Via Angry White Dude who is obviously on a roll tonight.
==============================================
==============================================
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Claire Wolf: Question of the Century
My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved the flag at the Battle of Brandywine.
============================================
Claire asks a Question, here:One of the hardest things about living in a police state is watching other people be crushed by state power and feeling unable to do a thing about it.Read the whole thing. The article captures the dilemma of every moral person, just now. How can we make it stop?
We read Pastor Neimoeller’s famous lines as a warning to ourselves. But really, there’s not much chance of heeding the warning in a way that changes anything — except perhaps for the worse.
We can’t watch others be crushed without feeling a stab of their agony. We know, as others are crushed, that the crushing machinery gathers momentum and will roll toward our own lives. We know that not only we, but the ideals that sustain civilization, are being crushed. And that matters to us. Matters vitally, painfully, heartbreakingly. No matter what else we do, we can’t stand by and watch that happen without feeling an obligation — or at least a passionate longing — to do our all to stop it.
But how? What? And why does it keep rolling on so inexorably when so many are speaking out?
So we come back to the question: What’s the responsibility of a resident of a police state? If mere speaking out doesn’t change anything, what does? And how do we do it?
Claire is smarter than most of us. We'll see more of her thoughts in the next installment (part 2+?).
But here is my response, today-
“Let me see your papers”, and “Just following orders” were phrases we heard about other countries and other times- Now we see it here.
One thing I have been doing (perhaps stupidly) is engaging local ‘enforcers’ in discussions, and also on-line. I commented several times at Massad Ayoob Backwoods Blog regarding the murder of Jose Guerena- But Mr Ayoob sides with the storm troopers ‘just doing their job’, ‘just following procedure’ as they kill and kidnap citizens. Every suspect must submit or die, in his weltanschau. Anyone who dares question the tactics is no longer viewed as a citizen/his employer, but rather as a “cop hater”. So they create their mental barriers, to allow them to do what they do, to continue to pay their mortgage, to continue to ‘follow orders’.
I now understand how the colonists felt when the Redcoats demanded obedience.
Smacking Down the Scare Tactics
Via Angry White Dude
At a press conference this morning, presidential candidate and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann said that President Obama’s scare tactics about going into default on the government’s financial obligations, if the debt ceiling is not raised, are “simply not true.” Appearing beside her, Representatives Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA) said the same about Obama’s threats to freeze Social Security checks and military funding.It is remarkable that this simple truth about government funding has been obscured to the point that Bachmann, Gohmert, and King have to hold a press conference to restate it. If the debt ceiling is not raised, it means the government cannot go further into debt. Obama’s wild spending spree left us at the point where hundreds of billions in new debt per year are necessary to keep up with the exploding cost of existing government programs, and interest on the national debt. In fact, the government will spend $1.6 trillion more than it collects in revenue this year.
If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, that means spending would have to be cut by the amount of new debt that would have been needed. In other words, we’d have to cut that $1.6 trillion in excessive spending, rather than throw it atop the moldy pile of debt bones piled up in Uncle Sam’s basement. Barack Obama has increased government spending by more than twice that much since he took office two years ago.
If we can add so much spending in such a mad rush, why can’t we cut it with equal efficiency? That’s just crazy talk, right? Tax cuts are fragile things that could be crushed at any moment, but Big Government spending programs instantly become mighty oaks with roots sunk into a legion of fiercely protective dependents. You can’t just cut those programs with a single vote in the dark of night, on a bill nobody read, the way they were created! If nothing else, think of how unemployment would spike, with all those government functionaries and bureaucrats suddenly bounced out of their jobs!
That all sounds like a strong argument to never let the national debt get a nickel higher to me, but I guess some people don’t think of it that way. None of us should be willing to put up with fraudulent scare tactics. Why don’t we compel the President to go on the record with a list of his concrete funding priorities, if the debt limit is not raised on August 2?
He could easily produce such a list. He spends most of his time fundraising for his re-election, so of course he’d chafe at having to actually sit in the office for a while and do his job, but he has a gigantic staff to assist him.
