Advent: What it Means to Wait for Something Greater

Image via Wikipedia

I am going to take a break from blogging until after Christmas, but I first wanted to leave you some thoughts about what celebrating Advent means.  In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

Celebrating Advent means being able to wait.  Waiting is an art that our impatient age has forgotten.  It wants to break open the ripe fruit when it is hardly finished planting the shoot.  But all too often the greedy eyes are only deceived; the fruit that seemed so precious is still green on the inside, and the disrespectful hands ungratefully toss aside what has so disappointed them.  Whoever does not know the austere blessedness of waiting--that is, of hopefully doing without--will never experience the full blessing of fulfillment. 

As we wait for the coming of Christ may we experience the peace that surpasses all understanding and appreciate the blessings we've received and look forward to the blessings to come.

Merry Christmas!

The Importance of History: Build it and They Will Come

Image via Wikipedia

"History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views." --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

The title link above takes you to an article titled:  Our Country is Fine, But the Government is Broken.  You may not agree with everything the author presents, however, the point that our government is "broken" is something I think we can all agree on.  That is why a restoration of our Constitutional Republic is so important.  The reason that many in our country call for a restoration of our founding principles is based on increasing our awareness of events in the past and what we can learn from them.  I've said before that the major split in our country today is due to competing world views.  It becomes clearer to me with each passing day.  Those with a world view based on sound values and principles which are derived from a transcendent source are frequently derided as old fashioned, depicted as white fanatics protecting their "privilege," backwards, stupid, and, with increasing frequency, viciously attacked using vulgar terms.  Jed Brandt speaking at the Brecht Forum refers to us as "far right fascists" who "think there are some people who are not invested with rights...are really dangerous...and they will kill us."  Does that qualify as fear mongering? It does to me.

The "us" he refers to hold the opposing world view; the progressive world view I have been referring to these past months.  It is a world view that sees elites, government elites, solving all the world's problems.  So how has that worked out in the past for the totalitarian, socialist, Maoist, and communist regimes?  Millions of people have died, but, then again, "you have to crack a few eggs if you are going to make an omelet," right?  I love that Jed Brandt moans about having to "apologize" (for self identifying as a Communist) for what Joseph Stalin did because he (Jed) "hasn't killed anyone."  No, he has fought for "free speech" and "expanding the realm of possibility." As with anything, though, the devil is in the details.  Defining "expanding the realm of possibility" leads to the inevitable goal of a classless society.  The problem with this is the equally inevitable gap between theory and practice.

I believe that many people who identify themselves as socialists, communists, maoists, and, as they are more apt to refer to themselves today, progressives really and truly believe human beings and society can be perfected with the right form of governance, social programs, and elites making all the important decisions for masses.  They really believe that the world would be a better place.  However, what my world view and my reading of history tells me is that if you build the structure necessary for this utopia, the people who will end up at the top will not be the best of mankind, but the worst.  

That's why we need to be concerned with:
TSA Screening Procedures
Is the line separating collective security and individual liberty being blurred?  We, the fringe who believe in adhering to the U.S. Constitution, might wonder where the Fourth Amendment plays in to these procedures.

Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality and concepts like the Fairness Doctrine have been soundly defeated at the polls and in Congress.   The FCC Commissioner, however, seems to believe that it is the government's role to determine what type of news we hear.  Does he know about the First Amendment of our Constitution?  If you do not have full access to information and are forced to rely on what the FCC deems acceptable are you not at a disadvantage?  Senator Rockefeller  thinks that his job in Congress would be a whole lot easier if Fox News and MSNBC were taken off the air.  According to him, freedom of the press seems to be getting in the way of our citizens having confidence in their government and their future.  Do you agree with that?!

The START nuclear weapons treaty with Russia:
There is a good article you might want to read at the Constitutionalist Today:  The Kremlin Has No Comment.  Our Constitution states that the Federal Government's role is to provide for the common defense.  You might want to watch a short video at Liberty Central regarding this role and how it relates to the issues with this treaty. 

Obamacare and other Constitutional violations:
Making Stuff Up as They Go from the Tenth Amendment Center is an interesting read.  They also have a great article on nullification titled:  We Don't Need No Stinkin' Permission.

Finally, consider a recent Op-ed in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman that, among other issues, mocks our concerns about TSA screenings and the concerns expressed about the START Treaty.  This is an effective tactic used by those with the opposing world view.  If you make people feel "stupid" or "silly" for expressing concerns about the erosion of our Constitutional Republic then others will be bullied into believing there is nothing to be concerned about and will hesitate to speak up.  The thing in the op-ed I take the greatest exception to is the mocking reference to our "American Exceptionalism."  The friend who shared the op-ed on Facebook and I had a short discussion about the importance of defining terms used in a debate or discussion.   According to the "fringe group" that cherishes our Constitutional Republic (because it represents a system of government that respects those God given rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) American Exceptionalism means that our country offers opportunities that exist in very few other places, if any.  And if we fail to preserve that form of government what will replace it is a structure that, when built, will be controlled by flawed human beings.  You might say that our Constitutional Republic is lead by flawed human beings.  You are correct.  The difference is that our founders KNEW that and built a system of checks and balances to prevent any one part of the government from amassing total control and power.  It seems we're diminishing those checks and balances at a breathtaking rate.

American Exceptionalism doesn't mean we are superior.  It doesn't mean we are better than everyone else.  It simply means that our goal is to protect our citizens' life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness and that we understand that these are God given, not bestowed upon us by the government and the government elites. 

History has shown us just how seriously flawed the leaders of socialist, Marxist, Maoist, and communist countries have been.  I have found no exceptions to that pattern and, according to my world view, there never will be an exception to that pattern. 

Other articles of interest:

Lost Inspiration and the Fall of the Soviet Union (an article discussing the book:  Political Will and Personal Belief:  The Decline and Fall of Soviet Communism, by Paul Hollander.

Weapons Modernization Hostage to START Treaty?

Chinese Communists Confer with Dem and GOP Comrades

(NOTE: As always, I try to include related articles that present both sides of the issues.  In other words, from the each of the world views I refer to.  I do this in hopes that you will begin to see the difference.  I, unlike progressives, believe that you need to see all of the information in order to determine what the truth is.)

