What's the Mood in the Hood?

In an interview with Charlie Rose, John Hofmeister, President & CEO of Shell Oil recalls a conversatiion he recently had with the Mayor of Los Angeles. The title of this diary is the question that he asked. He is now retired from Shell, and he appeared on the Glenn Beck Show. The following exchange took place:
BECK: And you said, "Glenn, I listen to you, and thing I like you, is you call them like it is and you are frank." You said you were going to model yourself after that when you became -- when you were no longer the president of Shell, well, you`re not. What is it that you -- go ahead.

HOFMEISTER: I said I was going to sharpen my tongue -- so that I could speak at least come close to speaking as sharply as you.

I just said it in part -- it`s time for the bosses of this country to turn the table on the elected representatives and start instructing our elected representatives on what the people of this country -- the consumers of this country demand, and that is more energy of all kinds, including more oil and gas.

Hofmeister has just started a new not-for-profit company, Citizens for Affordable Energy.

I didn't write this diary just to promote John Hofmeister. I really think the Republican Party needs to promote the idea of finding more energy from a point of view of not only finding new energy but also increasing the number of high paying union jobs that will be a part of the new drilling and oil exploration activity. I want to take a broader look at 'what's the mood in the hood?'

Sen. Obama was at the height of his popularity when things were not going so well for our troops in Iraq. Well, no thanks to Sen. Obama and his ilk, things are now going quite well for our troops in Iraq. Plans are already in place to draw down the number of servicemen currently deployed in Iraq. They can leave Iraq successfully completing their mission to stand the Iraqi troops up so that they can stand down.

When a mission in Iraq is no longer the primary issue on voters' minds, then he needs to appeal to them on more than his stance on going to war in Iraq.

His answer to people concerning the high cost of gas at the pump is to tell them they need to change how they live. They need to visit that pump less often by getting themselves a mini-compact hybrid car.

His answer to people concerning the crumbling neighborhoods and family values is for men to follow planned parenthood's teachings of safe sex and abortion if the safe sex doesn't work.

Jesse might have been crude, but he has a point that Barry is 'talking down at black people.' I'm no cockstradamus, but I think the Republican Party has a very good chance to win in November. We need to look at winning over a voter as an individual at a time, and we need to stop thinking of people as part of a monolith political bloc. Appeal to an individual whether he lives in Watts district of LA or on a farm in rural Kansas.

Barack Marches Forward in Margaret Sanger's Footsteps

Clarence Gamble, heir of Proctor and Gamble, wrote a memorandum in November, 1939 entitled: "Suggestions for the Negro Project." In the letter he suggested black leaders "be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge."

This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote,

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members

.

For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist, murderous, agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large, they gave him a 100% score on his voting record. Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder, Margaret Sanger, to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying, "We have our poster boy! Get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions!" You say absurd? No Way! Planned Parenthood's Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation. Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile? Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization? Who is used to lure children to give credibility to its hideous plot? Barack Obama, that's who!

Case in point: Barack Obama. It was about a year ago when Don Imus made his ill-conceived, idiotic, and satiric remarks about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team. Barack Obama commented saying, “Anyone who made comments like that wouldn’t be working for me. I don’t think MSNBC should be carrying the kinds of hateful remarks that Imus uttered the other day.” These comments by Senator Obama seemed appropriate at the time. But juxtaposed against his remarks about an actual exchanged between a Planned Parenthood official, and a person posing as a racist donor requesting their donation be used to abort specifically African-American babies, is astonishing! What did he say? Nothing! This hypocrisy and betrayal of the Black community was played out repeatedly by such leaders as Al sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the NAACP, and many others.

Here is what they failed to respond to: Autumn Kersey, Vice President of Development at Planned Parenthood of Idaho, is asked whether a donation can be specified to help a minority group, like “for a black baby.” Here is how the dialogue went:

Idaho Donor: The abortion – I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho Donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho Donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable.

Idaho Donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.


On Monday, July 8, 2008 Barack received an official endorsement from Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is proud to endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States.

president Cecile Richards said in a press release.

Richards called him a "passionate advocate" with a "a long and consistent record of standing up for" unlimited abortions.


Barack accepts the endorsement and has this to say.

The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

Dr. Martin Luther king Jr. wrote a letter to his fellow clergymen from a jail cell in Birmingham, AL in which he included the following:

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But they went on with the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," and had to obey God rather than man. They were small in number but big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

Another quote from MLK that would be so appropriate here:

The Negro cannot win if he chooses to sacrifice the future of his children for immediate comfort and safety.

The Rev Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. writes the following:

Yes, I believe it would be wonderful to have a Black man as president, but it's more important for there to be, God's man as president, and that his character would reflect my values; values reflected in the 10 Commandments and our Declaration of Independence. While most African-Americans are applauding him for the color of his skin, they have failed to look at closely the content of his character.

Rev. Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., is the senior pastor of The New Calvary Baptist Church in Montclair, NJ.

I believe I am beginning to see some African-Americans that are beginning to have doubts about the content of Barack's character. When all they knew is that Barack opposed the Iraq War that's one thing, and now that they are discovering this guy is Margaret Sanger's "minister of planned parenthood" that's something that many dislike and disapprove.

My VP Prediction = McCain picks Giuliani

Here is how I got there. Recently there is a shakeup in the McCain camp, and Steve Schmidt is selected to take over the day-to-day campaign operations. His first hire in his new capacity is Rudy's campaign manager, Mike DuHaime. ABC covered the news here. Also I watched both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani on Hannity and Colmes. The cool one who did not have to think too hard before he spoke was definitely Rudy.

I know some folks are going to hate the idea because Rudy is pro-choice. There are also some folks who are going to love the idea because Rudy is a fighter and a fiscal conservative guy. Tonight Alan Colmes tried to put Rudy on the spot about BIG OIL companies selling oil to the highest bidder instead of giving it away to US citizens. Rudy didn't even flinch in his support of free market capitalism.

I am not in the least worried about a pro-choice Rudy being the VP pick of a pro-life McCain. I really think Rudy will add some needed excitement to the GOP ticket.

I don't pretend to be cockstradamus, but Rudy is the guy I can picture kissing babies on the campaign trail.

These Sourpusses Are Making Me Sick

Sen. Harry Reid




Chris SatulloPhiladelphia Inquirer columnist



I grew up a child of the '50's, and everyone loved this country, 'Sweet Land of Liberty', 'Land of the Free', and 'Home of the Brave'. There were always differences between people who wanted a small Federal government and those who wanted more of the big government of FDR, but everybody loved the USA. When the going gets tough the tough get going. That was then, and now people like Sen Reid and columnist Satullo hate America because it has become so strong and so successful. They believe the US is destroying planet earth and deserving of being hated by the poor in other places because we are just so mean.


Sourpusses like this don't want us to get going, and find ways to improve our economy. Oh no, in their view We the People of the USA have committed great sins, and we must be punished for these sins. They do not want the USA to be the most powerful nation, and they think they can convince us how bad we have become, and how necessary it is for us to suffer to atone for all of these sins they believe we have committed.


