The Camp Of The Saints

Archive

Newer | Older

Friday, April 3, 2009

HANSON THE MAGNIFICENT

In his column of 01 April, Victor Davis Hanson answers the question:

What, then, is the mindset behind America’s new approach to domestic policy and foreign affairs?

A few highlights:

If you believed that average Americans are not well educated, do not think in sophisticated and rational ways, and cannot be trusted to make good decisions, whether for themselves or for their nation, then you would expand the power of better-educated and wiser government overseers. This would ensure that, instead of millions of private agendas that lead individuals improperly, and at times recklessly, to acquire and consume, we would have benevolent and far-sighted powers directing our lives in ways that benefit the environment, the economy — and themselves.

And...
If you believed that the story of the United States is more a narrative of gender, race, and class oppression than of brave souls promoting liberty and trying to reify the promise of the Constitution, then you would have empathy for fellow victims of such endemic Western oppression. The cries from the heart we are hearing from Bolivia and Cuba, from Iran, Syria, and the West Bank, are not anti-American, much less illiberal: they are efforts to articulate the oppression that the people in those places have suffered at the hands of others.
While in the short run the once-victimized may need to be deterred in their anger from harming the United States or themselves, in the long run their legitimate grievances must be addressed through a variety of concessions, apologies, or dialogues in order to promote the general peace. That a Hugo Chávez calls Americans “gringos,” or Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva blames “white, blue-eyed” bankers for the financial mess, or that state-run Palestinian papers refer to Jews as “pigs and apes,” or that the Iranian president serially claims the Holocaust is a concoction of Zionists, is all an unfortunate rhetoric of the oppressed (in the same way Reverend Wright once referred to Italians as “garlic noses”), brought on by colonization and exploitation, rather than proof that a large portion of the world beyond our shores is run by racist — and rather loony — people.

Finally...
If you believed that the traditions and customs of the United States are largely a story of the oppressed overcoming the perniciousness of the privileged, rather than the collective efforts of the many to stop tyranny, then you would talk about past oppression, past victimization, and past unfairness far more than you would evoke Shiloh, the Meuse-Argonne, or Iwo Jima.

Mr. Hanson understands Tiberius Obamacus and his minions like, sadly, few others do. He possesses the powers of a great mindreader. The whole article is a must read if you desire to understand just how much of a danger these fools pose to our way of life.

Please take the time to click here and read the full column.

3 apr 09 @ 4:43 pm edt Comments

KICKED IN THE TEETH

Over at NRO, Mark Hemingway is outraged that the Navy is going to present it highest civilian honor, the Distinguished Public Service Award, to Representative John Murtha. As you probably know, Mr. Murtha is part of the Democratic Leadership and has been implicated in a bribery scandal and other like unethical behaviours. While these are despicable things, none of them provoke Mr. Hemingway's justified outrage. Rather it is what Rep. Murtha said in 2006 that does:

“They killed innocent civilians in cold blood. They actually went into the houses and killed women and children,” Murtha said at a Capitol Hill press conference in 2006. “But I will not excuse murder. And this is what happened. There’s no question in my mind about it.”

Believe it or not, Murtha was talking about U.S. Marines. He later repeated these charges on a number of news programs — and even from the floor of Congress. Murtha made remarkably bold accusations of war crimes against a group of soldiers regarding an incident that had yet to be properly investigated.

On November 19, 2005, a Marine convoy in Haditha, Iraq, was hit with an improvised explosive device, killing one Marine and seriously wounding two more. Following the ambush, the surviving Marines of 3/1 Kilo company launched a counterattack, killing 24 Iraqis in the process. Fifteen of those Iraqis killed were civilian noncombatants.

Tragic though it was, the Haditha incident normally would not have raised suspicions — after all, the United States was at war with an insurgent force in Iraq that was comprised largely of civilians. Further, according to Marine Corps press releases, Haditha was known as an insurgent hotbed.

Eight Marines were arrested a month later; however, the entire basis for the charges against them appeared to be fog-of-war discrepancies in the initial reporting of the incident, as well as a Time magazine report which suggested a massacre may have taken place on the basis of interviews with local Iraqis.

Three-and-a-half years later, the most relevant fact about the Haditha investigation is this: Seven of the eight Marines charged with murder have been completely exonerated, and the prosecution of the eighth has been suspended indefinitely. There’s almost no doubt that there was an initial rush to judgment, and that Murtha’s comments were slanderous.

Not only is what Murtha said outrageous, it is also disgusting.

