Self-Defeating

As this seemingly neverending campaign season grinds on, and you receive requests to send money to campaigns or super PACs, don't forget this.

The money you send is helping keep your most insidious and relentless enemy alive. The  MSM Agency of Lies will take your money and become an even bigger factor in destroying your life.

If only, like The Magnetic Monster, we could over-feed it so that it blows itself up. Ah. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Did That Really Come From Newt?

When I reproduced the money bomb email in yesterday's post, I scrubbed off the "From" line along with the "To" line. Sorry about that.

I was asked, half jokingly, by more than a few people whom I told of the email

"Are you sure that came from Gingrich?"

It's a fair question given all the political dirty tricks that  have transpired in the past and seem to be on the increase.

Why would the Gingrich campaign deliberately send out an email that plays to the stereotypical charge that "Gingrich is a bomb thrower?"

I have no idea. Ask them.

Here's the line I left off yesterday (since added).

Subject: Money Bomb: Deliver the Knockout Punch
From: Newt Gingrich <campaign@newtgingrichforpresident.org >

I really wish the question did not feel like a joke. That is because the targets of the joke are all those who legitimately wish to restore the dream that is America.

Could Newt Be More Self Defeating?

In what follows, I'm aware that there is a certain sick humor about all this. Perhaps the laugh is on anyone who thinks the GOP hierarchy is actually trying to oust Obama. Or maybe the laugh is on the gullible buyers of books put out by conservative talkshow hosts. They sure write good books detailing what Obama is doing wrong and extolling what is right and honest. Obama's presidency has been a boom time for them, doncha know. 

It surely is mighty hard to take in what follows and keep a straight face..

By now everybody has heard how tone deaf Romney has been. Talkers and bloggers have chalked up his loss in Saturday's South Carolina primary election to Mr. Romney "being unable to read the voters."

Like that was a revelation? As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Romney, like Mr. McCain before him, and Mr. Huntsman, and countless other Republicans, simply hate conservatives because we simply don't approve of "Progressives" pretending to be moderates.

But what of Mr. Gingrich? The Carolinians reacted favorably to Newt's eagerness to fight the media and from there extended confidence in him to take on Obama and the Dems. I personally still await to hear his clear denouncement of the radical Greens and their sophistic abuse of the Precautionary Principle. He has the smarts to do it if he's not in the tank. Intelligent anti-greens know this too. I want to know:

Is Newt truly a changed man?

Well, now that's where this post begins to get funny.

The media and the talkers and several big bloggers have frequently call Mr. Gingrich "a bomb thrower."

And what shows up in my email on Sunday? 

Subject: Money Bomb: Deliver the Knockout Punch

From: Newt Gingrich

.

.

Please read this special message from Newt Gingrich.

.

Patriot, Our success in yesterday's South Carolina primary is a result of one thing: a national movement of conservative patriots who want to see bold solutions enacted to....

Money Bomb? Any kind of bomb?

Wasn't one of the primary reasons Mr. Gingrich won South Carolina was because he used his great political skills? He proved he could out-trash talk the media? Because he could turn the tables on them?

So what does his campaign do right after that win? It feeds the opposition's bomb-thrower stereotype.

Bold ass you say?

Yeah, that's the first criteria Americans seek in their presidents.

Manipulated

South Carolinians sure have my sympathy today. You are the latest subjects to be manipulated. I surely hope you understand.

If I learned nothing else from Orwell, I learned that the Statist regime winds up running its own opposition. And you believe our current situation is dissimilar?

“We’re doing this because it is the right thing to do”

Is that the imperial "We" there? You bet it is.

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 6. 

In recent weeks I've presented how the Precautionary Principle forms the basis of a new morality. People who operate surreptitiously -- for what they believe is the common good -- feel good about themselves no matter how much sophistry they employ. “We’re doing this because it is the right thing to do.” Got it?

Below the read more is an independent video taken at the kickoff for the "winter workshops" of a regional land use commission with the authoritarian sounding name OneBayArea. Have you had similar experiences? Share them. Homeland Security is not the NKVD -- yet.

What Would Institutionalized Voter Fraud Look Like?

Thanks to James O'keefe, we know.



The institutional apparatchiks wear such smiley faces, what's to worry?

