The Dangers of Leftism by American Reform Party posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Primacy of the Individual: The Intent Versus the Result in Statism and the Dangers of Leftism

Even as individualists, many of us want to group ourselves according to some larger identification or affiliation. Since my gradual transition to minarchism began as the outgrowth of my move into libertarianism some ten years ago when I supported Harry Browne, I have been perpetually amused by the insistence of many anarchists and minarchists alike that they want nothing (or at most, as little as possible) higher than the individual as a mode of organization. One has only to look at the wide spectrum of denominational affiliations within anarchism, minarchism, and agorism to see that there are higher modes of affiliation and even organization within our spectrum.

How this would result in something other than statism or at least a construct which resembles statism in at least some respects has never been explained to me. People group and cluster together naturally, being social animals. They recognize collective interests, agendas, and beliefs and they group and organize around those commonly held ideals and causes. In this natural process, what inevitably emerges resembles in every way statism on certain levels. We have the declarations and statements of belief, assertions of various rights, organizational hierarchies and the processes thereof up to and including democratic votes, and all of this resembles on a certain level statism.

The ideological purity insisted upon by some within anarchism and its affiliated movements does not ring true with me. One of the reasons I’ve been turned off by statism and political ideologies in general is the obsession with doctrinal purity despite the overwhelming evidence that the doctrine in question does not work as claimed when applied in a real world environment. Let’s take the Drug War, the War on Poverty, the War for Morality, and any other crusades and movements of the past 50 years. Drugs, Poverty, and Immorality continue their unabated advance. If anything, the efforts to combat these ills have arguably led to the perpetuation and expansion of the problem.

On the same level, I’ve increasingly become disillusioned with government. I just don’t see that it has ever worked in the way it was ostensibly supposed to work. I don’t see that it ever even came close. Government is a sort of beast created in a laboratory, where under laboratory settings, the beast would function in a controlled environment according to its design and purpose. Unfortunately, the beast escapes the laboratory and makes it into the real world, where it wreaks unholy havoc.

I am no longer an idealist. I love animals and children, though I entertain no illusions about either. The key to managing an animal or a child is to establish dominance in the relationship, to make both understand who is in charge. Time and time again as a teacher, I had to learn and re-learn this lesson. I also witnessed the natural result which inevitably occurred when parents had not established dominance or control in their relationships with their children early on.

I feel the same way towards government. It’s an unruly beast, and in order to make it conform to your purposes and desires for it, you have to beat the living hell out of it. You may even have to kill it and get yourself a new one.

I distinguish between my government and my country. I love my country, and my love is rooted in the land and the common principles which I do honestly feel bind us. There’s a decency among most of us. We’ll help others in need. I like what we are when our fellow man is in need. I regret that we aren’t the same way when there isn’t an ongoing catastrophe.

I love our Constitution, I love our Declaration of Independence, our various charters, and our flags. I like the idea of being a part of something larger than myself. Maybe it is the traditionalist within me, but being American gives me purpose, direction, and a sense of relevance in much the same way that being a Theist does. There’s a spiritual impact I feel when I’m out and about in our country. I love the land, and I love feeling that on some level, it’s mine as an American to have and to hold, to cherish and to defend.

I love the history of our nation, good and bad. There’s as much to be gleaned from the mistakes and errors of our past as there is to be celebrated from our shining moments. For me, America is the land and the people, and the sum of their beliefs, philosophies, and the shared and individual experiences which make up our history. These are very often at odds with government, which for me, is the state. Government is the conduit for the very worst within us to be magnified and exposed in all of its ugliness. The political component brings out the absolute worst within our country.

I draw a distinction between Republicans and Democrats and what I consider to be the insidious evil within our society: the Left. I firmly believe most Republicans and Democrats aren’t that far apart on values. Your average Democrat comes from a manufacturing background, and was perhaps a member of a union. Your average Republican likely comes from a similar background, but may or may not be a member of a union. The working class tends to inherit their class and their political affiliation from the generation which came before them.

