Tag Archives: government

Jul 28 2014

Eleanor Holmes Norton Is Arrogance Personified: Congress Has “No Right To Know” President’s Business


The most Transparent administration ever — Well we know Obama does the opposite of what he says so it makes sense!

johngalt's avatarYouViewed/Editorial

Eleanor Holmes Norton: Congress Has ‘No Right To Know’ Executive Branch’s Business

” Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting congressional delegate for the District of Columbia, angrily sputtered during a congressional hearing Friday that the White House should not be held up to scrutiny, saying that there was no right to know what it was doing behind closed doors.

“ You don’t have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government,” Norton said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

  It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must[s] to prevent abuses of power by government officials. Instead the leading advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia literally argued that even the congressional committee charged with oversight shouldn’t be asking questions…

View original post 6 more words

Jul 28 2014

OBAMA QUIETLY EXPANDS GOVERNMENT’S ‘WATCHLIST’


1984 here we come!

Jul 27 2014

George Orwel’s 1984 is here today in New York


NY HOMELAND SECURITY ENCOURAGES BUSINESSES TO SNITCH ON PREPPERS AS TERRORISTS

Re-Posted from The Resistance United blog Posted by Daniel Crane Sunday July 27, 2014

The New York State Division of Homeland Security is encouraging businesses to snitch on preppers as terrorists, urging that the purchase of MRE’s, ammunition or flash lights be treated as a suspicious activity.

As the video above illustrates, the LZ Army Navy Surplus store in Auburn, NY received a visit from a state trooper who put up a flyer in the window which encourages customers to call the New York State Terrorism Tips Line, 1-866 SAFE NYS, to report suspicious activity under the mantra of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign.

1-866 SAFE NYS is part of Safeguard New York, an NY State counterterrorism program that uses promotional material to encourage citizens to report people for engaging in “suspicious activity….which makes them stand out from others”.

An accompanying letter provided by the state trooper listed such “suspicious activity” as the purchase of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat), flashlights, weather proof ammunition, night vision equipment, match containers, or gas masks.

Given that the tips hotline is also similar in name to the ‘SAFE Act’, recently passed legislation which outlaws the ownership of high capacity magazines and certain semi-automatic weapons in New York, it could also be used to snitch on gun owners.

The owner of the surplus store said that when she saw the sign in the window she immediately tore it down because in her mind the program is merely a way for authorities to compile a list of preppers.

Jul 25 2014

Fight heats up over EPA sabotage of Alaska gold mine


Like NASA, NOAA and the IRS the EPA is just one other rogue agency!

Feb 3 2014

The Dual Nature of Mankind


The Mores of the people and Politics

Something that is both good and bad with humankind is our dual nature; the Asian Yin and Yang so to speak. We on the once side we are ruled by our self-interest doing and acting for our personal betterment to the exclusion of others. A politician passing laws where he can personally gain financial which is morally wrong even if not legal wrong. Then we have the other aspect where we act to help others even when there is no betterment to ourselves. For example we have a soldier falling on a hand grenade to save his comrades knowing he will die. Clearly these are very different aspects of our personalities. Many have studied this dichotomy and written their views on why this is true. The reasons matter not here we accept that they exist and deal with them as our founders did when they wrote our Constitution. So to prevent the former and promote the later we have hard limits placed on the federal government with checks and balances and enumerated powers — negative rights as some like to call them. The former was deemed much more important by our founders than the latter based on fine thousand years of political human history.

The importance of this issue cannot be dismissed and again as our founders understood a system like they created could not work without a moral base in the citizens. They saw religion as the provider of our moral base and they protected that right in the constitution and first amendment by making it impossible for the federal government to establish a state religion as existed in the rest of the world at that time. Contrary to current popular belief the founders made no attempt to take religion out of the government; in fact the opposite was true. This alone proves that the current drive to take religion out of the government is not valid at any level moral or Constitutional. In fact, it could be said that those that seek power are trying to establish a state religion — that religion being secularism — which is a system of beliefs designed to replace other systems of beliefs. To make that change they need to change the mores of the people and that is being done though the education system and the entertainment industry.

Montesquieu in his The Spirit of the Laws written in 1748 discuses the mores of the people extensively but two sections in particular Book 19 page 308 and Book 24 Page 460 in the Cambridge University Press 1989 translation relate to the peoples mores and their government. The issue of the mores of the people is important in politics because as Montesquieu understood the beliefs and customs of the people must be matched by their system of government. If there is a mismatch then there is conflict and if there is a large mismatch there is civil war. For example after the American Revolution the issue of slavery was not settled. The bulk of American people did not like it and wanted it gone as it went against their mores but because America was a republic the states that had slavery wanted to keep it and the issue festered. The Civil War under the first Republican president Abraham Lincoln settled the issue and the government matched the mores of the people for the next 100 years or so.

