Friday, April 16, 2010

The Crescent Is Un-American...and so is the guy who promotes it!

Obamas Nuclear Summit Logo Embraces Muslim World?

Obama's warm embrace of Islam extended to his Nuclear Security Summit, even without any Muslim countries attending. Splattered across walls everwhere was this logo. See a video below.

I first read about it at Chicago Ray's. Ray is a graphic designer. He points out that the broken crescent is not a "normal design element."
Islamic Crescent

Then I read about it at The Lonely Conservative who had this photo of the event and asks "what's at the center of the earth?" The answer is not the United States. The answer is Africa, Saudia Arabia, Yemen, Oman, U.A.E, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Europe...
Obama's Nuclear Summit

Then I followed Lonely Conservative over to The Camp of the Saints who said the logo was "designed by his people and approved by him." I suppose it had to be. This arena was Obama's own personal convocation. He also has to own that not a darn thing was accomplished at his party, except another embrace of the Muslim world - and that was done a pretty big way, don't you think?

Then to The Astute Blogger with the graphics below, and a fine explanation of Islam and its relationship to the crescent, not to be mistaken for a crescent moon. You really must read the commentary at The Astute Blogger

Islamic Symbols

Do you remember this? I originally found it at Feed Your ADHD. It is our new online logo for the Pentagon's U.S. Missile Defense Agency:
About the MDA symbol: check out the similarity to Obama's own personal apologue. One story blames the design on the Bush administration, saying it originated in 2007. I'll take a wild guess, Senator Barack Obama and the lefties at the Pentagon conspired to put one over on that Cowboy president of ours. I think they succeeded, and remember, Obama announced his candidacy in Illinois on February 10, 2007. My story is not nearly as difficult to buy as thinking that George Bush had anything to do with this.

Everytime I see the symbol of Islam, I think of Alec Rawls and the 9/11 Memorial under construction in Shanksville, PA. The Memorial is in the same shape you see above. It's an incredible story and Alec has spent years trying to inform people about what is happening. The bottom half of the following graphic is the Shanksville Memorial design. The top is the Islamic crescent.
There is far more to the Shanksville Memorial story. Read it at Rawls Error Theory, and leave a note for him expressing your appreciation for his highly emotional battle for the sanctity of the dead - against all odds. While you are Error Theory, read Alec's specific article on the National Security Summit logo.
And finally, Jon Stewart went spastic over this one. It is plain to Stewart that the symbol of the Hydrogen Atom, known as the Bohr Model, is what the Nuclear Security Summit was aiming for.

Jon Stewart and the Hydrogen Atom
I certainly would have thought of that too, but...the circle is closed, not exactly a crescent, as is the NSS symbol. Circle...crescent...they're not the same.

We can't confirm why Obama chose such a symbol. Neither can Jon Stewart. Even more importantly, we'll never know why the crescent embraces the Muslim world - and not the United States. You know, the crescent could have embraced the world. That wouldn't have been difficult. The symbol of an impotent nuclear summit embracing the entire world. Why not?
Forever in our debts - "NOW HE'S A CRESCENT LOON
The first time I saw the swirling logo for the Nuclear Security Summit, it looked familiar. I soon figured out what it reminded me of: a crescent moon. The kind of crescent moon you see on the flags of Muslim countries (from left: Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia and Pakistan).

Indeed, the crescent, often with a single or multiple stars, is the main symbol of Islam. So now there is something like it at an official presidential event, prominently displayed in photographs being beamed around the world. No, I am not suggesting President Obama is a secret Muslim. But I am certain the crescent-like design of the logo is not a coincidence, especially at an event where Iran's nuclear ambition and al Qaeda's search for a bomb are prime topics.

Obama has been open about his aim to improve America's relations with Muslims. His bowing and apologies are nauseating, but they are consistent with his goal. And so is having a crescent-like logo at an event attended by Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani (above), among others. The Washington Conference Center is plastered with the design, which includes a solid white circle above the arc, all superimposed on a world map. Consistent also is a report this week that says terms with religious connotations, such as 'Islamic extremists' and 'jihad,' will no longer be used in National Security Council documents.

