Recently outraged Internet theologians took umbrage at my refusal to join the effort to transform Jesus into a big government, liberal Democrat that supports the Occupy squatters.

Most echoed secular interpreters of Christ who claim, “Jesus shares many of the values of those in the Occupy movement.”

I contend Jesus had plenty of time to confront civil authority, yet Christ focused on religious authority. He didn’t discuss politics with the centurion or tax rates with Matthew. In fact the only system of government approved by God was that of the judges, and the Jews disliked that arrangement so much they demanded a king.

Democracy and social justice are not mentioned in the New Testament because it’s not a political science or economics text. The Word is directed at individuals and not Wall Street, corporations, the GOP, Congress or the Koch brothers.

Solutions will come, if ever, from individuals acting on their own and not collectivists like Nancy Pelosi telling us what to do. But I try to keep an open mind. Maybe I haven’t spent enough time with Occupy to form an accurate opinion.

Fortunately, my daughter saved me a trip and reported back on her encounter with those New Testament individuals working to establish the Kingdom here on earth. Last Saturday night Occupy was marching through Downtown DC to block Obama’s appearance at that den of inequity, the Alfalfa Club Dinner. My daughter’s car was stopped at an intersection blocked by Occupy marchers and in no time at all these “Christ–like” crusaders for Justice saw she was a young woman alone.

They surrounded her vehicle and began the spreading their word. Some dropped their pants to expose my daughter to the persuasive message contained in their genitals. Others sat on the hood and pounded their fists. All this took place accompanied by an inspiring soundtrack of curses, vulgarities and sexual harassment.

She wasn’t mistaken for a member of the 1 percent, gloating over the misfortunes of the poor. She drives a rice burner approaching 135,000 miles that’s decorated with dents, dings and rust spots courtesy of dad’s attempt to repair a broken window.

She was singled out because Occupy harbors an increasing collection of gutless thugs who get off on frightening women and the weak.

There were approximately five offenses worthy of arrest: genital exposure, attempted destruction of property, blocking an intersection, disorderly conduct, assault and wearing a mask to conceal identity (particularly ironic since these laws were passed by “progressives” to fight the Klan). Yet the DC cop standing and idly watching did exactly nothing and the media seldom reports this type of outrage.

I’m wracking my brain here, but I can’t find equivalent behavior on the part of the Apostles. Josephus writes of a Roman soldier starting a riot when he mooned Jews from his perch in Antonia Fortress overlooking Jerusalem, but that’s hardly part of the Gospel.

What’s amazing is how Democrats and fellow–travelers in the media demonize the TEA party and romanticize Occupy leeches. When the ugly undercurrent of the real Occupy movement finally makes headlines, the excuse is always these lawbreakers are “fringe elements” and not part of the main movement.

Really? Then why have there been almost 4,000 Occupy arrests? That’s an active fringe. You don’t find that when searching arrests at TEA party events.

But even the TEA party has a fringe, so lets compare.

TEA party fringe believes the Bilderberg Group is a real threat. Occupy fringe defecates on police cars.

TEA party fringe believes the moon landing was faked. Occupy fringe discourages a rape victim from contacting police.

TEA party fringe believes there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Occupy fringe smashes its way into Oakland City Hall, vandalizes children’s artwork and burns the American flag.

TEA party fringe believes the US should return to the gold standard. Occupy fringe urinates on food vendors in NYC when they stop giving free food to Occupy parasites.

Law enforcement wizards in DC may finally be noticing a trend. U.S. Park police commanders have decided, after four months of hand wringing, that it might be time to enforce the law against camping in McPherson Square.

Warnings have been issued against camping and its related activity, sleeping. According to spokesman Sgt. David Schlosser officers have been ordered to investigate tents for clues that include “sleeping bags, teddy bears and kitchen equipment.”

After reading that it’s difficult to decide which group is more pathetic. The unfortunate Park Police officers forced to search for binkies and blankets before making an arrest; or the Occupy cheering section that continues to insist this confederacy of creeps is on board with the teaching of Jesus.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations

 

WesternFront America

In 1991, the Soviet Union, arguably the greatest experiment in Communism, collapsed. After Mao Zedong died in 1976, his successors moved to shift its Communist economy to one that embraced Capitalism while retaining centralized government control.

Following World War Two, the recovering nations of Europe were rescued from Communism by the Marshall Plan, but adopted Communism-Light in the form of Socialism. The U.S. was already headed in that direction, creating programs that we now call “entitlements.” For most of the nation’s history, such “entitlements” did not exist.

What binds together the financial problems of the West is the common thread of infantile behavior and thought. One might call it wishful thinking. Instead of encouraging people to provide for old age and possible illness, politicians decided to turn government into Big Daddy, the eternal source of money for everything.

Need to go to college, start a business, or plan for retirement? Government would be there to help. All this ignored the need to actually pay for these programs. In the case of Social Security Congress began to dip into its funding to pay for other programs! This is what children do.