In the late 19th century in the heat of the transformative industrial revolution Karl Marx changed the mix of beliefs, mores if you will, with his radical theories now called Marxism or Communism. There was much appeal to what was proposed but not for the reasons that were stated by Marx. The intellectuals saw this as a way to reverse the trend to freedom that was transforming Europe at the time; but convincing the people that there was a better way then what existed then was not going to be easy. Further there was a reinforcing belief structure coming from a different direction that gave additional support to this trend on the intellectuals. This support came form the new Existentialism movement; in particular from Nietzsche, in my opinion, who developed his theories shortly after Marx died in 1883. Nietzsche’s writings were in part the concept that there were two kinds of mores — the mores of power and the intellectual aristocrats who had the right of rule and those of the common man, the mores of slaves as he called them who did not have that capacity and were therefore inferior. His writings were very much against religion and also against anything someone tried to claim as a “truth” of any kind even science and engineering. He appeared to be in support of the aristocrats’ as then existed in Europe for they believed only in themselves as the true sovereign man who made his own rules as only he saw fit.

Those seeking power took Marx and Nietzsche’s’ work and merged them into what is now the progressive movement; but they needed more and they got that after John Maynard Keynes gave then the political means they needed in the late 1930s with his theories expounded in his book The General Theory of Employment interest, and Money now known as Keynesian economics. The core of the progressives beliefs are: based on Nietzsche work that there are those that are born better and have the right to rule; then supported on Keynes work that big government was required; and finally on Marx that there was moral justification for doing this. Their only problem was that to get the power they sought they needed to change the mores of the people to accept being ruled. Most of the world agreed with this so that was not their problem. Their problem was America where the beliefs of Marx, Nietzsche and Keynes never took complete hold — the Citizens here were happy not being ruled.

Using the ACLU which was founded in 1920 by those with this belief — that they, the intellectuals, were destined to rule — a campaign was started to separate the Citizens from their government by changing both the government and the mores of the people. The key to achieving this change was to take over the Education system which was accomplished first when they successfully blocked public funding to bus students to public and religious schools in 1947 with the Everson v. Board of Education case and then it was completed when the department of Education was established in 1979. Once they had control of the education system they thought they could shift the mores of the people to accept a larger and larger government. The legislation introduced and passed by both political parties albeit for different reasons over the last ten years in particular has taken the country to the very edge of this transformation.

While religion was being taken out of the schools and the government an attack on the Citizens was also being waged with Political Correctness (PC) and Multiculturalism which were designed to neutralize religion and to show that there was no differences between anyone we are all the same — and for sure, to them, the American system is no better then anyone else’s system. But the sameness they believe in is Nietzsche’s the mores of the slave for the common man; and the no better, to them, is that we should accept being ruled as does everyone else in the world. The moves and the TV shows are full of this message and have been for a long time. Supporting this was a new curriculum in the schools that taught how bad America was so its no wonder that today’s the kids and young adults are confused — for why are people sneaking into America if this place is as bad as they are being told it is?

This manufactured distrust of our free market system gave the progressives the power to say we are trying to change our ways and be more like everyone else and this campaign of misinformation came to fruitions in 2008 with a new kind of president — one that fully indented to transform the country into a form that he believed was better. The one he was taught in the schools of a powerful central government ruling the people — for their own good of course. Unfortunately during the 2008 election no one bothered to ask him what he was going to transform us into and so we now have economic stagnation as we are neither free market nor central planning. And since the move is toward central planning there is no incentive to do anything as it is perceived that the government will be taking over most functions and then even if you did made some money it will be taken away a part of the redistribution of wealth program.

So where are we? Well to use an old cliché we are between the rock and the hard place. The Supreme Court ruling on June 28th tipped the scales of government to central planning; as the ruling affirming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 was constitutional under the power to tax gave gives the legislative branch the power to do most anything they want just as Nancy Pelosi stated during the debate on that legislation. The process of changing the government started in 1913 has now been completed with this ruling. Roberts in making this ruling ignored the constitutional amendment process which was designed to adjust the Constitution when major changes were needed. The American people did not want this legislation and it was done by one political party — clearly this was above and beyond what congress had the power to do, and it was not in the spirit of what the founders intended. Roberts will now be known as the person that ended our republic and turned us into just another European style social welfare democracy ruled by a powerful aristocratic few.