H/t: Ace of Spades

"Progressives" Using Incrementalism

My readers know I loath the word "Progressive" used as a label for the bastard Incrementalists. That is because their chosen label belies their real agenda: to achieve furtively, a little bit at a time, authoritarian repression. They do this with a clear conscience because they believe themselves anointed with a clearer vision. That vision requires that mankind be ruled by supermen. So in support of the Precautionary Principle's worry that mankind might overburden the environment without their rule, they fully intend on regressing the livelihood of the common man.

Tough to do in a free and open and informed society you say?

Mark Levin, in the second half hour of his show

Precautionary Principle Is Older Than 1999

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 5.

I've heard a disheartening remark from at least two people who already understand how the Precautionary Principle is a threat not only to progress but to liberty. "Most people are too stupid to understand, so why bother discussing it?" For me such an attitude recalls the smartassery "beauty may only be skin deep, but ugly goes clear down to the bone."

Nanny State Bestows Mercy

I stumbled upon some good news for a change.

A terrified householder grabbed a carving knife and fought a ‘fencing match’ with machete-wielding burglars, a court heard yesterday.

During the struggle, an intruder was stabbed and died from his injuries later.

Grandfather Peter Flanagan, 59, was arrested on suspicion of murder but prosecutors ruled he should face no charges because he had acted reasonably to defend himself.

The decision followed a pledge by [PM] David Cameron that homeowners who defend themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted provided they use ‘reasonable force’.
-- Daily Mail Online

Isn't that grand? UK has been in the forefront of intimidating its citizens from defending themselves, notoriously persecuting and imprisoning home defenders for eliminating, without a badge, state-terror agents home invaders.

Well, here's a thanks to God for Peter Flanagan's good fortune. He was the lucky one to be graced with what meager mercy Downing Street offers its subjects. The Queen's wielders of force took a holiday from their jealousy as sole arbiters of justice.

Precautionary Principle Tyranny

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 4.

Christinewjc: I apologize if I am not "getting" your point regarding the "precautionary principle." I read your recent blog post about it and have concluded that perhaps I need an example?#

Someone charges that your ideas are a threat to humanity. Your normal defense is that they must prove it. They counter that IF they are right, the danger is so bad that the burden of proof shifts to you. They, under color of authority, go on and ban your normal operations, demanding that you first prove that your efforts are not a danger before they allow you to proceed. Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, "freedom of speech and assembly and of religion" and "innocent until proven guilty," have been discarded wherever the Precautionary Principle has been recognized.

Judeo-Christian ethics and the Western tradition views innocent human life with sanctity. Human life is holy. Under the cover of the Precautionary Principle, Greens insist that Malthusianism has to be given the upper hand; that a human's usefulness must be weighed in order to determine their innocence; and that old line moralists are a threat to those who seek to supersede Judeo-Christian morality with morality founded upon those who worship Sustainability.

Thanks for that explanation, Pascal. #

I must say that it is kind of ironic that some leftist secular progressives (especially the celebrity types) might use such an idea against Christian Conservative viewpoints, but ignore the dangers of Islam and label it "the religion of peace" when, for the most part, it has been quite the opposite for centuries.

Kind of ironic, yes. There is little true irony when it comes to the implementation of renewed authoritarianism. When each new bar to individual freedom is preceded by the implementers claiming to be achieving the opposite of what you are witnessing, the only irony (unless it's duplicity) is to be found in those who sincerely believe they are watchdogs as those consequences unfold right before their eyes.

Want a new approach to fight each attempted new breech of individual rights? Discover how your adversaries have employed the Precautionary Principle, then go on to reveal how their plans are a greater threat to humanity than anything you might do. Defeating the tactic and turning the tables becomes easier when more people comprehend how they're under attack because you've stripped the facade away from the attackers.

Cross-Posted at Crusader Rabbit.

Happy New Year: Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 3

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West (part 3)

Exactly ten years ago today, a comment appeared at Free Republic in a thread based on the publication “Human Sacrifice Rationalization in 7th Grade Curriculum .” The Precautionary Principle was not directly mentioned, but it was clearly present in the thinking of those who scoff at men filled with faith, optimism and the love of mankind. 

Here is the summary of that comment:

A fundamental disparity appears to set up the battleground, the reason, the cause celebre, for the confrontation predicted in Revelations known as Armageddon.