Related articles

• America is a Constitutional Republic (dakotavoice.com)
• The Big Lie (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Where Do Our Rights Come From? (samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com)
• A close reading of John Bolton and John Yoo's ridiculous op-ed about the New START nukes treaty. (slate.com)

What do Terrorists, Mr. Potter and the Grinch Have in Common?

Image via Wikipedia

My favorite movie of all time is "It's a Wonderful Life" but I have also always loved Seuss' story: How the Grinch Stole Christmas.  Although it might better be titled:  How the Grinch TRIED to Steal Christmas, because he didn't succeed.  (The Grinch and Mr. Potter have a lot in common as I will discuss below :-)

The Whos down in Whoville celebrated the spirit of Christmas without all the material stuff.  That's what I would like to believe would happen even if someone " packs up the presents!  The ribbons!  The wrappings!  The tags! And the tinsel!  The trimmings!  The trappings!...all that material "stuff" we've come to cherish.  Our true treasure is not something that anyone can take away from us.

Terrorists of all kinds try to "take away" things we treasure.  This includes not only material possessions but also includes economic and physical safety, peace of mind and even the freedom and liberties we have been blessed with to enjoy in this country.

I believe that's is where the 12 values of the 9-12 Projects become very, very important.  That is why I believe it is more important than ever to be certain of what you believe.  I believe that if we hang on to these core values and principles, which serve as both anchor and compass, we will come through anything.

Honesty
Did you ever hear the great advice, "Honesty is the best policy" as a child?  You have probably heard the story of George Washington chopping down an cherry tree and then stating to his father, "I cannot tell a lie."  It is probably fiction, but it is meant show that one of the Founders and our first President was an honorable man and that this sense of honor was instilled in him at a young age.  One of the nine principles: "I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday" embodies this value.  What if we each become more honest with each passing day?   Removing all lies from your life might be hard work, but I believe that the end result is worth it.  Knowing that you value honesty and striving to be an honest person is something no one can take from you. 

Reverence
Reverence can be defined as "honor or respect felt or shown" (as a noun) or as "to regard or treat with reverence" (as a verb.)  What do you revere? If you revere material possessions they can go away in the blink of an eye.  If you revere something that is more lasting, it cannot be taken away.  Our country's Declaration of Independence ended with:  "With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence....."  In other words, the belief in something bigger than yourself which demands reverence and respect is where your treasure lies.  That belief, if planted in a firm foundation, can never be taken.

Hope
There is a line in a song that I love (When You Believe) that says: Though hope is frail, it's hard to kill.  A hope based on a transcendent source of truth is not only hard to kill, it cannot be killed. 


Thrift
Thrift is defined in one sense as:  the wise economy in the management of money and other resources; frugality. Living your life as a good steward of everything you have been given is not something that can be taken away if you are clear on what it is you believe.

Humility
Humility is the quality of being modest, reverential....never being arrogant, contemptuous or rude.  If this is one of the values that you hold dear, it cannot be taken away.  You may not be able to display humility at all times, but if it is something you find valuable and part of your belief system no one can take it from you.

Charity
Charity is usually thought of as something given to help the needy.  Even if all of your material possessions are taken away you can still perform acts of charity.  Another definition of charity is generosity toward others or toward humanity.  If this value is a part of your core set of beliefs, it is not something that can be taken from you.  It may become challenging to be charitable, but if your belief system incorporates this value it will remain with you.

Sincerity
This is the quality or condition of being sincere; genuineness, honesty and freedom from duplicity; closely tied to the first value listed which is honesty.  If this is part of "who you are" who could take it?

Moderation
Moderation means being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme, but also can mean not violent or subject to extremes.   If this is  part of your core value system it will not disappear, even if you are placed in a position meant to push you into behaviors and actions that go against this belief. 

Hard Work
I am not sure I need to define this because we all know what hard work is like. In addition, the sense of accomplishment when you see the results of your hard work is priceless.  If you believe that this is one of your core values, nothing can make that belief go away. 


Courage
Courage is defined as the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.  I am not so sure about the "without fear" part, but the rest of the definition outlines something no one can take from you.  "Courage of your convictions" comes to mind.  If you believe in something and it is part of who you are people might make it difficult for you to express these openly, but it does not change the fact that it is part of what you believe.


Personal Responsibility
This is something I am afraid we have lost sight of in this country and, for that matter, in the world.  Suffering the consequences for bad decisions is something that has become politically incorrect.  We make "explanations" into "excuses" and no one learns anything and we ALL suffer.  However, if you believe that taking personal responsibility for your actions and decisions is a value that you hold, nothing can change that.


Gratitude
Gratitude can simply be defined as thankfulness.  The expression of gratitude is healthy and can generate optimism in the most trying of times.  Being grateful for the blessings in your life cannot be eliminated in rough times unless you willingly give this up.


Which leads to the conclusion on all of these values:  if you know what you believe and you choose to live life according to these values the only way they can be taken from you is if you give them up willingly.  I am not saying this is always easy as it is not.  And all of this reminds me of my favorite movie of all time: It's a Wonderful Life.  Mr. Potter is a man whose value system is completely based on material possessions.  He watches throughout the movie as George Bailey struggles through life without many material possessions.  What he does have, though, is a solid core set of values.  He makes a difference in peoples lives because he lives by those principles and values.  He is rewarded in many ways and most of them are not "material" rewards.  His brother, Harry, refers to him at the end of the movie as "the richest man in town."  The reason Mr. Potter hated him so much was because he could not "get his hands" on these riches.  He tries to take everything away from George but never succeeds because George's values and principles could not be stolen.

Yes, I believe George was the richest man in town and that's because he knew what is truly valuable in this life....and it IS a wonderful life!  Even if the Grinch takes all you have!


 

What is Your Definition of Treason?

Image via Wikipedia

A simple definition:  Treason: a crime that undermines the offender's government.  The legal definition?

TREASON

This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.  You can refer also to Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. 

That said, the title link above takes you to a blog post regarding the Communist Party USA's intentions to "defend China against the US" should there ever be "hostilities."  It is not good to throw the word "treason" around indiscriminately, however, at some point you have to wonder what constitutes treason.