To add insult to injury:

...Murtha is particularly despised by Marines, since he is a retired Marine colonel himself. The close-knit leatherneck community feels Murtha was bound by honor to stick up for the rights of his fellow Marines, not to play judge and jury from the floor of the Capitol building.

For many, it was like a punch to the gut when the Navy announced in early March that it was bestowing on Murtha its highest civilian honor: the Distinguished Public Service Award. The award even cites Murtha’s “loyalty to the men and women of the Department of the Navy,” which oversees the Marine Corps.

This is betrayel of the worst kind. The man is the lowest of the low.

Quoted by Mr. Hemingway, Iraq war veteran Gabe Ledeen's comment sums up nicely what our soldiers feel about this cretin:

We expected to be attacked over there; we didn’t expect to be attacked by members of Congress.

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. Hemingway's full article.

3 apr 09 @ 4:31 pm edt Comments

RODHAM-FISTED

When I posted earlier this week [here] about Hillary Rodham Clinton's gaffe at the Basilica Of Gaudalupe, I did not know the full story. Her behaviour the whole of that day was disrespectful, insensitive, boorish, and ugly as Joseph Duggan relates over at The American Spectator:

Color photographs and loud captions atop page one of the daily El Universalcaptured the Mexican public's sense of outraged bewilderment at Mrs. Clinton's visit March 26 to the Basilica of Guadalupe, Catholicism's second most visited shrine after St. Peter's in Rome.

The Basilica rector, Monsignor Diego Monroy, stands with Mrs. Clinton and shows her the mestiza Madonna whose story is known to every Catholic schoolchild, an image believed to have been imposed miraculously on an Indian's cloak five centuries ago.

HILLARY CLINTON: Who painted it?

MONSIGNOR MONROY: God.

La Guadalupana is the archetypal icon of Latin American Catholicism. Catholics in the United States as well as in the Latin countries today invoke the Virgin of Guadalupe as the special patron of the pro-life movement.

Was Hillary's public diplomacy fiasco a calculated insult addressed to something she regards as a superstition, or simply the unrehearsed utterance of a person so soulless that she cannot fathom believers' sense of mystery?

A clue to the answer came in the traveling diplomat's next stop after Mexico, Houston, where she accepted the Margaret Sanger Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation.

In Houston, Hillary lauded the very evils that pilgrims to Guadalupe pray to overcome: liberalized abortion laws and making United States taxpayers pay for abortions and abortion propaganda in "developing" countries.

The comparison of Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) and Josef Mengele (1911-1979) is not overdrawn. Even a cursory examination of her life's work and pronouncements shows Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, as one of the most strident and inhumane racists of the eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s. In April 1932, for example, she wrote an article urging "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." Eugenics was a fashionable social policy panacea at that time not only in Hitler's Germany, but also among powerful elites in the United States and other Western democracies.

Mzz. Rodham is an honored member of The Culture Of Death.

Please take the time to click here and read the full article.

3 apr 09 @ 10:43 am edt Comments

IF BUTTERCUPS BUZZ'D AFTER THE BEE....

Foreign policy analyst Nicholas Guariglia thinks we should shoot down the missile North Korea says it intends to launch and offers his reasons:

Struggling through an economic downturn, Americans are more worried and anxious about domestic issues. The world’s tyrants sense this and look on advantageously. Additionally, President Obama is perceived around the world as a borderline pacifist. His is not only a new, untested administration, but he himself is a new, inexperienced face on the international scene. (In case you’re wondering, the tyrants like that, too.)

Kim Jong Il no doubt feels more comfortable provoking Obama than he would have, say, John McCain. It should be President Obama’s mission, then, to force Kim out of his comfort zone by taking a hard line against Pyongyang. Standing up to North Korea in a brazen fashion would be unexpected at this time and would be unexpected from this administration. It would come as a surprise to Kim’s inner circle — and to dictators all over the globe — which is all the more reason why Obama should consider doing it.

But we shouldn’t hold our breath. Secretary of State Clinton has talked about a “response” to the looming missile launch and the “range of options available … in the wake” of such a provocation. Secretary of Defense Gates has said, “I would say we’re not prepared to do anything about it.”

Nonsense. Admiral Timothy J. Keating, commander of PACOM, has explained in great detail the military’s capacities and capabilities. There are 18 U.S. Navy ships off the Korean peninsula with the Aegis missile defense system; Japanese and South Korean warships have the system, as well. Navy vessels with interceptor missiles are prepared to fire “on a moment’s notice,” according to Admiral Keating. “Should it look like something other than a satellite launch, we will be fully prepared to respond as the president directs. … Odds are very high that we’ll hit what we’re aiming at. This should be a source of great confidence and reassurance for our allies.”

