowl that will take a full body scan of you, that result in a 3-d picture of you naked. I'm not talking about some blurry image, I'm talking Playboy quality naked photos of women. You see the scanners produce a negative image that looks a bit like an X-ray, but because it is digital, all you need to do is reverse the image and you get a positive, that any software program can colorize. I'm sure they will tell you that the scanners don't contain that technology, which would be ridiculous, reverse imagining is an option even with most printer software. Included in the posting a very small photo that can be enlarged by clicking on it (I wonder if this poor girl knew her naked photo would go viral on the net).

The first problem with these scanners is the males that are hired as TSA agents. Most are want-a-be cops who washed out from one reason or another, the most common reason being psychological screening. The minimum requirements are a GED and background check. Training is a week and a half in a classroom and then on the job training. No wonder complaints of lack of professionalism have poured in. Further, while the TSA has not released the number of complains by female fliers, there is a mountain of anecdotal evidence the attractive females are chosen much more often for the "random" searches, including Carmon Electra who is searched every time she flies. And here's the main issue; it doesn't work! Officials at the British Department of Transportation and Home Security tested the scanners were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation. Further from the Independent UK;

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Interestingly enough the US had not allowed the Dutch to use the full body scanners at their airports because of what they said were, "privacy issues". Now, however, the Netherlands will immediately begin using full body scanners for flights heading to the United States to prevent future terrorist attacks like the foiled Christmas Day attempt. Remember what Raul Emanuel said, "Never let a good crisis got to waste".

It looks like Homeland Security still has some bumps in the road before these full-body scans are excepted. First there are advocates for children, who have brought up that photographing naked children is unlawful throughout the world and the idea of simply exempting scanners, as was done in England, has not been well received. Further, A national Muslim civil rights group is asking the TSA for clarification on whether Muslim women wearing Islamic head scarves, or hijabs, will be singled out for additional security checks after a traveler said she was targeted for a "humiliating" full-body search.

A background story here is Former Homeland Security Director (Bush 43) Michael Chertoff and his association with Rapiscan. For about a week after the Christmas bombing attempt, he was was running around Washington pushing the Rapiscan full-body scanners without disclosing his connection to the company (he's also one scary looking dude). Further the lobbying for these scanners is littered with other Washington cronies, like Tom Blank, Former TSA director also under Bush 41, and John P White, Former Dep Secretary of Defense under Clinton and Nation Security Adviser to President Obama. White is the director of L-3 Communications, which got the first scanner contract ($165 million) after the Christmas bombing incident. A prior 150 units ($25 million) came from Rapidscan.

Janet Napolitano and the Bush Doctrine

As a follow-up on my article Napolitano, David Broder and Dangerous Underwear, Janet Napolitano continues to show, she simply has no grasp of Intelligence and/or how to protect American citizens from terrorism. Napolitano answered questions with John Brennen, President Obama's to counter terrorism advisor (if you don't remember John Brennan, he was the person who said there was no “smoking gun”, that would have alerted the TSA that the Underwear Bomber should not have been allowed to board an airliner to the US). When Brennen, was asked the following question, he deferred to Homeland Security Head, Janet Napolitano.

Question: What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well.

SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence. It really emphasizes now the renewed importance on how different intelligence is integrated and analyzed, and threat streams are followed through. And, again, it will impact how we continue to review the need to improve airport security around the world.

What! Let me get this straight, these are the folks who flew two airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York, and have continued to blow themselves up for their cause; but Secretary Napolitano is “surprised” by their determination. So apparently, the fact that al Queda continues to attack their enemies with suicide bombers, is not enough for the head of Homeland Security to get the idea in her head that al Queda is a very determined group of terrorists and that their primary means of attacking the west, is the use of individuals that blow themselves up. This is beyond incompetence; we have now moved to the arena of negligent retention. Even in public service, where many employees are protected from liability, the administration still has to answer for negligent retention. If this continues, Americans will die; and they will die because of Janet Napolitano. I do not blame Janet Napolitano for the Underwear bomber; this I blame on President Obama for his past reluctance to use his office to truly commit the United States to a war on Islamo-fascist terrorists.

Besides the negligent retention of Janet, Napolitano, President Obama's speech was remarkable. He finally defined al Queda as an enemy of the United States and they are terrorists, not just the creators of “man-made” disasters. Perhaps National Security Advisors James Jones prediction there would be "shock" and awe in the Presidents report, was the President not blaming George Bush, or that he finally admitting that there is a Global war on terrorism. However, the big shock to me was the following;

“First, I'm directing that our intelligence community immediately begin assigning specific responsibility for investigating all leads on high-priority threats so that these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively -- not just most of the time, but all of the time. We must follow the leads that we get. And we must pursue them until plots are disrupted. And that mean assigning clear lines of responsibility”.

