Thursday, April 22, 2010

Why would Bill Clinton compare Tea Partiers to Timothy McVeigh?

Originally posted at "State of the Nation" at The Desk of Brian,

Bill Clinton commemorated the anniversary of the horrific Oklahoma City Bombing by comparing Tea Party protesters to Timothy McVeigh, blaming advocates of small government for the bombing fifteen years prior.
Clinton is claiming that McVeigh and others:

"...took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them."
For the most point, the Tea Party protesters have been non-violent, vocal dissent against big government, endless spending, encouraging the principles of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. Bill Clinton, along with the extreme left, the mainstream media want to stigmatize the group by associating them with Timothy McVeigh and his ilk.
One might jump to the conclusion that President Clinton is truly maligning the Tea Party members, strategizing with the Obama administration in the transparent campaign to marginalize the Tea Parties.
I'll take a different look and assert that Bill Clinton is behaving as Bill Clinton always has and always will, in his best interest.
President Clinton may want us to believe he's naive, but in fact, I believe is using the opportunity to re-write history.
Timothy McVeigh has revealed to the world why he bombed the Federal Office in Oklahoma City and that's the government's action in Waco, Texas two years prior.

"I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens. "
McVeigh equates the bombing to hitting a government location in Serbia NOT a protest against "big government" or massive government spending.
McVeigh's actions are heinous, criminal and deplorable on every level and Clinton's efforts to distort McVeigh's intentions to label Americans practicing their free speech is nearly as deplorable.
The Waco Siege ended on April 19, 1993 and two years later, to the day, Timothy McVeigh enacted his distorted and twisted form of justice. Fifteen years later, a former President attempted to politicize the horrors of that day to re-write and protect his legacy and slander protesters.
Pathetic day in history on every level.

"Avengers" taking shape & Mostow speaks on "Namor"

Originally posted at "State of the Nation" at The Desk of Brian,

A "Sub-Mariner" movie aka "Namor" made me snicker at first. The shallow character would be a super-hero version of "Species" or possible a "Frankenstein" tale, but never anything remotely interesting.

Well, then Universal hired Jonathan Mostow to write and direct the film.

Universal still holds control of "Namor" while Marvel pursues an "Avengers" climax to their growing universe. just reported the latest on the film and Mostow's commitment to a great script.

Mostow, director of "Surrogates" and "Terminator 3" said on camera that it's tangled in a "shroud of secrecy" as it is in development.

Meanwhile Hayley Atwell (TV's "The Prisoner", Woody Allen's "Cassandra's Dream") joins the cast on "The First Avenger: Captain America" as Peggy Carter. In the comic books, Peggy Carter is a French Resistance fighter that
hooks up with Steve Rogers and his team of Invaders during World War
II. Carter is the aunt of Sharon Carter, an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. and
Rogers' modern love interest in the current Marvel Comics continuity.

Joss Whedon will direct "The Avengers" and has been given unilateral control to tweek Captain America, "Ant-Man" and basically anything tied to the franchise. Edgar Wright, director of "Ant-Man" tweeted this week that he and Whedon have met:

“I just met Joss Whedon for the first time. Speculation commence!”

"Iron Man 2" director Jon Favreau speaks out that Cap and Thor make a cameo in "IR2":

"I want it to be completely self-contained because a lot is going to happen between now and the next chapter. You've got 'Thor,' you've got 'Captain America ' and you've got ' Avengers.' I
don't know how all of that is going to impact this little handmade
story of ours that we've been doing over the last two films…  You want
to leave some things open, you know, to be like a food cache for them
to set things up that can be paid off later and lean toward where we think
things are going… But we can't leave it like 'Empire' where you're
waiting to see it resolved. It's not a cliffhanger. We had to tuck this
whole story in. And that be said, we had like eight different
storylines going and opened up the door, especially with both the good
guys and the bad guys, for a larger story to be told. That's just
responsible filmmaking. But if you just watch this movie, it's
self-contained. It's not like 'Two Towers.' " - Favreau

An Italian website "BadTaste" confirms:

"One thing that will excite the public instead of enthusiasts is the extra scene that appears after the credits of Iron Man 2,"
says the site, based on their source which they consider "100% secure."
But what will the scene consist of? "Well, we say that the scene will
cover Captain America and Thor!"