Keating’s right. And have no doubt this is not a mere benign “satellite launch” — despite what Pyongyang claims. Missile experts from the Iranian theocracy are present at the launch site to “help” the North Koreans. Ahmadinejad has sent a letter to Kim, stressing the importance of cooperation in nuclear and missile technology. And remember, Pyongyang was caught red-handed in the A.Q. Khan black-market network and was also caught helping the Syrians with their nuclear program. Kim’s is a cash-strapped nation and his nuclear program is for export — in other words, for cash.

He's right. There's too much at stake here. The Japanese have said they will get involved. We should thank them, but tell them we will handle it because Kim Jong Il is testing our Fearless Leader. It is imperative that he react with resolve and show the world that our enemies, who want to destroy us and all the good we stand for, need to fear the power of the United States. This is what the President must do. Will he? Don't bet on it. A safer bet is to wager that the world will become and even fore dangerous place. I say this especially in light of what the Financial Times is reporting:

Barack Obama, US president, and Lee Myung-bak, South Korea’s president, agreed after their G20 meeting in London on the need for a “unified” international response if Pyongyang carried out the launch. South Korea said Mr Lee wanted a “stern response”.

'If'! Mr. President, 'If'!

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. Guariglia's full article.

Please click here to read the full Financial Times report. [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report]

3 apr 09 @ 10:09 am edt Comments

MITTSTINCTS OR MITT STINKS

Possible 2012 Republican Presidential contender Mitt Romney spoke at a dinner of the National Republican Senatorial Committee on April Fool's Day, but he wasn't kidding [emphasis mine]:

"I also think it's important for us to nod to the president when he's right," Romney said, after chiding the president's budget. "He will not always be wrong, and he's done some things I agree with."

Romney, who spoke at a dinner for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he's pleased with the president's plans to "finish the job" in Iraq and Afghanistan -- lines that drew applause from the partisan audience. He also applauded the president for standing up to the auto industry.

"I hope he continues to be tough and shows some backbone because that industry is not going to make it unless we have real backbone and get those guys to fundamentally restructure all of their obligations," he said.

With his own words, I think Mr. Romney has proven that he is not a conservative. That he would applaud the President's unconstitutional actions regarding the auto companies should seal his fate with conservatives. This shows that his instincts are most definitely not conservative.

Mr. Romney later stated:

"I think the American people are seeing through what's happening," he said. "The Democrats are trying to use this crisis as a way to advance their philosophy of the supremacy of government, and I don't think they're being fooled."

No sir, you're right, but you are.

Please click here to read the full report. [tip of the fedora to Allahpundit]

3 apr 09 @ 9:23 am edt Comments

Thursday, April 2, 2009

OH, JOY

From Nile Gardiner, we learn [emphasis mine]:

In what has to be one of the most weak-kneed foreign-policy decisions by the new administration (and the competition is pretty intense), the Obama administration has just announced that it will seek a seat on the widely discredited U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), which was rightly boycotted by President Bush as an anti-American circus. The Council, which devotes much of its time to persecuting Israel, is the successor to the disastrous Commission on Human Rights, so awful that even Kofi Annan disowned it.

The HRC is frankly a basket case, even by the staggeringly low bar set by the U.N. It’s current membership includes some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes such as China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The current president is from Nigeria and the vice president from Azerbaijan, both countries with poor human-rights records.

Frankly it’s only a matter of time before the likes of Iran, Burma, and Zimbabwe work their way back into the U.N.’s human rights apparatus. No doubt tyrants across the world are salivating at the prospect of having the United States raked over the coals in Geneva.

It is hard to fathom the reasoning behind the Obama administration’s decision to join the Council and have the United States humiliated on the world stage....

Reasoning simple: United States, bad; enemies of United States, good. Ugh.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting.

2 apr 09 @ 11:29 am edt Comments

THIS COULD BE THE START OF SOMETHING BIG

Representative [of what?] Barney Frank has done the citizens of The People's Republic Of Massachusetts proud again. Over at Politico, Glenn Thrush reports on his blog [tip of the fedora to Kathryn Jean Lopez]:

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank was in quite a mood on the floor of the House today -- questioning the sanity of Texas Republican John Culberson and other conservatives over their opposition to the new AIG bonus bill.

Frank grabbed the floor when Culberson blasted Democrats for passing the stimulus, which permitted AIG to lavish billions on executives after the de facto federal takeover.

