Dark Days Quotient

Chapter 34. Pusillanimous Pawlenty

2011-06-18T18:00:00.000-05:00

"Haagen Dazs could put his picture on vanilla," Bill O'Reilly quipped to fellow Fox newsman Chris Wallace on the June 10 O'Reilly Factor program. The "his" in their conversation was former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.

What an insult to vanilla ice cream. After all, it's smooth; Pawlenty often looks like the socially clueless dad from a 90's sitcom, as he did while responding to the slight, to Wallace a couple of days later. Vanilla ice cream is consistent; Pawlenty is an example of the so-called moderate Republican whose modus operandi is triangulating answers to major policy issues, then parsing, mincing, or downright denying when the politically correct vector has moved.

In 2007 Pawlenty signed on to a regional cap and trade scheme; in 2008 he joined then-Arizona Governor Janet 'Big Sis' Napolitano in a radio ad sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund to promote climate change fiction; and in 2009 he was touting wind energy and ethanol at a farm event "with a down-home message tailored to his rural audience." Yet, just this week he attempted to shove all of this down the memory hole in in interview on CNBC Squawk Box, in responding to a cap and trade question by Jack Welch, saying that he had "flirted with it for sure, but I've just admitted my mistake." During the first Republican debate on May 5, Pawlenty said the issue was one of his "clunkers."

Back in 2007 Pawlenty signed into Minnesota state law the Omnibus Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, which "provided funding for the Health Care Transformation Task Force, a panel of health care experts charged with exploring ways to reduce health care spending, improve quality, and ensure that Minnesota develops a universal health care plan by 2011." (Kaiser Foundation Report) By 2010, the Governor had backed off the idea, and on June 12 coined the phrase "Obamney care" as a shot across the bow of Mitt Romney's candidacy for president. But, true to fashion when given the chance to fire again during the televised CNN Republican debate the very next day, he sputtered and withered and ended his bid to become the 45th President of the United States.

Good. The Republican Party needs a quick and ruthless winnowing fan to separate the candidates from the candy asses, if they are to unseat a President who reportedly will raise $1,000,000,000 to spend on re-election.

Quotient out.

Chapter 33. The Third-And-A-Half Estate

2011-06-12T23:51:00.000-05:00

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." Thomas Jefferson, 1786

The term "Fourth Estate" generally refers to the press, or in its most modern sense the collective various news media, which has long been recognized as a powerful, unregulated societal check and balance. An independent and vigorous media is an indispensable protector against a tyranny of the elite or of the mob.

Too bad it no longer exists in America.

On June 9 the New York Times published a post entitled, Help Us Review the Sarah Palin E-Mail Records, in which NYT blogger Derek Willis implores readers to "help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight." The former governor's emails were scheduled to be (and were) released the next day, and apparently the grande dame of newspapers found the task of reporting on the information dump (which they had requested) too onerous a slog for her aging, ailing bones.

Never mind that so far Mr. Willis' ochlocratic experiment yielded such world-shakers as "Concern about Transformers" and "Offer to Donate a Wedding Dress to Bristol." No doubt they were hoping for something along the lines of, "Gov. Palin hiding Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa!" The post-modern blurring between the accountability and privilege of the media's job, and the delustional aspiration of every unemployed, politically motivated journalism wannabe is a continuing danger to our republic. No less than an Amendment to our Constitution protects the media's right to investigate and report facts that might be unflattering or even scandalous to rich and common alike. Power and responsibility always go together, a simple lesson that has been tossed aside by the web-based, social mediated, instant gratification, "trust fund" journalists of today. The best thing the New York Times, and other media outlets that are resorting to this so-called "crowdsourcing" technique can do, is buy a sturdy overcoat, a thick-soled pair of shoes, a miniature tape recorder, and get out there and pay their dues.

Or, change the motto of the paper to, "All the news that's in our inbox."

Quotient out.

Chapter 32. The Last Full Measure of Devotion

2011-05-30T01:12:00.000-05:00

Thank you.

Quotient out.

Chapter 31. Rhetoric Gone Wild

2011-05-29T01:56:00.000-05:00

There is a quip which goes, "if I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate."

On Monday May 23, at an event in Des Moines where he announced his candidacy for POTUS, former governor Tim Pawlenty gave a rouser about the Herculean tasks he could accomplish, where others had failed. At least he tried. It was really big things like balancing the budget and cutting ethanol subsidies to corn farmers.

"The problems we face as a nation are severe. But if we could move Minnesota in a common sense, conservative direction, we can do it anywhere, even in Washington D.C. It won't be easy, but it's not supposed to be. This is America, we don't do easy. Valley Forge wasn't easy. Normandy wasn't easy. Winning the Cold War wasn't easy."

Well. Not to say that our problems are minor, and not to say that there isn't a well-worn political tradition of drawing on momentous historical events to amp up the drama. Both of these are realities. But comparing fairly mundane economic positions to truly extraordinary moments in American history seems a to be a bridge too far in the way of stepping up to "the challenge." It's the verbal equivalent to Michael Dukakis' infamous tank ride debacle during the 1988 presidential campaign, in which an orchestrated photo op that was supposed to counter the criticism that Dukakis was soft on defense, backfired to say the least.

But, cut Pawlenty some slack. Now that American corn farmers have been reduced to welfare queens, it could be as politically dangerous to infringe on their new ethanol "right" as it is to cut booze and cigs off the list of allowed purchases on EBT's.

It certainly makes one wonder whether the Republicans really have a candidate somewhere with the chops to take down an incumbent; a man who can make history instead of using it as a campaign punch line. Like the one who really did win the Cold War...

Quotient out.

Chapter 30. Citizenship... At The Point Of A Gun

2011-05-25T01:48:00.000-05:00

On the traffic message boards on Interstate 94 around the Twin Cities in Minnesota, the following endearing message has appeared recently:

It would seem on the surface to be a polite sentiment from the state known for its "Minnesota Nice" attitude. In fact, it is an instructive example of "nudge" tactics by the state that eventually dictates behavior that is enforced by punitive threats.

In 1986, the state passed a secondary seat belt law, meaning that motorists could not be pulled over for not wearing the belt, but could be cited if pulled over for a separate, primary offense (e.g. speeding). The fine was modest, at $25. As of 2009 belt usage was 87%, according to an NHTSA report. For nudge-based behavioral modification, however, that relatively high rate of compliance is simply not good enough. So in June, 2009 the law was "upgraded" to primary status, so that authorities could pull over and ticket a motorist solely for not wearing the belt. Again, the fine is $25. Seems pretty reasonable for such an obviously sensible matter. Nonetheless, this evolution of the power of the state to force motorists into a behavior is an example of the imprudent use of law.

All laws ultimately are enforced at the point of a gun, or similiarly lethal weapon, even in such a small matter as a seat belt infraction. If you don't pay the $25 fine, and it accrues for too long or you try running away from it, you will eventually be arrested. Resist arrest and you may be clubbed, tasered or-- if the resistance is severe-- shot. There is no law that, at the end of some chain of events of disobediance, doesn't end in violence being inflicted on the individual by the government. This level of seriousness is why passing laws should be reserved to direct those behaviors that truly impact the rights of others: speeding, robbery, rape, murder, and so forth.

And that is why displaying a disingenuously cordial and Orwellian thank you, when in reality the individual really has no choice but to comply, should be a signal to the citizens that the government really is going too far.

One might imagine a similar sign back in the Hungary 1942: THANK YOUR FOR SQUEEZING INTO A CATTLE WAGON FOR DEPORTATION.

Quotient out.

Chapter 29. Unwelcome PLAN

2011-05-15T21:26:00.000-05:00

The recent news that President Obama has discovered yet another way to march our country toward a socialist paradise, deserves further consideration.

Last week, the FCC and FEMA announced that under a new emergency alert system, called the Personal Localized Alerting Network (PLAN) local, state and federal authorities will be able to send text messages to every cell phone in the country, in the way of alerts about "imminent threats to safety."

"Consumers do not need to sign up for this service," FEMA informs us. "A PLAN alert will be accompanied by a unique attention signal and vibration, which is particularly helpful to people with hearing or vision-related disabilities." Very thoughtful. And, the alerts can be blocked by cell phone subscribers.

Except for messages from El Presidente, of course.

