,hl=en,siteUrl='http://0ldfox.blogspot.com/',authuser=0,security_token="v_SeT2Tv8vVdKRCcG9CCW-ZdIfQ:1429878696275"/> Old Fox KM Journal : vile nonsense
Showing posts with label vile nonsense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vile nonsense. Show all posts

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Citizens United Wasn’t Really about Corporations as People

link

In the name of campaign finance reform, the United States government argued it could ban books.

===================================
This Friday, “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” will be released in theaters nationwide. The movie, based on the book “13 Hours” by Mitchell Zuckoff, is directed by Michael Bay and gives the public a chance to see one man’s take on what happened in Libya on September 11, 2012, when terrorists stormed our diplomatic compound and killed four Americans: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Ambassador Chris Stevens, and Tyrone Woods.
The decision to make this movie and release it so widely was likely unpopular with the Democratic political establishment. While the film focuses on the events on the ground in Benghazi, it is bound to generate interest about what was happening back in Washington and what President Obama and his secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, might have done to prevent the loss of American lives. ...
============================================
Some interesting background here on the Citizens United v. FEC case, which Democrat Party members are totally mis-characterizing as "corporations are people."    I did not know that Citizens United, a non-profit corp, had complained to the Federal Election Comm. about Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004.  The FEC dismissed their complaint.  So CU put out their own documentary bashing Hillary as unfit in 2008.  This time, the FEC changed their tune and tried to censor the CU movie.  A district judge agreed with them and thus it went to the S.Ct. who upheld the First Amendment 5 to 4.  It is about Free Speech, not corporations, or unions, or newspapers "electioneering" for a candidate.

We can see why Hillary hates this Free Speech affirmation, but why would Col. Sanders, Stuart Smalley, Tim Harken, Chuckie Schumer, et al. be so angry about it?    They said what was good for the goose was no good for the gander.   But tit for tat was more just, they learned.
--------------------------------------
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/daily-affirmation-movie-opening/n10706
------------------------------------
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/14/thank-citizens-united-that-you-can-see-13-hours-this-weekend/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=da7ef07b3e-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-da7ef07b3e-83774053

At the oral argument on appeal, the Supreme Court justices probed the limits of the power the government claimed for itself, and questioned how it squared with the First Amendment. In one incredible back-and-forth, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart if there was “a 500-page book, and at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that?” Stewart’s response: yes.
“Well,” he explains, “if it says vote for X, it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the pre-existing Federal Election Campaign Act provision.” In the name of campaign finance reform, the United States government argued it could ban books.

Sunday, December 06, 2015

Dalton Trumbo, "Johnny Got His Gun [half-cocked]"