Chris Evans as Captain America and Chris Hemsworth as Thor -- it's becoming a reality.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

What Can We Learn From Aldous Huxley?

Guest: Aldous Huxley

WALLACE: This is Aldous Huxley, a man haunted by a vision of hell on earth. A searing social critic, Mr. Huxley 27 years ago, wrote Brave New World, a novel that predicted that some day the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship. Today Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us. We'll find out why, in a moment.


WALLACE: Good evening, I'm Mike Wallace. Tonight's guest, Aldous Huxley, is a man of letters, as disturbing as he is distinguished. Born in England, now a resident of California, Mr. Huxley has written some of the most electric novels and social criticism of this century.

He's just finished a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” in which he outlines and defines some of the threats to our freedom in the United States; and Mr. Huxley, right of the bat, let me ask you this: as you see it, who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?

HUXLEY: Well, I don't think you can say who in the United States, I don't think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom, but I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces which are pushing in the direction of less and less freedom, and I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use to accelerate this process of going away from freedom, of imposing control.

WALLACE: Well, what are these forces and these devices, Mr. Huxley?

HUXLEY: I should say that there are two main impersonal forces, er... the first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries. This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation, the mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.

WALLACE: Uh-huh.

HUXLEY: Uh... this, of course, is an extraordinary thing; something is happening which has never happened in the world's history before, I mean, let's just take a simple fact that between the time of birth of Christ and the landing of the May Flower, the population of the earth doubled. It rose from two hundred and fifty million to probably five hundred million. Today, the population of the earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.

WALLACE: Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well, in a number of ways. I mean, the... the experts in the field like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries actually the standard of living is at present falling. The people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had fifty years ago;

and as the position of these countries, the economic position, becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship-of-state on an even keel, and then of course you are likely to get social unrest under such conditions, with again an intervention of the central government.

So that, I think that one sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime. And unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power... the position of power.

WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er..., it's an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we've done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end. Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were and death rates have fallen substantially. (COUGHS)

WALLACE: All right then, so much, for the time being anyway, for overpopulation. Another force that is diminishing our freedoms?

HUXLEY: Well another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of overorganization. Er... As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.

It's now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Now the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or er... methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?

HUXLEY: Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way. I mean, let us er... take after all, a piece of very recent and very painful history is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.

I mean, what were Hitler's methods? Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, but he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which er... he was using every modern device at that time. He didn't have TV., but he had the radio which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people. I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.

WALLACE: Well, we're aware of all this, but how do we equate Hitler's use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used let us say here in the United States. Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?

HUXLEY: Needless to say it is not being used this way now, but, er... the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler's method, which could be used in a bad situation. I mean, what I feel very strongly is that we mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.

This has happened again and again in history with technology's advance and this changes social condition, and suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn't foresee and doing all sorts of things they really didn't want to do.

WALLACE: And well, what... what do you mean? Do you mean that we develop our television but we don't know how to use it correctly, is that the point that you're making?

HUXLEY: Well, at the present the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly; it's being used, I think, I would feel, it's being used too much to distract everybody all the time. But, I mean, imagine which must be the situation in all communist countries where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same things the whole time; it's always driving along.

It's not creating a wide front of distraction it's creating a one-pointed, er... drumming in of a single idea, all the time. It's obviously an immensely powerful instrument.

WALLACE: Uh-huh. So you're talking about the potential misuse of the instrument.

HUXLEY: Exactly. We have, of course... all technology is in itself moral and neutral. These are just powers which can either be used well or ill; it is the same thing with atomic energy, we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it as a substitute for the coal and the oil which are running out.

WALLACE: You've even written about the use of drugs in this light.

HUXLEY: Well now, this is a very interesting subject. I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, “Brave New World,” er... I postulated it a substance called 'soma,' which was a very versatile drug. It would make people feel happy in small doses, it would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.

Well, I don't think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist. But we do have drugs which will do some of these things, and I think it's quite on the cards that we may have drugs which will profoundly change our mental states without doing us any harm.

I mean, this is the... the pharmacological revolution which is taking place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs which physiologically speaking are almost costless. I mean they are not like opium or like coca... cocaine, which do change the state of mind but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, in your new essays you state that these various "Enemies of Freedom" are pushing us to a real-life “Brave New World,” and you say that it's awaiting us just around the corner. First of all, can you detail for us, what life in this Brave New World would you fear so much, or what life might be like?

