Sunday, June 28, 2009

The United States Should Apologize to Iran

America's foreign policy toward Iran should be to apologize. Had the United States not meddled in Iranian domestic policy, Iran would hardly be the boiling cauldron that it is today, where secret police and military thugs kill hundreds and arrest thousands of their protesting countrymen. The Iranian people have been more than once within a hair's breadth of enjoying liberty--only to be thwarted with the help of the United States.

If someone did to America what we've done to Iran, you'd want an apology, too.

I'm not talking about apologizing to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his bearded overlord. Those men are criminals. What I'm advocating, rather, is an apology directly to the Iranian people for stealing their liberty--for the things the United States did to their country decades ago which, if we hadn't done them, Mr.

I'm not talking about apologizing to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his bearded overlord. Those men are criminals. What I'm advocating, rather, is an apology directly to the Iranian people for stealing their liberty.

Ahmadinejad would likely today at best be a lower-level executive for the Tehran Department of Transportation.

In 1920, with Iran being on the verge of democratic government, western allied powers helped to install Reza Shah on the throne in Iran in order to ensure another reliable supply of petroleum to the West. Reza ultimately proved too strong-willed for their liking, so they replaced him with his much more pliant son Mohammad Reza in 1941. In 1951, the highly popular Mohammad Mossadegh, who had been elected to Iranian parliament, was appointed Iran's prime minister. In 1953, thinking that Mossadegh was getting too big for his britches, the United States commissioned its Central Intelligence Agency, which successfully engineered a coup that resulted in Mossadegh being deposed and placed under house arrest. The much less popular Mohammed Reza was returned to the throne. For the second time, the United States had helped to thwart democracy in Iran.

During the Iranian revolution that began in the late 1970's, the Shah fled Iran. Rather than return the Shah to Iran for trial for crimes against the Iranian people, the United States gave him asylum. Fearing another coup was in the making, Iranian students took American diplomats hostage for 444 days. (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was somewhat prominent among the student hostage takers. )

Seeing the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini as their only alternative to the repressive rule of the Shah, the Iranians supported Khomeini, only later to discover that the bearded cleric's brand of government was no better than that of the monster he replaced.

It is impossible to know where Iran would be today had the United States not meddled in Iranian political business. But one thing is for sure. Historical facts being what they are, the United States is squarely to blame for the predicament that Iran is in today.

For this, we should apologize.

Only then will we finally have achieved the moral standing that we need in order to get on with helping them achieve the liberty that they should have been enjoying already now for nearly one hundred years.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Have We Reached the Boiling Point?: Presidential Election Deja Vu

Sometimes I wish that fewer people would vote in elections. (Actually, I just wish they would become a little bit more informed before they cast their votes.) We have had some great choices in recent elections. Unfortunately, though, it's nothing new that most Americans are content to be arm-twisted into voting for the lesser of two not-so-great choices.

In his book Boiling Point: Republicans, Democrats, and the Decline of Middle-Class Prosperity, Kevin Phillips writes this about the recent presidential election:
By condemning the Bush administration for favoritism to the rich and neglect of the middle class, Obama tapped a historic Republican vulnerability and took a strong lead over John McCain from July onward. True, many voters still doubted the Illinois senator's trustworthiness. McCain's last rival for the Republican nomination, Texas congressman Ron Paul, had insisted the Obama couldn't be believed, because he was financed by the same elites he purported to deplore. Many voters, however, felt they had no choice.
If I told you that I changed the names, and that this was actually a story of a complaint by Democrat candidate Jerry Brown against Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., would you be surprised? Replace, Ron Paul with Jerry Brown, John McCain with George H.W. Bush, and Barack Obama with Bill Clinton, and they are the words that Kevin Phillips wrote--clear back in 1992. (See Boiling Point, page xviii.)

Bummer. That was almost 20 years ago, but it strikes the cultivated mind with a lightning bolt of 2008 deja vu. Are we ever going to learn our lesson and stop voting for only the candidates whom the Establishment has anointed? We're no better than Iran.

