The First Amendment states the following:
Welcome to Friends Of Liberty Archives We hope you enjoy our Posts
Showing posts with label American Thinker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Thinker. Show all posts
an open letter from the American people
.jpg)
IS THIS MAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, MENTALLY ILL?
A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?
By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker
So what is the matter with Barak Obama?
Hate Crimes Indeed
Now that a jury has considered the best evidence the State of Florida could offer against George Zimmerman, and that it did not prove that Zimmerman was either the aggressor or an intentional killer, the left has a problem. It invested what little credibility it had entirely in using George Zimmerman as a distraction from the horrific violence in black communities.
Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?
Every so often there's that obligatory article asking, "Are Women Superior at_____?" or "Do Women Make Better ______?," with politicians often being the focus.
White House Down:
Obama Version
I don't know how he does it, but Internet Wit Sans Peer, Iowahawk, wrapped up the week more succinctly than anyone:
BREAKING: State Department says Egyptian military overthrow spontaneous reaction to 'White House Down' movie"
Republicans: The Story of Us
(An essay inspired by the recently History Channel multi-part series, "Mankind, The Story of Us".)
The Republicans have always represented the job makers, the providers, the builders, the corporations, and the military: the hunters and warriors that kept America safe, strong, productive, and innovative. The Democrats have thrived on those back at the camp: the unions, government employees, the unemployed, the poor, the needy, the old, and the entitled.
The Colonization of 21st-Century America
When author Dinesh D'Souza diagnosed Barack Obama with anti-colonialism, he did so on the basis of Mr. Obama's seemingly inexplicable chip-on-the-shoulder attitude toward the country he himself leads, and his eager attempts to move America down the economic and political ladder toward international mediocrity. Where others were accusing Obama of being clueless or socialist, D'Souza concluded -- based on Obama's infatuation with his Kenyan roots -- that he was fundamentally an anti-colonialist.One thing is clear; Mr. Obama denies American Exceptionalism. In fact, he aggressively resists it, preferring the United States to be "one among many."
While there are certainly problems with D'Souza's analysis (Obama can be both socialist and Marxist, anti-colonialist and kleptocrat at the same time) I think his fundamental diagnosis is sound, but not just for Mr. Obama. The case can be made that the ruling elites in the United States all suffer from a similar malady, and America is quietly being recolonized to suit their whims.Colonialism involves the settling of new people in a targeted territory, unlike imperialism, which is purely the military domination of a territory. Colonialism was justified as part of a "civilizing mission." According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The Spanish conquest of the Americas sparked a theological, political, and ethical debate about the use of military force to acquire control over foreign lands. This debate took place within the framework of a religious discourse that legitimized military conquest as a way to facilitate the conversion and salvation of indigenous peoples.
[...]
According to Uday Mehta, liberal imperialism was the product of the interaction between universalism and developmental history (1999). A core doctrine of liberalism holds that all individuals share a capacity for reason and self-government. The theory of developmental history, however, modifies this universalism with the notion that these capacities only emerge at a certain stage of civilization.
Marx and Lenin would both see colonialism as a stage in the dialectic process toward Communism.
But colonialism is not just a physical thing, a movement of peoples into a territory, but also an attempt to change the thinking and beliefs of an indigenous people to that of the colonizing power. There is a colonization of the mind as well as the land, and the colonizing power generally sees this as "civilizing" a brutish people.
Concepts of de-colonization are everywhere in the Third World. For example, Palestinian/Australian/Canadian writer Samah Sabawi argues:
Normalization is the colonization of the mind, whereby the oppressed subject comes to believe that the oppressor's reality is the only "normal" reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with.Americans aren't familiar with this thinking, but it certainly figures prominently overseas. It is a belief that the West imported pernicious alien ideas to their lands, ideas that must be scrubbed from their collective psyche in an act of de-colonization. Psychoanalyst Frantz Fanon and philosopher Paulo Freire are examples of promoters of de-colonization of the mind theory.
In this era, who is the "Great Satan" imposing colonialist thinking throughout the world? Who is accused of gobbling up too much of the world's resources, of living too well, of intervening throughout the world?
To the modern liberal, America was unjust at its founding. A wretched exploiter from the get-go, the United States has been nothing but a source of evil to the postmodern left. To paraphrase Cato, "Amerigo delende est!"
How does one destroy the world's lone superpower? One way is through actual physical colonization.
