WITH THE NEW YEAR APPROACHING, and certainly many more executive orders to come before President Obama (hopefully) leaves office after the 2012 election, here are the top 5 most outrageous and bizarre executive orders issued by the President in 2011. Links are also provided.
"Where Congress is not willing to act, we're gonna go ahead and do it ourselves..."
- President Barack Obama
1. Establishment of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Doesn't every free-market need one of these? The supreme leader was proud of this one, as it got the most attention in the media (not that the others weren't great). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-03/pdf/2011-2577.pdf
2. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations. He declared a National Emergency...who knew? Pay attention to sections 4 & 5. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-27/pdf/2011-19156.pdf
3. Delivering an Efficient, Effective and Accountable Government. Cool, like the one described in the constitution?! Oh wait...nope...more rambling crap. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-16/pdf/2011-15181.pdf
4. Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity in the Federal Workforce. The Federal Government is racist? I thought hiring was based on qualification not race. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-23/pdf/2011-21704.pdf
5. Instituting A National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. I don't really understand it...but it's weird. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-23/pdf/2011-33089.pdf
The right side is up.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Obama Finally Admits He's Not A Capitalist.
IT'S TAKEN THREE YEARS, but president Barack Obama, in his speech on Wednesday, finally admitted he isn't a capitalist. "Here's the problem", he said, "it's never worked". He doesn't like to pat himself on the back too much, but I'm sure he wouldn't support a system he doesn't feel has ever worked...he's waaaayyyy too smart to do that.
To all those who try and defend the president and say he's just about equality and is a capitalist but just wants to fix things, we told you so. And by "we" I mean any Obama skeptics out there...if there are even any left.
So, the question as to whether or not Obama is a capitalist is answered. The only question that remains is, if he isn't a capitalist, what is he? There's really only two choices: socialist and communist. Neither are good and neither work. Based on how fast he's pushed us down the road to socialism, I believe that the road he's speeding down ends at communism. After all, that was Marx's plan.
Now that he's admitted to not being a capitalist, I only have one request of the president. He's come this far to admit that he doesn't think capitalism works. Will he finally, for once in his time in office, be honest with us all and explain what economic system he really supports? It sure isn't capitalism.
To all those who try and defend the president and say he's just about equality and is a capitalist but just wants to fix things, we told you so. And by "we" I mean any Obama skeptics out there...if there are even any left.
So, the question as to whether or not Obama is a capitalist is answered. The only question that remains is, if he isn't a capitalist, what is he? There's really only two choices: socialist and communist. Neither are good and neither work. Based on how fast he's pushed us down the road to socialism, I believe that the road he's speeding down ends at communism. After all, that was Marx's plan.
Now that he's admitted to not being a capitalist, I only have one request of the president. He's come this far to admit that he doesn't think capitalism works. Will he finally, for once in his time in office, be honest with us all and explain what economic system he really supports? It sure isn't capitalism.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Obama and Israel
DAVID HOROWITZ, one of the strongest proponents of Israel, released this video about the Obama administration and his complete anti-Israel policies. This video is pretty shocking, but not surprising. Coming on the heels of the Obama statement that he "doesn't like to pat himself on the back, but has done more for the security of Israel than any other administration", this video puts to rest that notion and does a better job than I could at explaining his anti Israel policies.
Here is a link to the video:
http://frontpagemag.net/obamaisrael/
Here is a link to the video:
http://frontpagemag.net/obamaisrael/
Special Committee on Aging?!?!?!
How's that for too much bureaucracy? The senate held a hearing on the 30th of November on the issue of antipsychotic drugs in nursing homes. "The government must also examine the marketing" of these drugs. Really? It must? That is what the Health and Human Services Inspector General, Daniel Levinson thinks. Is the federal government really going to get into the marketing business? While it may start with regulating the marketing of drug companies, it won't stop there. Soon, the all-mighty federal government will regulate any marketing it doesn't think is for the "common good".
Also, Mr. Levinson said "maybe diagnosis information on the label of a prescription" would be beneficial? Wait a minute, don't doctors prescribe drugs? Don't doctors take some sort of vow to a code of ethics so that they don't diagnose improper drugs? In the very next exchange, the chairman of the committee asked this: "is there any reason, other than our inattention, for patients to be prescribed improperly?" Of course, the "doctor" on the committee ignored the question to push the committee's agenda. Do bureaucrats ever give a straight answer? Nope.
So I'll answer that question for him: no. There is no reason other than inattention, or possibly incompetence, for a doctor to improperly prescribe a drug. Of course, that's much too hard for the government to figure out, and answering that question would eliminate the possibility of more regulation. Unless, of course, they wanted to put a federal agent in every doctor's office to make sure every doctor in the country is paying enough attention so as not to prescribe the wrong drug.
Another member on the panel raised the issue that despite FDA warning labels on the same type of drugs in question, doctors were still prescribing those medications. So, if the doctors are already ignoring warning labels and prescribing improper drugs, surely more warning labels would help right? If there was maybe two warning labels instead of one, surely that would eliminate the chance that a doctor would miss the warning label. That sounds like an issue with bad doctors rather than insufficient regulation to me.
We're going off the cliff at an alarming rate. As Congressman Ron Paul stated in a recent speech in the House, the final nails in the coffin of our republic are being placed. Things are getting scary.
Also, Mr. Levinson said "maybe diagnosis information on the label of a prescription" would be beneficial? Wait a minute, don't doctors prescribe drugs? Don't doctors take some sort of vow to a code of ethics so that they don't diagnose improper drugs? In the very next exchange, the chairman of the committee asked this: "is there any reason, other than our inattention, for patients to be prescribed improperly?" Of course, the "doctor" on the committee ignored the question to push the committee's agenda. Do bureaucrats ever give a straight answer? Nope.
So I'll answer that question for him: no. There is no reason other than inattention, or possibly incompetence, for a doctor to improperly prescribe a drug. Of course, that's much too hard for the government to figure out, and answering that question would eliminate the possibility of more regulation. Unless, of course, they wanted to put a federal agent in every doctor's office to make sure every doctor in the country is paying enough attention so as not to prescribe the wrong drug.
Another member on the panel raised the issue that despite FDA warning labels on the same type of drugs in question, doctors were still prescribing those medications. So, if the doctors are already ignoring warning labels and prescribing improper drugs, surely more warning labels would help right? If there was maybe two warning labels instead of one, surely that would eliminate the chance that a doctor would miss the warning label. That sounds like an issue with bad doctors rather than insufficient regulation to me.