link

Film the Legend

On publicity junkets for Trumbo, star Bryan Cranston has repeated the line, “Everyone has the right to be wrong.” Cranston claims this quote came from Dalton Trumbo himself, and shows that the blacklisted screenwriter supported and defended everyone’s right to free speech.
The real Trumbo didn’t. The movie is frank about his membership in the American Communist Party, but its makers (director Jay Roach, screenwriter John McNamara) give us not a hint of what that entailed, or how roundly contradicted is Trumbo-the-free-speech-avatar by Trumbo the actual person.
Trumbo celebrates the screenwriter’s battle against the blacklist. There is much to be said for his go-it-alone fight against the Hollywood producers, but the image of him as a New Deal liberal hero defending civil liberties against homegrown fascists crumbles when you look into what he said and did in the 1940s and 50s.
His daughter Nikola has said that being a communist in that period had “nothing to do with Russia” but was instead about the “rights of workers.” If so, Trumbo spent a great deal of “wasted” time defending Joseph Stalin. It is easy to confirm his zigs and zags in accord with the policy changes out of Moscow throughout much of his adult life.
When Stalin allied with Hitler in 1939, and announced that comrades should not support Great Britain’s military response to the Third Reich because it was an “imperialist war,” Trumbo followed suit. He wrote many vociferous attacks on the British during the nearly two years of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, despite that they were almost alone in fighting Hitler. His novelJohnny Got His Gun (1939) carried the same pacifist message, for the same reason—a fact that those who celebrate it rarely discuss.
To help the non-interventionist cause, Trumbo even defended the Third Reich. In response to Hitler’s crackdown on France, the famous civil libertarian disputed reports of Nazi brutality coming out of France, declaring that “To the vanquished all conquerors are inhuman.”
When the socialist motherland was invaded two years later, Trumbo suddenly and with equal passion switched to supporting the Allies’ war against Hitler. When asked how he could reconcile the pacifistic theme of Johnny Got His Gunwith his newfound bellicosity, Trumbo explained that the quadriplegic, blind, and deaf character he created would have supported the Progressive nature of the war.
The convolutions are breathtaking. The sudden ex-pacifist now found it necessary to denounce pacifists as fascists because they wouldn’t get into the effort to defeat the fascists. And an entity he had just gotten done lambasting as an American Gestapo, the FBI, was now worth helping. The famous civil libertarian encouraged the Bureau to arrest those who spoke out against the war (which, to be fair, did include some homegrown fascists).
After the war’s end, Trumbo’s thinking took a not very surprising turn back to peace as promoted by the Russians. He portrayed the Soviet regime in the manner it presented to the world: as a Progressive country that liberals could easily support. As Stalin swallowed up Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, and repressed countries such as Poland, Trumbo amazingly penned a 1946 article asserting that the Soviet Union “had no colonies.” In 1949, a year after being blacklisted, he doubled down, declaring the Soviet Union had no anti-Semitism because it was forbidden by the Soviet constitution.
Uncle Joe needed to be protected not only from the supposed fascists who ran the U.S. government but by rival revolutionaries: the Trotskyists. Trumbo, the famous civil libertarian, bragged of enforcing his own blacklist by keeping such “reactionary and untrue” works as Leon Trotsky’s “so-called biography of Stalin” from making it to the big screen.
The FBI, by the way, was bad again. He denounced it during the Cold War as a “hateful shadow preying on the citizenry.” Meanwhile, as late as 1956, he was still asserting Stalin to be “one of the democratic leaders of the world.”
If the arrogant Trumbo felt a sense of entitlement, so did many of his comrades, for the World War II period was the high tide of communist influence in the film industry. Not only were those like Trumbo highly paid for cranking out screenplays (into which they tried, with only limited success, to insert their pro-Soviet and pro-collectivist point of view), they had a power that reached beyond the industry. John Howard Lawson, the autocratic head of the Hollywood Communist Party, penned the 1942 California Democratic State platform. Trumbo himself wrote speeches for Secretary of State Edward Stettinius.
At the point when Soviet crimes became hardest to deny, the 1956 speech by Nikita Khrushchev admitting that Stalin had killed thousands of innocent people during the Purge Trials of the 1930s, Trumbo again had a characteristically arrogant response. He wrote to a communist friend that he was “not surprised,” having read all the notable anticommunist writers like Arthur Koestler and Ignacio Silone—even Leon Trotsky! So he knew about the murderous policies of Stalin all the while that he publicly defended the dictator? Yes, if that statement is to be believed. (Another possibility is that he just said that in order not to look like a dupe, which would have offended his dignity greatly.)
