Before Giving Answers, Please Ask This Question First

I see lots of answers around today - but does anyone understand the question? There is most definitely a choice to be made in the world today, please be sure you understand the question properly before you give your answer.

I've had some exchanges with friends over the last week which makes it painfully clear that many people are going straight to their favorite answers, and never considering the actual question at all, and several people are even doing their best to seem 'open minded'... in order to avoid the question.

One friend of mine, whose political views do not reflect mine, said that,

“As for the Tea Party, well in my case I would have to do much more research in order to make any kind of informed statement.”

I told them that if they did their research well, what they'd find, is something that should be extremely shocking to them - because it'll come as a shock to them. We don't want anything from them, we don't want to do anything to them - we want the rule of law, fiscal responsibility, and to be left alone. That's it. The Tea Party is a diverse group of people, of all ages, colors, lines of work and levels of wealth, stretching across the nation, who are united by nothing more than their

• expectation that the government should be bound by the laws which formed and define it – the Constitution - and we call for the rule of law,
• we expect our laws to uphold and defend everyone’s Liberty and Individual Rights equally and without exception, and
• Govt should spend wisely in support of those aims, and that its programs should not conflict with the Constitution or its laws

, these are our stated aim, which you can find in one form or another on every groups web page and blog posts.

The sorts of signs you'll see at our rallies are

• Give me liberty don’t give me debt
• Stop shredding our constitution
• Taxed enough already
• Can’t read? Run for congress!
• Don’t spread my wealth, spread my work ethic,

Do these goals or signs seem to you to be seeking anything other than to be left alone? Are they shocking? Is there anything there that is threatening to anyone? We've held hundreds of rallies across the nation, always peaceful, never accompanied by destruction of property, no violent or unruly (Tea Party) demonstrators, and with zero arrests. I’d say that our stated aims and our track record of behavior reflect each other. Yet we have been portrayed in the press as not very intelligent, inherently violent, thuggish and racist people who yearn for slavery and robbing 'the little guy'.

Does that make sense to you? I’d say the disparity between aims our aims and actual actions, as opposed to how we are portrayed, is something that is definitely worth researching.

On the other hand....
The Occupy Wall street people, well… they aren’t too coherent on their stated demands, but look how the New York Times calmly noted, about them that,

"Occupy Wall Street is a diffuse group of activists who say they stand against corporate greed, social inequality and other disparities between rich and poor. On Sept. 17, 2011, the group began a loosely organized protest in New York's financial district, encamping in Zuccotti Park, a privately owned park open to the public, in Lower Manhattan.
The idea, according to some organizers, was to camp out for weeks or even months to replicate the kind, if not the scale, of protests that had erupted earlier in 2011 in places as varied as Egypt, Spain and Israel."

Hmm... the Protesters own signs, noted in an article in theAtlantic,

• A Job Is A Right! Capitalism Doesn't Work
• I'm a student with $25,000 in school loans - I'm the 99% - Occupy Wall St. Sept 17 - SOCIALIST PARTY USA www.socialistparty-usa.org
• Make Banks Pay!
• Demand jobs and income for the workers and poor!
• Sh*t is f**ked up and bullsh*t

What do those signs tell you about the sign holders? Do they sound like they just want to be left alone? Do they sound like they're willing to leave you alone?


Idealistic protestors with a representation of Goldman-Sachs CEO
Lloyd Blankfein's head on a pike. Isn't that special?


Look again at what the Times so calmly notes… what were the purposes of protests in they mention there, such as Egypt? Oh yeah, overthrowing the govt. That is making direct comparisons to violent revolutions... and yet the press is on the whole... sympathetic to them.

Unlike the Tea Party, who the press is so eager to say they are 'just like a leftist version of', these protesters have been slovenly, rude and disruptive, resulting in 700 arrests in one instance alone. Another New York Times article notes that,

"Heather Amato, 35, a psychologist who lives near the protest area, said she felt disturbed by some of the conduct of the protesters. She said she had to shield her toddler from the sight of women at the park dancing topless. “It’s been three weeks now,” Ms. Amato said. “Enough is enough.”"

And yet what the opinion leaders and talking heads have to say about these people and their demands, is on the whole, sympathetic, Reuters said,

"When Paul Friedman met the rag-tag youth camped out near Wall Street to protest inequality in the American economy, he felt he was witnessing the start of a protest movement not seen in America since the 1960s.
And Friedman should know. The 64-year-old was a student organizer during the anti-Vietnam War movement, protesting from 1964 for 11 years until the war ended. He also joined Civil Rights actions against racial segregation in America."

Aside from the obvious fond ‘memories of youth’ bias of the press, do these summaries fit the ideas being summarized? These protesters, their signs, their aims, their behavior, they definitely express a consistent set of ideas – Those who have, should be forced to give to others, and the current institutions of America should be overthrown, and spreading revolution, is the way to do it.

Yet how are they portrayed? Warmly.

Here we have a newscaster from "Free Speech TV", Nora Flanders, excitedly talking with Nelini Stamp, an organizer with the 'Working Families Party', established by members of the socialist organization The New Party, ACORN, SEIU and other unions and 'community organizations',
The Newscaster jubilantly says:

"Finally, some occupations we can believe in!"

Nelini says she is there helping with 'bridging the gap' between the occupiers on wall street and those organizations, in order to, as she puts it,

"The goal is to bring Revolutionary change to the States"

And the newscaster finishes with,

"Thanks so much for joining us, keep it up."

In case that isn't clear enough for you let me point out, those calling for the basis of our government to be respected and for our laws to be upheld, are being called lawless thugs; while those calling for revolution, behaving in a disorderly manner resulting in hundreds of arrests, are being called idealistic rag-tag youth.

Hello?

What does that say about the level of concern which the popular press has, that ideas the ideas they are concerned with, and are reporting on, should reflect reality? Do they ever think the least about what the ideas behind these statements are? Can Truth really matter to them? What do you think? Before you answer that, consider this about our event last Tuesday.

Forcing Ideas
A fellow I've met and I’ve worked with on several events over the last couple years, someone I've had meetings and meals with, Martin D. Baker, has decided to run for Congress in Missouri's 1st Congressional District, which has gone democrat for over 60 years, and he was at our event last week... and he was treated by those who disagreed with his his position, with us, like dirt.

Not one of those from the left who behaved so abusively towards him had an ounce of curiosity about why he was running as a Republican; not one of them wanted to ask him why he would consider doing such a thing, their only and immediate response, was to call him an Uncle Tom Ni**er!, and one hell of a lot more.

Why he was running was of no interest, because ideas are clearly of no interest to them, they oppose him not because of his ideas, but because of the color of his skin!

And THAT is something which I think is worth researching.

The article in the Atlantic linked to above, offered this summary,

" If you look across the placards at the protest, there is no one cause. Some signs call for student loan reform. Some call for tax reform. Some call for legal reform. Some are contradictory, such as the calls for anarchy and better government. Some don't make all that much sense. But so what? This is a populist movement, not a campaign platform. Not yet, anyway."

So what? So what?! First of all, he's wrong that there is no one cause being supported, dead wrong, the cause being supported across the board is that they haven't been properly taken care of, and they are mad about it. So what? With that as a basis for a populist movement, the answers they're going to demand is going to reflect the means they are using right now - force. Force and action.