Perpetuating Slavery in the American South
Antebellum Massachusetts mills in Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill, Fall River, Taunton and Chicopee needed raw cotton provided by slave labor in the American South; New York and international bankers provided the credit for planters and exchange that kept vast plantations in business and producing cotton. Ending the profitability of Northern factories and banking houses dependent on African slave labor might well have saved a million American lives 1861-1865.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
========
Perpetuating Slavery in the American South:
“Private bankers conducted much of the exchange business in Mobile as in other Southern cities that lacked sufficient local banking facilities. These exchange brokers competed with each other and with banks for the fees earned from buying and selling notes drawn on foreign and domestic banks and mercantile houses.
St. John, Powers and Company, the oldest and strongest local private banking firm, handled the bulk of local financial business not conducted by banks. The senior partner, Newton St. John, a native New Yorker who moved to Mobile in the 1830’s, maintained banking ties with Duncan Sherman and Company, and August Belmont in New York. St. John faced competition in the exchange business from the Bank of Mobile and two local agencies of major international banking houses. After the Panic of 1837 Brown Brothers and Company [of New York City] opened permanent branches in Mobile and New Orleans to compete for the extensive exchange business conducted in the Gulf cotton ports.
By the 1850’s Charles Dickey, the manager of the Brown agency, and Archibald Gracie, the local agent of the international [London] banking firm of Baring Brothers, contested the market for sterling bills with St. John and the Bank of Mobile. Attempting to increase their volume of business, St. John, Powers and Company and Brown Brothers and Company lowered their rate of profit on transactions. Charles Dickey…indeed handled some transactions in 1852 without a commission to stop his customers from going to his competitors. Yet he declined to accept bills from firms that were judged unable to pay their debts.
Besides banking, Mobile’s commercial activities required insurance services. Nonlocal firms, often with very large assets, maintained agencies in Mobile…[and] by 1833 companies from Augusta, New Orleans and Hartford [Connecticut] operated offices in Mobile. By 1845 three companies from New York and one each from Hartford, Boston, and Augusta employed local agents. Sometimes there were as many or more such agencies as there were local companies.
As an aid to commerce…prominent businessmen eventually persuaded the aldermen to enact an ordinance requiring the systematic numbering of buildings within the city. In 1858 Robert S. Bunker, a New York-born insurance agent and former president of the common council, presented the aldermen with a petition for building numbers signed by sixty merchants.”
(Cotton City, Urban Development in Antebellum Mobile, Harriet E. Amos, University of Alabama Press, 1985, pp. 38-43)
=======
Perpetuating Slavery in the American South
The Right Candidate: Character versus Charisma
Mike Scruggs
Several weeks ago I overheard a conversation about Republican presidential candidates in which one person insisted, “We need a candidate with charisma.” The word “charisma” comes from the Greek, kharisma, meaning divine favor. In New Testament Christian perspective it referred to extraordinary powers or abilities granted by the Holy Spirit. Current dictionary definitions of charisma define it as a rare personal magnetic charm and ability to arouse popular devotion and enthusiasm. However, I suggest that insisting on political candidates having charisma, either by the New Testament or the modern secular definition, is a misguided and dangerous idea. Certainly, being able to communicate ideas, facts, and principles clearly is an important quality for any leader, but beyond being a good communicator, there are more important qualities that we should insist upon for our political leaders.
It would be a tremendous national blessing to have a President whose character and wisdom were strongly influenced by the Holy Spirit, but looking for divine favor in the form of miraculous motivational skills is near blasphemous folly. Picking political leaders primarily by their ability to sway crowds and arouse popular devotion and enthusiasm is fraught with cataclysmic dangers. It is just asking for a clone of Adolf Hitler, who was the clearest manifestation of these qualities in the 20th Century. We do not want to place our future in the hands of demagogues or demigods. If we want honest, competent, and fair government; and if we want lasting freedom, peace, and prosperity for ourselves and our posterity, we must insist on evidences of superior wisdom and tested moral character and shun the idolatry of charismatic politicians.
Governing a republic of 308 million—guiding her through the perils of inevitable hardships, through the dangers set by implacable and powerful enemies at home and abroad, and past the moral hazards of political, economic, and social folly—is a daunting responsibility. Common sense cries out for leaders of superior intelligence, understanding, and the accumulated wisdom of experience at high levels of responsibility. We need political candidates with both strong people skills and the intellectual and moral qualities necessary for real leadership, not charismatic showmen with little more than glib verbal fluency.
