"X-Y-Z: THE MECHANIX OF AMERYCAN POLITICZ" (Or, "BAIT AND DIVIDE, SWITCH AND CONQUER")

.
FOREWARNING

Yes, right up front I’m providing advance notice that this Blog installment is lengthy. If you already fully understand that both the Democrat and Republican parties are colluding to condition America toward a tyrannical Global Socialistic State and you are already aware of how the Hegelian Dialectic is utilized in moving the nation ever Leftward, or if you don’t know about any of these things but the next episode of ‘American Idol’ is coming on in five minutes and you don’t want to miss it, then you’ll probably want to save yourself the time it would take to read the following and click off this Blog Bit now.

However, if the aforementioned items are not already well understood by you and you don’t give a damn about the next episode of ‘American Idol’, then I feel confident in saying that the information presented below will be worth the time you invest in reading it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Section 1) - Overview (Or, Political Reality 101)
Section 2) - My "Fascist" Friends Weigh In
Section 3) - The Nuts And Bolts Of The System
Section 4) - Bait And Divide, Switch And Conquer
Section 5) - "The Making Of A President"
Section 6) - "USAP", Sarah Palin, And Glenn Beck
Section 7) - X-Y-Z (Or, "The Hegelian Dialectic")
Section 8) - The Endgame

OVERVIEW (Or, POLITICAL REALITY 101)

There are only two differences between the Democrat and Republican parties: what they SAY they stand for, and the speed with which they install Federal tyranny over We The People in “the land of the so-called free and the home of the brave.”

However, sometimes even the latter difference is nonexistent. Despite verbally railing against government encroachment over individual civil liberties and about the need for greater economic efficiency through smaller government and more localized responsibility, in actuality, Republicans sometimes increase the cost and scope of the national government even beyond that of their liberal, Democrat predecessors. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush come immediately to mind. “Talking” and “Doing” are two very different things – that’s the reason they’re spelled differently.

Isn’t it a bit ironic that “Neoconservatism” (that which we call “the Republican party” today) isn’t really conservative at all? Neoconservatism is just another form of Big Government Fascism, but this particular brand of fascism dresses in a suit and tie and seeks global dominance through military intervention and corporate regulation, whereas the liberal, Democrat brand promotes Big Government Fascism while dressed in tie-dyed clothing and seeks global dominance through military intervention and ecological regulation. Your choices are Military intervention with either Corporate or Ecological regulation . . . vote for the death of your choice, Amerika.

In the process of “ramping up” (to borrow one of Sarah Palin’s favorite terms) Federal tyranny, the Republican Neoconservatives pretend to be primarily concerned about protecting the rights of the person. The Democrats ramp up Federal tyranny as well, but while doing so, they pretend to be primarily concerned about protecting the rights of the people. In other words, “group rights.” But regardless, Orwellian Big Brotherism progresses right on schedule and EVERYONE’S Constitutional rights get flushed down the toilet.

Every once in awhile, I will write something to a friend in a personal Email, or I will post a comment on a Blog installment, and then afterwards think to myself: That might make a pretty worthwhile addition to a Blog Bit.

And so occasionally I will incorporate a sentence or even a paragraph that I have written elsewhere into a Blog posting that I’m working on. Rarer still are those times when I take something I’ve written elsewhere and actually build an entire Blog Bit around it. Such as I’m doing here.

Back in early November of last year, I posted a Blog Bit titled ‘Impalin’ Palin’. The discussion that this installment engendered in the “Comment” section amongst my friends and I was perhaps the best exchange in my time as a Blogspot blogger. I later got the idea to use these comments as the nucleus for yet another political Blog Bit.

Below are those November 2009 comments which I have transported here. I have done minor editing, such as removing some of the more personal remarks which didn’t really pertain to the general theme under discussion, etc. And that theme being the essential sameness of both major political parties in the United States – Democrat and Republican. Since these comments were previously posted in a public forum, I feel no hesitation in reposting them here. I thank all of my friends who took part in the discussion; I found their comments so valuable that they inspired a whole new F-FFF installment.

MY “FASCIST” FRIENDS WEIGH IN

Nov. 2, 2009
MOUSIEMARC (of the Blog ‘Historic Words’) said:

… Glenn Beck makes a lot of good points but ALWAYS falls short of naming The Federal Reserve as THE PROBLEM. I remember watching a town hall meeting with moms on his show. A mother who happens to work for Ron Paul’s ‘Campaign For Liberty’ started to mention The Federal Reserve. Glenn quickly cut her off and stated, "I don't want to get into that right now." That is not an exact quote (coming from memory) but it’s close. I was a little on the fence with him until he showed his hand there. However, I know people who hang on his every word. He even had a segment where he stated that after we go bankrupt the government will probably back a new currency by taking our property rights and will ask China and Russia to help squash civil unrest. They would be promised our resources. Did they get a little cocky there and show their hand? It won't matter because this is a done deal anyway.

I have heard Michael Savage mention the Bilderberg group in passing. However, he once got a caller who started to mention Carroll Quigleys book, "Tragedy and Hope." He quickly cut him off and stated, "What do you think I care about some book you've read? What do I care about someone else’s book?" He then went to the next caller. How uneventful unless you’re someone like me who knows what’s in that book. I used to listen to that show all the time, read a couple of his books, and at that moment I find out he's a fraud. I began to suspect it but that moment confirmed it.

Below is a quote from ‘Tragedy and Hope’ that I got from Freedom Force International’s site. It seems to fit your blog piece:

"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

Of course, Freedom Force also talks about the the Quigley Formula. Which is in short to make your own opposition. Instead of waiting for genuine grass root efforts to rise up, just create false grass root movements like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage. They make good points and even tell the truth. However, they work for companies that are owned by these people and they have to stay in line to keep their jobs. People like Beck and Savage probably justify it somehow to themselves. "Well at least I'm giving some truth. If I wasn't here no one would have any clue."

WRONG!!!!

If you weren't there a real genuine movement would rise up. But … you accept favors from these people and [give] only half the message. People believe you’re for real, so they feel they don't have to do it ‘cause Beck’s doing it’, and they'll just follow Beck like everyone else in the Patriot Movement, right? That’s the scam because Beck’s going to make sure we lose. It becomes obvious once you see it. However, from personal experience I can tell you, it takes people who are informed and [it takes] … time to come to this reality. Though given the events to come, I'm sure they'll get some reality to wake them up soon.

God Bless,
Brother Marc

STEPHEN T. McCARTHY (Yours Truly) said:

SPOT ON, Br'er Marc!

It's funny that you posted that particular quote from ‘Tragedy And Hope’ because I was thinking of posting on F-F F F that same quote as my next Blog Bit, as a follow-up to this one. But you just saved me the trouble. Thanks!

Yes, Brother, you've definitely got the scam figured out. The dirty little secret about today's so-called "conservatives" can be found not in what they say but in what they always seem to leave unsaid. I pointed this out clearly in my previous Blog Bit here at F-FFF titled "#1 Rule Of Politics", but since no one reads my Blog, it won't make any difference to anyone.

And then when the White House makes a lot of noise about trying to shut down Fox News, it only further convinces the viewers of Fox News that they are really involved with the real patriotic counterculture. But of course, the truth is that the pseudo-conservative Fox News is just the other side of the New World Order coin. As you said, they exist to control what might otherwise turn into a genuinely dangerous conservative element. It's all about a formula for control that could be called "Bait And Divide, Switch And Conquer." Hey, that's not too bad, if I do say so myself. That saying has within it the seed of a future Blog Bit.
Great comment, Brother Marc.

OL’ WARRIOR POET said:

Another good bit, STM.

It's the conservative brand sheeple that disappoint me most of all. They still think the "talkin’ heads" are on their side and have their best interest at heart.

They think that Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly and the rest are "just like them", and are their voice against the "liberal media". IT'S ALL THE SAME MEDIA!!!

ARLEE BIRD (of the Blog ‘Tossing It Out’) said:

As promised, Stephen, here's my two cents on Sarah Palin and all the other people you mention. And I'm sure it won't mean much to you or your commenters because, let's face it, I don't study it and analyze it as much as you do but I respect that you do. I enjoy reading what you all have to say though.

My take on the issue is that the absolute hard line in either direction is not going to work because most of us uninformed ignoramuses are more toward the middle. It's politics and it's about ratings or winning. There will always be some kind of collusion between sides because diluting the issues - giving a dose of sugar with the vinegar - will make the whole package more palatable. So Palin or Huckaby or Beck or Medved, I'll take them over some more extreme left wing agenda.

But what do I know other than I'll take a Buster Bar over a Dilly Bar any day and if I do have to settle for a Dilly Bar then it better be chocolate. (If anyone doesn't get my reference then check my blog entry about Texas Stop Signs.)
Lee

STEPHEN T. McCARTHY said:

Hey, thanks for your comment, rLEE-b.