Do we really need the 21st century equivalent of the street-level loud speakers of 1930's European dictatorships, forcing citizens to endure unnecessary and unwanted messages from the fearless leader? Imagine what the texter-in-chief might consider critical news to share with all of us:

OMG. i really did it. hes dead, bin laden dead. i shot him well it was the soldiers but i gave the order. man this president thing is HARD work i need another vacation. peace out yall... p.s. dont spike the football thats my job ;)

We've already had a taste of the nefarious direction that Barack Obama and his Braintrust would take such power. Remember-- less than two short years ago-- that citizens were urged to turn each other in for suspicious opposition to the President's health care takeover:

"These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Reporting "casual conversations" of fellow citizens, and sending targeted messages to every citizen regardless of their disposition to receive them, is the kind of Big Brotherism that belongs in the chilling history of the last century's totalitarian regimes, not in the United States of America.

Quotient out.

Chapter 28. The Penalty for Being An Uncle Juan

2010-10-21T17:31:00.004-05:00

"We're profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week."
Vivian Schiller, President & CEO
National Public Radio
Internal NPR memo on the Juan Williams firing

Sorry, indeed, considering that this organization could never be successful in an open and fair market.

In a swirl of irony and injustice, NPR fired news analyst Juan Williams after comments on The O'Reilly Factor about being afraid of fellow airline passengers in Muslim garb. In addition, Williams commented on the recent statements from would-be mass murderer Faisal Shahzad warning Americans that war with Muslims is "just beginning."

"I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts," Williams said.

Apparently Williams also cannot escape the fact that he is part of a segment of the American scene in which there is complete and utter intolerance of opposing viewpoints, not only in the legitimate debate of ideas and opinions, from which liberals ran away decades ago, but in the business world of uber-left wing elites who are willing to sacrifice anyone, even an honest fellow socialist like Williams, to appease their own god of political correctness.

On the other hand, Williams had it coming. Playing with fire, he has recently begun to decry the very philosophy on which he cut his journalistic teeth, namely the high-tax, low-productivity, nanny-state redistributionist mentality of victimhood. In his heart of hearts, he must have known this wasn't to be allowed for long.

Like the term "Uncle Tom," hijacked long ago by liberals to describe a Black flunky, and recently applied to successful Black men such as Bill Cosby, Justice Clarence Thomas, Mr. Williams and even moderate Colin Powell, who dare to express a view different from the media and political left; a new wave of intolerance has emerged in which it's simply inexcusable to quote facts about Islam and the growing existential threat to the West. To do so invokes a visceral response that is an odd admixture of anti-Americanism, apathy, intellectual blindness and intentional cowardice.

Don't feel too sorry for Mr. Williams. He immediately signed a lucrative contract with Fox News. And who knows, perhaps he will soon have the distinction of a new epithet coined after him to describe the continuing journalist pogrom of the left...

A damned ol' Uncle Juan.

Quotient out.

Chapter 26. Assessing the Situation for the President

2010-06-12T01:50:00.000-05:00

Respectfully submitted to the President: a list of "whose ass to kick."

1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iranian president and Holocaust denier who continues to move his country closer to nuclear weapons even under a whither hail of stern, stern UN warnings.
2. Hamas. Recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States, the EU, Japan and Canada; and looks to the obliteration of Israel.
3. Vice President Joe Biden. Also known as Uncle Mouth and Joe Who?? Semi-covert politician who, similar to groundhog Punxsutawney Phil, emerges into public view once a year. In the open, Biden either says something stupid, in which case he is immediately sent away; or says something completely incoherent and is allowed to continue explaining himself to reporters for six more weeks.
4. Kim Jong-il. Supreme Leader of North Korea, another dictator looking to throw nuke weight around. Routinely flaunts sanctions and threats; recently sank a South Korean warship while the world tsk-tsks and wonders why Someone doesn't Do Something.
5. Ken Salazar. Secretary of the Interior who did little to correct Bush-era deficiencies in his own agency's governance and oversight of deepwater oil rigs, then fiddled and blustered for weeks after the disaster began.
6. James Cameron. Legendary film maker and tease, got America thinking that taking pictures of the dead wreck of the Titanic, creating CGI avatars that fly, and stopping a several thousand psi oil leak a mile under the sea are all equally feasible.
7. Himself. Because the buck always stops with him, not Tony Hayward.

Quotient out.

Chapter 25. Term Limits Au Naturel Part 2: Collecting the Data

2010-06-03T02:58:00.002-05:00

Continuing from Chapter 22, this blog calls for a voter led action against any incumbent United States Senator who has completed three or more terms as a Senator or Representative. Here is a list of the current Senators who qualify to be ousted.

The concept is simple:

Collect the information you need to take informed action
Do not elect any Senator to serve more than three terms at the national level
Vote your conscience, so do not pull the lever for any candidate that doesn't meet your moral criteria (i.e. devout Catholics should never vote pro-choice)
If all else fails, write in a candidate if necessary

For many, this action will be difficult. But it is necessary to unravel the knot of corruption in our elected officials.

Quotient out.

Chapter 24. ...Same As The Old Boss.

2010-06-02T02:42:00.001-05:00

In 1994, President Bill Clinton, a self-described loather of the military, did his presidential duty by giving a D-day speech to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy, France. The irony of a draft dodger who studied Russian while American boys were fighting the communists in Vietnam, was naturally lost on the press. After the speech, Clinton strode Omaha Beach and suddenly stopped to "discover" several stones lying in the sand. He then knelt and arranged them in a cross. According to Maureen Dowd, Clinton's aides had preplanned the photo-op.

Fast forward 16 years. A few days ago President Obama made his second foray down to the Gulf to help solve the crisis (his presidency, not the oil leak). As usual he promised a lot without really promising anything:

"There are not going to be silver bullets or a lot of perfect answers for some of the challenges that we face, but we're going to keep at this every day... I'm here to tell you that you are not alone, you will not be abandoned, you will not be left behind. The media may get tired of the story, but we will not. We will be on your side and we will see this through."

Uh, we?? Who exactly is the President talking about? Well, as he left he did indicate that, "we've got the best minds working on it, and we're going to keep on at it." But not before he took his own stroll along the beach, knelt down and picked at oily balls that had apparently washed onto the shore.

Like Clinton, President Obama is out of his element. Clinton avoided the military and exploited D-day; Obama has managed to avoid working a day in his life at a job that requires profitable results, and now sanctimoniously chides the only knowledgeable corporate entity on the planet that has a direct vested interest in fixing this problem: BP.

Louisiana shrimpers and fishermen need experienced engineers and drilling experts to keep trying potential solutions. What they don't need are photo-ops and presidential visits or the soft, unspoiled hands of his Brain Trust whose orders amount to inspiring sage rejoinders like "just plug the damn hole."

Quotient out.

Chapter 23. President Pussycat

2010-05-22T04:35:00.000-05:00

"Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send you of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone." Officer Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) The Untouchables 1987

In the first 16 months of his presidency, Barack Obama has carried the reputation of a Chicago hardballer, bullying slow moving liberals and recalcitrant moderates into submission as he seeks to socialize everything from health care to oil changes. Who but a broad-shouldered enforcer could respond to a lady's question about whether her mom should have gotten a pacemaker at age 100, by saying the old gal might be better off "taking the painkiller." That's tough.

Obama's minions are equally granite. Take White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. It takes a man confident in his abilities to push others around, to accost a "member" of Congress in the House gym shower, both of them naked, reportedly poking then-Representative Eric Massa in the chest and berating him for not supporting the President's budget plans. And earlier this month Obama's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated on CNN that it is the administration's job "to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum" regarding the Gulf oil rig disaster. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs repeated the phrase at a briefing the next day. The messages are clear: don't mess with this President or his posse.

Unless you're a tin pot dictator or radical Muslim terrorist, that is.