We deserve much better.

Have we reached the boiling point yet? Nope. Not even close. The same elite lunatics are running the asylum in Washington D.C.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Glenn Beck Blows a Cork Over Obama Press Conference

I had to listen to Glenn Beck's monologue a couple of times today about the discussion between President Obama and Nico Pitney of The Huffington post. And I still didn't get what Beck was so inflamed about. Perhaps Beck ought to be paying more attention to what's going on in Iran rather than wondering if Pitney was just another media person being nice to Barack Obama. (Press conference Here, Pitney's subsequent visit with CNN, here.)

Here's part of Beck's critique of the President's supposed tactics:
He's contacting a media source ahead of time to plan a question for a live press conference. Who thought the media was in the tank for him? Who, booboo? He's contacted a liberal blog site to do it. He reveals that he follows the liberal blog site closely. And to top it off, he calls them second in the press conference. By the way, ADD moment. Which one of these things just doesn't belong? Associated Press, Reuters, the Huffington Post? It was a trick question. They all suck.

Guys, you are watching a puppet show.
Beck then got to what it seems was his point. He doesn't like the Huffington Post.
At least it was the liberal hack site, you know, the Huffington Post, you know. Not so bad that we have, you know, so called credible journalism outlets like ABC doing infomercials promoting the White House or anything.
I've actually been reading Nico Pitney's live blogging on Huffington Post, and it's some of the best stuff out there (here's the latest).

Alvaro Vargas Llosa today pitied the political posturing that is going on in the United States while Tehran burns.
It has been painful to see so many political leaders in the United States devalue the Iranian uprising — potentially the most important event since the fall of the Berlin Wall — by using it to score cheap points off each other, disrespecting the people who are risking everything in the name of freedom.
Beck's outburst today is one of the worse instances of cheap politcal pointery.

President Obama's stance vis a vis the Iranian oligarchy is the best one we can at this point hope to take. Nico Pitney, among others, tirelessly keeps the magnificent Iranian rebellion before our eyes and ears. If Glenn Beck had a bit more integrity, he'd praise Pitney for his tireless coverage, as well as the President for asking a most important question.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Neda, The "Voice" of The New Iranian Revolution, Teaches "Natazhsid." Do Not Be Afraid.

In Farsi, Neda means "voice". The accidental "voice" of the New Iranian Revolution has also become its first martyr. The murder of Neda Agha Soltan has become the nourishment needed for the blossoming of freedom in Iran. Millions of Iranians, now honoring her innocent memory, will not be stopped, even if for many of them, it also means death. The days of the backward rule of the Ayatollah and the Iranian Supreme Council are numbered.

As Neda lay dying, her father counseled her "Natazhsid!", which means "Do not be afraid!" This has become the rallying cry of millions of freedom-loving Iranians. Please pray for their success. Please pray that Neda's death has not been in vain.

One of the greatest chapters in human history is playing out before our very eyes, yet most of us choose to watch mindless entertaining drivel on television instead. Iranians are suddenly on the verge of a freedom that has been centuries in the making. Do you care?

The genie is out of the bottle. The Supreme Leader is no longer supreme;
the Iranian people are. Millions of Iranians have taken to the streets, protesting in support of the candidate who clearly won the June 12th presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi. You can find it all on YouTube and Twitter. Technology and the memory of Neda Agha Soltan will help to ensure that liberty, this time, will not be stopped.

Being frustrated by the snarled traffic caused by thousands of protesters in the streets, Neda, along with her family and friends decided to get out of their car to get some air. Seconds later, Neda lay on the pavement, her life bleeding from her in torrents. The 40-second video of her death carefully made its way past Iranian censors, around the world, and into the history books.

Appearing on CNN, Melody Moezzi, many of whose family members still live in Iran, talked of the senseless death of the beautiful Neda, who has taken her place beside Hossein and Ali in the Shia hall of martyrs. Moezzi said of Neda:
Now, one of the chants is Natazhsid!! Natazhsid!! 'Do not be afraid', is one word in Farsi, and that word has become so powerful. When Neda was killed...she became a martyr. [In the wake of her death, the protesters] said "Do not be afraid!" How do you do that? How do you say to a woman who is dying, "Do not be afraid?" Because she is a martyr. God is on her side. We are on her side.

