from Powerline

Hard on the story noted here the other day of new doubts about catastrophic global warming from the scientific mainstream comes the news from Britain’s MET office, which is one of the primary nodes of the global warming establishment, that global temperatures have now been essentially flat for the last 15 years. The UK Daily Mail’s story notes:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. . .

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

The problem for the warmenists is growing, as the actual temperature trend is starting to undershoot even the low end bound of most of the climate models. A few years of flat temperatures could be written off to the chaotic noise of random year-to-year variation, but after two decades (1980-1998) of a more or less steady rise of nearly 0.4 degrees C that seemed to validate the models and the projections, it looks like the warmist case is falling apart rather quickly.

Keep your eyes out to see whether this news is reported anywhere in the American media.

t
Posted by Jim Hoft

Last week Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. The rule would force Christian organizations to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion drugs to workers even though this violates Catholic Church teaching. The new rules are so strict that most Catholic institutions will not qualify for an exemption.

(The Echo)

Even Pope Benedict warned of the “grave threat” to religious freedom in United States before the Obama Administration approved the new rules.

Today Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bill to protect religious groups from Barack Obama’s HHS mandate that forces Christian organizations to provide abortion drugs, contraceptives and sterilization. The legislation pushed by Obama is clearly an assault on the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The NC Register reported:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 today, marking the GOP’s first legislative response to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring coverage of contraception and sterilization for all private employer health plans.

The bill is designed to repeal the narrow religious exemption included in the federal rule. Approved on Jan. 20, it has since been denounced by Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and more than 100 bishops throughout the nation.

In a statement released Jan. 31 marking his sponsorship of the legislation, the freshman senator described the contraception mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a violation of “the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people.”

“Under this president, we have a government that has grown too big, too costly and now even more overbearing by forcing religious entities to abandon their beliefs. This is a commonsense bill that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so,” Rubio said.

Richard Doerflinger, the associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the USCCB, said that the conference was still “studying” the new bill.

“We first saw the bill introduced by Senator Rubio today,” said Doerflinger, the USCCB’s chief lobbyist on life issues. “Our present focus regarding the HHS ‘preventive services’ mandate is the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179, S. 1467), which has over 135 co-sponsors in Congress [including Rubio] and would ensure that no coverage mandate in the new health-care reform act is used to violate conscience.”

“The Rubio bill relates only to religious objections to contraception and sterilization, and so would not address other problematic mandates issued under this act or any objection based solely on moral grounds. At present, our efforts to advance the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act are continuing and growing,” said Doerflinger.

by Ed Morrissey

The hearing today on Operation Fast and Furious by the House Oversight Committee produced a curious moment during a confrontation between its chair, Rep. Darrell Issa, and Attorney General Eric Holder, caught by The Right Scoop. Issa asks when Holder will start holding his team accountable for the mistakes made during Operation Fast and Furious, especially since the wiretap applications involved in the operation appear to show that Assistant AG Lanny Breuer and other high-ranking officials in the DoJ and ATF had knowledge of the gunwalking techniques employed. Will any action on accountability from Holder come after the Inspector General report on OF&F, Issa asks, “because you haven’t done any so far, as far as we can tell.”

Holder responds that he’s prepared to hold people in his organization accountable right now … for whistleblowing on the wiretap applications:

Er, really? The ATF sent thousands of high-powered weapons across the border into the hands of the cartel, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, including a US Border Patrol agent, and Holder is ready to act right now against the people informing Congress of what actually took place in Holder’s organization? Well, it is accountability of a sort, I suppose, but it’s more useful as a peek into Holder’s priorities.

Speaking of priorities, it looks like whistleblowing trumps bribery, too:

A U.S. Justice Department source has told The Daily Caller that at least two DOJ prosecutors accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives who were indicted under court seal within the past 13 months, but never arrested or prosecuted.

The sitting governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, his attorney general and an unspecified number of Virgin Islands legislators also accepted bribes, the source said, adding that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is aware prosecutors and elected officials were bribed and otherwise compromised, but has not held anyone accountable.

The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.

That source said that until the summer of 2011, the two compromised prosecutors were part of a team of more than 25 federal prosecutors pursuing a financial crime ring, and at least five other prosecutors tasked to the case were also compromised by the criminal suspects they were investigating, without being bribed.

But I’ll bet Holder will fire the official who leaked this information right freakin’ now, just to show us his commitment to accountability.

Obama insists he doesn’t want our energy needs linked to unstable parts of the world. Service to do anything about the Occupy beatniks laying siege to a number of parks in Washington, DC?

Why should it be portrayed as a greater tragedy when a “single mother” loses her job rather than a man with a wife that stays at home? Seems both domestic arrangements are in similar positions without income.

In calling for a single source for the unemployed to seek information on training opportunities, doesn’t that involve the federal government assuming more control over education?

Obama insists it should be illegal for students to drop out of school before they are 18. Why should this be a matter of federal interference and what will the punishment be for those leaving prior to that age?

If no country is better than any other according to multiculturalist dogma, then why should foreign students be allowed to remain here after graduation?

If women are to earn equal pay for equal work, then make them lug the same weight around the stockroom or warehouse without having to seek masculine assistance to do so.

If lightweight vests are being developed by federal researchers that can stop any bullet, will such protective garments be made available to civilians as well or do we have an obligation to be shot by law enforcement?

Interesting how it was mentioned derisively about a company that at one time only produced yachts.

If it should be impermissible for insurance companies to charge more for women’s health coverage, then why should men have to pay more for motor vehicle policies?

Obama claimed politics is not about clinging to rigid ideologies. So why is it conservatives that must always surrender their basic ideals and ideas?

Obama claimed that government ought to only do what people are unable to do for themselves. Thing of it is, given his Frau’s desire to manipulate and meddle in your dietary intake, the First Couple doesn’t think you are really capable of doing anything for yourself.