However, I don't believe there is any "middle." In the U.S.A. there is one coin which has two sides: One side of the coin is "The American Way" (a.k.a. "Constitutionalism" or “The Rule Of Law”) which is the standard set by our Founding Fathers, and it is represented by the great system they established in spirit by The Declaration of Independence and in law by the U.S. Constitution. This is the framework that quickly made us the envy of every other nation in the world.

The other side of the coin is "Socialism" of one type or another from, say, Keynesianism to Marxism. Marxism, of course, being Communism - and Communism has probably been best described as "Socialism in a hurry."

In this country there is no real middle ground; there's only Constitutionalism or Socialism in varying degrees.

Now, a major problem is that there also exists an unelected body called The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and it has been well established that the true goal of the CFR is to create a single, totalitarian world government based on Socialism. In other words, “The American Way” of life must be destroyed to make way for this World Government (often referred to as "The New World Order”).

Unfortunately, for all intents and purposes, the CFR directs both major political parties in this country, as well as Congress, and it pretty much sets our foreign policy. For about a century now we have been shifted ever Leftward (into Socialism) primarily by use of the Hegelian Dialectic. The two political parties have the same aim but they know that We The People (if we caught on) would never support it, so a false front "political war" has been established to make the people choose sides: Conservatism = Republicans; Progressivism (which is really Liberalism, which is really overt Socialism) = Democrats. But the truth is that both parties really represent nothing other than Socialism in two different speeds.

Or as my friend Br'er Marc (Mousiemarc) put it so perfectly once: It's like smoking cigarettes. You can acquire your lung cancer quickly by smoking unfiltered cigarettes, or you can acquire your lung cancer more gradually by smoking filtered cigarettes.

It translates into the political realm like this: You can acquire your totalitarian Socialism quickly by smoking unfiltered Democrat, or you can acquire your totalitarian Socialism more gradually by smoking filtered Republican. Either way, you invite the poison into your system and the end result will be death of “The American Way” of life. In other words, the political war between the Republicans and Democrats is a FAKE FIGHT (and both parties know it!) It’s all for public consumption, designed to keep the Americonned People deceived and unaware of where this WILL eventually lead: Totalitarian World Government essentially based upon the Keynesian model.

A superb overview of all this can be found in the small book (only 130 pages of text) titled ‘THE NAKED CAPITALIST’ by W. Cleon Skousen. Used copies of it can be found online for only a few dollars. I’d say start there, but buckle your seatbelt and hang on to your hat; you’re in for a surprising, E-Ticket ride!

~ Stephen
<"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
so a fool repeats his folly."
~ Proverbs 26:11>

ARLEE BIRD (of the Blog ‘Tossing It Out’) said:

Good answer, what else can I say? I am not as well studied on these matters as you and Mousie, but I sure admire you for it. I'm conservative in tendency but from the way you put it all across we're all doomed no matter what. And so is the way of the world and man.

I won't let it bring me down ‘cause it's only castles burning.
Lee

STEPHEN T. McCARTHY said:

rLEE-b ~
Yes, Brother, we are doomed, primarily because our politicians, our talking heads on television, and our pundits in the print media and talk radio - of both Socialist stripes (blatant socialist Democrats and pseudo-conservative Republicans) refuse to either tell The People the truth (Democrat leaders) or the WHOLE truth (Republican leaders).

And, of course, We The People don't really want to hear the truth anyway because we are so busy stuffing ourselves with cheesecake and Duff beer while being preoccupied by mind-rotting "entertainment" (bread and circuses).We simply accept our statist chains and passively follow (or as in the case of "Tea Parties", more rambunctiously follow) our deceitful leaders to our inglorious execution. But we didn't have to go out this way.

In case you're interested, below are Blog Bits I'd previously posted which elaborate on two of the major points I addressed above. This is a "nutshell" look at two forms of Socialism - the Russian version and the American version: Marx Vs. Keynes: Comparative Socialism In Miniature
[See link at Blog Bit conclusion.]

And this is a clearer explanation of why I dislike and distrust what passes for conservatism all across the talk radio dial: #1 Rule Of Politics
[See link at Blog Bit conclusion.]

I still say you're better off reading Skousen's ‘THE NAKED CAPITALIST’, but even as inexpensive as that slim book is, my writing is the "cheapest".
;o)

~ "Lonesome Dogg" Stevieboy

THE MAN WHO STEPPED ON CHICKENFOOT (or, The Great L.C. from the Blog ‘DiscConnected’) said:

Stephen-
Sadly, if the Repubs are dumb enough to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012, she will fall before the messiah as he wins a second term and further scuttles the future of this country (unless of course those Mayan prophecies turn out to be dead on).

The 'Pubs need some new blood. Ron Paul's message was striking a nerve with young folk. If the Repubs could find a like-minded soul who was maybe their side of fifty, maybe things would change. Otherwise, I think the great god Obama will continue to mesmerize the youth and minorities, and will score both the liberal vote and the vote of people who maybe wanted a change from the same old Repub mess and see this as a way to get that, and prove they are politically correct and not rascist.

But by then, the Chinese will stop lending The Great One money, and we'll all need to learn Mandarin anyway.

-The Man Who Stepped on Chickenfoot

STEPHEN T. McCARTHY said:

MANDARIN?! Don't tell me THAT! I'm still taking Spanish 101 just so I can conduct business here in Arizona.

You see that, my dear Blog Reader? I have some pretty sharp ferret-faced fascist friends, don’t I?

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE SYSTEM

In the remainder of this Blog Bit I will elaborate on some of the statements that were made above. To begin with, many years of very intensive study of some highly credible sources has proven to me that the American political scene is governed like this:

International Bankers essentially control the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which represents the Bankers’ corporate, political and media interests. The CFR, for all intents and purposes, directs both major American political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, in both foreign and domestic policies.

Naturally, that’s putting very succinctly a political paradigm that is in reality somewhat more complex than that. Nevertheless, minute details aside, this is indeed how the American political scene basically operates. This represents the “Active Ingredients” in the “Product.”

BAIT AND DIVIDE, SWITCH AND CONQUER

The ultimate goal in American politics is to dismantle, piece by piece if necessary, the U.S. Constitution and its Bill Of Rights and to replace it with a Socialistic World Government.

In order to achieve this goal, the American People must be convinced that it is in their best interests to scrap the American system for the newly evolving global system. In other words, the American People and the form of government established by their Founding Fathers must be conquered. The first order of business in conquering the American voters is to “Divide” them.

To do this, their “leaders” must first set the “Bait”. The Republicans decry the eroding of Individual rights and the corrupting of the Capitalist system. The Democrats protest injustices against select Groups and insist that those greedy Capitalists should spread the wealth around. Both of these arguments are meant to appeal to different mind-sets and “Bait” those sharing these world-views. As the individual takes the bait offered, he finds himself aligned with one group or the other: Republicans or Democrats. Candidates and representatives from both parties know what they need to say in order to attract and retain their potential vote and support groups.

Democrats primarily apppeal to the bleeding-heart emotion-based voters and those perceiving themselves to be disenfranchised. In other words, mostly to women and minorities. And the party says, “We are going to make the government help you!”

The Republicans reach out to the voter block which is more individualistic and objective; proponents of ‘individual rights’ and ‘limited government’. And the party says, “We are going to make the government get off your back!”

Both types of American Voters have now taken the bait and have been effectively “Divided” from each other.

As long as The People are divided and bickering amongst themselves, it’s not likely that they will ever raise their heads above the fray to see who the real enemy is. Keep The People involved in political warfare, party versus party, and infighting against one another, and they will never notice the barbed wire being wrapped around the battlefield where they are engaged in their combat. Then, at some point when the time is right, the leaders of the factions will announce that the war is over and all combatants are prisoners in the Global Concentration Camp. That’s what is really going down, folks; the sheeple are being encircled with barbed wire while they argue, sleep, and watch TV.

However, since tyrannical Big Brother Global Government is the ultimate objective, it’s important that the group opposing centralization of power and overbearing government regulation (i.e., the Republicans) is not allowed to be very successful. That’s where the “Switch” in the “Bait and Divide, Switch and Conquer” comes in.

Having been divided from those with the “more government” Democrat mind-set, the Republican voters are now carefully managed and controlled to ensure that they aren’t actually allowed to implement all of the reforms they are constantly promised by their Handlers – they being the movers and shakers within the Republican party.

The Republican leaders talk a great game but are careful to never reveal too much (like who established the Federal Reserve System, how and why; what the CFR is and what it seeks). They will speak often about unnecessary government departments and a need for fiscal responsibility, but once voted into power at either the Executive or Congressional level, they will immediately turn their backs on all that they had previously claimed to represent. In reality, the voters are given a choice between Socialist-R and Socialist-D. The Council on Foreign Relations doesn’t care which brand of Socialism the Americans elect because the CFR directs both camps.