I calls this garbage they are writing and speaking bullcrap. This far left stuff now owns the Democratic Party. I just hope and pray that a majority of voters are as fed up as I am, and vote some CongressCritters™ into office with the spines to stand up to these enviro-whacko special interest groups.

Barack was only 8 & John who was only 9 says Don't Be Flippant about it

Part One


Part Two


ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos asked, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"

Obama replied that Ayers "is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions."

Greta van Susteren interview John Murtagh who was angered by Obama's flippant remark about only being 8-years-old when his long-time terrorist buddies, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn's Weather Underground attempted to murder his family by fire bombing his family's house!! Mr. Murtagh was 9-years old at the time of the bombing.

Hello! I'm a Mac...and I'm a Pc

Which one of us do you want to be your next Commander-in-Chief?

This visual provided for the word challenged folks who need a visual aid for understanding.

Also consider this a Wednesday night open thread.

We don't want nobody that nobody sent

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens spoke at an ABA Thurgood Marshall Awards Dinner honoring Abner Mikva. Part of his speech included this anecdote about how politics works in Chicago.

One evening in 1948 Abner Mikva walked into the office of the Democratic Ward Committeeman and told him that he wanted to do volunteer work for Adlai Stevenson and Paul Douglas. The Committeeman took the cigar out of his mouth, glared at Abner and asked: "Who sent you?" When Ab said, "Nobody sent me", he put the cigar back in his mouth and said: "We don't want nobody that nobody sent."

That attitude exists today as much as it did in 1948, and as much as it did in 1994 when Barack made the key move in his early career. He was named Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million grant program to funnel money into reform efforts at Chicago schools. It turns out that the architect of the Annenberg Challenge was Bill Ayers, who designed the grant proposal and sheparded it to success.

A blogger, Steve Diamond, has written an excellent detailed blog about how Barack made this key career move for himself. Steve concludes

Thus, we have one possible answer to the question: Who "sent" Obama? It was the Ayers family, including Tom, John, Bill and Bernardine Dohrn.

It is highly unlikely that a 30-something second year lawyer would have been plucked from relative obscurity out of a left wing law firm to head up something as visible and important in Chicago as the Annenberg Challenge by Bill Ayers if Ayers had not already known Obama very well. One possibility is that Obama proved himself to the Ayers's in the battle for local school control when he was at the DCP in the 80s.

Barack's South Side community organizing group, the Developing Communities Project is what the acronym DCP stands for. The battle for local school control refers to groups made up by a majority of parents who have the power to hire and fire principals thus creating a new power center in the school system against what both reform groups viewed as the bureaucratic and expensive school board, on the one hand, and, on the other, the teachers union.

I am especially intrigued with the Marxist perspective that Steve Diamond provides with respect to this school reform movement. One cannot confuse this with Pres. Bush's NCLB proposal. Steve write

In my view these types of councils are reminiscent of the manipulative "community" bodies set up in regimes like those of Hugo Chavez and the Sandinistas - used to control genuine democratic movements such as trade unions.

Ayers, of course, had long held what the left once knew, broadly, as “maoist” politics – a view of the world that was opposed to Russian style bureaucratic communism from above, instead advocates of this approach supported sending revolutionary cadre to “swim among the masses like fish in the sea” or attempting to establish guerilla foco as romantically theorized by Regis Debray and carried out with disastrous results by Che Guevara.

Today one of the approaches used by these types is the "long march" through the (presumably "bourgeois") institutions. Of course, the "long march" referred to is that taken by Mao and the Red Army in 1934.

Bill Ayers appears to be attempting to lead a similar "long march" in the education world. Ayers is a vigorous advocate of local control along with a related concept called “small schools,” most likely because he believes it gives him the potential to build a political base from which to operate.

Certainly Ayers' politics remain unapologetically authoritarian. He recently traveled to Venezuela - only the most recent of several such trips - and delivered a speech in front of Hugo Chavez in which he spoke of education as the "motor force of revolution" and his interest in "overcom[ing] the failings of capitalist education" and said he thought Chavez was creating "something truly new and deeply humane." He closed his speech by mouthing typical slogans of the authoritarian left: "Viva Mission Sucre! Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta La Victoria Siempre!"

Another 'who sent you' event that happened earlier in Barack's life is in the summer of 1989 to work as a summer associate at the prestigious Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin. Very few top tier law students work for big law firms during their first summer. The big law firms discourage it because if you work for them in the first summer you are likely to work for a second firm the following year and then the firms have to compete to get you.

Sidley & Austin had been long time outside counsel to Commonwealth Edison. The senior Sidley partner who was Comm Ed's key outside counsel, Howard Trienens, was a member of the board of trustees of Northwestern alongside Tom Ayers (and Sidley partner Newton Minow, too). It turns out, Bernardine Dohrn worked at Sidley also. She was hired there in the late 80s, because of the intervention of her father-in-law Tom Ayers, even though she was (and is) not a member of any state bar.

Dohrn was not admitted in either NY or Illinois because of her past jail time for refusing to testify about the murderous 1981 Brinks robbery in which her former Weather Underground (now recast as the "Revolutionary Armed Task Force") "comrades," including Kathy Boudin (biological mother of Chesa Boudin, who was raised by Ayers and Dohrn) participated. She was finally paroled after serving 22 years of a plea bargained single 20-to-life sentence for her role in the robbery where a guard was shot and killed and two police officers were killed. The father of Chesa Boudin, David Gilbert, was sentenced to 75-to-life, with no chance of parole, after a trial in which he refused to participate. Chesa is the co-author of a recent apologia for the regime of Venezuelan "left" strong man, Hugo Chavez.

Trienens recently explained his unusual decision to hire Dohrn, who had never practice law and had graduated from law school (before going on her bombing spree) 17 years before in 1967) to The Chicago Tribune saying, "We sometimes hire friends."

I give a tip of the hat to TownHall columnist Mary Grabar for providing me with the link to Steve Diamond's blog.


I hope Kowalski will read and comment on this diary as I think he probably has additional anecdotal knowledge about professors and trustees at Northwest University. The supporters of Barack will try to paint me and others who bring up the established relationships between Barack and radical Marxist terrorists as being racist and bigoted. I reject the premise of their portrayal that I'm a bigot and racist for calling these relationships to folks attention. This vote coming up in November to elect the next POTUS is extremely important. When you go into the booth to cast your vote you need to be armed with an answer to the question... Who sent me this candidate on this ballot?

2008 & 1938 Eerily Similar Pics

House Is Spanking the Monkey as Gas Prices Rise

I just caught this little gem from Club for Growth about a vote that was taken June 18, 2008 on a bill to spend $5 million dollars to prevent the interstate sale of monkeys. The bill passed 302-96. One of the 'Nay' votes came from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT-02) who had this to say

Maybe we should actually spend more time with human primate energy issues, rather than the non-human primate non-issue.

I could not agree with you more Rob.