This is an especially good question as it relates to China in light of the recent "contrail" event off the coast of Los Angeles. It's a plane!  It's a missile!  It's a.....?!  What if it WAS a missile contrail? 

Where do Jed Brandt's comments about the "destruction of what we call the United States fit in?

If I "opt out" of the new TSA invasive screening procedures I get to be on Homeland Security's list as a "domestic extremist."  You'd think they'd worry just a bit more about CPUSA, the New Black Panther Party or the Brecht Forum, but that's just my opinion.  What about you?

Related articles

• A History of Treason | The Post & Email (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Sabotage, Treason And Other High Crimes (alan.com)

Will We Allow "Whoever Tells the Best Story" to Win?

Image via Wikipedia

The title link above takes you to a website that discusses strategies for "changing the narrative" to counteract the progressive narrative.  Barrack Obama has become the personification of this narrative and we must understand what the real "story" is in order to make our narrative heard. 

I like the name of the website: "esthermoment.com"  For those of you who are not familiar with Esther of the Bible, she is the woman who found the courage to save the Jewish people from genocide. It is a good story; check it out.  The title of the blog is "Manipulation Watch."  Telling a good "story" can lead people to truth, but it can also be used to manipulate.  I've taken a closer look at a few parts of the progressive narrative.


The Demonizing of the Tea Party

I discussed in a previous post "teapartyphobia." That irrational fear of individuals who self-identify as a Tea Party member.  The first real world observation I can recall was a news story (complete with video) about some tea party members protesting in Quincy, Illinois, in a location close to where President Obama was scheduled to make a speech.   As a group, which included seniors in lawn chairs, sang "God Bless America" the riot police marched in in full gear.  I felt like I was watching a Monty Python episode!  The link above includes a response to a Quincy Herald Whig report that apparently misrepresented the incident.  I also found a blog post by someone who calls herself "uppity woman" (I like it!)  Her post also includes a Monty Python clip about "senile delinquents."  It is definitely worth watching!

It is also emphasized frequently that the Tea Party is predominantly white.  One would think there is no diversity in the many groups of people who want to restore the integrity of our Constitution.   That is not reported because it is not consistent with the "story" being told.  Did you know that there are "Tea Parties" being formed in other countries, such as Italy? Again, this does not fit the narrative, so you probably do not.

This is happening in a world where our Department of Justice dismisses voter intimidation charges against Samir Shabazz (see my July 8, 2010 post on Social Justice.) Even more disturbing to me is the response by Chairman (New Black Panther Party) Malik Zulu Shabazz.  Please watch this four minute interview and ask yourself, "In what context IS it acceptable to 'kill white cracker babies'?"  In what context IS it acceptable to kill police officers?

Insulting and assigning violent intentions to stroller-pushing moms and lawn chair toting seniors fits with the progressive narrative, punishing Samir Shabazz and getting tearful about the dangerous rhetoric of Malik Shabazz does not. 

Restoring Honor and One Nation Rallies

In my post regarding the meaning of "Restoring Honor" I pointed out some of the claims; it was going to be a pit of hate, it was just a bunch of racist white people.  He was mocked.  The fact that there are "people of color" there is not reported.  The videos and the pictures do not fit the script of the progressive narrative.

Historically the strategy of using and inciting violence has been a progressive/leftist tool.  If you create chaos you can create a situation where the government "must swoop in" and save the day.

The One Nation Rally organizers included individuals and groups that have advocated and/or used violence in the past and some that advocate the use of violence now.  Roz Pelles, the Steering Committee Liaison" was involved in the Communist Workers Party, which was previously known as the Workers Viewpoint Organization.  This was a radical Maoist group that considered the Communist Party USA "lacking in militancy."  Many of the other groups who supported the October 2nd rally are socialist or communist organizations.  Communist and Socialist organizations whose members have said:

"If you can't open their minds, open their heads." Ben Becker

"We are living in a time that is going to dwarf the McCarthy era...the internment of WWII....they are coming and they are coming after you."  Bertha Lewis (at winter conference for Young Democratic Socialists)

"We have to bring this government down.  We have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working class and oppressed people feel.  The way change is going to happen in this country is through the destruction of what we call the United States of America."  Jed Brandt at Brecht Forum

Progressive World View vs. Reality

The progressive narrative implies a sequence and causality of events that does not fit with the real world.  It also creates a victim mentality often expressed as "oppressed peoples."

Consider this from Vice President Joe Biden:

"Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century, and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."

Does that fit with your reality?  My reality tells me that, as Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."

Also consider something Florida Congressman-elect West said recently:  "It's not about being a victim." This definitely does not fit with the progressive narrative.

Know Your History and Decide for Yourself
Things to do:
*I encourage you to watch the Glenn Beck 5-part special "Revolutionary Holocaust"available at Youtube.  Find out why Marxism, Socialism, Communism and Progressivism are not the answer; they are the problem.  Then watch the Young Turks describe the presentation as a distortion of history.  Then, as Glenn implores frequently, do your own research and decide for yourself.

*Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Then read critiques of the information presented therein. 

*I also encourage you to watch The History of Political Correctness at the NewZeal blog.

*Check out the "Obama Chart" for a visual presentation of how the systems of our Constitutional Republic is being destroyed.

*Finally when you think about the request for "compromise" in the next couple of years consider the concept of the "Overton Window." Knowledge is power.  Know what you believe.  Know where you will stand and say, as Gandalf said in The Lord of the Rings:  "You. Shall. NOT.  Pass!" 

President Obama: We Must Embrace Globalism and The Emerging One World Economy

Image via Wikipedia

At the title link to this post you will find an interesting article I found after yesterday's post.  So, what does embracing globalism mean in the world of the average citizen? 

I've been confused about Andy Stern's "workers of the world unite" rhetoric.  If we were to merge our economy with communist and socialist economies that allow their workers to be paid what might be termed as  "slave labor wages" how is this going to benefit all those union members he once represented? How is this going to effect all those unsustainable pension systems?  How is this going to address this country's unemployment rate.  Why is SEIU now trying to "organize" the 99ers?  What does "winning justice for the 99ers" mean? 