We're going off the cliff at an alarming rate. As Congressman Ron Paul stated in a recent speech in the House, the final nails in the coffin of our republic are being placed. Things are getting scary.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Sources of Radicalism
FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS POST, here is a list of videos and news stories verifying the radicalism of the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical Islamic victories in Middle Eastern governments and a complete denial of our government as to what is happening around the world.
Also, a bonus video of the comments Bill Ayers made to an FBI agent.
Yusef Al-Qaradawi praising Hitler's anti-semitism:
More anti-semitism:
Also, a bonus video of the comments Bill Ayers made to an FBI agent.
Yusef Al-Qaradawi praising Hitler's anti-semitism:
More anti-semitism:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ignoring Islamic ideology of Muslim Brotherhood:
Russia Today: Muslim Brotherhood lead polls in Egypt's new government, as was expected?:
Egypt's Islamic Candidate: 60% of Jews are Evil:
President Obama on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (around 2:30):
Honor attacks on the rise in Great Brittain:
Bill Ayers to an FBI agent:
Muslim Brotherhood leading Polls in Egypt's election:
The Muslim Brotherhood and Radical Islam
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT a range of opinions exist on what is happening in the Middle East. The mainstream seems to be picking up on some of the radical sentiment that is coming from the Middle East, but has yet to present an accurate context as to what it really means, or what is really happening in the region. As is probably obvious by now when looking at this blog, I feel that Glenn Beck plays a pretty important role in helping to understand what's truly happening around the world. No matter what skeptics say about him, he is usually right. He is not a conspiracy theorist, but looks at facts and people's own words to base his ideas, and in doing so usually presents a pretty accurate projection as to what the plans are for the radical left and radical Islam...or anybody that is radical.
My idea with regards to what is currently happening in the Middle East is based on facts that Glenn Beck has presented, as well as my own opinions and readings. I think that even Glenn Beck has missed one important factor that is playing a part in the Middle East and could have some consequences here in the US.
In an article from the International Studies on the Middle East titled "The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers" it was said that the Muslim Brotherhood has essentially evolved from a radical ideological group, to a reformed political party. This seems to fall in line with the view that our director of national intelligence James Clapper holds, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" group that has, for the most part, "eschewed violence". I think some of this is true, but fails to recognize a crucial aspect. The brotherhood will never separate from ideology and revert to secularism. It will change in the way it presents that ideology and achieves the goals for that ideology.
In Van Jones' book "Storm", he states that he must drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends. This, in effect is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has realized and is acting upon. Just as the communists and other radical leftists from the 60's have grown up and played roles in our governments and schools today, the radical Islamists have done the same. In the article previously cited, some of the leaders and key components of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are no longer radical ideologues of the 40's, but are college professors and academics who were radicalized in the 60's as students, and now act within the political systems of a country rather than as fringe organizations.
Sound familiar?
This is virtually the same thing that has happened in the United States, and is exactly what Van Jones was referring to. The events we are seeing today are the re-organization and in a sense, resurgence of the efforts of the groups that acted in the 60's. The days of radicalization of the 60's are over and we are now witnessing the results of that radicalization. They have evolved as their numbers aged, and have became "reformed". Take, for instance, the co-founder of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers. Once a leftist terrorist that carried out bombings across the U.S., Ayers is now a college professor and helped to start our current president's political career. As exposed by the Glenn Beck program, an undercover FBI agent once interviewed Ayers and asked what would happen to the millions of Americans who couldn't be radicalized. Ayers' response was that they should be killed, and he has never retracted that statement.
I believe this sort of activism and ideology is exactly what is taking place in the Muslim Brotherhood and the fruits of that labor are the events of the Arab Spring. The founder of the Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, envisioned the Islamization of society ruled by shari'a. Over time, the Brotherhood has gone through transformations not in ideology, but of tactics. Just as the groups of the 60's have dropped the radical pose to achieve the radical ends, the Brotherhood has sought to infiltrate society rather than act with violence in order to achieve their goals.
The direct result of this can be seen in the events of the Arab Spring. Largely dismissed by the mainstream and the left as a peaceful democratic movement, the Arab Spring, I believe, was nothing more than a way to infiltrate governments in the Middle East to achieve Banna's overall goal of the Islamization of governments. In recent news, the mainstream media has finally picked up the fact that radical Islamists are winning elections in countries touched by the Arab Spring. Tunisia, Libya and even Morocco are seeing the Brotherhood play a major role in elections. The most important win, however, will come in Egypt which is the one country our government wanted regime change most, and the country in which the Muslim Brotherhood is most prevalent.
Also ignored by the media is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood played a huge role in staging the events of the Arab Spring. The Brotherhood, I believe, helped organize the events and insight the riots that helped overturn regimes in the Middle East. This happened in much the same way as the Occupy Wall Street protests have here in the U.S. Faces of regular working-class people appeared on the news stream throughout the beginning, and toward the peak of the protests. This helped keep the movement "organic" and "grassroots". Only when it was exposed, at the height of the protests, who was behind them, that they weren't actually grassroots, did the radical figures appear from all corners of the movement.
This tactic is verified in a recent documentary I saw about revolutions in Eastern and Northern Europe. Protest organizers put "grandma's" and peaceful faces at the frontlines of the protests in order to stave off violent action by the police. The media also would pick up the inviting faces and in turn popular support for the movement would be achieved.
To keep this post at a reasonable length (this is a fairly deep topic, and I don't expect to solve the debate here), this is what I believe will play out in the Middle East, or at least what I believe the goal is of the Arab Spring. As stated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as current high-ranking members of it, I believe the Brotherhood will seek to sweep elections not only in the Arab Spring countries, but in the entirety of the Middle East; certainly as much of the Middle East as they see attainable. In addition to Middle Eastern countries, the Brotherhood will seek to infiltrate our government and society in order to achieve the Islamization of the West.
Glenn Beck was viewed as crazy for presenting this theory, and while I don't hold nearly the following as Glenn, I expect that anyone who reads this article might be extremely skeptical of this notion. However, in their own words, members of the Brotherhood are seeking an end to Western Judeo-Christian values, and instead Islamization of the whole world. The beginning of this goal can be seen in the recent elections in Egypt, and I believe that is in-fact just the beginning. More elections like the one in Egypt will come wherever the Middle Eastern strongmen fall, and in their place will come a much different form of the same oppression.
My idea with regards to what is currently happening in the Middle East is based on facts that Glenn Beck has presented, as well as my own opinions and readings. I think that even Glenn Beck has missed one important factor that is playing a part in the Middle East and could have some consequences here in the US.