• The God-fearing belief they must be allowed to procreate, to obey what they see as God’s wishes, that the choice to have children ought be left solely to the couple and providence. They note that no matter how many people on the planet, God has provided when man is free to worship freely. The overwhelming success of this country is testament to that.
• Those without faith in God have a different belief: the unshakable, Malthusian driven fear that believers in God must be neutralized in order to save the planet from the inevitable geometric growth of humanity if the wishes of “the great unwashed” are left unchecked. They fear the planet cannot stand further human growth, and are therefore dead-set against any who promote it. So they have aided, abetted and employed the God-scoffers to indoctrinate our children against God and belief in Him. Our children are being indoctrinated to not have this faith in God, to believe man must limit himself. Our children will be warned not to believe that God said be “fruitful and multiply.” Our children will think it patriotic to not have children of their own. Our children are being taught to believe that those who “breed” are traitors.

Even non-believers ought be able to see how this conflict sets the God scoffers against the God believers.

Institutional rot concomitant to advancing authoritarianism have only gotten worse since then.

Over the last week I’ve been flogging how the Precautionary Principle is at the core to morphing Western culture into accepting authoritarian rule. And that authoritarian rule is deliberately regressive in nature because true progress causes humanity to thrive — as happened when the ideas from the Age of Reason led to the toppling of authoritarian rule in British America.

The Precautionary Principle is the prime reason for the new morality that views population reduction as a moral necessity. The useful idiots who actually believe that “we must assume Malthus was right so we can prevent massive uncontrolled deaths” are delivering the West (the progenitor and protector of individual liberty) into the hands of power mad monsters. History is quite clear: power mad monsters always rain death.

More anon.

Comment cross posted at TrueblueNZ. (Great additional comments there too.)

Invoking the Precautionary Principle While Disavowing Knowledge of It

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West (part 2)

This a follow-up to my Christmas commentary: Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West.

Just in case you start asking around about the Precautionary Principle, and are answered with the Senatorial Denial such as this: "No, I haven't heard of it. But it sounds interesting. Why don't you send that information to my office and my staff will review it."

Well, our legislators and policy makers sure know how to invoke it despite Senator Knownothing.

When invoking the Precautionary Principle our rulers tend to go whole hog and use it to their benefit as they hide behind the facade that they are protecting us. "This [insert latest fright] crisis is too great, the threat to the public too dire, for our government to be limited in its actions by anything so old fashioned as the US Constitution." Or, in the words of Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Here's the opening paragraph from a 2007 essay warning of those who know the Precautionary Principle well enough to make use of it to benefit their cronies while ignoring the side effects.

The United States employs a version of the precautionary principle when it confronts threats to national security. We spend vast amounts on defenses against threats unlikely to affect Americans. Experts, defense officials, and politicians justify the expenditures by saying they are necessary to protect the public from worst case dangers. Those claims ignore what is probable and what defenses cost. They exaggerate the danger our enemies pose and strip resources from more probable dangers, making us less safe. -- Benjamin H. Friedman, "The terrible 'ifs': U.S. defense policy makers have adopted the precautionary principle."

My point is, any US government legislator or office seeker who denies they know of the Precautionary Principle so that they don't have to answer hard questions about its use are either liars or too stupid to be running for office.

Merry Christmas

 Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West (part 1)

The most joyous time of the year in America has always been Christmas. Cherish it my friends, whatever your beliefs. The forces in power are not to be trusted to permit this to continue. Indeed, they've been actively whittling away at it.

Blaming the TEA Party for Not Owning the Media

The news cycles have been relentlessly blaming a handful of Republicans in the House for days now.

This INCLUDES at least one "conservative" talk station, 870 KRLA, which is a major (if not flagship) station of Salem Broadcasting. Salem also owns TownHall.com. Simply corrupt.

What do we call this working overtime for the other side? Quisling seems too far. Mole doesn't fit when they own the place. Termites tend to be bureaucratic. RINO is an old epithet that I've repeatedly complained of as being too kind. The corruption is so palpable.

Guy S' SKUNCs, even though I like it, is simply not angering enough as far as I can say personally.

I don't know what else to say. Even Og is no help here. The best he can do is tell me "like you expected something different?"  YES. Why have so many on the Right given up?