2 Freshman House Ds From Fla. Ripe For Defeat

U.S. Reps. Ron Klein (left) and Tim Mahoney (right) join Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. for 'Let's go Communist' bill to be introduced by Rahm Emanuel, Maurice Hinchey, Ed Markey, and Nick Rahall as co-sponsors. This is what Maurice Hinchley said on the House floor June 19, 2008:

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

On Ron Klein's website he writes:

I am working to pass legislation
that gives the oil companies an ultimatum: “Drill It or Lose It.”

On Tim Mahoney's website he writes the following:

The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 employs a "use it or lose it" tactic that will compel oil and gas companies to either produce or give up the federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold.

Rep. Cong. John E. Peterson has an excellent smackdown on this insane legislation in a New York Post op-ed piece

Since 1982, Congress has passed laws banning the production of oil and natural gas on our Outer Continental Shelf; the last three presidents went along. But the US Minerals Management Service estimates (conservatively) that the OCS holds 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - the equivalent of 35 years of imported oil from OPEC and an 18-year supply of natural gas.

The United States is the only country in the world that prohibits exploitation of such offshore resources.
Make no mistake, this mess is the result of Washington's foolish policy of restricting domestic energy production and discouraging investment in it.

All too often, Washington's energy debate revolves around the notion that support for increased domestic production of oil and natural gas means opposing renewable energy, conservation and sound environmental policy.

In fact, these shouldn't be competing priorities, but complimentary ones: America must produce more, conserve more and invest more in renewables.

For this country to remain a world leader in the global economy, Congress must develop a national energy policy that considers all means - including increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, on and offshore.

America depends on fossil fuels for 86 percent of our energy needs; wind, solar and geothermal power cover less than 1 percent. Renewable energy won't be available in sufficient quantity and at affordable prices for decades - so we have no other choice than to produce more of our own oil and natural gas - or further increase our dependence upon foreign sources.
And producing our own energy will create tens of thousands of jobs - and bring in hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties.

Look. I don't live in Florida, and I especially don't live in CD-16 or CD-22, but I know that folks that do live in these districts are paying over $4 per gallon to put gas in their vehicle. They really don't like it, and they don't believe the US Congress has ANY credible record of getting knee-deep into owning, obtaining, and distributing US oil so they won't pay so much money to put fuel in their vehicle. I spotted this news item on a Florida newspaper website PalmBeachPost,com Blog
One interesting comment from a Floridian who I don't believe is a member of RedState was this:

You know, these guys are embarrasing me. Mahoney’s worthless, not really a Dem and Klein should know better. Emanuel, needs to go away. We need better Dems, not more. Don’t these guys have research persons on staff

Anybody who lives in Florida, especially if you live in CD-16 or CD-22, please let me know if I'm mistaken in believing that these 2 freshmen CongressCritters™ are really ripe for defeat.

Obama’s ‘Dreams from His Father’ = My Worst Nightmares

Let me start by saying ‘Happy Father’s Day’ before I go right into main points of the title of this blog. Some of us have been blessed with being born into a family with a good father and mother together raising us. I was so blessed. My mother passed away in 1979 when I was 27, and my father passed away 10 years later when I was 38. I miss them both dearly today. Some are not so lucky, ie Sen. Obama and SC Justice Thomas. A big difference is that a 35 year old Obama writes proudly in a memoir book about the father who was never there for him as a child while an older Clarence writes proudly in his memoir book about a grandfather who was there for him as a child. On a 60 Minutes interview, I don’t recall his exact words, Clarence had nothing good to say about his father.

A brief family history of Barack H. Obama Sr. from this article by UK Guardian reporter Xan Rice. (In brackets my comments)
They had two daughters and a son, Barack Obama Sr. But Hussein's harsh, even abusive, manner - his grandchildren would later refer to him only half jokingly as "the Terror" - and his constant demands for a spotless house, drove Akumu to leave. Mama Sarah, Hussein's third wife and decades his junior, raised Akumu's children alongside her own. By then, Barack Obama Sr was nine, and already showing the same stubborn, independent streak.

"He refused to go to the local school, where the teacher was a woman," said Mama Sarah. "When the pupils were naughty, they would get spanked. He told me 'I'm not going to be spanked by a woman.'"

[Hillary supporters, does this sound familiar to you?]

Instead, Obama Sr enrolled at a primary school six miles away. He was soon expelled for bad behaviour.

Obama Sr moved to Nairobi, where he took a correspondence course to complete his schooling, studying at night while working as an office clerk by day. He wrote to dozens of US universities. The University of Hawaii replied, offering him a scholarship. Leaving behind his infant son, Roy, and his young wife, Kezia, who was pregnant with their daughter, Auma, he flew to America.

He married a white student from Kansas, Stanley Ann Dunham, and they had a son, who he gave his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. Obama Sr continued his studies at Harvard, but his marriage to Stanley Ann Dunham soon faltered. When he returned to Nairobi a few years later it was with a different white American woman, Ruth. Together, they had two children. But Obama Sr was still seeing his first wife, Kezia, on the side, and she bore him two more sons. Later as he increasingly turned to drink, he had an eighth child by another Kenyan woman.

Barack H Obama Sr. went from a career in the Kenyan governing class to "a small job at the Water Department," and then to unemployment and drink and eventually death driving while drunk in 1982 in Kenya.

Sen. Obama’s book does not go into the details of why his daddy’s career took such a tumble in Kenya, and when you include that information with the kind words that he does include in his book it’s a nightmare combination.

First, Barack’s kind words for his dad in his book include these excerpts:

All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own.

(p. 220)

It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself."  And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing.

(p. 230)

Second, Barack’s half-sister, Auma, describes political events and their consequences for Barack H Obama Sr in the book:

The Old Man [Obama], he left the American company to work in the government, for the Ministry of Tourism.  He may have had political ambitions, and at first he was doing well in the government.  But by 1966 or 1967, the divisions in Kenya had become more serious.  President Kenyatta was from the largest tribe, the Kikuyus .. The vice-president, Odinga, was a Luo [as was Obama], and he said the government was becoming corrupt.  That, instead of serving those who had fought for independence, Kenyan politicians had take the place of white colonials, buying businesses and land that should be redistributed to the people.  Odinga tried to start his own party, but was placed under house arrest as a Communist.  Another popular Luo minister, Tom M'boya, was killed by a Kikuyu gunman.  Luos began to protest in the streets, and the government police cracked down ..
Most of the Old Man's friends just kept quiet and learned to live with the situation.  But the Old Man began to speak up.  He would tell people that tribalism was going to ruin the country and that unqualified men were taking the best jobs.  His friends tried to warn him about saying such things in public, but he didn't care.  He always thought he know what was best, you see.[that has a familiar ring to it]  When he was passed up for a promotion, he complained loudly.  'How can you be my senior,' he would say to one of the ministers, 'and yet I am teaching you how to do your job properly?'  Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker, and he was called in to see the president .. Kenyatta said to the Old Man that, because he could not keep his mouth shut, he would not work again until he had no shoes on his feet.[note the barefoot part]
I don't know how much of these details are true.  But I know that with the president as an enemy things became very bad for the Old Man.  He was banished from the government -- blacklisted.  None of the ministries would give him work.  When he went to foreign companies to look for a post, the companies were warned not to hire him .. Finally, he had to accept a small job with the Water Department.