Chief law enforcement officer and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stammered his way through Congressional questioning by refusing to say that radical Islam might have been a motivating factor in the Times Square bombing attempt. One wonders if Holder might have had this much trouble if Congressman Smith had asked him whether gravity might be a factor in keeping us all from floating around the room. A year ago Holder had the same trouble explaining why his Justice Department dropped all charges in the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

To be fair to Holder, his boss doesn't fare any better. While the President has bowed and groveled his way across the globe since taking office, North Korea took the opportunity to explode a nuclear bomb, fire off a couple of long-range missile tests, sink a South Korean warship, and imprison two American journalists and essentially hold them for political ransom. Korean dictator Kim Jong Il threatens all out war if there is any retaliation. Not to be outdone, the equally diminutive and badly dressed Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forged ahead with his nuclear weapon ambitions, and captured his own American prisoners back in July 2009 (the three hikers still await release, perhaps in exchange for the release of Iranian terror suspects).

Apparently gone are the days when a sunk ship or the harassment of a nation's citizens spurred action. For America, it led to two world wars (and the liberation of a continent from the Nazis). In response to Libya's role in the 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing, in which American servicemen were killed and wounded, President Reagan ordered air strikes of Libyan targets. At his 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush famously called Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the "axis of evil." A year later, he began the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

Today, President Obama's foreign affairs and national defense actions consists of unleashing the only arrow he has in his quiver: rhetoric. When today's bad guys do something against the U.S. or her allies, they don't fear grabbing a tiger by the tail; instead, they know they'll get complimentary admission to President Pussycat's Petting Zoo.

Quotient out.

Chapter 22. Term Limits Au Naturel

2010-05-15T17:02:00.001-05:00

"Power tends to corrupt... Great men are almost always bad men."
Lord Acton, 1887

When we last left 18 year Utah Senate veteran Bob Bennett, he was sobbing his way out of office, having been ousted by voters in the state's GOP convention in the midst of what Bennett called the "toxic" atmosphere of anti-incumbent dissatisfaction. Three terms in public service should be enough for any citizen, but given the money and power involved it's no wonder that Bennett is far from the most extreme example of the American Political Tick.

In fact, of the 100 current senators in office, 27 have longer tenures than Bennett (he is tied with four others). When former stints in the House of Representative are counted, 14 additional "public servants" jump ahead of him. Many of them have decades more, such as Senator Robert Byrd (class of 1959), Daniel Inouye (1963) and Patrick Leahy (1975). Then there's Pat Roberts (1997) and Chuck Schumer (1999) who also formerly spent 16 and 18 years in the House, respectively, giving them each longer times at the trough than Bennett.

This also gives them longer tenures than the dictatorships of Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin.

Experience shows that our politicians will generally not voluntarily give up their powerful positions in government; very few resign unless clearly facing voter rejection or perhaps under cloud of scandal, and even then they sometimes have to be forcibly shown the door. Many would-be reformers call for imposed term limits as a solution, but such legislation must be sponsored and supported by the very men and women taking advantage of the system, so the term limitists probably shouldn't hold their breath.

No, there is only one sure way, already built into every election, to limit the time politicians remain in office: the voters. Voters must resolve that after a particular number of terms or years in office, they will automatically cast a ballot for another candidate in the primary and general elections. Unfortunately, many Americans have the classic age-old opinion, "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." If we are to change the dynamic of higher stakes and lower expectations in our political system, this naive and robotic sentiment must be eliminated.

This blog calls on all American voters to pull the opposing lever against any politician who is running for a cumulative fourth term, regardless of the promises, the pork, or the winning smile. If we don't do this, there may come a day when we lose the right to throw the bums out. Shame on us if this happens.

Quotient out.

Chapter 21. Nothing More Than Feelings

2010-05-10T02:31:00.001-05:00

On the May 2 edition of ABC's Sunday morning This Week show, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked by host Jake Tapper how concerned she was that the Times Square car bomb attempt of the evening before was not an isolated incident, after Tapper pointed out the obvious similarities between it and previous attempts in Great Britain. Napolitano smoothly stated:

"We have no evidence that it is anything other than a one-off..."

This despite the events of the so-called "underwear bomber" only four months earlier, of which Napolitano said "the system worked." It is as if the Secretary is a drone that is occasionally re-booted and rolled out to spout the ridiculous, so that more favored Obama cronies like Eric Holder can correct the misstatements, as the Attorney General did today when he announced what everyone besides Napolitano already knew: this was another terrorist with Middle Eastern training and funding. One must wonder why the "Napolitanobot" is kept in perpetual patsy-mode. Her job seems to be to soft peddle the bad news that we're still in a war on terror, er, overseas contingency operation. The same day she even tossed out that the Times Square attempt was amateurish. Wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of all those professional man-caused disasterists out there.

CNN got into the act in the intervening week between respective interviews, when anchor Jim Acosta suggested that Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad's home foreclosure must have put a lot of pressure on him and the family. The President was probably kicking himself for not having the Napolitanobot lead with that theory, since the financial and foreclosure crisis can be so readily linked back to George W. Bush. At any rate, the manic suggestion that Shahzad, and those like him, may have been a victim is becoming a pattern of the left that reveals an increasing distance from common sense reality. Not hurting the feelings of jihadists is not going to spare us any violence, and may in fact get us killed.

In a different example of feelings on display, just-deposed Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) had his feelings hurt in a big way, when Utah's GOP convention delegates voted him third behind two newcomers on Saturday. No doubt the tears summoned as he thanked supporters and family were real; he had just seen his meal ticket torn up and tossed into the air by voters tired of career politicians bedding their nests for life. Bennett called the political atmosphere "toxic":

"The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic, and it's very clear that some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment."

What Bennett calls toxic a lot of other folks simply call democracy. Bennett's conservative credentials are more than respectable, but three terms in office is enough, and sometimes voters get it. Eighteen years in a public office can corrupt just about anyone, and our political system is awash in corruption. There will be more on term limits in upcoming posts.

Napolitano, CNN anchors and Bennett have one vexing thing in common: the attempted shielding of the truth from the public, and all of them look silly trying it.

Quotient out.

Chapter 20. Quite Frankly, Fess Up

2010-04-27T04:55:00.002-05:00

In General Motors' recent television ad, first-year CEO Ed Whitacre proudly states that GM has "repaid our government loan, in full with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule..." President Obama repeated this report during his subsequent Weekly Address.

There has been a lot of reaction to GM's claim, mainly simple common sense about a company that is still operating in the red; still has several tens of billions of taxpayers money, and is still majority owned by the government. The general consensus is, the "repayment" is a shell game using even more taxpayers' dollars.

But one part of Whitacre's commercial is especially galling:

"A lot of Americans didn't agree with giving General Motors a second chance. Quite frankly, I can respect that."

That tidbit of condescension comes from a man who is drawing a $9,000,000 salary for running a company of which the government owns 61%, and whose stock (no longer GM, but Motors Liquidation, symbol MTLQQ.PK since the company is still in receivership) has dropped nearly 50% since Whitacre took over as Chairman.

"Quite frankly," he starts. Quite frankly, as if the opinion of the American taxpayers, the ones who funded and continue to fund extravagant bailouts, might not have a valid concern about giving GM the money and thus need Whitacre to ground the conversation in seriousness. As far as "I can respect that," who cares what Ed Whitacre respects or doesn't respect? The fact is, the bailout happened despite the disagreement of "a lot of Americans." Whitacre's respect is immaterial, but it's nice to get a gentle pat on the head from a multimillionaire now and again.

Whitacre doesn't seem to be a bad guy, and may turn GM around and get it back to profiability, no doubt a steep uphill climb. For the sake of beleaguered Detroit, let's wish him well.

But, American taxpayers deserve to have a transparent view into their "investment," not silly and contrived fairy tales about Imperial clothing.

Quotient out.

Chapter 19. The Firmest Ground: Principle

2010-02-28T22:20:00.001-06:00

On Friday, the Daily Mail Online published the news that Catholic Care, the last Catholic adoption agency in Britain would be fighting the so-called Sexual Orientation Regulations requiring agencies to accept gay couples as applicants, by an appeal to the High Court. All previous encounters have ended in the closing of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK.

"But the Charity Tribunal ruled that it would be unlawful to allow Regulation 18 to be used as a defence by Catholic Care, saying that the proposed alteration of the objects ‘arose substantially out a desire to maintain a principled stance rather than being specifically designed to advance the ... charitable purpose of the support, relief and care of children and young people without families to care for them’."

Indeed. The principle that a child is best raised by a father and mother, is not new to the Church or numerous other denominations and faiths. Further, the principle not to knowingly participate in a grave evil is also a time-tested tenet of Christianity.