This is the reason that the size, scope and cost of government has never been reduced regardless of whether it was being controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Smaller government is the exact opposite of what remains the secret goal of BOTH political parties. The voters are Baited; Divided; and in the case of the Republicans, they get their “products” switched; and in the end, all of the American Principles – Constitutionalism, Rule Of Law, Individual Rights, a Republican form of government – will be conquered.

To you registered Republicans I ask this: Did you never question why it was that even when your party won the elections the longstanding Republican “smaller government” platform was never installed? Did you never notice that a pattern had developed, as if some secret force was preventing your party from fulfilling its promises even when the majority of voters had sided with you?

Did you REALLY believe that it was only by accidental or unpremeditated shifts in legislation and domestic policy that the United States of America somehow wound up moving so far to the Left of where the country once stood? Did you REALLY think that our slide into Socialism was just a natural evolution or political progression? You thought all of this Leftward movement occurred without forethought and lots of planning and manipulation from influential people behind the scenes – even within your own political party? Or did you ever pause long enough to even consider this at all?

“THE MAKING OF A PRESIDENT”

This next section of the Blog Bit contains some excerpts from the book ‘Philip Dru: Administrator’ written by Edward Mandell House and first published in 1912.

Edward Mandell House was most likely the single most influential man of American politics of the last 100 years. He was an important advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt and the right-hand man to President Woodrow Wilson. House was no outsider nor a simple speculator of the inside story on political intrigue. He was the real deal when it came to behind-the-scenes manipulation.

‘Philip Dru: Administrator’ was ostensibly a work of fiction, but in the poorly written novel, Edward Mandell House revealed the way things really work in Washington D.C. and the end result that the political conspirators are aiming for. Read these excerpts and contemplate long and deep about what House is really saying here. And if you had no prior knowledge of last century’s most important political character, you might also want to ask yourself just what your qualifications were when you were casting a vote in the last presidential election:

Chapter XII – “Selwyn Seeks A Candidate”
Selwyn then began carefully scrutinizing such public men in the States known as presidential cradles, as seemed to him eligible. By a process of elimination he centered upon two that appeared desirable.

One was James R. Rockland, recently elected Governor of a State of the Middle West. The man had many of the earmarks of a demagogue, which Selwyn readily recognized, and he therefore concluded to try him first.
. . .
Selwyn settled back in his chair, nodding his approval and telling himself that he would not need to seek further for his candidate.

At Rockland’s earnest solicitation he remained over another day. The Governor gave him copies of his speeches and messages, so that he could assure himself that there was no serious flaw in his public record.

Selwyn cautioned him about changing his attitude too suddenly. “Go on, Rockland, as you have done in the past. It will not do to see the light too quickly. You have the progressives with you now, keep them and I will let the conservatives know that you think straight and may be trusted.

“We must consult frequently together,” he continued, “but cautiously. There is no need for anyone to know that we are working together harmoniously. I may even get some of the conservative papers to attack you judiciously. It will not harm you. But, above all, do nothing of importance without consulting me.

“I am committing the party and the Nation to you, and my responsibility is a heavy one, and I owe it to them that no mistakes are made.”

“You may trust me, Senator,” said Rockland. “I understand perfectly.”

Chapter XIV – “The Making Of A President”
Selwyn now devoted himself to the making of enough conservative senators to control comfortably that body. The task was not difficult to a man of his sagacity with all the money he could spend.
. . .
It was a fascinating game to Selwyn. It appealed to his intellectual side far more than it did to his avarice. He wanted to govern the Nation with an absolute hand, and yet not be known as the directing power.
. . .
In the meantime his senators were being elected, the Rockland sentiment was steadily growing and his nomination was finally brought about by the progressives fighting vigorously for him and the conservatives yielding a reluctant consent. It was done so adroitly that Rockland would have been fooled himself, had not Selwyn informed him in advance of each move as it was made.

“USAP”, SARAH PALIN, AND GLENN BECK

Personalities are built up by the media and other political production machines behind the scenes, and these personalities are carefully groomed to appeal to the political factions and give the desperate voters the impression that a knight on a white horse is on the horizon and riding to their rescue.

Of course, over time, it eventually becomes apparent that Last Year’s Savior is just another politician and then the machines replace him or her with This Year’s Model, which gets the voter blocks all enthused and reenergized for another round of Elect ‘N’ Renounce.

Three things I’m certain of: Despite all of the messianic allusions, Barack “USAP” Obama is not near smart enough to be the anti-Christ; Sarah Palin is just another politician who will ultimately disappoint her followers; and if Glenn Beck really represented any threat to the status quo, he damn sure would be removed from Fox News and stripped of his highly influential teaching position at C.B.U. (Conservative Brainwashing University a.k.a. “Fox News”).

First, let’s look at “USAP”. He came in as the most unrealistically praised presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. And being the first Black U.S. President only raised the bar of expectations and the “hopes” even higher. PROMISE: That he was a new kind of politician offering an “unprecedented level of openness” or “transparency.” But here’s what the American People really got . . .

REALITY: He is so opaque that he won’t even allow the American People to view his original, authentic birth certificate to satisfy the demands of the U.S. Constitution.

Sarah Palin is “the new kid of promise on the block” but the real Palin is already showing through. PROMISE: That she is a new kind of “rogue” politician, honest and intent on cleaning up the mess in the political realm. But here’s what the American People would really be getting . . .

REALITY: [S]he flunked on the issue of honesty. An interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson zeroed in on Palin’s statement, made at the Republican National Convention and elsewhere, “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks, on that Bridge to Nowhere.’ If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves.” In fact, Gibson pointed out, she was lobbying for federal funding for the bridge before she was against it, and was against it only after it had become a political embarrassment. Well, every Governor lobbies for projects for her state, Palin countered in a desperate, artless dodge. But Gibson, to his credit, focused in on the duplicity of pretending to have been against it all along. Sometimes those doggone network news people, for all their liberal biases, get it right.
~ from The New American magazine,
“Rogue” Or Ruse? by Jack Kenny.
Jan. 4, 2010.

Glenn Beck is just about the goofiest looking dude this side of Family Matters. Put glasses and shoe polish on his face and you’ve almost got Steve Urkel:
.

.
. . [Steve Urkel]
.

.
. [Glenn Berckel]
.
But I suppose it’s not right for me to condemn Beck over his doofus look since he didn’t request it and there’s not a lot he can do about it. So, instead, I’ll focus on condemning him for his deception.

Now, I’ll admit that, as with Rush Limbaugh, I find that I often agree with what Glenn Beck says, but also like Mr. Limboob, it’s more what Beck DOESN’T say than what he does say that bothers me. And in some ways, Beck is even sneakier about hiding his Neoconservative roots than is Ol’ Rushbo. At least he pretends to dislike the Republicans as well as the Democrats, unlike Limboob who has always come across as that loud, obnoxious blow-hard in the Republican Rah!-Rah! rooting section.

But Glenn Beck, like all Neoconservative frontmen and frontwomen, dishes out his criticism selectively, being careful not to spill all of the beans to his audience.

The October 26, 2009 edition of The New American magazine contained a review of Glenn Beck's popular book 'Common Sense' in which writer Alex Newman made the following point:

After highlighting a variety of very real problems in the book, Beck chooses a new, unrelated, and surprising enemy: those who promote the notion of a global conspiracy. In an attempt to equate them with people who advocate violence, he cautions readers to “stay away from these individuals and those ideas” and also says that they “will eventually seek to impose their rule and lifestyle on all of us.” But after warning about those who claim a global conspiracy is afoot, he goes on to expose the increasing efforts to centralize power at the global level through the United Nations and assorted treaties. Does he really believe that the machinations of the global elites to consolidate power through the UN and other institutions of world order have nothing to do with — dare we say it — conspiracy? Here again, common sense is lacking in Glenn Beck’s ‘Common Sense’.

Beck may occasionally “attack the Federal Reserve judiciously but it will not harm them” (to paraphrase Edward Mandell House from his chapter “Selwyn Seeks A Candidate”). That doesn’t cost Beck very much and will only add to his seeming credibility.

But when is Beck going to go full “Constitutional” and tell his audience that the Federal Reserve was established by International Bankers and that it is still operated by International Bankers who have no real allegiance to the United States of America? When is Beck going to tell the American People exactly what the Federal Reserve does, why it does what it does, and why it MUST be abolished before this country can ever possibly recover? When is Glenn Beck going to tell the American People what the Council on Foreign Relations is and how it essentially dictates our foreign and domestic policy and influences the vast majority of what you see or hear on television and radio? When is Glenn Beck going to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yeah, that’s right: never! Telling the truth to the American People could only cause change – REAL change – to come about. And real change is the very last thing that the Neoconservatives want.

No, Beck will continue to spray a little criticism here and there, while carefully avoiding “The Big Picture”. He will continue to refer to people like Alan Keyes and Philip Berg, who feel Americans have a right to see USAP’s birth certificate in order to satisfy the demands of the U.S. Constitution - the so-called “Birthers” – as “fringe elements”, “anarchists and fascists” and “crazy people who don’t really like America”.