That is precisely what is occurring along our southern border: hordes of colonists are pouring in to settle, and not just in the border states, but throughout the nation. The political class has at best no will to stop them, and, in fact, many are actively encouraging this invasion, refusing to take any action to stem the tide and enforce existing laws. This absolute refusal (and it is bipartisan) is baffling to average Americans, and now the "Gang of Eight" is promoting an amnesty of 11 million illegal aliens (which may actually be 22 million and, through chain migration, could wind up at 45 million) in return for what? Promises of future border security. We give legal status and a pathway to citizenship in return for promises, much like the "land for peace" deal between Israel and her enemies. It didn't work for the Israelis.
That is precisely what is occurring along our southern border: hordes of colonists are pouring in to settle, and not just in the border states, but throughout the nation. The political class has at best no will to stop them, and, in fact, many are actively encouraging this invasion, refusing to take any action to stem the tide and enforce existing laws. This absolute refusal (and it is bipartisan) is baffling to average Americans, and now the "Gang of Eight" is promoting an amnesty of 11 million illegal aliens (which may actually be 22 million and, through chain migration, could wind up at 45 million) in return for what? Promises of future border security. We give legal status and a pathway to citizenship in return for promises, much like the "land for peace" deal between Israel and her enemies. It didn't work for the Israelis.
It's not intended to work; it's intended to change the American People.
If one understands that, one understands much of the modern Progressive left and their Democratic lackeys. This is the Hegelian Dialectic at work: a thesis meets an anti-thesis to form a synthesis. The left wants to use immigration as a form of intellectual hybridization, to expunge the more "unpleasant" characteristics of the American public. They resent this country and resent the people who demand their own way rather than allow the "experts" and the ruling class dominion. So they want to import an alien people to reduce the stubbornness and independence that have traditionally characterized Americans.
And it makes so much of the liberal agenda understandable: abortion, contraception, feminism, gay marriage, euthanasia, managed health care with death panels. All are aimed at reducing the number of old-time Americans. Reducing our usable land through government takeover helps, as do reductions in America's energy usage via "green" energy schemes. This agenda goes back to Paul Ehrlich and before him to Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, and ultimately to Thomas Malthus. But a large part of why they are doing it is to breed Americans for submissiveness. (Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era.)
...And, of course, to grant themselves political supremacy.
But it's not just the left who are understandably angry at what America represents. Many in the Republican Party think likewise.
Fredo Arias-King, former aid to Mexico's President-Emeritus Vicente Fox, had this to say back in 2006:
If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?
Before these encounters, I believed that it was a problem of either diffusion of responsibility, "creeping non-decision," or collective rationalization with those legislators, but that was dispelled the more of them we met. Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.
[...]
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico).
[...]
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
So Arias-King believes the Republicans who support "comprehensive immigration reform" are doing so not because of any benefits to the country, but rather to establish a new plebeian class, one politically docile and willing to allow the natural rulers to govern.In short, they want to establish America as a colony ruled not by a foreign power, but by themselves, the new Tories.
America's revolution has come full circle; we fought for our freedom from London's ruling class only to be colonized from Washington.
The RINO wing of the GOP has always hated the Reagan coalition/Tea Party. They think of us as green-toothed hillbillies, ignorant fools who are best hidden away from sight. If they are going to have to justify their divine right of kingship to the public, would it not be better to justify it to Latinos, who do not doubt their right to rule and will not demand accountability?
In short, they see us as stock to be bred for proper characteristics.And the salons of the elites -- the Ivy League universities, the upper-crust magazines, the businessmen's roundtable groups, and whatnot -- do not fundamentally disagree on their opinions of the average Americans. They do agree on their vision of a world with weak borders. Most of them have dealt amicably and prosperously with foreigners, and they hold the idea that borders are an annoyance when doing business. The global elite think of themselves in those terms, and while they disagree on the pace of change and the extent, they do agree with the fundamental notions of world citizenship trumping petty national concerns. Patriotism is, to many in the GOP itself, just another word for bigotry.
