"Squatter's Rights" apparently include full "authority" over the nature of Truth

My initial reaction to the tragic, untimely (and suspicious) death of Andrew Breitbart (at age 42) just days after he announced he had “the video goods to finally vet” the "squatters" in the White House, was that the cause of restoring America’s founding values had lost one of its brightest shining knights!

In a spectacular example of truth in the ancient Roman battle cry, “What we do in life, echoes in eternity.”, Andrew’s short life may well echo for many decades to come!

Given the unspeakable carnage inflicted on America by "progressive" theology, it still amazes me just how quickly that entire gaggle of envy-driven half-wit ideas are revealed as fragile, dysfunctional, and thus in need of constant, artificial, external support, just to remain in existence, much less influential.

For a long time now, it has been clear that Hollywood and their parasitic glommers in the ADMC*, SEIU, ACLU, ACORN, et.al. ad nauseum, have become a putrid cesspool of Kleptoid looters and other assorted parasitic infections. All of their vacuous sound and fury made it hard to see the extent to which many of its members were actually closet conservatives who were exercising self-imposed silence, just to protect their careers. Near the end of his career, John Wayne was among the first to tell Hollywood to just “go f–k yourselves”. Then, back in the late nineties, we all discovered that the epic-master, Charlton Heston was NOT a Hollywood kindred soul! But now the Hollywood conservative wave appears to be swelling. More and more talented people are starting to wriggle free of the “toxic, bat-shit-crazy, knee-jerk, anti-intellectual, ‘when-in-doubt-blame-America’ Leftism that pervades Hollywood” like an evil plague!

Then, unprecedented world events started revealing pressure cracks in the whole shameless veneer of Hollywood’s arrogant, sneering elitists. Since 9/11, more and more brave souls have begun to emerge from liberal la-la-land, and now, the death of Andrew Breitbart appears to be accelerating growth in the list of closet conservatives coming out of their self-restrained silence – some of Hollywood’s brightest talent – people like:

• Trace Adkins: Country Music Singer & TV Personality
• Danny Aiello: Film Actor
• Stephen Baldwin: Actor, Radio Personality
• Pat Boone: Singer, Songwriter
• Wilfred Brimley: Commercial Actor & Star of Cocoon
• Jerry Bruckheimer: TV & Film Producer
• James Caan: Legendary Film Actor
• Drew Carey: Game Show Host & Former TV Star
• Adam Carolla: Former Host of The Man's Show
• Tom Clancy: Espionage and Military Science Author
• Jon Cryer: Notable Film & TV Actor
• Robert Davi: TV & Film Actor
• Bo Derek: Model, Film & Television Actress
• Dale Earnhardt Jr.: American Race Car Driver
• Clint Eastwood: Academy Award Winning Film Actor & Director
• John Elway: Hall of Fame Quarterback & Super Bowl MVP with the Denver Broncos
• Sara Evans: Country Music Singer
• Lou Ferrigno: TV Actor (Star of The Incredible Hulk & King of Queens Guest Star)
• Mel Gibson: Film Actor & Academy Award-Winning Director
• Kelsey Grammer: TV & Film Actor, Star of TV's Long-Running Series, Frasier
• et. al.

Please read (and distribute) the article below by a man who may represent the vanguard of a gigantic coming out party in the business of entertainment production, writing and acting.  In case you did not notice, writers are literally the lifeblood of the entire Hollywood cabal! The author of the article below is among the most talented!  Mr. Knauf describes Hollywood as a “very, very small, very, very ruthless town …”. If he is correct, then that fact is almost certainly caused by the domination of Hollywood by morally rudderless human-like creatures – which is the first requirement for adopting liberal ideology. IOW, it is not possible for an individual to be self-guided by objective moral clarity and still be an authentic liberal. If you doubt that assertion, I’ll gladly elaborate. Just ask.

* ADMC = Agenda Driven Media Cartel

And now, Emmy Award winning writer, Daniel Knauf!

---

SUNDAY, MARCH 4, 2012
Chasing Andrew
By Daniel Knauf

In 2000, something astonishing happened to me.

I was running an insurance brokerage by day, setting up and servicing health, dental and disability plans for a book of clients in the private and public sectors, from around 5 to 5,000 employees. Off hours, I was writing screenplays.

For a hobby, I was doing okay. I'd sold a couple scripts, even seeing one, Blind Justice, go into production in 1992. As my very droll brother, Paul, once put it, "Not bad. Nobody's paid me a dime for playing a round of golf." (Now, to get an idea of just how droll Paul is, you need to imagine Robert Wagner in his prime, only an octave lower in his delivery)

I'd promised myself when I started writing that if I didn't achieve a very specific level of success with writing screenplays by the time I was 40, I'd hang it up and try something else. Novels, maybe. After all, everyone knows that show-business is is a young man's game, and nobody (except for Charles Durning, maybe) breaks in after 40.

In any case, things had dried up on the writing front, and I was coming up on four decades, so my promise to call it quits and hang up my spurs was fast-changing from an oh-yeah-whenever kind of thing into an uh-oh-looks-like-I'm-really-gonna-have-to-admit-I-failed thing.

Now here's the thing you need to know about us Knaufs. We are sore losers. We are tennis-racket-smashed-on-the-clay losers. We are take-all-my-fucking-chips-I'm-outta-here losers. We are fuck-you-and-your-stupid-hotel-on-Boardwalk-I'm-flipping-this-fucking-board losers.

Or, as my brother Paul puts it, "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

In any case, I decided to give myself a reprieve. Though I had spent literally thousands of hours honing my craft over the prior ten years, I'd spent maybe ten minutes marketing it. Rather than throwing in the towel, I decided to give it one more big shot. I decided to create a website on which to post all the first acts of all my unsold babies--sort of an online clearing house for writing samples.

When prompted to name it, I decided to go with "unmovies.com." That was, after all, what all my work was--well, at least most of it.

So up went the scripts and, cutting quickly to the chase, about a year later, I was meeting with a young producer, Robert Keghobad, to discuss developing Carnivale as the next TV project for his boss, director (and all-around terrific guy) Scott Winant.

I was now officially in The Belly of the Beast.

I should state right here that when I first started off on my Grand Hollywood Adventure, I was a socially left leaning, moderate fiscal conservative, proudly independent, ignoring party affiliations and casting my ballot for whoever I thought was best for--or, in any case, would do the least damage to--my beloved country.

Had I been born a generation earlier, I would have described myself as a Kennedy Democrat. As it was, I suppose the Libertarian tag might fit, but I've always borne a healthy suspicion of anything that smacks of an "ideology."

All that said, I was pretty much apolitical. The closest I came to studying issues was to pick up one of P.J. O'Rourke's books for a giggle or two. But then, I also got a kick out of Michael Moore's first film, Roger and Me. Politically, I was the proverbial wise-ass kid with a permanent seat in the rear of the classroom where I could safely heckle the nuns without collecting too many stripes across the back of my knuckles.

Then, on September 11th, 2001, everything changed.

I remember watching the collapse of the first tower and feeling--literally feeling the breath just leave my lungs, my chest filling with a terrible, ghastly void; a sense of distant screams in a windswept wasteland and loss loss loss oh my God all those people all those people they murdered all those thousands of people...