I don't think "globalism" is going to improve the impact of trade deficits with China.  More US jobs are going to disappear are they not?  Our country doesn't manufacture much anymore, but we sure do buy a lot of stuff from other countries.  The article to which the preceding link takes you makes some good points regarding the fact that the efficiency of American manufacturing is not the issue and says:

"But American companies have difficulty competing against foreign countries that undervalue their currencies; pay health care for their workers; provide subsidies for energy, land, buildings, and equipment; grant tax holidays and rebates and provide zero-interest financing; pay their workers poverty wages that would be illegal in the United States, and don't enforce safety or environmental regulations."

Note:  This article is from The American Prospect website and TAP is a progressive leaning website that searches for new possibilities for "social justice."  I was a bit surprised to find this article there, however, they do point our that they "take seriously their role as a forum for constructive debate and civil argument...which will find a basis for compromise that leads to change."  I can live with that, however, the result of pinning down what "compromise" means to a progressive results in one realizing that the message is "they know best" and if you disagree, you are unwilling to compromise. 

What we have to begin to understand is what "globalism" and "new world order" and "one world economy means to progressives, socialists and communists. 
In 1969 Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeff Jones and other Weather Underground (the more violent arm of Students for a Democratic Society; SDS) kids wrote an essay titled:  "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows."  It begins:
"The contradiction between the revolutionary peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the imperialists headed by the United States is the principal contradiction in the contemporary world.  The development of this contradiction is promoting the struggle of the people of the whole world against US imperialism and its lackeys."

Yes, America is the source of all of the problems in the world.  Not only that, but, as the video, The Story of Stuff, our children have seen at school everything we have already belongs to the "oppressed" peoples of the world and as the Weather Underground gang says in their essay:
"It is the oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this empire and it is to them that it belongs; the goal of the revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interests of the oppressed peoples of the world....All of the United Airlines Astrojets, all of the Holiday Inns, all of the Hertz's automobiles, your television set, car, and wardrobe already belong, to a large degree to the people of the rest of the world."

Their goal? It was and perhaps still is:  "the destruction of the US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism."

The question you need to ask yourself is this:  "Who determines how to get to a classless world and how will they know when it has been achieved?"  I would also add that you need to decide what world view you hold.  One that says A) a group of elites will determine just what our "Artificial Paradise" will look like or B) one that is based on a transcendent source of "right and wrong" and follows principles and values that are timeless?

I've signed on to and believe in choice B and I will continue this blog to provide information that will hopefully help others make informed decisions about the future of this country.  I will also pray without ceasing.

Related articles

• Another Chink in the Corrupt Armor of the Obama Administration: Feds Investigate Prominent Ex-Labor Leader Andy Stern (pumabydesign001.wordpress.com)
• Former SEIU prez Andy Stern, other Purple Army officials, under FBI investigation (michellemalkin.com)
• FBI Investigating Prominent Labor Leader Andy Stern In Corruption Probe At SEIU (huffingtonpost.com)
• Terrorist Ayers Endorses Stewart/Colbert Rallies as does Ayers ally Obama (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Bill Ayers Wife: U.S. Gov't is 'Real Terrorist' While Right is 'Racist,' 'Armed,' and 'Hostile' (gunnyg.wordpress.com)

Socialism? Communism? Progressivism? Agenda 21?

Image via Wikipedia

In one of those "teachable moments with my son I explained to him one of the basic reasons for fiscal responsibility:  "At some point," I told him, "You begin to spend other people's money without express permission to do so." I also added that it assumes that those "other people" (in this case his parents) will have the money to give you.  This, alas, is not a safe assumption, especially given the current state of our economy. Parents "bailing out" their children also communicates to them that they are incapable of independently making their way in the world and taking full responsibility (and the accompanying consequences) for their actions.  This is not only an insult, but it prevents them from finding out just how much they ARE capable of.  And everyone benefits from that!

It seems to me that our elected representatives have been doing just that.  Re-distributing wealth according to their socialistic world view.  The Socialists and Communists are pulling off the masks and telling us who they are.  They don't point out what has happened historically in communistic regimes.  They don't mention Mao or Stalin killing millions of people.  We now refer to communist China's government as "State Capitalism" and say we need to be more like them.  Along with this we've created and nurtured an "entitlement mentality" in large segments of our population, thus weakening their ability to independently and responsibly live their lives.  In other words: we've trained them to accept whatever fish the elite decide to give them instead of teaching them to fish.  They've been told in many different ways that they cannot survive on their own, so the highly intelligent and, I might add, wealthy elite need to take care of them.  It is interesting to point out that they demonize and point fingers at "those rich people" as the source of all of our problems.  When they do this I am reminded that while the one finger is pointing at those evil rich people and corporations that four others are pointing back at them.  They tell us that we need to re-distribute the wealth and resources because life in our Constitutional Republic and Capitalistic system just is not fair.  It requires "fundamental transformation" and the achievement of "social justice." Hmmmm.....let's look more closely at just what they mean by that.

Agenda 21 and the New World Order

I recently read a quote with sadness in my heart:
"Remember, Satan loves you better.  Come over to the dark side.  We have cookies."
I actually have a version of that statement as a wallpaper on my Ipod: Come over to the dark side.  We have cookies.  The reference to "evil" is implied as any Star Wars fan could tell you.  


But what is really on the other side?  I have a follow up wallpaper that says:  Welcome to the dark side.  Are you surprised we lied about the cookies?
In the case of the socialists, communists and progressives, I think they are lying about the cookies...or, at least, lying about just who is going to end up with the most cookies and who is going to end up starving. 


The title link in this post takes you to an article on something I believe most of you have never even heard about; the United Nations "Agenda 21."  The author of the title link article refers to it as "Artificial Paradise, Inc."  I would say another term for it is "Crime, Inc." but that's already been used in reference to more localized issues :-)  Agenda 21 is something you need to read.  What happens to all that you have worked to achieve in your lifetime: your home, your retirement account, your land? 

So, you read "new world order," scoff and think that is some wild conspiracy theory.  Well, it's coming to a planet near you.  The problem is that there are many facets to the structure being put into place it is a bit difficult to summarize in a manner which sticks to the "four minutes or less" that is easily digested.  I will try, however, to give you some resources for further reading and research so that you can decide for yourself what your "tipping point" will be; at what point do you say to yourself, "That's NOT OK with me!?"