The Associated Press reports the aim is to emphasize the White House desire to use more sensitive language and broaden the relationship beyond war. The phrase 'war on terror' was also dropped. 'Do you want to think about the US as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with? ' Pradeep Ramamurthy, an NSC staffer, told AP. It also reports business leaders from more than 40 countries are coming to Washington for an 'entrepreneurship summit' for Muslim businesses.

Notably absent this week is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The deep freeze in his relationship with Obama is a direct casualty of Obama's courting of Muslims, which includes intense pressure on Israel to make major concessions to Palestinians. So this is what change looks like."

 Brian Kilmeade Fox and Friends Discuss Crescent NSS Logo (video)

More on this from Monkey In The Middle
And my two cents here:

Update...another two cents worth:

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Muslims Discovered America re-visited

Note: I want to thank the American Congress For Truth for this email. Back in 2008 I posted an article over at Digital Journal that included a particular video...that video was removed (see more explanation below). I never thought that I would ever see the video again but thanks to American Congress For Truth they somehow were able to revive it. You can watch it below. ~ Norman E. Hooben
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:26 PM
Subject: Indoctrination in our schools
Indoctrination in our Schools

Dear Norman,

Brigitte Gabriel frequently speaks about the misinformation and Islamist propaganda that exists in many public school textbooks and curricula.

For instance, did you know Muslims were in America before Columbus?!? That’s what one book stated—until protests got the erroneous information removed.

This is just one example of how countless school children are being indoctrinated!

A top priority American Congress for Truth project for this year is a comprehensive study of K-12 textbooks and curricula. Our plan is to then create a report that we will mail, free of charge, to every school board member in America.

Click here to view a 5 minute news report about this growing problem.

And if you’d like to help us make this project a reality, please click here to make a tax-deductible contribution online.

If you prefer to mail a check, you can send it American Congress for Truth, PO Box 12765, Pensacola, FL 32591. Put in the memo “textbook project.”

Thank you!
end of message

The following was first published in the opinion section over at Digital Journal on October 20, 2008 and the reason I re-post here is because the video was their words, "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." (You can go over there and check it out Of course I'm not sure what they mean by violation, but it would appear to me that somebody doesn't like the truth. That somebody, in my opinion, are the boys over there at Harvard University. As this video depicts, Harvard is one of the recipients of dirty money. As I once said, "Harvard University was once an all boys school but today they don't have any balls at all!" ~ Norman E. Hooben
↑click on above video↑ 
At the rate we're going, pretty soon I'll have to start all over again... in kindergarten! I believe everything that transpired since 1492 was pretty much the way it was. Unless, of course. you are a paid-off institution of higher learning.
I have been a long time critic of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and Institutions of higher learning…they are actually a seditious group of educators that want to re-write history. Further, they do this not only to indoctrinate (brainwash) our children but to blindly fill their coffers with dirty money from countries that want to do us harm. The greed for multimillion dollar donations has not been thought through as to the harm that will eventually (and currently) come to America. But just a minute…maybe it has been thought through.
Back in 1932 there was no such thing as the Department of Education. There was, however a number of books published during that time that included one by the head of the Communist Party in America, William Foster. He (Foster) was one of the first to suggest a National (federal government controlled) Department of Education (side note: Foster was born in my home town of Taunton, Massachusetts).
Another writer and Educator, George Counts blatantly suggested that, “…teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest in order to influence the social attitudes of the coming generations…”
So hold it right there! Have not all these things come to be? A Department of Education, both at the national and state level. Teachers reach for power? You bet! The National Teachers Association (NEA) is one of the most powerful groups in the country! In collusion with the DOE they have succeeded in getting control of the school systems all over America. In doing so they have slowly but intentionally changed the mindsets of our children.
This change has but one intent; to get rid of God and religion in favor of one humanistic approach to our view of the world.
"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" – John Dewy 1933
Now the Humanists and the Communists both took the long view to change things. That is they knew it would take several generations before their ideology would usurp the Judeo-Christian and capitalistic mindset of the pioneers that shaped America. And that generation has arrived.
It has arrived but it has not been fully empowered. But they’re close. Very close. To complete the takeover will probably take just one more generation and they’re doing that with money. Money donated by enemies of the state to bribe our institutions of higher learning. Blatantly bribe them with unheard amounts of money! Greed. It will do us all in! - Norman E. Hooben
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of

There's no legs, no arms, no head, no brain, no heart... just a murderer!

