This Is Insanity!

I believe Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Using that definition, it would appear that many of our so-called “conservative” friends are insane. Every four years, they accept a phony conservative Presidential candidate and expect somehow that they are going to achieve a different result. They never do. Either the phony conservative loses because he is virtually indistinguishable from his Democrat opponent (i.e., John McCain), or after being elected while campaigning as a true conservative, he governs as a big-government neocon, and the course of the country changes not one iota (i.e., George W. Bush). This election year is no exception.

The GOP has nominated a man who has governed as a big-government liberal in one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) states in the union: Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Furthermore, on virtually every issue one can think of, Governor Romney has flip-flopped more often than a fish that just landed in the bottom of a boat. To get a feel for just how often Romney changes his positions, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related

If Mitt Romney has proven anything, it is that his word means absolutely nothing. Nothing! Romney is an opportunistic chameleon who will say anything or do anything to get elected. Yet, this is the man whom conservatives trumpet as the savior of America! Why? He is a Republican, and, therefore, he must be better than the Democrat. In short, Mitt Romney is the lesser of two evils. But is he really?

First, the short-sighted, narrow-minded thinking of party loyalists (Republican and Democrat) demonstrates what can only be regarded as a slave mentality. People who vote nothing but party label are in truth already slaves. They are slaves to an elitist establishment that uses the machinery of the two major parties (at the national level) to advance a diabolical globalist agenda. That’s why it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether it’s Bill Clinton or G.W. Bush–or Barack Obama or Mitt Romney–who is elected President: nothing changes the march towards globalism and oppression. At the top, both major parties are controlled by globalists.

For the sake of those who truly respect America’s founders and the principles upon which this nation was founded, I would encourage readers to familiarize themselves with George Washington’s Farewell Address. In my opinion, Washington’s Farewell Address is the greatest political speech ever delivered in US history. It literally shaped the course and direction of the country for decades, perhaps even a century. It really was not until the Twentieth Century, when presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt came along, that America started steering a course in direct opposition to the principles laid forth in Washington’s Farewell Address. Since then, the vast majority of presidents, Republican and Democrat, have almost universally ignored the sagacity of Washington’s Farewell Address, which is why nothing has changed regardless of which party gains the White House.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington said, “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

Notice that George Washington said the “spirit of party” has “baneful effects” upon the country; it is our “worst enemy”; it is a “frightful despotism”; it prevails on the “ruins of public liberty”; it “foments riot and insurrection”; it “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption”; people should “discourage and restrain it”; it “agitates… false alarms”; and, like a fire, if it is not quenched, it will “consume.”

Are we not seeing, and have we not seen, the veracity of Washington’s warnings? People who only see and vote for a party label are more responsible for the demise and deterioration of our liberties than any foreign enemy. For them to accept and support any candidate, as long as they wear the party label regardless how unethical, dishonest, duplicitous, and insensitive to constitutional government they might be, is what has brought America to the precipice of destruction over which she now teeters.

Second, how can a person who has succumbed to evil have the discernment to say which evil is greater? When people consciously surrender the spirit of virtue and integrity by deliberately supporting a candidate they know has a track record that is antithetical to the principles of liberty, how are they qualified to judge what is good and what is evil? By knowingly rejecting truth and a good conscience, they have already accepted the spirit of evil in their hearts. Such people are in no condition to make moral judgments regarding good and evil!

In fact, one could make a darn good argument (and many have) that a phony conservative Republican is a worse evil than a true liberal Democrat. I, for one, share that position. I think only the most biased historian would dare to say that the eight years of Bill Clinton were worse than the eight years of George W. Bush.

One reason why phony conservative Republicans are so dangerous to our liberties is because most conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists refuse to resist and challenge a Republican President when he abandons the principles of constitutional government. Since he is a Republican, he gets a free pass.