Obama wants to grant tax credits to businesses hiring veterans. Why should the military status of a business’s employees be any business of the federal government?

The best way to insure opportunities for veterans, as well as all other Americans, is for the federal government to know the least amount possible regarding the nation’s workforce.

If it doesn’t matter in the military what color or gender you are, as Obama insists, why are certain standards lowered for females seeking advancement and White males held back because of the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. If color has no bearing in the military, why are we often reminded that Colin Powell was the first Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as if that is suppose to immunize him against all criticism and scrutiny?

Would Bob Gates have been kept on as Secretary of Defense had he been a solid conservative Republican rather than an ardent establishmentarian compromiser?

Obama admonished the American people to look at what the nation could accomplish if the people were organized along military lines. However, the purpose of the military is to defend democracy, not practice it. In a civilian state, the average person is allowed to question the decrees and decisions of leaders elected, appointed, and bureaucratic. Such bottom up scrutiny is not allowed in the military and is punished severely.

This analyst tabulated approximately 80 rounds of applause in the 2012 State of the Union Address.

by Frederick Meekins

Posted by Jim Hoft

The Goracle was wrong.

The polar ice caps are still intact and the earth is not warming.

The latest temperature data shows that the planet has not warmed in the past 15 years and is likely heading to a mini ice age.
The Daily Mail reported:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

Can we all agree now that the global warming scam is over?

The ideas the President outlined in the State of the Union are based on the very model that is causing the EU to implode.

Janet Daley

What was it everybody used to say about the United States? Look at what’s happening over there and you will see our future. Whatever Americans are doing now, we will be catching up with them in another 10 years or so. In popular culture or political rhetoric, America led the fashion and we tagged along behind.

Well, so much for that. Barack Obama is now putting the United States squarely a decade behind Britain. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were, almost word for word, all those interminable Gordon Brown Budgets that preached “fairness” while listing endless new ways in which central government would intervene in every form of economic activity.

Later, in a television interview, Mr Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No?o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”

As we try desperately to extricate ourselves from the consequences of that philosophy, which sounds so eminently reasonable (“giving everybody a fair share”, the President called it), we could tell America a thing or two – if it would only listen. Human beings are so much more complicated than this childlike conception of fairness assumes. When government takes away an ever larger proportion of the wealth which entrepreneurial activity creates and attempts to distribute it “fairly” (that is to say, evenly) throughout society in the form of welfare programmes and public spending projects, the effects are much, much more complex and perverse than a simple financial equation would suggest.

It is probably obvious that the people from whom the wealth is taken will become less willing to incur the risks that entrepreneurial investment involves – and so will produce less wealth, and thus less tax revenue. But more surprising, perhaps, are the damaging changes that take place in the beneficiaries of this “fairness” and the permanent effect this has on the balance of power between government and the people.

There is, it turns out, a huge difference between being provided with a livelihood and feeling that you have earned it. The assumption that all the wealth that individuals create belongs, by moral right, to the state, to spend on benefits or phoney job creation schemes (sorry, public infrastructure projects), is proving phenomenally difficult to expunge in Britain, so ineradicably has it embedded itself in the public consciousness.

In the US, it has had only odd historical moments of favour (Roosevelt’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”), which have been beaten back consistently by the dynamism of a country that sees its existential purpose as being to foster and promote individual achievement and self-belief. It is bizarre that Obama should be regarded (or should regard himself) as a kind-of European who is trying to bring a sophisticated kind-of socialism to American economic life, complete with government-run health care and “fair” (high) taxes on the wealthy. If his European credentials were up to date, he would know that this was precisely the social model that is causing the EU to implode, and whose hopeless contradictions the best economic minds on the Continent are attempting, unsuccessfully, to resolve.

A vendetta against the “wealthy” is one of Obama’s favourite themes, and it strikes a peculiarly familiar note. Back here, Nick Clegg is arguing (rightly) that a tax cut for the lower paid should be accelerated on both moral and economic grounds – because people are struggling, and because allowing them to keep and spend more of their earnings would stimulate growth. But he wants to balance this with a wealth tax or some such penalty on “the rich”. Both Obama and Clegg, by an extraordinary coincidence, used the same semantic trick to try to prove the injustice of their present tax systems. In his State of the Union address, the President slipped subliminally from the fact that his likely presidential opponent Mitt Romney paid tax at a lower rate (because his income came from profits and dividends which were taxed as capital gains) than his secretary (who would have paid income tax), to the claim that Mr Romney paid less tax than his secretary.
(more…)

By Brujo Blanco

I have performed law enforcement duty in several countries on behalf of the US. In two of these countries it was feasible to be locked up for extended periods of time and sometimes without formal charges. This too many of us is something that we would not expect to happen in our country.

I took a martial arts course in an Asian country and the instructor told us that we should expect the unexpected.

A man named Stephen Slevin was arrested in August 2005 for a drinking and driving case. This poor bastard did not have a trial or a hearing and spent two years in solitary confinement. In fact he did not see a judge. Two years mind you. My man reported that people walked by his cell every day but would not heed his calls for assistance. In fact he had a dental problem and had to pull his own tooth to alleviate the pain. He was apparently not examined for physical or mental health. Also, it was alleged that he was operating a stolen vehicle when arrested. He claimed that the vehicle was borrowed from a friend. I wonder if they bothered to verify or refute that information.

It was noted that Mr. Slevin had a history of mental illness and this was purportedly the reason he was placed in solitary. My read on this is that if he was not nuts when he came in he had to be nuts when he got out. He spent 22 months as a pre trial detainee and then released. It was nice that the State of New Mexico dropped the charges. Wasn’t that so nice of them?

After getting out of the proverbial can Mr. Slevin filed in Federal Court and was awarded $22 million. Nice piece of change but not a good way to earn it. The court found that this man was denied due process. The State of New Mexico plans to appeal the decision. Good luck with that New Mexico!