Frank accused the GOP of attacking him for trying to fix the flawed stimulus, saying their attacks were part "of a psychological disorder I am not equipped to diagnose."

I know this may sound crazy [not to Mr. Frank as he would, I'm sure, say I suffer from the same disorder], but could this portend something? As I read this, I was reminded of what Brendan O'Neill wrote a month ago over at Spiked:

...Psychologising dissent, and refusing to recognise, much less engage with, the substance of people’s disagreements – their political objections, their rational criticisms, their desire to do things differently – is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes. In the Soviet Union, outspoken critics of the ruling party were frequently tagged as mentally disordered and faced, as one Soviet dissident described it, ‘political exile to mental institutions’. There they would be treated with narcotics, tranquillisers and even electric shock therapy. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, O’Brien, the torturer in Room 101, offers to cure our hero Winston Smith of his anti-party thinking. ‘You are mentally deranged!’ he tells him. Today the word ‘Orwellian’ is massively overused, to describe everything from fingerprint library cards to supermarket loyalty cards, but treating your dissenters as deranged? That really is Orwellian, and we should declare permanent war against it.

Things that were considered to deserve the modifier 'I know this may sound crazy, but...' when contemplating the possibility of their realization a scant few months ago have been either proposed or implemented.

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. O'Neill's full essay which looks at the Greens and this issue.

2 apr 09 @ 11:19 am edt Comments

ENJOY YOURSELF; IT'S LATER THAN YOU THINK

Yesterday as I was flying through the ether, I can upon the following story [can't remember where]:

In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government. Companies around the globe-Honda and Audi, to name two-have drawn down racing operations, and NASCAR itself has already felt the pinch in the form of reduced team spending. A complete withdrawal from America's premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere.

At first I thought it was a real story, but very soon my jaded instincts kicked-in and I said to myself: this must be a joke; after all, its April Fool's Day. But I still had my doubts. Being a congenitally cynical bastard, I decided it must be a prank and went on my merry way. We now know that it was, indeed, a prank perpetrated by Car And Driver Magazine. The Wall Street Journal, among others, was fooled. However, doesn't it say something about the time in which we live that such a scenario can be considered by many sober-minded people to be possible? [As to whether I am one of the sober-minded: I leave that to God and Maker's Mark.]

The Editors over at Investor's Business Daily used this as a springboard to comment on the whirlwind we have been caught up in since 20 January:

We have to admit, we were surprised when the headline "Obama Orders Chevrolet and Dodge Out of Nascar" turned out to be an April Fools' joke. How can it be a joke when today's reality is far more extreme?

Car and Driver has nothing on the federal government. If you think we're exaggerating, just look at some of the recent days' events, each at least as outrageous as the April Fools' joke of Obama ordering Chevy and Dodge to leave Nascar, and maybe more so. They include:

• The government's stimulus efforts, as toted up by Bloomberg.com, so far total $13.8 trillion — roughly equal to our entire GDP for one year, or $45,245 for every man, woman and child.

• A U.S. president with virtually no private-sector experience fires GM CEO Rick Wagoner, a 30-year industry veteran, and forces Chrysler into a shotgun wedding with foreign carmaker Fiat.

• Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who also has never toiled in the private sector, declares "We own AIG," and advocates sweeping government control over corporate pay and bonuses.

• The Service Employees International Union asks the White House to fire the CEO of Bank of America — and, because organized labor spent more than $100 million to get Barack Obama elected in 2008, it just might get its wish.

• The "New GM," or "Government Motors" as some call it, is told it might have to scrap half its profitable models to build what President Obama calls the "next generation of clean cars" — cars that don't yet exist, and have no proven market demand.

• Further afield, a key adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hangs up a "no vacancy" sign on the Earth, arguing that the world at 6 billion people is "overpopulated" — echoing the nutty Malthusian comments from a top British official last month that the United Kingdom's population needs to shrink by 30 million.

• Congress declares carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas necessary for all life, to be a poison and seeks to regulate it through a "cap-and-trade" system — a costly tax on everyone who uses energy, at a time when the global economy is in recession.

Yes, sadly, we could go on. And on.

They conclude:
Unfortunately, this is the kind of small-ball socialism that will ring the death knell for American capitalism, if it goes unchecked.

Today, we have the least capable, least accomplished people in the country — our 535 national legislators, abetted by a handful of presidential advisers and Cabinet members — seizing control of the private sector in ways that appear to be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the U.S. Constitution.

And we, the people, are letting them do it. Where's the outrage?

Tea Party, anyone?