In just the same way as Martin was attacked not because of his ideas, but because of the color of his skin, the Occupy Wall Street people are not attacking 'The Rich' not because they got so much of their money wrongly, but because they have so much money at all.

When ideas are of no interest, force is the only option remaining. And nothing but force, real or implied, is what I've found it reasonable to expect from the proregressive left. Whether we're talking about SEIU union thugs or even Democrat Office Holders, or their supporters, intimidation and violence is the go to response of the proregressive left, and if that surprises you - then in my book, you have a lot of explaining to do.


These “kids” are not only using force to occupy public grounds, obstruct public places and walk ways and bridges, and even storming public buildings; they are engaging in ignorant, rude, crude, uncivil behavior, because that is the only response available when you have cast reason aside, and that should speak volumes to you. If you pass these 'protests' off as if ‘they mean well’, you are saying that the ends justify the mean, and that it is ok - and that means nothing but a blank check for whatever actions and violence that they decide 'is necessary'.

Nothing can come of this behavior, and the tolerance of it, but violence, destruction, and if it ever reaches the scale which they themselves are publicly calling for, death. Mark my words.

Please. Just look at what their manners and actions are, look at what the meaning of their words is, connect the dots, and realize what the result must finally be.

I was recently accused, by someone who should have known better, that

you think "everything is political"

, which is laughable (and cryable) because just the opposite is true. Politics is the bottom rung of philosophy, it is where ideas are put into action - nothing, IMHO, can be changed by politics alone, the best that can be hoped for is to offer counter actions, but if the actions being taken do not reflect the ideas behind those taking them, what is that possibly going to accomplish and for how long?

The Boston Globe actually got it partially right, though not in they way they meant, with this:

"The protests are in some ways the liberal flip side of the tea party movement, which was launched in 2009 in a populist reaction against the bank and auto bailouts and the $787 billion economic stimulus plan."

They are the very opposite of the Tea Party movement,

• The Tea Party believes in the Rule of Law, they believe in lawlessness.
• We believe in Liberty, they believe people should be forced to behave 'correctly'.
• We believe that we are responsible for our own lives, they believe that their lives and livelihoods should be provided for them.

The Question You Need To Ask Before Deciding On An Answer
Ideas are everything, and right now the idea that needs to be thought about, the question that every one desperately needs to ask themselves, is who is the person that should have the Right to choose how you will live your life?

The people who come out and support the Tea Party, the people who nod their heads at us and honk their horns at us as they drive by, they believe that you are the person who should choose how you should live your own life.

The left believes that government should make the choices of your life for you, and provide for you what they think you need.

The Tea Party believes that no one can force you to live in anyway other than you choose, and the left believes, along with Rousseau, that you must be forced to be free, by experts who just know better, what is better for you.

• The Tea Party believes that you are the one to choose how best to live your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
• The Left believes that experts should tell you what choices you are allowed to make and how you should choose between them.

The choice is before you, do you want to live your life... or do you want the government to do it for you?

Everyone wants to do good. But to do Good, requires thought. To intend to do Good, requires only intent. Only one can even hope to do accomplish anything Good, the other is almost a guarantee of unintended evils, born of the thinking you did not do.

Before you give your answer, ask the question first, and think your way to a worthwhile answer - stop taking your favorite brightly packaged one off the shelf.

Waitin' on duh O: STL Tea Party and the Friends of Obama

St. Louis Tea Party and friends came out to greet President Obama, and to thank him for the $100 Million stimulus funds he earmarked for Congressmen Russ Carnahan's brother, Tom. And of course the Presidents fans came along to turn what had been a good natured civil protest, into a disgusting display of the proregressive left's true character.

Jim Hoft getting behind Mizzou College Republicans

St. Louis Tea Party alum's Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft, CNN & Big Journalism's Dana Loesch, and Hennessy's View Bill Hennessy, Po'ed Patriot's Patch Adams and SharpElbow's Adam Sharp as well as Michelle Moore of A Traditional Life Lived and Brian Bollmann of The Rockin' Conservative were on hand.

Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder was on hand, as was Martin Baker, candidate for Missouri's 1st Congressional District... and it's about time that district tried electing a conservative candidate, sixty years? With Martin they'll finally have a hope of getting some real change - look around you folks - you need it!

Missouri Congressional Candidate Martin Baker

President Obama was of course late, as usual, I had to leave to pick my wife up at the airport, right as the motorcade was arriving... and before the fun really got going.

Michelle Moore and Dana Loesch

A crowd of Obama supporters hadn't heard about the new tone, or didn't care (shock); they'd been circling us for awhile, offering some off color commentary on what they thought of a diversity of ideas, but once their leader arrived they left no doubt that they'd never change for the good, as they crudely cussed out GOP Candidate Martin Baker, apparently he's supposed to support their guy because their skin color is a similar tone - racist much?

GOP Candidate Martin Baker keeps his cool as Obamanuts lose theirs - get the details in Dana Loesh's story

Mizzou College Republicans drove down from Columbia
to tell President Obama to keep his change

Po'ed Patriot and SharpElbows' have some appalling video of ObamaNut supporters in full display of what passes for leftist grace and manners...let me put it this way They didn't just paint the words on a rock, get the picture? But vile name calling and threats are what we've come to expect from the hope and change set. Seems as if it's beyond the capacity of the proregressive leftist Obamabots to grasp that some people have different IDEAS, ideas which are not based upon the color of their skin, but that are determined by the content of their character... and their brains.

The content of their character just shines through, doesn't it?

Adam Sharp looking for the story... Jim Hoft
wondering what the story is with Bill Hennessy's hat

UPDATE: Michelle Moore has video from the event, speeches and Chris Loesch singing the National Anthem acapella - it was awesome, the man can sing... and of course my phone video started late and then failed in the middle of it. #$%@.

The only green vehicle this administration is likely to ever see... but at least what they both produce is very similar... in the end.

Iranian Navy? No Cause For Concern. Nyah.

Iran announced this week that they are going to send their new 'navy' to North American waters.

"Iran plans to send ships to the Atlantic to create a strong presence near the U.S. coastline, it has been reported.
The announcement came from top Iranian naval officer, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari, according to media sources.
'The Navy of the Iranian Army will have a powerful presence near the United States borders,' its state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said yesterday."

Sensible people are saying that there's "No Need To Fear An Iranian Atlantic Fleet" . Their ships are old, little better than rust buckets, in need of spare parts, never even been outside the Persian Gulf, have no way of refueling... what a joke.

A very sober, very sensible conclusion I'm sure. I'm sure it was also considered very sensible to dismiss fears of Al Queda getting an air force too, I mean, even if they could fly a plane this far... how could they possibly fly back home again? And their pilots... puh-leeze! As the one loon told his instructor, landing the planes wasn't a concern!

What a bunch of Yo-Yo's!

Hmmm... sensible or not... how did that attitude work out for us?

I've no idea what it'd take to put a missile on one of these Iranian rust buckets, or what it would take to shoot a missile up into our atmosphere to explode an EMP, or if that is even possible outside of the theories... of those who are paid to think of such theories.

But.

I'm pretty sure that this sort of comment:

"The threat has always and still remains the Persian Gulf itself. "

, was just the sort of thought that was considered very respectable on the morning of 9/11/01. I had kind of hoped it had gone out of fashion by that afternoon. How about you?

Here's my suggestion to the sensible people out there. First find the dots. Once you've found a few, connect them, but don't connect them in a pattern that pleases your sensibilities, connect them in a pattern that would be pleasing to theirs.