One can look around the world and see what a failure both Communism and Socialism have been. Governments spending more than their tax and other revenues have suffered grievously from this path to default and that includes the United States of America. It can be argued that, with few exceptions–the Reagan years come to mind—Presidents have been poorly served by their economic advisors.

Politicians make poor economists because, in America, members of the House must think of getting reelected every two years and Senators every six. Moreover, being politicians, they believe that the more federal largess they can bring back to their State and then brag about is the one true path to reelection.

At the very beginning of the nation, Thomas Jefferson said it best. “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

How many commissions and special committees have earnestly produced reports intended to deal with a government grown too large? At the federal level, some two million or more Americans are employed promulgating a deluge of regulations and pushing paper.

Now President Obama says he wants to streamline the federal government.
The real issue is not “streamlining” government agencies by gathering them together under one roof and one administrator, but the failure to end government departments and agencies that no longer serve a useful purpose and whose removal would also remove countless obstacles to economic growth.

In April 2011, Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute warned that “the federal government is on track to spend more than $3.5 trillion this year. What most people don’t know is that government actually costs about 50% more than what it spends. That’s because complying with federal regulations costs an additional $1.75 trillion—nearly an eighth of GDP. And almost none of that cost appears on the budget.”
The United States of America, the greatest engine of wealth the world has ever seen, is bankrupt. The national debt exceeds the Gross Domestic Product, the sum total of all revenue generated by goods and services.

The President has asked that the debt ceiling be raised another trillion or so and Congress will comply. That, I submit, is insane.

I also submit that, since Barack Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009, the nation has been witness to the economic insanity personified in the man and in the Democrat-controlled Congress that was his partner until 2010 when the control of the House of Representatives was wrested away by the Tea Party movement and its support for Republican candidates.

The only constant in life is change. America’s demography has changed. We have, thanks to medical care and other advantages, a much older segment of the population than ever before, but the nation from the 1930s to the 1960s had committed itself to ensure they would have Medicare and Medicaid at a time when people more often than not died in their 50’s and 60’s. We now have an average life expectancy of 78 years. My parents lived into their 90s.

Politics, not economics, continues to make it impossible to revise and restructure both Medicare and Social Security to reflect this reality. Instead, we had Obamacare foisted upon us which took trillions from Medicare and imposes rules that will let elderly heart attack or stroke victims die rather than pay for a level of care to which they contributed during their working years.

If the Supreme Court declares Obamacare unconstitutional it will go away. If we elect a Republican Senate, the repeal already passed in the House will be passed and it will go away.

But America’s economic problems will not go away until Americans insist that the shackles of Big Government be cut loose to enable the growth of an energy industry that can not only make the nation energy independent, but produce billions in revenue as far as the eye can see into the future.

The tax system with its thousands of pages must be revised to a simpler, fairer program. It makes no sense that forty percent of Americans pay no taxes at all.
It’s not that we don’t know what must be done. Conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, The Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and others have spelled out programs that can and will save America, but the nation must be led by a president who understands that Capitalism involves budgeting, planning, hard work, and—yes—risk.

The federal government is running on “continuing resolutions.” It has not had a formal budget since Obama arrived. This is no way to run the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. America is on a suicide watch and we are just an election away from saving it.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

WesternFront America

by Ron Paul

Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed.  The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act.  No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property.  Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time.  The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty.  To lower that bar is to endanger everyone.  When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th.  The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning.  It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial.  It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.”  How closely associated?  And what constitutes “substantial” support?   What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity?  Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment?  Is that charity now an associated force?

Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law.  That should chill all of us to our cores.

The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for “really bad people” or terrorists or even non-citizens.  It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror.  This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

 

WesternFront America

It has been observed that often a picture is worth a thousand words.  By this, it is meant that often a witty image can more quickly convey an idea than a written exposition.

Another truism nearly as classic insists that the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history.

A prime example of these working in tandem could be found on the cover of a late 2011 edition of the New Yorker Magazine.  Depicted violating the U.S. southern border were migrants adorned not in sombreros but rather in what would be considered traditional Thanksgiving pilgrim garb.

Such doodling, though admittedly humorous, displays a number of questionable assumptions.

For starters, the cartoon assumes that the illegal aliens of today are the equivalent of the Pilgrim settlers.

In addressing this issue, emphasis must be placed upon ILLEGAL.

The migrants coming here today are doing so in violation of the agreed upon governing authorities of the territorial United States.

The English Separatists voyaging here aboard the Mayflower committed no such transgression.   In fact, the pioneers making that trek were so eager to see law and order established that among their first acts was to promulgate the Mayflower Compact.   They are not to blame if the Indians did not have an as developed sense of property as we have in our own Western tradition or that there was not as much of a need to enforce borders back then as there is today.

The naive will likely respond but, if our Founders were all immigrants, who are we to forbid entrance to those that come here after us?