Though it was but seconds, it seemed minutes, many long minutes before I could draw a breath. I quietly excused myself and hurried to the bedroom to spare my young children the memory of seeing Daddy collapse helplessly into a series of horrified, aching, gut-wrenching sobs.

As soon as I'd composed myself, I rejoined my family. I really have no memory of the ensuing hours, only that my wife and I decided I should go to work, that we'd try to keep the kids calm by maintaining our normal schedules. Only God knew what the future held...

I was working my first network series gig as a staff writer on a show called Wolf Lake while Carnivale was in development at HBO.

Like every American that morning, I was greeted by coworkers in various states of shock, portable TVs turned to the news in all the offices. Like every American, I was approached by a number of colleagues who wished to vent and commiserate.

But unlike every American, my coworkers expressed little or no anger toward the terrorists who had committed this atrocity. Rather, they directed their vitriol towards American Imperialism, American foreign policy, American arrogance, American warmongering, American racism and, most of all, our American President, the evil, unfathomably stupid, idiot-Christian, bumbling Texan oaf, George W. Bush.

And what did I say?

Nothing.

Not a damn thing.

I was just shocked silent. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Were these people crazy?

At one point, one of my fellow writers must've noticed that I wasn't expressing my state-mandated, required ration of Bush-hatred, and confronted me like some rabid Dominican at the height of the Spanish Inquisition,

"So what do you think?" she hissed, eyes narrowed, scrutinizing me, as if vetting me for any possible variance from the accepted party ideology, "What would you do if you were the President?"

"If I was President, I would make a speech before a joint session of Congress, demanding that Bin Laden be delivered within 48 hours to the steps of the White House--alive, dead or just his fucking head in a burlap bag, I don't care. If not, then I suggest that all you assholes in Kabul lather up with some SPF 5,000, strap on some welding goggles and take a gander to the East, because we're gonna fire a little 400 kiloton shot over the bow, so to speak. And that's where the sun's gonna rise--out there just East of your capitol, in a relatively uninhabited patch of shit you call a country. Let's call that a preview of coming attractions, shall we? Because if another 24 hours passes after the deployment of our first missile, and I'm not trading bon-mots with your boy's head here in the Oval Office, we will fire another, and this time it will be targeted to explode, oh, about 200 meters above the center of the rat-hole you call a capitol. Which is why I'm really, really glad that I'm not the President, because I'm pissed-off crazy as Hell."

Actually, I didn't say that.

Well... not all of it.

What I actually said, after a bit of hemming and hawing and averting of the eyes, was, "I'm just really, really glad that I'm not the President, because I don't know what I'd do."

(NOTE: Deliver the above in a Goofy uh-huh-yuk-yuk dopey-aww-shucks drawl to appreciate the full "Who, Me? No Ma'am!" gutlessness inherent in the speaker.)

She glared at me for a moment, as if attempting to x-ray my soul to determine whether I was a fellow-traveler, or something... else. Finally, she walked out to go write a check to PETA or shit herself over Global Warming or something. I was, for the moment anyway, safe.

Over the ensuing years, I continued to remain silent whenever confronted by the toxic, batshit-crazy, knee-jerk, anti-intellectual, when-in-doubt-blame-America Leftism that pervades Hollywood. I saw what happened to others if they spoke up or disagreed with the party line. I actually witnessed one writer, who foolishly expressed his support for the war in Iraq, set-upon and viciously berated by no less than six crew-members for almost 20 minutes straight.

That night, he found his car had been keyed in our secure lot.

Hmm... must've been a random vandal.

Incidentally, though he had a storied career, an amazing list of credits and is one of the most versatile, talented writer-producers I know, the jobs gradually dried up for him and now he can't, as they say, get arrested in this town.

Toadies in the MSM assert that there is no Blacklist in Hollywood.

And they're right.

It's not necessary because Hollywood is a very, very small, very, very ruthless town, where a few key words spoken in the right ears can absolutely wreck a career--code-words like "difficult," "high-maintenance" and "uneven." When you can obliterate a fellow professional with a few well-chosen phrases, why maintain something as crude and inelegant as a Blacklist?

How dare anyone even suggest that there's a Blacklist against conservative artists and performers?

Blacklists are for mouth-breathers.

Blacklists are for knuckle-draggers.

Blacklists are so... so... Republican.

And so I kept my mouth shut. And a funny thing happened: The longer I was forced to withhold my opinions and beliefs, the brighter they burned in me. Funny. Oppression has a way of doing that to the oppressed.

Ask any Soviet defector...

For years, I bit my tongue, nodding and making non-committal sounds while listening to the most virulently noxious Leftist spew imaginable: Explicit rape-murder fantasies directed toward Palin, Coulter, Malkin and Ingraham; blithely expressed wishes of cancer, assassination and mutilation of Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh; the snide denigration of "civilians" (i.e. anyone not in the entertainment business) in the "flyover states" (i.e. everywhere except New York and east of the Golden State Freeway--Pasadena, for instance is a "flyover state"); and, of course, the endless venomous, profanity-laced screeds against the Tea Party.

Even more shocking was the rampant hypocrisy, the endemic corruption, the casual thievery--from producers ordering custom built doors and windows for their homes from the construction department, to having their Beemers and Benzos topped daily with gas by transpo. All on the studio dime.

Meanwhile, any actress, female writer or exec can tell you that the Casting Couch is alive and well in contemporary Hollywood. And it's absolutely fascinating just how many male producers and execs time their set-visits to coincide with nude-scenes...

And forget about "diversity."

Visit a set, and you can't help but notice that the overwhelming majority of the crew is male and white. It's even worse above the line. Any bank, chain restaurant or box-store that exercised such brazenly monochromatic patterns of hire would have been sued and fined into oblivion decades ago.

And, by the way, it helps to be under 40. Or look under 40. Or at least affect the breathlessly chatty verbal affect of a 17 year old, Ritalin-amped high-school kid.

And through it all, I kept my head down. Every day, I grew more disgusted by my cowardice. But the most intolerable aspect of living under a self-imposed gag order by far was the loneliness, alienation and isolation.

Then I met Andrew Breitbart.

Andrew introduced me to others--lots of others--in the industry who shared my belief in the exquisite beauty of the American Constitution, my love for this country and my firm conviction in its exceptionalism.

Not dozens of people, mind you. Not even hundreds.

There are thousands of us.

But there are tens of thousands of them.

So we keep a low profile, quietly taking heart when the Gary Sinises, the Patricia Heatons, the Lionel Chetwynds, the Adam Baldwins achieve a degree of success so solid, so bulletproof, that they can step out into the light and openly express their opinions without fear of crippling reprisal from the Trolls. Not that they don't pay a price--imagine how much more famous and wealthy each would be if they were strident Liberals.

And God help them if they stumble in their personal lives. Safety-nets and PR shields are strictly reserved for the Obama-Loving-Fur-Is-Murder-Christians-Are-Evil-Bush-Lied-Truther-OWS-Fuck-the-Teabaggers set (if you don't believe me, compare and contrast: Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson).

I only met Andrew three or four times.