And as for our own old dots, and our own favorite patterns for connecting them?

Please throw them away.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Warren: The indecent exposure of a ravenous D.O.B.

Former White House financial reform adviser, and failed nominee, Elizabeth Warren, now running for Senator in Massachusetts, has exposed herself in public, and (shock), it wasn't a pretty sight.

As she made a stab at discrediting charges of engaging in class warfare, she denied it by attempting to fan the flames of class warfare, and inadvertently exposed her naked idiocy in public,

"No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."

Uhm. How can I put this best. Oh, here we go,

DUH!

Do you know how their fortunes were MADE lizzie?! By EMPLOYING people, hiring people - and for the governmentally impaired, that means rewarding them for their Work with the MONEY they earned, which they did not have, and would not have had, without first being hired to work in the factory which they could not have created themselves - in order to help Produce the product that factory made!

Ho-ho! Adam Sharp of SharpElbows provides the video... and an extra little tie in at the end:

You ignorant leftist D.O.B! (Hey, if her buddies in the unions can call me and my buddies an S.O.B., I'm ok returning the favor. Just be glad I started it with a 'D', and not a 'B').

But lizzie Warren wasn't done yet (no word yet on whether she'll be arrested for such indecent exposure of her dark and private soul),

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."

Hey! Lizzie! Where do you suppose 'the rest of us' got the money to help pay for those roads? Hmmm? It was earned, made, produced, and otherwise became the property of 'the rest of us' because of either our labor in 'their' factories, or 'our' farms, businesses, etc.

Because of the Free Market, people were able to offer their services in trade with others, creating wealth in the process, and from the profit each of 'the rest of us' earned from those transactions, 'we' were able to, in some way, turn around and pay a (once) small percentage of our excess profits towards taxes so that 'the roads' could be built. And you know what else? Those 'rich people' also paid taxes, one hell of a lot more $$$ than 'the rest' of us did, and do you know why they were able to build factories and hire people for a wage and become rich?

Because we had a legal system that protected Private Property, and so wise risks of time, effort and wealth could be directed towards producing a product that might possibly be of interest to enough of 'the rest' of us to voluntarily purchase, and if so, the initiator of that cycle could then become 'Rich', and the people working for them, could then earn livings which they otherwise would not have. And if it turned out not to be such a wise risk? The 'rich' had a damned good chance of becoming 'the poor'.

Anyone ever explain this to you lizzie?

And guess what else Lizzie... those 'roads' didn't magically appear by socialist-govt decree, they were contracted for and built by contractors in the Free Market, who hired skilled, and not so skilled, labor to produce the roads which you, and 'the rest' of us drive on, and so the virtuous cycle continues on, and on and on.

Or at least it does until some damn bureaucratic _.O.B. gets the slobbering idiot idea in their brain pans that they can just print money and 'roads' will appear (BTW, do you know what comes of the idiot notion that money can just be 'printed' and distributed? Experts become surprised at the crash the 'rest of us' saw coming from decades away).

Lizzie continued,

"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."

I won't go into the obvious repetition of the above for how those schools are built and paid for, but I will say that the world today, and your own blatant ignorance, is a direct reflection of the pitiful job which you and your like minded ninnies, have wrought upon the field of 'education'.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Ladies and Gents, do you see the arrogant attitude with which she dismisses the time, effort, blood, sweat and tears that goes into building either a factory or a paycheck? Do you see the predatory ease with which she assumes she can use power to take whatever she wants, from whoever she wants to?

Look at that face folks, that is the face of a truly, ravenously, greedy, D.O.B.

I'm going to put another post up soon, an economics lesson which is simple enough that even a leftist economist, and possibly even a leftist politician (no promises on the last part there, but I'll try) can understand.

Good lord, the horrible price we pay for ignorance.
*************

Post-chill pill Update:
As the froth fades from my lips, I should probably say something more than the above... and a bit more calmly.

The statement from her “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."... is such a thoughtless, condescending and – no other word worthy for it (other that ‘duh’) idiotic one, it is as appalling, and it was infuriating.

Where did that Chill Pill go... it was here a moment ago....

I got some feedback (and flames fanned) from a friends facebook page as well, who actually captioned her words as "Well, said, well said.", and a friend of his said of this post, after chiding me on my rantguage, that,

"Regardless, you don't address the thesis, that there is a social contract that exists prior to and in conjunction with our system of Market Economy. That the conditions that allow you to do exercise your rights are built upon that foundation."

Well. To say that her comment had a 'thesis' is I think stretching it a bit, but while I'll agree that her subject was the social contract, the only meaning of one that can be taken from her description, is that of master to a slave - and in her scenario, the person who actually makes the workers job possible, is the one that is being put into the position of a slave to 'the rest of us', by her version of, what amounts to, a 'socialist contract'.

Saying the words ‘social contract’ doesn’t give you a free pass to ignore everything that a contract entails, such as coming to an agreement with the parties involved - in her view it is just assumed that the factory owner OWES those employed by him, more than their jobs. According to her statement, the factory owner does nothing but take from the 'working people' of America... how he does that by first offering them a job, for a wage which the worker agrees to before ever coming to work, she doesn’t get around to saying in her 'thesis'. How the worker and 'the rest of us' ever get our own money, from which we somehow (as she would have it) entirely pay for ‘the roads’ and so forth out of our pockets alone, she doesn’t say, ignores, and tries to bluff her way on past as if the thought is unthinkable.

That she says, and even worse, doesn’t say, all of this, while running for the office of a United States Senator... is sickening to me.

She, and other such non-thinking leftists, while mouthing the words of Liberty, proceed to make demands, which if ever fully implemented, would mean the complete loss of liberty and individual rights throughout the land.

In short, they petulantly whine for effects, while trying to ignore, and even denigrate, the causes of them. I will try and keep my cool better, but I will not stand aside and allow such vitriol (and that is what such language truly is) go by unchecked.

If anyone has an interest in pursuing the matter beyond this point, I'll direct you to a couple of my previous posts, Liberty - It all hangs together, or we all hang separately for the highlights, or
Liberal Fascism: The Spiral of Knowledge for a broader overview. If you're up to really digging in to matters, here are a few from my Justice (Posts series in progress...) posts:

* There oughta be a Law
* Teaching Justice at Harvard - NOT!
* Point of order
* What IS Justice? eh.. what is the question again?
* What is Justice: Two mis-States of Nature
* Forgotten Beauty and lost Justice
* Cruising for Justice
* The Contextually Tortured Thoughts of Man Caused Disasters
* Unknown Conspiracies – You don’t think, therefore, they are
* Louis L'Amour: Laconic Law - From Cicero to Blackstone to You
* Back To The Basics: Where Is Justice To Be Found?
* The Liberal Mind of a Conservative - what may not be known - Must be known
* What does Athens have to do with Justice?
* Athens and America: The Bog Of The Gaps
* What Would the Founders Do? Common Sense says WHO CARES!
* Common Sense Anti-Americanism
* Arbitrary Disasters - The Health of Justice in the Age of Obamao
* Common Sense Conspiracies - a Race To The ... Where?
* ♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution ... wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫

If anyone who disagrees with me, and is capable of rubbing a couple thoughts together briskly enough to produce a spark - I always enjoy a good argument.

Pick a spot and dive in, comments are always open and welcome.