This statement sounds very similar to following statement:

“The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.”

If the later quote sounds familiar, it is because it is a preamble to the Bush Doctrine. If we are truly going to be hunting down terrorists then we first need strong leadership to protect us here at home. If President Obama is serious, then he will remove Napolitano and replace her with a Homeland Security Secretary that is not in need of on the job training. We as Americans deserve better than this.

Let the CIA Make Mistakes

Bravo to David Ignatius and his article, “Bogged In Bureaucracy”. The key point in my mind was his point that the recent break downs in intelligence is a result of, “ intelligent managers (who) are eager for results but worried about risks.” With the Obama Administration, there was also a change in management philosophy; that mistakes will not be tolerated. As Ignatius pointed out, this leads to the reticence of CIA officers “to take responsibility for problem solving, rather than kicking them down to the next guy in line”. As a leader, you can either foster an atmosphere of blame laying and punishment, or “initiative and accountability”; the two are mutually exclusive. The reason is simple, people make mistakes; even very dedicated and experienced people make mistakes. Management can decided to either determine the cause of the mistake and attempt to fix it, or track down the person who made the mistake and punish them. If a CIA officer works in an atmosphere of blame laying and punishment, then they will not take responsibility for anything. In a blame laying culture, mistakes are not dealt with, they are covered up. To foster a culture of initiative and accountability, the CIA leadership must be prepared to protect their officers and create an atmosphere of trust. Only then, will officers put themselves on the line and take the chances that are necessary for exceptionalism; without risk taking, the result will always be mediocrity. The Yeman bomber was identified as a terrorist threat and put on a list, but not the “No Fly” list. This is because some bureaucrat decided that if the No Fly list exceeds 4000 names, it would be a violation of someones civil rights. Since the list is a zero-sum, a name must be removed from the list, before a name can be added and the only way a name can be removed from the list, is for the agency that placed the name on the list to take it off. The names for the No Fly list are chosen from a larger database called TIDE, that has 500,000 names and counting; the system is simply collapsing under it's own weight. What is needed is simple; any CIA agent should have the ability to recommend a name be immediately added to the No-Fly list. It should also be assumed by the intelligence agencies, that most of these expedited names will be subsequently removed, but the intelligence agencies need to be able to trust it's agents and not be afraid of pointing out the wrong person or generating a complaint. How do I know this will work? Well, it's what has been working in Israel for decades. It requires strong leadership and a high degree of trust in police officers and intelligence agents. It's a fix now, train later mentality instead of the finger-pointing, “it wasn't me”, culture we live to today; much to our detriment.

Critical Thinking vs Political Correctness

With the recent re-emergence of interests in airport security, a concept that is the anathema of Political Correctness has reared it head again; the concept is “critical thinking”. Any one who has paid any attention to the news since 911, knows that we have more to fear from Middle Eastern men as Islamic terrorists, than any one else. But Political Correctness does not allow the government to concentrate on any particular ethnic group, even in the name of protecting US citizens from annihilation; instead we are searching grandfathers and very attractive women. When political correctness first reared it’s head in the late 1960s, it was almost cute; Policemen are Policepersons and Garbagemen are Sanitary Engineers. What soon became apparent however, was, built into Political Correctness, is the Orwellian concept of stifling critical thinking.

So-called profiling (or better described as critical per-judging) is a survival instinct that has kept mankind alive up until this point in time. Further, we have confused the concept of prejudice with discerning a threat; to prejudge based on past experience, or known to Law Enforcement as the “duck factor”. Political Correctness tells us that if you are walking down a street at night and there is a group of young men dressed in gang attire, it would be prejudice, demonstrating your bigotry or racism, to be concerned about your safety and cross the other side of the street. Political Correctness says, anyone has the right to dress anyway they like, so to pre-judge a person as a gang member, regardless of the circumstances, is based on race only, and not Critical Thinking that takes into account not only a persons dress, but their age, their mannerisms, the time of day, the location, recent incidents in the area of gang activity, and their non-verbal communications; in other words the duck factor; If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I’m going to assume it’s a duck.