The last time we communicated, it was through Twitter. I publicly wished him a Happy Birthday. In subsequent DMs, I joked about him "dragging another Hollywood guy out of the closet." Misunderstanding me, his reply was one of concern for my professional welfare. I assured him that I was just kidding and signed off.

When he died, my first thought was, "Oh my God. What're we gonna do now?"

We are in the middle of a War of Ideas. At stake is nothing less than the principles of inalienable rights and freedom upon which the United States was founded.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Since the Wilson Administration, the Socialist Left has sustained a slow, inexorable push toward a Big Government, by the Government, for the Government, by transforming a once-free people into a whining, needy nation of suckling dependents.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Corrupt European and Canadian socialism is touted as a shining exemplar. Hustlers, gold-brickers, union thugs and corporate moochers have hijacked the system. Half of us pay no tax at all. The other half pays more onerous rates than those levied by Medieval Lords on their serfs.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

A seated President is openly demonizing our best and brightest, stoking the embers of class-envy, courting mob violence and racial animus, ruling by fiat, bypassing Congress, brazenly defying court orders, and publicly expressing admiration for the "efficiency" of totalitarianism.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Such were my thoughts last night as I was having a quiet drink at the Huntington Langham Hotel. I saw the hashtag thread #IAmAndrewBreitbart and drew some cheer from it. I mentally debated whether to add to the thread and thought, "Ahh, to hell with it. One tweet. Nobody'll even notice."

Besides, I had no choice. The tag was a play on the signature line from Spartacus, and I was a writer-producer on the first season of Sparatcus: Blood and Sand. It seemed preordained.

And thusly I tweeped:

"I wrote Spartacus, and #IAmAndrewBreitbart"

I got a response. Clever stuff. Typically mindless Leftist-style zombie-chant:

"HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIEDHE LIED AND HE DIED"

Stupid stuff. A bullshit schoolyard taunt designed to get a rise out of me. Wouldn't have phased me any other night.

But last night, something snapped.

12 years of silence. 12 years of cowardice. 12 years of humiliating self-censorship. 12 years of hiding what I think, who I am and what I believe in order to protect my livelihood.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

It all just started bleeding out of me, white hot, 140 characters at a time. All my rage. All my indignation. Like the jetting pulse from a slashed carotid, for the whole world to see.

Then came the emails. And the Follows. 1,000 in about an hour. My jaws clenched, tears blurred my vision as I typed (as they blur them now as I type): My hero is dead. Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Long live Andrew Breitbart.

IAmAndrewBreitbart.

---

Daniel Knauf created and served as Executive Producer of his Emmy Award-winning series, “CARNIVÁLE” (HBO). Mr. Knauf has since written episodes of “SUPERNATURAL” (The CW) and “FEAR ITSELF” (NBC). He has served as a Consulting Producer on “STAND OFF” (FOX) , “MY OWN WORST ENEMY” (NBC) and the hit cult series, “SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND” (Starz). Additionally, he and his son, Charles Knauf, have collaborated on “THE INVINCIBLE IRON MAN” for Marvel Comics and the SyFy pilot/mini, “THE PHANTOM.” Mr. Knauf has recently turned to screenwriting, developing a feature trilogy for Will Smith and Overbrook Productions, “THE LEGEND OF CAIN,” as well as “HONEY VICARRO” for Flame Productions. He has also been active with creating internet content since 1999, developing several award-winning websites.

Is “Progressive” Economics Based on Sound Science?

Very minor editing for punctuation and clarity of an article by Gary DeMar, with [my comments inserted in context]

---

For about a decade Liberals have described Conservatives as “anti-science.” If you question global warning theorists, you are anti-science. If you question the evolutionary religion that argues for [inexplicable, mysterious] spontaneous generation, you are anti-science. Start with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long, dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world popped into existence. To doubt this theory (not empirical science) makes you anti-science. [ … Actually, it makes you a heretic against an undefined, but infallible, “Progressive” religion – a proper target for “Progressive” Jihad (IOW, intellectual terrorism).]

Even some atheists find the view incredible. Consider the latest book by Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.”

Former Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that the Republican Party has become

“... a ‘faith-based,’ ‘Bible-based’ political organization. Fineman also derided Paul Ryan as untrustworthy when it comes to considering science: [Ryan] starts every consideration of public policy, not from the standpoint of science, but from the standpoint of faith.’”

[LOL! And yet, virtually ALL “Progressive” assertions about “the right thing to do” are demonstrably gratuitous. That makes them based on faith – and an undisciplined faith at that!]

There is no human dignity in the evolutionary worldview. It’s dog-eat-dog, “nature red in tooth and claw,” survival of the fittest. The further political regimes get away from a “faith-based” worldview that has the personal God at its core, the closer they get to tyranny and dehumanization. A materialistic, science-based worldview is like setting the sails of a ship “for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.”[1]

Science as it’s taught today cannot make moral judgments. [Indeed!  Authentic science comes from honest people, disciplined by the Empirical method.  When done correctly, it is based on objective facts.  By their very nature, real facts are morally neutral.] Science can only conclude how atoms line up, how hot or cold something is, or how fast something travels. Science can’t say if genocide is morally right or wrong or whether taxing the rich is good or bad for the economy. Science can only publish the body count of the dead and the amount of money that’s collected from tax payers. [ ... assuming the books are not being cooked -- another huge leap of faith!]

The only thing keeping America from going over the cliff is a faith-based, Bible-based worldview. Our founders understood this, even those who had strong objections to some of the Bible’s doctrines. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that “rights” were an endowment from the Creator and not a gift from the State.

[Indeed!  If government is the source of Rights, then they are not Rights, they are privileges.  A privilege can be withheld.  The harmless exercise of a Right, cannot be justly denied or unduly encumbered.  Furthermore, the Bill of Rights merely acknowledges a short list of particularly critical rights that are commonly trampled by government and that existed eons before government of any kind.  In reality, adults were born with the immutable right to do any harmless thing.  This means that we all possess literally billions of rights!]

The Declaration states that “the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,” appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions.” This was a faith-based worldview. Science doesn’t know a thing about rights.

Where is the science in the economic policies of the Democrats? [Hint:  there is none.  All "Progressive" economic ideas are based entirely on adolescent emotion.]  How does taking money from some people and passing [some of] it along to other people, pass for moral rectitude and sound public policy? How does Mr. Fineman imagine that science can make this determination? He can’t.

[However, science can objectively identify sound methods for accounting and economic analysis.  That's called rational, non-political accounting.  Such science is the only way to manage finances for world's largest government.  THIS is the kind of responsible accounting that "Progressives have made all but impossible!]

---

Notes:
R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171.

The Obama’s dictatorial ambitions revealed as it unleashes HHS thugs!

Even if the Church decides to stop accepting federal funds (which should not have been offered in the first place, or accepted for that matter), The Obama’s dictatorial ambitions probably won’t be quashed. After all, ambitions to dictatorship reveal a pathological illness. Such mental flaws are rarely reversed in such a morally dysfunctional creature.

More than a few loud-mouthed Leftmedia “Progressives” are alarmed by Obama’s contempt for the Catholic Church. They get a creepy feeling that what it has done to the Catholic hospitals (a huge public asset) can just as easily be applied to them.  History proves they are correct.