They share similar values, even as you go up the social and economic scale. I have yet to meet a Democrat in Alabama who does not abhor partial birth abortion. In fact, I have to meet a Democrat anywhere that I’ve gone who does not regard it as more suited to the laboratory of Dr. Mengele than an American physician’s office. We tend to acknowledge that teenagers will make mistakes with drugs, alcohol, and sexuality, but we don’t necessarily agree that the government ought to intervene to educate them on either of the three subjects. We tend to regard such instruction as falling with the purview of parents and elders within a child’s immediate social circle, be it their family, their church, or their neighborhood.

The Left does not regard sex education as the purview of parents for precisely the same reason it does not regard traditional family structures in high regard: it seeks to deracinate the traditional values and beliefs of any society in which Leftists exist. It seeks to challenge and overturn convention, and not to erect anything better in its place, but rather to arrive at a sort of nihilistic destination where individuals are no better than subjects in some grand scheme or experiment conducted by ideologues and academics who want to tinker with the lives and beliefs of others and their cultures.

The Left constructs some noble goal or some laudable end like the reduction of teen pregnancy or the reduction of sexuality transmitted diseases; and it proposes a program or agenda to accomplish its end. The reality of the matter is this: the stated or ostensible goal of a Leftist is never the genuine goal. Teen pregnancy goes up, not down, and the rate of transmission where venereal diseases is concerned skyrockets as well. The idea is to change normative standards, to introduce alternative modes of sexual conduct in the name of limitless individual expression.

It never once crosses the Leftist’s mind that limitless individual expression is not freedom at all, but rather an invitation to voluntary enslavement. People can die as a result of their bad habits. In point of fact, we refer to behaviors as bad for the very reason that they are a danger to human life. We construct rules within a society or point to certain behaviors as virtuous because they lead to the perpetuation and the prolonging of life. We don’t condone overconsumption or promiscuous sexual behavior because neither works to perpetuate or prolong life; rather, both are likely to shorten lives.

We can’t force individuals to choose virtue, but we can erect societies where failure isn’t incentivized in the form of endless safeguards, bailouts, and nanny state regulations. Protecting people from consequence does not result in greater survivability or happiness; it results in indolence and enslavement to whatever entity rescues individuals from themselves. The point of salvation is freedom, not bondage.

Leftists have a fatalist view or outlook on nearly everything. Their idea is never that individuals left to learn on their own in the marketplace of behaviors can over time learn for themselves what works and what doesn’t; it is instead that individuals of a certain caliber or class are incapable of learning anything. The Leftist regards the poor or the mentally disabled in the same way that they would regard a stray animal: they seek to spay, neuter, and yes, even subject them to euthanasia. History is a testament to this. Look at the so-called progressives and the various movements they have spawned, eugenics and population control especially.

Human beings are not animals, and anyone who would propose to treat them with the same management techniques and husbandry methods employed by farmers seeking to build or cull their livestock is unfit to hold power over the life of another human being. If we regard the Leftist with cold contempt and even hot hatred; it is because he is contemptible by virtue of his low esteem for the life, autonomy, and right to self-determination of his fellow man.

The reply of the Leftist is that someone must, absolutely must, provide some redress for the suffering of these poor dullards. They are overrunning the Earth, consuming beyond the capacity of the planet to replenish itself, and they must be stopped to ensure the greater good of the human race. Implicit within such logic is the fact that the Leftist does not regard whoever falls into the category of “they” as part of the human race, or at least as a part of the human race worth preserving on the same level as the class occupied by Leftists and their peers. In truth, the Leftist regards such individuals as altogether separate from himself. He may even, as history has shown, construct a classification system to relegate these others as being somehow akin to animals.

The great danger of Leftism is this: it wears virtually every mask available. Leftists have been Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and every other sort of partisan, religious, or ideological denomination under the sun. The measure of Leftism is its obsession with pragmatism as the basis for action against or over others.