But what is not described in this book is what Barack H Obama Sr. being a troublemaker really means. Blogger Greg Ransom helps fill in the blanks here. Obama was challenging the policies of Kenyatta's government from the left in the most prestigious forum possible, the East Africa Journal, at exactly the same moment when Vice President Odinga was challenging the Kenyatta government from the left.  What is more, Obama did so in openly arrogant and condescending fashion, almost as if saying to Kenyatta and his government, 'How can you be in charge of the economy, when I am teaching you how to do your job properly?"[sound familiar.]

Now some might say that Barack H. Obama Sr. wrote a criticizing cutting attack on Kenyatta government official Tom Mboya's historically important policy paper "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya." But here is the problem, Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga. The debates [over economic policy] pitted .. Mboya against .. Oginga Odinga and radical economists Dharam Ghai and Barrack Obama, who critiqued the document for being neither African nor socialist enough.

I encouraging reading the entire article from the East African Journal, and here are 7 key points from it that make blood spurt from my eyes.

1.   Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)


2.  Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)

3.  Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)

4.  Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism.  Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)

5.  Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28)  "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. "  (pp. 29-30)

6.  Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists.  (p. 33)

7.  Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers.  (p. 33)

The last lines of Obama's EAJ paper capture the tone of the whole,

Despite my remarks, it is laudable that the government came out with the paper.  But this is not to deny that fact that it could have been a better paper if the government were to look into priorities and see them clearly within their context so that their implementation could have had a basis on which to rely.  Maybe it is better to have something perfunctorily done than none at all!

That last sentence is the ONLY thing Sen. Obama believes is the attitude adjustment problem of his daddy.

Also I direct your attention to an article in a June 11, 1965 TIME magazine of a speech given at the time in public by Kenya’s Pres. Jomo Kenyatta. (my editorial comments in brackets.)

Like many other leaders of new African nations, President Jomo Kenyatta has not found it easy to steer a middle course between East and West. His job has not been made easier by the activities of his own Vice President, Oginga Odinga, who admits that "Communism is like food to me" and has been traveling through the countryside heaping Red-tinged scorn on Kenyatta's ties with the West.

Let me say it quite plainly today that Kenya shall not exchange one master for a new master," Kenyatta declared. "We welcome cooperation and assistance, but we shall not be bought or blackmailed. We may be underdeveloped and our people may walk barefoot,[remember what he privately told Obama Sr. earlier] but we are a proud people, proud of our heritage, our traditions and ancestry.
"Some people deliberately try to exploit the colonial hangover for their own selfish purposes, or in order to serve some external force. We must reject such people publicly. It is naive to think that there is no danger of imperialism from the East. In world power politics, the East has as many designs on us as the West. This is why we reject Communism. To us, Communism is as bad as imperialism. What we want is Kenya nationalism. There is no place for leaders who hope to build a nation of slogans.

So the fathers Barack H. Obama Sr. and Oginga Odinga have passed on, but their sons Barack H Obama Jr. and Railla Odinga are still here. They so much want to continue to fight to accomplish what their daddys could not. The Kenyans said NO to Railla for Pres. in 2007, and I hope We the People of the United States of America say NO to Barack for Pres. in 2008.

John McCain Needs Bobby Jindal's Report On What the Big Easy Really Exposes

So last night I am listening to a speech by Sen. John McCain in Kenner, La, and I get bummed out when I hear him say this in his speech.

Senator Obama has impressed many Americans with his eloquence and his spirited campaign. Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received.
When Americans confront a catastrophe they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. Firemen and policemen should be able to communicate with each other in an emergency. We should be able to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities.

Now some might ask why am I bummed? Isn’t this exactly what has been said by the MSM and the Ds for over 2 years now about New Orleans? Yes, it is, and I do expect the presumptive Republican nominee for President this time to compliment the Ds a little less, and to criticize the sitting GOP Pres. not so much.

I am voting for McCain in Nov., but I just wish he would reconsider his campaign strategy of complimenting Hillary and Barack in his speeches and criticizing Pres. Bush. Sen. McCain is not going to win Ds over with this approach. If he is so nice to compliment his D challenger, then Ds will only feel that more comfortable voting D in Nov.
Tonight Glenn Beck had Bobby Jindall as a guest on his program. Here is the transcript of the segment. I put in boldface the parts that pleased me the most.

Bobby Jindal is the Republican governor of the great state of Louisiana.

Bobby, how does this guy actually govern? He is as far to the left as you can get.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: Well, that`s exactly right, Glenn.

And first off, you did a fantastic job in Kentucky. Talk about a speech with substance. And I couldn`t agree with what you said more about comparing this to icing. It`s kind of like we`re going into the phase of the campaign where the voters are going to ask, "Where`s the beef?"

I mean, let`s give Senator Obama his due. He`s probably the most gifted political speaker I`ve heard in a very, very long time. I think you`re right, since Ronald Reagan, even. But now, it`s time -- he talks about change. We need to elect a president that can actually produce and deliver change.

Listen to what Senator Obama says. He talks about change. He`s talking about changing things like raising taxes. He`s talking about things like eroding our Second Amendment rights. He`s for gun control. He`s talking about, I would think, weakening the way we defend our national interests.

When you compare his record to Senator McCain about fighting the war against terrorism, I mean, there`s a clear contrast. When you look at what he wants to change, when he talks about health care, he`s talking about more government involvement, more government control in our health care.

So yes, he`s talking about change. But that doesn`t mean it`s positive change.

BECK: Let me -- let me play this from his speech last night, because I was really struck by this. Again, a great speech. But think about what he`s saying? Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK, that is great. That is fantastic. But you know what? He doesn`t have faith in the American people, because the American people always have to be protected from themselves or someone else, because the American people are just too stupid or whatever. The government always needs to step in.

He doesn`t have faith that people can recover from failure in this country. He doesn`t even have enough faith in Americans to own their own guns.

JINDAL: That`s exactly right. This is where the paternalism, I think, when you get to the extreme left and you get to liberalism. They think government can spend your money better than you can. Government can make health-care decisions better than you can. Government needs to protect you from the consequences of your own decisions. There has to be personal responsibility. There has to be personal freedoms. That`s part of what makes this such a great country.

Senator McCain had a great line when he was speaking in New Orleans in Kenner last night. In his remarks, one of the things he said -- it was a very pointed contrast. He said, "Look, I`m not running" -- I`ll paraphrase. He goes, "I`m not running because I believe I`m the chosen one at this time." He said, "I`m offering myself out of humility." Because he`s got a lifetime of service to the country: in the military, in the Congress.

We may not always agree with all of his positions. When you contrast the two, I think he`s a candidate -- he`s not going to raise our taxes. He`s not going to take away our Second Amendment rights. He`s not going to get government more involved in controlling our health care.

So these are two candidates representing change. The question we as voters should ask is what kind of change?

BECK: OK. Well, I mean, first of all, Governor, you know, I respect you an awful lot. But I mean, he is going to raise our taxes. Because he`s got -- he`s all into the cap and trade thing. And that is -- that`s a hidden tax.