We were warned that detail devils in The Obama's health care "reform law" (which is objectively lawless) would be evident once HHS started handing down the accompanying regulations. The new rules forbidding all employers – including Catholic hospitals and schools – from denying insurance benefits for contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization are both shocking and oppressive.

In spearheading this effort to force employers to violate their religious conscience, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (Satan’s latest minion) has leaped ahead of Van Jones as leading contender for a "most-radical-present-or-former-Obama-Administration official" contest. The White House Occupier thinks it can minimize any political fall-out among US Catholics – after all, a solid majority use contraception and foolishly voted for it in 2008.   But they are still Catholics, even if they disagree with some Church policies.

Big mistake – because even cafeteria Catholics are uncomfortable with a President that seems to side with the group building a mosque near Ground Zero but glibly tramples the religious liberty of their church. When media gangs as viciously "Progressive" as USA Today and Morning Joe are speaking out against this brazen HHS move  (which reveals insolent contempt for the Constitution) , you know it's only a matter of time before we read about an Obama about-face on the issue (or so we hope). Even if it changes its dictate to HHS on this issue, the real Obama has again been revealed. No way to un-ring that bell.

Decent people can only pray that this action by The Obama forewarns the shameful demise of the Obama debacle.

Disagree? Please have the courage to say why here by posting a comment, because this is the stuff of critical public discourse!

A Poll ...

Do you agree with any part of this statement? …

“President Obama held a YouTube/Google+ town hall yesterday and was shocked to find out that a woman's husband was unemployed even though he was an engineer. Considering that we are currently in the worst "recovery" of the post-war era why is Obama surprised? His policies have led to an America that treads water while China inches closer every day.”

Please leave your answer via comment.

Thanks for taking our poll.

Welcome to YOUR future: "Soft Law" as defined by "Agenda 21"!

For the record, I’m not a member, nor do I particularly care to promote membership in the organization that produced the video report you can see at link below.

Even if you don’t like the organization, that’s fine, because the facts reported in the video are either true or they are not true regardless of who says them!

Fortunately, independent verification is possible from a site that FAVORS the ideas defined in "Agenda 21"!     To see what they are up to, go here, but ...

FIRST, I urge you to summon the courage I believe you have and ...

 ... consider the message in this video,
that was ...
produced by first hand witnesses!

IMHO, the true gravity of “Agenda 21” is hinted in this statement:

Real or alleged Wall Street malfeasance is an
insignificant symptom of a much larger problem!

Your comments on the subject of the video are most welcome.  Please post them here so we can help as many as possible choose how best to cope with these world changing forces.

Kind Regards.

Just 39 questions

In view of past and current events, I humbly urge you to read each of the questions below, then ask yourself if you feel, believe or know that any of them are worth asking. Even if you don’t like the author, each question still stands or falls on its own merit.  It seems to me that squarely facing and attempting to answer these questions requires the type of courage and character that made America possible in the first place. Just because our dear nation is falling onto hard times, should not mean that too few of us possess ancestral courage. In spite of all the unsettling news, I believe America is still home to enough of these brave souls.

If you say none of the questions below are worth asking, that’s fine. You might be correct, and every decent person prays that you are. But if you think even one is valid, … well, that’s a different discussion – one I encourage you to join, because someday soon, your very life might depend on wisdom gained from the group experience, ideas and stories.

---

What if the Constitution Expanded Government?
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
FoxNews.com

1. Does the government work for us or do we work for the government?
2. Is freedom in America a myth or a reality?
3. What if we didn’t live in a free country?
4. What if the Constitution were written not to limit government, but to expand it?
5. What if the Constitution didn't fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but betrayed it?
6. What if the Constitution actually permitted the government to limit and constrict freedom [to do any harmless thing]?
7. What if the Bill of Rights was just a paper promise, that the government could avoid whenever it claimed the need to do so?
8. What if the same generation--in some cases the same people--that drafted the U.S. Constitution enacted laws that violated it?
9. What if the merchants and bankers who financed the American Revolution bought their way into the new government and got it to enact laws that stifled their competition?
10. What if the civil war that was fought in the name of freedom actually advanced the cause of tyranny?
11. What if the federal government were the product of 150 years of stealing power and liberty and property from the people and the states?
12. What if our political elites spent the 20th century importing the socialist ideas of big government Statism from Europe?
13. What if our political class was adopting the European political culture from which our founding fathers fought so hard to break free?
14. What if our political leaders no longer acknowledged that our rights come from our humanity, but insisted instead that they come from the government?
15. What if you had to produce your papers to get out of or into our once-free country?
16. What if you couldn’t board a plane, a train, or a long-distance bus without providing documentation telling the government who you are and where you’re going, without paying the government, and without risking sexual assault? What if your local police department could shoot down a plane?
17. What if government agents could write their own search warrants, declare their own enemies, and seize whatever property they want?
18. What if the feds could detain you indefinitely, with no visitors, no lawyer, no judge, and no jury?
19. What if they could make you just disappear?
20. What if the government broke its own laws in order to enforce them?
21. What if the government broke down your front door in the middle of the night and shot your dog, and claimed it was a mistake?
22. What if you were required to purchase a product that you didn’t need, didn’t want, and couldn’t afford, from a company you never heard of, just as a condition of living in the United States?
23. What if the government told you what not to put in your body as well as what to put into it; and how much?
24. What if the government claimed that since it will be paying your medical bills, it can tell you what to eat, when to sleep, and how to live?
25. What if the government tried to cajole and coax and compel you into behaviors and attitudes it considered socially acceptable?
26. What if the government spent your tax money to advertise to you how great the services are that it provides?
27. What if the government kept promising to make you safe while it kept stripping you of your liberties and committing crimes in your name that made you a target of more violence?
28. What if you didn’t have a right to every dollar you earned?
29. What if the government decided how much of your earnings it will keep and how much it will permit you to have?
30. What if the government took money from you and gave it away to its rich banking and corporate friends whose businesses were failing?
31. What if the government thought it knew better than you did how to lead your life and had no problem telling you so?
32. What if the government took the credit for every success your own human actions helped you achieve?
33. What if the government told you that only it could build roads, run schools, keep you safe, and collect trash even though it's never been able to do so efficiently before?
34. What if the government spent nearly twice as much as it took in?
35. What if it couldn’t pass a budget on a timely basis and funded itself just weeks at a time? And what if the government kept borrowing money against the wealth of future generations to pay for wasteful programs today?
36. What if you worked for the government and the government didn’t work for you?
37. What if freedom were a myth?
38. What if we don’t live in a free country?
39. What do we do about it?

Here's one thing you can do!

Sometimes, LIES reveal TRUTH!

Sarah Palin may or may not be good presidential material, but on the chance that she might become a candidate, every legitimate voter deserves to make that decision based on facts – free from spin (lies of omission, distortion and suspicious repetition) applied by a global media cartel – the ADM*.

In a classic application of the wisdom behind Shakespeare’s famous words in “Hamlet”: “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”, the ADM’s almost comical hysteria about Sarah Palin reveals that she cannot be what they want us to believe she is.

They know she is not what they say she is.
That is exactly why they say it!