I suspect that he was put in a cell and due to administrative glitches they forgot that he was there. It was apparent that they thought this guy was a loon so they did not put him in population.

Naturally the county officials are standing mute on this case. One thing I noted that Slevin stated that this case was not about the money. If the truth be known it was about the money but I do not have a problem with that. Despues de bailar tiene que pagar la cuenta. (After dancing you have to pay the bill.)

One of the things that happened to him was that his toenails grew so long they curled around. This guy probably could have done with a nurse and basic human kindness. I have several friends that are not all there in the head but they are not dangerous in the least. Two of them could go over the edge easily if they were treated with cruelty and indifference as Slevin was.

For those who want to know the law that covers these circumstances it is the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as follows: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

I know that in Maryland if one is arrested and locked up that one is normally visited by at least a Public Defender. I wonder what the procedure is in New Mexico. There is also a 180 day rule in Maryland that a suspect must be brought to trial within that period of time or released. I believe the best thing the authorities in New Mexico can do is to suck it up and make certain that it does not happen again. I was also wondering if it did happen in the past and the suspect(s) simply did not have the wherewithal and/or common sense to contact an attorney. If they truly thought this guy was not all there they probably could have detained him in a proper mental health facility without repercussions.

One more comment about my martial arts instructor he also said the best way to defend against a punch is not to be standing there when the punch is thrown. If you take one drink do not operate a vehicle. You could be mistaken for a loon after an arrest because of your intoxication and treated accordingly.

Use to be during the Christmas season in modern America, if the individual wanted a little buzz during the holidays, they would slip a bit of something into their eggnog. Now, all you have to do to feel that surge of agitated surliness is to turn on the news or read about those turning themselves into the hind quarters of the species the Holy Family rode into Bethlehem in order to pay the assessed tax (an existential financial matter it seems fewer and fewer could possibly relate to).

If you think it is only secularists making an overall nuisance of themselves, you are in for a bigger disappointment than finding a lump of coal in your stocking Christmas morning.

For better or worse, the Internet is widespread enough that most are aware that there is nothing in the Bible compelling believers to participate in the celebration of the birth of Christ even though His miraculous arrival is documented in the pages of Scripture and that many of the trappings such as decorations and related customs now imbedded with meanings symbolizing the spiritually profound account have (to invoke a word of sectarian irony) less than kosher origins.

However, for the most part, Christians on either side of the divide have established a kind of amicable truce where for the most part about the worst that they do to their counterparts is to look down their noses at one another and snicker how peculiar or inconsistent the ones on the side of the debate opposite their own happen to be.

That has changed in one Michigan town. There, an anonymous equivalent of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady character from Saturday Night Live sent a letter to those daring to adorn their abodes with Christmas lights.

Usually, those going to such lengths as to put the criticism of such decorations into writing make a point of accusing either the decorations or the individual putting them up of being too religious. This time, the victims of such in your face busybodyism have been accused of not being religious enough.

The note insists that the homeowners ought to reevaluate their beliefs. This is because decorative lights, mistletoe, and yule logs can be traced back to pagan origins.

While nothing should be done about the doofus posting the letter since the First Amendment is pretty much a get out of jail free card for unbridled stupidity, it makes you wonder just how much authority over what goes on in homes or on our property should be granted to those insistent upon a hardline implementation of America’s Puritan heritage.

Most years, it seems many of the Christmas time outrages such as the one detailed above occur on the local level such as a school child having their constitutional religious liberties trampled upon in the attempt to forge Christmas-free school zones or as result of the directors of homeowners associations overly eager to enforce Soviet-style architectural conformity. However, it now seems the partisans of the White Witch of Narnia are attempting to assert themselves at the center stage of U.S. national government.

Irrespective of the overall decline in respect for the body brought about by the often unconscionable behavior on the part of the institution, Congress is often looked upon as the greatest deliberative body in the world in that its members are suppose to be able to speak their consciences freely to their fellow members, their particular constituencies, and the nation as a whole.

However, it now seems that an authority within the legislative branch may be attempting to curtail expression that, to most Americans not having jumped off the cliff into one variety of fanaticism or the other, would be about one of the least partisan things one could say as such sentiments are usually enunciated freely irrespective of the party affiliation of those to whom the greeting was intended. One of the perks extended to members of Congress is the so-called franking privilege where taxpayers pick up the tab for the postal correspondence between legislators and their respective constituencies.

In exchange for this benefit, the outgoing communications are required to adhere to certain criteria regarding content. For example, these items aren’t suppose to be of a campaign nature.

It seems now though that, at least in regards to the House of Representatives, wishing someone a Merry Christmas via these official dispatches has been deemed the equivalent of saying, “Vote for me because the other guy kicks puppies.” Proponents of the prohibition insist epistolary interference is necessary as today one never knows who might be offended by the platitude.

I’ll tell you what ought to offend people. It’s that these clowns don’t only get to send mail at someone else’s expense but that they’ll get to enjoy lavish retirements while the last words from your dieing lips will likely be “Hello. Welcome to Walmart” because Social Security will be nothing but a memory.

This snide disrespect towards the religion and customs of the vast majority of the American people on the part of parts of the Legislative Branch extends beyond the House mailroom. It has even come to infiltrate the symbols this branch of government has adopted to commemorate this particular holiday. In so doing, it has attempted to manipulate the meaning of the occasion in the minds of the American people.

On the Capitol grounds, each year a stately tree is erected. As with countless other trees the world over, this one is adorned with a variety of ornaments.

By tradition, the ornaments are donated by the residents of the state from where that year’s particular tree originated. The 2011 tree came from California. So hence the theme “California Shines”.