He enjoyed his position as editor of the prestigious movie-industry journal, The Screenwriter, and it cut no ice with him at all when one anticommunist writer pressed him to publish, in the interest of freedom of expression, an article that Trumbo didn’t agree with. Trumbo, as he rejected the man’s submission, informed him that freedom of expression wasn’t an inalienable right, in fact was downright fascistic and had led to the Holocaust.
Trumbo sidesteps such compromising matters. Clearly they would jeopardize the portrayal of Trumbo as civil libertarian extraordinare. The most criticism the movie allows in is that 1) Trumbo was a limousine communist who craved all the creature comforts of capitalism, and 2) he behaved autocratically toward his wife and children. The movie opts for a breezy, light approach at times (director Roach also made Meet the Parents in 2000 and the Austin Powers movies). But its “screwball comedy” tone halts when it comes to lauding Trumbo as a civil libertarian.
McNamara has said that he did “an enormous amount of research” to write the script, but that his chief source material was Bruce Cook’s 1977 biography of Dalton Trumbo. The Cook biography has been rereleased in conjunction with the film, and in fact Cook is listed as cowriter in the film credits. What is notable about this 1977 work is that it is a kind of time-capsule document of the attempted rehabilitation of Reds in the context of an anticommunism that was being blamed for the carnage of Vietnam.
In the era of the antiwar movement and Watergate, the countercultural Left was in the ascendant, and one sign that they were feeling their oats was their eagerness to promote the rehabilitation of the Hollywood communists of old. For Cook, and many other journalists, biographers, screenwriters, and novelists from E.L. Doctorow to Arthur Laurents (whose novel was the basis for the Robert Redford-Barbara Streisand pro-Popular Front movie, The Way We Were {1973}), the robotic Stalinoids among their elders were now airbrushed into heroic civil libertarians.
And now the time capsule has been removed from its cask and given the imprimatur of accuracy, with the movie following the biography in retaining in every detail Trumbo’s claims about himself as he sat before the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Early in the biography, the reader is helpfully alerted to a certain bias. Cook calls himself an “advocate” for his subject. Indeed he bases his account on interviews only with Trumbo’s admirers, such as his wife, his comrades in the Party, and fellow travelers including Cary McWilliams, editor of the Nation. No adversaries are heard from.
Ronald Reagan, for example, would have been instructive. Reagan went head to head with Trumbo and the other leading Hollywood Reds during the fight for communist control of the Screen Actors Guild in 1946. He recalled Trumbo’s defending the Soviet constitution as more democratic than the American one.
Cook tiptoes so cautiously around these aspects of his subject that Trumbo himself has to bring up the question of his Party membership. The biographer swallows whole the screenwriter’s explanation for joining in 1943—that he had long been allied with the Reds ideologically but now foresaw trouble ahead for the Party from anticommunists. Supposedly he signed on as a way of supporting, in their time of need, those alongside whom he had fought the good fight.
It would be no defense to say the compromising material alluded to above was not available in 1977. Trumbo’s defenses of Stalin, and (as unearthed by writer Allan Ryskind) of North Korea during the Korean War—along with the chilling statements about who, in Trumbo’s judgment, deserved to have his civil liberties respected and who didn’t, have been available in Trumbo’s papers donated to the University of Wisconsin repository since the 1960s.
Indeed one gets a sense throughout the film that McNamara knows Trumbo’s politics were hardly democratic. Other characters do call him a “swimming pool Stalinist.” But most such comments come from the hardline Right, whose representatives in the film are presented as the destroyers of civil liberties. McNamara has Trumbo land comfortably (and falsely) in the sensible center by ranging horrible people to his right, while contrasting him, on the other end of the spectrum, with Arlen Hird, a more hardline comrade played by Louis C.K. In response to Hird’s wish that everyone earn the same salary, McNamara has Trumbo reply urbanely that that would make for “a dull world.”
McNamara does allow that Trumbo was one to dismiss political arguments with frothy spin. Criticized by Hird for “talking like a radical while living like a rich guy,” Trumbo hastily improvises by reasoning that “a radical can fight with the purity of Jesus, but a rich man wins with the subtlety of Satan.” “Please shut up,” replies his comrade.
It’s a pity that this is the only moment in the film when a bullshit detector is applied to Trumbo. For, if one accepts that he did know what was really going on in the Soviet Union, he peddled his own brand of it albeit in a witty manner. The rest ofTrumbo lets its hero present to a credulous world, as if it were real, the hollow image of a supposed defender of everyone’s right to be wrong.