**********

Heh... one final comment. A fellow at my friend's site says

"Again, her point was simple- that individual accomplishment does not occur in a vacuum."

No, it wasn't a simple point, it was a fairly complex one, and it insinuated that businesses contribute nothing and intentionally leach off the benefits 'the rest of us' provide for it.

"She did not say that individual accomplishment is not of value, nor did she say..."

It isn't necessary to say that individual accomplishment is not a value, if you do say that 'too much' individual accomplishment should not be allowed... you've said the same, and created the power to determine how much is too much.

How much has anyone read of what she has said, when she wasn't saying it to an audience she wants to woo? Words don't simply have meanings, they come from the ideas a person holds. and those ideas will guide her actions - and the results of those actions - more accurately than the words we choose for others to hear. If you read the report of the panel which she chaired, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), the measures she calls for would have the effect of essentially nationalizing - though under different terms (as with G.M.) - of banks and other financial institutions.

I'll try and find a line to the actual the report itself, but a quick scan looks like this one hits the highlights, such as,

"The report essentially argues for nationalization on the grounds that, under government reorganization, bad assets can be removed, failed managers can be ousted or replaced and business segments can be spun off from the institutions. "Depositors and some bondholders are protected, and institutions can emerge from government control with the same corporate identity but healthier balance sheets," the report argues, parroting a position that has been staked out by many prominent economic pundits.

Clearly, this is Elizabeth Warren's particular crusade against the banks, since a majority of panel members dissented from the direction the report took and two refused to sign off on it at all. Her letters to Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke stop just short of attacking them for trying to restart the market for asset-backed securities. These markets have been an important part of the financial intermediation system for decades, funding student loans, consumer credit and small businesses. But Professor Warren has had a long-standing antipathy to consumer credit markets."

My friend's friend continues,

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Yes, well, and sometimes a smokescreen is just a smokescreen for something else. Before striking the 'reasonable' pose, it's a good idea to look into matters a bit more to see whether or not being 'reasonable' is actually a reasonable thing to do.

Sometimes the things we think we see lurking in the shadows tell us more about ourselves than the world we live in.”

And of course the obvious reply is that sometimes what we want to pretend to not see lurking in the shadows, can tell us even more about ourselves and the reality we’ll soon find ourselves in.

You may want to believe what I’ve said is a stretch, that Warren doesn’t intend to practice what her fundamental ideas clearly mean. I have too many friends & family on the left to think that they have bad intentions, but frankly, their intentions don’t concern me too much, and I’m not interested in interpreting peoples actions to match my conclusions – I’m more interested in the ideas they’ve demonstrated that they accept – those ideas are what precede their actions and my conclusions about them; I’m more interested in philosophy than psychology.

I’m quite sure those who pushed for prohibition didn’t intend to establish organized crime or cause the death of thousands through gang warfare. Same with those wanting a war on drugs. I’m sure that those who want to impose a minimum wage, don’t intend to put people out of work. I’m sure Ben Bernanke feels he learned the lessons of the Great Depression and really intends to help the economy, not wreck it.

Doesn’t really matter. Despite their best of intentions, the place they lead to is still the same old hot, dry place.

Intentions don’t count for much, when their ideas are put into practice and given the force of law, certain things are bound to follow from them. President Obama says he never wanted to run G.M., nevertheless....
If nothing else, the last twenty years has given me a lot of empathy for Cassandra.

But as Lance says, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. While we can.

Aerotropolis: Something to kill for everyone

Missouri's Aerotropolis is a bill that is worth killing from a number of different perspectives, it has something for everyone - hate cronyism? Kill this bill. Hate Govt control of industry? Kill this bill. Hate your elected representatives going behind our backs? Kill this bill. Hate your elected representatives going outside of the bounds of the constitution which defines their powers? Then KILL THIS BILL!

The Crony view to a kill
The most obvious reason for killing this bill, has little or nothing to do with what its supporters are trying so hard to cast our opposition to it as. Their three main pot shots at conservatives, are that:

1. They fear the Chineeze!
2. They are hypocrites because they usually love tax credits, but are opposing tax credits them here (because of the Chineeze!),
3. Aerotropolis just wants to help promote St. Louis (or Missouri, if you're not from St. Louis), and all this foolish opposition is just hurting our image elsewhere.

The attempt here is to cast of Aerotropolis as being opposed to Free Trade - which is ridiculous - Conservatives, by nature, are pro-Free Trade. You can wad these issues up in a tissue and toss 'em away, because these aren't the issues conservatives oppose, Free Trade isn't the problem, it's only a cover for smuggling in a load of other issues, and such a maneuver shouldn't be allowed to... fly.

Briefly:

1. Opposing trade with China, because it's from China, is ridiculous; it isn't the problem and shouldn't be a concern.
2. The idea that Aerotropolis is intended as a bill for selling St. Louis is (as you'll see shortly) ludicrous, but if it did, there'd be nothing wrong with promoting St. Louis as a shipping hub, and no one would oppose such a bill on those grounds.
3. Tax credits aren't the problem with Aerotropolis, while it's true many of us realize that tax credits work as advertised, in the ranking of govt boo-boo's, they come in pretty near the bottom of the list of wrongs to be righted.

Get this straight: Aerotropolis is not proposing general tax credits to encourage businesses to set up shop in the airport area in order to improve the efficiency and attractiveness of St. Louis as a trade hub.
Instead, it is proposing tax credits for building warehouses... which we’ve got no shortage of!

As Darin pointed out,

"There are 18 million square feet of available warehouse space near Lambert-St. Louis airport; therefore, there is no reason for $300 million in tax credits for warehouses."

We've already got gobs of warehouses and we do not need tax credits to build more! But even then, these tax credits are not just for warehouses in general, but for new warehouses, built in a particular way, in a particular place, and built by a very particular sort of developer, so particular as to nearly engrave one particular developer's name into the legislation - a developer who is also a big political campaign donor to the key politicians involved!

Hello!

On top of that, like President Obama's recent debacle with Solyndra, it has boondoggle written all over it, as Saku Aura, Missouri associate professor of economics, and Jeff Milyo is Middlebush Professor of Social Science at MU, recently put it,

"The Missouri legislature is contemplating handing out as much as $360 million in subsidies to create a monument to graft in St Louis. The China Hub project, or “Aerotropolis,” is being sold as a slam-dunk profitable investment of public money; economic consultants claim the project will generate many more millions of dollars in benefits to Missouri than its cost to the state. But the theoretical models upon which such predictions are based are well-known to wildly exaggerate the benefits of such projects...."

Opposition to Aerotropolis is not about Free Trade, it is about crony capitalism, it is not about promoting the interests of either St. Louis or Missouri, or about fear of the Chinese, it is about steering tax payer funds to politically well connected businessmen, and giving politicians even further power and control over our lives and commerce. At the very least, that portion of this bill which targets tax credits to benefit influential and powerful friends of politicians, needs to be stopped and dropped as not only wasteful, but purely and deeply corrupt.

And that was the extent of the issue as I saw it last week, and I was confident, then, that if that warehouse specific language were dropped from the bill, it would drop off my radar entirely.

Or so I thought, until Patch Adams and I began looking a bit further into the matter.

Picking Industries to promote - at your expense
When you begin to search through the Aerotropolis bill, you start seeing a lot of language centered around promoting multiple options for promoting 'renewable energy'... but not just solar panels, this goes much farther down the road to boondogle than just solar panels.