If that is the case, should those making such a case (especially if they are White) be forced to not only provide shelter to any minority squatter that crawls in through an open window but also cook daily meals and provide laundered sheets for the uninvited house guests?  If not, how is amnesty and assorted social welfare benefits going to those that have not earned them any different?

Those fawning all over the border violators of today will gush incessantly how moral and family oriented these blatant criminals are just like the Pilgrim settlers coming here to start a new life.  Even the likes of alleged conservatives such as Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family have at times been duped by this as evidenced by the time he got atop his Colorado high horse and proceeded to castigate Pat Buchanan regarding the syndicated columnist’s classic “The Death Of The West”.

However, just how moral are these new arrivals when one of their foremost weekend activities is bawdy drunkenness that often results in public urination?  It’s doubtful many Pilgrims blared music until 3 AM given the solemnity and austerity for which the rigorous Protestants of that era were renowned.

Often leftists like to harp on the decline that befell the American Indians once the historical paths of these people groups intersected with those of the Europeans.  Then let’s draw on some lessons from that episode as to why the United States of today must curtail the numbers crossing over the nation’s frontiers.

If the migrants of today are to be construed through the prism that they are the equivalent of the Pilgrim “foreparnets” (no need to set off radical feminists among fanatic grammarians), it must be pointed out that their famed work ethic wasn’t the only thing the early Puritans brought with them.  They also brought a number of diseases against which the population already residing here had little immunity.

Sadly, little can be done to prevent the suffering and death from the epidemics that swept across the New World centuries ago.  But with the germ theory of disease that has developed since that time, shouldn’t we honor those passing in that tragedy by clamping down on our own borders by only granting admittance to those from beyond our borders that adhere to the most rigorous of health standards?

Don’t think this is a valid concern?  Then why are not only diseases once thought conquered or at least under control such as tuberculosis but even bedbugs as well making a resurgence?

Nation-states exist primarily for the benefit of those already living within the boundaries of a particular delineated territory that have a proper legal basis for being there.  Once a culture loses its wherewithal to defend this particular principle, it won’t be long until it is swept into the dung heap of history.

Frederick Meekins

 

WesternFront America

Many DC–area residents have a taxi story. Few have happy endings. Mine occurred on a very rainy day at Union Station. I’d been shuffling along in an endless taxi line when my turn finally arrived. The cab pulls up and fortunately I happened to glance inside before I entered.

The cab’s vinyl–covered backseat was already occupied by a puddle of rainwater. A situation like this is a win–win for the cab driver: He gets a fare and my pants soak up the wet spot. It’s harder so see an advantage for the passenger.

Since DC taxis operate under a regime of rules and regulations my role as a cog in this vast machine was to get in the cab, let my BVDs absorb the water and beseech the authorities to rectify this injustice to my private parts at a later date.

But I’m a conservative, so I asked the driver to wipe the seat.

He replied, “Get in the cab.”

I asked if paper towels had been invented in his country and he replied, “Get in the cab.”
Peer pressure began to rear its ugly head. Line dwellers pressing up behind me wondered why I didn’t get in the dang cab. What’s more, the petty line bureaucrat was holding the door open and motioning me inside.

Further negotiation with the driver appeared pointless. Instead, I decided to try a market–based solution. Taking this cab and getting to my destination sooner was not worth riding like a frog in a puddle, so I asked the rider behind me if he wanted the cab. Evidently worries about mold growing in places that are hard to reach were less for him than myself, so he took the taxi. I took the next one, which featured a dry seat.

Citizens are competent to conduct transportation market transactions like this without government intervention, yet in DC liberals are not only increasing taxi regulation, they are aping policies that have been proven to be monopolistic and anti–consumer in other cities.

Mayor Vincent Gray (D–What, Me Worry?) and Council member Mary Cheh (D–Serious, Intellectual Glasses) want to establish a taxi monopoly by instituting a medallion system. This would limit the 10,672 licensed cabdrivers and 116 cab companies to only 4,000 medallions, stifling future competition and guaranteeing higher prices.

The medallion system in New York and Boston has proven a windfall for medallion owners and a disaster for competition. The last medallion sale in NYC went for $1 million each. In Boston the average price is $400,000. Both prices are in indication of artificial market scarcity created by government.

As part of the medallion package, DC would impose vehicle age and mileage limits, while offering the ability to pay with a credit card — something that has been possible in Las Vegas for years — but there is no mention of installing paper towel racks.

Cabs would also be limited to a single color, white in the esteemed Ms. Cheh’s opinion, while potentially adding a surcharge to each fare so the customer can pay for the politician’s “improvements.”

This is why liberal government is so expensive. There is simply no area of life or color scheme that the progressive mind does not think it can improve with a few laws and subsequent regulation.

The question is: why is government involved at all? Medallion systems and cab commissions protect existing businesses and generate campaign contributions at the expense of the public. This latest taxi legislation only proves the DC council is incapable of embarrassment, since the last time it was discussed a staffer for Council member Jim Graham (D–Bribe, What Bribe?) went to jail for soliciting bribes from cab companies that would benefit from the bill.