CNSNews correspondent Terrence Jeffery observed that, while the decoration is a Christmas tree, other than a reference to Psalm 19 symbolizing that the Word of God is more precious than gold, not a single ornament on the visible part of the tree references Christmas as the celebration of Christ’s birth. There is also an ornament declaring how much the creator of that particular bulb loves President Obama, the figure many concluded worthy of adoration as a new Christ figure for no other reason than that he emerged from his mother’s womb of racially mixed pigmentation but who came up disappointingly short perhaps even more so than many other aspiring pseudo-messiahs.

When informed of this incongruity, officials from the U.S. Forest Service and the Architect of the Capitol both sheepishly feigned an unawareness as to the nature of the tree’s adornment and insisted that there is no stipulated prohibition regarding decoration content. However, that does not mean that hullabaloo surrounding the tree will remain objective and neutral.
(more…)

from R Cherry

Europe is sending us a warning about Socialism – it is not “Social Justice.” Socialism is not only un-American, it is tyranny.

“The ideas the President outlined in the State of the Union are based on the very model that is causing the EU to implode. Listening to the President’s State of the Union message last week was like a surreal visit to our own recent past: there were, almost word for word, all those interminable Gordon Brown Budgets that preached “fairness” while listing endless new ways in which central government would intervene in every form of economic activity… Mr Obama described his programme of using higher taxes on the wealthy to bankroll new government spending as “a recipe for a fair, sound approach to deficit reduction and rebuilding this country”. To which we who come from the future [Europe] can only shout, “No?o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”
There is, it turns out, a huge difference between being provided with a livelihood and feeling that you have earned it. The assumption that all the wealth that individuals create belongs, by moral right, to the state, to spend on benefits or phoney job creation schemes (sorry, public infrastructure projects), is proving phenomenally difficult to expunge in Britain, so ineradicably has it embedded itself in the public consciousness. In the US, it has had only odd historical moments of favour (Roosevelt’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”), which have been beaten back consistently by the dynamism of a country that sees its existential purpose as being to foster and promote individual achievement and self-belief. It is bizarre that Obama should be regarded (or should regard himself) as a kind-of European who is trying to bring a sophisticated kind-of socialism to American economic life, complete with government-run health care and “fair” (high) taxes on the wealthy. If his European credentials were up to date, he would know that this was precisely the social model that is causing the EU to implode, and whose hopeless contradictions the best economic minds on the Continent are attempting, unsuccessfully, to resolve.

Obama is clearly living the Left-liberal dream, which still survives in small pockets of American life. He wants to import the democratic socialism that Europe embraced after the war, which was, for European cultural reasons, imbued with aristocratic paternalism and Marxist notions of bourgeois guilt. But neither of these things are part of the American historical experience. The Left-wing intellectuals, including Obama himself, who adopt this language are talking dangerously uninformed rubbish… The United States is a country that was invented to allow people to be free of domination or persecution by the state. Its constitution and political institutions are specifically designed to prevent the federal government from oppressing the rights, or undermining the sense of responsibility, of the individual citizen. If it ceases to stand by that principle, then it will suffer a catastrophic loss of purpose and identity – as well as making a quite remarkably stupid and unnecessary mistake.” Janet Daley

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9045587/Barack-Obama-is-trying-to-make-the-US-a-more-socialist-state.html

Some other courageous Europeans have sent us the same warning.

“Is it possible or impossible to warn someone of danger? How many witnesses have been sent to the West in the last 60 years? How many waves of immigrants? How many millions of persons? They are all here. You meet them every day. You know who they are: if not by their spiritual disorientation, their grief, their melancholy, then you can distinguish them by their accents by their external appearance…
Coming from different countries and without consulting with one another…they have brought to you exactly the same experience; they tell you exactly the same thing: they warn you of what is already happening. It’s characteristic that communism is so devoid of arguments that it has none to advance against its opponents in our Communist countries. It lacks arguments and hence there is the club, the prison, the concentration camp, and insane asylums with forced confinement.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

http://www.alor.org/Library/LegacyofTerror.htm

“World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis…. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct–also laid bare by Shafarevich–these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach…. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and “God-like” aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity…. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been “socialist.” But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“We have arrived at this view of socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism’s peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism, as well as with the attempt to prove that man exists only as a manifestation of non-individual features, such as production or class interest… There is, first of all, the profound experience of Russia, the significance of which we are only now beginning to understand. The question therefore arises: will this experience be sufficient? Is it sufficient for the entire world and especially for the West? Indeed, is it sufficient for Russia? Shall we be able to comprehend its meaning? Or is mankind destined to pass through this experience on an immeasurably larger scale? There is no doubt that if the ideals of Utopia are realized universally, mankind, even in the barracks of the universal City of the Sun, shall find the strength to regain its freedom and to preserve God’s image and likeness–human individuality–once it has glanced into the yawning abyss. But will even that experience be sufficient? For it seems just as certain that the freedom of will granted to man and to mankind is absolute, that it includes the freedom to make the ultimate choice–between life and death.” Igor Shafarevich

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html

Just as Cato’s rightly kept reminding the Roman Senate about the mortal risk of Carthage (“Carthago delenda est” – “Carthage must be destroyed”); the motto of all remaining liberty-loving Americans should be “Socialism delenda est” – American Socialism must be destroyed!

KINGSTON, Ontario – A jury on Sunday found an Afghan father, his wife and their son guilty of killing three teenage sisters and a co-wife in what the judge described as “cold-blooded, shameful murders” resulting from a “twisted concept of honor” in a case that shocked and riveted Canadians.

Prosecutors said the defendants allegedly killed the three teenage sisters because they dishonored the family by defying its disciplinarian rules on dress, dating, socializing and using the Internet.

The jury took 15 hours to find Mohammad Shafia, 58; his wife Tooba Yahya, 42; and their son Hamed, 21, each guilty of four counts of first-degree murder. First-degree murder carries an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.

After the verdict was read, the three defendants again declared their innocence in the killings of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar 17, and Geeti, 13, as well as Rona Amir Mohammad, 52, Shafia’s childless first wife in a polygamous marriage.