Make no mistake, Beck would hate to see USAP removed from office over the birth certificate issue because that Marxist in the White House serves a useful purpose as a divisive opponent for the Neocons to exploit.

Glenn Beck will agree with the so-called “9/11 Truthers” that there are “some good questions that haven’t been answered” about the 9/11 terrorist acts, and he will then add “but ‘Did George Bush blow up the World Trade Center?’ is not one of them”, thus mocking and trivializing the 9/11 Truth movement at the same time he acknowledges that some valid but unspecified questions remain unanswered. What he won’t mention, you’ll notice, is HOW MANY good questions have been left unanswered and what those questions specifically are.

With friends like Glenn Beck, true Conservatives (read: “genuine Constitutionalists”) hardly need enemies.

Thanks anyway, Glenn, but until such time as you decide to come fully clean with the American People and tell them what is REALLY going on behind the scenes, we don’t need your help. Go get a facelift or something.

X-Y-Z (Or, “THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC”)

The Hegelian Dialectic used in the realm of politics is a form of conflict resolution in which a condition (“Thesis” a.k.a. “Z”) is challenged or endangered by an opposing force (“Antithesis” a.k.a. “X”) and culminates in a resolution or compromise (“Synthesis” a.k.a. “Y”).

Today, we have an ideal example of The Hegelian Dialectic which we can look at in the form of ObamaCare. It is agreed upon at a certain level by our Social/Political Engineers behind the scenes that Socialized Medicine is the goal for a variety of reasons. But getting there can’t be accomplished in one big leap due to some citizen opposition. When a condition must be brought about in stages, the Elites, who manipulate our landscape for their own benefit, will utilize the Hegelian model.

The Republicans, pretending to fight for The Individual and professing a wish to retain the status quo, have set up at position “Z”. The Democrats, pretending to fight for The People and professing the need for an entirely reorganized and outright Socialized medical system, have set up at position “X”.

(Left) X ----------------------------------- Z (Right)

Everyone knows that a significant segment of the American People is still a bit squeamish about overt Socialism, so the move to “X” will have to be accomplished by degrees.

What will ultimately occur with the ObamaCare proposition is a compromise. The medical/insurance system we presently have will indeed be altered, but not to the degree that the Democrats are calling for. The Republicans will give some ground while engaged in “the good fight” and the Democrats will reluctantly accept a position to the right of their desired “X”. When the pseudo-fighting is all over, when the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared, you will find that we will have been moved left of “status quo Z” and met the Democrats at Y. The compromise at Y will be a semi-socialized system. This fake fight will eventually lead to this:

X >>> compromise >>> Y <<< compromise <<< Z

Afterwards, the Republicans will be able to say, "We defended America against the Liberals and managed to avoid X." The Democrats will be able to say, "We fought against the Right-Wing Extremists and we managed to get Y for The People."

But the next time this issue is brought to the table, the Democrats will set up at “W” and the Republicans will be defending the NEW status quo at “Y”.

(Left) W ---------------------------------- Y (Right)

After the phony fight is over and the two parties have made their compromises toward the “center”, the healthcare issue will stand at “X” which, of course, is where the socialistic Democrats had intended to take us all along and the point that the Republicans knew they would eventually reach during the process of “yielding a reluctant consent” (to again borrow a phrase from Edward Mandell House).

W >>> compromise >>> X <<< compromise <<< Y

Make no mistake about it, both political parties knew all along that our destination would be “X” because it was determined by the Council on Foreign Relations which guides (read: “directs”) both the Democrats and the Republicans.

This formula is played out over and over again in both the Big Colosseum (at the National level) and in the smaller arenas (in the state legislatures). And this, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the most ingenious tactics by which our elected representatives have been able, over time, to move this country ever Leftward into Socialism and Big Brother Statism.

A variant of this Hegelian Dialectic model in which both political parties work in concert might look something like this:

Let us suppose that Uncle Sam sought to gain control of a segment of the Middle East in order to control the flow of oil reserves or for any other strategical geopolitical purpose. The American Government could establish justification for a Middle East invasion by maneuvering according to the X-Y-Z Hegelian formula.

The “Z” or Thesis would be to create a frightened American citizenry concerned about its safety

The “X” or Antithesis would be to promote the idea that a madman in the area that Uncle Sam hopes to invade has weapons of mass destruction and is, one way or another, a genuine threat to American security.

The “Y” or Synthesis is to invade the madman’s territory, take him into captivity and install a puppet regime or new “democratic” government in that area which has a more favorable view of American interests.

By establishing a condition (Z), and by setting up its opposition (X), and by proposing a compromise or resolution (Y), any predetermined outcome can be surreptitiously stage-managed by a government in order to move the masses in any desired direction.

My Mother (God love her) passed away in 2005, but I still have her old Social Security card. Printed on the card just below the line upon which she signed her name is this: “For Social Security Purposes * Not For Identification”

Of course, these days, one can scarcely visit a restroom in a Federal Building without first having to provide their Social Security number for identification. So, how did you reach this point where you are constantly required by your Big Brother Government to “show your papers”? Take a guess. Anyone? It’s as easy as X-Y-Z.

How have they been able to get away with this unnoticed for so long? That’s easy! One can put anything over on a populace that, rather than safeguarding its civil liberties, wastes its time watching Survivor, American Idol and Buffy The Vampire Slayer when not reading fluff fiction by Dan Brown, John Grisham, J. K. Rowling and all the others.

THE ENDGAME

Once a person comprehends the targeted “Endgame”, which is Global Government designed and orchestrated by a world body of wealthy Elites, all of the assumed stupidity and insanity emanating from Washington D.C. on a regular basis suddenly takes on a very rational, understandable, and in fact, even predictable character.

A stupid person doesn’t become influential in Washington D.C. and non-stupid people don’t consistently do stupid things. The experienced Chess Player who makes what appears to you to be illogical moves on the board is in fact playing the game of chess at an advanced level beyond your comprehension. Odds are that you aren’t far from being checkmated.

If you think they’re dumb in Washington, you’re the REAL dummy, and the upcoming, smug pronouncement of “global checkmate” will soon confirm that.

Ladies and gentlemen! - all off for ‘Collapsing Dollar’.
Next stop: ‘Global Currency’.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Links:

Marx Vs. Keynes: Comparative Socialism In Miniature

#1 Rule Of Politics

Palin Backs Off The Bridge

Glenn Beck’s B.S. – 2/17/2010
[Watch The End Of Part 2 & The Start Of Part 3]

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

MOTEL 6 & TACO BELL CAN'T SAVE US

.
A few weeks ago, my old buddy Cranium sent the following little story to me in an Email. It’s undoubtedly making the rounds as I type this, so some of you may have already seen it, but for those who haven’t . . .

A SLOW DAY IN TEXAS

It's a slow day in a little East Texas town. The sun is beating down, and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

On this particular day a tourist from back east is driving through town. He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one in which to spend the night.

As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the motel and pays off her room bill with the motel owner.

The motel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything.

However, the whole town is now out of debt and looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is conducting business today.

I will add to this, however, that what if the tourist never comes to town because times are hard and he doesn’t have the extra funds for travelling like he once did?

That is where the country is really heading in this imagined scenario. The Dog Days Of Depression will soon be upon us. And why? Lots of reasons. But not the least of them is that this nation no longer produces anything of real substance - meaning, we don’t generate our own wealth. Company owners want cheap labor to maximize profits and American consumers want products as cheaply priced as possible and dividends on their stock purchases. And so, businesses that want to remain competitive flee the U.S. and reestablish themselves over seas, making use of the cheap (and sometimes “slave”) labor.

While the prosperity of America plummets because American workers are laid off and left unemployed, China we are making wealthy by spending the money we acquire through service oriented businesses like Motel 6 on foreign-made electronics and building supplies. China, by the way, hates us and is undoubtedly thinking:

Give ‘em enough rope . . .

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WE SHOULD DETEST(ICLE) FEMINISM!

.
In early November of 2007, out of the blue, I received a letter from a woman I had known long ago. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then I’m going to refer to her as “Venus” because she certainly seems to have originated from a “different” planet than Yours Truly.

Back in the day, I had a tremendous crush on Venus, and although I hadn’t seen her since 1985, my thoughts still turned to her from time to time because I feared that perhaps I had let “Miss Right” get away.

I wasn’t overly surprised when I suddenly received this letter from her, for many years ago I’d had a couple of dreams which I had interpreted to mean that someday Venus would reach out to me again. Sometimes dreams really do come true . . . but not always in the way we expect.

In her letter, Venus, who went on to become a psychologist in a faraway state, apologized “for abandoning our friendship.” Prior to telling me what she had been up to for the last couple of decades, she said, “I miss you in my life. I almost feel like I gave my soul away.” Venus explained that she had recently had a dream in which I appeared, after which she read all of my old letters and a poem I had written titled ‘Ailing Spiders.’ The poem made her cry.