In a pastoral letter read at parishes in the Dioceses of Hallam, Leeds and Middlesbrough, the respective Bishops state:

"We are not judging other agencies that accept same sex couples for adoption, but feel strongly that we should not be forced to do so, nor is there a necessity for this to happen. We believe that this is a legally justifiable position to take and that it is a reasonable response to a legitimate end."

But Catholic Care's reasonable position, based on principle but also justified within the pragmatic goal of placing at-need children into loving homes, is not good enough for the rabid forces, including but not limited to the homosexual activist community, that are now arrayed against the social structure of the western world and its primary building block, the family. Compromise is not in their dictionary, or play book. It's not about one singular issue, but rather a radical re-making of our society.

The key to rebuffing this attack are our principles, and the willingness to stick to them when the false premises of political correctness, tolerance and an apparent short-term good make it easier to give in.

Quotient out.

Chapter 18. To Green Drivelists: Just Answer The Question

2010-02-19T02:33:00.000-06:00

Two multibillionaires have become the revealed archetypes for the newest form of exploiter: green. As the catch-basket name would imply, green means making earth's foilage healthier and more abundant. We are told this is to be accomplished by reducing our "carbon footprint" by cutting back on energy-producing processes that create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. But don't those plants breathe carbon dioxide, the chemical that the EPA, in December 2009, determined is dangerous? And what about water, the most abundant greenhouse gas on the planet: is it time to regulate water vapor?

These are a couple of the numerous Questions-Never-To-Be-Answered by the advocates of green. Two such champions are enough for us to get a glimpse behind the curtain.

In a recent Economist interview with Shai Agassi, the Israeli-born entrepeneur stated his glorious vision for the world of the electric car, complete with fueling stations that allow the vehicle to have "infinite range." He also states that the gas-powered car technology "has not undergone any innovation in a century." Such exaggerations are the bread and butter of money-men like Agassi. He also bombastically tosses out the claim that he can renovate a ten trillion dollar industry of "cars, spare parts, and everything else," without ever connecting this number to the switch to electric cars. But, maybe spare parts are not needed for phantoms.

Mr. Agassi is an extremely bright and successful man, and maybe he is a visionary after all. If so, can he answer the first Question-Never-To-Be-Answered: where does the electricity come from?

The other green man is T. Boone Pickens, he of the national media blitz urging us to follow his plan to eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil in 10 years. Pickens is a well known corporate raider from the 1980's, when he gobbled up oil companies and made his fortune off of fossil fuels. Now he's green, at least partially. His Pickens Plan would have created the largest wind farm in the country, supplying 4,000 megawatts of power to Texas homes. The initial plan to purchase General Electric wind turbines became a possible purchase of 2,000 turbines, and eventually led to a single purchase of 677 turbines. By July 2009, Mr. Pickens had abandoned his wind farm scheme, and recently turned his attention to his next money machine, natural gas. Once again, maybe Pickens has the answer and deserves to be rewarded for it, but many doubts remain.

So, the Question-Never-To-Be-Answered: how much power per dollar invested does a wind farm generate?

Don't hold your breath awaiting the answers to these questions from these men, or any other green advocates. The answers exist, but have more to do with lining the pockets of green oligarchs than advancing fanciful notions that more properly belong on the cover of Popular Mechanics.

Quotient out.

Chapter 17. NOW What??

2010-02-09T22:08:00.006-06:00

One might have thought that with all of the hype surrounding the decision of CBS to run the Super Bowl ad featuring quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, the ad itself would be a gritty re-telling of what might have happened to Timmy and the family had mom heeded the deadly advice of her doctors and had an abortion.

With a mixture of premature disgust and meaningless protestation, pro-abortion advocates awaited a gut rot straight-whiskey shot of audio-video.

The ad turned out to be more like a strawberry smoothie.

The 30 second commercial is benign, playful and somewhat vague, featuring the mother and son against a blank background, smiling and hugging amid gentle folksy guitars. It ends with humor and an invitation to visit the Focus on the Family's website to watch the real, full story.

Prior to the ad being shown, Terry O'Neill, President of the misnomered National Organization for Women, stated to Politico.com:

“The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It's to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned. There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.” Full Story

Loins girded for battle, the fembots were simply left looking silly. Not to be deterred, however, Miss O'Neill experienced a sudden change of heart, or maybe face. Her latest, and even shriller, objection to the ad concerns the CGI enhanced "tackling" of Mrs. Tebow by her son. It's humorous, and at the end of spot she even says flat-out that she's tougher than him. Apparently the sweetness and humor are lost on Miss O'Neill:

"I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it. That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message." Full Story

Er, okay. Right, celebration of violence. Got it.

The fact is, Miss O'Neill and those of her ilk hate the Tebows, and for good reason. They're Christian, successful and even good looking. But most repulsive of all the Tebows don't suscribe to the philosophy of rending babies' limbs and crushing their skulls. Go figure.

Quotient out.

Chapter 16. Who Is Democracy's Jonathan E.?

2010-01-31T20:02:00.008-06:00

Anyone who has watched a 1950's "look into the future" will snicker at the predictions of the world of tomorrow, say in the 1970's or 80's, or even the turn of the century. The promises of flying cars and housework-busy robots and moon bases seem quaint and naive in the face of the reality of Communism and unpopular wars and a terror-driven Middle East.

Some predictions, however, while not literally manifested, can inform us about the dark machinations of the human psyche. If some author can imagine the future world, why not a politician, or dictator, or corporate giant? The paragons of 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 are familiar to us as cautionary tales.

Another interesting look into the future is Rollerball, the 1975 film by director/producer Norman Jewison and starring James Caan and John Houseman. The year is 2018, and nations have dissolved by conflict into six mega-Corporations: Transport, Food, Communication, Housing, Luxury and Energy. A few executives on the Directorate make all the decisions. Mankind has rid itself of famine, disease and war.

And individuality.

The deadly game of rollerball pits teams from corporate-cities in a mixture of roller derby (remember that?), football and extreme fighting. Players can be injured or killed, and the masses can return home with their innate human desire for conflict quenched, until the next game. The Game has been carefully designed to encourage allegiance to the Corporations and to its authority.

But as in all utopias, there is trouble brewing. There is Jonathan E. of Houston's Energy team; he is rollerball's best and most popular player, and its longest survivor (ten years). In fact, he's too popular, and has risen above the game itself and its purpose. So the executives "ask" him to retire, and when he refuses they begin making the game and its rules more deadly until at last, at the world championship, there will be no penalties and no time limit, meaning it will continue until all players are maimed or dead, even Jonathan.

There is, of course, only one way for Jonathan to make it through the final game, and you can watch the movie yourself to see what happens.

Well, 2018 is right around the corner. We don't have flying cars, or moon bases or rollerball yet. But we do have a growing public sector that rewards mediocrity and dissuades high individual achievement, as the only way to perpetuate the single truly mega-Corporation in the United States: the government itself.

Watch closely as our contemporary Jonathan's are torn down, simply from their brazen defiance of the Directorate.

Quotient out.

Chapter 15. Stinking Candy

2010-01-22T03:27:00.005-06:00

So, what to make of Scott Brown's election in The Blue, er Bay State?

It is difficult to avoid post-electoral hyperbole to say that this is the beginning of some counter-revolutionary conservative uprising. Some claim that Massachusetts voters simply didn't like the dour Martha Coakley, at least to the tune of a 110,000 vote margin of victory for Brown. Others say it was about health care, or the President, or simple anger at Washington...

Or, perhaps it was the phantasmic fantasy of faux candy.

Perhaps voters in Massachusetts, as they did in 2009 in Virginia and New Jersey, have come to the realization that they were duped, or were victims of their own willful naivete. It's clear that many well-meaning Americans have awakened to the ideological shove to the left, even as a lot of them are breaking to the right on several important socio-cultural issues. During the election Senator Obama promised tax cuts for nearly everybody, bipartisanship, and transparency. In the last few months hundreds of millions of dollars worth of targeted "candy" was doled to various Congressmen to buy their votes on radical health care change.

A lot of Americans stood in line for the big parade, and excitedly clamored to catch the handfuls of promissory candy being thrown out by the Left.