When we [perform any] physical exertion, Iranians say "Ya Ali", which means "Give me the power of Ali." And now we're saying "Ya Neda."
The numbers of Iranian civilian dead are claimed by various protesters to be far in excess of the official reports coming from the now forever discredited Supreme Leader and his Supreme Band of Thieves. Despite stern warnings of even sterner punishments by the Ayatollah, the protests continue.

The Basij police have resorted to preying on dissenters throughout the streets, finding where they live, and then going into their homes at night and killing and beating them. Iranians thwart the Basij by harboring each other in the safe havens of their homes.
If the days belong to the anti-government protesters, the nights belong to the Basij. At nightfall, thousands of them flood into the streets seeking out government opponents.

"The Basij can do whatever they want," said Reza, a shop owner from Tehran. "They think they are enforcing God's law, so they think they can't be wrong."
Whose side are you on? Do you dare to stand up for the truth, no matter what the cost? Do you dare to be a "Neda"? If so, I have two things to say to you.


Ya Neda.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Tehran, We Love You

For many years I have admired the passion of the Iranian people. Regardless of having lived for decades beneath the damning hand of dictatorship, they still have not lost their innate yearning for freedom. If only Americans could be as passionate about liberty as the Iranians are.

Americans are content to simply have a Tea Party and then go home. Iranians, harking to a bygone American era, are deadly serious about liberty--just as Americans

Americans can't just have a tea party every now and then and feel like we've made any kind of a difference.

once were. While Iranians risk their lives and forsake their livelihoods for days on end in an effort to retain some vestige of representative government, Americans are too busy-- spectating at their favorite sporting events or figuring out where their next mortgage payment will come from--to care very much.

It has become clear over the past eight days that Mir Hossein Mousavi, challenger to the not-well-liked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, should be the next president of Iran. Yet amid protests of massive election fraud concocted by the Supreme Leader and his Supreme Band of Thieves, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holds Mousavi personally responsible for the protests for which the Ayatollah and his consorts are squarely to blame:
Mousavi's dilemma was painfully clear. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei put the opposition leader on notice on Friday that the responsibility would be his if "illegal gatherings" continued. But by then, millions of fired-up Iranians were looking to him to show a lead in confronting not just alleged electoral fraud but the Islamic establishment itself.
Despite not having enjoyed much of it, Iranians have long been passionate about freedom. When the United States welcomed former Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi into the country in 1979, it was more than the Iranian masses could take. At the time fearing that the U.S. was preparing the Shah for yet another takeover of power (as happened in 1953), they stormed the United States embassy and Tehran and held dozens of American diplomats hostage for nearly a year and a half. It was unfortunate that American citizens were pawns in the power play, but the clamoring of Iranians for self-determination compels our respect and admiration.

It didn't take long for the Iranians to discover that they had been duped by the replacement government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and for 30 years

Iranians understand the essence of liberty, and they're not about to let it fall from their grasp. Iranians revere liberty far more than the average lazy American does.

they have been attempting to come out from under that mistake, an oppression which has been every bit as stifling as that of the Shah. During that period, while their self-anointed leaders regularly exclaim death to the "Great [American] Satan", the Iranian populace has cultivated a general affinity for the freedom-loving American people.

Except that most Americans have now fallen asleep.

Americans can't just have a tea party every now and then and feel like we've made a difference. If we really want to understand how precious freedom is, as well as how easy it would be to lose here in the United States, we should keep our eye on Iran. The Iranian people prize freedom like perhaps no other people on earth, and they're not about to let it fall from their grasp. Iranians revere liberty far more than the average lazy American does.

Tehran: for your shining example, we love you. And we hope to God that we can become like you--like we were once before--lovers of liberty.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Now Global Warming is Like Driving Off a Cliff!!