It should be pointed out that history shows the power of immigration to change the social fabric of this nation. The Progressive Era started with changes in immigration patterns. According to Rutgers's Eagleton Institute of Politics:
Several of the concerns targeted for reform by the Progressives were direct or indirect results of the great wave of immigration and industrialization around the turn of the century. In the single decade from 1900 to 1910, 8.8 million immigrants entered the United States, many of whom came from nations, ethnic groups and religions that contrasted with the traditional dominance of American immigrants from the countries of Western Europe. Immigrants from southeastern Europe provided cheap labor to support the rapid growth of major industrial centers and settled in densely-populated urban enclaves Political parties and bosses used the voting base offered by these immigrants to pursue their own goals, often by aiding immigrant families with practical assistance in jobs, housing or other benefits. The poor housing, sanitation and health care, as well as the extensive exploitation of child labor in both factories and at home, prevalent in most immigrant communities also became a focus for reformers.
It was this new immigration from nations with less experience with Western culture that gave the modern Progressives their empire.They now want to hold not just an empire but a trust, with no opposition to their will.
America is being invaded not just by Hispanic illegals. There are overstayed visas, and there are legal immigrants coming in record numbers. This at a time when the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism have made America a dirty word and enculturation a sell-out. This was not by accident; the left created these concepts to weaken the traditional American culture.
Meanwhile, despite the Progressive love for nation-building, nothing has been done to fix the real problem, which lies in the socialism of Latin America. The poverty south of our border forces decent people to wander the Earth in search of sustenance, and we allow it to happen. We are enablers, as surely as a co-dependent enables an alcoholic to remain drunk. There is nothing kind or decent in our policies toward immigration; if we would stop taking their "problem," these nations would be forced to reform, to rebuild their economies along free-market principles. But we are allowing sores to fester and are instead spending astronomical sums of money to fix "our" problem, which is really a Progressive desire to impose soft socialism here and abroad. And many of our own people go along with this because it provides cheap labor. Cheap labor is not always a bargain.
Immigration can be a beneficial and moral thing, and it has been an asset to our nation. Unfortunately, this isn't immigration so much as colonization. Mr. Obama, with his intimate knowledge of colonialism and decolonization, is fully aware of what is happening and is, in fact, fostering it. This is his way of decolonizing the rest of the world, of bringing America in line with the international order and in handing the imperium to his Progressive friends.
Friends like Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Karl Rove, and the rest of the Tory Lord-wannabes.
When the American colonies won their freedom, it was feared we had traded George III for George I. History proved that assertion wrong -- then. We are in the process of doing precisely that now, of recolonizing America. We are becoming strangers in our own land.Nations can and do die from immigration; Lebanon is a great example. It still exists, but it is no longer the prosperous and peaceful heterogeneous land it once was. Palestinian refugees have turned it into another Islamic hell-hole. Looking back in history, we see countless nations that have been replaced by others. The Bible mentions a number of Canaanite peoples who are now extinct. Surely we can ask what happened to many of the native tribes in North America. While a nation called the United States will continue to appear on a map (if it is not partitioned first or subsumed into a North American Union), it will bear little resemblance to the nation we knew. That is the fate of colonial territories.
If one understands that, one understands much of the modern Progressive left and their Democratic lackeys. This is the Hegelian Dialectic at work: a thesis meets an anti-thesis to form a synthesis. The left wants to use immigration as a form of intellectual hybridization, to expunge the more "unpleasant" characteristics of the American public. They resent this country and resent the people who demand their own way rather than allow the "experts" and the ruling class dominion. So they want to import an alien people to reduce the stubbornness and independence that have traditionally characterized Americans.
And it makes so much of the liberal agenda understandable: abortion, contraception, feminism, gay marriage, euthanasia, managed health care with death panels. All are aimed at reducing the number of old-time Americans. Reducing our usable land through government takeover helps, as do reductions in America's energy usage via "green" energy schemes. This agenda goes back to Paul Ehrlich and before him to Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, and ultimately to Thomas Malthus. But a large part of why they are doing it is to breed Americans for submissiveness. (Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era.)
...And, of course, to grant themselves political supremacy.
But it's not just the left who are understandably angry at what America represents. Many in the Republican Party think likewise.
Fredo Arias-King, former aid to Mexico's President-Emeritus Vicente Fox, had this to say back in 2006:
If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?
Before these encounters, I believed that it was a problem of either diffusion of responsibility, "creeping non-decision," or collective rationalization with those legislators, but that was dispelled the more of them we met. Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.
[...]
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico).
[...]
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
So Arias-King believes the Republicans who support "comprehensive immigration reform" are doing so not because of any benefits to the country, but rather to establish a new plebeian class, one politically docile and willing to allow the natural rulers to govern.In short, they want to establish America as a colony ruled not by a foreign power, but by themselves, the new Tories.