Unfortunately, they thought they were getting a chocolate kiss, and it turned out to be a turd. Guess the decision to eat it is in the hands of the voters.

Quotient out.

Chapter 14. It's Easy To Kill Children...

2010-01-03T17:30:00.001-06:00

...as long as you can convince yourself that they are dirty aliens, or crustaceans, or "prawns."

The movie District 9 gives us many things to think about: immigration, segregation, racism, and in this chilling scene, abortion. More to the point, when is life considered unworthy to be?

The character Wikus van de Merwe becomes the supervisor of an effort to control and relocate a million aliens (from another planet) who have mysteriously shown up hovering above Johannesburg, South Africa. At first they are brought down to an area near the city, but soon crime and poverty, not to mention their appearance and habits, make them unwelcome and earn them the pejorative "prawn." So it's time to move them further away, under Wikus' direction.

In the abortion scene above, he cavalierly detaches the feeding tubes keeping the prawn eggs alive. Note halfway through the scene the reaction of the reporter following Wikus around, as he refuses Wikus' offer to "pull the plug" on a prawn egg, then mutters and looks back briefly at the camera as Wikus kills the egg. Finally, the reporter gingerly takes the defunct feeding apparatus from Wikus, who cheerfully gives him a "souvenir from your first abortion."

The film direction is obviously designed to be a little over the top. Or is it?

How cavalier must abortionists treat human fetuses as they suck, carve and pith their way through 1,000,000 baby murders a year in the U.S. alone. We somehow must emerge from our euphemistic-complacent, radical feminist driven eugenic haze to again comprehend what is happening.

Everyone should watch the 1983 PBS Frontline special on abortion, featuring an abortion "clinic" in Chester, PA. It is objective, graphic and real. No actors or CGI special effects. Real women, real men, real doctors.

And real children.

Quotient out.

Chapter 13. Moments in American Leadership

2009-12-29T03:24:00.003-06:00

"But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country. As I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you, on public duty. As I have been the constant companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel, and acknowledge your merits. As I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseperably connected with that of the army...it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests." George Washington March 15, 1783

As the Treaty of Paris was nearing completion to end the Revolutionary War, General George Washington's officers were in a state of discontent at the prospects of not getting paid, for the country was broke. Anonymous letters were circulating at the camp at Newburgh, NY urging the army, in the event of a successful treaty, to remain formed in order to pressure Congress into paying them. This action would essentially create a military government rather than a representative democracy.

Washington appeared before his officers at a meeting on March 15, and delivered a short prepared speech, dubbed the Newburgh Address. In it he essentially made his case for patience with Congress and implored the officers to give it, and him, their trust. As he had done many times before, he put his own reputation and integrity on the line to avoid disaster for the fledgling nation. After he concluded the speech, however, he sensed that the officers were still angry.

Then, he produced a note describing Congress' monetary dilemma. He squinted as he read and was thus forced to dig out his spectacles. This simple action reminded the officers, many of whom didn't know that the General required glasses, of what Washington had done for the country through the war years, and that he indeed had been with them at every moment: the night time retreat from General Howe's British troops in New York; crossing the Delaware on Christmas Day 1776 to engage the Hessians at Trenton in a surprise counterattack, then success later at Princeton; enduring the miserable winter at Valley Forge in 1777; the training of the troops by Baron Von Steuben; and Washington's inspirational rallying of the retreating American troops at Monmouth.

Having been reminded of their leader's incredible courage and leadership, many wept in shame. When Washington had left the meeting, the officers quickly resolved to follow Washington's example and reaffirmed their loyalty to the American republic.

It would not be the first or last time that George Washington's personal integrity saved the United States of America from short sighted folly. We Americans owe this great man our unyielding gratitude and respect. And, if possible, our emulation of his feats of faith and his strength of character.

Quotient out.

Washington at the Battle of Monmouth

Chapter 12. Get Your Gore-tex, There's More Snow Coming...

2009-12-19T02:26:00.002-06:00

There's an rumored phenomenon out there called the "Gore Effect." Whenever the former Vice President arrives at a venue to warn that the next 5 years will be critical to save the planet from the ravages of anthrogenic global warming, the region experiences unseasonably cool weather.

How laughingly fitting that the most visible new disciple of the hoax of the century, President Barack Obama, fresh from his jaunt to the U.N.'s Climate Change Conference, might have to land Air Force One at an alternate location due to a unseasonably strong winter storm bearing down on Washington at this very hour. D.C. has declared a snow emergency.

At tin pot dictator and limousine-rich Copenhagen, the so-called "leaders" of the world sat around eating luxurious food, being waited on and sniffing their own greenhouse gases, while decrying the unfair treatment of the United States toward Mother Gaia and demanding reparations from us.

It's the perfect curtain call for the President, who seems to never tire of striding on to the world stage to stump for yet another economically crippling Marixist program. Galling enough Hugo Chavez, but our own President?

Odd that there was no mention of the recent revelations of data-fixing from East Anglia, sensor hiding from Siberia, and the polar bear exploding Artic Circle. Just the robotic recitation of imminent danger ahead if we don't "act now."

Once he eventually lands back at the capitol Obama can at least claim to have kept the plow and salt truck drivers employed this winter. We're getting used to his snow jobs.

Quotient out.

Chapter 11. Socialism Doesn't Kill People, Socialists Do Part 3: Euthanasia's Example

2009-12-10T05:38:00.002-06:00

"Is there any difference between watching someone drowning without doing anything and pushing them into the lake?”

So asked Dr. Eduard Verhagen of the Netherland's University Medical Centre in Groningen, when interviewed in 2006 by the Times (UK) about the impending new Dutch law which legalized "baby euthanasia," effectively expanding the 2002 legalization of euthanasia (anyone over age 12). Infants could now be put down. You might say that in 2006 the Dutch finally put the "Youth" in "Euth"anasia.

Dr. Verhagen claims to agonize over each of the several times he has killed an infant. Nevertheless, he called the new law "a giant step and we are very happy about it."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article737519.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Verhagen's absurd question about the drowning person belies the fallacy of the euthanasia mindset, in which people who are suffering are better off dead, and even better than that if someone actually intervenes to hasten their death. But it is instructive to analyze the doctor's wordplay.

In Verhagen's argument the act of pushing someone into a lake is no different than happening upon someone already in trouble in the water and letting them drown, presumably because the victim drowns either way. But, the doctor is misusing the analogy, since the predicament of the victim is that he is drowning at all. How the victim got into the water is not part of the proper argument; in the case of the infant with a disease one could refer to "the pusher" as Fate, Chance or God. So let's discard Verhagen's comparison.

The real question is, when one encounters a drowning man (a\or infant with a terrible, painful disease) what is the response?

In most real life situations, including those Verhagen describes being a part of, doctors will try to help the victim, to cure them or to at least ease the pain. This is compassionate and right. But if that doesn't work, then Verhagen oversteps his moral authority and prescribes the "final solution."

So here's the analogy: Encounter a drowning man (infant with disease), perhaps try to help him with a outstreched hand (medicine, surgery, palliative care), but if you can't haul him out of the water (cure him), then you have a choice: either do nothing while perhaps waiting for another person to help (for instance, a new technology or medicine); or, jump into the lake, swim over to the victim and hold his head under water until he's dead (that would be the analogy to euthanasia). Verhagen chooses the latter course, in which he actively kills the drowning man, but attempts to make it somehow eqivalent to the passive spectator. We know that it is not.

Furthermore, doing nothing (a misnomer really but we'll use it) allows for hope, for a cure, for a miracle. Verhagen's approach, while many times driven by distraught parents and a misguided sense of mercy, simply abandons all hope.

In the utilitarian-socialist world developing around us, choosing to take life becomes something of a bad habit. That is the danger to America, as we launch into our 27th year of federally approved abortion, several states have indeed approved "assisted suicide," and we wrestle mightily to understand stem cell research and to define marriage.

We've come upon that man struggling in the water. Time to decide what to do.

Quotient out.

Chapter 10. The First Amendment vs Fascism In Our Churches & The Media

2009-12-01T23:59:00.002-06:00

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1791

"Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation... above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online

After the Revolutionary War was won, the Founding Fathers labored to create a governmental structure that both allowed the States to form up into a strong national entity, but also maintained the rights of individuals and States that had already been written into the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The resulting Constitution and Bill of Rights, has to be counted among the top few documents of human history. The delicate balance that was debated and embodied in the Bill of Rights has enabled our freedom, our industry, and our very lives to flourish for over two centuries.