Their bodies were found June 30, 2009, in a car submerged in a canal in Kingston, Ontario, where the family had stopped for the night on their way home to Montreal from Niagara Falls, Ontario.

The prosecution alleged it was a case of premeditated murder, staged to look like an accident after it was carried out. Prosecutors said the defendants drowned their victims elsewhere on the site, placed their bodies in the car and pushed it into the canal.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Robert Maranger said the evidence clearly supported the conviction.

“It is difficult to conceive of a more heinous, more despicable, more honorless crime,” Maranger said. “The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor … that has absolutely no place in any civilized society.”
(more…)

By Timothy B. Lee

A striking trend in Congress’s reaction to Wednesday’s protests against the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act was the partisan divide in the Senate. At least 16 Republican Senators—more than a third of all GOP members in the body—declared their opposition to PIPA for the first time on Wednesday. In contrast, as far as we can tell, only three Democrats jumped off the bandwagon that day.

Why were Republicans so quick to abandon PIPA? For an inside perspective, Ars talked to two conservative operatives who have long opposed Hollywood’s campaign for ever-more draconian copyright laws. Reihan Salam is a blogger at National Review and a policy advisor at Economics 21, a conservative think tank. And Patrick Ruffini is a conservative political strategist and founder of the PR firm Engage.

Salam and Ruffini told Ars on Thursday that the differing reactions to the online protests reflects structural and philosophical differences between the two parties. They said Democrats have deep ties to Hollywood and to labor unions who staff Hollywood productions, which makes it hard for them to buck these interests and vote against PIPA. In contrast, they said, Republicans have few ties to groups that support PIPA, and they have a Tea Party faction that has grown increasingly invested in Internet freedom as it has become more reliant on the web for its own organization.

The IT industry could be a rich source of both votes and campaign cash, but so far neither party has done a good job of championing its interests in Congress. Salam and Ruffini believe that Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial culture is a perfect fit for the GOP’s free-market policy agenda, and they told Ars that the fight over PIPA is a golden opportunity for the GOP to build a lasting political alliance with Silicon Valley.
“Holder is coming to take the Internet”

The Motion Picture Association of America is a key interest group behind the PROTECT IP Act, and Ruffini argued it has much stronger ties to the Democratic Party than to Republicans. The MPAA is headed by Chris Dodd, previously a Democratic member of the Senate. Hollywood is also heavily unionized, and labor unions are a major Democratic constituency. And Hollywood’s wealthy creative professionals have long made it an important stop on the Democratic fundraising circuit. Indeed, Hollywood now has one of its own, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), in the Senate. He is a PIPA co-sponsor.

Ruffini said that the GOP has fewer ties to the interest groups behind PIPA. The US Chamber of Commerce, a traditionally Republican group, has supported PIPA, but the legislation is just one of many items on its legislative agenda. At the same time, another key Republican constituency, social conservatives, have long despised Hollywood for the sex and violence in its products.

Salam pointed to the rise of the Tea Party as another key factor in Republican skepticism toward PIPA. The Tea Party is a decentralized movement organized largely online. As the Internet has become a more important means of political organization for conservatives, they have also grown more invested in protecting it from harmful regulation.

The arguments against these bills also appeal to conservatives’ general suspicion of big government. Ruffini told Ars that SOPA and PIPA have emerged as major issues on conservative talk radio. “Their perception on this has been that [Obama attorney general] Eric Holder is coming to take the Internet,” Ruffini said.

Meanwhile, as we’ve reported, conservative and libertarian bloggers and think tanks have been lining up against PIPA. Scholars at the libertarian Cato Institute (where I’m an adjunct scholar) and the conservative Heritage Foundation, conservative bloggers like Matt Drudge and Erick Erickson, and Tea Party politicians like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) had all declared their opposition to the bills in the weeks before Wednesday’s protest.

As a result, Republican support for PIPA has been very soft. “People hadn’t thought about the issues very deeply,” Salam told Ars. “There was no one advocating the case against these policies. Once people articulated the case,” support for the policies “crumbled fast.”

The Tea Party movement scared Republican members of Congress in 2010 when they mounted primary challenges to several Republican incumbents. The defeat of incumbents like Bob Bennett lent credibility to Erickson’s threat to recruit primary challengers for Republicans who supported SOPA.

“Nobody wants a primary challenger,” Ruffini told Ars. “The Tea Party has demonstrated vote-getting potential. If I have to choose between the Tea Party or the Chamber of Commerce, I pick the Tea Party.”
An alliance with Silicon Valley?

Salam and Ruffini believe that Republicans have a chance to cultivate a new base of political support in the technology industry.

Ruffini argued that Republican philosophy naturally aligns with the creative destruction that is a hallmark of the technology industry. “Republicans are a free-market party,” he said. “They are more inclined toward economic disruption. Certain industries will inevitably go by the wayside due to technological changes. Nothing in Republican governing philosophy says there’s anything wrong with that.”

Salam agreed with this, pointing to the Tea Party’s intense opposition to bailouts for Wall Street and Detroit.

Ruffini argued that the controversy over PIPA gives the GOP “a chance to flip the tech community,” winning Republicans a new donor base, or at least making it harder for Democrats to raise money in Silicon Valley. He noted that Republican politicans have already begun visiting technology companies seeking support. By picking a fight with the Democratic leadership over PIPA, they could win lasting respect from technologists.

Ruffini encouraged Republican leaders to “make a partisan issue out of it. It’s not like this is an obscure issue,” Ruffini said. “Millions of people are watching this.”

“People talk about how polarization is bad,” Salam said. But polarization can help ensure that both sides of the debate are strongly represented, he noted. The lack of polarization has meant that both parties consistently side with Hollywood.
The death of PIPA

Events have moved quickly since we talked to Salam and Ruffini on Thursday afternoon. The leader of the Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called for Reid to delay the vote on PIPA on Thursday afternoon. On Thursday evening, four GOP candidates declared their opposition to SOPA. Former speaker Newt Gingrich explicitly tied his opposition to his broader antipathy toward Hollywood liberals.