Ron Capshaw

Historian Ron Capshaw is a writer in Midlothian, Virginia.

Comments

  1. gabe says
    I wonder why anyone would be surprised about this?
    The Left has been (knowingly) wrong about everything over the course of the last century starting with Sacc & Vanzetti, The Red Scare of the late teens / early 20’s, the Stalinists, the Rosenbergs, the “Blacklist,” vietnam, etc etc etc – but it sure helps when the organs of communication (such as they are) are in your hands.
    What next Abe Lincoln was a member of some LBGT group -Oops, I forgot, they already tried that!!!!
    As for me, I prefer Ancient Aliens – their lies are more straightforward!!!

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Is the European Project Falsifiable?

link

"... I’ve developed the habit of asking proponents of the European project what would have to happen for them to stop adhering to it. Is there anything that might cause them to doubt their belief in the merger of European countries? The question is inspired by Karl Popper, who saw in the ability to answer this question the ultimate proof of a rational, scientific approach. He called this principle falsifiability: those defending a position – for example that European integration is important and necessary – should be able to say what would have to happen for them to abandon it. If they are unable to do so, their convictions are not rational or scientific, but ideological or religious...."

Popper introduced this question into the most important debate of his time and used it to expose Marxism. For it is impossible to falsify the view of history as a class struggle that will ultimately result in world revolution. It is a closed theory, based on a vision of the past (‘oppression’) and a vision of the future (‘revolution’), and nothing can possibly refute or prove it wrong. Marxism has an explanation for every possible event. If the workers revolt that is a confirmation of Marxist theory. If the workers do not revolt, then that is also a confirmation of Marxist theory, because failure to revolt is proof of their continued oppression. Whatever happens, we’re never to doubt Karl Marx’s prophecy.
The quasi-argumentation that currently justifies the European project is analogous in significant respects to the type of reasoning once employed by Marxist ideologues. Therefore, when I ask its supporters what would have to happen, or what would have to be proven, to make them change their mind, I never get an answer. Instead, a ritual-like repetition of the EU party line is rattled off, starting with the credo that ‘in the past, Europe waged war’ and that ‘unification brings peace’. The terrorist attacks in Paris, or indeed any other catastrophe (such as the eurocrisis), could never change that fundamental belief – because, so they’ll say, it’s a historical fact. Upon the suggestion that NATO’s role be included in our understanding of the peace we’ve witnessed since 1945, as well as the emergence of the Cold War, the rebirth of Germany as a democratic nation, the rise of the welfare state, the nuclear deterrent and a declining demography (all of which having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU), the europhile won’t argue with you (lest he might be forced to concede). Instead, he’ll shift the subject and say: “But the EU brings prosperity.”
If one then explains that free trade is perfectly possible without Brussels’ centralized management of the economy, that countries outside the EU do perfectly fine, and the euro currency has driven several member states to the edge of economic abyss, the Europhile counters that, actually, the real purpose of the EU is to form a ‘block’ against emerging powers such as China and Brazil. To the objections, then brought forward, that the EU undermines the real and unique strength of Europe – its political, legal, and cultural diversity – and that all decisive breakthroughs in European history, including the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, oversees exploration, technological innovation and economic competition, were possible precisely – and only – because of its decentralization, the true believer’s response is to remind you that Europe has enjoyed sixty years of peace. And so the argument comes full circle.
When people voice objections to further expansion of EU powers in referendums or opinion polls the conclusion is always: ‘We need to explain it better’. When its concocted schemes break down, as in the case of the euro, the answer is: ‘It was introduced too soon’. And when the open borders lead to enormous immigration problems and terrorist attacks, they call for a European army! Should you then point out, finally, that the Scandinavian countries and Britain will never agree to be ruled from Brussels by a federal government and an integrated army, the europhile generously suggests a ‘Europe of two speeds’.
Yes, why not have a two-speed Europe? It suggests an open worldview – tolerant and welcoming. Prudent. But what it really means, indeed, what is actually implied in the term, is that we are all on the same track – with the same destination. Some countries are going faster, others more slowly, but we’re all moving in the same direction. The Europhile simply can’t imagine two destinations. There’s only one destination, history moves towards one goal only. Some of us are pulling ahead (at full speed) while others are lagging behind (at a lower speed). But there can be no doubt about the final dot on the horizon.
Overwhelmingly, Europeans do not want the EU’s usurpation of their democratic rights of self government. Southern European economies are on the verge of collapse. Open borders have led to an immigration explosion and now terrorist attacks. A Weimar scenario is unfolding in Greece and Portugal. The Europhile draws only one conclusion: ‘We need more Europe’. His worldview is as hermetically sealed as that of the Marxist, and reality has absolutely no bearing on him. Over sixty-five years after the publication of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies, the poverty of historicism is still with us, alive and well, and shared by the overwhelming majority of our hopeless elite.

Thierry Baudet

Thierry Baudet is the author of The Significance of Borders. Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States, and he is the founding director of the independent thinktank Forum for Democracy.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

MSLSD!

link


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSRlRR_sA98



Jonah Gldberg had this to say about the rather revealing sentiments expressed by Melissa Harris-Perry in an MSNBC “Lean Forward” clip:
Before we get to all that, a word about the ad campaign itself. In one sense these ads are like the question, “You want extra?” from the masseuse at a shady Vietnamese massage parlor — proof that all pretense at propriety is exactly that, pretense. This is supposed to be a news network. Moreover, it is supposed to be a news network that constantly boasts of its professional and philosophical superiority to Fox News (and it’s true; except for ratings, influence, quality, and profit MSNBC kicks Fox’s butt). And yet, they run testimonials to state power with a frequency that rivals North Korean TV.
But in another sense these ads are the “extra” itself — a rather sad and perfunctory attempt to satisfy urges that barely rise above the masturbatory. The self-love oozes from the screen as the hosts’ inner-15-year-olds realize this is their chance to prove they’re as great as their favorite social-studies teacher told them they were!
Thanks to the magic of Hollywood, they preen for the cameras with an almost post-coital glow as they deliver their little sermonettes that amount to pointless verbal onanism. Hey, look. There’s no-necked Ed Schultz at a diner, looking like he’s having one last cup of coffee before he has to work up a sweat burying the corpse of a dissident union official still moldering in the trunk of his ten-year-old Coupe de Ville. And there’s Rachel Maddow (looking a bit like that aforementioned dead union official) trying to give her Stakhanovite commitment to infrastructure projects a romantic hue.
All Your Children Belong to Us
And now there’s Melissa Harris-Perry. By now you’ve heard of or seen the ad, but just in case here it is. In short, she thinks the idea that your kids are, well, yours is outdated and counterproductive.
Rich Lowry, praise be upon him, offers a fine summary of what Harris-Perry is getting at here. Actually, no disrespect to the guy who signs my paycheck (who is not only a powerful man, but a handsome one) but Harris-Perry herself was more than clear enough about what she’s after. The thing is only 30 seconds long, very highly produced, and straight to the point.
This is important because Harris-Perry is now simultaneously insisting she won’t apologize and insisting that she didn’t say what she so obviously said. In the ad she’s talking about the role of government, government investments, and ridiculing the idea of “private” ownership of kids. “We have to break through,” she urged, “our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.” Now she claims she was talking about civil society and voluntarism?
As the guy who took Obama to his first stable said when the president was about to step in some equine feces, “Oh, that’s horses***.”