Political Correctness does not allow for critical thinking, because critical thinking empowers the individual and the purpose of Political Correctness has always been to redefine reality in the name of collectivism; in other words the individual can not be trusted to do his own thinking, so society is going to create a set a zero-tolerance rules; since critical thinking can not exist anywhere zero tolerance exists. The result of zero tolerance has run the gambit from tour de farce to preventable tragedy. You have a litany of grammar school students that have been expelled for bringing plastic forks to school, to the Fort Hood shooter who murdered 13 soldiers and wounded 31. Fort Hood was an exercise in Political Correctness. The Army psychologist, turned Islamic terrorist, was well know to anti-terrorist agencies, but was never scrutinized because of his Muslim beliefs. Not only that, in 1993 President Clinton made Army bases gun free zones, leaving the soldiers unarmed and unprotected on their own base.

Another area in which Political Correctness has invaded the American society are hate crimes. Certainly the fact that persons who are victims of crimes because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or any other state of being, is a sad commentary on today's society. But to punish a criminal, not for his crime, but for his thoughts, goes beyond the rule of law spelled out in the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It also has started us down the slippery slope of creating thought police, that prosecute those, not for their actions, but their beliefs. Simply put, a person should be judged by his actions, not on the bases of the nature of his victim. Political Correctness want's to legislate morality by defining victims by class and have created hate crimes to forward this agenda.

If critical thinking is the anathema of Political Correctness, then the manifesto of critical thinking is the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Preamble states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. If you need a litmus test for a political leader, listen for the word “Liberty”. There are other words and phrases in our founding documents, but “secure the Blessings of Liberty” define us as a people and a country. The Constitution does not guarantee the fairness of Political Correctness, but it “establish(es) Justice”, in order to “secure Liberty”. Beware of promises of a “fair and just” society. The phrase is often use to describe aspects of the Constitution but was rarely, if ever, used by our founding fathers. In 1787 a “fair and just” government was one that left it’s citizens alone; as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, to pursue their god given rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Thomas Jefferson first used John Locke’s writings, using the phrase “Pursuit of Property”, however the word Property had become synonymous in some states as slave ownership, so he changed the word to Happiness. The use of Life, Liberty and Property, would later show up in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution).

In the final analysis Political Correctness is all about being fair. It is not fair that a person can not dress up like a gang member without being harassed by the police, it is not fair that a young woman can’t dress up like a prostitute without being propositioned by men and it is not fair that a Middle Eastern man be treated with extra scrutiny at airports, just because there are factions of his religion that believe in world domination through terrorism. It is also not fair there are individuals and/or groups of people that are truly bigots, sexist and racists that truly pre-judge without critical thinking. All this means that individuals just can’t be trusted to their own critical thinking, but don’t worry, because the Liberal mindset will do your thinking for you; and that thinking has zero tolerance for any deviation from Political Correctness. Only a tyrannical government can espouse a doctrine of fairness, so look to political leadership that espouses Liberty and Justice; the two concepts are mutually exclusive, so “choose well”.

Napolitano, David Broder and Dangerous Underwear

David Broders puff piece on Janet Napolitano seems to be another attempt by the liberal media to present the opposite as truth. Never mind that anyone who is paying attention knows, that Ms Napolitano is so far out of here element, that through no fault of her own, she is simply too incompetent to hold her postion as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Practically everything that comes out of her mouth of any substance, has had to be retracted and apologized for. Broders contention that it was proper for Napolitano to say, “the system worked”, flies in face that her boss, President Obama said the “Underwear Bomber” near success was a result of “systematic failure"; to which Napolitano retracted her original statement and admitted, "Our system did not work in this instance." This is the same person who said we should improve security at the Canadian Border to stop more 911 terrorist from sneaking across (they didn't) and that the FBI and local law enforcement needed to keep an eye on returning vets because they were “prone to radicalization”. Interestingly enough, we still don't know if it was Homeland Security or the State Department under Hillary Clinton, that caused the problem. Homeland Security is supposed to be an intermediary between the FBI and the CIA, and to distribute Homeland Security information to prevent a re-occurrence of 911; where the CIA was forbidden to share the information with the FBI about the Saudi Terrorist and friends of Osama Bin Laden, that were taking flying lessons. Later Homeland Security was given oversite of the Transprotation Security Administration. Like many of his choices, Pres Obama appointed Ms Napolitano, not because she has any intelligence experience or even understands the threat of terrorism (a word she refuses to even use, preferring “man-caused disaster”), but for political payback. There is no more important job than the head of Homeland Security, but you have to be able to say there is terrorism, before you can defend the country from terrorist. Homeland Security is not the job for a budding politician on the rise and her continued presence as the Head Secretary is putting your and my homeland in real danger.