In an article from the International Studies on the Middle East titled "The Metamorphosis of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers" it was said that the Muslim Brotherhood has essentially evolved from a radical ideological group, to a reformed political party. This seems to fall in line with the view that our director of national intelligence James Clapper holds, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "largely secular" group that has, for the most part, "eschewed violence". I think some of this is true, but fails to recognize a crucial aspect. The brotherhood will never separate from ideology and revert to secularism. It will change in the way it presents that ideology and achieves the goals for that ideology.
In Van Jones' book "Storm", he states that he must drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends. This, in effect is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has realized and is acting upon. Just as the communists and other radical leftists from the 60's have grown up and played roles in our governments and schools today, the radical Islamists have done the same. In the article previously cited, some of the leaders and key components of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are no longer radical ideologues of the 40's, but are college professors and academics who were radicalized in the 60's as students, and now act within the political systems of a country rather than as fringe organizations.
Sound familiar?
This is virtually the same thing that has happened in the United States, and is exactly what Van Jones was referring to. The events we are seeing today are the re-organization and in a sense, resurgence of the efforts of the groups that acted in the 60's. The days of radicalization of the 60's are over and we are now witnessing the results of that radicalization. They have evolved as their numbers aged, and have became "reformed". Take, for instance, the co-founder of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers. Once a leftist terrorist that carried out bombings across the U.S., Ayers is now a college professor and helped to start our current president's political career. As exposed by the Glenn Beck program, an undercover FBI agent once interviewed Ayers and asked what would happen to the millions of Americans who couldn't be radicalized. Ayers' response was that they should be killed, and he has never retracted that statement.
I believe this sort of activism and ideology is exactly what is taking place in the Muslim Brotherhood and the fruits of that labor are the events of the Arab Spring. The founder of the Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, envisioned the Islamization of society ruled by shari'a. Over time, the Brotherhood has gone through transformations not in ideology, but of tactics. Just as the groups of the 60's have dropped the radical pose to achieve the radical ends, the Brotherhood has sought to infiltrate society rather than act with violence in order to achieve their goals.
The direct result of this can be seen in the events of the Arab Spring. Largely dismissed by the mainstream and the left as a peaceful democratic movement, the Arab Spring, I believe, was nothing more than a way to infiltrate governments in the Middle East to achieve Banna's overall goal of the Islamization of governments. In recent news, the mainstream media has finally picked up the fact that radical Islamists are winning elections in countries touched by the Arab Spring. Tunisia, Libya and even Morocco are seeing the Brotherhood play a major role in elections. The most important win, however, will come in Egypt which is the one country our government wanted regime change most, and the country in which the Muslim Brotherhood is most prevalent.
Also ignored by the media is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood played a huge role in staging the events of the Arab Spring. The Brotherhood, I believe, helped organize the events and insight the riots that helped overturn regimes in the Middle East. This happened in much the same way as the Occupy Wall Street protests have here in the U.S. Faces of regular working-class people appeared on the news stream throughout the beginning, and toward the peak of the protests. This helped keep the movement "organic" and "grassroots". Only when it was exposed, at the height of the protests, who was behind them, that they weren't actually grassroots, did the radical figures appear from all corners of the movement.
This tactic is verified in a recent documentary I saw about revolutions in Eastern and Northern Europe. Protest organizers put "grandma's" and peaceful faces at the frontlines of the protests in order to stave off violent action by the police. The media also would pick up the inviting faces and in turn popular support for the movement would be achieved.
To keep this post at a reasonable length (this is a fairly deep topic, and I don't expect to solve the debate here), this is what I believe will play out in the Middle East, or at least what I believe the goal is of the Arab Spring. As stated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as current high-ranking members of it, I believe the Brotherhood will seek to sweep elections not only in the Arab Spring countries, but in the entirety of the Middle East; certainly as much of the Middle East as they see attainable. In addition to Middle Eastern countries, the Brotherhood will seek to infiltrate our government and society in order to achieve the Islamization of the West.
Glenn Beck was viewed as crazy for presenting this theory, and while I don't hold nearly the following as Glenn, I expect that anyone who reads this article might be extremely skeptical of this notion. However, in their own words, members of the Brotherhood are seeking an end to Western Judeo-Christian values, and instead Islamization of the whole world. The beginning of this goal can be seen in the recent elections in Egypt, and I believe that is in-fact just the beginning. More elections like the one in Egypt will come wherever the Middle Eastern strongmen fall, and in their place will come a much different form of the same oppression.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
The Non-Brutal Brutality of Our Nation's Police
"IT FELT LIKE THERE WAS ANARCHY EVERYWHERE.." and stuff. "The police came and brutalized them and tore their tents down and all that stuff". This is what one student told a local news station after witnessing the supposed police brutality that took place on the University of California at Davis' campus two days ago.
The tactics of the radical left in the Occupy movement...wait...they're all on the radical left...let me re-phrase. The tactics of the Occupy movement are pretty clever one has to admit. Most likely based on tactics used by their beloved European rioter friends, and possibly from those in the "Arab Spring" (catchy names for spontaneous events right?), the tactics used by the Occupiers play a pretty dirty trick on the mind and eyes of the 99%.
Videos of "police brutality" run rampant on sites like Youtube, and are an attempt by Occupiers to drum up support. The videos usually pit Occupiers against police. Oppressed against the oppressors. In virtually all cases (I have yet to see otherwise), the videos start at the moment of police action, which I see as a pretty convenient coincidence. And in a most recent account of "brutality", seated protesters were reportedly pepper-sprayed for being peaceful. It is all failry convincing, too, until you begin to use your head. It's something liberals don't think we conservatives do much of.
In my opinion, these videos are nothing short of propaganda, something the radical left is also a fan of. This propaganda is not your traditional fist-and-hammer Commie advertising, though. It now takes the form of modern digital and social media that promote the cause in a more relevant way. After all, print media is just not hip enough for a group such as Adbusters, who takes credit for the Occupy movement. Knowing that fact, I found it not surprising they would take full advantage of such propaganda by posting this article on their blog: Suppressing Nonviolent Dissent.
This post presents an anthology of the terrible police brutality taking place at the Occupy events. Except there isn't really any police brutality. In each instance, no reason for arrest was presented, just as each video of "brutality" starts right as the arrest is taking place. This is a problem because without context, any arrest could be pegged as brutality. Police aren't in the business of playing nice when it comes to criminals. That seems to be a little fact Occupiers miss. Although I've never been arrested, or am not an officer, I can bet they don't receive training on how to make arrests as comfortable of an experience as possible. Being arrested should be an unpleasant experience so that, I don't know, you don't want to be arrested again.