They know that the real Sarah does not fit into their plan for America. In fact, she is one of its most effective enemies! Think about it: If Sarah Palin were truly what the ADM wants you to fēēēēēēēl she is, then she would not justify the huge amounts of expensive human resources, bandwidth and air time they invest in “commenting” and “reporting” on her. She would just be a comical side note to the 2008 “election”.

Legitimate voters deserve the truth, so please share this message.

The following article describes one of several good ways to understand the real Sarah Palin.

*ADM = “Agenda Driven Media”

 

---

 What Sarah Palin Actually Said
A review of:
‘The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Pain in Her Own Words’
Edited by Matt Lewis
– Review author available on request

When it comes to the subject of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Matt Lewis has been ahead of the curve. He suggested that Sen. John McCain consider her as his running mate at a time when she had little national name recognition. Prescience.

Mr. Lewis has been an enthusiastic admirer and close observer of Mrs. Palin for several years. Tired of the mainstream media's microscopic scrutiny of Mrs. Palin, its hyperbolic coverage of irrelevancies and its manufactured "gotcha" journalism, Mr. Lewis has just released "The Quotable Rogue," a comprehensive compilation of quotes from Mrs. Palin categorized into subjects from "abortion" to "Washington."

This book is the most honest and objective depiction of Mrs. Palin yet published because it records her own words, directly and accurately, instead of with embellishments and mischaracterizations routinely served up by the agenda-driven media.

As such, it also is the most informative source available on the important views of this dynamic lady, who already has attracted the attention of a nation and is sure to play an even greater role in the months and years to come - irrespective of whether she chooses to throw her hat into the presidential race. Indeed, Mr. Lewis appears to have compiled the book partially out of his frustration that despite endless media coverage, "the vast majority of Palin's opinions and statements remain unfamiliar."

Besides, what better way to answer the insults and charges against Mrs. Palin than to consult her own words. Even better, many of these quotes, which address a wide range of political and cultural issues, are extracted from unscripted moments, so we get a real glimpse into Mrs. Palin's thoughts, absent any editorial airbrushing or blurring.

This book is anything but laborious; it's a quick and entertaining read, and it confirms that Mrs. Palin is plainspoken, consistent and reliably conservative. Her words resonate with a broad spectrum of Americans - not just hard-core conservatives - because she speaks in a language we understand and addresses our concerns. She distrusts big government and is passionate about America's unique liberty tradition. And she's unafraid to speak her mind no matter how politically incorrect her opinions are.

This is not to deny that Mrs. Palin is a polarizing figure, evoking the antipathy and irrationality of the left like few others, for whatever reasons. Mr. Lewis, fully aware of this, allows Mrs. Palin to speak for herself, trusting that many readers' perceptions of her will be changed favorably as a result.

When the media controls the narrative, faulty perceptions inevitably emerge - and prevail - including the impression that Mrs. Palin is a one-dimensional social conservative with little interest in economic issues. In fact, Mr. Lewis writes, "Palin's pre-veep identity was as a leading reformer and fiscal conservative ... a starkly different image from what most Americans now know."

I think Mr. Lewis also hopes to expose the media's fabrication of a number of "Palinisms" that were designed to put her in an unfavorable light but, in the end, were malicious distortions. One of the most famous of these, you will recall, courtesy of Tina Fey on "Saturday Night Live," was, "I can see Russia from my house." Mrs. Palin's actual words were, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." The truth doesn't make her sound ridiculous, does it? Nor does it fit the liberal-media template.

Sadly, too many buy into the coordinated media message that Mrs. Palin is an inexperienced lightweight unfit for municipal government service, much less national office. In addition, according to the carefully orchestrated conventional wisdom, Mrs. Palin is a perpetual-motion gaffe machine who is not only uncurious and uninformed but painfully awkward and, frankly, little more than an attractive but annoying hayseed.

It's interesting, isn't it, that if she were all those things, the media would be so utterly threatened by her? But they are - because she's none of those things. She ignites conservatives as only a handful of political figures have in the past generation. Far from being inarticulate, she has an uncanny ability to get to the heart of a subject and articulate the mainstream conservative position on it, as this book makes clear.

For one so allegedly bereft of gravitas, she has mastered social media, regularly penning and publishing powerful messages that go viral on Facebook and Twitter, precisely because they so succinctly and effectively capture the essence of what grass-roots conservatives believe. She addresses their concerns like few others.

I believe, and my hunch is that Matt Lewis believes, that much of the negative reaction to Sarah Palin is based far more on the media and liberal establishment's systematic savaging of her character than anything she has said or done. They fear any effective, popular, influential conservative, especially those who happen to be female or black, and generally make a point - consciously or not - of trying to destroy them.

Regardless of your feelings about Mrs. Palin, it's undeniable that she consistently demonstrates courage and leadership; she has an uncanny knack for anticipating the next important issue and is unafraid to express her opinion without first holding her finger in the wind to assess its political popularity. In the face of relentless attacks, she doesn't cower or retreat but fights back and demonstrates her resilience in direct proportion to the assaults against her.

On the other hand, much of the positive reaction to Mrs. Palin is rooted in her contagious love for America and American ideals. At a time when political correctness reigns in our culture, Mrs. Palin unapologetically articulates traditional values, vigorously challenging those who are bent on denigrating this nation and always making excuses for it. Mrs. Palin's supporters are uplifted by her patriotism and her enthusiasm for economic and political liberty. This fine book won't appeal merely to die-hard supporters of Mrs. Palin, but to those who have been grossly misled about what she's made of and who she is.

Read it!

Beware of "Argument from Intimidation"

Dear Friends,

If you count yourself among the rapidly declining number of Americans who still sincerely and passionately care about the kind of nation (and world) we leave behind, then here is serious tool that can assist your efforts.  In the raging culture war for the soul of America (and the world), this is called "ammunition".

First, please recall one of the more egregious examples of arrogant idiocy that fell from the mouth of Comrade Nancy Pelosi during the infamous (and treasonous) debacle that culminated in the alleged "passage" of Obamacare.   During a news conference with Comrade Pelosi, one very sharp, courageous reporter had obviously seen the multi-thousand page tower of babbling legalese known as “Obamacare”.    When he asked Ms. Pelosi to reveal the logic by which Obamacare was permitted by the U.S. Constitution, her response was classic, unguarded Leftist regurgitation, of the kind used whenever “Progressive” logic is challenged:

She glared at him incredulously,
then with slow deliberation, she uttered:
“You   cannot   be   serious!”

What did Ms. Pelosi do here?   Simple.   She revealed her intellectual impotence, by using “Argument from Intimidation” – the rhetorical equivalent of a wordless clubbing from an infuriated primitive. With these words, Comrade Pelosi gave us a view directly into the dark, vitrified place where her soul should be!  This behavior is so deeply embedded in the “Progressive” psyche, that they often use it unconsciously. It is an understandable mental habit, because almost all arguments in favor of “Progressive” ideology are irrational, and thus cannot be logically defended or promoted.

During the Clinton era, George Stephanopoulos conducted an interview with Bill and Hillary.  At one point in  the interview, George asked them a perfectly relevant and valid question.  They evaded his question, using a version of this tactic.  Both Bill and Hillary simply sat there in silence, staring directly at George as if he had not asked the question.  Being a typical Leftist, George naturally failed to insist on an answer and just moved on to the next question.  Apparently, it was sufficient for George to be on record as asking the question, because doing so would burnish his "impartiality" halo.  This was back in the days when high-profile "journalists" still maintained a pretense of impartiality.