On Friday morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) postponed next Tuesday’s PIPA vote, but vowed to continue fighting for the legislation. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was furious. And Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) announced that he would be delaying consideration of SOPA.

So both parties are backing away from SOPA and PIPA. But so far the Democrats have shown more interest in reviving the legislation. Reid and Leahy have pledged to bring a modified version of the legislation back to the Senate floor later in the year. On the House side, Smith has continued to champion his proposal, but he has gotten no real support from the House Republican leadership, which has pledged to put the bill on hold until a consensus is reached. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is also opposed to SOPA.

Meanwhile, a growing number of Republicans have been attacking the bill, explicitly tying their opposition to GOP themes like limited government, free markets, and antipathy to Hollywood. If Republicans play their cards right, the last week could mark the dawn of a new political alliance between Silicon Valley and the Grand Old Party.

Michael A. Walsh

Friday’s ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services proved yet again that ObamaCare’s critics are right. It’s a breathtaking attack not only on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, but also on the separation of church and state.

Kathleen Sebelius, the nominally Catholic HHS chief, bluntly informed religious medical institutions that offer services to the general public that she will indeed compel them to offer free birth control, sterilization and “morning after” pills as part of their employees’ health-care plans. They have exactly one year to get with the program or suffer the consequences.

That’s all their vehement objections to her August “guidelines” got them: “This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule,” read a department statement defending HHS’ insistence on what it euphemistically calls “preventive services.”

In other words, they have a year to figure out how to violate their religious beliefs and contravene church teaching. And if they choose to cancel their health-care plans rather than submit, they’ll incur a hefty annual fine under the tender mercies of ObamaCare.

Added bonus: This contemptuous slap at Catholicism and for mainstream Christianity in general comes wrapped in the guise of “compassion.”

Never mind that the administration just got its head handed to it by the Supreme Court over religious freedom. In a slam-dunk 9-0 vote, the justices this month slapped down Team Obama’s claim that it, not religious institutions, has the right to decide who qualifies for the “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws.

Liberal and conservative justices alike rejected the Justice Department’s ludicrous argument that religious teachers are no different than, say, soda jerks.

And yet it’s right there in the first words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” had Attorney General Eric Holder’s ideologues bothered to look.

Now Sebelius follows up with more of the same. Conservatives have been howling for years about the left’s war on traditional faith, and now here it is in all its naked, unabashed glory.
(more…)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law, prohibiting states from deciding on the matter. In his written statement, Obama acknowledged that abortion has been a divisive political issue.

Obama, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature and as president of the United States, has taken a hard line on abortion rights.

In his statement on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, Obama said it reflects the broader principles of America.

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

“While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue — no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption,” Obama said.

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion. He voted against such legislation at the state level in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The 2003 bill was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time. It mirrored a law passed by Congress, which said nothing in federal law should be construed to undermine the Roe v. Wade ruling.

As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which would appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.

On Friday, the Obama administration finalized regulations that order Americans – unless they work directly at a church – to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

Planned Parenthood also marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling by setting up a Web site “to show the world exactly what Roe has meant in the past and still means today.”

The “Since Roe” Web site invites women to add their own comments about “how Roe v. Wade has made a difference in your life.”

By Regina Sztajer

Hate has no bounds, be it in ones personal life, workplace or politics. I was so shocked by Brit Hume’s
hatred against Newt Gingrich spewing out of his mouth these past few weeks. What is his problem I wondered. After all Fox is not biased and is supposed to be fair and balanced. Fox should remove him from making any political comments until after the election because of his obvious prejudice against Gingrich.
Being an investigative reporter I decided to delve into Hume’s past and did so using Wikipedia encyclopedia. It took only a few minutes to come up with the answer. Hume blames Gingrich with the fact his son committed suicide. In life we are all responsible for one person ourselves. You can’t blame any one person for what happens in your own family, especially suicide.
Brit Hume is a television journalist and political commentator. He was a correspondent for ABC for twenty years, including Chief White House Correspondent. He spent ten years as the managing editor of fox News and anchor of Special Report with Brit Hume. Since 2008, in retirement, he announced Bret Baier would become chief White House correspondent for Fox News. Hume remains the senior political analyst and panelist for Fox News.
In Jan. 2010, as a guest commentator on Fox News Sunday, he advised Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity in the wake of Wood’s revelations of habitual adultery and deterioration of his relationship with his family. Those who give such advise should practice what they preach. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News more or less accused Hume of insulting Buddhism which Wood’s and his mother practice.
He best not knock Gingrich for his three marriages because he divorced his first wife Clare Jacobs Stoner and married Kim Schiller Hume, Fox News Vice president and former Washington bureau chief.
His son Sandy Hume, a Washington journalist and reporter for The Hill broke the story of the aborted 1997, coup against Speaker of the House Gingrich. In 1998, Sandy Hume committed suicide and in 2008, when Brit Hume retired he commented on his son’s death. He had found Christ!!!
When a person professes they have found their faith in religion they should practice it. Hume is consumed with hatred against Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has no guilt in his son’s death. But it is obvious his hatred has no bounds and it is very disturbing and cruel.

from Powerline

In response to my post this morning about Muggeridge’s “The Great Liberal Death Wish,” Power Line reader David Gray writes in to remind me of a companion book to that theme, James Burnham’s classic book from the early 1960s, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism. After a busy day of back-to-back-to-back meetings, I rushed this evening to dust off my copy.