Keeping all this in mind, I find little in the way of legitimacy to the claims of the Occupiers, or groups like Adbusters that refer to officers of the NYPD or other forces as brutalizing "pigs" (a favorite term for police among the Occupy crowd). While I haven't been to an Occupy event, the Occupiers themselves seem to be itching to provide as much evidence as they can of the so-called brutality. Even with the countless instances floating around the web, I have yet to see one bit of evidence of true police brutality at an Occupy event.
In all instances I could find, the so-called peaceful well-meaning Occupiers who were being arrested were either not peace-full or not well-meaning. They usually were resisting arrest, ignoring the police, or in many cases instigating police to arrest them while ignoring their orders. On the Adbusters website, they went so far as to say police were pepper-spraying grandmothers in the face. Seriously?
On the campus of UC Davis, the cops had a near loss in the battle against the lies of brutality. However, while I will say in terms of PR pepper-spraying seated UC Davis students wasn't exactly the best choice, it was in no way brutality. News sources reported the students were repeatedly warned to get off the SIDEWALK so people could USE IT (I'm assuming...because that's what sidewalks are for). Adbusters says that possibly two officers participated in the pepper-spraying. Whew. Brutal. Another comment says "great reporting on the indefensible pepper-spraying of UC Davis protesters". Is pepper-spraying supposed to be defensible? If so maybe the police should find a different tactic. One gripping title on the Adbusters website says this "Female protester on the front line of Occupy Portland is sprayed with pepper spray directly in the face by riot police". Yep. That's where it's usually most effective. In yet another video that would surely expose the rampant brutality of the police, a "whitness" describes this scene at Occupy Wall Street:
And, in the most brutally non-brutal video I have seen, an Iraq War veteran was "beaten" by cops at Occupy Oakland. It is here that context is imperative. I would venture to say on this night, the police were on full alert, and wary of a protester like Kayvan Sabeghi who attempted to show his dominance to a squad of riot officers. In the video, police clearly attempt to warn Sabeghi to get out of their way. He refuses. When they continue approaching him, one officer breaks formation. The officer then procedes to chase (and curse at) the protester and billy club him as the protester is trying to run away.
Out of context, this series of events could almost surely be pegged as brutality. On this night, however, it was only a natural human response by one officer trained to be aware in situations like this. The events on the 3rd-4th of November at the Occupy Oakland rallies were the worst rioting to date of the Occupy protests. A general strike was declared in Oakland and what ensued were full blown, cars burning in the street, buildings on fire Greece style riots (refer to Francis Piven). Occupiers started a bonfire in one street of Oakland, broke windows and graffittied buildings. On this night, the protests weren't hippies sitting in parks, but people who truly wanted chaos, and would go through police to get it. As a result, someone standing off with police in an act of defiance is a pretty good way to get police to act which is exactly what this officer did.
In conclusion, I would advise anyone to be sceptical when a sympathizer of the Occupy protests claims police brutality. Our nation's police forces, especially the NYPD who are at the epicenter of the movement, have shown that they can keep their discipline in the face of annoying, instigating protesters who desperately want to be in the picture that will go in the history books of social movements. As these protests continue, and our nation's police forces are pushed to their absolute limits in terms of patience, the exceptional discipline a majority of the officers have shown may become a more rare occurrence.
When this happens, police will need as much support as possible in order to preserve order in our nation. The propaganda of the Occupy movement is infectious because it is simple, as any propaganda is. It's a simple and almost cliche tactic to peg police as brutal. It's harder to understand that the Occupy movement is trying to turn people away from the police because the police stand with the system they wish to destroy. Any authority figure will be targeted in Occupy, and the police are the authority on the front lines. Any self-respecting person of the 99% should think before they demonize the police, however. What is their alternative to police if they have such disdain for them? Would an Occupy security assembly that pushes rape under the rug be better than police? Could the Occupiers deal with murder or violent crimes better than police? If everybody turns their back on police, there really will be like...anarchy everywhere, and brutalizers that won't be police, but people who will take advantage of chaos. Is the 99% really about that?
The tactics of the radical left in the Occupy movement...wait...they're all on the radical left...let me re-phrase. The tactics of the Occupy movement are pretty clever one has to admit. Most likely based on tactics used by their beloved European rioter friends, and possibly from those in the "Arab Spring" (catchy names for spontaneous events right?), the tactics used by the Occupiers play a pretty dirty trick on the mind and eyes of the 99%.
Videos of "police brutality" run rampant on sites like Youtube, and are an attempt by Occupiers to drum up support. The videos usually pit Occupiers against police. Oppressed against the oppressors. In virtually all cases (I have yet to see otherwise), the videos start at the moment of police action, which I see as a pretty convenient coincidence. And in a most recent account of "brutality", seated protesters were reportedly pepper-sprayed for being peaceful. It is all failry convincing, too, until you begin to use your head. It's something liberals don't think we conservatives do much of.
In my opinion, these videos are nothing short of propaganda, something the radical left is also a fan of. This propaganda is not your traditional fist-and-hammer Commie advertising, though. It now takes the form of modern digital and social media that promote the cause in a more relevant way. After all, print media is just not hip enough for a group such as Adbusters, who takes credit for the Occupy movement. Knowing that fact, I found it not surprising they would take full advantage of such propaganda by posting this article on their blog: Suppressing Nonviolent Dissent.
This post presents an anthology of the terrible police brutality taking place at the Occupy events. Except there isn't really any police brutality. In each instance, no reason for arrest was presented, just as each video of "brutality" starts right as the arrest is taking place. This is a problem because without context, any arrest could be pegged as brutality. Police aren't in the business of playing nice when it comes to criminals. That seems to be a little fact Occupiers miss. Although I've never been arrested, or am not an officer, I can bet they don't receive training on how to make arrests as comfortable of an experience as possible. Being arrested should be an unpleasant experience so that, I don't know, you don't want to be arrested again.
Keeping all this in mind, I find little in the way of legitimacy to the claims of the Occupiers, or groups like Adbusters that refer to officers of the NYPD or other forces as brutalizing "pigs" (a favorite term for police among the Occupy crowd). While I haven't been to an Occupy event, the Occupiers themselves seem to be itching to provide as much evidence as they can of the so-called brutality. Even with the countless instances floating around the web, I have yet to see one bit of evidence of true police brutality at an Occupy event.