Venus was still single, but desiring children, she had ordered sperm through a catalog and underwent what turned out to be unsuccessful treatments at a fertility clinic.

Well, that alone told me that Venus had never actually been my “Miss Right.” However, I still thought maybe we could reestablish some sort of friendship. I knew that back in ’85 Venus was a Republican. I thought: Well, at least she believes in political conservatism. Maybe I could help her to see politics more clearly and understand how both major political parties are merely two sides of the same deceptive, un-American coin. All hope was not lost . . . or so I thought.

We corresponded through August of 2008, and during that time I learned that things were much worse than I had assumed. Venus was no longer a Republican; she was now a Democrat. Furthermore, she was a self-proclaimed “feminist.” (And you’re trying to reconnect with ME?! Ha! Well, good luck with THAT!)

The more we wrote to each other the further apart our views were revealed to be. There were a couple of minunderstandings and a couple of “Let’s start overs” but it was all a fruitless, frustrating exercise for both of us. So, when it became too obvious that the idea of any meaningful relationship was hopeless, I somewhat bluntly laid some of my issues with her right on the table.

I told Venus that I was put off by her attempt to become artificially inseminated and that I hold modern Feminism in the very lowest possible regard. Having studied Feminism in great detail, I had offered to recommend some books to her that I thought would give her a fresh, unimagined viewpoint on Feminism and how it has adversely affected not just men and women but society as a whole. I mentioned to Venus that many women think of men as “expendable” or even “dangerous.” I told her that, thanks to Feminist indoctrination, a huge segment of the female population currently thinks of fathers as “helpful at best.” And, of course, I didn’t fail to point out that this would seem to be her belief as well, as her attempts to become pregnant without a husband and to raise a child without the presence of a father apparently indicated. (I somehow managed to restrain myself from saying, “And that’s all this freakin’ country needs is another single mother, working and trying to raise a kid alone, without the strong influence of a good father figure.”)

After months passed, Venus responded in late August. Below are excerpts from her letter:

The difficulty I’m experiencing is that you hold such strong opinions about certain topics, and about those, whose opinions differ; and believe, so strongly, that you know the “real truth”, that an open discussion doesn’t seem possible or pleasant.

Given that, I’m not going to defend or explain my opinions and beliefs to you.

Fathers:
I don’t believe that most Americans believe that fathers are “expendable” or “dangerous.” I never said or would ever agree with the statement that “fathers are helpful at best.”

My desire and decision to have a child in the way that I did was not a black and white decision, nor was it an easy decision. And that decision certainly does not imply that I believe fathers are unimportant.

You can judge me because you would “never ever” come to the decision that I made or take the road that I took; and you have no idea what was in my heart, thoughts, or spirit around having a baby.

On the subject of Feminism she said:

I believe that we see the world through the lenses we put on, attend to, and polish. I also believe that we can always find evidence to support any position and/or find negativity and ugliness in some people, if that is what we look for. I don’t believe that I am being naïve or “seeing what I want to see” if I focus on what is good and compassionate. I see the results of ugliness daily in my practice. I also believe that what you oppose, grows and what you put your attention on, grows.

I personally want to see the beauty and kindness that is all around me. So, really, I’m not interested in any anti-feminism articles.

Well, that was her devastating and enlightening reply to my charge and to my suggestion that she should consider the opposing side’s opinion of Feminism.

When a person tells you that they are not going to defend or explain their opinions to you, more times than not, it’s an unconceded admission that they are simply incapable of doing so. I have little if any doubt that this was the case with Venus.

Surely, you’ve noticed that her statement on fatherhood contained no information one could understand or contend with – it was just highly personalized, nebulous flimflam. And she completely ignored my statement about her apparent lack of appreciation for fathers - choosing instead to simply deny the evaluation I applied to her view and declining to illustrate how and why I was mistaken. But the fact remains unchallenged: if she truly did not think of fathers as “helpful at best” she never would have attempted to give birth to a child and raise it without a father. Venus may believe that fathers are helpful, but she certainly doesn’t believe that they are usually essential to the raising of a healthy, well-adjusted child. On the other hand, if she honestly thinks of fathers as nonexpendable and more important than merely “helpful”, then we would have to conclude that she was knowingly going to shortchange her would-be child’s development. How selfish is that?

And, of course, anyone who is even mildly interested in knowing truth is required to examine both sides of any argument to determine which one the preponderance of the evidence supports. So, the denial of Venus notwithstanding, she most certainly IS “being naïve” and seeing only what she chooses to see when she refuses to even consider the arguments of those who hold a different view than she does.

When Venus turns down any opportunity to understand why some people oppose Feminism because (as she says) she wants “to see the beauty and kindness that is all around” her and avoid the “ugliness”, it’s quite ironic that she’s actually passive-aggressively supporting the terrible ugliness that Feminism has wreaked upon society and she’s refusing to see the facts that would help to defeat that ideology and assist in ushering in more “beauty and kindness” in male/female relationships.

I believed psychologists to be interested in objectively examining the workings of the human mind in order to dispassionately understand why we react (often in a hypersensitive manner) to particular situations in certain ways. Isn’t the idea to be able to make sense of our emotions and learn to control them better by developing a conscious knowledge of why we feel what we do? Isn’t knowing and appropriately reacting to objective facts rather than emotionally overreacting to subjective impressions part of the goal? Shouldn’t a psychologist be interested in taking a calm, clinical look at a situation from all sides before arriving at any conclusion? Isn’t part of an understanding of psychology about learning to “look before you leap”?

I’m not sure what sort of psychology Venus practices but it seems to rest on a foundation less sturdy than what I base my “opinions” on. For example, before making bold pronouncements, I have been willing to take a look at an opposing side’s arguments – illogical, scatterbrained, and emotionally-based though they may often be. For crying out loud, I was even willing to read Hillary Clinton’s ridiculous ‘It Takes A Village’ before publicly castigating it. If I could read “Hellary”, you’d think the least a psychologist could do is read a couple of recommended anti-Feminism books before discounting the entire idea of anti-Feminism!

But you see, that’s what we have in Feminism – an ideology driven by a bunch of raving, emotionally-overwrought, self-centered Man-Haters. The promoters of Feminism can’t afford to take a good, hard look at the truth because it will not support their position. Feminists, like my former friend the psychologist, must avoid the truth at all costs, for they will always wind up on the wrong side of a fact-based debate. The great thinker C.S. Lewis once wrote that, “Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side.” The same is true for Feminists. They also cannot guard their faith – and a “faith” it is - too carefully, for it would fall apart in the light of cold, objective facts.

I don’t really expect that there will ever again be any significant exchange of ideas between Venus and myself. After receiving her August 2008 letter, I sent just the briefest reply, assuring her that I was not “angry” at her, but declining to defend my position any further. It goes against my nature not to fully defend my viewpoints with the facts available to me. However, after all, if Venus couldn’t or wouldn’t even attempt to articulate a reasonable explanation why her actions did not reveal an unstated lack of respect for men and fathers, and if she wouldn’t peruse even a single anti-Feminism book that came with my highest praise, how was any worthwhile dialogue even possible? And as Yoey O’Dogherty, the Doggtor of Debate, has often said: “You can't reason with a person who forms their beliefs without reasoning.”

Nevertheless, I am exceedingly pleased that my dreams came true about Venus reaching out to contact me again after so many years. Although it’s clear she and I could have never gotten along well enough to forge a healthy, long-term romantic relationship, Venus has finally put to bed (pardon the pun) all of the little doubts that had long survived in the back of my mind about whether or not I had stupidly let “Miss Right”— er, I mean, “Ms. Right” - get away. Now she can go her way and I can go mine . . . in mental peace.

I am posting below a truly outstanding article titled ‘Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary.’ This was written by Stephen Baskerville and it appeared recently in The New American magazine. This excellent article makes evident some of the horror that Feminism has unleashed against men in today’s society. Read it if you can bear to look at some very dark, disturbing and disheartening facts about the effects of Feminism. Of course, Venus, the trained psychologist, would never read it because she chooses to focus solely on “beauty and kindness” and refuses to look at the “ugliness” promoted by ANTI-Feminism. Here’s hoping you are more intellectually honest than my former friend is.

Immediately below the Baskerville article, I am posting a short list of some of my most highly recommended anti-Feminism books for your further enlightenment on this sad, sad situation.


FEMINIST GULAG: NO PROSECUTION NECESSARY
By Stephen Baskerville
The New American magazine; Jan. 18, 2010

Liberals rightly criticize America’s high rate of incarceration. Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria. Over two million people, or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal supervision.