This behavior has been identified and described by many sharp minds. One of the clearest and most useful came from the timeless work of Ayn Rand. Ms. Rand described this tactic many times. One example was in her book, “The Virtue of Selfishness”.    As early as 1945, she predicted that argument from intimidation would come into wider and wider use as America continued to plunge toward self-inflicted destruction.   Following the line below is an excerpt from that book, in which she described this thinly veiled, barbarism.

I believe it is useful for everyone to be aware of this tactic.  That awareness will help you identify those times when “Argument from Intimidation” is directed at you, but more importantly, when you may be unconsciously tempted to use it on others. Either way, it is a rhetorical tactic that reveals how close someone is to the mindset of a prehistoric brute. If you look for it, you can find many examples scattered throughout America’s public discourse.  To help with a book I'm writing, I am collecting examples.   If you see an example of "Argument from Intimidation" used or reported in any media channel, I would really appreciate you posting a comment to this article that contains a link or a copy in the form of text, audio or video.

Here is your ammunition …
[My comments inserted]

---

“There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s un-discussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: 'Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.' . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. [… even as his opponent exposes objective proof of his own immorality by using the tactic.]

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as 'The Argument from Intimidation.'

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: 'Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.'

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. ('Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.')   But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said — not on content, but on tone of voice. [IOW, silent contempt]

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity,
“Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?”
And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers properly: “I am”, the ensuing dialogue goes something like this:
“Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!”
“Really.”
“But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!”
“I don’t.”
“Oh, come now!”
“Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!”
“Will you tell me the reasons?”
“Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendos and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on — that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.”
– Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 139: “The Argument from Intimidation”

THIS man is smarter than me!

In my humble opinion, Jon Stewart is a brilliant comedian. He’s hilarious. Apparently, millions of America's impressionable youth agree with me.

Unfortunately, as with Barack Obama, George Bush (1 and 2), Bill Clinton, et. al., his public act is a disguise intended to obscure his more important purpose on the global battlefields of cultural warfare:

He’s a tool, right out of the globalist oligarchy tool box.

If you disagree with this man (or others of his ilk),

it can only mean that he is smarter than you.

Hmmm. I did not know that.

Did you know that?

Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert are good examples of pop-culture-targeted media, composed of brilliantly subtle acts that influence voters via almost subconscious nudges in a direction that is favorable to the global "Progressive" agenda.

A strong case can be made that most pop-culture media shows written and/or delivered by clearly identified "Progressives" can be summed up in this diagram:

The "Progressive" Media Masquerade

I offer this as a mini-study on the tactics of cultural warfare, and to point out that every word and deed by the players and audience in this spectacle, is preceded and driven by a value conclusion (conscious or not). Please see my earlier messages for more context.

If we, as a society can replace toxic values (those based on fantasy) with healthy ones (those in sync with reality) then our increasingly destructive culture war will be dumped on the ash heap of history, or at least, it will be shuffled to the only place it belongs in a truly civilized society: the lunatic fringe.

I know – easy to say, hard to do – but not impossible!  

Because Reality always bats last, one thing is crystal clear: One way or another, toxic values will be replaced by healthy ones!   The question for humanity is, how many billions must die young, how many creative, productive lives must have their beating hearts ripped out on the Pagan Altar of “Progressive” Religion before that happens? Working together by voluntary cooperation, humanity can prevail against what seems like never-ending gauntlets of irrationality used to justify coercive law.

More concisely, we have only two choices:

1. We can make the transformation happen for us, OR …

2. We can let it happen to us.

Either way, it will happen!

My hope and prayer is that our grandchildren will not be doomed to lives of de facto slavery because my generation (boomers) failed to throttle its self-indulgent, extended adolescence. If current trends continue, that is exactly what will happen.

Further commentary in the article below from the Washington Times:

---

June 24, 201
Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives, Just Ask Them
James S. Robbins

If you are a conservative, Jon Stewart wants you to know you are a moron. Last weekend on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked the comedian-cum-political commentator who the most consistently misinformed media viewers are. "The most consistently misinformed?” Mr. Stewart said, “Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll." This is a prevalent opinion on the left; they tend to think that those who don’t agree with them must not be bright enough to understand the complexities of the world, or willfully believe in things that are demonstrably untrue. But when the fact-checking website PolitiFact scored Mr. Stewart’s comments it turned out that he was the one who was misinformed. Their review “found three Pew studies that ranked Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often scored similarly low.

Meanwhile, viewers of particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show – scored consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.” The notion that O’Reilly viewers are better informed that his own must simply be too much for Mr. Stewart to bear. No wonder he blotted it out of his mind. And it is worth remembering the April 2010 New York Times/CBS News poll that found that Tea Party supporters tended to be better educated and have higher incomes than most Americans. This is at odds with the stereotyped view portrayed on “The Daily Show” and other liberal-leaning outlets of conservative activists as angry, ignorant, redneck buffoons. But if it makes the left happy to live in their safe, self-affirming fantasy world then so be it. We don’t have to watch.

---

Addendum:

In the hierarchy of globalist oligarchy tools, here is one on the next higher rung from Stewart:

"They watch us. No one watches them!" What a warm, fuzzy, "secure" feeling!

Dear Friends,

I would almost give up my first born for input from anyone who can show that I have exaggerated anything in this preface to the message below. If the facts reported in the letter are true, then, I humbly ask you: “Is my conclusion accurate?”

BEWARE!
Even if you “own” and live in a modest little suburban home
on a ¼ acre lot,
this can happen to you!

Even if you exclude the staggering economic carnage inflicted by the IRS over the last the last 99 years, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases like the ones described below – crimes committed against harmless individuals by overpaid agents (thugs) from other bureaucratic fiefdoms.

We only discover these Gestapo tactics via foreign media or secondary and tertiary domestic news sources because, since the Waco and Ruby Ridge debacles, these kinds of enforcement actions are (by tacit or overt agreement) deliberately ignored by Leftmedia*. Too many of us overlook the fact that the federal police leviathan also learned from those crimes. They learned dramatically different lessons from those we learned. Sadly, the Leftmedia in America still commands the largest audience, by far – mostly mindless thralls who, inexplicably, are still allowed to vote!

The letter below describes further evidence of two of the grimmest features of what America has become: 

1. De facto reality: The U.S. Federal Government literally owns everything, including your life, in the form of a claim on your productivity, from birth! Did you know that on the day you were born, you were already in debt to nameless, faceless, unaccountable thousands? YOU are just “a battery in the Matrix” that serves today’s version of a 15th Century “Aristocracy of Arrogance”. The effect is that there is no such thing as “free and clear Title” to property of any kind. Get out your mortgage that is marked “PAID”, and use it for toilet paper, because that is about how much it is worth.
   --- 
2. Coercive U.S Law need not be justified by objectively demonstrable necessity. It is little more than a means by which a few get to rule over everyone else, regardless of their ability or qualifications for ruling anyone – even their own lives. This means that U.S. Law has become a sham and is unworthy of respect by any decent person.