Worse than simply picking an industry to promote, this bill's language makes it very, very easy for a commission or some other 'governing authority' (yeah, what?), to use eminent domain to condemn and take over anyone's property if it shows even so much as a potential for being useful for some form of green energy purpose, language such as this:

11 term "blighted area" shall also include any area which produces or generates or
12 has the potential to produce or generate electrical energy from a renewable
13 energy resource,

, is sprinkled throughout the bill. And 'Potential' potentially covers a lot of ground, such as yours, because if your property seems as if it might potentially be useful for a "Renewable energy resource" such as:

(a) Wind;
(b) Solar thermal sources or photovoltaic cells and panels;
(c) Dedicated crops grown for energy production;
(d) Cellulosic agricultural residues;
(e) Plant residues; SCS SB 8 60
(f) Methane from landfills, agricultural operations, or waste water treatment;
(g) Thermal depoly merization or pyrolysis for converting was te material to energy;
(h) Clean and untreated wood such as pallets;
(i) Hydroelectric power, which shall include electrical energy produced or generated by hydroelectric power generating equipment, as such term is defined in section 137.010;
(j) Fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one or more of the renewable resources provided in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this subdivision; or
(k) Any other sources of energy, not including nuclear energy, that are certified as renewable by rule by the department of natural resources;"

, it can be taken away - and those are a lot of potential options for declaring your property to be a Green Blight. Line after line, section after section, you find this sort of language throughout, and it should bring a couple questions to mind, such as:

• What do these Green Energy measures have to do with Free Trade and attracting shipping?
• How easily could someone, a powerful developer say, acquire land he wants, but which you don't want to sell, by way of these measures?
• How difficult would it be for Federal agencies to involve themselves in the most basic rungs of local politics, through these measures?

As we looked into this bill a bit further than the obvious layers of political corruption, it began to appear that simple cronyism is only a secondary issue here – while we have all been looking at the suspicious hand of Aerotropolis which holds crony capitalism behind its back, the other hand, held right out front, in plain sight, is being used to advance a green agenda armed with the ability to rob you blind.

But even that is not the full problem.

Local Interests of Little Interest
Remember the line about this bill being a vehicle for promoting St. Louis to the world? Well... maybe, but if so, it does so by taking a back seat to Detroit, Memphis, Atlanta, and others, each of which have an Aerotropolis bill proposed or being implemented, along with so many other cities now or pending... there's even a bill pending at the federal level for Aerotropolis.

Aerotropolis, far from being the nifty new idea of local politicians and their cronies to cash in on a weak economy, is an old idea that's been pushed for years by a globalist who is enthused about ringing the world with a new form of linked cities, which he calls an 'Aerotropolis',

"As more and more aviation-oriented businesses are being drawn to airport cities and along transportation corridors radiating from them, a new urban form is emerging—the Aerotropolis—stretching up to 20 miles (30 kilometers) outward from some airports. Analogous in shape to the traditional metropolis made up of a central city and its rings of commuter-heavy suburbs, the Aerotropolis consists of an airport city and outlying corridors and clusters of aviation-linked businesses and associated residential development. A number of these clusters such as Amsterdam Zuidas, Las Colinas, Texas, and South Korea's Songdo International Business District have become globally significant airport edge-cities representing planned postmodern urban mega-development in the age of the Aerotropolis."

Aerotropolis is the brain child of John D. Kasarda, a techno-utopian, who sees it not only as a means for eliminating borders, but especially fit for green energy pursuits, the 'Smart Grid', and as being a perfect tool for the expertise of Federal agencies to be plugged directly into the lowest rung of local politics... while at the same time branching out Globally - ‘bottom up – top down’....

So far from being a bill meant as selling St. Louis to the world, or promoting it as a unique regional shipping hub, this bill is national (at least) in scope, spreading a new type of city, or city within a city, with each Aerotropolis forming new associations of local, regional, state & federal government officials, together with airport management, local businesses and other leaders having "economic development" agendas, into a 'governing authority'... all of which means that 'We The People' will be even further removed from representation and control of our lives, in the most local of matters.

In Aerotropolis: The Way We'll Live Next by John D Kasarda, and Greg Lindsay reviews it as,

“...According to Kasarda, the future city will have "an airport at the center and concentric rings of uses radiating outward". The aerotropolis is designed for the wired, always-on "Instant Age" of smart phones and smart cities, where the only law is the survival of the swiftest. Kasarda argues that this is the next stage in globalisation, a radical rethink of how we live in a world rendered flat by new technology. Just as cities such as Southampton or Singapore grew up around their seaports, so the airport will become the heart of tomorrow's city.

Dubai is the model. It is "the aerotropolis writ large, a city of hubs designed to lure the world's wealth to its door". And as in so many other areas, China has been quick to seize the initiative. It will build 100 new airports by 2020, when it aims to have 82% of its population living within 90 minutes' drive of one. This investment will enable the iPods and other high-value goods manufactured there to travel via Hong Kong to America within 48 hours. In contrast, the west views airports as "nuisances or toxic threats". Kasarda warns: "If we don't change our minds, the game will be over. In some ways, we've already surrendered."...”

And so we are presented with yet another crisis that we've got to pass a bill for, before we can find out what's in it. Even its hungry use of the term "renewable energy" stems from interests far beyond the borders of Missouri, as Patch pointed out,

"Coincidentally, the term "Renewable Energy Zone" was crafted in a bill titled "The New Apollo Energy Act of 2007". The Bill was created by Rep Jay Inslee, the Co-Founder of the Apollo Alliance, the same Apollo Alliance who wrote the first Stimulus and who's "New Apollo Program" is being used by the Obama Administration to Transform the U.S. into a "Green Collar" economy."

So far from being a Missouri, or even a St. Louis boosting bill, this is part of a national agenda, pushed by the mother of all national agenda makers, the Apollo Alliance, and is also perfectly suited for opening local concerns to Federal involvement in the the most basic rungs of local politics

Finding all this, I wondered what else we’ve been missing, especially after Patch & I began to hear technical objections about the text we'd quoted from the Bill, that it wasn't underlined or in bold face, so it was technically not part of the Bill itself, but already existing law and therefore we shouldn't concern ourselves about it.

Excuse me? Patch and I were being blown off, because the original Green Blight language wasn't in the Aerotropolis bill itself, so, the thinking goes, since this Green Blight language was pre-existing, Aerotropolis couldn't possibly be associated with it, or be worthy of concern.

There are at least two problems with that line of thinking.

First, at the very least, while it's true that language perhaps didn't originate in the Aerotropolis bill, it was being purposefully inserted into it, over and over, for the purposes of condemning land that might be seen as 'potentially' useful for renewable energy purposes, anywhere in the vicinity of the new 'airport city' - that's seriously a non-issue?

Second, it assumes that since the language originated in a separate bill, the purposes of these bills must be separate. The first question that should prompt is: Just how separate are these bills? Do they have any common interests? Are they separated by large spans of time? Did they have any of the same players involved in writing them?

So with that in mind, I went looking for where the Green Blight language originated, surely from the reactions we received, you'd assume at the very least that it'd be from long standing legislation, right?

Nope.

