The Great Mystery

In spite of the monumental events of these turbulent times, this blog has not featured many posts of late. Blogger in chief, actually the only blogger, Jean-Baptiste, has been busy with other matters. It is not because he has been overwhelmed by the onslaught of the popular press, such as the incessant frivolities from the trivial triumvirate of syndicate columnists, David Brooks, E.J. Dionne Jr., and David Sirota. It is true that untwisting the truth from their daily barrages against conservatism and their progressive propaganda would be a full-time job. Lately, they have repeated the big lie that BHO is actually moderate. Glen, Mark, Laura, Sean, and Rush along with their guests have gone to enormous lengths to show that he is our most radically leftist president in history. (Jean-Baptiste suspected this all along.) Also see David Limbaugh's book, Crimes Against Liberty, for a rundown of the evidence against BHO.

Actually, Jean-Baptiste has been meditating on the 'gods of the copybook headings.' Who are they? Kipling's poem says that they are not the market place. That leaves the Progressives as the primary suspect. Anyway, read the past blogs on The Overton Window, or Glen Beck's book itself for an explanation of what all that is about. Kipling's poem gives some insight into the motives of these 'god-like' progressives, delving into the 'Great Mystery.' The Great Mystery is: why do they keep doing it, why can't they just leave us alone? Is it their depraved greed and lust or some mental defect?

Anyway, Jean-Baptiste also had a garden and berry bushes to cultivate and harvest during the Summer. He had cats, birds, and raccoons to take care of. He had a lot of work to do outside. He had his stamp collection to work on. He even had to get away a little. Lately,he was also reading the Koran. The part where God says, 'remember me, I will remember you,' seems to fathom some unknowable depth. The first words of every chapter are, 'In the name of God, the beneficent, the merciful.' Beneficent means He gives us more that we deserve, merciful means that He punishes us less that we deserve. Christian mystics have said they pray incessantly, by saying the Jesus prayer with every breath: 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.' The Islamic mystics repeat: 'There is no God but God." For the less theistic: 'There is no Reality but the Ultimate Reality.'

It can be a little tough to stay focused on the current convoluted progressive schemes of Axelrod, Emanuel, BHO, and their masters.

Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't

Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.

Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.

Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.

That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)

Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.

Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.

Tea Party vs. Big Government Big Business Progressives

After the latest Senate vote failed to pass the Financial "Reform" bill, one of the Democrat senators stated that big money had won out over the little guy. She and other Democrats were for the "little guy." Nothing could be further from the truth. The progressive plans of those who currently wield povernment power, that is BHO and the Democrat Party, are and always have been very close to big business of all kinds. They need one another. Politicians need the donations, which they can obtain by promises, trickery, bribes, extortion, and black mail. Industries need government to give them favorable treatment over their competitors. Big spenders in government are also some of their best customers.

The so called Progressives are the masters of the big government big business game. Progressives need a lot of power to implement their schemes because they have the biggest schemes, so they need big money support. Usually they will dump their supporters after they serve their purpose. For example, communists use the big unions to obtain power. After communists gain power, workers essentially become slaves.

Now there are dozens of progressive plans gaining support in Congress or waiting on the sidelines. Big Government is pushing bills to support Big Pharma: regulate their natural supplement competitors. Big Agriculture: remove limits and stigma attached to genetic modified food. Big Labor: dozens of ideas, such as the Card Check bill. Big Media: Propaganda directed against competitors ("Net Neutrality"), and maybe eventual bailouts for failing liberal news outlets. Big Medicine: Government Health Care. Big Energy: Cap-and-Trade. Big Finance: "Reform" proposals (which will destroy competition and make the big remaining companies virtual government partners.) Big Education: Bailouts and grants for state education (with plenty of strings attached) to support high teacher unionized salaries and benefits.

The business government bandito business goes on with Democrats and Republicans both. However, the Demos, being bigger spenders, have the most to offer. This is exactly what the Tea Party is about, ending the government business spoil system that is bankrupting the country. Luckily we still have a semi-free press for the most part which is exposing their schemes as quick as they pop up. For example, from what little I know about the recent book, "The Manchurian President," many of the progressive, communist, money, power connections are explored vis-a-vis the Obama phenomenon.

One of Washington State's congressional members seems to be a poster child for a lot of these progressive schemes. Jay Inslee's web site:

http://jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=83

Air America Bites the Dust

Liberal radio talk network, Air America, has gone out of business. The reason for this according to radio show host Michael Savage, is that America is tired of hearing over and over the same liberal drivel. Savage describes the typical tone of their discussion as"...snide and sneering..." toward the traditional views and attitudes that makes America and Americans great. On one of their programs a few months ago, a conservative caller questioned the liberal view that government can and should provide free health care to everyone in the country. After the two hosts asked him a few questions about his background, they proceeded to psychoanalyze him. They seemed to believe that to question liberal policies, one had to have a mental disorder. They were quite understanding of this poor soul who, because of his early travails, had developed a psychological disorder that caused him to be insensitive. They made no attempt to address the issue he had raised. (Does the phrase "effete impudent snob" come to mind?)

Recently, all media outlets have experienced business difficulties. Many liberal print news outlets have gone out of business. Conservatives have explained that not only is there internet competition, but the public no longer blindly support the liberal editorial policies of most newspapers and magazines. This is only partially true. Many reading and thinking individuals in this country, unfortunately, do support liberal editorial policies. However, most commentators neglect the explanation of supply and demand. If the country is divided 50-50 between liberal and conservative, then there should be about that distribution of attitudes in the media. However, the division seems to be about 95% liberal medial outlets and 5% conservative. If the same commentary and spin on the news is available on the television news outlets for instance, then why should the liberals bother with getting it from the liberal newspapers? In other words, there is an over supply of liberal media. The conservatives have only Fox television, talk radio, and a handful of newspapers. (Even Fox news, in this writers view, accepts many of the liberal assumptions of the lamestream media.)