In short, dear people, we no longer live in a nascent police state.

We live in a fully formed police state.

It’s up to the remaining decent people in America, to clean up this toxic mess!   Doing so, may require large-scale social upheaval, possibly violence – God forbid!

I wonder if the sum total of courage in the American public is sufficient to do the cleanup.

 

– Marcus Porcius Cato

---

To: Sen. Jim Webb, Sen. Mark Warner, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, President Barack Obama

June 7, 2011

HERE ARE TWO EXAMPLES OF LIVES DESTORYED BY THE EPA

John Posgai of Morrisville, PA., was sentenced to three years in prison and fined $202,000 after purchasing a property that was an illegal dump site.

Posgai bought the land and began to clean it up by removing 7,000 discarded tires and rusted car parts that were ILLEGALLY dumped on the property before he owned it. Shocking as it may seem, the dank water accumulating inside the junk tire-according to the EPA-made the property a wetlands. HE WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN PRISON AND FINED $202,000 (bankrupting his family, and destroying their reputation in the community) for REMOVING LITTER, TRASH AND GARBAGE from land he bought specifically to save it from land-trashers. The EPA was able to use Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, to make a hefty profit off of this unsuspecting American, because, as the Washington Examiner reports, EPA officials and the Army Corps of Engineers claimed that the water runoff from the ILLEGALLY DISCARDED TIRES would occasionally flood part of the property because of an artificial dam created by the old tires, which Posgai had now removed. Without these tires, the property was only a wetland in the imagination of EPA and Army Corps bureaucrats. That, however, proved enough.

His crime? Posgai was sentenced for placing topsoil and clean fill on his own property without permission of the Federal authorities from the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sparing no expense to nab this "criminal," the EPA staked out the property with secret surveillance cameras and took several aerial photographs to capture the "crime" on film, reports The Freeman.

Think this could never happen to you?

Meet the Sackett family, who bought a half-acre lot in a residential area near Priest Lake, Idaho, to build their family's modest dream home, only to have the EPA swoop in threatening them with fines of more than $25,000 a day for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act.

Our "beloved" “indispensible” [unstoppable juggernaut] EPA sent a "compliance order" that required them [the Sacketts] to undo the excavation [preparing the land for the builder to set the foundation] and restore the "wetlands," and then leave it for three years at which point they could seek a "permit" [to build their home] that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned court in the land, said that before a court could issue a ruling on the EPA's order, the family would have to go through a years-long, $200,000-plus process of formally applying for a federal wetlands permit. [This just means that the EPA has no intention of approving any “wetlands permit”, unless they are told by their betters to give one for a political pet.]

According to the Petition, ignoring the compliance order is not an option, for several reasons. First, the CWA imposes significant civil penalties for violating compliance orders. Just one month of noncompliance puts the landowner at risk of civil liability of $750,000. A year's worth of noncompliance would put their liability at $9,000,000!

Chesapeake , VA

-- Author withheld out of fear for personal safety

---

* “Leftmedia” = ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, ACLU, MoveOn.ORG, John Stewart, George Soros, a host of other looters, and to only a slightly lesser degree, FOX News.

Outsourcing Morality

Dear Friends,

Please distribute this message. Why? Because the only way to defeat any bad idea, is to replace it with a better one. It is critical that everyone understand the ideas behind destructive public policies.  

The excellent article below is from one more of a growing list of thinkers who have identified the true nature of tax-funded Entitlement policies. More and more people are discovering the ugly truth that these amount to "coercive charity".

For the record: Neither I nor any responsible thinker denies the virtue of charity. Nor do we deny the humane ethics of emergencies.  Noble, voluntary charity is under attack by the “Progressive” ideology behind coercive “Entitlement” policies. The core issue is the word “coercive” -- “coercive charity” is an oxymoron.

With the single exception of real emergencies, how can their be any virtue (and thus, value) in coercively funded “charity” (by taxes collected at what amounts to gun point). In reality, such policies are driven by profound evil: a blatant, shameless means of buying votes from the recipients (both current and prospective) of “Entitlement” – a policy that produces its intended effect: dependency!

On the individual level, it's pretty clear that people who aggressively or passively support America's current entitlement quagmire, are demonstrating a perfect example of sociopathic selfishness!

---

Liberals Outsourcing Morality
By Frank Ryan

In the Book of Matthew in the New Testament, Pontius Pilate symbolically washes his hands of the responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. This symbolism has carried on through the centuries as the mark of someone who is complicit in something yet wishes to distance himself from the appearance of responsibility. The person effectively "washes" away the guilt.

In much the same way, 21st-century liberalism uses the tax code to absolve itself of the moral responsibility to truly care for the very citizens they claim to be protecting. The tax code has become the means by which supposedly caring citizens symbolically fulfill their moral duties to care for their fellow citizen. They fulfill this responsibility by electing politicians to pass taxes forcing others to pay for social programs they want but do not wish to pay for themselves.

Having just seen a "liberal" state cut off funding for developmentally disabled children for budgetary reasons with no moral concern for the welfare of those children disturbed me. Under the revised program, the children were to receive treatment in six months or be forced out of the program. This cut off from aid convinced me that social program proponents are often willing to support the poor only if they can get someone else to pay for it. They effectively "wash" away their responsibility and complicity by passing legislation requiring others to pay for those programs they want but do not wish to pay for using their personal funds.

Other citizens with more sincere motives of caring for one another make the conscious decision to support their fellow citizen in need by using their own funds to care for the poor rather than merely forcing others to do it. Many do this through their church affiliation or by personal involvement and volunteering.

The disparity of thought processes of those who demand government involvement in social programs with those who foster personal responsibility to support one another is profound. This disparity and the consequences of that disparity are critical to understanding why our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution the way that they did.

In Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution we proclaim what Congress can do and is prohibited from doing. These very boundaries were intended to guide us in an incredibly wise way in which the "unintended consequences" of an intrusive government were spelled out. Our Founders knew precisely that one cannot legislate morality nor legislate personal responsibility.

Passage of laws protecting those in need does not absolve you of your responsibility to truly care for one another. Any moral society understands compassion for those in need.

Unfortunately to presume that those claiming to be in need as defined by a law are truly in need is a horrible mistake. Laws passed to "protect" with the intent of winning reelection merely creates an entitlement mentality which will not benefit the person nor their family in the long run but it will get the politician reelected.

When you care for those in need because of your personal desire, you are following your moral conscience. Your moral compass is guiding you. You become involved and personally responsible.

When you "care" for someone involuntarily through taxes you may feel that you have fulfilled your responsibility because you paid the taxes required. The potential for abuse of and dependency in the program are ever present as well. The "entitlement" becomes a right rather than a need.

I often wonder if some misguided citizens who demand government solutions to all problems really want to encourage dependency because it feels good to be needed. Do they like having someone totally dependent on them?

The need to be needed may compel many people's actions but the resultant involuntary dependency of one person on another is not healthy in my mind. Such dependency creates an atmosphere of fear of those truly in need that they may be abandoned whenever a new cause comes up that is more fashionable or should taxes run short as in a recession.