It is from this pragmatism that many of the coercive abuses of the state spring. Leftism is the soil from which the great heresies of statism spring: security as a justification for surrender of liberties rather than the means to the end of liberty; eugenics and forced sterilization; slavery and segregation; the reduction of women to a lesser status before the law with lesser privileges where suffrage and other matters were concerned; and the reduction of embryos from human status to mere protoplasm in the event of an abortion while simultaneously preserving laws which classify the murder of a pregnant woman as the murder of a child as well. If you would have a government function within the limits prescribed by its citizens, you must keep Leftism out of elected office and out of bureaucracy. In point of fact, if you would have any sort of a society whatsoever, you must expel Leftists from your ranks the minute they reveal themselves.

The Leftist is a vampire who sucks the lifeblood out of a society, a cancer and a pox upon culture who corrupts everything from public discourse to private conversation; and he encourages the proliferation of racial bigotry and resentment, gender inequity, slavery, and the equivocation of consensual sexual relationships between adults of sound mind to that of a man or woman who molests an animal or a child, neither of whom possesses the requisite mental faculties to form consent to a sexual encounter. The Leftist must be identified, and he must be cast out and purged. He sows only endless abstraction, and all in the service of tearing down the agreed upon conventions and normative standards of the society in which he exists.

The Leftist seizes upon rights not as the end to realize his own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, but as a means to overturn the Life and Liberty of others with whom he disagrees. He seeks at every turn to utilize his freedom and autonomy to overturn theirs. The end result of the open society which tolerates a Leftist is the extinguishing of individual self-determination, autonomy, and eventually, the extinction of the open society itself, which is replaced with a totalitarian or autocratic regime.

The liberal or the conservative may be a Leftist. As I have said before, Leftism is malleable to any ideology or affiliation, so long as pragmatism is introduced and melded with the the ideology or affiliation in question. When a conservative transitions to a point where agreed upon absolutes like the sanctity of life or the autonomy of individuals up to and including sacrosanct rights become mere means rather than ends unto themselves, he is a Leftist, as is any liberal who takes the same position. When anyone comes to a point where they say to themselves, this is more important than life or the rights of individuals to their lives, their beliefs, and property is concerned, they have effectively removed themselves from whatever society in which they previously existed. They have committed treason. From that point forward, they can only work to overthrow the freedom, self-determination, and autonomy of others who do not align themselves with the Leftist. Everyone who does not believe as a Leftist believes become the Other, or the Enemy. The freedom of the Leftist differs from your freedom and my freedom in that it is mutually exclusive to the freedoms of others who disagree.

When Christian conservatives argue for boycotts against a sitcom on the grounds that it is immoral or promotes indecency, their position is not to make a statement of belief. It is instead to deny others the right to determine for themselves whether or not the program in question is decent or indecent. There is a fail safe method of determining merit in entertainment: ratings, and/or the money which flows from those ratings in the form of advertising dollars or sales. The Christian conservative boycotts not as an exercise of free speech, but as an attempt to intimidate and coerce advertisers and producers of entertainment so that they will not defy the standards advocated by Christian conservatives. It is the same with liberals who object to conservative programming in the same manner. They are not content to let ratings or sales serve as an arbiter of a program’s success or failure. They simply do not want anyone to be able to have the option of watching the program in question at all.

I exercise my freedom by turning the channel or putting in a DVD. The Leftist seeks to deny me the opportunity to choose for myself. His is a war on Ideas, an effort to drive all competing Opinions and Ideas from the marketplace in order to limit the options of consumers to only those which the Leftist deems appropriate or good. Politicians who cater to this tendency, who inculcate within their constituencies an entitled attitude so common to Leftists, are not politicians at all: they are demagogues.

Virtue is the foundation of any free society, and the ends of freedom is to find that behavior which works in the marketplace of conduct. That is why individuals who save their money and live within their means build wealth more quickly than individuals who do not. The Leftist seeks to dominate the marketplace of conduct to pick the winners not according to the merit of their behavior in a marketplace, but according to his own set notions of the way things ought to be. He fails every single time.

The last three of our Presidents have proven that, contrary to the myths and innuendos, drugs will not ruin your life. All three used drugs. They learned on their own that repeated, frequent, and abusive drug use was perhaps not the way to go through life. My own personal experience taught me more or less the same lesson. I see nothing wrong with recreational use; though I don’t see anything right about it either. It’s a choice individuals ought to be able to make on their own time. I firmly believe that if they were able to do so, overall drug use would decline both as a result of their epiphanies and as a result of removing some of the illicit qualities of drug use.