Is Ace corrupted? Most days I think so.

Even I must be corrupted in that I constantly feel the urge to just give up.

What Say You?

"We are not voting ourselves out of this" is the line I am repeatedly reading.

So what sort of solution do I think offers us any non-confrontational relief?

We wind up voting The Bummer out. Eschewing any support for a third party will accomplish that.

Then we get very active, and let the TEA Party sentiment be the generally accepted rule and fly in the face of all efforts by the propaganda mills.

This time will be unlike how most of us behaved under GWBush. Much more like how we vocally objected to Harriet Myers and the Dubai ports trial balloons, and very less how we responded to his failure to push tort reform, put teeth into the Beck decision, or use his veto pen even before we remained silent on his growing government.

We daily fight to hold the GOP Prez to what is American and not European/Collectivist/Statist/Globalist.

I am just free wheeling here. Brainstorming. What say you?

Comment at JWF

My instant reaction to "Chavez Calls Obama a Clown" was to think of how Orwell viewed hostilities of communist nations in his last novel.

That in turn prompted me to to imagine The Bummer's response to Chavez.

“We are at war with Columbia. We have always been at war with Colubia.
We are at war with Venezuela. We have always been at war with Venezuela.” — Barack Obama without apologies to George Orwell

Just in time for reelection campaign season too!

Icon found on and quickly removed from the streets of Hollywood.

Fill the Gap In Talk Radio

Every "conservative" talk radio station I tune in during the day has some MSM Agency of Lies "news" on the hour and half hour. Invariably they report only Obama or some other Left leaning person in the news making their best points without airing any contradictions to those statements.  This gets repeated throughout the day. Imagine what the stations that are all Left-leaning all the time are doing, and it is little wonder that the public thinks that the Left-leaning words are not only dominant, they are winning.

On one hand, I find it demoralizing simply to hear these things without their counter-arguments being aired. But it also makes me feel guilty for not doing more. Rarely have I the time, let alone the dedication, to make recordings of these short segments. And how about listeners in their cars? Offended listener ranting could easily be the cause of accidents. Who can remember the details and retain the anger long enough to later write a post about it?

Now for the sake of argument, let's say I did decide to dedicate a month or two to capturing the news reports on these stations. And then I could write a new column about each of those imbalances and provide my own balance for my readers.  

But let's face facts. At this point in my blogging efforts, I know hardly anybody would read it. Not only that, even if this was done by one of the bigger blogs, they could not provide the immediate relief to the half-truth news report that talk radio hosts could were they so dedicated.


Were this is the first time I've mentioned this sort of event (and I don't think it is), it is assuredly not the first time I've felt let down by talk radio. If my reaction is any indication, there is a market out there hungering for more balance in these news segments. So where is it?

Apparently nobody on the talk shows, the host or staff, ever listens to the news segments during the breaks. Why not? It's filled with news that is a constant source of irritation to the average listener. So why not  lambaste those one-sided "news" items and their commentators right then and there? Seek to refresh me rather than demoralize me as they do now. Maybe they won't succeed, but at least I'd feel they were really trying.


Again, if my reaction is any indication, there is a vacuum waiting to be filled. Providing more balance in these news segments would fill it. Taking the opportunity to get in a dig at our tormentors would be the icing on the cake. Rush Limbaugh made a mint by being the first talker to broadcast the sort of comments that had previously never been given a full airing. The sort of comments, after being sent to letters-to-the-editor, wound up tossed into the circular file. And American listeners responded very favorably to hearing their common-sense ideas finally get some hearing on the airwaves, and Rush and Roger Ailes are now multimillionaires.

So be the next Rush by offering instant fill-in and rebuttal to the hourly spots that now only deliver Statist propaganda. Go out young man and make some money! 

They've Disguised Ugly Passions with Sophistic Reasoning

Here is a meme worth discussing if you want to pull the West back from the brink, or at least provide its survivors a clue as to how it was destroyed. 

The hiding of many ugly human passions by giving them the appearance of reasoning.

• Envy and covetousness have been hidden with the reasoning of "social" justice.
• Attacks on property ownership has been hidden with the reasoning of "environmental" justice.

The passions hidden here while given full rein are

• the inclination to steal; 
• the inclinations to force others to do your will.