Neil! Why is he doing it? Wake up Neil! He hates Jews!

The following from: Yeshiva World News

76 Senators Sign Letter To Hillary Rebuking Obama Stance Towards Israel

April 13, 2010
From Politico: More than three quarters of the U.S. Senate, including 38 Democrats, have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel.
The letter, backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, now has the signatures of 76 Senators and says in part:
We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.
A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama’s policies in the region.
Signatories include key Democrats like Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and Robert Menendez as well as all but four Republicans, with signers including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Scott Brown.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin, however, did not sign; nor did Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and ranking member Richard Lugar.
The full Senate letter, circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Johnny Isakson, is HERE.

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:
We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. In fact, we strongly believe that it is more important than ever for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into direct, face-to-face negotiations without preconditions on either side.
Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen for over a year. Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions. By contrast, Israel’s prime minister stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Direct negotiations are in the interest of all parties involved – including the United States.
We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our mutual interests – including restarting the peace process between Israel and her neighbors and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
From the moment of Israel’s creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special relationship between our two nations. Israel continues to be the one true democracy in the Middle East that brings stability to a region where it is in short supply. Whether fighting Soviet expansionism or the current threats from regional aggression and terrorism, Israel has been a consistent, reliable ally and friend and has helped to advance American interests. Similarly, by helping keep Israel strong, the United States has helped to reduce threats to Israel’s security and advance the peace which successive Israeli governments have so avidly sought.
It is the very strength of our relationship that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace. As the Vice President said during his recent visit to Israel: “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel.” Steadfast American backing has helped lead to peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator


Mexico...just so serene (if you're faster than a speeding bullet)

From Pat Dollard

Now this ought to bring in them tourist dollars...ya think?

Raging Gun Battle On The Main Tourist Boulevard Of Acapulco Kills Bystanders

April 14th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.
ACAPULCO, Mexico (AP) - Mexico’s drug violence has invaded the heart of one of its most famous beach resorts, with six people shot to death and five wounded during a raging gunbattle on the main boulevard in Acapulco’s tourist zone.
No tourists were among the casualties, but the shooting killed at least three bystanders and occurred in broad daylight on the wide, palm-lined avenue within sight of major hotels and the beach.
Drug gangs have staged shootouts in the city before, but seldom in broad daylight amid heavy traffic, and never with such a toll among uninvolved people.
Desperate motorists crashed their cars and apparently sought to drive over the median strip to escape the gunfire, which left at least a dozen vehicles riddled with bullet holes.
A mother and her 8-year-old child, a taxi driver and a federal police officer were among the dead, while two slain men may have been the targets of the gunmen who set off the carnage, authorities said. Five more people suffered wounds, but there was no information on their condition.
Federal police said they detained a 26-year-old and said he apparently worked for Edgar Valdez Villarreal, a U.S.-born drug capo who has been engaged in a bloody battle in the Acapulco area with former colleagues in the Beltran-Leyva drug cartel.
Police said the gunbattle started when “armed men traveling in several vehicles opened fire on the occupants of another vehicle,” killing both men. It was unclear why the men were targeted.
Police tried to intercept the gunmen’s vehicles.
“In their attempt to escape, the assailants opened fire on several private vehicles, killing three people, including a child,” federal police said in a statement.
City police said the 8-year-old girl died while being transported in an ambulance and her mother was killed. A policeman at the scene said the mother had apparently just picked her daughter up from school when they were caught in the hail of bullets.
While police officers may have tried to return fire, the area was littered with hundreds of shell casings from AK-47 assault rifles—a weapon used almost exclusively by Mexico’s drug cartels.
The battle caused a huge traffic jam on the busy Miguel Aleman Boulevard. The intersection where the shooting occurred marks the start of a strip where high-rise hotels alternate with open expanses of beach and is among the city’s most heavily traveled and best-known areas.
Drug violence has killed more than 22,700 people in Mexico since December 2006, but it has seldom touched the beach resorts and colonial cities favored by international visitors.
Acapulco, famous as in international getaway in the 1950s and ’60s, has become mainly a destination for Mexican tourists in recent decades.
The shooting came as Mexico’s tourism industry gradually recovers from a grim year in 2009. Tourism all but came to a halt last April as fear over the swine flu epidemic virtually paralyzed Mexico, forcing the closure of schools, restaurants and archaeological sites and restricted air travel to Mexico from some countries.
Mexico’s revenue from foreign tourism dropped to $11.3 billion, a 15 percent decrease from $13.3 billion in 2008, according to the Tourism Department, which also blamed the worldwide economic downturn as another factor.
In other violence, the Mexican army announced Wednesday that two soldiers and two gunmen died in a shootout in a northern Mexico area that has seen a recent spike in drug violence.
The army said soldiers patrolling in the border state of Nuevo Leon on Tuesday gave chase to six suspicious cars that crossed into neighboring Tamaulipas state, where a gunbattle ensued in the town of Comales.
An army statement said the fight also wounded three soldiers and several gunmen. It said 200 soldiers and two helicopters were deployed to the area to locate the assailants.
The northeastern states of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon, across from Texas, have seen a surge of violence in recent weeks that authorities blame on a fight between the Gulf cartel and the Zetas.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Up in arms... MSM, where arrrrre yooooouuu?