The Leftist believes in the efficacy of the Law above all else. He believes that the Law can prevent or deter crime. We execute more people in this country than any other nation on Earth besides China, and we have the highest homicide rate regardless. We have an abundance of laws and we incarcerate more people than any other nation on Earth besides China. Crime continues to multiply.

The Law does not prevent or deter crime. It merely identifies a behavior as criminal and prescribes a course of action for the eventual occurrence of the behavior. The Law is important in that it provides orderly processes and defined consequences for an action. It discourages vigilantism by providing a legal recourse to address violence against others, whether in their lives, persons, or property; and it provides a means for individuals to stand equally before the Law so that they may be held accountable for their crimes or their torts. At least, that’s the way it ought to work.

Just as the conservative traditionalist Leftist believes in the deterrent efficacy of the Law, his liberal counterpart believes in the rehabilitative efficacy of the law. One does not rehabilitate or deter through the law. One merely provides a consequence or redress commensurate with the crime or the tort in question.

But the Leftist seeks not correction, but rather some abstract notion of justice. Tell me, what is justice? Is it the reciprocity of consequence? Do we want that? Do we want the state raping rapists so that they may know what they’ve done to their victims? Does the acknowledgement of earlier wrongs which excuse present wrongs somehow constitute justice? Do we want the state taking into account the abuse suffered by a murderer as a child when sentencing him for his crimes? Does this somehow mitigate the free choice he made when he chose to kill his victim?

To invite this sort of nonsense into a society, to entertain it as a basis for governmental action, is to overturn absolutes and institute situation and circumstance in their place. It is to invalidate the real and the actual in order to entertain the hypothetical. It is to rob the meaning and significance from every area of our culture. It is to say that an individual may own himself and his property, and that he may be entitled to pursue his own happiness with both as he sees fit, if and only x does not occur or is not presently occurring. No individual may claim freedom based in individual rights or liberties in such an environment. His rights are dependent not upon his mere possession of humanity, but rather upon the situation or the circumstance in which he finds himself. He is at the mercy of the Fates.

It is to exchange civilization for barbarity. We arrive at a debate where an attorney working in the employ of the United States Federal Government, whose salary is drawn from your tax dollars, can argue that the President has the right to sexually mutilate the child of a suspect in order to compel that suspect to divulge information. The infant has no rights. He is a mere object to be exploited for an end. His humanity is stripped and his claim to autonomy reduced to nothing. He can make no objection to his own mutilation as the interrogator crushes his testicles in order to compel his father or his mother to divulge information that they may not even have to begin with. After all, they’re just suspects. They haven’t been tried or convicted of anything. When you look upon what Leftism has wrought, and the way in which it turns the State away from its intent of upholding, defending, preserving, and even expanding individual liberty and power, you can see where Leftism and the primacy of the individual are incompatible. You can further see how intent and result are separated and rendered awry in statism.

The problem is not statism per se; it is the appropriation of the state by Leftists of various stripes who put pragmatism before principle, results before process, ends before means, hypotheticals before what is presently real and known. They proliferate laws, regulations, and bureaucracies, all in the name of arriving at Utopia and inevitably they arrive at Dystopia instead. The problem of Leftism highlights a greater problem among those individuals who believe in sacrosanct individual rights: a lack of resolve and an obvious discomfiture on our parts to reckon with the obvious danger of allowing those who would exercise their rights in order to overthrow the rights of everyone else. At some point, we cannot continue dealing in theories and endless abstractions ourselves. We have to resolve to fight the Leftists in order to ensure our own survival.

This naturally means surrendering some of our doctrinal purity to work with those whose opinions and outlooks differ from our own, but whose foundational ideals are nearly identical: individual rights are sacrosanct, non-negotiable, and the ends to which everything else from our government to our armies serve as means. We can coexist because of this common foundation and outlook, but we cannot coexist with the Leftist. His success entails our obliteration. He builds the gulags, ghettos, and concentration camps for us. He proposes our sterilization or our lobotomization. He dreams of not only procuring nuclear weapons, but deploying them against his enemies. We are fast approaching the hour when our own abstractions and silly theoretical bifurcations will no longer matter: our survival, and indeed the survival of the world in which we live, will depend on rising to meet the threat of Leftism once and for all.