It’s never too late but we are now in the 4th quarter down 14 to 10 on the opponent’s 40 yard line; its 4th down, 9 yards to go and 8 seconds left on the clock. Only a Hail Mary pass to a receiver in the end zone can win the game. Who is going to be our quarterback in 2016? — And who is going to be the receiver? We have many good candidates to make our team; Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio or Alan West whoever it is we need stars that can complete what is needed to save the Republic. To complete that pass and save the Republic we need the Presidency and at minimum 51 Senators as well as maintaining control of the house. Than, that team needs to repeal almost everything that has been enacted since the 70’s; starting on the first full day January 21st 2016 with the repeal of PPACA Obamacare. After that the real work begins — to dismantle all the rest of the progressive transformation.

Feb 1 2014

Our Way of Life, Part I


Before we can start a discussion on civilization and society and our way of life we must briefly address the issue of how humans came to populate the earth, and this brings us to the issue of God, since all the major religions of the world teach that God created man.  Some believe that God created the earth some 5,000 odd years ago in a six-day period.  Others who are also religious are more flexible in this belief. Those that are of the first group of teachings are prescriptively rigid and therefore they cannot account for the abundance of observations and phenomena in our natural world, which point to a much greater age for the planet (ten to fifteen billion years).

Why the red shift in astronomy?  Why the many fossils that point to evolutionary development for all terrestrial life?  Why the existence of geological structures millions, even billions, of years old? Why human brains with the capacity to discover these things as we study ourselves and the universe?  Why would a God who had created the universe in six days go to such great efforts to make it appear otherwise?

We should bypass this issue by assuming that, given the existence of a God/Creator, the universe was created in a manner consistent with our scientific knowledge, but that man was an intentional result of the creation process, planned by the God/Creator from the beginning.  In other words, God created man via an indirect, evolutionary process, that many  today call “intelligent design.”   If we can agree to make this one simple assumption, then we can move on to the discussion and analysis of our humanity without getting into an argument about the existence of God and whether here is an afterlife. There will be more on this subject in future post.

Assuming that human life developed in an evolutionary process we can begin our discussion of civilization with the pre-human ancestors of modern man, who began to roam the planet coming out of Africa approximately two and a half million years ago.   By this stage of our development, pre-humans had developed a complex brain as a means of adapting to a hostile environment.   It is generally believed that at the time the earliest humans developed sentience they had banded together in small groups for protection.   The importance of this practice was three-fold:

First, living in groups provided general protection for all members of the band or tribe (in other words there was, “safety in numbers”).

Second, since the human female is particularly vulnerable during the later stages of pregnancy (pregnancy easily adds twenty-five to thirty percent to her body weight), group protection of gestating females was a very strong asset to the viability of the human species.  Whether it is politically correct or not — the primary purpose of a man is to protect and care for his mate and their children

Third, human babies are absolutely helpless (unlike most other mammals) for an extended period of time after birth, and children require many years of growing and learning before becoming independent individuals (14 to 16 years back then and much longer today), and thus group protection of infants and young children was absolutely imperative if the human species was to survive.

The females of almost all species with complex brains (and developmental patterns similar to ours) developed very strong protective instincts.  It follows logically that human males, unburdened with childbearing, became the aggressive gender of the species, whose core job was foremost to protect and provide for the females and young. In addition, males were much more expendable than females, since one male could impregnate many females.  Maybe this is one of the reasons that approximately 7% more males are born than females.  They were expected to die off and so more were needed.

These defined gender roles must have been beneficial to the development and propagation of the human species, or we would not have continued to evolve.  By the time humans had developed language and had begun to use tools and fire, the social roles of both males and females had been “programmed” into human DNA: Aggressive males protected the tribe (even at the cost of their lives), while the more passive females bore and cared for the young.  Probably as a direct result of the major physical demands of childbearing, females also became physiologically much stronger than males, thus increasing their longevity potential in comparison to males. This has major ramifications today as women live much long then men do and older people require more health care.

Based on observations of the social behaviors of other species with large, complex brains, we can assume that early humans developed specific social structures within their bands and small tribes.   Typically, a dominant male becomes the band or tribe leader; parallel to this, a dominant female also arises, thus providing the basis for a “pecking order,” or social structure, of both males and females within the group.

Probably about thirty thousand years ago basic, “civilization” was born when humans began to retain knowledge through speech, art, and writing, and the relatively simple social structure of early humans began to evolve into something more complex.  The evolutionary process became much more complicated as humans gained the knowledge that allowed them to exercise ever greater control over their environment.  Farming, mining, metal working, and the building of mechanical devices developed quickly and spread throughout the world in short very short order.