This story has been all over the Internet so I wasn't going to post just for the sake of posting.  It wasn't until I started getting emails about the lack of main stream media coverage that I searched to see if any of the so-called major league reporters were covering this act of hate.  For that's what it is...pure unadulterated hate! (Where's Maxine Waters on this one?) I guess all the reporters were out covering more important who could be the first to get their nose up Obama's butt!  Well without any circumstantial evidence to base my assertion, I say the MSM probably set the whole thing up just waiting for some outlandish claim so they can play their political games with the general public.  I wouldn't say that I'm angry over this, but if they ever catch the guy that broke the young lady's leg, they ought to hang 'em on a scaffold (I'm generally opposed to such hangings but in this case I'd chip in and buy the rope) in front of the New York Times. ....Do ya think the Times would have a reporter at the scene? ~ Norman E. Hooben

The following from:

Female GOP Fundraiser Beaten, Allegedly Over Her Support Of Palin – Update

Female GOP Fundraiser Beaten, Allegedly Over Her Support Of Palin - Update
Conservative blogger Gateway Pundit is up in arms over the failure of the national media to report on the beating of Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend as they left a Bobby Jindal event Friday night. Bautsch, Finance Director for the Jindal campaign, suffered a broken leg, while her boyfriend received a concussion and a broken nose and jaw.
According to Jindal's spokesman, there were no Palin pins. Updates after the jump, including a press release from the New Orleans Police Department.

The Internet...oh that Internet beast...will it gobble you up? Net Neutrality will affect both the bloggers and their readers.

Don't let the date on this report get in the way of what's current.  I cross-posted this so that you might get a better picture of what is about to concern you if the politicians get their way.

  Over at the Huffington Post there's a headline story that reads "Net Neutrality Needs Your Help Today "  dated April 14, 2010, and that makes it very current!  Worse yet, the article is by John Kerry...Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts. That in an of itself should make you wary of what they are trying to do (word clue: control).  Now I don't have any immediate references as to how much money Mr. Kerry recieved from those backing this measure but I do remember explicitly that Hilary Clinton got a handful of money (that link alone brought in $119,250.00) from the very same backers back when she was still a senator from New York.

Now I opposed any legislation concerning net neutrality back then (2007) and still not in favor of the government getting their grimy hands on what I post here for free.  So educate yourself as to what their overall objectives are (word clue: control) and don't let this turn into a "I-told-you-so" situation.  ~ Norman E. Hooben
ps: Obama is on Hillary's side of the table on this issue. (word clue: control ...there! now you got it!)