I leave you with this, the warning of German pastor and activist Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemoller: “When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent: I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent: I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

Every time you hear the government assert for itself the power to hold individuals indefinitely without trial or legal counsel, or any time you hear of the President’s newfound authority to execute Americans without trial or due process, you think of your silence, and realize that it is your complicity which empowers the Left in its quest. When they do inevitably come for you, there will be no one left to speak out. These are your fellow citizens, convicted of nothing, only accused by a government whose record should give you little comfort or confidence about its motives and purposes.

“And this guilt lies heavily upon the German people and the German name, even upon Christendom. For in our world and in our name have these things been done.”

-F. Niemoller

Thanks to GONZOTIMES

http://www.gonzotimes.com/1779/the-primacy-of-the-individual-the-intent-versus-the-result-in-statism-and-the-dangers-of-leftism/

Like Dislike 14 2

SHARE

OBAMA Must be Impeached for Violating His Oath of Office by American Reform Party posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010

Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight: of the constitution contains the Oath of Office that each an every President must affirm and swear his allegiance before taking office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This oath has been taking by every President since the beginning of our Republic and George Washington. The oath is simple and straight forward. There is but one absolute every President is sworn to uphold... "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".  Not to modify, bend, reshape or look for gray areas in which to pass self serving legislation or agendas, but to protect, preserve and uphold its original intent and meaning, Nothing less.

It is on this basis that we make the case that President Obama has violated his sworn duty and oath of office and should face impeachment in committing acts of treason against the Constitution and the United States.

There are several instances to which we can point as Obama's breach of the presidential oath of office. Namely, his support and promotion of Health Care Reform, Cap & Trade, commandeering of the Country's educational and financial system, appointment of CZARS, Cabinet members, White house staff and advisors, who are either confirmed communists or who firmly believe in the destruction of our democratic and capitalistic system including his own irresponsible policies and spending that have placed our National security at risk. However, the first and over riding act in which Obama failed to honor his oath of office was in his endorsement and passage of the Health Care Reform Act.

His endorsing of the bill created a Government Run Entitlement program which mandated the purchase of health insurance by every single man, women and child, wether they wanted it or not. It also included governments selective process as to the type, quality and quantity of insurance and care. Therein lies his total violation of the oath. His actions are an absolute violation of both the Constitution and the peoples individual right to freedom of choice, self determination or freedom from governments invasion of our privacy. Furthermore, in passing this un-affordable legislation and his costly proposed policies, during a period in which the country is on the verge of financial collapse, Obama has placed this country's National security at great risk and peril by excessively increasing our national debt to a point that will bankrupt our country in the near future preventing our ability to defend ourselves.

After all, common sense dictates that you don't bankrupt an entire country over 10% of the people who need health insurance!

If Obama and government see the need to create Entitlement Programs which directly effect the rights of ALL people, then it should be done in the same manner as an Amendment to the Constitution requiring three-quarters of the States to ratify its passage. The creation of Entitlement/Rights for 300 million people should NEVER be left to the sole discretion of 400 elected political hacks. There are no provisions within our constitution allowing for them to do so. In fact there are more Articles in the constitution that point to the contrary. 

This being the case, evidence and law under our constitution then, Obama, himself a lawyer, knowingly violated the Constitution he swore to protect, uphold and defend when he signed the Healthcare bill into law thereby violating the individual rights of the people and jeopardizing the country's National Security.