A critical mass of knowledge was reached about five thousand years ago, and the conquest of the planet then began in earnest.  It has continued in spurts ever since (periods of rapid gain of knowledge followed by periods of absorption of that knowledge) and is now progressing geometric rate. Given that most of the easy to get resources of the plant have been found and used it is critical that we continue to push the knowledge frontier so we can get to the point that we are not limited to ‘easy’ to get resources. Turing back now is not an option for if there is a second modern dark age it will not be easy to come back.

With the rapid expansion of civilization throughout the globe, the aggressive nature of the male began to constitute, at least somewhat, a liability to the development of the human race.   To some extent, war and the desire for conquest were simply an outgrowth of the male’s role as protector of the tribe.  As bigger and bigger territories were brought under the control of a single dominant, male, large areas assumed a certain stability, which, in turn, promoted the development of technology.  Since by this time no other thing on the planet could challenge the human race it began to dominate the planet.

As the number of humans grew and their knowledge base expanded, all areas or aspects did not develop equally.  Initially male-oriented skills predominated and resulted in the advancement of technology and the physical sciences.  The skills of warfare and conquest were perfected, driven by technological advances.  Human cultures that did not develop these skills were quickly swept aside by highly organized and increasingly mechanized armies.

Prior to the twentieth century, however, aggression and warfare did not impact the overall survival of the human race.  Today, unfortunately, with man’s ability to make nuclear bombs, lethal gases, and custom-designed killer viruses, warfare has the potential to threaten the survival of the human species and has become a very important issue.

“Civilization” has now reached a point at which mankind must rethink its purpose and, in fact, its very existence.  With billions of humans on the planet, and with the knowledge we now possess, it would be easy for mankind to destroy all life on the planet.  Some international tension has been displaced with the collapse of the USSR in the late ‘80s, but it must be kept in mind that, historically, a power always rises to fill a void. India, China, Japan (probably not now after the 2011 earthquake), or some other country will assert itself and replace the USSR in the pantheon of world powers. Disarmament is also not an issue as weakness breeds war, it always has and that cannot be allowed today.

Today with the apparent decline of the United States since 2008 this looks to be more and more like China will assume this role of the replacement country to the old USSR and in the process possibly even surpass the United States if the current direction is not reversed.  This is not a certainty as there are internal problems in China that are not obvious, but that is a subject for a different discussion.

The decline of the United States to a lesser status would be very bad for mankind for we can no longer allow these old aggressive power patterns of a strong leader as part of a closed political system trying to gain control of a region or significant portion of the world.  We must come to an understanding of who we are and why we do what we do; we must be able to address these issues realistically or our civilization will collapse under the onslaught of our increasing numbers our technology and our relentless impact on the ecostructure of the world.

The reason that our decline would be bad is that we are different. Because of this difference the U.S. rose to its present position as the world’s leading industrial and political power in less than 200 years. The industrial base, governmental structure and military might of our country are the culmination of five thousand years of western civilization.  The U.S. is presently unchallenged by any nation on the planet; simply said, we are the best (nation) and we got to where we are by being the best (individually) because there was no central control. However, since 2008 that is being changed and not for the good. This fact must be kept in mind or all discussion of change will lack a solid base, for if we already are the best than what are we going to change to that is better?

We got here by the intellect and hard work primarily by men of European ancestry.  This is not to imply that people with other cultural backgrounds did not contribute to America’s growth, but, prior to a very few years ago, the core leadership of this country came predominantly from western European stock (English, French, Italian, Spanish and German). This “melting pot” of people and ideas worked well as long as the melting was encouraged by the citizens.  The social structure that developed from this experiment in self rule became the “American” culture.  It makes no sense to postulate whether the contributions of eastern European or non-European cultures would have changed American culture in some substantial or “better” way, since the fact remains that the influence of these cultures was — nominal or minimal at best.

The American citizen was not ruled by the federal government and that was because of the U.S. Constitution and “Bill-of-Rights” which prevented an oppressive government from developing; that is until now.  We are being told that those documents are obsolete and must be changed or gotten rid of.  There is no logic to that thinking and it is only being promoted by those that want the power that those documents now deny. We should be very careful about making changes for another system other than what we have now for that is a return to past systems that do not and have never worked.

There are, of course, imperfections in our society we are after all human. But we should not abandon all the good we have accomplished within the parameters of American culture just because we have some negative aspects.  For sure we should not start over because of some perceived problems areas.  Make adjustments yes, but not start over.