The Net Neutrality Debate All On One Page
by Erick Schonfeld on Aug 31, 2008

Are you confused about Net Neutrality? Who isn’t? Some people argue it is necessary for continued innovation on the Internet, and point to Comcast’s bandwidth metering as a sign of things to come. Others claim that it is unnecessary regulation that will create unintended consequences in its wake. Opposing Views, the debate site that pits experts against each other to argue the pros and cons of the big questions of the day (read our launch review), last night put up a page on Net Neutrality. The page lays out the arguments pro and con for Net Neutrality, and then links to fuller arguments.
Marshaling the arguments for Net Neutrality are the Save The Internet Coalition, the Open Internet Coalition, and Public Knowledge. (It’s a freedom of speech issue, the ISPs are quasi-monopolies that cannot be trusted, innovation on the Web is at stake). Arguing against are the Cato Institute and Hands Off The Internet (it’s a technical issue best left to engineers, the cost of Net Neutrality will be passed onto consumers, regulation will backfire). Readers are then encouraged to vote on who is winning the argument, an add their own points of view, which can be elevated to the main discussion page.
Here’s a sample of some of the back-and-forth. The Open Internet Coalition argues that it is a fundamental principle:
Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation.
The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection.
The Cato Institute warns of the difficulty of enforcing fuzzy concepts:
it’s important to remember that network neutrality is fundamentally a technical principle. Like any technical principle, it is fuzzy at the edges.
. . . Leading network neutrality proposals contain numerous ambiguities that would create uncertainty for everyone in the Internet industry. Here’s just one example: the most prominent network neutrality proposal of the 2006 congressional session, known as Snowe-Dorgan, defined a “broadband service provider” as “a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.” Does this mean that the owner of a coffee shop with a WiFi connection would be subject to FCC regulation of its firewall configuration? One would hope not, but that’s what the language seems to suggest. The same point can be made with respect to hotels, Internet cafes, airports, and even individuals who choose to make their home WiFi connection available to their neighbors.
Where do you stand on Net Neutrality? Go debate.

Everyone is compelled to be part of the system... That doesn't sound like freedom to me?

The headline struck me in the face as to how close we are to the stated truth, "A Manageable People"... Sort of scary and yet they are doing just that as we speak.  They manage the way we live and we let them get away with it.  With the recent passage of the so-called Obama Care health legislation we are getting one step closer to managing the way we die.  You may want to go back and listen to one of Obama's advisors who clearly believes that it is easier to kill you than to control you (Listen here to Zbigniew Brzezinski, "It's Easier To Kill A Million People Than To Control A Million People").  Some of you Obama supporters may be saying to yourself, "Well they don't control me." Let me remind you that you believed in both of these liars, Obama and Brezinski, during the campaign but you were too naive to connect the dots.  You might want to check out an after action report here "Obama lied about contacts with Brzezinski before OH primary".  And if you don't think that believing in lies has anything to do with control then you haven't looked in the mirror lately...nor your wallet! ~ Norman E. Hooben

The following from:

April 14, 2010

A ‘Manageable People’