Besides on the traditional editorial page, most liberal outlets put a slant on every aspect of the news. They still talk about Obama changes as 'reform.' Commentators on the right may call them measured and cynical tactics to bring about socialistic control, but they do not claim to be unbiased disseminators of objective facts. There are also entertainment shows that satirize both the left and the right (with the same 95-5% split). How often does AKA Liebowitz (John Stewart), Colbert, or Overbite-Countdown to No Ratings satirize the left? With so many and varied liberal mouthpieces, many are bound to be nonviable economically, especially if they depend upon advertising from a highly depressed business sector. The movement to have taxpayer funds support failing news outlets only serves to embolden newspapers in their liberal leanings. Government support would only discourage them from giving a voice to both sides of the issues. In spite of the US Constitution, government funds for newspapers seems just fine to most liberals. (Give me a break.)

Lying to Save the Planet

Lying to save the planet has obviously been a tactic of environmentalist and one of them fessed up. On the Peter Weisback radio show out of Seattle today an environmentalist leader was interviewed by a fellow with a British accent. Actually it was more of a cross examination; he didn't let up until the witness admitted that he did not believe that the Arctic would really be ice free by 2030 as he had stated science had revealed. The interviewer pointed out that the Greenland Icecap was about 1.5 million square miles and three miles thick. After trying to dodge five or six questions, the environmentalist stated that it was sometimes a good idea to emotionalize the issue. The interviewer stated that these were scare tactics. Weisback said that what he meant by 'emotionalizing' was he sometimes lied to advance the policy agenda of global warming. This has been rather obvious for a long time but the press, according to Mr. Weisback, continues to regurgitate what the environmentalists feed them. That has also been obvious for a long time.

New Target for Hate and Takeover: Wall Street

A method of the revolutionary left seems to be to accuse conservatives and Republicans of some imaginary wrong, then some time later, they actually do what they had accused the conservatives of doing. Then when they are confronted, their defence essentially is: Bush did it first. Aside from being intellectually repugnant on several levels, this is generally a lie. Is it that we are so jaded by hearing the fraudulent complaints of the left, that like Pontus Pilot, we ask, "what is Truth?"

We have heard for the last eight years all kinds of bizarre accusations directed against the Republicans of how they are attempting to control the population by imposing their Farwellian, fundamentalist morality. Aside from the fact that Christianity has retreated so far, that we are at last putting up a feeble defense of the last two or three percent of our former territory, I would say, "who cares?" I do not see our freedoms currently under any serious threat from the Christian right. On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see and with the slightest sense should realize that the left, under President Barack Husein Obama [BHO] with the aid of the leftest congress and liberal press, are currently a great threat to our liberties.

BHO's attack on Wall Street is the latest attempt to gain more power over the institution of this nation. It should be clear, based upon recent similar tactics, that the anti-Wall Street propaganda coming directly from BHO is the harbinger of another take-over attempt. I hope he is stopped. Unfortunately, the public hears only one side. They know about the excesses of Wall Street executives and they have heard over and over that they are the sole culprits responsible for the present and all other economic downturns. On the contrary, government economic intervention itself has been and remains the main culprit. Capitalism, the free market, and our complicated financial system has been responsible for the greatest advances in the history of humanity. Its abundant shortfalls, as aforesaid, are chiefly the fault of government intervention.

There are also dishonest people. We should be protected from them by the police powers of the government. Fraud is an ever present danger, which in fact could probably be avoided by the unimpeded functioning of a free market better that is is by the government. BHO's covetousness of the productive forces of this nation far exceeds the mere policing of sharp business practices. Unfortunately, the results of government failings in detection of fraud along with problems created by intervention in financial markets by government, is not even an issue under discussion. Instead, big business and industry along with their needed financial system are blamed for all our ills and are currently under threat of destruction from BHO. This is madness and chickenshit of the highest order.

Rude Awkening

I was awakened this morning to the voice of Robert Redford on my clock radio tuned to National Public Radio (NPR). That's the only radio that I generally have tuned to that station. It helps me get up in a hurry, in order to turn it off. Mr. Redford was saying that obviously we cannot trust a corporation to tell the truth about not polluting, and incidentally about not breaking the law. This seemed a self-evident truth to the speaker and the interviewer, Mr. Bob Edwards.

Mr. Redford made remarks regarding the arts, public broadcast, oil companies in Alaska, etc. Of course he did not understand why our government did not support the arts as other nations do. Instead, some people even try to cut off funds to public arts and broadcasting. He also described the environmental destruction that would occur with oil drilling in Alaska. Mr. Edwards took a compliant stance. He did not questioning anything that was said, regarding veracity, sources, or opposing views. He didn't opine that we needed to get oil somewhere. Whatever this peculiar type of interview was, it was not investigative journalism. It is characteristic to public radio.

Most radio talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh for example) refer to Mr. Redford and NPR, among others, as the Media/Hollywood Elite useful idiots. They are described as unbelievable naive, complete morons, hopelessly biased and indoctrinated, and illiterate regarding anything of substance. I cannot recall Mr. Limbaugh's more colorful phrases. I do know what I often hear from Hollywood stars and on NPR. I have also read about energy needs and Alaskan drilling. In the final analysis, if I had to choose between Redford's generalizations about corporations or Limbaugh's about Hollywood and NPR, I would pick Limbaugh's as the more supported by evidence.