The Green Blight language comes from this bill, House Bill No. 737 (more informatively linked here) where the green blighting text is added (which is a story in itself),

"...The term "blighted area" shall also include any area which produces or generates or has the potential to produce or generate electrical energy from a renewable energy resource, and which, by reason of obsolescence, decadence, blight, dilapidation, deteriorating or inadequate site improvements, substandard conditions, the predominance or defective or inadequate street layout, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger the life or property by fire or other means, or any combination of such factors, is underutilized, unutilized, or diminishes the economic usefulness of the land, improvements, or lock and dam site within such area for the production, generation, conversion, and conveyance of electrical energy from a renewable energy resource;..."

It was sponsored by Representative Craig Redmon and Representative Michael Corcoran, and the summary states,

"Changes the laws regarding renewable energy in enhanced enterprise zones and the taxation of hydroelectric power generating equipment"

The green blighting language isn't long standing legislation at all, or even unrelated, it was added earlier this year in the same legislative session, and was intended to be passed along with the Aerotropolis Bill. And for that matter, why on earth was this Green Blight language not an issue itself when first proposed? and why do so many not want to make the obvious tie between them?

WTF? Whatever happened to connecting the dots... an issue is off the table if it extends beyond the piece of paper you’re staring at? Look at the people involved in this, it involves the same players, the same Speaker of the House. The same cronies. Separate purposes? My ass. Is no one capable of connecting dots anymore? How about even seeing them?

But wait! There's More Constitutional Issues
With some more searching and prodding, a friend discovered that not only did this language originate in a bill from the same session, but that it involved some very unconstitutional monkey business in concocting the bill's final language.

Without getting too much into the inside baseball of the issue, this original bill, HB 737, had been sponsored by Rep. Redmon, as a bill to classify hydroelectric power generating equipment as tangible personal property for purposes of tax assessment; it unanimously passed the Committee on Local Government, was "perfected" and sent to the Senate in essentially that form, and was unanimously passed by the Senate.

But something funny happened on the way to the forum, funny enough to make my friends "blood boil!". As he put it:

"On May 10 the House considered the Senate Committee Substitute, and Rep. Redmon - the original sponsor - spoke against it, asking the House to request a conference on the bill. Speaker Tilley assigned Redmon, Funderburk, Houghton, Holsman and Quinn to the conference committee for this bill. Mayer appointed Lager, Munzlinger, Pearce, Callahan, and Curls as the Senate's conference committee on May 11. On May 13, Rep. Redmon dropped his opposition and asked the House to pass the Senate Committee Version of the bill - which it did without one vote cast in opposition. The bill was signed by both Tilley and Mayer on May 26 and signed by the Governor on July 7.

The Senate Subcommittee Version is where the offending language first appeared, and I mean the Senate subcommittee version COMPLETELY changed the function of the bill, adding an enormous swath of material related to "enhanced enterprise zones" - and, seemingly as an afterthought, classifying hydroelectric power generating equipment as REAL property, not tangible personal property.

Article III, section 21, of the Missouri Constitution states that "no bill shall be so amended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose." I have not yet looked into how this provision has been applied by Missouri courts, but it seems obvious that the original purpose of HB 737 was DRAMATICALLY altered by the amendments made in the Senate."

So the force behind Aerotropolis, Speaker Tilley, pushed this bill through, even though the language and purpose of it had been dramatically changed from its original intent, violating the Missouri State Constitution in the process... why? Why take the risks? All for a disinterested civil minded effort to promote Free Trade for the people of Missouri?

Here Are The Dots
To sum up,

• Aerotropolis is not a self contained bill, it relies upon at least one other bill, HB 737
• Aerotropolis is the 'tip of the sword' whose purpose extends far beyond the borders of Missouri.
• The political payoffs and graft which are visible, are just means to an end that is far larger than either of these two bills.
• Aerotropolis is not a local bill promoting St. Louis or Missouri, it’s the brain child of a Globalist, designed to work with similar programs such as the U.N.’s 'Agenda 21'
• Aerotropolis' is a useful tool to bind up your neighborhood with various Smart Grid efforts, the Apollo Alliance, and new government authorities over you local neighborhood level politics - which you and I will be powerless to question or confront.

This goes far beyond 'Taxation without representation', this moves on to inhabitation without representation.
Aerotropolis is a bill that deserves to be put to death for many different reasons, including, but not limited to,

• cronyism,
• corruption,
• misrepresentation of intent,
• advancing a national and international agenda at the expense of our local dollars and political representation;
• using govt resources to promote another Green Energy scheme (Show me Solyndra!),
• enables Missourian's property to be declared a Green Blight and taken through eminent domain for 'having the potential' of being useful to its Governmental Authority
• makes use of language improperly inserted into another bill in an unconstitutional manner, in order to further the purposes that are furthered by Aerotropolis.

You can see the dots folks, connect them and Kill. This. Bill!

Happy 224th Birthday to the U.S. Constitution... eh... what's the point of it again?

For the Constitution's 224th Birthday, I'm going to repost an old post that seems well suited for today; what with our President reminding us again how much he wished the Constitution wasn't there to keep him from using his power as he'd like,

“"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress.”

, this post from a year and a half ago seems especially appropriate.
...........................................................................................................................................................
I was talking to someone the other day about the problems in the country today, and as I mentioned the Constitution, I noticed a familiar tick that passed across his face at the word… you might have seen it before too… a quick flick downwards of the eyes, a fleeting grin-twitch across the lips… almost as if I’d slipped in a “ya’ll aint” to a grammarian.

When I asked what the matter was, there was the ‘Oh… you’re not really going to ask me about this are you?’ look, as if I was forcing them to embarrass me… and with a sort of “Yes, the world really is round” patronizing look, he said ,

“Well… it’s just… the whole ‘Constitution’ thing… I mean… we don’t wear wigs and leg hose anymore either, why should we be bound by something written centuries ago by people who know nothing of us?”

Ah. Well… in that case… do you mean we should just ignore the Constitution?

“Well… we can’t ignore it, it’s just that it means today what we need it to, not what they meant it to mean back then... kinda like the Queen of England... quaint but not especially relevant... we shouldn't let ourselves be bound by what guys in wigs said two centuries ago.”

"We shouldn't be bound by it" that's an interesting way of putting it... it certainly goes well with the world upside down nature of the news these days. Does that same sort of bigotry of The Now apply to other things too? Math for instance?"

"Oh... come on..."

"Ok... how about resisting tyranny? Is that old fashioned too?"

"Well... no... but...."

"Was 'Freedom of speech a bad idea too... or is it that it was useful then, but is just outdated today?"

All I got with that was a sigh. Of course, being a flogger, I didn't let that slow me down, and while I couldn't remember the full quote, I tried the gist of this one from Jefferson,,"

""It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388 "

Got the blank stare for that. "Just not too big on Jefferson, eh?"

Only got an impatient 'Nope'. Just disagree with him and the other wig wearer's?

"Yep."

"So you've read them and disagree with them?" I think he was about to answer 'Yep', but worried that I'd quiz him further (and I would've), but he just said "It's just not as relevant to our world today." I answered that this 'oh so modern' notion of his, is well over a hundred years old now, as many years old as the Constitution was when Woodrow Wilson first mouthed his 'new idea' against it, but that didn't help either, he knocked it down with another eye-roll - apparently some centuries old stuff is 'modern'... and some is 'outmoded'... depending on what the speaker want's it to mean, I suppose - I mean, it's not like words mean anything, right?

Well... I couldn't do much against magic incantations like those modern educated eye-rolls and mutterings, spells which have the power to banish the accumulated wisdom of ages with a simple set of shamanic motions and mutterings. So after a moment I thought maybe I'd try out the meaning of Jefferson's quote on him...rather than just the words,

"Well in that case, it might as well be irrelevant, but if so, then what is the use of the Constitution?