Like Dislike 16 2

SHARE

OBAMA’S SOCIALIST AGENDA by Sharon Sebastian posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010

By Sharon Sebastian – Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com     

Is Barack Obama a Socialist?  To avoid the question is to avoid personal accountability to our nation, our individual rights, and our freedoms. If Barack Obama is a socialist, the evidence will speak unequivocally, his policies will confirm it implicitly and his stated agenda will answer the question undeniably. Socialism is the government forcibly taking from those who have earned what they have and giving it to others.  It crushes initiative, innovation and spirit while fomenting class warfare, racial strife and social welfare as it devours a nation.  Heed the words of a statesman:  Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.  Winston Churchill

Marxism is Barack Obama’s pedigree, Socialism will be President Obama’s legacy. It is undisputed by the President himself. Since college Barack Obama writes that he sought out and surrounded himself with radicals, communists, socialists and anti-government/anti-capitalist groups that suited his comfort zone.  Today, President Obama has surrounded himself with self-professed communists, socialists, anti-free market, anti-Constitution and anti-free speech advisors who have openly stated that they seek to control every facet of American society and totally transform America to suit their own agenda. That can only occur at the expense of individual freedoms, the heavy burden of taxation, the undermining of faith, the destruction of the middle class and imposed misery upon the American people. The demise of America is part of the strategy to clamp the vice-grip of socialism on a free society. A war is erupting today among the liberals themselves with extreme radicals accusing the elitist Progressives of not moving fast enough. The radicals who have thrown their lot with the Democrats have become increasingly impatient as they see a tide of sentiment turning against the President. Panic has set in with fears that the radical agenda, that has come within their reach with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team at the helm, may be slipping away.

What are the elements of socialism and does Obama meet the criteria?  How does a country know that socialism is being imposed on its people by its government?  Here is merely a partial checklist. Key to socialism is “redistribution of wealth,” which is Obama’s constant mantra (check). Government leaders assume an elitist mentality and ignore the will of the majority of the people (check). The government derides or circumvents the Constitution that protects the people from tyranny at the hands of the government (check). The government takes control of the majority of the nation’s economy by nationalizing industries such as auto, insurance, banks and health care and attacks free enterprise (check). The President puts a Czar over the nation’s vital manufacturing sector that is quoted as saying…”we know the free market is nonesense” (check). The government blurs the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government (check). The government passes and advocates personally invasive laws that will force compliance by citizens with the threat of fines and legal penalties (check).  The government force-feeds laws before they are read, that allow the government to fill in the blanks without oversight after the laws go into effect – such as the reported hundreds of  incomplete mandates in the Health Care law (check). Freedom of speech is threatened when the government’s stated agenda is to control the citizen’s use of the Internet via an empowered FCC, to shut-down opposition Radio-TV-Cable stations with massive taxation, to continue to target groups that peacefully speak out against government policies as “the enemy” and then direct radicals to “go get in the face” of those who dissent peacefully (check, check, check, and check).

Particularly key is to ridicule the faithful while attempting to transition the very faith itself into a core element of socialism called “social justice” (check – Read: “Darwin’s Racists” a twww.DarwinsRacists.com).

Still on the agenda is what the President has long said he desires. It is what all Socialist, Communist and Fascist governments desire, a civilian militia as the enforcement arm that can kowtow citizens into compliance.  Obama’s Manufacturing Czar is quoted as saying that “…we kind of agree with Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”  President Obama has clearly stated that he wants a civilian militia as well-armed, as well-funded and as powerful as our U.S. military. The question is:  Why?  And, do we take him at his word? Politicians, the Press and the American voter will be held accountable as participants in the decline of this great nation whether they support Obama’s agenda, ignore it, or hide behind the veil of ignorance. Choice still remains, though the President recently stated there can be “too much information.” No sir, not in a free nation, but certainly under a socialistic regime.

http://www.wsradio.com/find/?search=Sharon+Sebastian

The American Reform Party strongly recommends the book "Darwin's Racists"  by Author and talk show contributor Sharon Sebastian – Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com You can purchase a copy through the ARP Bookstore at a special price.   

Like Dislike 5 11

SHARE

OBAMA & Administration Again Confirm Their Incompetence in Gulf Oil Spill by American Reform Party posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Once again Obama and his Administration have shown their total lack of incompetence over the BP Gulf Oil Spill.

It is glaringly evident that Obama nor his administration have no clue on how to address the BP problem or appropriately respond to the resulting effects of the crisis. Not only could this administration not find seeds in a watermelon, they couldn't find the right solution or required action to the Gulf oil spill if someone told them where to look.