Thursday, July 23, 2015

No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.

link
"... this deal may represent the single worst policy outcome of all of Obama’s illegalities.
Mike Ramsey has set forth the case that the Iranian deal is unconstitutional both under the original meaning and under modern law.  Under the original meaning, the Constitution’s provides the way to make major international agreements – through supermajority approval in the Senate, as set forth in Article II, Section 2.  Moreover:
Making major international agreements in the way the text prescribes is not just an eighteenth-century relic; it is the usual course for the United States today (subject to some exceptions noted below).  And the usual course is that if an agreement cannot get two-thirds approval in the Senate, there is no agreement.
What then are the possible justifications for it?  First, the “deal is an executive agreement, done on the President’s independent authority.”  But under the original meaning, there is a strong argument that executive agreements must relate to temporary and minor matters.  Moreover, a similar result obtains under modern law:
the agreements made by prior Presidents under this power have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers.  No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.
Second, “The deal is a nonbinding “political commitment” rather than a treaty.  Ramsey claims such nonbinding actions are legitimate under both the original meaning and modern law.  But the Iran deal:
doesn’t look like a nonbinding agreement.  Iran appears to understand it as a binding agreement.  And at least some of its terms appear to (purportedly) constrain U.S. action in the future, beyond the end of President Obama’s term.  It’s likely that a vocal defense of the agreement as nonbinding would substantially undermine the deal.
Finally, Congress will approve the deal.  While the original meaning does not allow a majority of each house of Congress to approve a treaty, in modern times sometimes Congress has done so.  But Congress is very unlikely to approve the deal.
Not only is the deal unconstitutional, its unconstitutionality is essential to it occurring.  If the President had to secure two thirds of the Senate or a majority of both houses, this deal almost certainly would not be approved.
Thus, once again, this President is taking illegal action to make an end run around the Congress to do things that are extremely problematic.  But this time, I fear, the consequences of his action may be worse than in the other cases.  The Iran deal is dangerous."