At this juncture, I invite readers to watch the following summary of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney by Dr. Alan Keyes. Having received a Ph.D. from Harvard University and having served as Ambassador to the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan, Keyes is no slouch. Without a doubt, Alan Keyes has one of the sharpest minds and most articulate tongues in the entire country. Listen to his response to the question, “Will you support Mitt Romney?” See the video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R4KtYVF-74&feature=youtu.be

On virtually every salient issue, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; neither of them supports immediately balancing the federal budget; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.

Read this report on InfoWars.com

infowars.com/40-points-…

Tell me again why Romney is better than Obama!

There are even some party slaves who are so brazen as to suggest that if we do not vote for the phony conservative Mitt Romney it means that we are harming true conservatives at the local and State levels. This has to be one of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever heard! What these people don’t understand (because they are themselves slaves to a political party) is that most honest constitutionalists vote for the PERSON, not the party. We recognize that parties are not going to make a difference; PEOPLE are going to make a difference!

Therefore, if I lived in the Houston, Texas, area, I would vote for Republican US House candidate Steve Stockman; and if I lived in the Nashville, Tennessee, area, I would vote for Democrat US Senate candidate Mark Clayton. And since I live in the Flathead Valley of Montana, I am supporting Republican State Representative candidate Timothy Baldwin (yes, he is my youngest son); and if he were running again, I would support former Constitution Party State House member Rick Jore.

If anything, Mitt Romney will have the most deleterious impact upon conservative Republican candidates around the country, as they will be thrust into the big-government shadow of their party’s standard bearer. Republican landslides came in 1980 when a perceived strong conservative (Ronald Reagan) carried the GOP torch for President and in 1994 when the GOP promoted (but later failed to deliver) a strong conservative congressional agenda. It is when Republicans nominate known pseudo-conservatives, such as John McCain (and now Mitt Romney), that they fail to achieve sizeable victories nationwide. So, even if Romney wins, he will provide no coattails for his fellow Republicans around the country.

And by the way, neither will Obama provide any coattails for his fellow Democrats should he win. By continuing and expanding Bush’s wars in the Middle East (among other things), Obama has turned off millions of independents and constitutionally-minded Democrats. It is literally an every-man-for-himself election year.

It’s too bad that Ron Paul is not running as an Independent. It would be a tremendously interesting election if he were.

So, here we are again: conservatives keep doing the same thing over and over (supporting a pseudo-conservative for President) and keep expecting a different result. Einstein was right: this is insanity!

Some Good News For A Change

We are daily inundated with bad news. In fact, just about every piece of news coming out of Washington, D.C., is bad. And since the mainstream media, for the most part, does absolutely nothing to truly inform the American citizenry regarding the incessant assaults against their liberties from the miscreants inside the Beltway, it is left to independent journalists and columnists to serve as modern-day Paul Reveres. This usually means warning people to the evil machinations of those who seek to vanquish constitutional liberties. Occasionally, however, there are positive reports that people need to know about. This is one of those weeks. I want readers to be aware of two significantly positive events that have taken place. One is at the federal level; the other is at the State level.

*A Federal Judge Has Made Permanent The Decision To Invalidate The Indefinite Detention Provision Of The NDAA

The New American magazine covers the story: “On September 12 a federal district court judge made permanent an earlier order temporarily blocking enforcement of provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) purporting to empower the president to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain people suspected of ‘substantially supporting’ al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or ‘associated forces.’

“On May 16 Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Obama administration from exercising the indefinite detention authority granted the president by Section 1021 of the NDAA.

“The temporary block has now been made permanent. In the opinion handing down the injunction issued yesterday, Judge Forrest wrote:

“‘The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention — potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity — and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).’

“This is similar to the language she used in the 68-page opinion accompanying the temporary injunction order. In that order Judge Forrest disagreed with the federal government’s argument that the relevant provisions of the NDAA merely restate existing law. She wrote: ‘Section 1021 is not merely an “affirmation” of the AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force].’

“Pointing out that were Section 1021 and the AUMF identical then the former would be redundant, Judge Forrest held:

“‘Section 1021 lacks what are standard definitional aspects of similar legislation that define scope with specificity. It also lacks the critical component of requiring that one found to be in violation of its provisions must have acted with some amount of scienter–i.e., that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, “knowing.” Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little–it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass Constitutional muster.’