America's revolution has come full circle; we fought for our freedom from London's ruling class only to be colonized from Washington.
The RINO wing of the GOP has always hated the Reagan coalition/Tea Party. They think of us as green-toothed hillbillies, ignorant fools who are best hidden away from sight. If they are going to have to justify their divine right of kingship to the public, would it not be better to justify it to Latinos, who do not doubt their right to rule and will not demand accountability?
In short, they see us as stock to be bred for proper characteristics.And the salons of the elites -- the Ivy League universities, the upper-crust magazines, the businessmen's roundtable groups, and whatnot -- do not fundamentally disagree on their opinions of the average Americans. They do agree on their vision of a world with weak borders. Most of them have dealt amicably and prosperously with foreigners, and they hold the idea that borders are an annoyance when doing business. The global elite think of themselves in those terms, and while they disagree on the pace of change and the extent, they do agree with the fundamental notions of world citizenship trumping petty national concerns. Patriotism is, to many in the GOP itself, just another word for bigotry.
It should be pointed out that history shows the power of immigration to change the social fabric of this nation. The Progressive Era started with changes in immigration patterns. According to Rutgers's Eagleton Institute of Politics:
Several of the concerns targeted for reform by the Progressives were direct or indirect results of the great wave of immigration and industrialization around the turn of the century. In the single decade from 1900 to 1910, 8.8 million immigrants entered the United States, many of whom came from nations, ethnic groups and religions that contrasted with the traditional dominance of American immigrants from the countries of Western Europe. Immigrants from southeastern Europe provided cheap labor to support the rapid growth of major industrial centers and settled in densely-populated urban enclaves Political parties and bosses used the voting base offered by these immigrants to pursue their own goals, often by aiding immigrant families with practical assistance in jobs, housing or other benefits. The poor housing, sanitation and health care, as well as the extensive exploitation of child labor in both factories and at home, prevalent in most immigrant communities also became a focus for reformers.
It was this new immigration from nations with less experience with Western culture that gave the modern Progressives their empire.They now want to hold not just an empire but a trust, with no opposition to their will.
America is being invaded not just by Hispanic illegals. There are overstayed visas, and there are legal immigrants coming in record numbers. This at a time when the concepts of political correctness and multiculturalism have made America a dirty word and enculturation a sell-out. This was not by accident; the left created these concepts to weaken the traditional American culture.
Meanwhile, despite the Progressive love for nation-building, nothing has been done to fix the real problem, which lies in the socialism of Latin America. The poverty south of our border forces decent people to wander the Earth in search of sustenance, and we allow it to happen. We are enablers, as surely as a co-dependent enables an alcoholic to remain drunk. There is nothing kind or decent in our policies toward immigration; if we would stop taking their "problem," these nations would be forced to reform, to rebuild their economies along free-market principles. But we are allowing sores to fester and are instead spending astronomical sums of money to fix "our" problem, which is really a Progressive desire to impose soft socialism here and abroad. And many of our own people go along with this because it provides cheap labor. Cheap labor is not always a bargain.
Immigration can be a beneficial and moral thing, and it has been an asset to our nation. Unfortunately, this isn't immigration so much as colonization. Mr. Obama, with his intimate knowledge of colonialism and decolonization, is fully aware of what is happening and is, in fact, fostering it. This is his way of decolonizing the rest of the world, of bringing America in line with the international order and in handing the imperium to his Progressive friends.
Friends like Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Karl Rove, and the rest of the Tory Lord-wannabes.
When the American colonies won their freedom, it was feared we had traded George III for George I. History proved that assertion wrong -- then. We are in the process of doing precisely that now, of recolonizing America. We are becoming strangers in our own land.Nations can and do die from immigration; Lebanon is a great example. It still exists, but it is no longer the prosperous and peaceful heterogeneous land it once was. Palestinian refugees have turned it into another Islamic hell-hole. Looking back in history, we see countless nations that have been replaced by others. The Bible mentions a number of Canaanite peoples who are now extinct. Surely we can ask what happened to many of the native tribes in North America. While a nation called the United States will continue to appear on a map (if it is not partitioned first or subsumed into a North American Union), it will bear little resemblance to the nation we knew. That is the fate of colonial territories.