In all instances I could find, the so-called peaceful well-meaning Occupiers who were being arrested were either not peace-full or not well-meaning. They usually were resisting arrest, ignoring the police, or in many cases instigating police to arrest them while ignoring their orders. On the Adbusters website, they went so far as to say police were pepper-spraying grandmothers in the face. Seriously?
On the campus of UC Davis, the cops had a near loss in the battle against the lies of brutality. However, while I will say in terms of PR pepper-spraying seated UC Davis students wasn't exactly the best choice, it was in no way brutality. News sources reported the students were repeatedly warned to get off the SIDEWALK so people could USE IT (I'm assuming...because that's what sidewalks are for). Adbusters says that possibly two officers participated in the pepper-spraying. Whew. Brutal. Another comment says "great reporting on the indefensible pepper-spraying of UC Davis protesters". Is pepper-spraying supposed to be defensible? If so maybe the police should find a different tactic. One gripping title on the Adbusters website says this "Female protester on the front line of Occupy Portland is sprayed with pepper spray directly in the face by riot police". Yep. That's where it's usually most effective. In yet another video that would surely expose the rampant brutality of the police, a "whitness" describes this scene at Occupy Wall Street:
"uuuhh...a couple people got arrested...were sort of getting man-handled. Um...one girl was being picked up by...um...like they had her hands behind her back and they were like holding her by her arms and legs..."
This sort of brutality has got to stop. Ok...it isn't brutal, it sounds like people just getting arrested.
And, in the most brutally non-brutal video I have seen, an Iraq War veteran was "beaten" by cops at Occupy Oakland. It is here that context is imperative. I would venture to say on this night, the police were on full alert, and wary of a protester like Kayvan Sabeghi who attempted to show his dominance to a squad of riot officers. In the video, police clearly attempt to warn Sabeghi to get out of their way. He refuses. When they continue approaching him, one officer breaks formation. The officer then procedes to chase (and curse at) the protester and billy club him as the protester is trying to run away.
Out of context, this series of events could almost surely be pegged as brutality. On this night, however, it was only a natural human response by one officer trained to be aware in situations like this. The events on the 3rd-4th of November at the Occupy Oakland rallies were the worst rioting to date of the Occupy protests. A general strike was declared in Oakland and what ensued were full blown, cars burning in the street, buildings on fire Greece style riots (refer to Francis Piven). Occupiers started a bonfire in one street of Oakland, broke windows and graffittied buildings. On this night, the protests weren't hippies sitting in parks, but people who truly wanted chaos, and would go through police to get it. As a result, someone standing off with police in an act of defiance is a pretty good way to get police to act which is exactly what this officer did.
In conclusion, I would advise anyone to be sceptical when a sympathizer of the Occupy protests claims police brutality. Our nation's police forces, especially the NYPD who are at the epicenter of the movement, have shown that they can keep their discipline in the face of annoying, instigating protesters who desperately want to be in the picture that will go in the history books of social movements. As these protests continue, and our nation's police forces are pushed to their absolute limits in terms of patience, the exceptional discipline a majority of the officers have shown may become a more rare occurrence.
When this happens, police will need as much support as possible in order to preserve order in our nation. The propaganda of the Occupy movement is infectious because it is simple, as any propaganda is. It's a simple and almost cliche tactic to peg police as brutal. It's harder to understand that the Occupy movement is trying to turn people away from the police because the police stand with the system they wish to destroy. Any authority figure will be targeted in Occupy, and the police are the authority on the front lines. Any self-respecting person of the 99% should think before they demonize the police, however. What is their alternative to police if they have such disdain for them? Would an Occupy security assembly that pushes rape under the rug be better than police? Could the Occupiers deal with murder or violent crimes better than police? If everybody turns their back on police, there really will be like...anarchy everywhere, and brutalizers that won't be police, but people who will take advantage of chaos. Is the 99% really about that?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Ciminal Incidents at Occupy Wall Street
GLENN BECK has been the most comprehensive figure to cover the Occupy Wall Street happenings. Most on the left would say he's mis-informed, lying or what have you. I say he's 100% right. The liberal media, even Fox News which is becoming increasingly more mainstream, has put a damper on what's really happening at Occupy events around the country. Since I first heard the list on Glenn Beck's show of criminal incidents at Occupy, the amount of crime has grown significantly...so much so that I can't name them all.
Today, in fact, an occupier was caught for shooting at the White House RESIDENCE LEVEL window that took place on Friday. Here are two things I think people should remember when they hear about Occupy Wall Street:
One- Spokesmen for the Occupiers will try to dismiss crime by saying the perpetrators aren't part of the movement which is untrue, and even if none of the people committing crimes are part of Occupy (which they are), the Occupiers have been rather slack in attempting to deal with crime.
Two- Unrest is the aim of this movement because without it, they will not be able to achieve their goals.
Incidents At OWS-
Occupy Cleveland- 19 yr old student raped in tent (not reported)
Seattle/Oakland- Indecent Exposure
Madison- Permit Revoked for indecent exposure
Dallas- Rape of 14 yr. old runaway
Lawrence- Sexual Assault by two men
Occupy New Hampshire- Pimp out 16 yr. old girl (arranged for client)
Occupy Wall Street- groping, def man raped (not reported)
Baltimore- Rape, robbery
Other Cases-
Numerous sexual assaults (some estimates of up to 75 cases of rape or sexual assault)
Drug Overdoses
Slashing of a police officer with a razor
Police cruiser smashed during Occupy Oakland riots
New cases of rape and one sexual assault at five Occupy encampments
Today, in fact, an occupier was caught for shooting at the White House RESIDENCE LEVEL window that took place on Friday. Here are two things I think people should remember when they hear about Occupy Wall Street:
One- Spokesmen for the Occupiers will try to dismiss crime by saying the perpetrators aren't part of the movement which is untrue, and even if none of the people committing crimes are part of Occupy (which they are), the Occupiers have been rather slack in attempting to deal with crime.
Two- Unrest is the aim of this movement because without it, they will not be able to achieve their goals.
Incidents At OWS-
Occupy Cleveland- 19 yr old student raped in tent (not reported)
Seattle/Oakland- Indecent Exposure
Madison- Permit Revoked for indecent exposure
Dallas- Rape of 14 yr. old runaway
Lawrence- Sexual Assault by two men
Occupy New Hampshire- Pimp out 16 yr. old girl (arranged for client)
Occupy Wall Street- groping, def man raped (not reported)
Baltimore- Rape, robbery
Other Cases-
Numerous sexual assaults (some estimates of up to 75 cases of rape or sexual assault)
Drug Overdoses
Slashing of a police officer with a razor
Police cruiser smashed during Occupy Oakland riots
New cases of rape and one sexual assault at five Occupy encampments
Hey Liberals, Jesus Wasn't A Commie!