Although Suicide of the West might seem on the surface like a period piece of the Cold War, many passages read as fresh in the Age of Obama as they did in the Age of Arthur Schlesinger and JFK. Like Muggeridge, Burnham was an ex-Communist, who thought that “liberalism is the ideology of American suicide.” There are so many great passages that apply to the current scene; perhaps I’ll make a new series out of these as I did last fall with that other 1961 book, The Constitution of Liberty. Here’s one that, with due regard for updating the names mentioned at the end, clearly fits the leading lights of liberals today:

Liberals, unless they are professional politicians seeking votes in the hinterland, are not subject to strong feelings of national patriotism and are likely to feel uneasy at patriotic ceremonies. These, like the organizations in whose conduct they are still manifest, are dismissed by liberals rather scornfully as ‘flag-waving’ and ‘100 percent Americanism.’ The national anthem is not customarily sung or the flag shown, unless prescribed by law, at meetings of liberal associations. When a liberal journalist uses the phrase ‘patriotic organization,’ the adjective is equivalent in meaning to ‘stupid, reactionary and rather ludicrous.’ The rise of liberalism to predominance in the controlling sectors of American opinion is in almost exact correlation with the decline in the ceremonial celebration of the Fourth of July, traditionally regarded as the nation’s major holiday. To the liberal mind, the patriotic oratory is not only banal but subversive of rational ideals; and judged by liberalism’s humanitarian morality, the enthusiasm and pleasures that simple souls might have got from the fireworks could not compensate the occasional damage to the eye or finger of an unwary youngster. The purer liberals of the Norman Cousins strain, in the tradition of Eleanor Roosevelt, are more likely to celebrate UN day than the Fourth of July.

Need I mention that Ronaldus Magnus saw fit to award Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983, in the same batch as the posthumous award to Whittaker Chambers. That was a bitter day for the Left.

And not to worry: I’m not done with excerpts from Muggeridge yet either. But I have to travel to Denver Thursday and Friday, so I may be a bit slow keeping up.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says The euro is pushing Italy into depression

There is no clearer indictment of the dysfunctional nature of monetary union. Italy is being pushed into depression. Criminal.

Obviously, Italy and Germany can no longer share the same monetary policy. Ergo, Germany should leave EMU, pronto.

The Banca said Italy’s economy contracted by 0.5pc in the last quarter of 2011. It will shrink by a further 1.5pc this year, with no growth in 2013.

This is a direct result of the misguided pro-cyclical austerity policies imposed by Angela Merkel and the ECB – the infamous Trichet letter – without offsetting monetary and exchange stimulus.

This will of course play havoc with Italy’s debt trajectory.

Non-Performing Spanish Loans Hit 134 Billion Euros, 7.51% of All Loans

Italy may be headed for depression, but Greece, Spain, and Portugal are already in depression. The most important country in that sad group is Spain, and the Spanish hit-parade keeps right on rolling.

Via Google Translate, please consider Non-Performing Spanish Loans Highest in 17 Years.

The NPL ratio of credit granted by banks, savings banks, cooperatives and credit institutions rose in November to 7.51%, the highest percentage for seventeen years due to increased volume of bad loans, which exceeded the 134,000 million euros. [134 billion]

According to provisional data published today by the Bank of Spain, this new increase of one tenth compared to 7.41% last month, is the fifth in a row after the small cuts that took place in June.

As the volume of bad loans, the loan portfolio of banks, savings banks, cooperatives and credit institutions rose in November to 1.785 billion euros [1.785 trillion euros in US notation], from 1.778 billion [trillion] in October.

Eurozone Unemployment Rates

(more…)

By Marc Siegel

The final verdict may not be in yet, but some of the early returns on “ObamaCare” are not good. Indeed, many doctors are becoming wary of the law at a time when only one in three Americans support it.

In late December, a survey of 501 physicians was released by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions research group, whose parent company serves clients in the health care industry. Nearly half (48%) expected health reform to hurt their incomes this year, while 73% said it would not reduce costs.

Though this isn’t a scientific survey, and other such surveys have and will show physicians’ support for the Affordable Care Act, the early glimpse of the law’s potential impact will likely lead to economic pain for doctors and a diminished system for their patients. Indeed, the Deloitte survey found that 69% of the physicians are “pessimistic about the future of medicine” because of the law.

I’m not here to judge doctors who back ObamaCare. But as a practicing physician, I simply need to look at the economics of medicine, apply my own experience and see the law as it unfolds to know that physicians across this country should be demanding if not a new system, at least a better one.

The early days

In June 2009, when President Obama attended a “white coat” ceremony at the American Medical Association headquarters in Chicago, and this organization of physicians (roughly 17% are members) went on to deliver its endorsement of the president’s legislation, physicians had a nagging question: Did we agree with the AMA’s position, or was the organization taking us for a ride? The answer is becoming clearer as the law is being implemented.

An online survey in September by the Jackson & Coker physician recruitment firm — based on 1,611 doctors who chose to respond — reflected that the majority of doctors don’t believe that the AMA represents their views. The primary reason: the AMA’s support of the legislation. Just 13% of those surveyed backed the Affordable Care Act.

Doctors traditionally have been unhappy with insurance mandates because third-party payers, whether public or private, represent a seemingly unnecessary interface between us and our patients. Many doctors today prefer to accept cash, even at a great discount, rather than having to deal with the burden imposed by insurers.

Yet the glaring inadequacy of the health care reform law is that putting the bureaucratic burdens on steroids does little to change the trajectory of health care spending. The law also floods the system with patients while tightening the financial screws on those in the health care industry.

We’re two years into this experiment, and the realities of the law — more regulations, more patients with low-paying insurance, higher costs but lower payments to doctors — are sinking in.

When surveyed by Deloitte, 83% of doctors said one likely change to the medical system as a result of the law would be increased wait times — an inevitable outcome of insuring millions more patients without a matching increase in the number of doctors. Not too surprising. Most doctors surveyed also noted that the changes will “pose considerable implementation challenges.” I suspect it would be hard to find someone in the health care industry — or any employer, for that matter — who would disagree with that expectation.