“Scienter is defined as ‘a state of mind often required to hold a person legally accountable for his or her acts.’ In other words, the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA are too vague and aren’t specific enough to permit a person to know whether he or she has violated the law.

“While admitting that preventing the federal government from enforcing a congressional act is a sober matter that must be attended to with caution, Judge Forrest writes that ‘it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.’”

See The New American report at:

thenewamerican.com/usne…

As you can imagine, the Obama administration had the audacity to announce that Judge Forrest’s ruling is “unconstitutional” and is appealing her decision to the US Supreme Court. And as an aside, for all of you die-hard Republicans out there who labour under the delusion that Mitt Romney is really going to make life better for liberty should he be elected President, Romney has enthusiastically endorsed NDAA, including the Indefinite Detention provision. So, there is no doubt that Romney would pursue the same draconian police-state initiatives of his predecessors, both Republican and Democrat.

There is also the caveat that since when have totalitarianish Presidential administrations paid any attention to the Constitution, State laws, or the laws of jurisprudence?

But in the meantime, we should all be giving huge kudos to Judge Forrest for her courageous ruling!

*A New Hampshire Jury Has Nullified Its First Felony Marijuana Case

Yahoo! News covers the story: “Doug Darrell beat the odds and walked home from his trial as a free man on Friday, a major win for the state’s new jury nullification law. Facing felony drug cultivation charges for growing marijuana plants behind his house, the 59-year-old Rastafarian saw all of the charges against him dropped after jurors in his trial successfully convinced their peers to nullify the case on the grounds that Darrell was simply trying to obey the customs of his religion.

“‘Many of us wondered what kind of precedent this would set,’ said juror and FSP participant Cathleen Converse in an exclusive interview with Free Talk Live. ‘But after chewing on all of the possibilities and re-reading the definition of nullification, we all decided that the only fair thing to do was to vote with our consciences and acquit the defendant of all charges.’

“Doug Darrell never had any run-ins with the law until 2009, when a National Guard helicopter flying below legal altitude while looking for drugs noticed that Darrell was growing marijuana in the back yard of his Barnstead home. Though the sighting could legally have been considered an invasion of privacy, federal drug authorities were notified anyway. Shortly thereafter, Darrell’s home was raided and the Rastafarian found himself staring down the barrel of a police assault rifle and facing multiple counts of felony possession of marijuana.”

The report goes on to say, “Under the policy known as HB 146, the defense has a right to instruct the jury to nullify a guilty verdict if they conscientiously object to the punishment. Darrell’s attorney, Mark Sisti, based his defense around this new rule and, after the trial went to deliberation, persuaded the presiding judge to inform jurors of this power not once but twice. Given the circumstances of Darrell’s case, it took less than six hours for them to reach a unanimous verdict–not guilty on all counts.”

The report adds this: “Converse describes herself as a ‘straight-laced, little old lady’ who moved to New Hampshire from South Carolina in June of 2004. In 2003 she joined the Free State Project because she felt that her family’s future ‘would be better spent among those who don’t think we’re strange for wanting to rely on ourselves, and to work together to bring more liberty into our lives sooner rather than later.’”

See the Yahoo! News report at:

news.yahoo.com/hampshir…

Readers may recall that I recently devoted this column to reporting the Jury Nullification bill that had become law in the State of New Hampshire. See my column at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5031

It sure didn’t take long for a New Hampshire jury to send a message to the State that it will not tolerate the usurpation of liberty–the so-called war on drugs notwithstanding. Hooray!

Without delving too deeply into the subject, the government’s war against marijuana is as about as close to the old Soviet-style police-state practices as it gets. It is unconscionable what authorities are doing to people’s lives, all to punish them for doing what America’s Founding Fathers (including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) believed to be a necessary component of a happy and free society. Yes, you heard it right. Washington, Jefferson, and many other founders grew, used, and freely distributed what we now call marijuana.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country.” George Washington said, “Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere.” Add Presidents James Madison and James Monroe to the list of hemp plant fans.