On a recent appearance on Fox, John Bolton, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, posed a question worthy of consideration:

"Do we want our decisions about our country's future made in our democratic/constitutional framework, OR, in bodies of international organizations' negotiations that are not visible to our citizens and over which they can exert no control?" 

Daniel Hannan, eleven year member of the European Parliament and author of The New Road to Serfdom said:

" You cannot move toward total global government and be democratic.  What the US will give up is what it fought for in the first place. The report says that sovereignty will be forfeit so 'get used to it." 

The report he refers to is:  Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World.  This is a report from the National Intelligence Council.  This Council has produced "estimative intelligence"--forward- looking assessments of national security issues --for US senior policy makers since 1979. 

Post-Election: Where Do We Go From Here?
Some say that on November 11, 2010, the people spoke and they spoke loudly that they wanted to restore the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.  It seemed to focus on fiscal responsibility and the national debt, but the big picture is the type of government we've assumed would always be there.  Many citizens believe that we are still playing the game by the rules our Founders established, but this is not the case.  We've come to the arena thinking that some basic principles and values are shared by both sides.  They are not.   Glenn Beck is being mocked and marginalized (what else is new?) for his special report this week on "The Puppet Master," George Soros (aka "the spooky dude.")  If you listen to his presentation with an open mind you have to come out of it with some pretty important questions and concerns.  I recommend you do some research on this man who said:

"The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States"  The Age of Fallibility.

"It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out."  6/3/93 The Independent

Glenn Beck has provided a background guide that cites sources and more at TheBlaze.com. 

What Does the Republican Tsunami Really Mean?
What do those newly elected representatives intend to do?  We the People made some clear statements in this election and one of them was to restore the proper balance of power between the State and Federal Governments.  I don't think many people voted for a new world order or for global governance.  We see daily the adverse, and at times, unintended consequences when we remove the decision-making power from a state or local government and move it to a place where local concerns are no longer known much less considered.  Our Founders knew that the power vested in the States needed to balance out the Federal government's powers.  We've drifted far from this and we need to turn the ship around and return to sound principles and values. The Tenth Amendment Center's website is a good place for you to start building your knowledge base.  Knowledge IS power!  Some of the articles below offer criticisms of Glenn Beck's Puppet Master shows.  I include them so you can decide.  However, you really do need to watch the entire show(s) AND do some of your own research to make an informed decision.  Most of the opposing articles admitted freely that they could not finish watching the show(s).  And, if you fully understand the difference one's world view makes you will begin to see clearly the choice you need to make.
 
So, at the risk of oversimplifying the issues, we need to continually choose between:
A free market........or......government controlled entities
Hard work.....or...... Handouts
Personal Responsibility......or........Bailouts
Liberty.............or.........."Controlled Liberty"(aka global governance)

I, for one, want to earn and make my own cookies...AND decide how many I want to eat and how many I will give to people who truly cannot earn and make their own cookies.   What about you?

Related articles

• Americans want commonsense fiscal responsibility from their government (Rep. Lynn Jenkins) (thehill.com)
• The youth agenda (thehill.com)
• In search of fiscal responsibility: Ten questions to ask the candidates (thehill.com)
• The rich people in the Senate defend the interests of rich people (grist.org)
• Problems that money can't solve (theglobeandmail.com)
• The NGO Army of George Soros & Maurice Strong (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Glenn Beck's five-point plan for world domination (salon.com)
• America is a Constitutional Republic (dakotavoice.com)
• George Soros Is REALLY George Schwartz And 10 More Terrifying Things We Learned From Glenn Beck's Expose (businessinsider.com)
• Beck on Soros | Michael Tomasky (guardian.co.uk)

The Importance of an Informed Vote

Image via Wikipedia

Today is election day.  I hope all eligible citizens have exercised this precious right.  I am hoping that we have all done our due diligence and made informed decisions.

This is not a decision about "Republican" or "Democrat."  It is more accurately described as a choice between a conservative world view and a progressive world view.  Here are just a few aspects and issues you might want to consider today and going forward into the future of our country.

Love Thine Enemies -OR- Punish Thine Enemies?  You Choose.

In 2004 Barack Obama (then a candidate for Senate) gave a powerful speech.  In this speech he "challenged the Country to shatter the idea that we are a divided people."  He went on to say that we are "not a Black America, or an Hispanic America, or a white America, we are ONE AMERICA." (emphasis mine)

On October 25th he gave a spoke to the Hispanic community in a Univision radio broadcast he said:  "If Latinos sit out the election, instead of saying we're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us; if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election then I think it's going to be harder...."

Punish our enemies?  What happen to ONE AMERICA?  And, who are the enemies?  Why is it the aim to "reward" anyone?  Why is it not framed in respect to what is best for this country and it's citizens? You might also ask yourself:  "Exactly what does he mean when he says "immigration reform?"  I believe it has become code for "keep the borders porous and grant amnesty to a block of people, many of whom have no idea that they are being used for political purposes."

As stated in the sub- title link article, it is inconceivable to think that Hispanics could even think about disagreeing or doubting the merits of a progressive agenda.  You will recall that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared, "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican."  This clearly follows the road map of "dividing and controlling." He "walked this statement back" after some backlash from the Hispanic community.  In the Huffington Post article his "clarification" did everything but accuse Republicans of mugging old ladies and stealing candy from children.  In other words, "they are the enemy" of just about everything; employing teachers, food on the table, and clean air, and small business just because they disagree that government is the answer. 


Understanding the Progressive View of Oppression

This link takes you to an article titled:  "The Truth About Oppression."  It suggests an interpretation of a conservative vs progressive view as to the source of oppression.  The author sets forth that conservatives fear oppression by the government and progressives fear oppression from everywhere else and rely on government to protect them.  That is, without a doubt, the most succinct manner of summarizing the difference.  And you can read it in way less than four minutes!

For a progressive the bigger the government the better.  They believe that all injustices can only be set right if the government is large enough and unbridled power is given to the elites in charge.

The article also states that conservatives have a world view that is consistent with the reality that oppression comes from governments; always has and always will.