One quibble with an otherwise typically insightful editorial from the Board Of Editors: please stop using the word 'socialism'; its fascism, pure and simple [see POINT 6 in the TERMS Section, lower right column below].

Please click here to read the full editorial.

2 apr 09 @ 10:57 am edt Comments

ATLAS MUGGED?

From E.J. Moosa, over at the Nolan Chart, we learn the minions of The Ministry Of Truth may have set their sights on Ayn Rand:

"Atlas Shrugged" is enjoying a resurgence of readership, and is one of the top selling fiction books at Amazon.com. I can only hope folks are reading this book, and not relying upon Wikipedia to understand the themes. There is a major theme that is missing: The Failure of Government.

Search for the "Anti Dog Eat Dog rule". Or for the "Equalization of Opportunity" bill. Your search results will show a reference to Wikipedia's page about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. If you use Google or Yahoo for those search terms, you will see the Wikipedia page on "Atlas Shrugged" listed as a website that has that term.

Now search on that page for either of the above two search phrases. What do you find? Any references to them are gone from the Wikipedia entry. Search for any of the legislation passed to control private enterprise. It's no longer there.

What is the reason that the references to these failed government actions have been deleted from the Wikipedia page on "Atlas Shrugged"? I have my theories. I would like to hear yours.

Will the entry for "Atlas Shrugged" continue to be redefined slowly, eliminating the final references to failed government policies and actions, so that just becomes a fiction novel about anything but the failure of government?

When it comes to political and philosophical matters, Wikipedia is notorious for this kind of behavior. You have to be very careful when using it as a source on these subjects. It is a reliably useful source otherwise. My fear is that, with the radical Leftist hegemony ascending and their belief that everything is political, the 'otherwise' will become tainted as well. And it will be 'redefined slowly' because that is the 1984 way.

Nolan Chart founder Walt Theissen commented on this posting:
Well, yes, I suppose you could choose to be scared. On the other hand, you could also choose to be encouraged. It just depends on how you look at it. What makes Wikipedia work is competition among different volunteer editors and contributors to make each article better. Sourcing is considered crucial, and I believe the Wikipedia articles tend to be better researched as a result than, say, Britannica. They are farther reaching, more comprehensive, and much, much more informative.

In fact, Wikipedia sourcing requirements influenced me to require columnists on this site to source their factual claims.

Try setting up a Wikipedia account and then adding the missing content back in. You'll find the missing stuff via the History and Discussion links at the top of each article.

Mr. Moosa replied:
Search for any of the discussion of Barack Obama's citizenship, and you will not find it on his Wikipedia page. Neither will you find any of the other controversial topics, such as ACORN, Bill Ayers, etc.

In fact, users who have attempted to document these issues have been banned from making modifications at Wikipedia.

Truth should not be a contest. It should not be subject to competition amongst organized users.If it is, it is basically subject to Mob-Rule.

That is why you should be afraid.

Quite.

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting. [tip of the fedora to Instapundit]

2 apr 09 @ 10:13 am edt Comments

SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES

Over at The Corner, Victor Davis Hanson, looking at the tax delinquents that Good King Barack has nominated, makes the following observation:

Something larger and really weird is going on here. Liberal tax raisers are not paying taxes. The majority of big Wall Street money (cf. AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Goldman-Sachs, etc) is going to the Democratic Party. The J.P.Morgan-like tycoons such as Buffet, Gates, Soros, etc. are apparently strong supporters of these avatars of the new economics. Congressional liberal leaders are mulitmillionaires like Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Pelosi, Rockefellar, etc. All of this is superimposed on this pseudo-populist agenda, decrying the Wall Street culture and corporate America that enriched them, while calling for more and more taxes that some of them apparently so often find ways of avoiding.

We saw something similar in Britain, especially in the 1930's. Perhaps it is a tribute to the mind's capacity to compartmentalize one's life? Perhaps wealth-guilt plays a part? The cause ultimately does not matter. What matters is that we use the power of the Internet and other mediums as tools to hammer the fact of their hypocrisy home to as many people as possible [and of any Republicans who are in the same league—we conservatives owe our loyalties to the truth, not to any party (ooh, that word)].

Please take the time to click here and read Mr. Hanson's full posting.

2 apr 09 @ 9:45 am edt Comments

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

TERMS UPDATE: FASCISM

In the TERMS Section of this page [lower right-hand column], I have updated my definition of Fascism in POINT 6with a quote from Sheldon Richman's description of it found in The Concise Encyclopedia Of Economics.

Here's a slightly longer excerpt:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

Next time you use the term to describe what's currently going on and someone accuses you of being hysterical, show them this.