Not for the first time, however, these "first freedoms" are under attack by a growingly emboldened radical coalition: politicians seeking power, special interests and advocacy groups, and even outright enemies of the United States.

In Connecticut, a state bill (S.B. 1098) was proposed in January 2009, specifically changing the governance structure of the Catholic Church in CT. Ostensibly written to address financial mismanagement amid an embezzlement scandal in 2008, the bill would have fundamentally altered, by force of law, a church's pastor/laity relationship, which in the case of the Catholic Church has existed since the dawn of Christianity, literally since the days of the Apostles. As it turns out the language of S.B. 1098 that would reorganize the Church and emasculate the clergy, seems to be lifted from the strategic planning of an organization called Voice of the Faithful, a collection of liberal Cathlolics and ex-Catholics formed in 2002 to respond to clergy sexual abuse, but which expanded to include defiant radicals bent on "reforming" the the entire Catholic Church, such as Sister Joan Chittister. Those like Sr. Chittister want nothing less than a fundamental upheaval of the Church, goals which are predicated less on dedication to the teaching of the Church than on their own personal, misguided, arrogant, and selfish agendas.

S.B. 1098 failed, mainly due to the outrage of local and national Catholics speaking up against it. Nevertheless, forces continue to push for the dilution of the central tenets of Christianity, if necessary by the forcible takeover of the Church by the State. This will not be the last time we see our churches under attack.

As for the media: in 1949 the FCC adopted the Fairness Doctrine, which stated that due to the limited resource of radio frequencies, broadcasters were required to present controversial issues of the day and to do so in a manner which was, well, fair and balanced. In 1969 the Supreme Court (Red Lion Broadcasting, Inc v FCC) upheld the right of the FCC to enforce the Doctrine, again citing the scarity of the spectrum of broadcast frequencies. In 1987, under President Reagan, the Doctrine was abolished by the FCC; this was before the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, meaning Reagan himself would be at greater risk of media attack without the Doctrine. Yet the principle was, the Doctrine impedes free speech and should therefore be abolished. Over the intervening years various legislators called for reestablishment of the Doctrine, and even a push to codify it into federal law. Curiously, these proponents were all Democrats.

The Fairness Doctrine is not needed. There is no scarcity of frequencies today, and really never was. And yet, the Democrats continue to attempt to exhume it from the deserved grave it inhabits. Clearly the success of conservative media in the last decade has whipped the left into a manic frenzy while they watch their own instruments like Air America founder from mismanagement and irrevelancy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in 2007, announced that she would like to see the Doctrine ressurected. Figures. It would allow the State to force successful broadcasters to offer material from those who- for many reasons- don't have a commercially viable messsage.

True to form, what the left cannot achieve through legitimate argument and advocacy, it seeks to gain through legislative or judicial force. And some day the means may extend to the realm of the baton and gun. It's been done before.

Quotient out.

Chapter 9. Thanksgiving Lesson from 1623: Communism Is A Loser

2009-11-30T01:37:00.001-06:00

The 2009 Thanksgiving weekend is coming to an end. The American tradition of reflecting on the bounty afforded us, how it came to be and how we might keep it is a laudable and useful excercise. The sharpest lesson, it appears, comes from the very Pilgrims we often remember in between parades, football games and rounds of turkey of various moistnesses.

It turns out that the original societal plan for the Plymouth settlers was a communist system in which stronger, more able bodied men and women were expected to give their all in part to support those who couldn't contribute as much. It was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," nearly two centuries before Karl Heinrich Marx was a twinkle in his vater's eye.

And (surprise) communism was a failure. In his contemporaneously compiled history of the Plymouth Plantation, pp. 134-136, William Bradford, who was Governor of the Plymouth Plantation in various years from 1621 until his death in 1657, details how the folks of Plymouth didn't take kindly to working in the field or performing labors on behalf of others, without getting compensated. The able began to feign weakness or illness, or to simply complain to the Governor that things had to change. Then in 1623, they decided to divide the plantation into equal parcels of land for each family and let them get out of it what they could, meaning generally what they put into it.

And (surprise) privatization was a success. Men, women and children worked to their potential, because they got to keep the fruit of their labors, rather than giving them over to those who didn't earn it. Through the centuries of time, Bradford waxes pointedly to us on the communist folly:

"...that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in coiiiunitie [community] into a coirfone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte..God in his wisdome saw another course fiter [fitter] for them."

Indeed. Too bad our leaders today don't see the merits of learning the hard lessons of our forefathers, but rather are inclined to believe the fanciful fairy tales of modern day radicals.

Quotient out.

Chapter 8. Another Declaration Worth Fighting For

2009-11-29T00:16:00.000-06:00

On Friday, November 20 a group of Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Christians published a document, the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, in which they proclaimed solidarity on common tenets of the Christian faith, as it applies to current modern life. The three basic principles of this Declaration are: Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty. We should be inspired by their steadfastness in these most basic aspects of modern Christianity, or more properly stated, classic Christianity struggling to fend off destructive modern secular influences.

Like our own American Declaration of Independence of 1776, the authors boldly put a stake in the ground on certain things. And like the original, this Declaration has heavyweight support, including 125 original signatories and over 187,000 online supporters (at the time of this posting).

Consider a few excerpts to reveal the courageous leadership of the signatories:

“Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.”

“Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (‘life unworthy of life’) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of ‘liberty,’ ‘autonomy,’ and ‘choice.’"

“…we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”

“We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.”

Read the Manhattan Declaration for yourself, and consider becoming a signatory, at ManhattanDeclaration.org.

Quotient out.

Chapter 7. Socialism Doesn't Kill People, Socialists Do Part 2: Today's Newspeak

2009-11-28T04:47:00.004-06:00

"'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'"

The chilling torture scene in George Orwell's classic, 1984, offers a glimpse into a future in which the State manipulates the physical records of society, indeed the very memories of its citizens, as a means to control them. In modern America we have seen this play out in the revisionist histories offered in our liberal universities, as studies emphasize the supposed merits of collectivist oligarchies while decrying the deficiencies and crimes of the American experience.

Another recent example is the way in which language is manipulated to promote a tepid version of our current fight against Muslim extremism so that we will find it acceptable to capitulate both our ideals and our very freedoms to the globalist (defeatist) mindset.

According the the Washington Post, as early as February 2009, in response to a request from something called the International Commission of Jurists, Pentagon spokesmen were instructed to drop the term "global war on terror" to the broader and fuzzier, "overseas contingency operation."
In March 2009, Security of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano changed "terrorism" to "man caused distaster." In explaining this liguistic shift to the German news site Der Speigel, the Secretary said, "That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Or behold the faux indignence of Barney Frank at the bankers and executives whose companies lost billions of dollars in the last 18 months, while he curtly dismisses (and in fact simply filibusters any discussion of) his direct advocacy of the very tactics used to bully financiers into making stupid mistakes, not to mention (and all but a few news outlets will not) the schemes he concocted to prop up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He blew the bubble all the way up to the bursting point, then walks away daintily dobbing his hands with a kerchief as if he had nothing to do with the whole affair. This he can do in his role as Chair of the House Financial Services Committee. But Frank, in his manic, spittle-driven zeal to avoid accountability, attempts to bully his confronters, as he did in this embarrassing exchange with a Harvard student:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgTUxCpYP2w

In similar confrontations, Frank has never admitted he's ever done anything wrong, or had the slightest culpability in the financial meltdown.

While it's true that the bloom is definitely off Obama's rose, the mainstream media continue to front for a man who clearly has a radical view of what America should be, and how we will get there. This man has many allies in his quest to normalize Americans to the least common denominator of modern society.

But he is opposed by more, and they will get their say: 2+2=4

Quotient out.

Chapter 6. Rational, Or Just Plain Rationed? It Has Begun...