It is interesting to note at this point something I read in Eric Weiner's The Geography of Bliss.  The author visited the World Database of Happiness in The Netherlands and talked with Ruut Veenhoven, Professor of Happiness Studies.    One of the professors findings made him very unpopular with his fellow sociologists.  He found that income distribution does not predict happiness.  Countries with wide gaps between the rich and poor are no less happy than where the wealth is distributed more equally.  Sometimes they are happier.
Veehoven is quoted as saying in response to this is: "My colleagues are not amused.  Inequality is big business here in the sociology department.  Entire careers have been built on it" (page 16.)

I would add that in our country, entire political careers have been built on it.  In particular the progressives' political careers; Democrat AND Republican.  The world view of the progressive is based in identification of oppressed groups and seeking "social justice."  The progressive concept of social justice has it's roots in liberation theology.   There is a website, Liberation Theology resource center and bookstore that may help you develop a better understanding of this movement.  It includes essays and chronology of the movement as well as criticisms.  During this assessment of this concept of "social justice" as presented via liberation theology I find two major contradictions to my understanding of what the Gospel says.  The first is the emphasis on the conditions in this world while putting spiritual and eternal life in the background.  The second is the concept frequently expressed by President Obama of "collective salvation.   So, if "social justice" sounds good to you it would be a good idea to delve into just exactly what it means in a progressive world view.


Immigration Reform = Social Justice


Finally, I urge you to take a closer look at the battle over Arizona's SB1070.  It is more complex than "people looking for a better life" or "they will do jobs Americans won't."  There is a two part report you will find useful at wstbv.com:  Investigating Border Security Part 1 and Part 2.  Who else is crossing our borders is a national security issue. 

Jan Brewer:  Doing the Job the Feds Won't
This was a special "Halloween" video posted by Gov. Jan Brewer in response to a new sign, that replaced an older one, on the Arizona border.  I don't know which one would make me feel better....probably neither.  Phoenix was called the "kidnapping capital of the US" in February of 2009.  Of course, there is an article that criticizes Congressman John Kyle for calling Phoenix the "kidnapping capital of the US" in August of this year.  I guess this author missed the 2009 article.  I can perhaps understand this as "google" made it difficult for me to find.

Finally, A Brief Comment on Polls

There was a recent poll that Michele Bachmann posted on her FB page asking what issue was most important to voters.  The usual things were listed but one choice was not offered; all of the above.

So, I did a "write in vote" and said:

All of the above!  It really gets summed up as, "Our government officials are not doing the job we elected them to do. It's "We the people" NOT "You the People, and We the Elite!" We are tired of being treated like idiots! We have awakened, we are doing our homework, and we will not let the Constitution be trampled any longer. It will take longer than this election cycle, but we shall restore the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.

Polls, I suppose, can be useful for our leaders.  It gives them an idea about what is important to the people who they are supposed to represent.  However, recently I've been somewhat irritated by the constant questioning about what we the people think is important.  It seems to me that it does not require a great deal of thought to name the biggies:  the national debt, unemployment, and the diminishing of our God-given liberties.  Why do they keep asking?!  Stop asking and DO something is what I want to say.

Finally, negative, attack campaign ads (if you believe the polls) work!  People listen to the sound bites and make decisions based on incomplete information.  So, I guess what I'd like to see is less time spent endlessly polling the opinions of voters and an increased use of common sense and basic guiding principles.  Along with that, if we the people who vote would spend a bit more time reading and researching in order to make informed decisions at election time we would be well on the road to restoration.  

So, you have a decision to make today and tomorrow and every day after that.  This is not just about one day. 

Related articles

• Obama turns to 'Piolin' to rev up Latino vote (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Calls Republicans "Enemies." (creativeminorityreport.com)
• Obama seeks to blunt Republican attack over comment (reuters.com)
• Only the Tea Party can save us now (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Boehner Chides Obama over "Enemies" (cbsnews.com)

A Family Fable and the Colorado Governor's Race

(Source: Backgrounds Ipod App)

I think it's time for me to share a fable, or a little story if you will, from my childhood.

My father, God rest his soul, was a good and decent man.  He drove quite a bit as his job as a traveling salesman for a number of companies over the years required it.  So he knew many of the "back roads" that were scenic and just downright beautiful whenever we would go anywhere.  It was always a pleasant experience to travel in this way.  However, if any part of the trip required use of what we called "the bypass" (or highway as it is more often defined) he became another man.  He had an intense sense of right and wrong when it came to highway etiquette.

This lead to many hair-raising encounters with very large trucks and tourists from out-of-state.  He would rarely "give in," insisting that "he was in the right and by goodness he was going to make sure everyone knew that.  Now, my mom was a woman of few words, but very talented at stern looks and heavy sighs.  I watched over the years as she tried to get my dad to be a little safer.  She told him, it is not that important, just let it go.  He did not take the hints.

One day after an especially scary encounter my mom looked at my dad.  I think she was on the verge of tears, but the anger in her voice came through.  She said to him, "Yes, Russ, you had the right of way.  There is no question about that.  So I suppose what we should do is arrange to have written on our tombstones is, 'He was right.  He and his family are all still dead, but by goodness he was RIGHT!"

I am reminded of this story after listening to all the various points and arguments about who to vote for in the Governor's race.  The only thing I am ABSOLUTELY positive about is that Hickenlooper, clearly a progressive that will take us further down that track, is not what we need.  That world view is disastrous for many many reasons.  The above link will take you to an article in which Hickenlooper  basically echoes Cass Sunstein calling us all "Homer Simpson" and Barrack Obama claiming people of principle are just "clinging to their guns and religion."  I do not want this man representing me or anyone else.

That said we have a choice: Maes, who won the primary "fair and square" or Tancredo who decided a third party run was the right thing to do.

We've debated the pros and cons of each of these candidates using 9-12 principles.  At this point it appears that Tancredo would have a chance of being our next governor if, as I said in an earlier post, he and Maes would put their egos aside in order to turn the train around I believe Hickenlooper would not win.  It still doesn't seem they are willing to do that.

There is much to dislike about either choice, but, to state it simply, "it is what it is."  I believe we need to turn the progressive train around and we need to do it soon.  If we don't do what is necessary to keep a progressive out of this office the train goes further down the track.  And if, by arguing about Maes is right or Tancredo is right, we insist on our being in the right at the expense of coming together more and more of our liberties will die.