The Dangers of Democracy
Democracy. The word is nearly ubiquitous in American political discourse. We routinely refer to our country and those modeled after our own as democracies. We listen to speeches, read books, and profess our belief in democratic principles, democratic governments, and democratic ideals.
A Failure to Communicate
The line, "What we have here is failure to communicate," from the film, Cool Hand Luke, might describe of the single greatest failure of Republican conservatives.
Bipartisan Tango and Lawless Justice
Two things caught my attention this week: first, the ridiculous way Democrat partisans, erroneously appointed by President George W. Bush to government positions from which they exercised their power, to undercut Republicans are by reason of the Bush appointment tagged "bipartisan" by the media.
Secondly, the widespread ignorance of the Bill of Rights and their obligations by oath to obey the Constitution by government lawyers in Washington and at the state level.
It's the Power, Stupid!
When Clinton, the impeached one, was running for president he had a banner up in his campaign office that said "It's the economy, stupid". The point was that to win, his people had to ignore all the other issues, the ones that Clinton was weak on, and just talk about the economy. The reasoning was that all the average voter cared about was the economy.
Today we see that all that matters to the media elites is the power they get by siding with the government; "It's the power, stupid!"
Former Chicago gang leader, now congressman, racially smears US senator
.png)
Rep. Bobby Rush, a former leader in the Black Panther street gang in Chicago, called Illinois Senator Mark Kirk's proposal to fight gang violence "an elitist white boy solution" in remarks made to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Kirk and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois are asking for $30 million in federal aid to be used to aggressively go after Chicago's largest and most destructive gang - the Gangster Disciples.
U.S. Military: We Could Have Saved Ambassador Stevens
Elite U.S. troops were completely capable of saving Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi Consulate attacks on September 11, 2012. Elements of the highly specialized Combatant Commanders In-Extremis (CIF) units are always on alert, on forward deployment, ready to respond. Their job description is to hit the ground in 3 to 5 hours. CIF elements are ready to engage in active combat anywhere in their region, 3 to 5 hours after the call.
Al Qaeda Re-emerging
While the U.S. has undoubtedly had many successes fighting Al Qaeda (AQ), AQ is re-emerging due to a wide array of regional alliances. Much in the way that private businesses adapt to changing social trends and government regulations, AQ has adapted to its transformed political and strategic landscape. The "War on Terrorism" is far from over. In fact, it may just be getting started.
Is a Revolution in the Offing?
I used to own a poster from the old USSR of the "famous charge" on the Winter Palace during the October Revolution. The focal point of the poster was an ordinary soldier, with a fixed bayonet on his rifle, waving others forward toward the well-defended palace walls.
I liked the poster for its art. As a piece of history, it was, however, like many things that came out of the old Soviet Union: a wonderful depiction of an event that did not quite happen.
Black Conservative Attacks Abortion, Dems Faint Dead Away
Journalists and Democrats have designated a new Republican scandal: Bishop Earl W. Jackson "compared" Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan.
On May 18, Jackson became the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia in this November's 2013 elections. An important detail in this drama is that Bishop Jackson is African-American. Much more alarming, Jackson has been leading a hard-hitting campaign to call on Blacks to leave the Democrat Party.
Uncle Sam Wants You...Under His Thumb!
It's really difficult to keep track of the many ways that the Obama administration is chipping away at the freedoms and independence that were the foundations of our nation, bequeathed to us as a birthright.
Don't Blow the Opportunity
It appears the Republican Party establishment and some conservative commentators have come up with another mistaken tactic to woo the low information and undecided voters. With the avalanche of scandals swirling around the Obama administration and the Democratic Party, the political message promoted by these politicians and pundits is that these scandals are the outcome of a government that has grown too large to control and should therefore be dramatically cut back.
If Government Were a Business, Obama Would Already Be Fired
Let's begin by stating the obvious. If government were a business, and subject to economic realities and the consequences of its ignoring them, it would have been liquidated long ago -- its remaining assets of value would have been reclaimed by its creditors and shareholders (both of which are the American taxpayer), and its market share of consumers (also the American taxpayer, and those they are gracious enough to financially support) would be sought by other, more efficient businesses.
What if They Held Impeachment Hearings and the MSM Didn't Show Up?
Today's Benghazi hearings brought back memories of my grandparents glued to the television for weeks at a time during the Iran Contra hearings. History in the making! Scandal at the highest levels! Possible impeachment proceedings!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)