HUXLEY: Well, to start with, I think this kind of dictatorship of the future, I think will be very unlike the dictatorships which we've been familiar with in the immediate past. I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell's “1984.”

Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime, and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence. Now, I think what is going to happen in the future is that dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bayonets except sit on them!


HUXLEY: But, if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled, and this they will do partly by drugs as I foresaw in “Brave New World,” partly by these new techniques of propaganda.

They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man and appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions, and his physiology even, and so, making him actually love his slavery.

I mean, I think, this is the danger that actually people may be, in some ways, happy under the new regime, but that they will be happy in situations where they oughtn't to be happy.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you this. You're talking about a world that could take place within the confines of a totalitarian state. Let's become more immediate, more urgent about it. We believe, anyway, that we live in democracy here in the United States. Do you believe that this Brave New World that you talk about, er... could, let's say in the next quarter century, the next century, could come here to our shores?

HUXLEY: I think it could. I mean, er... that's why I feel it so extremely important here and now, to start thinking about these problems. Not to let ourselves be taken by surprise by the... the new advances in technology. I mean the... for example, in the regard to the use of the... of the drugs.

We know, there is enough evidence now for us to be able, on the basis of this evidence and using certain amount of creative imagination, to foresee the kind of uses which could be made by people of bad will with these things and to attempt to forestall this, and in the same way,

I think with these other methods of propaganda we can foresee and we can do a good deal to forestall. I mean, after all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

WALLACE: You write in Enemies of Freedom, you write specifically about the United States. You say this, writing about American political campaigns you say, "All that is needed is money and a candidate who can be coached to look sincere; political principles and plans for specific action have come to lose most of their importance. The personality of the candidate, the way he is projected by the advertising experts, are the things that really matter."

HUXLEY: Well, this is the... during the last campaign, there was a great deal of this kind of statement by the advertising managers of the campaign parties. This idea that the candidates had to be merchandised as though they were so-called two-faced and that you had to depend entirely on the personality.

I mean, personality is important, but there are certainly people with an extremely amiable personality, particularly on TV, who might not necessarily be very good in political... positions of political trust.

WALLACE: Well, do you feel that men like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Nixon, with knowledge aforethought were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

HUXLEY: No, but they were being advised by powerful advertising agencies who were making campaigns of a quite different kind from what had been made before. and I think we shall see probably, er... all kinds of new devices coming into the picture. I mean, for example, this thing which got a good deal of publicity last autumn, subliminal projection.

I mean, as it stands, this thing, I think is of no menace to us at the moment, but I was talking the other day to one of the people who has done most experimental work in the... psychological laboratory with this, was saying precisely this, that it is not at the moment a danger, but once you've established the principle that something works, you can be absolutely sure that the technology of it is going to improve steadily.

And I mean his view of the subject was that, well, maybe they will use it up to some extent in the 1960 campaign, but they will probably use it a good deal and much more effectively in the 1964 campaign because this is the kind of rate at which technology advances.

WALLACE: And we'll be persuaded to vote for a candidate that we do not know that we are being persuaded to vote for.

HUXLEY: Exactly, I mean this is the rather alarming picture that you’re being persuaded below the level of choice and reason.

WALLACE: In regard to advertising, which you mentioned just a little ago, in your writing, particularly in “Enemies of Freedom,” you attack Madison Avenue, which controls most of our television and radio advertising, newspaper advertising and so forth. Why do you consistently attack the advertising agencies...

HUXLEY: Well, no I... I think that, er... advertisement plays a very necessary role, but the danger it seems to me in a democracy is this... I mean what does a democracy depend on? A democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest, in any given circumstance.

But what these people are doing, I mean what both, for their particular purposes, for selling goods and the dictatorial propagandists are for doing, is to try to bypass the rational side of man and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surfaces so that you are, in a way, making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice on rational ground.

WALLACE: Of course, well, maybe... I... you have just answered this next question because in your essay you write about television commercials, not just political commercials, but television commercials as such and how, as you put it, "Today's children walk around singing beer commercials and toothpaste commercials." And then you link this phenomenon in some way with the dangers of a dictatorship. Now, could you spell out the connection or, have... or do you feel you've done so sufficiently?