Please take the time to click here and read the full entry. [tip of the fedora to Jonah 'LF' Goldberg.]

1 apr 09 @ 11:31 am edt Comments

THE BIG DIG

And you thought the taxing of the AIG bonuses was just a one-off thing, done in anger and under pressure. Turns out it was Things To Come.

From Byron York over at The Washington Examiner:

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

Lovely. Why waste a good crisis, huh? [where have we heard that line before?] These radical Leftists, sorry 'progressives', see an opportunity to impose the policies they have been wonking about for years and, damn it, they're gonna take it. The Constitution be damned. Americans be damned. Freedom and property be damned. They know what's best for us and we had better just shut-up and obey. 'Brazen' may not be a strong enough word to describe them.

Tip of the fedora to Andrew McCarthy for informing us of this report. He commented:

Next, of course, we move on to execs at companies that did not take bailouts . . . then to their employees (if they still have any) . . . then — anyone left?

No, Winston.

He found out about it from the steadfast Michelle Malkin who commented:

But you can thank the 85 Republicans, led by Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who helped pave this path with their hysterical vote for the 90 percent AIG bonus tax.

What say those who have touted Mr. Cantor as one of the future stars of the Republican Party?

Finally...James Lileks had best succinct comment on the President's firing of the President of GM [tip of the fedora to Instapundit]:

Maybe I’m old-school, but “President fires CEO” looks as wrong as “Pope fires Missile.” Does not compute.

1 apr 09 @ 11:05 am edt Comments

ANOTHER WINNER

If you still have any doubts that Comrade Obamavitch is staffing his administration with some of the most radical Leftists, let me ease your worried mind. In the New York Post of Monday instant, Meghan Clyne gives us the straight dope on on Harold Koh who has been tapped to be Legal Adviser to the State Department. Two highlights [have a drink handy]:

...He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriageon the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

And...
Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience."

He has also accused President George Bush of abusing international law to justify the invasion of Iraq, comparing his "advocacy of unfettered presidential power" to President Richard Nixon's. And that was the firstBush -- Koh was attacking the 1991 operation to liberate Kuwait, four days after fighting began in Operation Desert Storm.

WWU-AMerica: the inmates are running things.

Please take the time to click here and read the full article.

1 apr 09 @ 8:23 am edt Comments

YOU HAVE WHAT I LACK MYSELF II

I'm starting to believe that the current Administration has been staffed with people who lack basic competency.

From the Catholic News Agency we learn:

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.

Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

I suppose we can write this off to the fact that they have more important things to do, like apologize to Iran, Syria, Latin America, etc. Christ Almighty....

Please take the time to click here and read the full report. [tip of the fedora to Mollie and Mark Hemingway]

1 apr 09 @ 8:02 am edt Comments

YOU HAVE WHAT I LACK MYSELF I

I'm starting to believe that the current Administration has been staffed with people who lack basic common sense.

From Moe Lane [summarzing a posting by The Enlightened Redneck] we learn:

I’m going to sum up The Enlightened Redneck’s post hereabout what happened to the White House Easter Egg Roll ticketing system this year (not because there’s anything wrong with his post: read it!): The new administration, having decided that the old system of having people engage in the time-honored tradition of physically camping out in line for tickets was somehow “unfair,” instead decided to make the registration process online. The process didn’t work properly - Shock! Surprise! - so people got tickets essentially via being lucky enough to be able to register before their session timed out.

Wait, it gets better. They did this distribution wayearlier than they did the previous, physical ticket distributions - so, quick? What happens when you’ve got a scenario where you have:

A resource for which there’s a higher demand than supply;
Sufficient time to make people without that resource aware that you have it;
And a national communications channel that anybody can access?

Well, if you’re NBC News, or anybody else with a triple-digit IQ, you immediately reply “You have a scenario where people start scalping the tickets.” Which is happening even as we speak; a block of six went for a thousand bucks on E-Bay. That number’s just going to go up, by the way. But don’t worry: the Washington Post assures us that a “spokeswoman for the White House said it was working with Internet sites to prevent ticket sales.” Which means that the White House hadn’t actually thought about the possibility beforehand. So… a local tradition of using a first-come, first-served distribution system that actually worked got thrown overboard in favor of an untested, fatally flawed, unfair system that is now encouraging people across the country to engage in ticket scalping - which is, by the way, illegal. And now there are a bunch of little kids who are going to be sad because their parents didn’t have the money to make sure that they got to go to the White House Easter Egg roll.

I suppose we can write this off to the fact that they have more important things to do, like taking over the economy. Jeez....