The federal government deregulated the airline industry over 30 years ago and ticket prices are lower now than in the 70’s. (Of course this also made it possible for people who wear pajamas in public to fly, but you take the good with the bad.) Bus companies are competing on the DC to NYC route and fares have never been lower and the buses vie with each other to offer more passenger amenities, without design help from Ms. Cheh.

Government doesn’t need to set fares, limit cab numbers or pick the color. All that’s required is a background check and exam for drivers, vehicle safety inspection rules, a requirement that fares (determined by the company) be clearly visible on the door of the cab and a reasonable number of inspectors. The market can handle the rest.
Is something like this possible? Can we ever prevent government from meddling in areas it isn’t needed?

It just so happens I have an idea. Make it illegal for candidates to accept campaign contributions from any industry that’s operations are substantially regulated by the office they seek.

I think we would soon see a tidal wave of deregulation.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

“By far the most important event in the entire rise of Christianity was the meeting in Jerusalem in around the year 50, when Paul was granted the authority to convert Gentiles without them also becoming observant Jews.”

So wrote Rodney Stark, the Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences and co-director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University. His most recent book is “The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion” ($27.99, HarperCollins).

For Christians in particular, I recommend it if only because so many have a tenuous grasp of Christianity’s real history, as opposed the versions that too often are casually accepted as truth.

The truth is that the rise of Christianity is one of the most extraordinary stories of the past two millennia. Stark not only has the knowledge of his vast subject, but he writes with such felicity that it is hard to put the 500-page book aside for both its revelations and its devotion to the facts.

Despite the fact we live in a society that has at most only 4% who self-describe themselves as atheists, the more active among them have the audacity to demand that Christmas be banished to the privacy of homes or the pews and pulpits of churches. They rebuke religion in general as the source of conflict and wars, but ignore the spiritual support and ethical lessons that Christianity provides along with its promise of salvation.

While Judaism was the bedrock of morality and faith that gave it birth, Christianity made it more accessible and significantly includes the Torah as part of its liturgy.

To ignore the rise of Christianity is to be ignorant of an essential element of Western history. Likewise, to ignore the threat of Islam whose beginning is usually dated around 622 CE and which exploded following Mohammad’s death in 632 CE is to ignore the greatest threat to civilization, past and present. Less a religion than a battle plan for world conquest, Islam preaches death to all “unbelievers.” Take heed!

Stark provides a summation to his book and, even so, I shall select only parts of it in the interest of brevity.

“The first generation of the Jesus Movement consisted of a tiny and fearful minority” of a religion, Judaism, that had already been around for a thousand years or more before the assertion was made that the messiah had come and was a crucified Galilean rabbi who mainly and briefly preached in that area of Israel.

“The mission to the Jews was quite successful: large numbers of Jews in the Diasporan communities outside of Palestine did convert to Christianity.” The Diaspora were the Jewish communities in the Middle East and throughout the Mediterranean nations, including Rome, living in places where pagan faiths were dominant.

“Christianity was not a religion based on the slaves and lowest classes of Romans, but was particularly attractive to the privileged.” Moreover, in its earliest years, women often played important roles. Contrary to popular belief, however, “Paganism was not quickly stamped out, but disappeared very slowly.” Paganism involved the worship of multiple gods as well as a belief in magic.

Despite impressive cathedrals, in medieval times church worship among Christians was largely ignored and, as often as not, the clergy were ill-informed about the faith and sometimes not even baptized.

Despite what is said of the Crusades, they were a campaign to reclaim the holy land from Muslims who had conquered it and they were led by men who knowingly bankrupted themselves and often died in this cause. Though Christianity had been widely observed in the East, the armies of Islam destroyed all but remnants, thus shifting its survival to Europe in the West.

“Science arose only in the West because efforts to formulate and discover laws of nature only made sense if one believed in a rational creator.” Even the misnamed “Dark Ages” were actually times of technological development. Likewise historians have determined that the Spanish Inquisition was “a quite temperate body that was responsible for very few deaths and saved a great many lives by opposing the witch hunts that swept through the rest of Europe.”

Perhaps the greatest surprise was the damage done by Constantine who, having made it the religion of his empire, gave rise to an indolent and hypocritical Church hierarchy initially composed of Roman aristocracy. It fostered a clergy who were ignorant of the faith and indifferent to its mission. Not until the Reformation was competition introduced, forcing the Church to return to piety, as various Protestant sects emerged, and energized Christianity in the process.

Stark concludes that “The claim that religion must soon disappear as the world becomes more modern is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of academic atheists. Religion is thriving, perhaps as never before. More than forty percent of the people on Earth today are Christians and their number is growing more rapidly than that of any other major faith.”

And that, as they say, is the good news.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

I have determined the time has come to examine the last few decades of American History, do some analysis, and ask some poignant questions to allow the reader to draw some conclusions and to question some presumptions.