But I want to -- I want to ask you this. He said in his speech in New Orleans, or in Louisiana, he talked about this is a failure -- you know, Katrina was a failure of the government. Well, what does he mean by that?

It was a failure of -- and you should know better than anybody else -- of the local government. The local government had the money, every step of the way, to reinforce their levies. And every time through corruption and everything else, everybody -- local and state government -- failed the people.

JINDAL: Well, a couple of things. First of all, in terms of -- and we can come back to energy environment. You`re exactly right. We need to have a more rational national energy policy that encourages domestic production, encourages nuclear power, clean coal, certainly, conservation and renewable fuels.

But we better be careful. As we`ll continue to export manufacturing jobs out of this country and drive the price of gasoline and other fuels to even more -- more expensive heights.

When it comes to the failures after the storms, look, let`s -- you know, people are trying to say it was this one`s fault or that one`s fault. The reality was there was plenty of blame to go around, with FEMA, with the local government. The Corps certainly didn`t design the levies properly.

But here`s the great untold part of that story. Look at where the successes have been. It`s been the faith-based community, the private corporations. It`s been volunteers. And that`s the great untold story.

And one of the things that`s happening in New Orleans now, we have nearly 40 chartered schools. We had, before the storms, one of the worst urban school systems, certainly, in our state. It was ranking among the bottom in the country. Now, you got more innovation, more entrepreneurialism.

BECK: You know and I know, Governor, that if -- if the private sector does it, that`s why the train bridge was built before the highway bridge was.

One last question, are you going to be the vice president? Would you be the vice president?

JINDAL: Look, no, I don`t think he`s going to ask me. He`s got many other people he can ask. I enjoy being governor. We`ve got a lot more work to do. We`ve cut five taxes. We`re doing our sixth tax cut now, our largest income tax in our state`s history. We`ve reformed ethics. We`re creating jobs. We`ve got a lot more work to do in Louisiana.

BECK: Governor, I have to tell you that I thought of you this morning as I was walking to work, and I thought of you. And I thought, you know, this really is a big day for African-Americans. But it`s bigger than the media even understand it. And I thought of you. And I thought you could be the next vice president of the United States

And you know what? Nobody even talks about that. It`s -- your ethnicity is no big deal. It`s bigger than the media is saying it is, because most Americans don`t care what color somebody is.

JINDAL: That`s exactly right. Look, when you`re electing the president of the United States, you want the most qualified person that`s going to do the best job. So many people make a big deal about identity politics.

You know, it`s -- we live in a great country, a great thing that it doesn`t matter what your last name is or who you are. You can do whatever you want in this country with hard work and education. Because you don`t vote for a president based on identity politics. You vote for a president based on who`s going to do the best job. It`s too important of a job. It`s the No. 1 job is to keep our country safe.

BECK: Governor, thanks a lot.

So I really do appreciate Bobby Jindall’s report about what the Big Easy really represents, and I only wish that John McCain would just listen more closely to him than to some of his senior advisors.

The optimistic one wins the contest. Barack has a lot of pie in the sky optimism about saving the planet, and We the People ought to know better. John McCain needs to convey the reasonable rational optimism that Bobby Jindall possesses. John McCain does not need to criticize Pres. Bush to win against this marxist he has for an opponent.

I want to believe as he does!

A scene from the movie, Braveheart. Robert the Bruce, a Scottish nobleman, is despondent over betraying his friend William Wallace, who is waging a brilliant campaign against English tyranny.

Robert the Bruce:

Lands, titles, men, power... nothing

Robert’s father:

Nothing!

Robert the Bruce:

I have nothing. Men fight for me because if they do not, I throw them off my land and I starve their wives and children. Those men who bled the ground red at Falkirk fought for Willaim Wallace. He fights for something I never had. And I took it from him, when I betrayed him. I saw it in his face on the battlefield and it’s tearing me apart.

Robert’s father:

All men betray! All lose heart.

Robert the Bruce:

I don’t want to lose heart. I want to believe as he does!

This describes my feelings of late about politics in general and the Republican Party and it’s nominee, John McCain, in particular. There is a lot of talk going on about how our candidate is less stinky than theirs is. This is enough for some, but I want more. I want to see John McCain fight for the job opening that is coming up in a few months because he passionately believes in something big.

Some people’s idea of a big idea is win the most seats in the next election. Sorry, but that is not a core principle vision. That is just a process of investing in marketing and polling experts. It’s like a spoonful of sugar. You might get a quick energy buzz, but it goes away quickly making you feel worse than before.

No, my idea of someone who had big ideas is Ronald Reagan. He created a business friendly climate for growth in America, and the resulting rise in economic profits helped him accomplish another big idea-the idea that the Soviet Union is an evil empire that must come down. He also had a couple of more big ideas that remain to this day unfinished business.

The one most people remember as an unfinished business is to cut Federal spending by eliminating cabinet agencies and wasteful government programs. The one that most people forget is his idea to repair the damage that has been created by gerrymandering. The 1994 midterm election ushered in 73 new Freshman GOP House members, and an opportunity to get something big done.

Unfortunately, the GOP should have started with Reagan’s forgotten big idea instead of the cut Federal spending one. This gerrymandering is basically just part of an incumbent protection system that blocks principled people from entering politics. The reason the GOP failed in the 1995 budget government shutdown is because incumbent careerist politicians unconditionally surrendered to Pres. Clinton. Had the emphasis been initially on dismantling the incumbent protection system, then there would have been a better chance of having more principled citizen legislators and less careerists occupying seats and negotiating with the White House.

Sen McCain believes in having good principled people enter into politics, and he believes in cutting Federal spending. I honestly think that Sen. McCain does want to believe as Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately there are some career politicians around him who worry that McCain will make a gaffe by fighting for what he believes. McCain needs to kick some of these folks to the curb just like Reagan had to do when he started the general election campaign against Carter.

It is possible for a SCOTUS ruling this summer that would offer McCain an opportunity to look at a fresh new approach to helping good principled people enter into politics. Here are just a few ideas for consideration.

1. Remove the limits on individual contributions to finance a campaign, and require all individual contributions to be open transparent data available to the public. Anonymous hidden contributions must not occur with the candidate providing the open and transparent data to the public that it does not occur.

2. Remove the idiotic and inconsistent limits placed on the income one can earn while serving in Congress.

3. Have some kind of a computer model to draw congressional districts in states instead of the current gerrymandering used by career politicians.

4. Voters need to elect non-careerists. Elect a policeman. Elect a fireman. Elect a doctor. Don’t elect someone who has been in politics all of his or her life.

I believe I can best sum up with a quote from John Adams:

The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.

Tom Coburn - Social Conservative Extraordinaire!

I just finished reading a book written by Sen. Tom Coburn in 2003 that is titlled ‘Breach of Trust - How Washington turns Outsiders into insiders.’ My pre-conceived opinions and notion were that I was going to read a book written by a fiscal conservative with a lot of information about the politics of pork, career politicians, and the train wreck coming if Medicare and Social Security entitlements are not reformed. I did get those issues in spades in this book including graphs, a list of 10 things Congress does not want you to know about how it does business, and 3 myths that dissuadethe public from electing politicians who will truly represent their interests and govern within the confines of the Constitution. But I got so much more - hence the title of this blog.
Read more...