True social justice requires us to be personally involved, personally responsible and personally accountable. But then our Founding Fathers knew that. Our Founding Fathers never washed their hands of their responsibilities. Instead they fought for our freedoms against a tyrannical king so that we could have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unrelenting government intrusion in our lives is our tyrannical king. To retain our national culture we must get involved and get our government back under control. We must become personal responsible and accountable. Now!

---

FRYAN1951@aol.com

SHOCKER! Leftmedia attempt to dig up dirt on Sarah has exploded in their insolent faces!

Top level LeftMedia editors were so giddy over the prospect of combing through Sarah Palin's 'treasure trove' of emails from when she was governor, that some outlets enlisted the help of 100 'researchers' to find items that will 'hopefully lead to further investigation.' They were certain scandal after scandal awaited, but what they found was the exact opposite. Not only were there no scandals, the emails actually show Palin is funny, honest, consistent, compassionate, likable -- it all amounts to another humiliating defeat in the relentless quest to destroy Sarah Palin.

[SIDE NOTE:  The paragraph above describes the classic behavior of people who pretend to be "objective", but in their "heart of hearts", are the exact opposite -- people who actually lie for a living!]

After constant political harassment, 24,000 pages of emails were released from Sarah's time as governor of Alaska. Most of these messages were written long before her nomination for Vice President, and were intended to be private emails about her work as governor.

Yet, even after the media actually solicited everyday people to scour the emails for something to “investigate”, editors were baffled when political enemies and opposition research produced exactly zero interesting material proving her supposed Satan-like private persona.

I do not know if Sarah is a proper candidate for president, but the very fact that she causes such hysteria among Leftmedia apparatchiks, is a huge clue that she possesses something fairly rare among all plausible candidates. This phenomena demonstrates what should be considered axiomatic by now:

One of the most reliable indicators that you are revealing actual “Progressive” motives, is when they stomp away in anger and refuse to continue any dialog.

Indeed, refusal to calmly discuss critical public policy issues, while simultaneously perpetrating toxic ideologies, can only be interpreted as the behavior of anti-life forces.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Comments welcome.

-- Cato

CONSEQUENCES of "ENTITLEMENT"

In this post, I humbly share a portion of my conversation with a long-time friend.  Your comments are welcome.

The following is a series of message exchanges between myself and a long-time friend, in chonological order, oldest to newest:

---

Message 1:


Dear ... ,

I hope you interpret this message as I intend it: an expression of admiration and respect for your in intellectual integrity, because that’s what it is!

I challenge you to read this book about a fellow who has led an
amazing life inside the belly of the Hollywood and Broadway beasts:

If you wish, I’ll gladly buy the Kindle download version for you, but only if you promise to read it within the next 60 days.

---

Message 2 (response to 1):

I appreciate the sentiment.  I am sure it is interesting.  You don't need to buy it for me. 

I do get the whole left=evil, right=good thing.   My position is: left = evil, right = evil. 

Each side tries to outdo the other, and then use the media to fling crap at each other like monkeys.

All of this left vs right crap is coming from the "street magicians" or global media manipulators, who use it to distract us from the really bad shit that is going on.

You frequently mention Judeo-Christian values.  One thing I find kind of funny are the politicians that refer to themselves as Christians.  In no way whatsoever are they like Christ.  You can take any random statement or action from a Christian politician, and then ask yourself, "Would Jesus have said or done that?".  This is a topic I can't even begin to properly cover right now.

I have to fly today, I will chat with you again this weekend.

---

Message 3:

Dear ...,

Excellent response!

RE, your comment: “In the US, we have lost our compassion and respect for our fellow man. We are no longer able to objectively listen. There isn't any such thing as actual communication anymore. Once this is lost, all is lost.”

Agreed.  This phenomena appears even more true in western Europe, where the “cradle-to-grave” entitlement notion has grown far beyond what we have in America (so far). Dennis Prager is one of the most well travelled people on earth. No honest person must share his belief in God to see that much of what he says is absolutely demonstrable! Over the last 40 years, Dennis has visited every country and continent on Earth for extended stays. He has re-visited most of those countries multiple times. He and others have observed the overall quality of compassion and sense of interpersonal responsibility in the so-called “civilized” cultures of western Europe. From this experience, Dennis recently described what is almost certainly a fact, because I’m seeing it happen more and more each day in America:

Any ideology that empowers the notion of
“entitlement”, makes the whole society meaner!

 After all ... 
“Why should I care about voluntary charity,
if so much of my earned wealth is confiscated
to ‘care’ for the ‘less fortunate’?
I say, let government care for them.”

(Notice the implied absolution for failure to choose the admitted greater value.)

Until I learn otherwise, I am pretty sure that’s the dynamic behind a very interesting statistic that has been confirmed over and over by numerous research groups, both “liberal” and “conservative”:

The total number of after tax dollars voluntarily
given to charities, is vastly greater among
self-described “conservatives”,
than it is among self-described “liberals”.
(The average of the various studies shows a discrepancy of more than 80%!)

In other words:

 Those who reject the alleged virtue of entitlement
tend to be far more generous to their fellow man,
than those who embrace it!

Somewhere, there’s a lesson in that. What do you think it is?

On another issue, I agree that “We are no longer able to objectively listen.” However, most people have not “lost” that ability, because they’ve never had it to begin with. The ability to think logically, dispassionately, with one’s mind (as opposed to “heart” OR “feelings”), is a learned skill – it can be taught. With very rare exceptions, objective listening, observation and analytical skills are no longer taught in most of our so-called, “public schools” – probably because that institution has been co-opted by a “Progressive” agenda. That agenda stresses “compliance”, “self-sacrifice”, “equality” (of outcome), “groupism” and a host of other, equally pernicious notions.

However, to the salvation of humanity, some of us can be objective when and where it really counts!   If not for a tiny minority of disciplined thinkers, we would all still be living as tribes of migrant hunter-gatherers and most human technology would not exist. I suspect, at least 90% of all humans depend for their very lives, on the wisdom, insight and creative impulses of a tiny minority of intellectual giants. Motivated by enlightened self-interest, that minority figures out how the universe actually works (as in Quantum Mechanics, the laws of Physics, Microbiology, et. al) then the rest of us just copy them like so many monkeys.

Unfortunately, since the dark days of 1908 – 1913, America has been grotesquely twisted into a culture where those intellectual giants are literally punished for their gifts to humanity. IOW, the monkeys are whipping the goose that lays the golden eggs on which they depend!   Go figure!    That, dear friend, is a direct result of the Collectivist (“Progressive”) ideology behind “Entitlement”. Use whatever labels you wish in place of mine, but the effect is the same.

The Law of Identity: A = A.
“A” is never equal to X, simply because
some of us “feel” like it “should” be!

As I’m sure you know, Objectivity is a learned skill in which one first acknowledges the human tendency to be subjective about everything. To offset that tendency (and thus master the physical world), we must apply the rules of logic and clear, rational analysis. The Empirical Method is just one of several time-tested disciplines that empower diligent, honest people to filter out subjective perceptions. Maintaining and enhancing this skill is a lifelong task that requires, among other things, constant, brutally honest self-examination. All of this comes under the heading of ”Epistemology” – my favorite hobby! Naturally, no one is 100% consistent in applying objective perception. This is why an honest scientist wants his theories disproven more than anything else.