Let’s start with the 60s.  A time when racism was common, segregation, discrimination and bigotry were institutional, and “the man” truly was keeping the black community down.

But “the man” wasn’t your typical right-wing conservative!  It was primarily the DEMOCRATS!

The early civil right movement was supported and encouraged by the GOP and conservatives.  Civil rights legislation was OPPOSED and even filibustered not by those evil right-wing conservatives, but by the LEFT WING Democrats!  (The filibuster of the Civil Rights Act was led by 18 Democrats and a lone Republican, and the HIGHLIGHT of the show was Senator Robert Byrd!)

Bull Connor, whose name is practically synonymous with racism and civil-rights opposition, was not only a Democrat; he was Democratic National Committeeman for Alabama!  He ran for Governor on the Democrat ticket.  He led the Alabama delegation to the 1948 Democratic National Convention to walk out over a civil-rights plank in the platform!

Another iconic Democrat, George Wallace, served as Governor of Alabama.  In his INAUGURAL SPEECH he made the following statement:  “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”

Lyndon Johnson is hailed today as a liberal pioneer and champion of civil rights, but Johnson himself was a notorious racist and no lover of our black brethren.  He did, however, view them as a malleable resource.  He did not oppose civil rights legislation  (which, by the way, was supported by the GOP and opposed by many democrats, and would never have passed without the GOP).  Instead he supported it as a means of securing power for Democrats.  He is famously quoted as saying “I’ll have these (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years!”  He was right!  For the last half of that predicted century – the black community has been a monolithic voting bloc, supporting democrats about 97%.

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

Johnson doubled down on Civil Rights – sensible, reasonable, moral and appropriate legislation – and ushered in the “War on Poverty”.

Vastly expanding on FDR’s New Deal Welfare State, Johnson ushered in a whole new culture, creating generational dependency and a paradigm of the entitlement mentality.

By providing a bare subsistence, but requiring nothing from the recipients; by subsidizing out of wedlock childbearing; by setting the “soft bigotry of low expectations”; a new “system” was created and the “underprivileged” soon learned the rules of the game to receive a meager but adequate living at government expense… without having to learn, earn or contribute to their own subsistence.  Add to this the deference to the Educational Cabal which promoted the teaching unions and denied vouchers and school choice, and the urban schools became cesspools where thriving educationally was virtually impossible.  A new dependency class was born – and could be counted on to vote for their “benefactors”.

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

The “war on poverty” is lost!  More people live near or below the poverty line than when the programs were started.  And for the record, there are as many poor whites as blacks, gaming the same system.  There are as many whites on assistance or food stamps today as blacks.  The “dependency culture” is not melanin specific!

Now let’s look at the 70s

Carter instituted the “Community Reinvestment Act” – ostensibly ending the banking practice of “redlining” which essentially declared entire neighborhoods to be bad loan risks.  A laudable purpose… but the real result of the Act was to force banks to abandon sound underwriting principles and risk assessment, and to make unwise loans to those who were at high risk of default.  This was the beginning of the “Sub Prime” Housing Debacle!

Nevermind that Carter’s other leftist policies drove the country to a “malaise” that brought us to the brink of another 30s style depression.  The CRA (and Clinton’s doubling down on it under the direction of ACORN in the 90s) set in motion the mortgage crisis, the Fannie/Freddie crisis, the banking crisis and ultimately all the economic woes currently being blamed on George Bush!

So how’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

The 80s saw a brief respite!  Reagan’s tax cuts DOUBLED revenues and spurred economic growth unparalleled in at least 30 years!  Despite the Tip O’Neal Congress increasing spending $1.84 for every dollar in new revenue, thus creating the so-called “Reagan Deficits”… the economy generally thrived and expanded.  Unemployment was down.  Interest rates came down.  Inflation came down.  Standards of living went up.  There was optimism in America.

Are you old enough to remember?  Do you miss those days?

The 90s were a mixed bag.  Clinton strengthened and expanded the Community Reinvestment Act – placing even more odious regulations on the banks and essentially telling them they MUST make loans to people who can’t afford them.  The mentality that homeownership is a right superseded the notion that Americans have a right to purchase any home they can afford!  The stage was set for collapse, and collapse it did in the latter half of Bush’s 2^nd term.  But remember that it was the Bush Administration and the GOP in Congress who raised the red flag in 2005, with the Fannie Freddie Hearings (check ‘em out on YouTube!) They sought to curb the problem while it WAS addressable…while the powerful Dems – Dodd, Frank, Waters, Clay etc. all stood up to defend Fannie/Freddie and it’s leadership.  “Nope, no problems here!  Nothing to see here, folks, move along.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

How’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

Still there was a silver lining to the 90s.  In 1994 the Gingrich Revolution and the Contract With America swept the GOP into power in the Congress.  With Newt at the helm, Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget and the first actual SURPLUSSES in 50 years – which of course Clinton took credit for, and which the complicit press has turned into accepted fact over the subsequent decade!  The positive numbers continued until 9/11 and the War on Terror.