Many are likely to be innocent. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton document how due process protections are routinely ignored, grand juries are neutered, frivolous prosecutions abound, and jury trials are increasingly rare. More recently, in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009), Harvey Silverglate shows how federal prosecutors are criminalizing more and more of the population. “Innocence projects” — projects of “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing” — attest that people are railroaded into prison. As we will see, incarcerations without trial are now routine.

The U.S. prison population has risen dramatically in the last four decades. Ideologically, the rise is invariably attributed to “law-and-order” conservatives, who indeed seldom deny their own role (or indifference). In fact, few conservatives understand what they are defending.

Conservatives who rightly decry “judicial activism” in civil law are often blind to the connected perversion of criminal justice. While a politicized judiciary does free the guilty, it also criminalizes the -innocent.

But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.”

While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”

Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.

Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”

Feminists and other sexual radicals have even managed to influence the law to target conservative groups themselves. Racketeering statutes are marshaled to punish non-violent abortion demonstrators, and “hate crimes” laws attempt to silence critics of the homosexual agenda. Both are supported by “civil liberties” groups. And these are only the most notorious; there are others.

Feminists have been the most authoritarian pressure group throughout much of American history. “It is striking what an uncritical stance earlier women reformers took toward the state,” Gottschalk observes. “They have played central roles in … uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers.”

What Gottschalk is describing is feminism’s version of Stalinism: the process whereby radical movements commandeer the instruments of state repression as they trade ideological purity for power.

Path to Prison
The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.

Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense. By 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court openly shifted the burden of proving consent to the defendant when it argued that the removal of legislative language requiring non-consent for rape “evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defense” and approved this blatantly unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The result, write Weiss and Young, was not “to jail more violent rapists — lack of consent is easy enough for the state to prove in those cases — but to make it easier to send someone to jail for failing to get an explicit nod of consent from an apparently willing partner before engaging in sex.”

Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”

Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection. “A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence … can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,” write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply “naming the person accused” along with the time and place “will support a verdict of guilty.” Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.

The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”

In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media. “Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims,” writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.

Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations — and no official ones — to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.

The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid “victim advocates” to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.” What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: “calling a rape complainant ‘the victim’ — with no ‘alleged’.” “Unnamed complainants are labeled ‘victims’ even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,” according to CMR.

Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one “women’s studies” graduate, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.… ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’”

Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism’s role but instead emphasized race — a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.

The Kobe Bryant case demonstrates that a black man accused by a white woman is also vulnerable. Historically, this was the more common pattern. Our race-conscious society is conditioned to remember lynching as a racial atrocity, forgetting that the lynched were usually black men accused by white women. Feminist scholars spin this as “the dominant white male ideology behind lynching ... that white womanhood was in need of protection against black men,” suggesting fantastically that white “patriarchy” used rape accusations to break up a progressive political romance developing between black men and white women. With false rape accusations, the races have changed, but the sexes have remained constant.

Violent Lies
“Domestic violence” is an even more purely political crime. “The battered-women’s movement turned out to be even more vulnerable to being co-opted by the state and conservative penal forces,” writes Gottschalk, again with contortion. Domestic violence groups are uniformly feminist, not “conservative,” though here too conservatives have enabled feminists to exchange principles for power.

Like rape, domestic “violence” is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” For such “crimes” men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of “domestic” violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.

Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. “Women lie every day,” attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. I’m lying. It didn’t happen’ — and they’re not charged.” Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at “the number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” He added, “The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.”

Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.” Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases and “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” Domestic abuse has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,” according to the Rutgers Law Review.

Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey’s statute “a due process fiasco” in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting “alleged” is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse … may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”

Special “integrated domestic violence courts” presume guilt and then, says New York’s openly feminist chief judge, “make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.” They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself. Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as “pre-fascist”: “Domestic violence courts … are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there’s no presumption of innocence.”

Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.”

Child-support Chokehold
Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.

Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds (“no-fault”). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The “deadbeat dad” is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, “forced to finance the filching of his own children.”

Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.

While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to “fault,” nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support,” writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, “have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.” Abraham calls the machinery “Orwellian”: “The government commands … a veritable gulag, complete with sophisticated surveillance and compliance capabilities such as computer-based tracing, license revocation, asset confiscation, and incarceration.”

Here, too, “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Like Kafka’s Joseph K., the “defendant” may not even know the charge against him, “if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the [allegedly?] delinquent parent,” says NCSL. Further, “not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,” and “even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.” Thus defendants must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury.

Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an “expedited judicial process” before a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge surrogate.” Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked “as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation” dealing with child support.

Though governments sensationalize “roundups” of alleged “deadbeat dads,” who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found “ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support.” Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration. Government literature “yields so little information on it that one might be led to believe that arrests were used rarely if at all. While May personally witnessed fathers sentenced in St. Louis, “We could find no explicit documentation of arrests in St. Louis.” In Illinois, “We observed courtrooms in which fathers appeared before the judge who were serving jail sentences for nonpayment, but little information was available on arrests in Illinois.”

We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for “deadbeat dads.” The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal “to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center” for “deadbeat dads.”

Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.

More Malicious Mayhem
Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support “crackdowns.” Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is — the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution — it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.

We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population. Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown Stalinists.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of 'Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family'.

AN ESSENTIAL DVD:
Dangerously declining Population Replacement levels worldwide has been one of the unintended negative effects of Feminsm. Unlike the phony "Global Warming", this is a genuine disaster in the making!

'Demographic Winter: The Decline Of The Human Family'

SOME ESSENTIAL ANTI-FEMINISM BOOKS:
I've read plenty of anti-Feminism books and below is the cream of the crop which has thus far passed before my eyes.

‘The Privilege Of Being A Woman’
by Alice von Hildebrand

‘Spreading Misandry’
by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

‘Legalizing Misandry’
by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

‘The Gender Agenda’
by Dale O’Leary

‘Manhood Redux: Standing Up To Feminism’
by C. H. Freedman

‘Women Who Make The World Worse’
by Kate O’Beirne

‘The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability To Win Wars'
by Stephanie Gutmann

‘Weak Link: The Feminization Of The American Military’
by Brian Mitchell

‘Why Women And Power Don’t Mix’
by J. P. McDermott


Please don’t be repulsed by the poorly chosen title of the McDermott book; it’s unquestionably one of the very best I have ever read. We shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, and I suppose sometimes we shouldn’t judge a book by its title either.

You can be certain that the very next anti-Feminism book I read is going to be ‘Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family' by Stephen Baskerville.


~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

3 YOU WON'T READ

.
Not too often, but from time to time, I post here on ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ commentary and articles written by someone other than myself. I prefer to stick with original compositions and smart-assed remarks, but sometimes something is so interesting, or important, or well-researched, that I feel I should pass it on to both of you.

A few days ago, my buddy Br’er Marc sent me an Email which included a short piece written many years ago by journalist Charley Reese. In doing a little web surfing, I discovered that not only is this not presented in its original form, but as it has made the Email rounds, evidently some folks have added sentences to it in an attempt to update it. Furthermore, the copy I received didn’t even have Charley’s name spelled correctly. Nevertheless, I thought this was a very worthwhile read, and so I’m posting below the same version I received (after correcting the misspelled name).

Below the ‘Reese Piece’ are two articles related to the Global Warming hoax, both written by William F. Jasper for The New American magazine. Everyone should read all three of these items. But, unfortunately, they require some serious thought, they aren’t funny and entertaining, and they weren’t penned by Dan Brown, Stephen King, John Grisham or Dean Koontz (i.e., they're not time-wasting pieces of fiction), so few, if any, visitors to this Blog will read all three. And that’s just the way it is . . . Today In America:

545 PEOPLE
By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 apparently inept selfish human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!


And now on to the subject of Global Warming. First, here is one of my favorite quotes related to the G.W. B.S.

“FOR HOW MANY YEARS MUST THE PLANET COOL BEFORE WE BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANET IS NOT WARMING? FOR HOW MANY YEARS MUST COOLING GO ON?"
~ Geologist Dr. David Gee
Chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

OK, on that note, let's move on to Mr. Jasper's two columns:

CLIMATE “TEACUP TEMPEST”?
By William F. Jasper
The New American; Jan. 4, 2010

“As near as I can tell, Climate-Gate is almost entirely a tempest in a teacup,” wrote Kevin Drum in a November 30 column for the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. “There’s nothing questionable there,” he insisted. The tempest-in-a-teacup/no-big-deal trope has been regularly invoked by the proponents of global-warming alarmism to dismiss the significance of what may be one of the biggest science scandals in history.

The “Climategate” to which Drum refers is, of course, the still-developing scandal involving the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from a British climate research center. The leaked documents expose some of the biggest scientific names in the global-warming debate to serious charges of fraud, unethical attacks on colleagues, censorship of opposing viewpoints, and possible criminal destruction of, and withholding of, evidence.