At the recent convention of the Western Governors' Association, Nick Bridge, British counselor for global issues, stated that the earnestness of global warming is like "driving towards a cliff at high speed and [you] have a 30 percent chance of brake failure. Would you get in the car? Nobody would get in the car."

Well, no, actually, I'd do a computer model simulation to ensure that the 30% chance of failure is a correct estimate.



Mr. Bridge's verbal faux pas indicates the inanity of the claims of those involved in crying global warming wolf. He can't even think through the process of evaluating risk. If I had a car whose brakes had a 30% chance of failure, I would test them thoroughly--under actual conditions--to find out what percentage of the time they actually did fail. If they actually failed at all, I'd get them fixed.

Global warming criers, however, think that delving in theory, simulating risk, and crying wolf is all that is needed in order to make a determination to mortgage the comforts of life of everyone on earth. I'd rather be 70 percentage points surer about something like that than 30%.

At least, with Jon Huntsman moving off to "greener" pastures, not as many at the WGA are on the wolf-crying bandwagon. I am pleased with Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert's response to the WGA convention's discussion about global warming.
Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert challenged the reality of climate change during a Western Governors' Association panel discussion Monday on combatting global warming.

Herbert, who sat quietly through most of the discussions during the past two days, spoke up after presentations that included the statement that the debate on climate change was over.

"I've heard people argue on both sides of the issue, people I have a high regard for," Herbert said. "People say man's impact is minimal, if at all, so it appears to me the science is not necessarily conclusive."

This is a much more intelligent approach than that of Utah's former governor, Jon Huntsman, whose ability to think for himself on such issues seems to have been affected by his affinity for various elite friends he has in various high places, who stand to benefit from participating in the top-down control that will accrue if we believe in computer model simulations that refuse to take the historical reality of climate variability into account.

Bon voyage, Mr. Huntsman, the environmental cosmopolite. Welcome, Governor Herbert. We finally have found ourselves with a governor who has some environmental common sense.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Of Holocaust Museum Murders and Lame-Brained Definitions of "Right-Wing Extremists"

The man who committed murder at the Holocaust Museum yesterday is being deadpanned by hordes as a "right-wing extremist". The murderer was certainly an extremist, as, blessedly, these things are the exception rather than the rule. But the murderer was far from being "right-wing". Defining "Left" vs. "Right" with regard to what side of the aisle of parliament you sit on is meaningless. The worthwhile definition of left vs. right has nothing to do with political parties. Rather, it all depends on how you feel about freedom.


"Stalin is left-wing, Hitler is right-wing."

"Stalin is left-wing, Hitler is right-wing."

"Stalin is left-wing, Hitler is right-wing."

If you say it still won't be true. Yet somehow, if you search for "holocaust right-wing" on Google News, you'll find a plethora of "news" articles calling the Holocaust Museum murderer a right-wing extremist. Like this one, from Paul Krugman, that says that right-wing extremist radio talk show hosts incited the right-wing extremist Holocaust Museum murderer to commit murder.

For another example, the Washington Post quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding the recent murder at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.:
"This is a longtime white supremacist and anti-Semite approaching the end of his life who may have decided to go out shooting," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit group in Alabama that tracks right-wing extremists.
Ah, so that's what a right-wing extremist is: a white supremacist who hates Jews. Based on the murderous incident, The Post also claims that the Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism was probably right after all.

The Museum murderer, James W. Von Brunn, idolizes Hitler.

It's just like when progressives call conservatives fascists. If you say it still look stupid when you don't know the real definition of a word.

He hates Fox News. He threatened to blow up the Weekly Standard. He hates neo-cons. Uh...not so fast, you right-wing extremists. Media Matters knows what you're thinking. Rest assured, however, that Hitler hated communism and liberalism, so had to have been a right-wing extremist!!

It's just like when progressives call conservatives fascists. If you say it still look stupid when you don't know the real definition of a word.

The meaningless, and oft-perpetuated "definition" of right wing is based on where the members of various parties sat in European parliaments.