The millennial decade is largely misunderstood.  Bush is touted by the left as the worst president ever.  They blame him and the wars for our economic difficulties at the end of his presidency.  But the reality is different from the narrative.

It’s true that the dot-com bubble burst, 9/11 and the wars took a toll on the economy.  We fell from surplus to deficit as we ramped up military action.

Still, Bush’s WORST deficit in his first 6 years (while he had a GOP Congress) was around $430 Billion in 2003.  Yup, His WORST deficit was around half the cost of the Obama Stimulus alone!  Still, that was a big number for its time.  So what did Bush do?  He instituted the Bush Tax Cuts that are once again in the news today!  The result?  3 consecutive years of reducing deficits!  The last year with a GOP Congress, the deficit was cut to only $120 Billion, a reduction of nearly 2/3 in 3 years.  Still, six years into his presidency, Bush was soundly and rightly criticized four raising our 4 Trillion Dollar National Debt by 50% to 6 Trillion.  And the reins of Congress were turned over to Pelosi/Reid.  By the time Obama took office, Pelosi/Reid had added a TRILLION to our annual deficit, and 3 more Trillion to the Debt!  NOTICE that in 2 years Pelosi and Company added 3 Trillion, while it took Bush and the GOP 6 years to add 2 Trillion.

So Obama comes into office with a 9 Trillion dollar debt.  In his time occupying the White House, we’ve seen the debt balloon from 9 Trillion to 15 Trillion… more than a 50% growth in 3 years!

How’s THAT workin’ out for ya?

Are you starting to notice a pattern here?

It’s been said that if you tax something, you get less of it.  If you subsidize something you get more of it.  Why, then, do we tax success and subsidize failure?

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, writes for the St Louis Examiner, at http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-st-louis/doug-edelman and was a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice.  His work has appeared on ChronWatch, Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com

 

WesternFront America

Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

~ Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Chapter 13 of Dr. Benjamin Wiker’s opus, “10 Books that Screwed up the World,” has a remarkable critique of “Coming of Age in Samoa” by the anthropologist Margaret Mead. This secular scripture of the left is a logical fallacy created out of whole cloth in the mind of a young graduate student in anthropology who in 1925 sailed to the island of Tau in American Samoa. According to Wiker, Mead’s work in essence explained “how the pansexual paradise described in ‘Coming of Age in Samoa’ turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations” – a Freudian psychological projection she wrote with fanatical zeal as a curse upon American society.

To the extent that Mead’s work was immediately and universally heralded by the academy and throughout progressive, socialist and liberal circles was not only an affirmation of the hedonistic times of the “Roaring Twenties” and the Jazz Age when the book was published, in 1928, Mead’s propagandistic attack against the Judeo-Christian sexual morality of the West by slandering the Samoan culture more pointedly is a prophetic utterance of the even more revolutionary times to come during America’s sexual revolutions of the 1960s and ’70s, from which the nation has never recovered.

That Mead used fraudulent methodology in gathering “facts” from primitive myths to suit her philosophical bias is shared by pre-eminent philosophers of the past. For example, Thomas Hobbes’ “Primitive Man” painted a grotesque picture of our natural condition based completely on a myth he created. Rousseau and Freud built upon Hobbes’ “Primitive Man” myth. All these men in essence shamelessly interjected their own personal policy perversions dressed up as trenchant philosophical reasoning and evidence to argue that human nature was best understood in man’s primitive state. Their fundamental supposition can be stated in the simple principle: the natural = the primitive = the good. Whether the savage be good or evil, a mischievous child or a brutal beast, he was the original Adam in the Garden of Eden in whose image our nature was originally created, and in whose image humanity must redeem itself by deconstructing all vestiges of civilization.

Was Mead a dispassionate, serious scholar, or did she have an agenda? Allegedly, she traveled to Samoa to discover whether “rebellion against authority, philosophical perplexities, the flower of idealism, conflict and struggle” were “difficulties due to being an adolescent or to being adolescent in America.” In other words, was adolescent angst and anarchy a natural phenomenon or purely a Western Christian aberration? Her real goal, according to Wiker, “was to convince the West that the rigors of Christian sexual morality were unnatural, and that its anxiety-producing inhibitions are something we’d all be happier without.”

Besides projecting her own perverse sexual proclivities upon the hapless Samoans, Mead was championing a radically new approach to education. “Education for Choice” for Mead meant to reject any importance of fundamental belief, and whose fundamental belief was that there was no fundamental belief. Echoing the infamous ideas of progressive education guru John Dewey, Mead famously wrote, “The children must be taught how to think, not what to think.”

Mead’s solution: Since we cannot go back to an agrarian society and Puritanical values, we can adopt the Samoan carefree attitudes about all things sexual into our culture; to free American society from the chains of morality and create a generation who would “tune in, turn on and drop out,” as SDS leader Timothy Leary notably said in the 1960s. If Shakespeare wrote, To each his own, then, Mead argues, how can there be a right if there is no wrong, and how can there be a wrong if we can find no one that can be definitively right?