Apparently, the only solution they can come up with is to distort scientific findings and declare a total ban on further oil drilling. This is not a solution, but a pure sign of an administration that lacks total common sense in dealing with a problem or offering a solution; not to mention taking the easy way out for political purposes.

Obama, his Cabinet and advisors have once again failed the American people by showing complete incompetence in their decisions and lack of responsible action. With total disregard for anything, both Obama and Ken Salazar's in their infinite wisdom decided to halt ALL offshore oil drilling. The result of their decision was to disrupt both the world oil markets and the cost of oil, further damage the international and local economy and put tens of thousands more of American people out of work. Why? On what qualified scientific evidence or opinion? With what proof that this will limit or change the probability or certainty of another accident occurring? Using what logical rationale or reasoning was the decision made? Using what common sense basis? Let us answer these questions for you, NONE or No Reason other than to further their left wing liberal political agenda.

Obama and his advisors, until it was too late, focused on the accident and its remedy instead of focussing their efforts in preventing the oil spill's potential landfall. His stopping the drilling of ALL offshore platforms as a solution to the problem, now or in the future, is lame, inexcusable and purely a political dodge and maneuver. Did we shut down all automobile manufacturers when Toyota experienced its braking problem that killed many people. Did we stop the manufacture of all cars until we find how to keep them from killing over 50,000 people in the US alone each year. Did we ground all airlines from flying becuase one plane crashed. NO! Then why are we shutting down ALL drilling when the only people that were hurt, inured or killed  were none and we have no idea as to the cause. NO COMMON SENSE!

Lets face it! Our Government is completely incapable of handling any natural disaster or accident let alone the Gulf Oil Spill. The oil spill containment should be left to BP and those with the experience. Certainly NOT government with absolutely NO experience! After all, BP has nothing to gain, financially or otherwise, in avoiding its role or responsibility in containing the leak due to an accident. They are in unchartered territory that was imposed by our government.

Obama and his administration's further solution to the problem is to hold BP financially responsible for the entire cost of damages from the spill. This is pure unadulterated nonsense and an extremely bad approach. Our government has as much responsibility as BP in this accident. Remember, it was the Clinton administration that, in the interest of so called environmental protection, forced and licensed oil companies to conduct the more dangerous and un-proven methods of deep sea well drilling without the necessary research or proven safeguards against accidents. And that is exactly what we are dealing with, an accident. An Accident caused by government regulation without facts or understanding. BP and others were put into the position of an uncontrollable accident through the wisdom of our elected government officials.

Furthermore, should government hold BO entirely responsible while placing a freeze on the entire industry, we run the risk of not only bankrupting BP, leaving them unable to pay for damages, but are actions will result in higher fuel and energy prices worldwide, devaluation or complete loss of peoples investments in the oil industry, loss of tax dollars, higher costs on all products, global loss of jobs, not only in the related oil industry but in all business. This is not what we bargained for! Again, this shows the total lack of Common Sense by Obama and his administration.

The solution is for government to first acknowledge and accept its role and responsibility in contributing to the problem and accident. Then, without hesitation, turn over all government and independent resources over to BP for containing the leak and get out of their way while, government quickly focuses and moves on protecting the shores, wildlife, environment & Gulf dependent industries in a logical responsible manner. Once the problem is contained and resolved, THEN we can hash out who, if anyone, is responsible for what and the ultimate remuneration.

Government is and represents you and I. We must all learn to accept the consequences of our government actions and decisions and not look for remuneration over every accident.

Like Dislike 16 1

SHARE

Uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal is killing this country as we stand by by Don Torgersen posted on Monday, June 07, 2010

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
 

IMMIGRATION BY THE NUMBERS

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "FIRST, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.".

Lamm went on: SECOND, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

THIRD, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together."

Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"FOURTH, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My FIFTH point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My SIXTH plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" --From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, SEVENTH,I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, EIGHTH, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book "Mexifornia." His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path especially The American Dream.

If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don't.

IMMIGRATION BY THE NUMBERS: Learn the truth about Immigration

Like Dislike 13 2

SHARE