If you're left leaning like yourself, I can see that you probably might be mostly happy with how things are proregressing at the moment... but if you know even only a smattering of political history, even just recent history, you know that following a President Carter, there was a President Reagan, right?; and from the other side of the aisle, the conservatives should know that following such a conservative even as that, there will likely be a President Clinton soon afterwards, or maybe just a mixed message like President Bush (I or II), who might lead into someone like an Obamao.

What that should bring to mind, is that while you may very well be happy with the current bunch in the White house, you may not like the next one, or maybe the one following that, right?

(A sigh and a nod)

So to prevent a future ‘bad’ administration from doing more to you than you’d like, and vice versa for the other sides point of view, don't you think that there should be limits on those in power to limit whatever it is that they want to do?

"Well... sure"

Well... handily enough, we do have just such a set of restrictions on the limits of power. Not only do we have such a set, but it is what our representatives and our judges - and even a President such as Obamao - all solemnly swear, pledge and affirm to uphold and preserve it - and in the case of our military personnel, it is what they pledge their very lives to defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic – it is what they are sworn to die for, if need be.

Given that... got any friends or relatives in the military? 'Yep' Given that they, and others, like my son, have their lives sworn to uphold it, doesn't that seem like something they - and we - should take at least a little bit seriously?

Uncomfortable silence.

At the very least that should give someone pause who might otherwise be tempted to snicker at the mere mention of our constitution, shouldn't it? Nothing else in this land receives such official recognition and is held in such importance and given such legal protection,
...not the President,
...not the Judges,
...not the Flag,
...nor anything else, only this short piece of paper – why?

This Constitution which our government, from its inception in 1787, to now in 2010, finds within this scrap of paper written by old dead white guys, not only every source of every one of its powers to act, but also lays out the key Rights of our fellow citizens that are to be protected, and far more importantly, there are to be found within it those restraints upon what the government can do to We The People and to the country.

If you don’t trust politicians, or you don’t trust the other side’s politicians, then you should want to know, protect and promote this short outmoded piece of paper, because if you don’t, if you allow your politicians, while they are in power, to act beyond what is constitutional – and the ONLY thing which prevents them is the public’s awareness of their going too far (and believe me, it isn’t the Judges or Congress, it is YOU - if the Law ceases to live in We The People, it will cease to live - and cease to protect you) – then you can be assured that there will be even less restraint upon the other guys when They come to power, and they will be even more able to do whatever they want to do because they Too will feel that what they want to do will be the Right thing to do! And your feeble yelps of ‘not fair’ or even funnier (by that time) ‘that’s not constitutional!’ will fall on deaf ears.

And in that time you will find yourself at the mercy of the political power of the other side of the aisle... so ask yourself now, how will you feel then, and what you wouldn’t then give if you could just go back in time to our time, to today, and say – (or in other words vote) - Stop!

If you don’t do that today, then when some seemingly distant tomorrow becomes today – and in the blink of an eye it will - the opportunity may very well be gone.

The Constitution – use it – or lose it!

And that was of course the end of the argument. He couldn't answer... but with another magic incantation of eye-rolls, and muttered '... just can't talk to you people...like luddites', his spell was cast, absolving him from all need to think any further on this uncomfortable topic, and from the need of making his thoughts conform to reality... with the magic spell weaved... his contradictions were safe and secure, locked up within his super smart and cool leftist brain.

It is baffling... the contradictions the leftist requires that they live by. And while it's good to see that it's not just baffling to me, it isn't only Obama that's always contradicting himself, you simply cannot be a leftist, without blatantly contradicting yourself. Leftist thought requires arbitrary, contradictory positions - it fundamentally means opposition to reality.

It. Is. Unavoidable.

And your only defense against it, is a piece of paper completed by a bunch of guys in Philadelphia, 224 years ago today.

Happy Birthday to the U.S. Constitution... take a deep breath America, it's a lot of candles... be sure to make a good wish!

9/11 - Remember To Choose

Ten years ago today, a group of Muslim extremists, many of whom were college educated, affluent, and who were, and are, far from being alone in their beliefs that the existence of America is a threat to their world, decided to wreak the kind of destruction which only the smallest of minds can conceive of, upon the fabric of America. They hijacked four civilian passenger jets, filled with business people,

vacationers, men, women and children, and as a result of detailed planning, in concert with others of similar qualifications and beliefs from around the world, they turned those four jetliners into tools of destruction, destroying the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon.

The fourth jetliner was prevented from killing others outside of its own skin by the heroic efforts of those passengers within it. They realized what those monstrous heaps of animated human flesh intended to waste their craft and lives for, and they chose instead to meet death on their own terms, rather than that of their hijackers.

Those heroes on Flight #93 chose for life over death, good over evil.

Those Muslim extremists succeeded in destroying the lives of nearly 3,000 people that day, and many more since, by using our own lives and achievements against us, and they were enabled to only because we refused to identify the nature of their chosen evil, time, and time again, before September 11, 2001.

The nature of Islamic terrorism is not a matter of ignorance, poverty or wealth; the root cause is a zeal for a particular interpretation of the Muslim religion, a view which sadly is not a lonely one, which compels them to turn their minds towards destroying and killing us because their own beliefs are too feeble to admit the existence of ideas and beliefs which disagree with theirs.

Ayman Zawahiri is a medical doctor. Bin Laden was an engineer. Atta studied architecture. The shoe bomber, Major Nidal, the bus station back shooter, these men are not united by poverty or ignorance, they are driven only by their religious beliefs, and by the belief that they should end the lives of those who disagree with them.

I need understand nothing more than that; the fact that they are acting upon the ideas which they fervently believe in. Ideas which are utterly opposed to the possibility of men and women using their own best judgment in order to live their lives as they see fit. In these particular Muslim's eyes, they would rather see a man shot in the back, or his own daughter killed, or a man's head sawed and torn from his shoulders, or thousands of people incinerated, than to think of them making choices which they disapprove of.

In this world, here and now, such a desire and the willingness to carry it out, is pure Evil.

Today we remember those whose lives were taken from them ten years ago today, by the choices of men made small and despicable and evil by their chosen ideas, which forbid their fellow men the ability to use their own minds and make their own choices.

What we must remember today, is that when faced with either an active

choice, or with identifying a remembrance, we must be willing to choose what is Good, and to denounce what is Evil.

Being unwilling to recognize the truth, or to name evil for what it is, is to befriend and encourage that evil.

Today, that is worth remembering.

Update: With a Hat Tip to Joan of Argh's excellent "The Gods Of The Copybook Headlines", I too do affirm and swear that Wretchard speaks for me:

The story of September 11 must for all time become the story of how a certain date became unspeakable to al-Qaeda and its followers; a tale of how this day of all others, became the blackest day in the history of Islam. It should forever be a date that can never be mentioned without arousing a deep sense of shame throughout the Middle East so that in generations hence, people should still come up to strangers unbidden and say, “I’m sorry for September 11. “ Until then it is unfinished business.

We have no right to forgive. We have no right to forget. We have no right to move on until this final condition is met. That in the holy of holies of our civilization’s enemies, in the innermost recesses of their sanctum sanctorum they should say with heartfelt ardor: never again. Never again. Never, ever again."