Friday, July 10, 2015

Allen West -- Facts about Socialism

link

...
"Then again, has anyone ever articulated to the American people what socialism is as a governing philosophy – and that it has failed every time it’s tried? Perhaps the GOP nominees should stop with the circular firing squad and just do a simple comparative assessment between the ideals of a Constitutional Republic and a Progressive Socialist state.
So I figured this ol’ southern fella would give them a helping hand, with five facts about socialism you need to share with every Democrat you know.
1. First of all, socialists believe in wealth redistribution. This is the most threatening principle for a free market/free enterprise opportunity economy. It seeks to punish those who have worked hard to earn and achieve and believes that it is the job of the state to “level a playing field.” We hear the poll-tested marketed lexicon of fairness, fair share, economic patriotism, and other gimmick words that sound nice. My question is simple; when will progressive socialists share their iPhones, iPads, and all the other niceties they have?
Wealth redistribution does not work because it basically says the indomitable individual industrial entrepreneurial spirit does not (and should not) exist. And if anything has built this great nation to its impeccable level of exceptionalism, it has been individual industrialism. But if socialists have their way, success and achievement become targets of envy.
You know, this past weekend the USA Women’s Soccer team won their third World Cup — unprecedented. Carli Lloyd completed a first ever hat trick in men’s and women’s World Cup history. Every team from all the nations represented had the chance to win the World Cup, but one team was the champion. It was the most widely viewed sports event and we even watched in our home. It brought out all Americans because we like winning. Socialists don’t like winning, they like believing they can choose the winners. Socialists would have redistributed goals from Team USA to Japan in order to promote fairness. We don’t accept that on the soccer pitch — why do we accept that as a governing principle for our nation?
2. Socialists believe in nationalizing the economic production of a country, they do not believe in the private sector, the free marketplace of ideas. They believe in their control and I remember one Rep. Maxine Waters making a mistake and saying that we should nationalize the airlines — she caught herself.
When you consider legislation offered such as Obamacare, it’s about government having a preeminent role and competing against the private sector. You hear the liberal progressive socialists of the left talk about government investments — that is simply not possible. Government does not invest, it spends, and it spends other people’s money.
And the fallacy of socialism is that it works out REALLY well until you run out of other people’s money. If the government gets into the business of public sector growth and engagement in the marketplace, you end up with crony capitalism. You end up with a government that believes it can pick those winners and losers in the marketplace — Solyndra anyone?
What’s worse, the private sector cannot compete with government nationalization of production because government can just raise taxes to increase capital, or print money. Folks out in the free enterprise world cannot do that — thank God.
But just as we saw the shares of three healthcare companies skyrocket after the recent SCOTUS decision in King v Burwell — government should not be able to mandate to individual citizens that they MUST purchase a private sector commodity — inconsistent with the Commerce Clause — but very beneficial to the business that the government has chosen to coddle. In these past Obama years, we’ve seen an incredible intrusion of the federal government into the private sector — case in point, college student loans. It never ends up well — but that’s what Obama, Sanders, and presumably Hillary Clinton embrace.
3. Socialists believe in the creation and expansion of the welfare nanny-state. That is the purpose of wealth redistribution: the move away from the opportunity society to the dependency society. And all one has to do is look at the increase of Americans in poverty and on food stamps in these past six years. Consider the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson, especially the REALLY nutty idea of government providing checks to women who have children out of wedlock…with an interesting caveat, no man in the home.
So government removed Dad from the home and that especially affected the black community which 50 years ago had almost 77 percent two-parent households — today that number is barely 25 percent. Socialists come up with these GREAT ideas — mostly billed as free — but the truly intended consequences are detrimental for the society. As Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley pleads in his book, Please Stop Helping Us. But that is the issue, in that socialism is emotional in its core and these elitists truly believe they can feel better by helping someone — when actually they are promoting the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The dependency society that results from the expansion of the welfare state breeds a lack of drive, determination, and initiative. Socialists do not believe we need a safety net for those who slip off the ladder of success and achievement, which advocates for the individual to get back up and climb. Socialists believe in a hammock — which eventually dry rots.
4. Socialists actually believe in social utopianism — they call it social justice. What this means is that socialists believe it’s not the individual who has the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a collective right granted by testate to guarantee happiness. Which is why socialists believe they must redistribute wealth, nationalize production, and give everyone a hammock.
Socialists do not believe in individual exceptionalism – as a matter of fact, “you did not build that” — someone else made it possible. And therefore justice is the sharing of what you THINK you have achieved – you can bet Hope Solo and Abby Wimbach are not about to give up that World Cup!
Socialists do not believe that if you work hard you can have a better life. They believe you must work hard in to spread it around — shared prosperity — because that is what makes a society happy – and makes them feel good, the essence of collectivism as the individual is lost.
Heck, it was MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry who even stated that parents do not have their own children — that they belong to all of us. Way wrong answer there, Mel.
I don’t need reparations. I just wanted to be a part of the opportunity society, not one based on classifying me as a victim needing standards to be altered to achieve justice for me. Socialists don’t believe individuals can be a victors — not on their own. The State exists to provide its version of justice — which is horribly unjust. Socialists like Julian Castro believe Fair Housing means socially engineering neighborhoods, and if you do not fit their definition — a utopian vision — you are in violation of being socially just.
5. Lastly, Socialists embrace the secular society. Why? Because faith has to be rooted in the State. Here in America, if God is removed from the public sphere, then who becomes the grantor — and subsequently the taker — of your unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The recent SCOTUS decision on redefining marriage — well, it has resulted in a State punishing citizens for their religious beliefs. That is exactly why folks fled Europe for America in the first place — religious freedom and liberty. There is a reason why we sing God Bless America — and He has, but that is not what socialists prefer.
It was Karl Marx who termed religion as the “opiate of the masses.” Nah Karl, we just know you should never put your faith in man. The Founding Fathers invoked Divine Providence as they signed their 56 names to the Declaration of Independence. They realized King George III was a flawed human being and the divine rights theory was not the way towards individual liberty — freedom comes from the natural rights theory. And that is why our individual rights are granted from our Creator, God — not Obama, Sanders, or Clinton.
It is a time for choosing, America. This socialism stuff may sound enticing but let me end again with the words of Churchill: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
I hate being miserable, and I certainly don’t want to share misery with anyone. That’s not how we roll in America folks!"