Can readers get a mental picture of DEA agents raiding the home, seizing the private property, and taking into custody four of the first five US Presidents? Egad! Yet, thousands of honest, morally clean, and reputable citizens have had their lives ruined for either growing or using (many for legitimate medical purposes) marijuana. And this is in spite of the fact that in states such as Montana and many others, the use of marijuana for medical purposes is deemed to be both legitimate and legal.

I applaud the jury in New Hampshire! I also applaud Judge Forrest! In what is mostly a storm of bad news, here are two rays of light. Somehow, however, I doubt that we will need to reach for our sunglasses.

What If November Changes Nothing?

What if the principal parties’ candidates for president really agree more than they disagree?

What if they both support the authority of the federal government to spy on Americans without search warrants? What if they both support confining foreigners, uncharged and untried, in Guantanamo Bay? What if they both believe the president can arrest without charge and confine without trial any American he hates or fears?

What if they both believe in secret courts – kept away from the public and the press – that can take away the rights of Americans? What if they both think the president can disregard the Constitution when it comes to the rights of those the government has confined to speedy trials, to confront witnesses and evidence against them, and to counsel of their choosing? What if they both believe the government can use evidence obtained under torture at trials in American courts? What if they both think the president can incarcerate those he once prosecuted, even after acquittal?

What if both major presidential candidates believe they can fight any war, assassinate any foe or assault any country using the military or the CIA, and they need not ask Congress for a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, nor account to Congress or the public as the law requires? What if they both want American troops to remain in Afghanistan, even though no foreign country in history has successfully done so, and even though the culture in Afghanistan is as lawless, as vicious to women and children, and as harmless to America today as it was when President Bush invaded it in 2001?

What if they both think this costly and fruitless war – the longest in American history – is somehow good for American freedom and security, even though most Americans do not? What if they both refuse to understand that the longer we are killing people in foreign lands who can cause us no real harm the more likely will people from those lands come here and bring us real harm?

What if they both believe in adding to the government’s $16 trillion debt and letting future generations deal with paying it back? What if they both want to have the feds spend more money next year than the feds are spending this year? What if they both accept FDR- and LBJ-style entitlements, even though they are nowhere authorized by the Constitution and there are not enough present-day workers to tax in order to pay for them?

What if President Obama wants to raise taxes by increasing some tax rates on the rich? What if Gov. Romney wants to raise taxes by eliminating some tax deductions available to the rich? What if raising taxes on anyone in a recession will cause higher unemployment?

What if they both believe in borrowing newly printed money from the Federal Reserve in order to fund the government? What if Obama is of the view that the federal government can tell you how to live and keep you from becoming too rich? What if Romney wants to make the same federal government more effective and efficient at what it does?

What if Obama is really a Marxist who rejects personal freedom, natural rights and private property? What if Romney is really an empty suit who doesn’t know or won’t say what he believes? What if Obama really wants all health care providers to work for the federal government? What if Romney spent the entire presidential primary season condemning Obamacare, only to say this past weekend that there are parts of it he really likes and will endeavor to retain?

What if Obama wants federal bureaucrats to ration health care and decide who lives and who dies? What if Romney spent the entire presidential primary season running against conservative and libertarian opponents and arguing that only the free market or the states should address health care, but earlier this week accepted a major federal role in its management?

What if Obama will have the feds tell you what doctor to see and tell the doctor what procedures to administer? What if Romney consistently blasted the concept that Congress can constitutionally force you to buy health care coverage you don’t want to buy, but now accepts the concept that Congress can constitutionally force insurance companies to sell you health care coverage they don’t want to sell?

What if the system is fixed? What do we do about it?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

September 13, 2012

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Copyright © 2012 Andrew P. Napolitano

A Whitewash of Bush: The Underlying Message of D’Souza’s Documentary, 2016: Obama’s America

I went to see 2016: Obama’s America. Dinesh D’Souza wrote, stars in, directed, narrates, and did the original research for it. If we look at this from the point of view of its success as a documentary, I think it is effective. It is making money in theaters. This is amazing for a documentary. It is a campaign year documentary, and it is a good one.