Tom Coburn is an Okie from Muskogee who after working in his famly’s optical business became a doctor at age 35, and was elected to the House at 46 in his first attempt at public office from a district that had not been represented by a Republican since 1922 and was thought to be unwinnable. He did not win by campaigning on pork and dirty politics and corruption. He used a social conservative campaign theme and ran on the belief that the goal for the congressman was to represent the values and attitudes of his district, not the values of Washington’s privileged political elite. This is a very smart and savvy strategy in a congressional district where the Ds greatly outnumber the Rs. I wrote in an earlier blog about how small-town Reagan Ds think about politics.

In general, while the other schools welcome the representative character of our democracy, Jacksonians tend to see representative rather than direct institutions as necessary evils, and to believe that governments breed corruption and inefficiency the way picnics breed ants. Every administration will be corrupt; every Congress and legislature will be, to some extent, the plaything of lobbyists. Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it's probably a fly. Jacksonians see corruption as human nature and, within certain ill-defined boundaries of reason and moderation, an inevitable by-product of government.
It is perversion rather than corruption that most troubles Jacksonians: the possibility that the powers of government will be turned from the natural and proper object of supporting the well-being of the majority toward oppressing the majority in the service of an economic or cultural elite.

Another major point in this book that exemplifies his social conservativeness is when he wrote about how his religious faith gave him the strength to fight for principle over the temptations of ego and prestige. He also confessed in the book that he was not perfect in this fight, and he wrote “I believe the Scriptures teach that the motives of man are always mixed and that we are made pure, not by our own works, but by grace.

Tom Coburn gave a speech in 2000 at a dinner benefiting Patrick Henry College. He began by quoting Rev Martin Luther King, Jr

Cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right?

Now I know that some people might say all well and good that you like this book written back in 2003, but what does any of this have to do with the present and the future. I think some of what he wrote about that happened in the past still holds true today. In other words I’m not talkling about political spin that truth varies from person to person, but that truth is absolute and we do not define truth for ourselves; truth defines us.

He writes what he considered the best example of political spin calculations backfiring - the 1998 midterm election. Most top Republican consultants and elected congresscritters™ assumed the Rs would capitalize on Clinton’s foibles and pick up several seats. When a few restless congresscritters™ suggested during a meeting of the Republican conference prior to the 1998 elections that our agenda might not be bold enough to motivate our base, Newt Gingrich responded dismissively,

Clinton has already taken care of that.

In November, these two storms-a conservative base disgusted by Congress’s spending orgies and a public confused and turned off by the GOP’s handling of the impeachment process-converged, forming a perfect storm that nearly obliterated the GOP majority. Rather than gain seats the GOP majority was reduced to a mere 5 seats.

In those early cheerful days of 1995 the House GOP with their 73 new freshman GOP colleagues adopted a budget that called for the elimination of more than 200 wasteful and unconstitutional government programs, including 3 entire cabinet agencies: the departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. With battle between Congress and the White House over this budget resulting in a government shutdown, the GOP leadership, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole surrendered to Pres. Bill Clinton. The GOP has never recovered from this loss.

Tom Coburn summed up his thoughts as he prepared to leave Congress in October of 2000 for his constituents in northeast Oklahoma.

The real hope for the long-term viability of the American experiment therefore, does not rest with the Republican party-or any political party for that matter. instead, it rests with the American people who decided to turn the political world upside down in 1994. If the American people can reacquaint themselves with our founders’ vision and elect representatives with true political courage-which exclude almost all career politicians-our course can be righted.

AMEN to We the People reacquainting ourselves with our founders’ vision. I worry there has been a steady introductory diet of a Karl Marx vision going on for awhile in the USA. I also hope we remember the lesson of the 1998 election of thinking victory is possible when you have no bold positive agenda, and only a negative attack against the other party.

Cross posted at The Minority Report

The Lie - SCOTUS is final word on issue

A lot of people are concerned about who the next POTUS will be because of who they will appoint to be Justice on the US Supreme Court. I share this concern, but I disagree with some of the aura that some people apply to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is the highest appellate court in our country, and they do have the final word on an appellate case. They DO NOT have the final word on an issue.

It is a good thing that SCOTUS does not have the final word on an issue for people all across the political spectrum from right, center, and left. To ascribe this much power and authority to one lawyer who can convince 4 of his colleagues to go along with him is akin to squashing freedom and liberty flat. What has happened in this country in recent years has been an attempt by some to use SCOTUS as a shortcut to getting their way. Somebody wants abortion to be a legal medical procedure, and they don't want to have a bill written in the State Legislature and signed by the Governor that defines the medical procedure and the limits to how it can be performed. Too much time, and too much hard work. The short cut is shop for a judge who will decide from the bench with only a penumbra of proof that it is legal. Once a case is started a case end point is SCOTUS. What many people fail to grasp is that a case is just that-a case. An issue is an entirely different matter.

We The People have the final word on an issue. It is unfortunate how people are tricked into thinking this is no longer the case. Over the entire history of the US issues have been resolved bye We The People in many various ways. Slavery, for one, is an issue that was resolved by a bloody War between the States. It's not my favorite method of conflict resolution. We have had an issue with alcohol abuse creating havoc resorting to Prohibition Amendment 18. The consequences of crime syndicates cashing in on selling illegal booze was resolved by the Prohibition Repeal Amendment 21. There are many other examples of conflict resolution that have been resolved through the years in this country, and did not happen in our nation's Capitol.

In closing, I do think there are legal cases that are important. I believe that how a majority on SCOTUS decide these legal cases is important. I DO NOT think any decision on a legal CASE is the final word on an ISSUE.

WW2-the Cold War-the Results

The source of this diary is from this post at the Gates of Vienna website June 14, 2006. The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report as a guest-post at Gates of Vienna. I posted a comment with the link on gamecock's most recent North Carolina Face to Face blog. After a good night's sleep I decided to post in more detail about this topic of political correctness. Fjordman got opinions on this subject from a wide variety of sources, and no, gamecock, none of these are suffering from a Southern superiority complex. All but one believes political correctness is just an alias for cultural marxism. The one believes that political correctness is a geo-political result of a decadence in the West that will disappear with the rise of eastern powers, China and India. I think political correctness is an intellectual sickness that must be challenged.


Dr. Theodore Dalrymple:
The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about.


We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. We never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.


Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.


Karl Marx said “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism,” a sentiment that corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that “peace” means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule. Cultural Marxism — aka Political Correctness — and Islam share the same totalitarian outlook and instinctively agree in their opposition to free discussion, and in the idea that freedom of speech must be curtailed when it is “offensive” to certain groups.


Ali Sina:
“There is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good and everything rightist is a priori oppressor and evil. Facts don’t matter. Justice is determined by who you are and not by what you have done. Political correctness is an intellectual sickness. It means expediently lying when telling the truth is not expedient. This practice is so widespread and so common that it is considered to be normal.”