In 1983, five years after her death, Mead’s scientific fraud was exposed to the world by anthropologist Derek Freeman who argued that “the main conclusions of ‘Coming of Age in Samoa’ are, in reality, the figments of an anthropological myth which is deeply at variance with the facts of Samoan ethnography and history.”

Later another anthropologist, Martin Orans, was even more direct. Orans asked: “How could anthropologists and other eminent scholars have largely ignored such blatant defects? How could generations of university professors have included CA as required reading for students? How could such a flawed work have served as a steppingstone to fame?” The answer to the first, Orans reasoned, is “ideological.” “We wanted Mead’s findings to be correct. We believed that a more permissive sexual code would be of benefit to us all,” Orans wrote. More importantly, her findings were a coup for progressive intellectuals, liberal politicians and for Marxist academics who believed in solving human problems by Marxist social engineering and biology based on Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Mead presents a classic illustration of the power of ideology (manipulating truth to what we happen to desire) over philosophy (the love of wisdom) in creating an existential pseudo-science methodology. As Orans makes obvious, the craving to generate a sexual revolution created a perfect storm in the secular minds of the progressive academy and in the minds of all too many very intelligent scientists who should have known better but nevertheless accepted and praised Mead’s work without putting it through the standard rigors of the accepted canons of science. Had they analyzed Mead’s work even on a perfunctory level, perhaps progressive scientists and academics would have deduced that her scientific research, arguments and conclusions were filled with holes and fraudulent misrepresentations. But they wanted it to be true.

On Jan. 19, 1979, President Jimmy Carter announced that he was awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Mead.

The Occupy Wall Street movement consists of the unwashed hordes of unreconstructed ’60s hippies, gay activists, anarchists and youthful savages defecating in parks and squatting in public squares across America, fomenting anarchy, committing vile sexual and lewd behaviors in broad daylight and turning liberty into license with the blessings of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. The protesters are in a sense legions of little Margaret Meads – the glorification of “Primitive Man,” the psycho-sexual fruit of her pseudo-scientific book, “Coming of Age in Samoa.”

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is an instructor at Spring Arbor University, the American College of Education, and the National Paralegal College. Washington is a co-host on “Joshua’s Trial, a radio show of Christian conservative thought which airs Sat. 8-10 am on www.WDTKam.com. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and has written extensively on constitutional law, history, politics, philosophy, critical race theory and other subjects. His latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust” (2008) and law review article, “Natural Law Considerations of Juvenile Law” (2010). Visit his website, Ellis Washington Report.

 

WesternFront America

For those in two–income households who have been wondering what the long–term effects of parking children in daycare would be, the results are in and the news is not good.

Quite a few members of the daycare generation are currently occupying Obamavilles in New York City, D.C., Oakland, CA and points in between. This is a natural outcome of society’s reliance on strangers to raise our kids. The daycare generation’s formative years led them to become accustomed to large, mostly benevolent, third–party organizations that dried their tears, filled their tummies and enforced the rules for sharing.

Inside this primary–colors utopia the daycare generation finger–painted signs, beat on the furniture, sang songs and it was absolutely free! At snack time Juanita never charged little Belgium or Saskatchewan for the goldfish or juice boxes.

It’s only natural, now that the daycare generation no longer depends on KinderCare, that they turn to the largest organization of all and ask Uncle Sam to make everything all better.

I had the opportunity to experience this firsthand last weekend at The Koch Konspiracy, better known as the American’s for Prosperity Conference, held at the D.C. Convention Center. During Friday’s Reagan dinner an occupy type attempted to disrupt the keynote speech. It started with a ripple of movement toward the front of the ballroom and then escalated into the same incoherent shouting you see in coverage of the New York City occupiers, only closer.

During breaks in the action during dinner, attendees went to the windows and watched occupiers block the street in front of the convention center. This is a familiar community organizing technique based on the theory that adding to gridlock with impromptu traffic jams is a sure way to generate support for your cause.

Once blocking traffic grew boring, the occupy mob attempted to storm the doors of the convention center and force their way inside. Security prevented this, but when the event concluded around 10:00 PM, the mob blocked the doors preventing the attendees from leaving.

These brave voices for the 99 percent used very small children in some barricades, putting them in front of the class warriors and against the door, so it could not be opened without hitting little Buffy. Other exits were blocked by jamming wooden poles through the door handles. All the entrances were treated to the usual smug tautological signs (“I am a human being”), drums and aggressively screamed obscenities.

A well–run police department would have responded by sending the civil disturbance unit. The D.C. department sent a handful of outnumbered officers who did little to clear the doors.

(As an aside, ask yourself what the city’s response would have been if NRA members had blocked the doors to Busboys & Poets or some other D.C. hotbed of failed ideology?)

D.C. Council member Tommy Wells (D–Delusional) was quoted by the WaPost as saying; “This is a very difficult job for police. Their job is keeping the protesters and people coming out of the convention center safe.”