The government’s logic behind compelling all Americans to buy health insurance was that the system wouldn't work, unless everyone was compelled to be part of it. Conformity is, of course, a major requirement for big government solutions – they don't work unless everyone is forced to take part in them. And they don't work unless everyone lives mostly in the same manner without individual choices that might take them off the graph. (They still don't work even then, but the numbers look better up front.) And this is how big government solutions lead to the pursuit of a "More Manageable People."
What enlightened Europeans used to admire about America was its world of possibilities, free from the old burdens of feudalism, of people who were expected to knuckle to their betters and know their place. Americans instead made their own place. The open "New World" gave birth to a staggering explosion of wealth, technology and culture, precisely because it was much less regimented. If you wanted to live in a tightly managed society with repressive laws where your options were limited and your social mobility minuscule, you could just stay home. On the other hand, if you wanted a decent life or a shot at being the street urchin who becomes a Carnegie, you could go to America instead.
Or at least, that's the way it used to be – until, with the best of intentions, we began replacing a government of the people with a government that saw the people as ants who needed to be brought into line. The late 19th and 20th century saw the rise of a new idea of American government, no longer representative, but transformative. Government no longer existed to listen to the people, but to take them by the hand and reform them. Teach them to wash behind the ears, save money or spend it (as the situation called for), drink less and be obedient – all in order to make their lives better and teach them to be a better people.
Soon, everything from stopping alcoholism to disease prevention to ending poverty and fighting racism became the purview of government. And the results were not only disastrous over and over again, but also grimly totalitarian. We sterilized people we considered inferior in order to fight poverty. A view upheld, promoted and enforced by luminaries such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Margaret Sanger. We created a national crime syndicate in order to fight alcoholism. We caused massive social disruption, first through aggressive segregation efforts and then aggressive desegregation efforts, both led by liberals. We bankrupted the economy to save the economy. We created an entire culture of poverty in order to fight poverty. 
The progressive idea of government was broken – badly broken. And in the process, Americans had traded their birthright of freedom for the promise of government solutions that made the social problems they were trying to solve that much worse. But rather than admit defeat and pull back, the big government reformers decided that there was nothing wrong with their ideas – there was something wrong with the American people.
Their grand failures inspired them not to an attitude of humility, but hostility. Their analysis of their own failures blamed not so much their policy, as the people. The American people were willful. They behaved and thought in ways the social scientists did not expect. They did not do what was "good for them." They needed nannies and regimentation. They had to be made more manageable and brought into line.
But since "manageable" is not a terribly democratic or appealing world, "equality" was instead repurposed to mean the same thing. Where equality had once meant equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it instead became the euphemism for creating an average society, one in which people would be forced to live like everyone else, to think like everyone else, to have the same jobs, the same wages and the same lives. Only then would the big government plans finally work, because the people they were meant to work on would be interchangeable, cogs in a machine, even numbers without fractions that add up very nicely.
Where the Old America had been based around the revolutionary notion that people should define their own lives by their own decisions, the New America had reverted to the medieval notion that everything would run best if people lived the way they were supposed to, did what they were told, and shut up when their betters (with the appropriate degrees and government positions) were talking. The Town Halls and the Tea Party movement represented an explosive clash between the Old America, that actually took the Constitution seriously, and the New America, that viewed it as a framework for imposing their solutions on an ignorant public.
Where the Old American was a random variable, the New American had to be a known and fixed quantity. After all how do you plan big government solutions that affect hundreds of millions of people, unless you reduce those people to a handful of numbers? You cannot cover the health care of 400 million different and unique people. Only individual providers and doctors can do that. What you can do is cover the health care of what you define as a typical American family and a typical American single individual, and then force everyone into that category. Compulsory insurance, death panels, heavy taxes on large coverage – and all the assorted totalitarian ugliness of Obamacare is the logical outcome of that philosophy. Everyone must fall into the same category, or the system can't work. And if you don't conform, you will be made to conform. Goodbye Constitution; hello Flow Chart.
Wealth Redistribution eliminates classes and pushes everyone further into the average column. By eliminating classes, it also eliminates social mobility, which creates a more controllable static society in which everyone is just getting by, except the people with government connections or engaged in illegal activity (the two are often interchangeable in a tightly regulated system). Forget about the urchin becoming a Carnegie. That's off the graph. Forget about the middle class too. Making everyone average means pushing everyone down, not up – because it requires less resources to deprive people of wealth, than to give them wealth, and it helps pay for the redistribution process too.
Capitalism smashed feudalism once, by shaking up the nobility and creating power based on economic success, rather than inherited titles or brutality. Now feudalism is back, except it's being called socialism, but the endgame is the same. A static society with a massive lower class tethered to specific highly regulated occupations, and a tiny upper class that has been put in charge of running their lives. The new "Protectors of the People" may be armed with PhDs rather than banners and cavalry, but the end result is the same.
Lenin promised the peasants, land. Under Communism, not only did the peasants lose what little land they had, they also lost their livestock and even the right to leave the farm without permission. Now consider how many rights American farmers have lost since the 19th century. Consider how many rights Americans have lost, period. How many forms do you have to fill out to do even the simplest things? How much permission do you need from the authorities to do what you want? How well do you even know the laws by which you're governed? All for your own good. To be a more manageable people.
The reformers could never accept the reality of human nature – that people would drink more than is good for them, that people will eat more than is good for them, that some will earn more and some will earn less, that some will be bigoted and others ignorant, and that people will make good choices and bad choices. But rather than understanding that American government was created not to impose solutions but to protect that ability to choose, the reformers instead decided that government could be a moral force by taking away those choices, and allowing only those choices of which they approved.
But turning people into slaves does not improve society, it worsens it. And the bad choices will still continue to be made. Communism deprived the Russian people of economic freedom, and so they found it instead through crime and the black market. Socialism deprived Canadians of health care freedom, and so they found it across the border instead. Prohibitions deprived Americans of legal liquor, and they embraced illegal liquor instead. Each attempt at imposing control creates an opposite reaction because people naturally strive to be free, to make the choices that they want to make. And they will make them, no matter how oppressive the tyranny becomes.
To create a more Manageable People is the objective of all tyrannies. But in 1776, Americans demonstrated how unmanageable a people they were. The Tea Party movement is demonstrating that again today. And those who would manage Americans into a state of absolute conformity should remember that as well. Contributing Editor Daniel Greenfield is a blogger, columnist and freelance photographer born in Israel, who maintains his own blog, Sultan Knish.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)