Clemson University Professor David Woodard, the author of two books on President Ronald Reagan, comments that while Reagan was an excellent communicator, his primary leadership characteristics were character, conviction, and courage. Ronald Reagan was transparently honest and selfless in his devotion to the good of his fellow Americans. He was not a West Pointer, but he was a living reflection of the West Point Motto: Duty, Honor, Country. He unabashedly admitted that that his basic principles were from the Bible. He placed a high value on truth, loyalty, and hard work. People who met him sensed that he was genuinely interested in them and glad to be with them. He was a fellow you could trust.
His vision was not of the grandeur of high office or its credits, praises, and honors. His vision for America was from the Sermon on the Mount: a shining city on a hill whose good works would give glory to God. (Matthew 5: 14-16.) His determination was to do the right, fair, and honest thing to make America a great nation blessed by God and a blessing to the world. The measure of character is that its virtues are constant. Reagan did not change with this or that political wind. You could depend on him. Character is far more important than charisma, and thus we must adjust our political thinking in that direction or risk the calamity that befalls peoples who cast away truth and virtue
“An honest man’s the noblest work of God”—Alexander Pope, 1688-1744
“Wisdom is found only in truth.”—Johann Goethe, 1749-1832
What I have noticed about the most effective communicators is that they speak with conviction. They believe strongly in their ideas, principles, and goals. When they believe something is right, they stick to it. It is not covered up, murmured, or backpedaled. They present their ideas straight from the heart with energy, firmness, and boldness. Conviction is evidence of firmly held principles and the will to persevere against difficulties and opposition. Conviction is a manifestation of strong character. Personal charm and charisma are not its equal.
Courage is the ultimate virtue. Samuel Johnson said, “Where courage is not, no other virtue can survive except by accident.” Other virtues are buried and ineffective unless they are accompanied by courage. British writer and philosopher C. S. Lewis gave this stunning account of courage:
“Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point…A chastity or honesty or mercy, which yields to danger, will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful until it became risky.”
Ultimately all courage, including political courage and courage in battle, is moral courage. Moral courage more often than not is tested principally by time, often a long period of time. Moral courage is resolute and always accompanied by the will to persevere through hardships and disappointments. In the darkest days of World War II, Winston Churchill exhorted the British people to “…victory, however long and hard the road may be.”
Courageous leaders do not seek to remain safely politically correct. They do not have an excessive fear of being misunderstood, and they do not quickly wither and retreat under the favorite attack words of the liberal press. Their loyalty to principles and friends does not faint under criticism or controversy.
The whole point of Gunwalker:" Political inroads on the Second Amendment"
"Operation Fast and Furious: Designed to Promote Gun Control." -- Manufacturing evidence to achieve a political result.
MORE.
Governors: No Partnership With Communist China!
It doesn't make sense. Our economy is a shambles because our industry has been driven to China by high taxes and myriad regulations. As a result China has accumulated hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars by selling us products that we formerly made. Now Communist-Chinese-run corporations are showing up in the U.S. to buy up land and natural resources, and establish businesses. And, what's frightening about all of this is that many of our governors are salivating over the potential for Chinese investments in their states to the extent that they are considering establishing multi-faceted partnerships with their communist Chinese counterparts to expedite these developments.
Grassroots concern over these budding partnerships between U.S. governors and Communist Chinese officials is increasing as the first U.S.-China Governors Forum convenes in conjunction with an annual meeting of the National Governors Association in Salt Lake City July 15-17.
Read "U.S.-China Governors Forum: Not All Sweetness & Harmony" by William F. Jasper to learn the details of this new initiative between our U.S. governors and their Chinese communist counterparts that was set up by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this year.
Art Thompson, CEO of The John Birch Society has sent an open letter to all 50 governors urging them not to participate in the U.S.-China Governors Forum in Salt Lake City later this week.
Take a good look at the world-famous image above of the freedom-loving Chinese man facing down a whole column of tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Do you want your governor participating in a forum designed to develop continuously deepening partnerships with officials in the same Communist Party that sent the tanks to Tiananmen Square?
Time is short. The U.S.-China Governors Forum begins on this Friday, July 15. Phone and/or email your governor and ask him or her to boycott the forum. In short, tell them: "No Partnership With Communist China!"
Thanks.
Your friends at The John Birch Society
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)