It is also dead wrong. That is because it misses the fundamental political fact of the last dozen years: the Obama Administration is the operational successor of the Bush Administration. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo, on Wall Street, Barack Obama is George W. Bush in blackface. Obama is the star of a twenty-first century minstrel show.

This fact has been deliberately ignored for almost four years by both the neoconservative Right and the grin-and-bear-it Left. Neither side will admit what I regard as the fundamental fact of this documentary. It is a long whitewash of the policies of George W. Bush.

THE ON-BUDGET DEFICIT

If you understand this early, you can see it in what is by far the best section of the movie. It appears at the end. It is an interview with the ever-eloquent David Walker, who resigned in 2008 from his job as Comptroller General — senior accountant — of the United States.

This date is crucial: the last year of the Bush Administration.

I need to make three observations. First, the deficit is vastly worse than the movie portrays. The movie sticks with the non-issue: the on-budget debt of $15 trillion, which is chump change, while never mentioning the central problem: the $222 trillion present value of the unfunded liabilities of the off-budget deficit, meaning the deficits of politically sacrosanct Social Security and Medicare. This is the heart of the federal government’s highly entertaining Punch and Judy show over the deficit, with Paul Ryan as Punch and Obama cross-dressing as Judy.

Second, Walker has spent years warning the public about the unsustainable increase of the on-budget federal debt. He was eloquent on camera. But, central to that presentation, is the fact that he blamed George W. Bush as much as he blamed Obama. He says on-camera that the turning point on the deficit began with Bush’s presidency. He showed that we are headed for a fiscal disaster, and it may overtake us during the presidency of whoever is elected in 2016.

In terms of the on-budget deficit, Obama’s Administration is an extension of Bush’s. Miss this, and you miss the whitewash. This documentary is an implicit whitewash. It relies on an assumption, namely, that we are not dealing in 2012 with a single political administration, which began in January 2001. Sadly, we are.

The key to understanding this is Timothy Geithner, who was the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (privately owned) in 2008, and is the Secretary of the Treasury now. He does not appear in the documentary.

Third, neither Walker nor D’Souza mentions on-screen what should be the obvious Constitutional fact, namely, that it is the Congress that legally initiates all spending bills, and it is the House of Representatives that holds the hammer constitutionally. There was not one word in the movie about the Congress of the United States as being constitutionally in authority over the budget of the United States government. How in the world could anyone make a documentary that focuses at the very end on the central problem that the country faces, and then try to pin the tail on Obama as the donkey?

We are living in a bipartisan, congressionally mandated, slow-motion train wreck. The Congress of the United States could stop Obama today as easily as it could have stopped Bush. Congress is not interested in stopping the deficit; it is interested in avoiding all responsibility for the annual $1.2 trillion on budget disaster that is the federal budgetary process.

The fiscal killer of killers in Bush’s Administration was never mentioned: the prescription drug law that Bush signed in 2003. The vote was close in Congress. If he had vetoed it, it would never have passed. Instead, he turned the signing into a pageant. He brought in thousands of seniors to witness it. He announced: “You are here to witness the greatest advance in health care coverage for America’s seniors since the founding of Medicare.”

This sell-out to Teddy Kennedy (who refused to attend), added at least $8.7 trillion to the unfunded liability of Medicare. Yet it is never mentioned in the documentary. Instead, the documentary focuses on Obamacare, whose burden is mainly on the private sector and actually relieves some of the Medicare payments. In any case, that law was really Pelosicare. She was the ramrod. The documentary has one brief segment on her. It skips the point: bad as that law is, she was far more responsible for it than he was.

THE ECONOMY

A related thing that bothers me intensely is the fact that the documentary tries to pin the bad economy on Obama. The bad economy should be pinned on Alan Greenspan, with considerable help from his successor.

To suggest that the President of the United States has the power to make the economy worse to imply that he also has the power to make the economy terrible. He has limited power either way, unless he drags us into a war. Bush dragged us into two wars.