Takin' Back Our bet!

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression...

Wall Street Journal  April 12, 2010

Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.
(Democrats said, "Just say no!" Wow!  They must have been watching Miracle on 44th Street or The Bells of St. Mary's)

Did FDR End the Depression?

The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes

'He got us out of the Great Depression." That's probably the most frequent comment made about President Franklin Roosevelt, who died 65 years ago this week. Every Democratic president from Truman to Obama has believed it, and each has used FDR's New Deal as a model for expanding the government.
It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.
Let's start with the New Deal. Its various alphabet-soup agencies—the WPA, AAA, NRA and even the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)—failed to create sustainable jobs. In May 1939, U.S. unemployment still exceeded 20%. European countries, according to a League of Nations survey, averaged only about 12% in 1938. The New Deal, by forcing taxes up and discouraging entrepreneurs from investing, probably did more harm than good.
Associated Press
Franklin D. Roosevelt

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.
No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.
Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.
Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.
Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR's top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.
Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.
Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."
He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.
Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.
The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR's programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest.

Mr. Folsom, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is the author of "New Deal or Raw Deal?" (Simon & Schuster, 2008). Mrs. Folsom is director of Hillsdale College's annual Free Market Forum.


Michelle Obama admits, "Kenya is home country."

Source: World Net Daily   (Note: Please watch the Michelle Obama video below.)


Kenyan officials affirm: Obama 'son of this soil'

In partying mood after election win, did African lawmakers say too much?

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Kenyan Nominated MP Millie Odhiambo

On the floor of the Kenyan National Assembly the day after Barack Obama was elected U.S. president, members of the African country's parliament celebrated "a Kenyan ruling the USA," calling Obama "a son of the soil of this country."
As WND reported, Kenyan MP James Orengo asked the nation's parliament only last month, "How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?"
And while none of the comments made on Nov. 5, 2008, were quite so blatant in identifying Kenya as Obama's birthplace, the declarations nonetheless claimed the president-elect as a Kenyan.
New strategy unveiled on answering Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
"Could we allow … a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA?" asked the MP for the Ikolomani Constituency, Dr. Boni Khalwale.
The mood on the floor of the Parliament was so raucous that day that an extended debate occurred on whether or not to call the session off to celebrate Obama's election victory. Several MPs were even reported missing, allegedly because they were still out partying.
Nominated MP Millie Odhiambo requested of the chair, "The president-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and color. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue."
Eventually, the chair was compelled to issue an official statement of congratulations in the effort to move the session forward. Deputy Speaker Maalim Farah delivered the statement, in which he echoed Odhiambo's "son of the soil" language:
"Honorable members, as you may be aware, the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th president of the United States of America and the first African-American president in the history of that country," said Farah, "please join me in registering and sending this House's congratulations to the President-elect Obama for overcoming great odds to emerge victorious."