2009-11-21T23:48:00.000-06:00

Earlier this week we learned that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a self-importantly named collection of "private-sector experts in prevention and primary care," sponsored by the HHS's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, had issued new recommendations for mammogram screening: no screens until a woman is 50, then every two years, and no self-examinations, ever.
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm

Apparently, the USPSTF influences the way in which insurance companies cover various medical services. Oddly enough, nearly every oncological organization has expressed various degrees of stupification, confusion, frustration and outright anger at the "private sector experts'"new recommendation, which seems to defy common sense. Why would one not want to screen for the second highest killer of American women (next to lung cancer)? It seems that the logic is based part on statistics and partly on the notion that testing earlier is stressful to women.

And yet, according to the American Cancer Society:

"Death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1990, with larger decreases in women younger than 50. These decreases are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment."

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_1x_what_are_the_key_statistics_for_breast_cancer_5.asp

Perhaps we are to take solace in the fact that the USPSTF's recommendation would align America with much of the rest of the world, and in particular with current United Nations WHO standards. Bitter medicine, to say the least, when one compares U.S. health care with our global brethren.

In an instructive article entitled, "10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care," Scott Atlas writes for the National Center for Policy Analysis:

"Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom...People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649#_edn1
(and references therein)

The correlation between government-controlled health care, and poor delivery of medical services, is apparent even to those of us not on a panel of "private-sector experts." In every example of government diddling where the free market can and has worked, costs soar and rationing takes place.

Rationing cancer screens is just the warm up. Democrat leaders are at this very moment preparing to wrest control of health care decisions from the hands of patients and doctors. Medical rationing will increase, and the State will have yet another way to bend the will of the people to its own.

Quotient out.

Interlude. Required Reading From IBD Editorials

2009-11-08T23:17:00.000-06:00

The attached article from Investor's Business Daily Editorials captures some of the essense of this blog nicely. And, it's from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The author, Svetlana Kunin, has experienced life in a socialist country, and now lives in the U.S. Heed her warning.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510876

In her book, "The Forgotten Man," Amity Shlaes recounts the American economic history of the 20's and 30's and how so many influential people were initially drawn to Stalin's socialist "paradise," erroneously thinking the Soviets had miraculously solved the ills of inequality.

So much for the tattered, empty promises of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and those of his ilk. Why are we returning to those tired and utterly dehumanizing philosophies?

Quotient out.

Chapter 5. H1N1? More Like FBC101

2009-11-04T02:15:00.000-06:00

There may not be a conspiracy out there regarding the much-touted H1N1 influenza, as far as the actual biological phenomenon is concerned. But the psycho-sociological exploitation of the (ahem) pandemic should chill you more than a swine-flu fever.

As has been pointed out already in this blog, control of the means of sustenance means ultimate control of the subject's (read: victim's) every action.

Imagine if there was an imminent famine, and government agencies indicated that two portions of food, determined to be the minimum nutritive support needed for survival, would be available for every citizen "shortly." Then suddenly, the same agencies took a mulligan and announced that not to worry, only one portion would surely be enough. And then, it turned out that only about 10% of the food necessary give out those portions was actually available. When inevitably questioned, their rejoinder was wrapped in technical jargon about kilojoules of energy, and glycemic load, and vitamin metabolic absorption rates.

What would happen, in the midst of this looming apparent disaster? Of course, fear and hording and clamoring for the little food that might be doled out by the state. Natural enough, as the instinct for human survival is strong. There could be anger, and violence, and murder, as parents fought for their own children's survival at the deadly expense of the other parents' families. Imagine that as the government food truck showed up, how men and women would each push and jostle with one hand, while the other was outstretched toward the state-run distributors of food. Neighbor against neighbor; brother against brother; eventually parent against child.

Now translate imminent famine to H1N1 pandemic. Translate innoculations to portions of government-doled food. Translate food truck to health clinics. And translate desperate citizens to... well, desperate citizens.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/virus/65979837.html

Now imagine that the government suddenly announced, or someone found out and publicized, that the famine was actually just a normal downturn in food surplus, just like most years. No big cataclysm, no real need to panic. All those ugly incidents, the pushing and shoving, the arguments and curses, the violence. All those people suddenly realizing, in shame, that they had become what they would never want to become...

Getting back to H1N1, it's not clear yet how far the infection has spread in America. The CDC states that up to 5.7 million people in the U.S. contracted H1N1 between April and July. Of those, about 1,000 have died. It is clear that doctors were quickly ordered to stop testing for H1N1 (vs the seasonal flu), making the actual tracking of H1N1 impossible. Their reasons for doing so are:

"1. CDC believes that regular seasonal influenza viruses will co-circulate with 2009 H1N1 influenza and capturing all laboratory-confirmed influenza will provide a fuller picture of the burden of all flu during the pandemic.
2. There are too many cases of flu to test and confirm so laboratory-confirmed data is a vast underestimate of the true number of cases and this bias would be exacerbated over the course of the pandemic as more and more people become ill.

3. Influenza and pneumonia syndrome is a diagnostic code used by all hospitals. Capturing this number will reflect a fuller picture of influenza and influenza-related serious illness and deaths in the United States during the pandemic. Influenza and pneumonia syndrome hospitalizations and deaths may be an overestimate of actual number of flu-related hospitalizations and deaths, but CDC believes influenza and pneumonia syndromic reports are likely to be a more sensitive measure of flu-associated hospitalizations and deaths than laboratory confirmed reports during this pandemic.

However, the syndromic reports of all hospitalizations and deaths recorded as either influenza or pneumonia will mean that the case counts are less specific than before and will include cases that are not related to influenza infection."

Make sense? Thought so.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm

The point is not whether the outbreak of H1N1, which is demonstrable at some level, is a pandemic or not; or whether somebody botched the estimates of infection or the production of vaccine. Many good people are trying to protect Americans.

The point is our own behavior. Without a conscious effort to resist, we will give in to our basest urges if pushed hard enough in the right (wrong) direction. If there is not enough food. Or enough vaccine. Or enough police protection. Or enough freedom of speech or worship. Or enough health care.

Fear-Based Control 101

Quotient out.

Chapter 4. Socialism Doesn't Kill People, Socialists Do Part 1 Introduction

2009-10-30T04:46:00.003-05:00

Socialist! Such has become the epithet that makes some of the recent risen stars hurumph indignently. "Name calling and mean-spiritedness will get us nowhere." "Those are just words someone told you to say, you're just a right-wing parrot!" Or, in the words of the Minnesota-born comedian cum statesman: "That's just stinkin' thinkin'."

It also happens to be the inconvenient and dangerous truth.

Messrs. Merriam and Webster tell us that socialism has the following definitions:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods;
a system of society or group living in which there is no private property;
a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state; and
a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

The first three definitions allow us to determine whether or not certain current ideas, words and actions from certain folks today fit the definitions, or not. They do, in fact. Here are just a few examples:

On the campaign trail last year, on October 12, 2008, candidate Barack Obama was recorded famously telling plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
In February 2009, during the speech in which he called Republicans "assholes," Green Jobs Czar Van Jones sarcastically asked a questioner, "how's that capitalism working for you this year?" He also encouraged intimidation so that certain Senators begin to "act right." Of course, Jones has since resigned in deserved disgrace.
Rep. Barney Frank, in March 2009, regarding AIG: "We own the company. We are the majority owners. I think the federal government should now step in as the owner, and say to these employees, our employees, bonus my foot!"
March 30, 2009, President Obama announced that General Motors Chairman Rick Wagoner would "step aside," not as a condemnation of Wagoner, but rather a recognition that it will "take new vision and new direction to create the GM of the future."
Outgoing Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis has just agreed to abide by the "request" of Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg, to take no salary or bonus for 2009 because it was "not in the best interests of Bank of America to get into a dispute with the paymaster."
The six other major corporations that accepted bailout money face similar control under the watchful eye of the paymaster.
Government and government-secured lender ownership in Chrysler: 10%
Government ownership of General Motors: 70%
Government ownership of AIG: 79%
Government share of spending on health care in the U.S. (pre-health care bill): 56%
President Obama has stated emphatically on more than one occasion that he wants a single-payer, government run health care system in America. He is pleased to tell you in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=fvw
On October 29, House Speaker Pelosi made public the 1900+ page proposed health care bill that will cost over $1,000,000,000,000; will expand the (bankrupt) Medicaid program; and includes a nonsensical provision that does not allow private insurers to deny coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Radical leaders are now instituting numerous and vast programs that insert government ownership and control over heretofore mostly private industries. Car companies, insurance companies, banks, and even more control (complete control, ultimately) of health care. There was even a recent balloon floated about bailing out the flagging newspaper industry; but that's probably more appropriate for the subsequent chapter on fascism (it's not your grandfather's Nazism anymore...).