The terms originated in the French parliament, where those who sat on the right generally supported authoritarian government control in the form of a king. Interestingly, those on the left generally supported authoritarian government control, too, albeit through a self-anointed oligarchy.

In other parliaments, communists sat to the left side of the hall, while fascists sat to the right. What

The terms "left" and "right" originated in the French parliament, where those who sat on the right generally supported authoritarian government control in the form of a king. Interestingly, those on the left generally supported authoritarian government control, too, albeit through a self-anointed oligarchy.

further confuses the issue among minds already muddled (like Media Matters) is that communists and fascists hated each other.

Importantly, the left and the right didn't hate each other based on where they sat in parliament. They hated each other because they saw each other as death-grip adversaries in the quest for universal power. It's unfortunate that "left" vs. "right" has come to mean in so many minds simply the difference between political parties.

When it comes to sides of the hall, French rightists and leftists, as well as-- elsewhere--communists and fascists, were opposites. When it comes to their abhorrence of liberty, they are blood brothers.

America's founders recognized early on that the two extremes worth

The left and the right didn't hate each other based on where they sat in parliament. They hated each other because they saw each other as death-grip adversaries in the quest for universal power.

contrasting are anarchy on one (right) side, and tyranny on the other (left) side. They saw the need for a balance between the two.

Stalin was on the left of the Founders' yardstick because he lusted for power. Hitler was also on the left for the very same reason. James W. von Brunn idolized the power that Hitler wielded. As a white supremacist, he wanted that same power over other people's lives.

In the end, using his weapon of choice, von Brunn wielded the ultimate control by taking away the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from a Holocaust Museum security guard.

That's as far from the right side of the continuum as you can get.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

The "Green" Destruction of America's 5,000 Year Leap

For the first 5,000 years of man's existence on earth, very little advancement was made in things technological. In the two centuries following the pilgrims' arrival on America's shores, technological innovation became unprecedented. In the two hundred or so years since, advances in technology have been even more astonishing. How did it happen? By harnessing the ingenuity of freedom. In the name of a farce, that is about to be destroyed.


In their perpetuation of one of the largest frauds in history, the global warming/climate change crowd is attempting to destroy much of the technological achievement of the past 400 years. Not for themselves, mind you, but for all of the rest of us. The propaganda of the environmental extremists is a not-so-veiled attempt to destroy liberty.

The settlers of Jamestown in the New World of the early 1600's exhibited a shocking similarity to everyone who had peopled the earth for the five thousand years prior--they had achieved very little technological advancement. In his book, The 5,000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen tells why
The whole panorama of Jamestown demonstrated how shockingly little progress had been made by all of those fifty centuries.

[They] had come in a boat no more commodious than those of the ancient sea kings. Their tools still consisted of shovel, axe, hoe, and a stick plow...only slightly improved over those of China, Egypt, Persia, and Greece. They harvested...with the same primitive scythes... Their transportation was by cart and oxen.

The 5,000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, pp. 1-2
Two centuries later, many of these rudiments had been replaced by implements far more technologically advanced. What caused this miracle? Liberty. Skousen says:
The spirit of freedom which moved out across the world in the 1800s was primarily inspired by the fruits of freedom in the United States. The climate of free-market economics allowed science to thrive in an explosion of inventions and technical discoveries that gave the world...harnessed electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet propulsion, exotic space vehicles, and all the wonders of nuclear energy.
Freedom has in the past four centuries allowed individuals to become more and more enlightened than over 90% of earth's population ever thought possible and to contribute to their communities on a much more meaningful

the leaders of the climate change movement have never had the earth's interest--or your interest, for that matter--at heart. Rather, their agenda has always been about the efficiency of top-down control--with them at the top.

basis. Freedom has brought us to the point where miraculous inventions, such as computers, dishwashers, cell phones, and jet airplanes, are considered common. Now, based on the pseudo-scientific farce referred to alternately as "global warming" or "climate change", the self-proclaimed elite want to destroy all that.