"HEY MAN, JESUS WAS A COMMIE!" This is a common argument used by many liberals to justify a system so corrupt and evil that the only way to give credit to it is to say the "big man" was even a proponent of it. However, Jesus was most definitely NOT a Communist, and while he did advocate social justice, it wasn't in the way the liberals would have you believe. Jesus, in fact, was not on any political side because he...being God...understood that no human government could rid the world of the poor, the hungry, the needy, the oppressed, the greedy or any other "social injustice". Even while working on this post, I came across a story that actor Matthew Modine had created a short film titled "Jesus was a Commie". Give me a break. Before I could even finish writing, somebody makes a film advocating this flawed view of Christianity. Being a Christian, I will try to put to rest this notion through my own feeble human understanding of Jesus' true teaching.
As previously stated, the first thing a true follower of Christ, or anyone for that matter, should understand is that Jesus had a job to do, and it wasn't to advocate communism. That job was to save us from our sins. Pretty simple. That didn't leave much room to advocate Marx's theory of capital or Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand (although Jesus' teachings fall more in line with the free-market than communism). Jesus had a limited time (around 33 years) to teach his disciples, preach to the people and give us enough material to learn how to be saved and live a life as a follower of Him. I would say the least of Jesus' worries was trying to establish the principles of class struggle and collectivism on His creation.
Aside from this, a very important point to remember is that Jesus was NOT a political figure. Jesus was the son of God, and our savior. From the time Jesus was born, the Jewish people were looking for a secular king who would be a savior to them. The wise men in Matthew 2:2 looked for the "king of the Jews" to come and worship after they were shown a star in the east. When Jesus was about to be put to death by Pilate, he was asked if he truly was the king of the Jews, and Jesus replied, "you say so". The Jews themselves believed that Jesus was their king and would rule over them, and were disappointed when he was put to death by the Romans. Jesus never described himself as a political figure, and any attempt by man to label him as such was quickly countered. Jesus' response to Pilate sums this up by saying that it is us who pin him as a political figure; he never claimed to be king, that's what we expected.
"But....Jesus said spread the wealth man!" Jesus' parables dealing with charity, loving your neighbor and all the things a good communist would identify with, were not actually things a communist would identify with. Jesus was an advocate of DIVINE social justice, something no human government can achieve (though liberals will try). His principles regarding our fellow man were not things that could be forced by the State, but had to come after a relationship with Christ was established. In John 12:24, as Mary is washing Jesus' feet with expensive oil, he reminds Judas what his priorities should be. He says: "you will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." In Mark 14:7 Jesus is quoted as saying "you can help them any time you want." Charity comes second to having a relationship with Christ. After that we can help all the people we want.
Jesus never told anybody to spread the wealth or said that the State had the right to do so. Jesus' economic teachings (if there were any), boiled down to giving only because of your faith, and not being attached to any worldly possessions you may have. When he tells the rich man to sell his possessions, it is because earthly things will not get you into heaven. When he says it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to get through the eye of a needle, he is saying that people put their faith in stuff rather than Him. The disciples then ask Jesus, who can get into heaven if not a rich man? Jesus says no-one, except through him. And when the disciples sell their possessions and have everything in common? Stalin wasn't telling them to do so, they did it because they had a fellowship with each other throught the Holy Spirit, not under the iron fist of a dictator.
So liberals, Jesus wasn't a Commie. Sorry.
As previously stated, the first thing a true follower of Christ, or anyone for that matter, should understand is that Jesus had a job to do, and it wasn't to advocate communism. That job was to save us from our sins. Pretty simple. That didn't leave much room to advocate Marx's theory of capital or Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand (although Jesus' teachings fall more in line with the free-market than communism). Jesus had a limited time (around 33 years) to teach his disciples, preach to the people and give us enough material to learn how to be saved and live a life as a follower of Him. I would say the least of Jesus' worries was trying to establish the principles of class struggle and collectivism on His creation.
Aside from this, a very important point to remember is that Jesus was NOT a political figure. Jesus was the son of God, and our savior. From the time Jesus was born, the Jewish people were looking for a secular king who would be a savior to them. The wise men in Matthew 2:2 looked for the "king of the Jews" to come and worship after they were shown a star in the east. When Jesus was about to be put to death by Pilate, he was asked if he truly was the king of the Jews, and Jesus replied, "you say so". The Jews themselves believed that Jesus was their king and would rule over them, and were disappointed when he was put to death by the Romans. Jesus never described himself as a political figure, and any attempt by man to label him as such was quickly countered. Jesus' response to Pilate sums this up by saying that it is us who pin him as a political figure; he never claimed to be king, that's what we expected.
"But....Jesus said spread the wealth man!" Jesus' parables dealing with charity, loving your neighbor and all the things a good communist would identify with, were not actually things a communist would identify with. Jesus was an advocate of DIVINE social justice, something no human government can achieve (though liberals will try). His principles regarding our fellow man were not things that could be forced by the State, but had to come after a relationship with Christ was established. In John 12:24, as Mary is washing Jesus' feet with expensive oil, he reminds Judas what his priorities should be. He says: "you will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." In Mark 14:7 Jesus is quoted as saying "you can help them any time you want." Charity comes second to having a relationship with Christ. After that we can help all the people we want.
Jesus never told anybody to spread the wealth or said that the State had the right to do so. Jesus' economic teachings (if there were any), boiled down to giving only because of your faith, and not being attached to any worldly possessions you may have. When he tells the rich man to sell his possessions, it is because earthly things will not get you into heaven. When he says it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than a camel to get through the eye of a needle, he is saying that people put their faith in stuff rather than Him. The disciples then ask Jesus, who can get into heaven if not a rich man? Jesus says no-one, except through him. And when the disciples sell their possessions and have everything in common? Stalin wasn't telling them to do so, they did it because they had a fellowship with each other throught the Holy Spirit, not under the iron fist of a dictator.
So liberals, Jesus wasn't a Commie. Sorry.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
TONIGHT ON CBS' PRESEDENTIAL DEBATE!!!
Ron Paul will be asked one question? Should've seen that coming. Out of every debate so far, the amount of questions he has been asked could probably be counted on fingers and toes. That's probably because every time he speaks the moderators and other candidates have nothing to debate...because he's always right...
But come on, at least give him maybe two questions next time, is that too much to ask?