Vaclav Klaus:
We can probably confidently say that its “hard version” – communism – is over.” However, “fifteen years after the collapse of communism I am afraid, more than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of social-democratism, which has become – under different names, e.g. the welfare state – the dominant model of the economic and social system of current Western civilization. It is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution. The explicit socialism has lost its appeal and we should not have it as the main rival to our ideas today. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed on others against their will. The current threats to liberty may use different ‘hats’, they may better hide their real nature, they may be more sophisticated than before, but they are – in principle – the same as always.”


Vladimir Bukovsky:
“There were no Nuremberg-type trials in Moscow. Why? Because while we won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas. The West stopped one day too soon, just like in Desert Storm. Just imagine the Allies in 1945 being satisfied with some kind of Perestroika in Nazi Germany — instead of unconditional surrender. What would have been the situation in Europe then, to say nothing of Germany? All former Nazi collaborators would have remained in power, albeit under a new disguise. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991. Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically. It is no surprise, therefore, that despite the defeat of communism, the radical Left in the West still arrogates the moral high ground to itself.”


“When the Nazis lost the Second World War, racial hatred was discredited. When the Soviets lost the Cold War, the tenet of class hatred remained as popular as ever. Having failed to finish off conclusively the communist system, we are now in danger of integrating the resulting monster into our world. It may not be called communism anymore, but it retained many of its dangerous characteristics. . . .Until the Nuremberg-style tribunal passes its judgement on all the crimes committed by communism, it is not dead and the war is not over.”


William S. Lind:
“Political Correctness wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought. Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism. There are major parallels between classical and cultural Marxism. Both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on [University] campuses where ‘PC’ has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.”


“While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multiculturalism.”


Antonio Gramsci:
“It was necessary first to delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups and to create a “counter-hegemony” (i.e., a new system of values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of civil society — schools, churches, the media, voluntary associations — civil society itself, is the great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the “war of position.” — all life is “political.” Thus, private life, the work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle to achieve societal transformation.”


John Fonte:
“The primary resistance to the advance of cultural Marxism in the USA comes from an opposing quarter, “contemporary Tocquevillianism. Its representatives take Alexis de Tocqueville’s essentially empirical description of American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced. Americans are much more individualistic, religious, and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced nation. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations.”


“Tocquevillians and Gramscians clash on almost everything that matters. Tocquevillians believe that there are objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times. Gramscians believe that moral ‘truths’ are subjective and depend upon historical circumstances. Tocquevillians believe in personal responsibility. Gramscians believe that ‘the personal is political.’ In the final analysis, Tocquevillians favor the transmission of the American regime; Gramscians, its transformation.”


“While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American republic at the level of its most cherished ideas. For more than two centuries America has been an ‘exceptional’ nation, one whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very ‘exceptionalism.’ America would at last become Europeanized: statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes are enormous.”


Anthony Browne:
“The Politically Correct are more intolerant of dissent than traditional liberals or conservatives, since Liberals of earlier times “accepted unorthodoxy as normal. Indeed the right to differ was a datum of classical liberalism. The Politically Correct do not give that right a high priority. It distresses their programmed minds. Those who do not conform should be ignored, silenced or vilified. There is a kind of soft totalitarianism about Political Correctness. Because the politically correct believe they are not just on the side of right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to are not just wrong, but malign. In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail the malign views of those they disagree with. People who transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced and spurned. The rise of political correctness represents an assault on both reason and liberal democracy. Political Correctness is an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated.”


“Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation.”


“To some extent, the rise of the eastern powers, China and India, will ensure in coming decades that western guilt will shrivel: finally having equal powers to compare ourselves to, the West will no longer feel inclined to indulge in self-loathing, but will seek to reaffirm its sense of identity. (…) in the long-run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and its unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell the demise of political correctness.”


Mahfooz Kanwar:
“Multiculturalism has been bad for unity in Canada. It ghettoizes people, makes them believe, wrongly, that isolating themselves and not adapting to their new society is OK. It is not. Political correctness threatens us because we can’t fight something we refuse to label and understand. The amount of political correctness during the arrests of 17 Muslims in the Toronto area was “sickening. Political correctness has gone too far. Political correctness threatens our society. It is the responsibility of the minorities to adjust to the majority, not the other way around.”

Ayaan's opinion of Dutch politicians fits some US politicians

I am reading this book, The Caged Virgin - An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam, written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in 2004. I am halfway through it, and I recommend it hightly. I got excited just reading the preface, especially this passage

Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native whiter majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobic and xenophobia.

I cannot emphasize enough how wrongheaded this is. Witholding criticism and ignoring differences are racism in its purest form. Yet these cultural experts fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticising non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness.

My own criticism of Islamic religion and culture is felt by some to "harsh," "offensive," and "hurtful." But the attitude of the cultural experts is, in fact, harsher, and more offensive and hurtful. They feel superior and do not regard Muslims as equal discussion partners, but as the "others" who should be shielded. And they think that criticism of Islam should be avoided because they are afraid that Muslims can only respond to criticism with anger and violence.

Now let's flash forward from 2004 to March 31, 2008 when AEI resident and scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote this article, Fitna Is an Embarrassment for the Dutch Cabinet. I also recommend that you read this article in its entirety. She makes 3 major points in the article.

1. The Dutch Cabinet is embarrassed because the majority of publicity for the movie originated from the Cabinet. If, when PM Wilders made known his intention to release this movie they had not spoke out against him there would not have been a worldwide festering controversy.

2. The Dutch cabinet is is suffering a severe loss of face because it has shown that freedom of speech is not safe in its hands. By acting as if it was a worthwhile endeavor to investigate whether the movie should be banned (either before or after its release), the cabinet improperly reversed its constitutional position with regard to the Second Chamber of Parliament.

In the Netherlands, the cabinet governs, and Parliament controls the cabinet. In relation to MP Wilders, however, the cabinet has improperly set itself up as the controller. The Dutch cabinet has actively sought to silence an elected member of parliament. That the parliamentary opposition did not intervene against this appalling attempt at censorship, is more distressing than any possible movie about Islam could be.

3. This is the most major point of all, which I quote from the article

Fitna laid bare just what a distrustful image this Social-Christian cabinet has of Muslims. It considers Muslims as half-savage beasts, [a bit like Bokito, Holland's most famous gorilla] who will jump over the fence of reason at the slightest provocation and who in a collective frenzy disrupt the public peace.

They can only be kept in check by not engaging them as mature reasonable adults, by not contradicting them, not presenting them with difficult questions about their religion, by talking positively about it; all the while creating myriad emergency response plans through full crisis scenarios, because a film happens to be made about their holy book. It is just as in the case of Bokito the gorilla, who was put behind high bars in a zoo but was feverishly petted. This attitude is called "respect", towards Muslims. I wonder what Muslims think of being regarded in this way?