The timing of Climategate has been a major boon to skeptics of catastrophic climate change and a monster headache to alarmists, breaking onto the world scene only three weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) convened on December 7 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth — some of the biggest names in global-warming alarmism — are unfavorably exposed in the documents that were posted on the Internet on November 20 by unknown hackers who penetrated the computer system of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Great Britain’s University of East Anglia. Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and a top guru in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s climate brain trust, comes off especially poorly in the e-mails. After initially balking at calls to resign or step down, the university announced on December 1 that Jones would be taking temporary leave while an independent inquiry is conducted into the matter.

Climatologist Patrick Michaels, who has long criticized the IPCC process, sees the e-mail scandal far differently than Kevin Drum, and chooses a much different metaphor to describe it. “This is not a smoking gun,” says Dr. Michaels, “this is a mushroom cloud.” On the face of it, it would seem difficult to dispute Professor Michaels’ assessment. The Climategate e-mails provide powerful confirmation of charges by many scientists over the years that the UN’s IPCC process is politically — not scientifically — driven and that claims of scientific “consensus” to justify radical policies are a gross corruption of science. In the past, scientists who questioned the Jones-Mann-IPCC “consensus” have been denounced as “deniers” — a vicious attempt to associate them with Nazi holocaust denial — or “shills” for the fossil-fuel industries … or both. Now, however, scientists who cannot be classified as skeptics — indeed, some are prominent names in the alarmist camp — are challenging the IPCC and the Climategate defendants to come clean and release the data on which they have been basing their dire predictions, but have been withholding from the public and their scientific peers.

“Tricks” and “Consensus”:
In one damaging e-mail that has been widely publicized, Jones writes to colleagues that he has just used “Mike’s Nature trick” of adding other temperature data to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. They had to resort to such trickery because the data conflicted with their claims that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, or AGW, is heating up the planet to unacceptable levels and must be curtailed before it leads to irreversible global catastrophe.

The Mike referred to in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph utilized statistical manipulation to produce a curve that would support claims of recent human activities causing the warmest period in the past millennia. The now thoroughly discredited “hockey stick,” which was a big component of Al Gore’s Nobel Prize-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, attempted to wipe the Medieval Warm Period, one of the most solidly established periods of climate history, from the historical record.

During the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800–1300), temperatures were higher than today; the Vikings colonized then-balmy Greenland and roamed the ice-free waters of the North Atlantic. If allowed to stand, this inconvenient truth would undercut the alarmists’ exaggerated claims that burning fossil fuels is causing the warmest temperatures in 1,000 years.

In trying to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear, the Jones/Mann team went too far, and other scientists responded with a robust “smack-down” of this attempt to falsify the historical record. However, before Mann was forced to retract some of his most egregious statistical falsifications, he and his allies had managed to vilify many reputable scientists and keep their sham going for several years. In 1998, astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics challenged the Mann-Jones thesis, arguing in the journal Climate Research that the evidence supported the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Drs. Soon and Baliunas were soon subjected to a smear campaign and six editors at Climate Research were forced to resign for allowing the Soon-Baliunas article to be published.

Now the Climategate e-mails are showing that the corruption of science in the name of “saving the planet” from the supposed scourge of climate change is far more extensive and egregious than the public or the scientific community realized.

In an e-mail of January 29, 2004 to Michael Mann, Phil Jones refers to the recent death of global-warming critic John L. Daly with this churlish comment: “In an odd way this is cheering news!” In the same e-mail, Jones then suggests to Mann that he has obtained legal advice that he does not have to comply with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from other scientists to release data and codes underlying his research claims.

Some of the e-mails seem to confirm concerns that Jones, Mann, et al., have destroyed data that could expose their fraudulent methods. That appears to be the case in a May 29, 2008 e-mail message, in which Jones writes to Mann about deleting data for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

In another e-mail that has shocked and infuriated many in the scientific community, Jones reveals the lengths to which he is willing to go to sabotage fellow scientists in order to maintain the myth of AGW “consensus.” In a July 8, 2004 e-mail, Jones assures Mann that he (Jones) and Kevin Trenberth will censor opposing scientific views from the forthcoming IPCC report. Jones writes:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Similar e-mails paint a picture confirming the charges of critics that Jones, Mann, and other IPCC activists constitute a “climate mafia” or “climate cartel” that punishes dissenters and rewards those who toe the global-warming party line. The e-mails are shedding light on ugly episodes over the past decade or more in which the cartel trashed the reputations of, and slammed doors on, distinguished scientists who dared to dispute the politically ordained AGW orthodoxy. With this kind of control, claims of overwhelming consensus become a self-fulfilling prophecy; contrary opinions are effectively barred from publication in accepted “peer-reviewed” literature. Besides Drs. Soon and Baliunas, other eminent scientists who are trashed or referred to crudely in the CRU e-mails include Richard Lindzen; Hans Von Storch; Sonia Boehmer-Christianson; Patrick Michaels; Roger Pielke, Sr.; Robert Balling; Fred Singer; and Tim Ball.

Huge government grants, impressive computer models, and guaranteed headline stories from sympathetic activists in the media have transformed climate scientists into celebrities and power brokers. However, even with their super computer programs, political connections, and prestigious awards, they still haven’t learned how to predict the weather, let alone control it.

An amusing admission against interest is this comment in an October 12, 2009 Climategate e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth. He is stunned that not only have temperatures not warmed as predicted, but the temperatures have actually hit historic lows in his area, contradicting the supposedly authoritative pronouncements of the climate cartel. Trenberth comments:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder [Colorado] where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.

Trenberth then goes on to admit: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Not only did Trenberth, Jones, Mann, et al., miss the current temperature downturn, but none of the IPCC’s highly praised computer models foresaw the global mean temperature decline of the past decade. However, their inability to explain away this enormous fact, which Trenberth admits is “travesty,” has neither diminished the cartel’s certitude nor dampened its zeal for implementing a planetary climate regime.

“Ignore That Man Behind the Curtain”:
For years, the IPCC climate cartel has been using the “Wizard of Oz” defense every time some “Toto” pulls back the curtain to expose the IPCC’s secretive machinations and its sanctimonious claims of “transparency,” “openness,” and “overwhelming consensus.” Inquiring scientists and the general public alike are told not to pay attention to the mysterious process behind the curtain where the fantastic and frightening scenarios of impending doom are being created.

However, two Canadian “Totos” refused to stop tugging on the curtain, and, as a result, have successfully exposed some of the trickery of the IPCC “wizards.” Retired businessman and statistician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have doggedly pursued the truth and have subjected the IPCC’s “climate science” to rigorous examination. Troubled by unexplained statistical anomalies in Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, they contacted Mann to request copies of his data sets. Mann balked and also refused to divulge publicly the algorithm he had used to concoct his “hockey stick” graph. McIntyre and McKitrick published several articles challenging Mann’s work on a number of key points. Their path-breaking research sparked a congressional hearing validated by two independent academic panels, one of which was appointed by the National Academy of Sciences.

McIntyre and McKitrick have continued their independent investigations on their award-winning Internet website, ClimateAudit.com, which has won the respect of even many AGW proponents. However, it is clear that Mann, Jones, and the climate cartel regard the two dauntless sleuths as the enemy, and they are the subject of many Climategate e-mails, often referred to as “MM” or “the two MMs.”

In an incriminating CRU e-mail of February 2, 2005, Jones writes to Mann:

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Oops! The Dog Ate It:
The climate cartel, it appears, has already carried through on the data deletion threat. Scientists at the University of East Anglia CRU have admitted throwing out much of the raw data on which their ominous predictions are based.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” What happened to the original data? According to the CRU, it was discarded back in the 1980s. What this means is that the original CRU data cannot be checked or replicated, which means that the graphs, research, and predictions supposedly based on the missing data is worthless. The available “value-added” and “homogenised” data would also then be worthless, since there would be no way to verify or replicate it.

How many other data sets have likewise been “lost” or “accidentally deleted”? We may soon find out, as official investigations and FOIA lawsuits progress. In the meantime, we are simply supposed to trust the IPCC “experts” who say that we must “invest” trillions of dollars for mitigation and reparation of past carbon consumption, as well as for prevention of future warming.

IPCC vice-chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele tried to minimize the significance of the e-mail scandal as the Copenhagen conference opened by claiming that Climategate only pertains to one data set out of many that confirm the serious peril posed by anthropogenic global warming.

“It doesn’t change anything in the IPCC’s conclusions,” said van Ypersele, “it’s only one line of evidence out of dozens of lines of evidence.” This is the party line echoed by most of the AGW alarmists in government, media, and environmental activist circles. Along with this corollary: The skeptics (or “deniers,” “shills”) are exploiting the e-mail controversy simply to sabotage Copenhagen and distract the scientists and politicians from the important work they must conclude there.

“We mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate LORsceptics,” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the Guardian. “We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and … seal the deal.”