Rah! Rah! Ssss... Boommm... Bahhh! - Obama's Sound, and the Unions Fury

Fine sounding words and ominous sounding actions.
A couple take away points from President Obama's campaign speech tonight, both on the lightweight side, and an ominously heavy side. First the lightweight stuff.

From the opening of his speech, with its relentlessly peppy opening gambit of "Look at the wonders I have for you!", this speech was heavy on swell sounding words, but extremely light on acknowledging the costs which those words and wonders would bring. And in case you missed it, or didn't realize what it was you were hearing, this,

"The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed Internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. "

, is nothing but spending, and big spending at that. But the icing on the cake in our face, was this,

"Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now."

With all the energy and practiced enthusiasm which this was delivered with, I found myself wondering, is the pitchman Billy Mays still alive? I could almost hear "But wait! There's more!"

This speech was no serious, considered, substantive plan to get government out of the way to enable America to get back to work, this was an infomercial to kick off his 2012 campaign - and worse than that, it was only the first part of one. We were told part way through, that we tuned in tonight in order to find out that we've got to endure a second speech in a couple weeks to learn what the plan is for how he's going to pay for all of this... which by the way, would be The Plan, which we were promised we'd hear tonight, and which was the point of calling a joint session of congress to witness.

No gots. Big surprise.

And then, not surprisingly, we discovered that the plan, which we still do not have, is one that is very much in keeping with yesterday's post on Robert B. Reich's article about Obama's 'Zero Economy',



This message of peace is from a Union site.

When words and actions don't agree...
read their actions.

 " It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled"

The viewpoint of this speech, and the person and team behind it, is not one that views an economy which is something that is made up of people making careful decisions, based upon perceived favorable, or hostile circumstances and laws, but one more consistent with seeing an economy as a closed system of rats in a maze, which uses shocks and cheese, in order to push them through, to ring the bell, and please their masters.

And it showed an obliviousness of our current situation, and how we got there, that is truly disturbing. Disturbing because of 'optimistic' sounding lines like this,

'And to help responsible homeowners, we're going to work with federal housing agencies, to help more poeple to refinance their mortgages, at rates that are no near 4%, that's a step "

, which were delivered with no awareness of how much they reflect the ideas which got us into the current situation we are trying so desperately to get out of today. Noting that the Republicans were still sitting down on what he expected to be an applause line for everyone, he says,

"I know you guys must be for this, because that's a step that can put more than $2,000 in family's pocket"

No, they are not for this - or at least they'd better not be. Does this President not have a clue what the major trigger was for the current mess we are in? Housing bubble? Helloo?!

If the people he is targeting here were good credit risks, they wouldn't need help from federal housing agencies to get low interest loans - I hear ads for several lenders touting just that every morning while driving into work. If they are credit risks, why in God's name, would you try, in this economy, triggered by federal agencies serving up home loans to people who didn't warrant good loans, why would you attempt yet another program for federal agencies to serve up more easy home loans to people who don't warrant a loan?

The one line in the entire speech which actually did catch my attention in a positive way, was this one,

"We're also planning to cut away the red tape that prevents too many rapidly-growing startup companies from raising capital and going public. "

, but unfortunately it was also the one line in the entire speech which began with 'We're also planning', rather than 'we are!' or 'we will!', and so, pardon my cynicism, but I put about as much faith in that materializing as I would a faith healer... who asks to be paid first.

But his most telling line, to my mind, was this - in what was said, and the much more meaningful portion that was not said, but was very much implied by it:

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?"

The easy reply to this is that this nation would be a far more closely knit one, a far wealthier one, one that would be significantly more free, and one with a much sounder rule of law, without those two Article 1, Section 8 shredding programs. Why do you ask?

Why did he ask? In hopes of successfully distracting from and ignoring several issues.

• One, that few things are more divisive to society than govt charity; I do not see Social Security or Medicare as kindnesses, but as one of the first measures to begin breaking apart the bonds and responsibilities which had bound us together for so long.
• Two, to point out how annoying, and obstructionist it is having to follow the rule of law is, and how the Constitution should be ignored, so that the President can more easily deliver goodies to his fans.
• Three, he wants very much for the Constitution to be sidelined and ignored, in order to be able to 'do good' for the American people.

Speaking of goodies,

"The people who hired us to work for them, they don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months"

They also don't have the luxury of taking vacations every other week, unlike some POTUS's we know.

And now to the dark and heavy side.
The dark side of the evening grows out of my habit of paying more attention to what this President does, than to what he says he'd like to do. President Obama had a nice rousing line in his speech about the wonderfulness of three words:

"I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: "Made in America.""

, which would be nice to hear, if it wasn't for the fact that sitting in the audience as a guest of Rep. Marsha Blackburn, was the CEO of Gibson guitar, whose company has been singled out by this President's Justice Dept. for harassment , has had plants closed down, and numerous materials confiscated with no explanation or charges being brought against them, other than suggestions that it shut down or send its manufacturing jobs to Madagascar.

That's a big Strike One!

Then there was the fact that sitting with the First Lady, was Jeffrey Immelt, the head of the 'JOBS!' committee, who's company, with his enthusiastic blessing, has sent several of its manufacturing divisions... to China!

That's a big Strike Two!

And if that wasn't bad enough, also sitting with the First Lady, was the President of the AFL-CIO union, Richard Trumpka.

That's a big Strike Three!, he's outta there, no credibility, no way, no how.

Why? You really need more? Ok.

On Labor Day the Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa said,

“...The war on workers, and you see it everywhere, it [sic] is the Tea Party . . .President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches out . . .”

On Labor Day, VP Biden told a union crowd:

"You are the only ones who can stop the barbarians at the gate! That’s why they want you so bad.”

and worse, Biden said this:

“You are the only non-governmental power that has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught.”

And today, early this morning, hundreds - HUNDREDS - of members of the AFL-CIO stormed a port in Longview Washington, vandalized the grounds, and held people hostage, over a labor dispute...

"Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.
Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said."

... and that union's president, Richard Trumpka, was a guest of honor in President Obama's box tonight, to listen to the President's speech with the First Lady.

Anyone see any signs for concern here? Does anyone think that hundreds of members of a union are mobilized to storm a port, vandalize property, hold people hostage, and be released without charges - without the leadership of that union knowing about it? Ahead of time? Do you think the President of that union, knowing that he'll be sitting as a guest of the President of the United States of America, would risk blindsiding and embarrassing the President, without letting him know that... some sort of incident was going to occur?

Not friggin' likely. Anyone see any signs for concern here now?

"... nobody has been arrested. Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting brake lines and spilling grain from car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said."

How about now? No? Really?

"We're not surprised," Duscha said. "A lot of the protesters were telling us this in only the start."

Now? If not now, when?! If not you, who?! Who are you waiting for? YOU are the person you have been waiting for... if you will do nothing, no one will.

As I said to a friend the other day, just think about the implications of that Vice President Obama's statement, and this mornings actions:

1. That govt power is united with the interests of the labor movement and is also available to be used to 'stop this onslaught',
2. That union people comprise a power that should be used as a force, backed by the U.S. Govt, to be mobilized against those who disagree with them.
3. They apparently are beginning to do just that.

But we don't need to imagine the implications of this scenario any longer, it's beginning to happen right now. Just look at the news. If you can find it. Google it. You won't find much.

Interesting, no? Sound and fury, signifying... more than I'd like to imagine.