Ron Paul always was right for 36 years in not pointing to the President as the main economic problem, but rather the Federal Reserve System. So, any documentary that does not go after the Federal Reserve when it talks about economic problems, but blames the President instead, and also ignores Congress, is doing the general public an enormous disservice. It keeps the Federal Reserve in the background in the thinking of the viewers, when the Federal Reserve ought to be in the foreground, with the presidency in the background. This is basic economics. D’Souza does not know what he is talking about with respect to economics.

THE MYSTERY OF OBAMA

The documentary attempts something difficult: making sense out of Obama. There is no question that Obama is a mystery. He baffles the pundits. I can think of no modern American President who is more difficult to understand. What makes him tick?

Ronald Reagan is often discussed as an enigma, but the basics of his position were clear. He was opposed to high marginal tax rates. He was a long-time anti-Communist. He was a great believer in free market capitalism. He really was a kind of all-American boy, somehow encapsulated in the 75-year-old man. It was difficult to figure out how he made his decisions, but he wrote his own speeches, and he spent years under Lemuel Boulware, who was a hard-core free-enterprise proponent at General Electric. Boulware was really hard core: he beat the unions for decades.

Obama remains a mystery. When he ran the Harvard Law Review, he appointed several members of the Federalist Society to be co-editors. This alienated the far-Left members of the staff, who were convinced that he should have appointed none.

When I first read D’Souza’s thesis of Obama as an anti-colonialist above all else, I thought he made some neglected points, but I was not convinced. After seeing the documentary, I am still not convinced. But I am not strongly unconvinced, because I really do not know what makes the man tick.

If I could figure out what books he has read, and especially what books he has read two or three times and underlined, I could make a better judgment. But the list of the books he supposedly read which have influenced him is devoid of political philosophy and economic theory. There are several civil rights books. This conflicts with D’Souza’s thesis of Obama as a foreigner, heart and soul. There is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. This makes sense. But of what use is that book for The Man? After all, he is now the #1 power holder on earth. Has he used Alinsky’s techniques to get the bureaucrats to follow his plans? What plans?

JEREMIAH WRIGHT

Here is what I know for sure. If a man goes to church every week, and he sits under the same pastor for 20 years, then we can assume that he agrees with the pastor. For me, the fundamental verifiable historical fact of Obama is that he put up with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. If you subject yourself to somebody’s preaching for a long period of time, you probably think the way he thinks. When he is a screaming preacher, as Wright is, you leave if you do not like what he is preaching. If you don’t like it, then you don’t think much about church, because you’re listening to something you can’t stand, week after week, for 20 years. I don’t think people do that. So, if you are going to try to figure out what Obama is really all about, you probably ought to listen to a few dozen sermons by Jeremiah Wright. His sermons are racist to the core. It is liberation theology from start to finish. It is left-wing to the core.

The documentary did give some time to Wright, but it did not emphasize the connection as strongly as it should have. When you are dealing with a man who is an enigma, but he submits to the preaching in the authority of another man for 20 years, and that man’s ministry is public, then you start with the preacher, not with some strange thesis about how Barack Obama’s father, whom he met only once, somehow influenced his thinking. I do not understand D’Souza’s methodology as an historian. Start with what you know, not with a thesis for which there is little documentary evidence.

FOREIGN POLICY

The documentary is a neoconservative propaganda film. It strongly favors the United States as the policeman of the world. It criticizes Obama for supposedly pulling out of this role. On what basis? The closing of American military bases and spying bases, now numbering closed to a thousand? No. The reduction of the Pentagon’s budget? No evidence yet, but the promise that he will, just you wait. Then what? Because he has not gone to war in Iran and Syria.

I am a card-carrying member in good standing of the Old Right (pre-1940), meaning the non-interventionist American political tradition. I see no reason to get upset with the fact that Obama has not yet invaded Iran.