The theme of this chapter is murder. So, where's all the murder? Patience, the stage needs to be set. In order for murder to become legal and acceptable, one must first get power and alignment of the economy, politics and the culture. Deaths follow socialism as day follows night.

Hint: read Chapter 1.

Quotient out.

Chapter 3. America's Genocide

2009-10-28T04:25:00.001-05:00

American deaths from:

382 Persian Gulf War

759 Operation Enduring Freedom

2,260 War of 1812

2,446 Spanish-American War

4,320 Operation Iraqi Freedom

4,435 The American Revolution

13, 283 Mexican-American War

36,574 Korean War

58,220 Vietnam War

116,516 World War I

405,399 World War II

620,000 The Civil War

50,000,000 Legal Abortions since 1973

Yes, despite the horror of American lives lost in war (over 1.2 million), the number pales in comparison to the number of babies killed in the womb since the landmark misplaced Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade.

As one pro-life activist puts it:

"I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

The activist who stated this had been pregnant in 1973, but the Supreme Court decision came too late for her to obtain a legal abortion and she had her child. She has since joined the pro-life movement and entered the Catholic Church.

The activist's name is Norma McCorvey, better known under her pseudonym "Jane Roe," the plaintiff in the 1973 tragedy.

Quotient out.

Chapter 2. American Blinkmanship in 2009

2009-10-24T05:21:00.002-05:00

Forty seven years ago, in October 1962, the United States was in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 2009 we face a growingly defiant near-nuclear Iran; an uncertain strategy for victory in Afghanistan; enemy combatants sitting down in Gitmo; and the ever-apparent risk of terrorists embedded within our midst. The difference in approach to these situations, so far at least, is striking and alarming.

The Soviets had begun putting nuclear-equipped missiles into Cuba in 1962, as a show of strength and Communist moxie. The Cold War was on the verge of heating up, rapidly, and the crisis became the model for modern day brinkmanship. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine in which foreign powers should be actively opposed from political influence in any part of the Americas, President Kennedy boldly declared in a public speech on October 22, 1962:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

This was principle; motivated by American power and security, to be sure, but principal nonetheless. Having the Soviets putting devastating armament at our doorstep was simply unacceptable, even if it dramatically increased the chances for nuclear war. Fortunately, through tough and shrewd action, rhetoric and negotiation, war was averted. Kennedy ordered a quarantine that directed the American Navy to detain and inspect any suspicious ship headed for Cuba. At the same time, communications between Washington and Moscow led the way for an agreement between the leaders. The end effect: the Soviets packed up their missiles and went home. Although later it was revealed that Kennedy secretly agreed to remove missiles from Turkey, the general public consensus was that America won and the Soviet Union lost. In Dean Rusk's famous phrase, "We were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked."

Consider now the various words, postures, and actions (or lack thereof) of the current American President in formulating our security paradigm. Gone are the days when protection of American sovereignty (some might say hegemony) within our own hemisphere, was worth risking it all. It must not be worth it anymore. So, for what principal does President Obama stand?

In the midst of a two-front Middle East war, and what might be called the "state of tension" between America and Iran, not to mention South America and North Korea, President Obama wasted the first critical months of his "historic" administration by apologizing for American mistakes, and its success.

Just today we hear of yet another hatched plan to allow the defiant Iran to continue building its nuclear capability, while giving fissionable material to (sit down) the Russians to take care of for them. There is no plan for Afghanistan, despite the request submitted by General Stanley McCrystal nearly eight weeks ago, for a counterinsurgency strategy similar to the one successfully employed in Iraq.

Other gems of policy include the pledge to empty Gitmo in the next few months (and send those enemies of the U.S. where, exactly?), and the harassment of former CIA agents for being very mean-spirited. All of this really does, to use the hackneyed phrase, embolden our enemies. They see the President's indecision and lack of resolve, as weakness and confusion. And they are right.

And of course, what examination of President Obama's disappointing performance concerning foreign policy would be complete without noting the very pinnacle of the airy nothingness of endless rhetoric and appeasement: the Nobel Peace Prize. The NPP was given to Obama apparently due to his potential to make the world more peaceful, since it was decided on just a few days after the President took office. In reality, it was simply a meaningful gesture utilizing a meaningless prize. The rest of the world wants the United States weak, or at least think they want us weak.

What better way to encourage the global-socialist inclinations of a man such as Barack Obama than by putting a lightweight PARTICIPANT medal around his neck, when the official score sheet reads DNF?

Somewhere in the world, one of our many enemies just stated that, "We were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just ran off to another Letterman appearance."

Quotient out.

Chapter 1. Welfare, Illegitimacy & Abortion: the New Slavery

2009-10-23T15:56:00.001-05:00

Human slavery in the United States was an affront to the dignity afforded to each person by our Creator. Then came the War Between the States to settle the matter. Then came the carpetbaggers. Then came the Great Society.

According to a 1965 report by the Department of Labor, Black out-of-wedlock births were at about 16% in 1940, and in 1963 were up to 23%. That was during Jim Crow, when states systematically instituted racist laws. One concise and direct statement in the DOL report, among many, reads, "By contrast, the family structure of lower class Negroes is highly unstable, and in many urban centers is approaching complete breakdown."
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/moynchapter2.htm

The Black community had divided into a somewhat healthy middle class and a damaged, debilitated lower class in which the family was disintegrating rapidly. That was bad enough.

But, by 2005 the Black illegitimacy rate had risen to nearly 70%! How and why could this be?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_06.pdf (page 12, paragraph 2)

In the four decades since the government began "helping" folks via a network of far-flung and expensive programs, the Black family unit has suffered apparently mortal wounds. Under the laughable guise of equality and empowerment, politicians and societal leaders have dismantled the Black family, and given Black men the out they need to abandon their women and leave their children to the uneven surrogate fatherhood of the State.

It's not only the oft-repeated phrase that Welfare pays women to have more babies; a new servitude has been instituted whereby Black women face the daunting prospect of raising children alone. The children are then born into the grim reality of life without a male role model, which is demonstrably hurtful to both boys and girls of any race. The men are reduced to caricatures of unthinking beasts, without temperance or judgment, and nearly most importantly without jobs.

Finally, in their desperate search at some sort of dignity and acceptance, these women grasp the most ironic and evil outlet of all: abortion. In what other way can the majority of Black women continue to function in the State-sponsored expectation of single-mom households, but to continually service their soon-absent lovers until the only "choice" is to waddle off to the abortion clinic so that the cycle can begin all over again?

And why would any leader be part of this human gristmill? Power. Once an entire segment of society has had its economic freedom stripped away, and is completely beholden to the State for (literally) its food, those folks will have no other viable option but to succumb to whatever the State and its leaders beckon them to do. In America, this means votes.

Two more points. Obviously out-of-wedlock births are not restricted to only the Black population of America; in fact white illegitimacy has gone from 3% in 1963 to 26% in 2005. Nevertheless, although the deleterious effects on children and families is similar and independent of race, the sheer numerical weight of having 7 of 10 Black children born out of wedlock is a devastating "force multiplier" that creates large and concentrated pockets of despair. And finally, yes we live in a free country; yes, these women are choosing to have relations out of wedlock; and yes they could (and some do!) pull themselves up and persevere.

Still, should our government and our society continue to support such a humiliating and dehumanizing way of life, for any American?

There will be more on this topic.

Quotient out.

Prologue: Dark Days Ahead

2009-10-23T00:52:00.007-05:00

There are many ominous clouds gathered above us. The rumbling you hear may be thunder, or may be the hoof beats of ravenous beasts charging closer. Or, perhaps the sound of a cavalry of savior knights.

Time will tell.

In this blog we'll explore the forces drawn against us: against democracy, freedom, faith, and our families; and, some ideas for saving ourselves.

It won't be easy. There will be spilt the blood of martyrs, as there has been in every righteous defense. Very soon you will have to choose sides.

Choose well.

Quotient out.