Finally, we have a system that we can use to make our desires known to whoever gets elected.  We are awake now and will continue to use it to restore the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.  We don't have to agree on everything to join together.  You might be interested in reading my earlier post on "Divide and Control" to think about how keeping us divided gives the progressives more power.

I think I'll go fill out my ballot now. 

Related articles

• CO-Gov: Colorado GOP ready to cut off nose to spite face (dailykos.com)
• Tancredo Picks Up Pace in Colorado (blogs.wsj.com)
• Dan Maes: Political Suicide Bomber (redstate.com)

Christine O'Donnell is not a witch. She just plays one on MSNBC

Image via Wikipedia

I know, I know.  Many of you who will read this do not live in Maryland, but I had to say something about this.

Have you seen Christine O'Donnell's recent TV ad?  According to some comments shared on Rush Limbaugh's FB page some liked it.  Some called it lame.  Some said it was defensive.  What did she say?  The first thing she said was, "I'm not a witch."  My thoughts:

It may have seemed a little defensive, however, I feel she communicated that the claim was ridiculous and moved on. MSNBC had a segment on one morning last week discussing O'Donnell and her opponent. Title at the sidebar? "Witchcraft and Politics...." Ideas are planted in peoples heads and they want a straight answer about their concerns. Her answer was straightforward, respectful of her audience's intelligence, and definitely not "lame" as some have characterized it. It only seems lame because we're used to the obfuscation generally used when talking to the American people.

Then came the debate with her opponent, the "bearded Marxist."  I've never seen a debate quite like this.  The moderators were anything but neutral.  Wolf Blitzer seemed to be debating Christine, while the other moderator did everything but put words in Chris' mouth....but I digress.

I'm betting that you know more about O'Donnell's witchcraft experiences and her expressed religious thoughts on masturbation than you do about her opponents Marxist views.  You also haven't heard much about Chris Coons' stumbling when trying to quote the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The same Constitution he may have to swear to uphold should the Delaware voters send him to Washington.  Now, to be fair, Media Matters presents an article that tells you that Coons never called himself a "bearded Marxist."  It was all a joke, right?  Anyway, while we are arguing about what he did or did not call himself we are ignoring what his behavior, beliefs, and actions say about how he will represent the people who might elect him.  Are there Marxist beliefs there?  I believe if you read his position statements on the issues you will find them.  I had no problem.  Read Christine O'Donnell's too and decide who you would want representing you in the Senate if you lived in Delaware.


Finally, I believe that what the people who got their knickers in a twist about her religious views on masturbation fail to understand is this:  She believes in upholding the Constitution.  She is not, therefore, going to go to Washington to make laws about those and other behaviors which the government has no business dictating.  That's what her core beliefs would guide her to do and that, my friends, is something the progressives and the "bearded Marxists" cannot understand because that is what they believe they need to do. 
Got it Homer?  
Got it Marge?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christine O'Donnell is not a witch...she's you (newstatesman.com)
• Reviews Are In: O'Donnell's 'I'm Not a Witch' Ad (blogs.wsj.com)
• Chris Coons' 1st Amendment Views Betray His Marxist Beliefs (riehlworldview.com)

What's Oil Got to Do With It?

Image via Wikipedia

The headline:  "Drilling ban lifted; new rules in place."  It begins with: " The Obama administration, under heavy pressure from the oil industry and Gulf states and with elections nearing, lifted the moratorium on deep water oil drilling that it imposed last April in the wake of the disastrous BP oil spill."  And it ends with: "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that pressure from the oil industry or anyone else played a role in the decision to lift the moratorium ahead of schedule.  It was, he said 'part of a very deliberative policy process...that got done more quickly than the original time line."

As Bernays mentions in his intention to "regiment the public mind" by using propaganda, that originates with the "intelligent few," that the use of the making every problem or crisis the "moral equivalent of war" is very effective.  It has been used frequently to manipulate the public mind:  the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and now the "war on the oil spill."   One war metaphor that is no longer acceptable is the "war on terror."  That's now an "overseas contingency operation."  But let's explore the war on the oil spill.  Is it really about oil and the risks of deep water drilling?

Let's look closely at this "war."  If it had really been about the spill you would expect that all available resources would be IMMEDIATELY directed at the problem, oil was gushing out of the hole every minute of every day.  That would seem to have been a good place to start.  When your house is on fire, the fire department doesn't question you about how the fire started, who might have been at fault (i.e. determining whose "ass" he should kick,) and make everyone in your neighborhood evacuate their houses (unless, of course, they are in imminent danger.)  No, they put the fire out as quickly and as safely as possible.

How did this war proceed?

On May 22, 2010 President Obama established a National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.  This commission was tasked with worthy goals.  But there was still oil being pumped into the ocean and the leak had still not been plugged.  If you look into the members of this commission I think you will agree that most of them have expertise, but their "agenda" is a much more powerful and significant aspect.  (Look for a post on "eco-terrorism" from me soon.)


In June the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the White House seemed to be taking their cues on what to do from the Center for American Progress.  (I know that name sounds great, but it's really a wolf in sheep's clothing.)  Our friend, George Soros, is one of the largest donors, if not the largest.  Why does this matter?  It matters because George Soros is also a very large investor in Petrobras, a Brazilian oil company.  But wait, it gets even more interesting.  Billions of our tax dollars are being loaned to Petrobras to finance a huge offshore drilling projects...in even deeper water!  As a summary:  George Soros, who is heavily invested in Petrobras, is telling the White House what to do.  The United States is sending billions of dollars to Petrobras.  You think George will make any money in the process?  Do you think this constitutes a "conflict of interest?"  I believe the CAP seeks to support progressive goals that would emphasize the "common good" over "narrow self interest."  Hmmmmmm....I think George has some narrow self interest in this situation, don't you?

We've also loaned Mexico a couple of billion dollars for drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.  We cannot drill because it is too dangerous to our environment...but Mexico and Brazil can still do this, with funding from the American taxpayers?  What is wrong with this picture? (Progressive world view translation:  these actions="global redistribution of wealth.")