Two hundred years ago, before so many helpful inventions improved our way of life, people died at much younger ages. Without electricity, they froze to death or died from dehydration or food poisoning. Without modern transportation, they died of disease borne by the sepsis of animal feces in the streets of their cities. Without other modern miracles, they died from drinking contaminated water, stepping on rusty nails, and suffering from heart abnormalities. Those are, ironically, essentially the same problems that still cut short the lives of many in the Third World today.

Man is not causing the globe to warm in any but the most minuscule of manners. If the global warming claims were true, it might be advisable to not only take from you the comforts of a modern-day existence, but also to ensure that citizens of the Third World never get a chance to enjoy them. Since the claims are demonstrably false, such notions of control are the height of aristocratic arrogance.

Man is not causing the globe to warm in any appreciable way. Some of those who claim that man is having such an effect on the atmosphere know that the claim is a crock. In order to successfully destroy your liberty to learn, to grow, and to contribute to your society, however, they perpetuate their false claims from behind the faux-priestly robes of "consensus".

I know a day of weather does not a climate make. But several days does. Last year I recall hardly once saying that "this is the most beautiful day I have ever seen". This year, I have said that at least twenty times already. Yes, our climate is a-changin'. It's been getting cooler. Perhaps that's why man-caused global warming aficionados don't refer to it much as "global warming" anymore.

The same free-market principles that gave us marvelous technological innovation can also provide the improvements we need to keep our environment clean. They can help us to eventually share the comforts of life with our brothers and sisters in the Third World. In fact, where government does not have a choke hold on the process, we're already accomplishing such improvements. However, climate change advocates are desperate for you not to notice this salient and simple fact.

Despite what you may have been taught in school, elite communists and socialists have never been equal with their commoner counterparts. The cream of the climate change communist crop will be no exception if we allow the scam to proceed that far. In every experiment in government control of the masses, an aristocracy of sorts has arisen, to whom has never applied the egregious and unnecessary rules foisted on the populace at large. Stated another way, if the climate change elite can require you to forgo your comforts of life, they will be left to consume and debauch the environment in a way never before imagined. In fact, they already do.

In a manner similar to the Malthusians of "population bomb" infamy, the leaders of the climate change movement have never had the earth's interest--or your interest, for that matter--at heart. Rather, their agenda has always been about the efficiency of top-down control--with them at the top.

If we give in to their charade, your liberty will be destroyed (but not theirs), and the 5,000 year leap of liberty will be over.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Rwandan Genocide: Will We Ever Learn Anything from Crappy Foreign Policy?

If the United States cared to pay attention to great examples of crappy foreign policy, it could have easily noticed what hell Belgium wrought in Rwanda during most of the 20th century. Belgian intrigue paved the way for the hatred, persecutions, and massacres that followed their arrival.

During the genocide of 1994, when it would have been wise for someone--anyone--to come to the aid of Rwandans in distress who had asked for outside help, the United States was busy licking wounds sustained from becoming involved in Somalia, a place we were neither needed nor wanted. When our help isn't asked for, we usually cause more problems by jumping into the fray. When our assistance is wanted, we are most often too busy running with our tails between our legs from the effects of our own crappy foreign policy.


For centuries the Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis shared the same culture, the same language, and the same religion, and they lived in relative peace. They often intermarried. In 1916, that all began to change. In that year, Belgium, seeing itself in every way superior to the blacks on the African continent, took control of Rwanda and established a colonial system that ended up being a kettle of racial classification and exploitation.

In a move eerily similar to the British elevation of the Iraqi Sunnis to government domination over the Shia majority, the Belgians placed the minority Tutsi at the head of the Rwandan government, creating massive and deep resentment of the Tutsi among the Hutu majority.

After carefully and constantly stirring up a hornet's nest of internecine hatred, Belgium gave Rwanda its independence in 1959. Control of the country fell into the hands of the Hutu majority, many of which now perceived themselves as morally entitled to settle a score with the Tutsis. What followed were years of segregation and persecution of the Tutsi people, mixed with the occasional round of killing. Rather than suffer persecution and death, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, along with their moderate Hutu brethren, left their homeland.