And it doesn’t get better

It’s one thing to mandate insurance for all, but quite another to do so without incentivizing physicians or those considering the profession. In fact, the law does the opposite: For many doctors, there becomes a financial disincentive to practice medicine.

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that the USA will be 160,000 physicians short by 2025 (when all patients would be insured under ObamaCare), and this is without even considering those doctors who will limit their practice to insured patients because of decreasing reimbursements or who retire early when faced with increasing costs with little return.

Doctors are catching on fast to the essential deficiencies of ObamaCare, but so are America’s patients. The concern of doctors is reflected among the American people: Support for the law has sunk to 29% in the latest Associated Press poll.

Think of ObamaCare as a heavy horse-drawn cart loaded with all of America’s patients and best technologies. As the cart gets heavier and heavier, does it make sense that we don’t add more horses but instead feed the ones we have less and less while expecting them to pull the additional weight?

I think more and more doctors are going to pull up lame if the law’s many shortfalls aren’t addressed — and stat.

By Regina Sztajer

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, President Barack Obama’s Democratic National Chairperson, is the evil twin of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi ,only she is the East coast version. She is the official get Obama re-elected no matter how down and dirty you have to get. She is running for re-election in Florida and the Conservatives are nipping at her heels.
She is capable of a nasty smear campaign to defeat any Republican nominee. She is hand picked by Obama to coordinate propaganda efforts of the Hollywood liberals and labor unions and will do anything possible to promote Obama’s radical left-wing agenda.
She attacks the Tea Party as racists and she considers Conservative Paul Ryan’s plan to solve America’s budget crises as a “death trap.” Schultz also considers Conservative woman such as Sarah Palin as people who “don’t know anything.”
She uses her position as a Jewish-American leader to defend Obama’s offensive Israel policies even as Obama drove the U.S. Israeli relationship to its lowest relationship in decades. As a Jewish leader she doesn’t speak for me!!!
She is more radical than Obama!!!
She attacks Tea Party members as racists and spews sexist and radical feminist rhetoric against Republicans for defending life and the rights of the unborn. Schultz claims Republicans want to go back to “Jim Crow” laws and block access to voting polls. She supports amnesty for illegal aliens and promotes and votes for big government programs like Obamcare that take our freedom away.
Rejects plans to curtail government spending and to reduce the deficit while supporting Obama’s failed $787 billion stimulus program as one that helped our economy. She votes for ear-marked laden pork barrel budgets that run our deficit up. Schultz also pushed hard and voted for Obama’s cap and tax bill that will drive-up energy costs.
Congressman Allen West has called her, “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the United States Congress.” She is one attack dog that belongs in the dog pound! Schultz has the backing of Obama’s entire election machine. She and other liberals don’t understand how someone can succeed without government handouts and bailouts.
She is blinded by an allegiance to Obama that has no bounds. She has lied so much even the liberal media in Florida has labeled her a “chump and loser of the week.” She is bad for America and a disgrace!!!

We, too, can lose our civilization.

By Victor Davis Hanson

In Greek mythology, the prophetess Cassandra was doomed both to tell the truth and to be ignored. Our modern version is a bankrupt Greece that we seem to discount.

News accounts abound now of impoverished Athens residents scrounging pharmacies for scarce aspirin — as Greece is squeezed to make interest payments to the supposedly euro-pinching German banks.

Such accounts may be exaggerations, but they should warn us that yearly progress is never assured. Instead, history offers plenty of examples of life becoming far worse than it had been centuries earlier. The biographer Plutarch, writing 500 years after the glories of classical Greece, lamented that in his time weeds grew amid the empty colonnades of the once-impressive Greek city-states. In America, most would prefer to live in the Detroit of 1941 than the Detroit of 2011. The quality of today’s air travel has regressed to the climate of yesterday’s bus service.

Advertisement
In 2000, Greeks apparently assumed that they had struck it rich with their newfound money-laden European Union lenders — even though they certainly had not earned their new riches through increased productivity, the discovery of more natural resources, or greater collective investment and savings.

The brief euro mirage has vanished. Life in Athens is zooming backward to the pre-EU days of the 1970s. Then, most imported goods were too expensive to buy, medical care was often premodern, and the city resembled more a Turkish Istanbul than a European Munich.

The United States should pay heed to the modern Greek Cassandra, since our own rendezvous with reality is rapidly approaching. The costs of servicing a growing national debt of more than $15 trillion are starting to squeeze out other budget expenditures. Americans are no longer affluent enough to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil, while we snub our noses at vast new oil and gas deposits beneath our own soil and seas.

In my state, Californians for 40 years have hiked taxes; grown their government; vastly expanded entitlements; put farmland, timberland, and oil and gas lands off limits; and opened their borders to millions of illegal aliens. They apparently assumed that they had inherited so much wealth from prior generations and that their state was so naturally rich, that a continually better life was their natural birthright.

It wasn’t. Now, as in Greece, the veneer of civilization is proving pretty thin in California. Hospitals no longer have the money to offer sophisticated long-term medical care to the indigent. Cities no longer have the funds to self-insure themselves from the accustomed barrage of monthly lawsuits. When thieves rip copper wire out of street lights, the streets stay dark. Most state residents would rather go to the dentist these days than queue up and take a number at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Hospital emergency rooms neither have room nor act as if there’s much of an emergency.

Traffic flows no better on most of the state’s freeways than it did 40 years ago — and often much worse, given the crumbling infrastructure and increased traffic. Once-excellent K–12 public schools now score near the bottom in nationwide tests. The California state-university system keeps adding administrators to the point where they have almost matched the number of faculty, though half of the students who enter CSU need remedial reading and math. Despite millions of dollars in tutoring, half the students still don’t graduate. The taxpayer is blamed in constant harangues for not ponying up more money, rather than administrators being faulted for a lack of reform.
(more…)