Brown’s Environmental Secretary, Ed Miliband, was even more scathing, describing skeptics as “dangerous and deceitful.” “The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people,” he charged. Miliband’s accusations are especially audacious, inasmuch as it is his alarmist camp, not the skeptics (or “climate realists,” as many prefer to call themselves), that has been caught red-handed misusing data. “The skeptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner,” Miliband continued, then concluded with this warning: “There is no easy way out of tackling climate change despite what they would have us believe. The evidence is clear and the time we have to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions.”

According to van Ypersele, “We are spending a lot of useless time discussing this rather than spending time preparing information for the negotiators.”

Professor Judith Curry has provided van Ypersele, Miliband, Brown, the IPCC, and other alarmists with an easy solution to this problem: Stop hiding your data and stop engaging in the hostile “tribalism” displayed in the infamous e-mail attacks on fellow scientists. Dr. Curry is no “climate skeptic.” In fact, she is an AGW true believer, an IPCC expert reviewer, and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Curry says:

Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.

In other words, why not actually practice the transparency and openness that the UN and IPCC claim to favor? Don’t hold your CO2 while waiting for that to happen.


LORD MONCKTON, THE COPENHAGEN TREATY, AND THE CONSTITUTION
By William F. Jasper
The New American; Dec. 21, 2009

In an October 14 speech to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, delivered a devastating fusillade against the alleged science underpinning the hysterical claims of global-warming alarmists. Lord Monckton’s brilliant presentation, combining a stunning array of slides, charts, graphs, scientific studies, and statistical facts with scathing, satirical wit, became an instant Internet sensation.

The greater part of Monckton’s discourse was aimed at dispelling the innumerable fallacies parading as “scientific consensus” concerning the supposedly imminent apocalyptic demise resulting from human-caused climate change. As such, he introduced little that was different from what he and other climate realists have been saying for years. It was several provocative statements in his closing comments that created an uproar, earning him both plaudits on the Right and venom from the Left.

Here is where he lit the phosphorus:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your President will sign it.... And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” — because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t, and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate but that’s the line. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement...

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it — now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.

It’s easy to see why the “greenies” and globalists, who have invested so much time, effort, and money since Stockholm ’72 (the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP) and Rio ’92 (the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED, more popularly known as the Earth Summit), would get all frothy at the mouth over having their plans so baldly exposed. But Lord Monckton is on very solid terra firma, as anyone who has read the Copenhagen treaty texts and/or has followed the continuous exposés in these pages over the past three dec-ades of the UN’s environmental agenda for global control, would surely recognize.

Annex I, Article 38 of the Copenhagen treaty (officially known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC) states: “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism.”

Yes, as the excerpt above indicates — along with many others in the text — the conveners of the Copenhagen summit envision a world government. Here’s how they describe it in the same article 38 of the UNFCCC (page 18):

The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

No checks and balances worthy of the name. No legitimate “rule of law,” despite the constant appeal to that phrase by those perpetrating this perversion of the principle. Only a blatant assault on national sovereignty and outrageous usurpation of virtually unlimited power to rule, regulate, and tax the entire planet. This is what the UN and its one-world advocates have been pursuing for decades. That is what French President Jacques Chirac was heralding in 2000 when he praised the predecessor to Copenhagen, the Kyoto Protocol, as “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

Lord Monckton’s reference to the communist character of the Copenhagen scheme has also caused predictable rage, gnashing of teeth, and catcalls from the usual quarters that object to any exposure of the Marxist-Leninist pedigree and bearing of any favored project, individual, or organization. But, once again, Monckton is spot on. Many of the communists became “Watermelon Marxists”: green on the outside, red on the inside. And the lead watermelon, Mikhail Gorbachev, founder of Green Cross International, kicked off the wholesale transformation with his celebrated 1992 “End of the Cold War” speech in Fulton, Missouri.

“The prospect of catastrophic climatic changes, more frequent droughts, floods, hunger, epidemics, national-ethnic conflicts, and other similar catastrophes compels governments to adopt a world perspective and seek generally applicable solutions,” Gorbachev declared. And to make this desired objective happen, he said, would require “some kind of global government.”

“I believe,” said Gorbachev, who still describes himself as a Leninist, “that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures … which are authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion.” Compulsion, force — on a global scale — that’s what it’s all about. That is what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was saying, in a more subtle way, in his October 25, 2009 New York Times op-ed about Copenhagen. “A deal must include an equitable global governance structure,” the Secretary-General proclaimed. Like Gorbachev, he invoked apocalyptic rhetoric to justify his proposed world government, asserting, “All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind.”

Where Monckton Goes Awry:
As Lord Monckton’s timely speech continues to circulate, it will undoubtedly do much to awaken many Americans and speed the crumbling of the incredible non-crisis hoax known as climate change. However, in his effort to stir Americans to action against the Copenhagen treaty, Lord Monckton has inadvertently fallen into a trap, one that has claimed many another otherwise well-informed and well-intentioned Jeremiah. He warns, in these grave words:

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties. And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back.

Unfortunately, Lord Monckton, like most Americans, has fallen victim to the intentional campaign of disinformation concerning the “supremacy clause” in the United States Constitution. Like many other texts in our Constitution, this section has been ripped out of context and twisted by those who hope to undo the protections the Founders of our Republic struggled so intensely to give us. One of the most important proponents of this attack on our constitutional system was John Foster Dulles, who would become Secretary of State under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In an April 11, 1952 speech, Dulles declared:

Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.

John Foster Dulles was a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has been the lead organization promoting the notion that treaties and “international law” trump the Constitution. As far back as 1928, in its Survey of American Relations, the Council complained against our Constitution’s checks and balances and separations of power. These features, which most Americans would consider the most cherished blessings of our form of government, the CFR authors claimed “militate against the development of responsible government.” According to the CFR, it would be more “responsible” to model our government after the European parliamentary system and make treaties easier to pass by substituting “a majority of both houses for two-thirds of the Senate in treaty ratification.” Why? Because Dulles and his one-world cohorts at the Council wanted to use the treaty power gradually to intertwine and merge the American government into a global government.

They didn’t succeed in changing the two-thirds Senate vote requirement in the Constitution, but they have very nearly succeeded by winning many politicians, jurists, and legal scholars over to the position that not only treaties, but executive agreements, “international norms,” and even “testimony” and “statements” by so-called “experts” at international fora can override the Constitution because they constitute “international customary law.”

What does the Constitution actually say concerning treaties? The treaty powers are dealt with in Article II, Section 2 and Article III, Section 2, but the main cause of confusion is Article VI, Section 2, the “supremacy clause,” which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Dulles and the advocates of unlimited treaty power have exploited confusion over the grammar and syntax in the above passage to make it say something that it doesn’t. It is important to note first of all that when referring to “this Constitution,” the Founders are referring to the United States Constitution, while the later “the Constitution” refers to State constitutions. Secondly, they are stating that the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” along with federal laws and treaties that are “made in pursuance of” and “under the authority of” that Constitution. Obviously, if a treaty or federal law clashes with the Constitution, then it does not meet those qualifications and is null and void. That is not merely this writer’s opinion, but the stated intent of the men who framed the great document and our earliest and most-esteemed jurists.

James Madison, who was the secretary of the Philadelphia Convention and has justly been called “the Father of the Constitution,” said of the scope of the treaty power:

I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.

In addition to his many other famous words and deeds, Thomas Jefferson authored the authoritative reference work, A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which became a standard handbook for both the House and Senate. In it, Jefferson said of treaty power:

It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation, party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity.... 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.

This is both sound legal opinion and plain, common sense. If the Bill of Rights and the whole Constitution were to have any lasting force and meaning, it could not have been intended that they could be completely undone by means of treaty. Or as Jefferson rightly observed: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

Alexander Hamilton, one of the principal authors of The Federalist, concurs on this important point. “A treaty cannot be made,” Hamilton maintained, “which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.” This is the consistent position taken by the authors of The Federalist on the supremacy clause in essays #33 (Hamilton), #44 (Madison), and #64 (Jay).

The United States Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert (1957) restated these foundational principles. After quoting the same Article VI, Section 2 supremacy clause we quoted above, the Court declares:

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.... The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

Nevertheless, the advocates of world government (or “global governance,” as they prefer to call it today) boast a stellar lineup of judges, law-school professors, Senators, Congressmen, journalists, and academics who insist American sovereignty must yield to global “necessity,” and our Constitution must give way to “international law.” And Copenhagen is but one of many UN treaties and agreements that are battering our constitutional ramparts. It is up to the American people to hold the feet of their Senators and Representatives to the fire and strike down as a “mere nullity” (Jefferson’s words) these boundless grabs for power.

If you made it all the way through these three articles but found them boring and unworthy of your time, then please accept my apology and my promise to be more frivolous and entertaining the next time.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Doggtor of Unread Blog Bits

Related Links:

The New World Order

The Council On Foreign Relations

Global Warming B.S.

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome, however, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). Besides, I "sort of do debate martial arts", so there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In other words, don't make me have to come over there - I'm just too tired. Play nice.

.