By 1988, a critical mass of these expatriates came together to form the Rwandan Patriotic Front, with its main goal of reclaiming their country. In 1990, the RPF began its first foray into Rwanda from their bases in Uganda. The offensive was put down with the help of the Belgian and French military.

Nonetheless, for three years, war and massacre flared. The United Nations eventually stepped in, hoping to broker a power-sharing agreement between the two factions. Reveling in their power, Hutu extremists resisted the United Nations agreement. The result was one of the most horrifying genocides in human history.

What would Rwanda look like today if Western colonizers had not gotten involved in dictating the course of its future? A lot better--just like a lot of other cauldrons of Western social experimentation would have. What changed? The Hutu and the Tutsi lived in relative peace before the white man came.

Prior to the fervent appearance of the Belgian "missionaries", little distinguished Hutus from Tutsis. After Belgium made its imprint on Rwandan culture, that distinction made all the difference. Where once they married each other and laughed and socialized together, now their perverse delight is in killing one another.

Nearly every time the West has gotten involved in colonization or overlordship, the "solutions" they have created have been far worse than the original problems. One would think that intelligent governments could learn from others' mistakes, or even from their own. They haven't. Might it have been planned that way?

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Conservatives Have Never Been Warmongers

Ironically, especially for those who have not been keeping score, liberal Democrat administrations committed the United States to every major conflict in the 20th century except one. That one exception, George H.W. Bush's foray into Iraq, along with his son's clean up project to kick off the 21st century, convinced America that the Republican party is the perpetual party of war. For many Americans, history seems to have started on the morning of September 11, 2001. For all they know, Republicans do start all the wars. But the reality is that war-starting has very little to do with political party affiliation. Conservative leaders have consistently opposed the vulgarity of American empire, while progressives of either major party have been the ones to push us into empire, with those needless and messy wars.


The actions of both Bush administrations have convinced many Americans that only Republicans have never met a war they didn't like. This

Red vs. Blue is a worthless comparison. Republican vs. Democrat is, too. Instead, we need to find out how a politician feels about American empire. That tells us all we need to know.

is a weak caricature of history, however. Here's what really happened.

The Monroe Doctrine was only ever meant as a defensive doctrine. Progressive American politicians latched onto their convenient misinterpretation of the Doctrine as justification for building an American Empire around the globe. What began as attempts at colonizing Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba and other unfortunate elsewheres reached designs of full-scale empire as the 20th century gathered steam.

The president who got us into World War I--right after praising himself for having kept us out of war--was a progressive Democrat.

The president who embroiled the United States in both the European and Pacific theaters of World War II was a progressive Democrat.

The president who declared a police action in Korea, without the consent of Congress, was a progressive Democrat.

The president who sent our troops to Vietnam, and the president who fabricated an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, were, to varying degrees, progressive Democrats.

The president who fanned the false flames of American

Limited, Constitutional government and empire are incompatible.

hatred, and who sent our troops to Iraq to maim and kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers, whom, it was incorrectly rumored, were supposedly bashing Kuwaiti babies' heads out on hospital floors, was a progressive

His son, who created a more fantastic and outlandish pretext for finishing the job of pounding Iraq back into the stone age, was also a progressive Republican.

The Democratic party seemed for nearly 100 years to be the party of empire. With the Bushes that seemed to change. In reality, we were looking at a progressive shell game the whole time. The Establishment wing of each party has taken its turn embroiling us in wars that only enrich the elite. At the same time, conservatives of both parties have most wanted to conserve federalism over the years, or in other words, a weak national government balanced by strong state and local governments.

Limited, Constitutional government and empire are incompatible. In their lust for power, progressives from both major parties have regularly sought U. S. involvement in war. Empire building has always been much more about the stealing away of American liberties through regimentation and control on the home front than it ever was about bringing "democracy" to the rest of the world.

Conservatives have always understood this concept. Progressives...want to rule the world.