I wonder too what Muslims think of being regarded this way. I also think this hypocritical respect is noticed by folks in the US who hear their elected officials speaking about the ignorant unwashed hicks from small towns that end up in Iraq because they can't go to college. These folks that are bitter from not being wealthy so they turn to guns and God. These people that Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid thinks stink. This kind of "hypocritical respect" deserves no place in the government.

Duly Noted Brussels Journal Nuggets

I stumbled across this article in the online Brussels Journal that lists 17 underrated issues that might deserve attention. Of these 17, items 2, 10, 11, and 17 especially caught my eye. I encourage everyone to read the entire article, and perhaps for some other numbered items may be of more importance.

Item #2:

According to Vremya Novostei (8 April) Russia’s top election official is prepared to send election monitors to America. The candidates there have no equal access to the mass media, which “does not exist” in the US. How will the Republicans thank Moscow for supporting the case they make about their coverage by a biased press?

One thought I had reading this is...WoW! What chutzpah for Russia's top election official to complain about how the candidates here in the US have no equal access to the mass media. But then giving it further thought is there anyone who has more first hand knowledge about candidates not having equal access to the mass media than a top election official in Russia? more popcorn, please.

Item #10:

Some immigrants might assert that their entry into advanced countries is their basic, therefore undeniable, right. At the risk of the accusation of prejudice, some of these must be reminded of another self-evident right. It is that the natives prefer “to live differently.” Therefore, they do not wish to adjust to the life-style that invited or uninvited guests try to force upon them. This is so even if the claim is shrewdly raised that submission is a test of the hosts’ tolerance.

I have read at RS Paul Cella and other write voluminously about this issue, but I certainly appreciate how this item says so much about this issue in so few words.

Item #11:

A small news item told that out of 37 spies in the US 17 were ideologically motivated. In earlier years, the traitors for money were the majority. The numbers suggest that we can find here a symptom. It reflects the erosion of values and of the undermining of the sense of citizenship that is advocated by the relativists that control the pulpit, the schools and much of the media.

Just visit MichelleMalkin.com or DebbieSchlussel.com lately and discover a treasure trove of news stories that show how much the moral relativists are speaking out from the pulpit, classroom, and MSM.

Item # 17:

The radicals that govern Gaza demand that Israel open the common border. If this is not done, their wards are in danger of “suffocating.” We might have a remarkable case wrapped into this demand. It is not unusual that a party commits openly to the destruction of another state. When such an entity demands that, to survive, it be allowed to have access to its chosen enemy, we seem to have entered the realm of the surreal.
PS. It is reported (12 April) that from Gaza Hamas has subjected an Israeli refinery to a rocket attack. It so happens that this is the refinery that delivers Gaza’s fuel. The deliveries are interrupted. Wait for news that Hamas protests the hardship created for innocents by the lack of gas.

I heard about the attack on the Israeli refinery on my car radio yesterday, and my very first thought when I heard it is the last sentence, Chutzpah is Yiddish, but one obviously need not be Jewish for it to be applicable.

The Big Oil President

I hear this canard at my office a lot about how Bush and Cheney are in cahoots with BIG OIL, and these oil execs are makin’ a killer of a profit from ripping us off every time we put gas in our vehicles. I usually just walk away without talking to them and mutter to myself “pffft if only we had a BIG OIL President.”

The real story is that for over seven years there has been a BIG OIL president, only this is not the POTUS. No, the BIG OIL president has been Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. I let Google be my friend again, and I found a table of oil production throughout the world. I especially noticed a pattern of the US and Russia from 1992 to 2000, and from 2001 through 2005. Sorry, I could not find data later than 2005.

Country	1992___	1993___	1994___	1995___	1996___	1997___	1998___	1999___	2000___
USA	8996.23	8835.61	8644.86	8625.6	8607.27	8611.41	8391.85	8107.14	8110
Russia	7861.93	6950	6335	6175	6035	6115	6074	6309.95	6712

For every year except a slight uptick in 1997 both the US and Russia were in decline in oil production.

Now let’s take a look at the data from 2001 thru 2005

Country	2001___	2002___	2003___	2004___	2005___
USA	8053.82	8043.34	7823.20	7649.12	7332.40
Russia	7154.04	7654.16	8522.07	9261.01	9500.22

For every year in this time frame US is in significant decline in oil production and Russia is significantly increasing oil production.

I found a recent article with the headline “Exploration Drilling in Russia Increased over Twenty Percent in 2007.”

An article in November of 2007 is a very interesting read keeping in mind what has occurred since the article was written.

Thanks to energy and the new Russian brand of “state capitalism” it supports, Putin has returned his country—not long ago considered the invalid at Europe’s doorstep—to center stage. Vast energy resources have also allowed Putin to set about making genuine governmental reforms, root out corruption, and pour money into social services.

And all of it—his despotism and benevolence alike—has left him wildly popular. While George W. Bush endures approval ratings of about 30 percent as his presidency sputters to a close, approval ratings for Putin, who is due to step down in March, hover around 70 percent.

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not approve of or applaud the ruthless authoritarian tactics that Pres. Putin employs. I actually think that had American exceptionalism been given a chance we could have increased the US energy resources as much as Russia has without suppressing the media and dissenters.

An interesting part of the November article is describing how the Russian guys, ex-soviet managers, look at the environmental regulations and concerns. There is a lot of new oil production occurring on Sakhalin Island just north of Japan by Exxon/Mobil. The article mentions how one of these Russian guys walked into their office one day and he said to the manager

If we were doing this, it would be done by now. The problem is you’re trying to do it legally.

The article also mentions how the Kremlin used concerns about the environment.

Environmental groups had been on Sakhalin Energy’s case since it began operating in the late 1990s, but the Russian government mostly ignored them. Then in 2006, after negotiations to give Gazprom a minority stake in Sakhalin II fell apart, Russian authorities began citing Sakhalin Energy for alleged violations. One example: Excessive logging of the pipeline corridor and poor terracing of its perimeter were creating severe erosion problems all along the pipeline route. And international environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund among them, complained bitterly that Sakhalin Energy’s construction activities in Aniva Bay, including an undersea pipeline, had disrupted fish and whale populations. Using such charges as leverage, Russian authorities revoked permits and demanded work stoppages. According to a Sakhalin Energy employee, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk police set up shop outside the company’s headquarters and checked work visas. Shell was threatened with a $50 billion lawsuit.

It was from the Kremlin, everyone suspects, that an offer came: Sell majority control of Sakhalin II to Gazprom and the trouble will cease. So that’s exactly what Shell did. It handed over half its shares to Gazprom, which also acquired half the shares of Shell’s Japanese partners, Mitsubishi and Mitsui & Co., giving Gazprom 50 percent of Sakhalin Energy plus one share.

Obviously the disruption of fish and whale populations was not quite the principle to Kremlin that it is to the World Wildlife Fund folks. I think the prospects for having a BIG OIL POTUS are bleak at the present time, and there is plenty of blame to go around for why this is the case. I just look in the mirror if I am only interested in blame. Still I have got to hope that one day enough Americans will be mugged by reality, and reject the politically correct meme that all of us Americans must suffer hardships to promote tourism and a better world for whales and fishes.