Repeatedly, D’Souza blames Obama for not stopping the nuclear weapons program that he says Iran is involved in. The problem is, as far as anyone has proven, Iran is not involved in developing a nuclear weapon. Given all of the talk about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction back in early 2003, before the U.S. invaded, I think it is reasonable that somebody who promotes military intervention against Iran by the United States should prove that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. It may, but what can we do about it? Are we ready to bomb, bomb Iran, the way John McCain sang back in 2007?

Franklin Roosevelt was an anti-colonialist. He was an anti-British colonialist. He used World War II to replace British colonialism. Harry Truman completed the process. The Council on Foreign Relations supported this replacement. It still does. Truman’s recognition of the state of Israel had serious opponents in the Council on Foreign Relations, most notably his Secretary of State, George C. Marshall. Obama is extending a pre-Israel (1948), non-neoconservative (post-1965) American agenda in foreign policy. D’Souza ignores all this in his movie. So what if Obama is anti-British colonialism? It has been gone for 50 years. The main theme of his movie is irrelevant. The movie is merely a neocon propaganda film that is well within the orbit CFR opinion. It is a neocon protest against the big-oil wing.

THE SECOND TERM

The movie argues that Obama will show his true colors in the second term. I am not convinced the man has any true colors. If a man has colors, if ideas mean anything to him, then he speaks about those ideas when he is in a position to implement them. Whenever he gets into a position of judicial responsibility, he does everything he can to articulate whatever idea is motivating him to pursue a particular policy. Did anyone have any doubt what Ron Paul believed in? Did anyone have any doubt what Ted Kennedy believed in?

I believe that any President who is not willing to pursue a policy in the first term of office does not have a policy to pursue. If he does not get his agenda through in the first hundred days, he does not have a clear agenda. If he does not get his agenda passed into law in his first term, he is not going to do it in his second term. He is a lame duck President for four years. Why would we think that Obama has some secret agenda up his sleeve, one that he is going to ram through Congress in his second term?

The betting on Intrade is now 90% in favor of the House of Representatives remaining in Republican hands. In recent days it has reversed from its downward move regarding the Senate, which is now at 53%. It probably is still a toss-up, but at least it is moving in the Republicans’ direction. If Obama is elected, we are going to get gridlock. The House is not going to go along with anything he proposes that the Republican Party is not in favor of. The Senate is going to be so evenly divided that neither party will be able to ram through any policy that the other party is not in favor of. The party in power has to have 60 votes to keep the other party from killing a bill by filibustering.

So, raising a yellow flag with respect to Obama’s hidden agenda for the second term is simply silly. It makes for a good election year documentary, but it makes for bad political predictions.

THE OTHER OBAMA

I was delighted by his interview with George Obama, the President’s younger half-brother. D’Souza tried to bait him to complain that his older brother never gave any money to him when he was living in a shack. The younger brother did not take the bait. He said that Obama has enough problems with his own family.

Then he went on to say, with respect to colonialism, that Kenya would probably have been better off if it had not experienced the revolution that his father had helped to promote. He said the country might have been better off if the English stayed longer. He pointed to the fact that Singapore was in worse economic shape than Kenya in 1964, at the time of the revolution, and yet Singapore today is doing very well. He mentioned the same thing about South Korea. We forget that this really was the case, which this half-brother of Obama understands. All in all, I wish we had George Obama as President. But I’m afraid there’s a real problem with his birth certificate. (By the way, the movie gives Obama a “pass” on the birth certificate issue. D’Souza specifically says Barack O. was born in Hawaii. He cites two newspaper clippings at the time.)

Even more annoying was the fact that D’Souza misquoted the Bible story of Cain and Abel. He took the standard social gospel line that Cain was supposed to be his brother’s keeper. Wasn’t the elder Obama the younger Obama’s keeper? If I had been watching this on an airline, I would have reached for a barf bag.

I get so tired of this nonsense. The phrase, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” had to do with whether or not Cain was in control of his brother — his keeper. Cain was saying he was not in control, so why would he know were Abel was? It was a lawyer’s argument. He was lying, of course. He was not his brother’s keeper; he was his brother’s murderer.