Sunday, April 12, 2015

More of the Same from the NYTimes

Now, over 100 years of tradition:

link

Unfortunately, this kind of behavior isn’t new to Andrew Rosenthal, the man who runs the editorial page for the New York Times. Rosenthal has a long history of deliberately misstating facts in order to make his enemies — people who aren’t hardcore liberals — look bad. Rosenthal was the individual who falsely reported in 1992 that President George H. W. Bush had never before seen an everyday supermarket scanner. Rosenthal’s lie was so blatant that even his fellow reporters thought it was a “cheap shot.”
Then there’s the deceptive headline Rosenthal’s team added to a Mitt Romney op-ed about Detroit’s financial troubles: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” Romney never said that or anything close to it, but properly reporting facts has never really been Rosenthal’s forte. He is not a reporter; he is a liberal activist with a soapbox and a megaphone.
Sadly, today’s faceplant by Rosenthal and the New York Times editorial board should really come as no surprise. They don’t care about facts. They don’t care about accuracy. And they certainly don’t care if their lies about guns and the NRA have no basis in reality. The New York Times has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with reporting the truth."
Mr. Rosenthal is the son of Abe W. Rosenthal, former reporter, city editor, managing editor, executive editor, and chief architect of the modern Times.    He famously fabricated a story as rooky city editor that made his name and his career.  
"One article assigned by Mr. Rosenthal, focusing on New Yorkers' fear of involvement in crime, recounted the murder of Kitty Genovese, a Queens woman whose screams were ignored by 38 neighbors while her killer stalked and attacked her repeatedly on a street for 35 minutes. The article shocked New York, and Mr. Rosenthal later wrote a short book on the episode, "Thirty-Eight Witnesses."   http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/nyregion/11rosenthal.html?pagewanted=6&fta=y>
Focusing on thoughtless, cruel, selfish urban sensibilities to not "get involved" in fellow citizens lives and victimization, the article became the basis for psychology textbooks teaching psychology students that this "urban apathy" is a real thing and a feature of our decadent society.
The REAL story missed by Abe the elder, an overzealous young reporter on the make was that New York's foolish and evil Sullivan Law alone brought about Kitty Genovese's stabbing murder in front of her apartment because even as a gay bar manager, transporting cash, even as a lesbian subject to all sorts of hate and threats, coming home alone daily at the wee hours of 3 AM, she was not able to obtain a handgun permit from the City of New York.  THAT's the story!  
The same could be said for John Lennon and countless other innocent, law abiding New York City residents murdered defenselessly.
Of course, further aggravating is that the NYTimes was a major driving force behind enactment of the Sullivan Law in 1911, jumping on a bandwagon launched by an assistant medical examiner after a Gramercy Park murder with a handgun.  Similarly, the REAL story was the corruption and criminality of state assemblyman Sullivan.
=========================================

Books MARCH 10, 2014 ISSUE

A Call for Help

What the Kitty Genovese story really means.

BY 

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Mark Wahlberg v. Marc Rich...

link


1 of Mark Wahlberg's victims says he shouldn't be pardoned


Associated Press

FILE - In this Nov. 10, 2014, file photo, Mark Wahlberg arrives at the 2014 AFI Fest - "The Gambler," in Los Angeles. Wahlberg asked Massachusetts for a pardon for assaults he committed in 1988 when he was a teenager in Boston. Wahlberg’s application with the Massachusetts Parole Board said he isn’t the same person he was 26 years ago and his past convictions are still affecting his life. Victims of one of Mark Wahlberg’s racially motivated attacks as a teenage delinquent in segregated 1980s Boston are divided over whether the actor should get the pardon he’s seeking. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP, File)
.