Please take the time to click here and read the full posting.

1 apr 09 @ 7:59 am edt Comments

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

I'M SORRY...SO SORRY

This new Administration is a very sorry administration. I don't mean in the sense of the word when it implies pitiable inadequacy or wretchedness [too early to tell there]. Rather, I use the word as it relates to feeling remorse for doing something bad. You see, the Divine Obmamacus and his minions believe it is the United States that has done so many bad and awful things to the nations of the world that it is engaging in an apology tour. The latest minion to take up the cross is Joe ~~Hill~~ Biden down in Latin America. According to the AFP:

US Vice President Joe Biden said that the United States would no longer "dictate unilaterally" to Latin America, and that it had entered a new era in the historically troubled relationship.

"The time of the United States dictating unilaterally, the time where we only talk and don't listen is over," Biden said in Santiago after holding discussions with a clutch of Latin American leaders at a conference at a Chilean beach resort.

Biden's five-day visit to meet leaders in the region, including a second stop in Costa Rica, aimed to pave the way for President Barack Obama, who is set to attend the Summit of the Americas next month in Trinidad and Tobago.

"My visit here is just the beginning of a renewal of a partnership with the Americas. In the past, even when we engaged positively we tended to engage 'for' the (western) hemisphere. We're not engaging 'for,' this is 'with,'" Biden added.

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker comments:
What on earth is Biden talking about? When has the United States "dictated unilaterally" and refused to "listen" to Latin Americans? Is he criticizing President Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion? President Johnson's invasion of the Dominican Republic? President Reagan's support for the Nicaraguan Contras? The Clinton administration's support for NAFTA? The Bush administration's entry into the Central American Free Trade Agreement? President-elect Obama's opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Treaty? What, exactly, is this policy of "dictating unilaterally" that we are now going to abandon?

Apart from its incoherence, it is hard to understand why the Obama administration believes it is shrewd foreign policy to begin every conversation with a mea culpa. Of course, other countries are happy to agree that all past problems and disagreements are the result of faulty American policies (whatever those might be). How this serves our interests or strengthens our bargaining position is a mystery.

I think I answered his last question up above. This grovelling is not simply embarrassing, it shows a weakness of will that our enemies will not hesitate to exploit. God help us.

31 mar 09 @ 8:09 pm edt Comments

SERIOUS QUESTIONS

From the great Michael Ledeen we learn: Represenative John Conyers has introduced H.R. 40 which will establish a Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans. Even if you think it a bad idea [and I think its horrible] and that its recommendations are more than likely a foregone conclusion, you probably assume that those who dreamed up and wrote the bill have, at the very least, attempted to make it appear that the Commission will seem like it is bipartisan. Wrong. Just like so much else than is emanating out of the White House and the Congress, this bill is the product of brazen radicals who no longer feel the need to put up a pretense that they are not extremists out to destroy the institutions of this country. According to Section 4 of the bill:

(a) Number and Appointment-

(1) The Commission shall be composed of 7 members, who shall be appointed, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, as follows:

(A) Three members shall be appointed by the President.

(B) Three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(C) One member shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

(2) All members of the Commission shall be persons who are especially qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue of their education, training, or experience, particularly in the field of African-American studies.

Do you really think a single conservative will be appointed?

As to the powers granted to its sure-to-be fine and open-minded members, Section 5 states in full [emphasis added]:

(a) Hearings and Sessions- The Commission may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and at such places in the United States, and request the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, as the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may request the Attorney General to invoke the aid of an appropriate United States district court to require, by subpoena or otherwise, such attendance, testimony, or production.

(b) Powers of Subcommittees and Members- Any subcommittee or member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is authorized to take by this section.

(c) Obtaining Official Data- The Commission may acquire directly from the head of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Government, available information which the Commission considers useful in the discharge of its duties. All departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the executive branch of the Government shall cooperate with the Commission with respect to such information and shall furnish all information requested by the Commission to the extent permitted by law.

Will this be only the first of many Star Chambers created by the Democrats? Will this end up being one explanation?

In the past, such bills have been introduced and discreetly tabled. Given who is in charge of the Congress, do you think it will be this time?

You may read the full bill by clicking here. I urge you to do so for it provides an insight into the thinking of those who currently control the Executive and Legislative branches. Once you do, ask yourself: is this really a road we want to travel down?