So, what happens to the oil rigs that were not used during a ban on drilling?  They are leased to the oil companies and if the oil companies are not using them, they move to other countries.  Now this isn't like packing up and going on a vacation and then coming home.  If they move they are likely to not come back.  It costs millions of dollars to move them.  You think Brazil and Mexico will benefit from this?

Also worthy of your attention is the fact that this moratorium was recommended by experts, correct?  That does not seem to be the case, so why the ban?

Why did we not promptly accept help from other countries?  My previous post on the Jones act gives you some information.  There is also a Business Insider site that presents a more detailed analysis. Why were local efforts thwarted?  "Why" is the question you can ask to many issues in this "war on the oil spill."

So, the elections are coming and the original November 30th expiration of the ban has been moved up.  Part of a "deliberative process?"  I think so, but not the process Robert Gibbs would have me believe.  And George Soros?  He is getting out of the way of the avalanche that is coming in November.  He's brilliant at making money and making his investments work for him.  He's not going to put more money into the failing progressive candidates at this time.  He's going to scuttle back into the woodwork and wait for another day.  And on his way, he's going to move some of his investments to precious metals as he watches the managed decline of the dollar.

I sure am glad George is funding organizations that promote "American Progress" aren't you?  The question is where is this progress taking our country.  We need to find out.

Related articles

• Obama administration lifts deep water oil drilling moratorium imposed after BP oil spill (nj.com)
• Back in business: US lifts deep water drilling ban (sfgate.com)
• Offshore Drilling Ban Decision Is 'Imminent,' Says Regulator (huffingtonpost.com)

A Different Perspective of the Movie Avatar

Image via Wikipedia

I finally watched James Cameron's movie "Avatar."  I resisted for a while.  I like to have my leisure time activities actually be enjoyable and I was afraid I'd just get ticked off at what I might see.  Then I heard myself asking someone about a show I watch.  They had some derogatory things to say about it and I responded, "But have you actually WATCHED it?"  So, I watched the movie.  I was quite surprised at my take on the whole thing.  It all started with the word "unobtainium."  This is defined at the link's site as:  an extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material, or device.  That much you can figure out from the root of the word: unobtainable.  This means not able to be obtained, required, or reached.  I immediately named the fictional planet where this movie takes place, "Unobtania."  Another word for this is "utopia." James calls it Pandora.  I could do an entire post on that, so let it suffice to say that is a very interesting choice.

The movie presents a world and culture where everyone is happy and free, there is apparently no conflicts between the different tribes on this planet, although, the main female character, Neytiri, does mention "the time of great sadness."  We are left to assume that the tribes have reached utopia through some unknown process.  There are "leaders" of the tribes and a life source that contains, well, the source of life as well as connections to all of their ancestors.  In my world we call him God, but I am pretty sure that is not what Mr. Cameron meant.  I think he is referring to "Mother Earth" or "Mother Nature."  There is perfect harmony with nature, although things can still kill you there.  There is no killing of the "animals" without "purpose" and when that occurs there is a "prayer" said thanking the animal for giving up  their life for the purpose of enabling survival of the inhabitants of the planet.  I actually like this concept.  I thank God for providing me with things that will enable me to survive, but, then again, that's just my world view.  I would also add, though, that I like the "respect" it shows to the source of your sustenance and the striving to be good stewards of our resources. That is probably the only aspect we agree upon.

There is also (music conveying evil and hateful purposes plays) some of Earth's worst who have invaded this world and wish to destroy it to get what they want.  These would be our military personnel cleverly disguised as "mercenaries" and, of course, the greedy capitalist who will do ANYTHING to make a buck.  Into this mix we add the kind and benevolent scientist who is presented as the strong moral conscience of mankind.  (Well....maybe at some points I did get a little ticked off :-)

So, what we are to conclude from all of this is in line with the message presented to thousands of our school children in the short movie, "The Story of Stuff."  Funded by our good friend, George Soros via the Tides Foundation.  (In case you miss it, that is my use of sarcasm.) In this propaganda piece the narrator states: "Third World is another term for 'our stuff' that somehow got on someone else' s land...and we go and get it and trash the place."  Yep, I think there was some consultation on the message.  Either that or Mr. Cameron watched the Story of Stuff and plagiarized.

So my interpretation of this story?  Here goes....I think of the fictional planet of Pandora and the Na'vi population as people who have a strong connection to God who provides them with a transcendent source of right and wrong.  Then, along come the "Collectivists" who tell them that they are going to plow their God right under the ground in order to take control of the "unobtainium" which represents their freedom and liberty.  They are doing this because the Na'vi people are basically stupid (although none of them are named Homer...maybe that will be in the sequel) and obviously don't know how to handle their freedom and liberty in an intelligent and prosperous fashion.  In the movie, Neytiri states that "God" doesn't take sides, but, in the time of crisis, (s)He comes through.  I see this as "truth" winning out over lies; good winning out over evil.  In the end we are all held accountable for our actions here on this planet and this plays out beautifully in the movie.  My world view gives me this perspective.  It is clearly not James Cameron's world view.

So, why does any of this matter to you?

In the articles below you might want to read further.  In the Avatar Sequel article is a link, "Vatican Slams Avatar Movie." At the George Soros link above that takes you to his website you might want to read his op-ed; America Needs Stimulus, Not Virtue."  This from a man who was probably heavily involved in and benefited from the collapse of the British Pound and a couple of other currencies.  Benefited means he made LOTS of money....I wonder why he hates Capitalism so much?  Oh yeah, I know.  He hates it because he kinda thinks of himself as God and in a free market he doesn't get to call all the shots.  Got it Homer?

At the Tides Foundation link above you might want to read about their "progressive" goals and projects.  Of particular interest will be their Center for Genetics and Society.  It positions itself as "politically progressive."  If you have not already I would implore you to look into the history of Eugenics and the Fabian Socialist movement.....please. The kind and benevolent scientist that uses genetic engineering in the movie Avatar might just give you a great deal to think about.  Not that James Cameron wants you to think about it in that way.

Related articles

• James Cameron on his 'Hiroshima' movie - due 'sometime before the next nuclear war' (popwatch.ew.com)
• James Cameron Confirms Avatar Sequel (bettyconfidential.com)
• Successful Test of NASA's New Composite Material "Unobtainium" (bigthink.com)