Republican Robert Taft strongly opposed U.S. involvement in World War II. Said he:
Every war in which the United States has engaged since 1815 was waged in the name of democracy. [Yet] each has contributed to that centralization of power which tends to destroy...local self-government...
A preponderant majority of today's so-called "conservative Republicans" are, the antithesis of Robert Taft. Since 2001, most Republicans have religiously supported forcing democracy down the throat of the rest of the world, never giving thought to what democracy at the point of a gun must look like to the ones at the business end of that gun. Their blind allegiance

Empire building has always been much more about the stealing away of American liberties through regimentation and control on the home front than it ever was about bringing "democracy" to the rest of the world.

to the mis-named Patriot Act numbs them to the reality that the only real statesmen left are those who can no longer be called "patriots". Incapable of engaging in intelligent debate when such inconvenient realities are pointed out to them, faux conservatives resort to the Giulianian tactic of name calling.

George Washington would be branded an Islamo-fascist sympathizer by the Republican neo-cons if he were alive today. So would conservative Democrat George McGovern if he were still politically active. McGovern, once a Democrat candidate for president of the United States, revered Republican Charles Lindbergh, for the reason that Lindbergh had opposed America's entry into World War II.

Red vs. Blue is a worthless comparison. Republican vs. Democrat is, too. Instead, we need to find out how a politician feels about American empire. That tells us all we need to know.

Conservatives have never been warmongers, but Progressives always have been.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

GM's New Slogan: "You'll Love the New Governmental Motors"

The one good thing about the government's takeover of General Motors is that they won't have to change their logo very much. In fact, I've already fixed it for them. (see image, right). Governmental Motors has a short-term advantage in the auto market, but that will quickly turn out to be a disadvantage. If you thought that GM sucked when the government was sticking pins its voodoo doll from afar, just wait--it gets much worse. We've seen this movie before.


Now that the United States government has purchased its first automobile company, they should be getting some words of advice from citizens of the former Soviet Union. Wait! The Russians just did give their input, unsolicited and with perfect timing. They said, not surprisingly, that we're much stupider than they were:
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
It's been a pretty common claim in the last few days that such a boondoggle has never been tried before.
Both GM and the Obama administration understand they are navigating uncharted territory. Obama vows that the government won't meddle with product decisions or other company business.
No, they're not navigating unknown waters. In addition to the Soviets, Mussolini tried just this, and look how well it works!! It's a good thing Obama's automobile task force will not meddle with product GM to discontinue the Pontiac brand if they want to continue sucking at the government teat.

The media are infatuated with Barack Obama. He's received twice as much favorable press coverage than either Bush or Clinton did in their first hundred days. It certainly makes it easier for the federal government to take over a car company!

The stock market reacted favorably yesterday on news of GM's bankruptcy filing and government takeover--at least you thought that, didn't you? In reality, the bump in the Dow was almost exclusively due to the dumping of Citigroup and GM from the Big Board and replacing them with much more healthy Traveler's Insurance and Cisco Systems. But it sure made the Obama Adminisration's decision to take over a private company look good, didn't it?

Few things illustrate government ineptness as well as the government takeover of GM. Intelligent observers recommended that GM go into bankruptcy nearly a year ago. Yet government was confident that it could bail out the beleaguered automaker with my grandchildren's paychecks. Bankruptcy was presented by the government as an unconscionable and potentially catastrophic option, because three million jobs would be lost. Yet here we are, a year later--with GM in bankruptcy. Imagine how much further along GM would be now had they not kowtowed to federal government embiciles.

GM does now have apparent advantages over the other automobile manufacturers, but any advantage won't last long. In a move that will all but ensure that necessary quality improvements in GM products will notoccur, the Obama Administration promised, during Obama's usurpation speech yesterday, that the federal government will purchase almost exclusively from GM and Chrysler for its governmental fleets.

Meanwhile, Ford, where quality really does matter, is increasing its production output due to increased consumer demand.

If only Stalin and Mussolini could come back from their graves.