Other speakers lauding Obama's ties to Kenya included Nominated MP Mohammed Affey, who said from the floor, "For the first time, we have a leader of a great country in this world whose blood is Kenyan."
Kalonzo Musyoka, vice president of the Republic of Kenya celebrated "an African American of Kenyan origin being president-elect."
MP Asman Kamama suggested the Assembly celebrate the success of "our brother, Obama from Kogelo," while MP David Ethuro of the Turkana Central Constituency labeled Obama "a president with roots from Kenya."
As WND has reported, several sources – including National Public Radio – have claimed Obama's birthplace as Kenya prior to his election as president.
WND also reported when a video appeared in which Michelle Obama said her husband's "home country" was Kenya, though her comments didn't specifically suggest his birth there.
The video, posted April 3 on YouTube and forwarded by a score of Internet e-mails, shows Michelle Obama saying, "When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test."

The reference drew attention because of the claim made in numerous lawsuits and other challenges to Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office that he is not eligible to be president under the requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution that the president be a "natural born citizen."
But the NPR reference and Michelle Obama's comment are far from the only ones of their kind.
At one point, there were reports that even Obama's grandmother claimed being in attendance at his birth in Africa.
According to a compilation of images at a military forum, another reference was made in 2008 in the Nigerian Observer.
Under a byline from Solomon Asowata and a Washington dateline, the report says, "Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next president with Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely favoured to win. The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart…"

A commentary at The Post & Email website said, "It is no wonder that many doubt Obama's claim of a Hawaiian birth."
It cited another report from African Travel Magazine that said, "As Kenyan born U.S. Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today as part of his African tour, concerns have once again been raised on the security preparations for other visitors and residents. ...."
The Post & Email commentary also cited a report from Indonesia Matters that includes similar references.
WND documented earlier several other statements linking Obama and Kenya.
These included the apparently archived article from the Sunday Standard in Kenya.
The report begins, "Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations."

The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press at the bottom of the page. However, the article could not be found either in the AP archives available to the public online or the archive on the newspaper's website. WND telephone calls and e-mails to the newspaper did not generate a response.
Last year, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster referred to President Obama's birthplace as being outside of the United States.
Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama's visit to the west African nation.
Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she stated, "Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him."
The video of the report is at this link.
Also, a report at Modern Ghana posted in advance of the president's visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.
"For Ghana, Obama's visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth," the report said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums exceeding $1.7 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

WND also reported previously when Michelle Obama contradicted Obama's story that he lived with his mother and father for several years in Hawaii after he was born before his father left to pursue a graduate degree.
Michelle Obama said her husband's mother, Ann Dunham, was "very young and very single" when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.
Her comments undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.
The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband's presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.

Related offers:
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
Send a contribution to support the national billboard campaign that asks the simple question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
Get your yard signs and rally signs that ask the same question – and make sure it's in time for the next tea party rally
Get your permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers for your car, truck or file cabinet – and join the campaign for constitutional integrity.
Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.
New strategy unveiled on answering Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.

Previous stories:
Kenyan official: Obama born here
NPR archive describes Obama as 'Kenyan-born'
Did Michelle say Barack born in Kenya?
Did Obama's grandmother say he was born in Kenya?
Eligibility challenger: Don't touch my brain!
Army suggests brain scan for eligibility challenger
Army suggests brain scan for eligibility challenger
Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral
Obama: Tea party based on eligibility issue
Courts can remove ineligible chief executive
D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility
Democrats suddenly interested in Obama birth certificate
Race on to demand eligibility documentation
Obama's eligibility becomes war among the states
3 dozen lawmakers want proof of Obama eligibility
Congressional ad mainstreams Obama eligibility
Franks joins demand for eligibility proof
Congressman eyes lawsuit over president's eligibility

eBay seller releases video of 'Obama birth certificate'
THE FULL STORY: See listing of more than 200 exclusive WND reports on the eligibility issue

Drew Zahn is a news editor for WorldNetDail