But come on, at least give him maybe two questions next time, is that too much to ask?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Milton Friedman Explaining Free-Market Principle
NOW, I've only just learned of Milton Friedman, but I'm glad I did. Here is a guy who could win a Nobel Prize AND be a capitalist. Even though it might have been some years back, that fact still offers a glimmer of hope to us free-market people. His knowledge provides a very convincing case for the free-market. That knowledge and skill at explaining the free-market are on display in a video where young Michael Moore poses the question (to paraphrase):
If the free-market allows Ford to build a car (the Pinto) at the expense of 200 human lives per year, to save $13 per car, is the free-market really right?
On the surface, like any liberal argument, this seems like a no-brainer ethical principle. "Holy cow, of course the free-market is terrible if it allows things like this to go on! I mean, evil Ford letting 200 hundred people die each year just to save thirteen dollars to make each Pinto! The free-market should like be totally banned!!" This is what many people's brains may tell them, and in reality, it is a logical response (maybe not to Michael Moore, who also states in the video he doesn't believe every human life is sacred). However, Friedman begs us to look at this issue deeper. I believe in this exchange, he has effectively explained why the free-market is completely ethical.
Very simply put, the government's role is not to impose regulations over businesses ensuring that every product they make is safe, that every piece of marketing they choose to show to the public is true, and that every decision they make is ethical. The free-market, as Friedman states, has ethical protections that come in the form of the law. Those operating a business are not exempt from the laws that other citizens must follow such as lying, cheating, theft and murder. Anything regulations imposed on business beyond this are un-necessary. It is the consumer's duty to have the ability to protect themselves based on products they think are worth buying.
A point he also makes very clear is that virtually every aspect of life could be life-threatening: getting out of bed, walking down stairs, walking across the street, walking up stairs or driving any car (whether it's a Ford Pinto or not). The point is that while Ford could have spent the extra $13 per car, (possibly) ensuring that 200 lives could be saved each year, it is not up to government to dictate to Ford how they should spend their money. Therefore, the principle of ethics does not lie in whether or not Ford should have saved $13 per car at the expense of 200 lives per year, but whether or not it is ethical to take people's right to choose to buy that car, and if it is ethical to insult a people's intelligence by suggesting they wouldn't be able to decide if they really should buy a Pinto (maybe the government should have made Ford choose a better name for the thing).
The bottom line is that ultimately, the free-market is the most ethical system there is because it ensures people's liberty. One thing I believe is usually missed by those who would argue against the free-market, is that government ultimately takes liberty away from the consumer in the name of their protection. While a government might "protect" people from a dangerous product, the end result is them taking away the liberty to choose between any product just as they did with the incandescent light bulb.
Here is Friedman explaining the free-market to young Moore (CONTENT WARNING: MICHAEL MOORE ACTUALLY SAYS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED):
If the free-market allows Ford to build a car (the Pinto) at the expense of 200 human lives per year, to save $13 per car, is the free-market really right?
On the surface, like any liberal argument, this seems like a no-brainer ethical principle. "Holy cow, of course the free-market is terrible if it allows things like this to go on! I mean, evil Ford letting 200 hundred people die each year just to save thirteen dollars to make each Pinto! The free-market should like be totally banned!!" This is what many people's brains may tell them, and in reality, it is a logical response (maybe not to Michael Moore, who also states in the video he doesn't believe every human life is sacred). However, Friedman begs us to look at this issue deeper. I believe in this exchange, he has effectively explained why the free-market is completely ethical.
Very simply put, the government's role is not to impose regulations over businesses ensuring that every product they make is safe, that every piece of marketing they choose to show to the public is true, and that every decision they make is ethical. The free-market, as Friedman states, has ethical protections that come in the form of the law. Those operating a business are not exempt from the laws that other citizens must follow such as lying, cheating, theft and murder. Anything regulations imposed on business beyond this are un-necessary. It is the consumer's duty to have the ability to protect themselves based on products they think are worth buying.
A point he also makes very clear is that virtually every aspect of life could be life-threatening: getting out of bed, walking down stairs, walking across the street, walking up stairs or driving any car (whether it's a Ford Pinto or not). The point is that while Ford could have spent the extra $13 per car, (possibly) ensuring that 200 lives could be saved each year, it is not up to government to dictate to Ford how they should spend their money. Therefore, the principle of ethics does not lie in whether or not Ford should have saved $13 per car at the expense of 200 lives per year, but whether or not it is ethical to take people's right to choose to buy that car, and if it is ethical to insult a people's intelligence by suggesting they wouldn't be able to decide if they really should buy a Pinto (maybe the government should have made Ford choose a better name for the thing).
The bottom line is that ultimately, the free-market is the most ethical system there is because it ensures people's liberty. One thing I believe is usually missed by those who would argue against the free-market, is that government ultimately takes liberty away from the consumer in the name of their protection. While a government might "protect" people from a dangerous product, the end result is them taking away the liberty to choose between any product just as they did with the incandescent light bulb.
Here is Friedman explaining the free-market to young Moore (CONTENT WARNING: MICHAEL MOORE ACTUALLY SAYS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED):
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Why Most Artists Are Liberals (Reading of the Communist Manifesto Pt. 1)
KARL MARX, in the "Communist Manifesto", repeatedly uses the "little guy" as an example when arguing the struggle between the oppressed and oppressors. One of the "little guys" he mentions are artisans. This could be the reason, be it consciously or sub-consciously, many artists (both fine artists and craftsman) feel themselves leaning toward liberal collectivist doctrine...in other words Communism. I guess Marx never imagined artists could sell their work and become celebrities in the free market, eh?
Here is Marx citing the artisan in chapter one of the "Communist Manifesto":
"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie"
Here is Marx citing the artisan in chapter one of the "Communist Manifesto":
"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie"
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Where We've Gone Wrong: America's Foreign Policy
WHILE SEARCHING Youtube tonight for some material for the first ever blog post on Right Side Up, I came across a video of Ron Paul. In the video, he is giving one of his usual mind blowing monologues regarding the United States' foreign policy. I've pondered our foreign policy many times and have never been able to come up with an answer as to what's really wrong with it. We fight terrorism across the globe, and supposedly fight for freedom and democracy. Sure, we fight for oil and our national interests, but what country doesn't, and besides that benefits our citizens right? So American really fights for what's right...right?