BOSTON (AP) — A victim of one of Mark Wahlberg's racially motivated attacks as a teenage delinquent in segregated Boston in the 1980s insists he shouldn't be granted a pardon for his crimes.
Kristyn Atwood was among a group of mostly black fourth-grade students on a field trip to the beach in 1986 when Wahlberg and his white friends began hurling rocks and shouting racial epithets as they chased them down the street.
"I don't think he should get a pardon," Atwood, now 38 and living in Decatur, Georgia, said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"I don't really care who he is. It doesn't make him any exception. If you're a racist, you're always going to be a racist. And for him to want to erase it I just think it's wrong," she said.
Mary Belmonte, the white teacher who brought the students to the neighborhood beach that day, sees things differently. "I believe in forgiveness," she said. "He was just a young kid — a punk — in the mean streets of Boston. He didn't do it specifically because he was a bad kid. He was just a follower doing what the other kids were doing."
The 43-year-old former rapper, Calvin Klein model and "Boogie Nights" actor wants official forgiveness for a separate, more severe attack in 1988, in which he assaulted two Vietnamese men while trying to steal beer. That attack sent one of the men to the hospital and landed Wahlberg in prison.
Wahlberg, in a pardon application filed in November and pending before the state parole board, acknowledges he was a teenage delinquent mixed up in drugs, alcohol and the wrong crowd. He points to his ensuing successful acting career, restaurant ventures and philanthropic work with inner city youths as evidence he's turned his life around.
"I have apologized, many times," he told the AP in December. "The first opportunity I had to apologize was right there in court when all the dust had settled and I was getting shackled and taken away, and making sure I paid my debt to society and continue to try and do things that make up for the mistakes that I've made."
Court documents in the 1986 attack identify Wahlberg among a group of white boys who harassed the school group as they were leaving Savin Hill Beach in Dorchester, a mixed but segregated Boston neighborhood that had seen racial tensions during the years the city was under court-ordered school integration.
The boys chased the black children down the street, repeatedly shouting "n-----" and hurling rocks until an ambulance driver intervened. Wahlberg was 15 at the time.
Atwood says she still bears a scar from getting hit by a rock. No one was seriously injured, but the attack left a lasting impression.
"I was really scared. My heart was beating fast. I couldn't believe it was happening. The names. The rocks. The kids chasing," Belmonte told the AP.
Wahlberg and two other white youths were issued a civil rights injunction: essentially a stern warning that if they committed another hate crime, they would be sent to jail.
In 1988, Wahlberg, then 16, attacked two Vietnamese men while trying to steal beer near his Dorchester home.
According to the sentencing memorandum, he confronted Thanh Lam, a Vietnamese man, as he was getting out of his car with two cases of beer. Wahlberg called Lam a "Vietnam f------ s---" and beat him over the head with a 5-foot wooden stick until Lam lost consciousness and the rod broke in two.
Documents say Wahlberg ran up to another Vietnamese man, Hoa Trinh, and asked for help hiding. After a police cruiser drove past, he punched Trinh in the eye. Later, he made crude remarks about Asians.
Wahlberg ultimately was convicted as an adult of two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, marijuana possession and criminal contempt for violating the prior civil rights injunction. He was given a three-month prison sentence, of which he served about 45 days.
Trinh declined to be interviewed by AP, and efforts to locate Lam were unsuccessful.
Judith Beals, a former state prosecutor involved in the cases, said Wahlberg's crimes stand out because he violated the injunction with an even more violent attack on people of yet another race.
"It was a hate crime and that's exactly what should be on his record forever," Atwood said.  [Sic]
___
AP reporters Johnny Clark in Atlanta, Steve LeBlanc in Boston and John Carucci in New York contributed to this report.

t's Comments
    t (7)

    • t 15 seconds ago
      You can never rely on the veracity of press accounts, even the once reliable AP, but if MW was 16, he should never have been prosecuted as an adult because he was, in fact, a minor, incompetent under the law to form the requisite intent constituting a crime, and NOT an adult. It is by the same token that a 16 year old can not give permission for sex and is "protected" in theory by laws against statutory rape.

      So the State (prosecutor, supported by a judge, in this instance) perverts the well-settled special treatment for children (juvenile delinquents), throwing them into incarceration with adult criminals of all degrees, where they can be raped or statutorily raped and/or recruited into crime organizations. That in itself is a heinous crime BY the State to deny a minor the legal protections and immunities to which one is, and has always been, entitled. That is patently unjust, a denial of due process, and needs to be sealed and expunged for good! Good Lord! Fortunately, this victim has enough wealth to make the point and fix their corrupt wagon up there in Massachusetts. I hope he does. He could also do well to fund and deploy several dozen lawyers to assist such children caught in an out-of-control and hysterical reaction to rampant crime.

      Meanwhile, the intransigent serial financial felon fugitive Marc Rich gets a bunch of absolute pardons from the disbarred Bill Clinton as arranged by the once honorable Eric Holder. Makes me sick!

      Apart from that, "prison" is for felonies punishable by a year or more. Anyone sentenced to less than a year could not be sent to state prison, as I understand it, but would be sent to the county jail for the three-months sentenced. I expect the AP reporter doesn't understand that. But the BIG issue is that children are NOT criminals to be marked, blacklisted, and damaged forever by criminal records, but are Juvenile Delinquents to be handled in Juvie Hall outside of the standards and practices of the criminal justice system when they can still be diverted, redirected, and reformed into responsible, law-abiding adults.