Friday's HOT MIC
15 minutes ago
That said, many of those who wrote have never read an article in this newspaper. They wrote in order to address French public opinion, a sort of letter in a bottle. One of them, Adam Albrett of Sunnyvale (California), states that he also wrote to "various organizations in the United States" calling for Jacques Chirac to be awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. Basically, Mr. Albrett deeply supported Mr. Chirac's opposition to the Iraqi war. In itself not a sin by any means but one can only imagine his fury at Obama for his various drone attacks and his authorization of assassination of US citizens.
"THIS IS NOT A JOKE...Inform the FBI, CIA, U.S. Military and DOJ that I am going down to DC to blow the brains out of OBAMA unless he vacates the White House and I am going to shoot up the place and Rham [sic] if I see him... THIS IS NOT A JOKE...I am going to leave Mara at home with water and some food..."
On some days I wish the US had succeeded in Iraq so that Mubarak and King Abdullah II of Jordan could be examples to the rest of the high price to be paid for toeing the line of US/Israeli influence. The price is nothing less than one's rule or crown. Go ahead and let Hamas sink (it won't), but don't complain when you are living out your last days like a kafkaesque cockroach and someone like [senior Fatah official] Mohammed Dahlan or one of his sons lords it over you and your people. Even if Hamas wins it doesn't mean that Arab leaders' authority is secure. The US and Israel will never stop trying to get someone like Dahlan, [Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi or one of his sons in power, and their promises to the contrary are just lies that so deepen the pain when their treachery eventually strikes. As Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell pointed out regarding the limits of inductive thinking, the hand that feeds the chicken every day is the same hand that twists its neck.He is clearly an intelligent man who has been enraged by Obama's policies. The starting phrase "On some days" implies that on most days he wishes America had failed in Iraq and he ends with stating that the US and Israel's promises "are just lies" and they are planning "treachery".
The first quote is good advice for judging the sincerity of someone attempting to persuade you to a course of action. When Al Gore leaves his huge mansion, hops on his private jet, then takes an armored SUV to lecture you about how we all have to reduce our carbon footprints and in general end our rampant consumptionism, it's pretty easy to tell why his eyes are brown.
Liberalism's most acute critics such as University of Virginia political scientist James Ceaser emphasize the centrality of crises, real or manufactured, in expanding the size and reach of the liberal state (as in the recent case of the supposedly imminent global warming catastrophe). In Never Enough, Voegeli, a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College's Henry Salvatori Center and a contributing editor of this journal, points to a complementary concept: liberalism, he argues, "lacks a limiting principle." This boundlessness, as it might be described, is familiar to Americans across the country who have watched, for instance, secondary school costs and college tuitions grow at roughly twice the rate of inflation for a quarter-century now. This boundlessness generates some of the apprehension that animates the Tea Parties. As a friend asked me rhetorically—referring to the fact that the failing schools in Washington, D.C., spend $28,000 a year per pupil while Harvard tuition costs $34,000 a year—"When will enough be enough?" The same question could be asked regarding federal and state spending. Liberals, Voegeli explains, sometimes avoid trying to answer these sorts of questions by execrating as greedy racists those who ask them.Read the whole thing.
Liberals found a warrant for expansive government in their reconceptualization of the American republic. The Federalist had grounded government and rights in the imperfections of human nature. The proto-liberals of the Progressive era, who had drunk deeply of Darwinism, disposed of the notion of an inherent human nature. Like Woodrow Wilson, they were done with "blind" worship of the Constitution. Their concept of rights flowed from the felt necessities of history as it unfolded. History required, as Wilson argued, that "[t]he government of a country so vast and various must be strong, prompt, wieldy and efficient." Highly trained, disinterested experts, the products of university education, were to wield this powerful instrument untethered from Madisonian restraints and guided by visionary insight into the direction of history. Of course, notes Voegeli, "the dubious authority asserted by those who claim they can see farther over the horizon than the rest of us is, among other things, a way to make their own political preferences cast a bigger shadow."
11. Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."Every item on the list has a verifiable citation. Enjoy.
[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
“Happy birthday,” the ebullient doctor told the British health care socialists. If you have not noticed already, this man has a crush on collectivism. “Cynics beware,” he said. “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” This love extends to approbation for rationing health care and using the health care system to redistribute wealth.That's the man Obama picked to make medical decisions about your health. Enjoy.
“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach,” Berwick told the Brits."
Snyder, a Pennsylvania resident, is challenging the protests held by the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Westboro pastor Fred Phelps and other members — many of them Phelps' family members — have become well known for their funeral protests, which they have used to advertise their belief that U.S. Iraq war deaths are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.I bow to no one in my support of free speech, even when I want to wring the neck of the person speaking. But no one has the right to deliberately disrupt a funeral. Especially a the funeral of a man who died protecting your rights.
Church members have protested at numerous soldiers' funerals nationwide. In March 2006, they protested at the funeral of 20-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, Albert Snyder's son. Standing outside the funeral at a church in Westminster, Md., Westboro members held signs that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're going to Hell," among other things.
Increasing levels of coercion are necessary to expand the socialist system, and keep wealth producers trapped within it. To maintain popular support, the socialist needs voters to stay angry at designated class enemies. The Obama style of total government control over private businesses tends to turn feral with frightening speed, because it attempts to preserve the illusion of private enterprise, even as the “entrepreneurs” are enslaved to the total state.
ObamaCare means a new tax will disproportionately fall to lower and middle income couples who choose to get married rather than just live together. The House Republicans gave an example of an unmarried couple, each earning $25,000, for a total income of $50,000 who would pay annual health insurance premiums capped at $3,076. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 17 million people would receive such subsidies in 2016 under the House health care bill. A married couple with the same combined income, $50,000 a year, would pay premiums capped at $5,160 — a “marriage penalty” of $2,084.
What’s most striking to me about all of this is that — as I noted yesterday (and as Olbermann stressed) — George Bush’s decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives. All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law. Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind. And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent, which is why Olbermann’s extensive coverage of it is important. Just imagine what the reaction would have been among progressive editorial pages, liberal opinion-makers and Democratic politicians if this story had been about George Bush and Dick Cheney targeting American citizens for due-process-free and oversight-less CIA assassinations.