The only answer I have ever been able to come up with regarding the flaws in our foreign policy is that we shouldn't fight for democracy, because as the United States, we should understand that democracy isn't what our nation is. But fighting terrorism is good right? Preventing terrorists from bombing buildings and taking down airplanes should be a priority for any government that wants to protect its people. What about fighting for freedom? Everybody should have the chance to taste freedom, so of course it's good. Or is it? At this point, the line begins to blur, and it is when Ron Paul steps in to save the day and clear up some common misconceptions regarding our foreign policy, as it surely is true for our government's domestic policy.
In his monologue at a CNN Republican debate, Dr. Paul hits the nail on the head. The United States has abandoned the just war theory and its Christian morals, and replaced it with preemptive strikes and militarism that, as Paul points out, makes our country more unsafe. As a conservative, this is hard to swallow. It's hard to admit that America can do any wrong. That is, however, something all conservatives can admit. But the facts don't lie, and as a Christian and American it's no secret our government oversteps its boundaries.
The Just War theory in a nutshell is that no war should be fought until it is absolutely necessary to do so. Very few wars are truly "just wars". After listening to Dr. Paul's monologue, I better understood why our current wars were so controversial. To paraphrase a quote from C.S. Lewis, one should always beware of "omnipotent moral busybodies". In other words, too much help can be a bad thing, and it is especially dangerous when the helpers are convinced they are doing the right thing. I believe this principle to also be true in the case of the United States' foreign policy.
While we may or may not be fighting for freedom and democracy around the globe, the point is still being missed. The number one priority of the United States' government is not to fight for freedom and democracy across the globe, but to fight for it right here at home (not for democracy of course...we're a Republic). Beyond fighting for the safety of our citizens, the United States government does not have the authority, or obligation to fight any one else's wars, nor does it have the authority to engage in preemptive strikes, or invasions, a point that Ron Paul makes very clear.
In a separate video where Paul is asked about American exceptionalism, the second part of my realization came to light. Ron Paul stated that for us to believe America is truly exceptional, we must display the qualities our country was founded on, that truly made us exceptional. As he likes to say of the Republican party, the same can be said of American ideals: we've lost our way. We will not be able to restore liberty and set an example to the rest of the world until we grow up, and do it for ourselves. This means that we must fight to get back the rights endowed to us by our creator at home, so that we can exemplify them to the rest of the world.
Here are the two videos in which Paul explains foreign policy and American Exceptionalism:
The only answer I have ever been able to come up with regarding the flaws in our foreign policy is that we shouldn't fight for democracy, because as the United States, we should understand that democracy isn't what our nation is. But fighting terrorism is good right? Preventing terrorists from bombing buildings and taking down airplanes should be a priority for any government that wants to protect its people. What about fighting for freedom? Everybody should have the chance to taste freedom, so of course it's good. Or is it? At this point, the line begins to blur, and it is when Ron Paul steps in to save the day and clear up some common misconceptions regarding our foreign policy, as it surely is true for our government's domestic policy.
In his monologue at a CNN Republican debate, Dr. Paul hits the nail on the head. The United States has abandoned the just war theory and its Christian morals, and replaced it with preemptive strikes and militarism that, as Paul points out, makes our country more unsafe. As a conservative, this is hard to swallow. It's hard to admit that America can do any wrong. That is, however, something all conservatives can admit. But the facts don't lie, and as a Christian and American it's no secret our government oversteps its boundaries.
The Just War theory in a nutshell is that no war should be fought until it is absolutely necessary to do so. Very few wars are truly "just wars". After listening to Dr. Paul's monologue, I better understood why our current wars were so controversial. To paraphrase a quote from C.S. Lewis, one should always beware of "omnipotent moral busybodies". In other words, too much help can be a bad thing, and it is especially dangerous when the helpers are convinced they are doing the right thing. I believe this principle to also be true in the case of the United States' foreign policy.
While we may or may not be fighting for freedom and democracy around the globe, the point is still being missed. The number one priority of the United States' government is not to fight for freedom and democracy across the globe, but to fight for it right here at home (not for democracy of course...we're a Republic). Beyond fighting for the safety of our citizens, the United States government does not have the authority, or obligation to fight any one else's wars, nor does it have the authority to engage in preemptive strikes, or invasions, a point that Ron Paul makes very clear.
In a separate video where Paul is asked about American exceptionalism, the second part of my realization came to light. Ron Paul stated that for us to believe America is truly exceptional, we must display the qualities our country was founded on, that truly made us exceptional. As he likes to say of the Republican party, the same can be said of American ideals: we've lost our way. We will not be able to restore liberty and set an example to the rest of the world until we grow up, and do it for ourselves. This means that we must fight to get back the rights endowed to us by our creator at home, so that we can exemplify them to the rest of the world.
Here are the two videos in which Paul explains foreign policy and American Exceptionalism:
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Restoration Begins
IT SEEMS that today, more so than ever before, a collision of cultures, ideals, beliefs, values and philosophies is creating a world where conflict and confusion are the norm, and peace and understanding is the exception. Multiculturalism pits people's backgrounds in constant conflict with one another to achieve a paradoxical goal: to be equal. The right and left are in a perpetual conflict to prove who is right and why being left is wrong. Religions, because of multiculturalism and political correctness, are forced to be in conflict not only with the societies in which they exist, but with their very beliefs. The overwhelming fact, however, is that Christians, the right or anybody that just believes in the general principles of the United States of America are under attack.
From this, comes the inspiration for the Right Side Up. The Right Side Up is to be a source of truth amidst the array of lies and upside down-ness that bombards clear minded and conservative-thinking Americans on a day-to-day basis. While there are most likely a number of blogs out there that present a conservative point of view, Right Side Up seeks to analyze, examine and comment on the current events and political happenings of the times not just from a conservative standpoint, but in a Christian light, something we believe is essential to the restoration of our country.
The hope is that Right Side Up will reach Americans on both "sides of the isle" who are tired of the many lies, games and conflicts present in our society. To help America regain her glory will require Americans coming together and understanding what is really happening in the world and Right Side Up seeks to achieve that goal.
Restoration begins now.
From this, comes the inspiration for the Right Side Up. The Right Side Up is to be a source of truth amidst the array of lies and upside down-ness that bombards clear minded and conservative-thinking Americans on a day-to-day basis. While there are most likely a number of blogs out there that present a conservative point of view, Right Side Up seeks to analyze, examine and comment on the current events and political happenings of the times not just from a conservative standpoint, but in a Christian light, something we believe is essential to the restoration of our country.
The hope is that Right Side Up will reach Americans on both "sides of the isle" who are tired of the many lies, games and conflicts present in our society. To help America regain her glory will require Americans coming together and understanding what is really happening in the world and Right Side Up seeks to achieve that goal.
Restoration begins now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)