No. The job of the police is to keep the peace and protect the law abiding. It’s not to observe the tantrums of this narcissistic mob and make a pathetic attempt to mediate between the innocent and the inciter.

On Monday, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said she’s had all she can stand and she can’t stands no more, describing the occupiers as, “increasingly confrontational and violent.” She promised the department will “adjust tactics as needed to assure safety.”

Somehow I don’t find a 60–hour response time to a near riot very reassuring.
Mayor Vincent Gray (D–Detached) pleaded with the rabble to “show restraint” so the movement is not “discredited by violence.” But as usual he’s not exactly abreast of the news.

In Oakland almost 100 occupiers were arrested after they threw pipes, chunks of concrete, firebombs and fired Roman candles at police. In Boston crack dealers were arrested at the occupy site. In Dallas, New York, Cleveland and Baltimore there have been reports of rape in occupy sites and I’m not talking about the corporate kind.

And in San Diego street cart vendors who made the mistake of initially giving free food to occupy denizens found themselves under attack by enraged blood and urine–throwing protestors when they decided to start charging for food.

There’s essentially no difference between these pampered and petulant occupiers going on the rampage against the nebulous offense of “corporate greed” and the three–year–old in daycare throwing a tantrum at the conclusion of recess because “it’s not fair!”

They are only older – certainly not wiser.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

There’s a woman who lives near me with a personalized license plate that proclaims she’s a WICCAN. If her idea of theology is a penetrating discussion with a pecan tree and she wants to proclaim her lasting commitment to cellulose; that’s her right. Even though the sentiment appears on a plate issued by the Commonwealth.

She’s joined by motorists displaying plates with DRUID, PAGAN and even VEGAN.

Although the thought processes behind the adoption of these belief systems are opaque to me — much like the decision to go out and get a tattoo — knowing religion–oriented plates are out there is not disturbing.

However, one can’t say that for atheists who are very easily disturbed. Evidently their dedication to their lack of faith is so fragile that exposure to slightest whiff of Christianity has the potential to propel them backwards into darkness and superstition. The next thing you know they’re eating Wednesday night dinner in a Baptist Fellowship Hall and wondering why there are never any salt shakers on the table.

Atheists and the separation–of–church–and–state crowd are busy banning Bibles in schools, crosses from Utah roadsides and the phrase “God bless you” from funerals in a Houston VA cemetery. Consequently, they aren’t focused on license plates, but I have a feeling it’s on a To–Do list.

Readers who rely on the news media for their Constitution instruction may not know this, but the document is not actively anti–religion. The founders were believers and the thought of banning government from even the most glancing connection with God would have seemed absurd to them.

The Constitution only prohibits the establishment of a state religion, for example: Emperor worship during the Roman Empire or the Anglican Church in England under Henry VIII.

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. This atheist catchphrase originated in a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson and has no more force of law than this column.

And Jefferson, bless his heart, had his idiosyncrasies. Acting as the Gutenberg of the scissors and a paste–pot set, Jefferson produced his own Bible by literally cutting out the parts he didn’t like and keeping what he did.

This may make him the first Unitarian Universalist and would probably qualify Jefferson to be ordained as an Episcopal bishop, but it does not make him a reliable source on the religious views of the founders.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the religion scrubbers are correct and the Constitution justifies purging all trace of worship from the public square. The question is what type of government do they think will result?

A cool, clean empire of intellect ruled by Mr. Spock? Maybe, but China is more likely.

This would make many progressives very happy, including those in the White House. China is a communist government run by experts. (A two–fer in progressive circles.) These experts don’t get bogged down in partisan gridlock caused by annoying Republicans who smoke. Decisions are made based on science, not politics. Plus, the experts are Asian and everyone knows how smart they are.

China is also rich. And it has bullet trains that fly between major cities. State–sponsored abortion is legal. (You could almost call it human sacrifice, but that sounds too much like religion.) And since there is only one party, there are no messy political campaigns and tacky commercials.

China is everything a secular humanist could wish for, until a toddler gets hit by a truck.

Then you learn the price for removing religion from the public square. 18 different people in Guangzhou watched as a two–year–old girl, who wandered into traffic, was smashed by delivery van. They left her lying bloody in the street until she was run over by a truck. Finally, after seven long minutes, an elderly scrap peddler, who may not have had anything to lose, dragged her out of the street.

People don’t help injured two–year–olds in China because helping others is not state–approved behavior. In 2007 a young man was sued after he helped an elderly woman with a broken leg to the hospital. The Wall Street Journal reports the court ordered the rescuer to pay 40 percent of the woman’s medical bills because “according to common sense” he would not have helped her if he had not been in some way responsible for her fall.

This is social Darwinism as a governing philosophy. Altruism only creates suspicion in a government where religion is banned.

This is why over time the religion haters won’t like the government that results from their efforts. Because when you jettison God you also jettison the Good Samaritan.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America