To use that old relic of Left-wing theology to try beat Barack Obama, Jr., over the head is simply appalling. Yes, Barack should have sent George some money, assuming the younger brother had something productive to do with the money. But it had nothing to do with Cain and Abel. Brotherly charity is in no way based on Cain’s comment that he was not his brother’s keeper.

CONCLUSION

So, all things considered, I did not think much of the documentary. It is artistically pretty good, and it gets its neoconservative message across to the assembled choir. But on the issues that really matter, it is either wrong-headed or silent. On foreign policy, it is a defense of the neoconservatives’ version of Middle Eastern foreign policy. He devotes a lot of time interviewing Daniel Pipes. Pipes is a major proponent of the neoconservatives’ interventionist Middle Eastern policy. On the real federal deficit — unfunded liabilities — it is silent. On the on-budget deficit, it ignores Bush and Congress. The deficit is a bipartisan disaster. To suggest otherwise is not just misleading, it is deceptive. It raises hope where there is none. “If only we will not re-elect Obama!” On the deficits — on-budget and off-budget — it makes not a whit of difference. There will be a Great Default.

He fails to pursue the obvious — the influence Jeremiah Wright — while he promotes his own peculiar thesis of Obama as an anti-colonialist son of his absent father. I kept thinking, “Anti-colonialist? If only it were true. If only his foreign policy were not an extension of Bush’s.”

The movie gets very close to the truth of the history of modern American foreign policy. D’Souza spends time interviewing a Hawaiian historian who identified the turning point in American foreign policy: McKinley’s decision to annex Hawaii in 1898. That was the birth of the American Empire, contemporaneous with the Spanish-American War, which the movie does not mention. Apparently, D’Souza expects the viewers to recoil in horror from the idea that it was a bad idea to annex Hawaii. The movie implies that Obama was taught this when he was in high school in Hawaii. “How could Obama believe such a thing?” I kept thinking, “If only he did.”

My suggestion: wait for the DVD.

Reprinted with permission

 

Source: http://www.garynorth.com/public/10001.cfm

Virgil Goode qualifies in Texas as write-in candidate for President.

That’s right! I have Goode news. Texans have another choice for president. Virgil Goode will be a write-in candidate for president along with his running mate, Jim Clymer for vice-president. Now, Texans don’t have to stay home nor vote for the lesser of two evils.

We salute Ron Paul fans and encourage all who pursue the same cause for which Ron Paul has stood for over three decades. I’ve personally known Ron and his family over 18 years and have great respect for Ron Paul and his unwavering principles. We’ve known from the beginning those principles would not be welcome in the GOP – where most of us came from. So we extend a warm welcome to Ron Paul supporters.

A former six term congressman from Virginia, Virgil Goode previously served in the Virginia Assembly. Virgil supports our platform and represents the party well. Unlike the two major party candidates, Virgil has plans to deal with central issues including the debt/deficit, foreign wars and immigration. Virgil understands the proper role of president and supports states rights, but is also concerned about the economy and jobs. If the Federal Government is brought under Constitutional control, jobs and recovery will result. Virgil understands government does not directly create jobs – except for more bureau-rats, none of whom help build the economy.

Jim Clymer has unselfishly served as national chairman of the Constitution Party for twelve years, and continues his livelihood in the practice of law in Pennsylvania. Through Jim’s tireless efforts and leadership, he has helped build and maintain the party through difficult times, for which we are all grateful.

We urge you to vote for Goode/Clymer November 6. All voting places are required to post a list of write-in candidates. If you find a write-in list is not posted, this should be immediately pointed out to election officials. I’d like to know too. It’s happened before. Failure to post write-in candidates is a violation of election laws. Virgil’s website is http://goodeforpresident2012.com

If you haven’t joined the Constitution Party, or signed up for newsletters it’s not too late to join our efforts or contribute to our cause. As volunteers, we are working to see constitutionally minded candidates for president as well as federal, state and local offices. We need your help to make that happen. We’re having a party, and you’re invited!

Bob Eoff
Chairman