31 mar 09 @ 7:11 pm edt Comments

THE 900 POUND OXYMORON IN THE ROOM

Over at The Corner, in light of Barack The Unready's recent actions regarding the War Against Islam [which our Fearless Leader denies actually exists], Andrew McCarthy summed up his feelings on the whole matter and I agree with them fully:

...this is very hard work, work that will require an extraordinary toughness and commitment, and which, in Afghanistan, will take a very long time even with an adequate commitment of resources.

I have been wrestling, and continue to wrestle, with the question whether this is worth the cost. Since I proceed, as I have from the beginning, from the premise that I would not deploy the United States military unless it was, first and very clearly foremost, to protect American national security, I find this to be a very difficult question because of the limitations that we have put on ourselves.

That is, if we were really going after al Qaeda, its affiliates, and its state sponsors — which I would enthusiastically support — we would go after them everywhere, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it is important not to let al Qaeda have safe-havens in Afghanistan, it seems to me equally important not to let them have safe-havens in Pakistan, Somalia, Iran, Yemen, and elsewhere. I want to see the Taliban crushed not because I particularly care what kind of government Afghanistan has, but because the Taliban gives succor to al Qaeda and therefore increase the risk of another 9/11. But if we are only going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we are not so much decimating al Qaeda as driving it out of one location while allowing it safely to trot off to others, I have a hard time seeing the point in that. If that is the strategy (stated or unstated), it becomes, to me, more like a nation-building exercise in Afghanistan than a protection of American lives — no one having yet convinced me that building sharia-democracies in a couple of Islamic countries materially lowers the risk of terrorist attacks against the United States.

Should we just admit what we know deep down inside: 'sharia democracy' is an oxymoron?

Please take the time to click here and read his full posting.

31 mar 09 @ 1:44 pm edt Comments

IN THE WHIRLWIND

I don't know about you, but I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of the radical Leftist policy initiatives and actions being introduced by Tiberius Obamacus and his fellow travellers in the Congress. Its very difficult to catch one's breath sometimes.

31 mar 09 @ 1:37 pm edt Comments

FASCISM UNBOUND

Over at Red State, Brian Darling has a good posting up responding to a recent column by E.J. Dionne:

The left is marching against free market capitalism and it is the responsibility of all conservatives to take up verbal arms against the progressive troops lining up to trash free markets. E.J Dionne, self proclaimed progressive, writes for the Washington Post today that there is something to the argument that Americans are all Socialists now, because “capitalist theory and practice were being toppled by an economic catastrophe that proved how profoundly flawed the old system was.”  I guess Dionne wants to toss “old system” of capitalism in the trash, for a new Socialism-Light system with a big government nanny state to take care of us all. What Dionne misses is that one of the factors creating the meltdown on Wall Street was the the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), requiring financial institutions to make loans to people who could not repay.

And...
Dionne went on to argue for “socialism’s philosophical brother,” which consists of a “cooperative system” including support for ”stimulus (by government), re-regulation of finance (by government), and stronger safety nets (also provided by government).” Massive new government spending, more bureaucrats second guessing decisions of private enterprise, and more entitlement programs will send us down the road to socialism, not prosperity. In short, Dionne far prefers warmed over socialism, which resembles the left’s definition of progressivism, to the current American system of a limited government with minimal government interference in the economy.

Two points:

1) Socialism lite is fascism. It is the stage between modern liberalism and socialism. In modern liberalism, the state exercises a a fair amount of control over the economy through onerous regulation and intrusive statutes.  Businesses are somewhat free to make decisions and pursue modest profit. They exercise a measure of control over whether they succeed or not. Property is held privately, but is subject to many controls. Workers can move from job to job with only small obstacles occasionally put in their way.  The state uses the taxing power to regulate. Under socialism, the state owns all businesses and properties. Workers are told where they can work, what professions they can pursue. All aspects of life are heavily regulated and controlled. What we are seeing implemented now is that middle stage. A good example occurred with the President ordering the CEO of GM to step down. By the day, businesses are being deprived of their freedom to act. Word comes that Barney Frank wants to, not only determine the salary of CEO's, but those below them. The Democrats in power are fascists. [By the way: Mussolini used the term 'corporatism' and said: 'Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' (tip of the fedora to Matthew Vadum)]

2) E.J. Dionne, in the column cited above, is just another case of a Leftist coming out and showing his true colors. And that color is red. Dionne and Frank and Obama and Pelosi and anyone who supports the attempt to radically alter the American System are the socialists many of us knuckle-draggers always said they were. They've pretended for years that they weren't, but now we know they are.  WWU-AMerica.

Please take the time to click hear and read Mr. Darling's full posting.

31 mar 09 @ 9:55 am edt Comments

Archive

Newer | Older

Dispatches are archived by week; click on the links above.