By giving passions the guise of reason, people in power keep the illusion of calm while they upset the rest of us.

Each of these can be stopped through reason by exposing the sophistry at work.

There are other hidden passions that have been granted cover through sophistry. One of these most conservatives know from being on the receiving end: bigotry. How? Tell me the ways.

Cross-posted at Crusader Rabbit

Destroying Western Civ from Within

While responding to Seneca III at Crusader Rabbit a couple of day ago, I expressed some relatively mild criticism of John Stuart Mill when pointing Seneca to an informative commentary by Mike Gray over at The American Culture. In retrospect, I imagine even mild criticism of such a "Progressive" icon hits someone who thinks himself progressive with terrible cognitive dissonance.

Well, commenter “Jon”  responded to me with defensive condescension and pointed me to the first in a string of Mr Cropper video lectures about the famous Mill essay "On Liberty".


Because he left a phony email address, I could not inform "Jon" that the video series to which he sent me actually reinforces what real conservatives ought rightly fear about those who have long hidden behind JS Mill's "open mind" apologetic to shield them in their attacks on Western civilization.

Better even is what I discovered in the first four minutes of part 13. (Mr Cropper really gets cranked when discussing consequences between 4 and 7 minutes).


Partial transcript from first 4 minutes in the next 8 paragraphs:

"It is desirable, in short, that in things that do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. If it were felt that free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being, there would be no danger that liberty would be undervalued." -- J.S. Mill.

If we could get to people that understand that individual freedoms are important for all of us to have the nice things we have -- like enough food to eat, houses to live in, freedom from war and poverty and whatever. If people understood that individuality as such, the freedom of the individual, is essential to bringing us the good life, then everybody would understand why we have to leave the individual free.

That is a lovely thought, and it's tempting, but it's not true. Today you can tell them that. You can say "Now look. We need the individual to act as he pleases as long as he doesn't hurt others." [And gives a list.]

And there is a group that responds: "To Hell with all that. I want trees and..." [gives a list of primitive, pristine land, untouched by humanity "forest primeval" sort of wishes.] "To Hell with mankind's good. To Hell the well-being" as John Stuart Mill says. "I want Nature to be better off."

There are even some crackpot idiots who rather not see us go to the Moon and other planets. Here are these balls of rock and dust floating through space. They hate mankind so much, they don't even want us to go there and disturb the rocks and dust. It is a sick, sick person who prefers mankind just disappear or reduce their numbers, or something, just so rocks and trees and fish can live. To remove this drive to go to Mars and the Moon is just -- is diabolical.

I wish he [Mill] were right about this. If we understood that it's freedom that leads to our well-being, we would all be in favor of freedom. As a matter of fact, if you think that freedom leads to our well-being, there are these people who will say

"OK. Freedom is obviously a bad thing then. We need to have state controls on stuff. We need to stop the building of new power plants; we need to stop new highways; and stop new housing; we need population controls on people; and the number of new babies being born; and reduce the population."

You cannot get passed them. It's called environmentalism. It's a new cult, a new religion. They don't even profess to be scientific; at least the communists were scientific about their nonsense, or claims to be.  These people just claim morality is all they're after. And that humans are immoral; destroying trees is immoral. So you can't convince them Freedom is good -- it leads to SUVs.  That's why they're pissed.

Mr Cropper is demonstrating the kind of thinking that leads to my complete overview of why Western Civ is being destroyed from within. He is one step removed from asking this question,

“If our “leaders” are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?”

for which the plausible answers are not comforting for individuals and any desire they have for their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Illusions of Control Continue

After stewing on the American situation over the weekend, Og nailed it yesterday, with The illusion of control.With the agents of a shadow empire occupying every institution in our republic, simply voting is not going to get our posterity out of the fix we've gifted them.

Speaking of gifts, today Pat Condell (with his God-given atheist gift) very clearly enunciated  the situation in Europe. Well, except for at the very end (hence the title of my post). Watch for it. (hat tip: Gates of Vienna)



Actually, what Mr. Condell describes is really being mirrored all over what is formally known as the West. He thinks the EU nations can somehow still vote themselves out of it. That's because he's replaced faith in God with (in his own words) faith in Democracy.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." -- G.K. Chesterton.

Ah what fools these mortals be.