HUXLEY: Well, I mean, here, this whole question of children, I think, is a terribly important one because children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup; and again, suppose that, er... that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children, who after all are going to grow up and be adults quite soon. I do think that this is not an immediate threat, but it remains a possible threat, and...

WALLACE: You said something to the effect in your essay that the children of Europe used to be called 'cannon fodder' and here in the United States they are 'television and radio fodder.'

HUXLEY: Well, after all, you can read in the trade journals the most lyrical accounts of how necessary it is, to get hold of the children because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. But I mean, again you just translate this into political terms, the dictator says they all will be ideology buyers when they are grownup.

WALLACE: We hear so much about brainwashing as used by the communists. Do you see any brainwashing other than that which we’ve just been talking about, that is used here in the United States, other forms of brainwashing?

HUXLEY: Not in the form that has been used in China and in Russia because this is, essentially, the application of propaganda methods, the most violent kind to individuals; it is not a shotgun method, like the... the advertising method. It's a way of getting hold of the person and playing both on his physiology and his psychology until he really breaks down and then you can implant a new idea in his head.

I mean the descriptions of the methods are really blood curdling when you read them, and not only methods applied to political prisoners but the methods applied, for example, to the training of the young communist administrators and missionaries. They receive an incredibly tough kind of training which may cause maybe twenty-five percent of them to break down or commit suicide, but produces seventy-five percent of completely one-pointed fanatics.

WALLACE: The question, of course, that keeps coming back to my mind is this: obviously politics in themselves are not evil, television is not in itself evil, atomic energy is not evil, and yet you seem to fear that it will be used in an evil way. Why is it that the right people will not, in your estimation, use them? Why is it that the wrong people will use these various devices and for the wrong motives?

HUXLEY: Well, I think one of the reasons is that these are all instruments for obtaining power, and obviously the passion for power is one of the most moving passions that exists in man; and after all, all democracies are based on the proposition that power is very dangerous and that it is extremely important not to let any one man or any one small group have too much power for too long a time.

After all what are the British and American Constitution except devices for limiting power, and all these new devices are extremely efficient instruments for the imposition of power by small groups over larger masses.

WALLACE: Well, you ask this question yourself in “Enemies of Freedom.” I'll put your own question back to you. You ask this, "In an age of accelerating overpopulation, of accelerating overorganization, and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual?" You put the question, now here's your chance to answer it Mr. Huxley.

HUXLEY: Well, this is obviously... first of all, it is a question of education. Er... I think it's terribly important to insist on individual values, I mean, what is a... there is a tendency as a... you probably read a book by Whyte, "The Organization Man", a very interesting, valuable book I think, where he speaks about the new type of group morality, group ethic, which speaks about the group as though the group were somehow more important than the individual.

But this seems, as far as I'm concerned, to be in contradiction with what we know about the genetical makeup of human beings, that every human being is unique. And it is, of course, on this genetical basis that the whole idea of the value of freedom is based.

And I think it's extremely important for us to stress this in all our educational life, and I would say it's also very important to teach people to be on their guard against the sort of verbal booby traps into which they are always being led, to analyze the kind of things that are said to them.

Well, I think there is this whole educational side of... and I think there are many more things that one could do to strengthen people, and to make them more aware of what's being done.

WALLACE: You're a prophet of decentralization?

HUXLEY: Well, the... yes... if it... it's feasible. It's one of the tragedies, it seems to me. I mean, many people have been talking about the importance of decentralization in order to give back to the voter a sense of direct power. I mean... the voter in an enormous electorate field is quite impotent, and his vote seems to count for nothing.

This is not true where the electorate is small, and where he is dealing with a... with a group which he can manage and understand... and if one can, as Jefferson after all suggested, break up the units, er... into smaller and smaller units and so, get a real, self-governing democracy.

WALLACE: Well, that was all very well in Jefferson's day, but how can we revamp our economic system and decentralize, and at the same time meet militarily and economically the tough challenge of a country like Soviet Russia?

HUXLEY: Well, I think the answer to that is that there are... it seems to me that you... that production, industrial production is of two kinds. I mean, there are some kinds of industrial production which obviously need the most tremendously high centralization, like the making of automobiles for example.

But there are many other kinds where you could decentralize quite easily and probably quite economically, and that you would then have this kind of decentralized, like after all you begin to see it now, if you travel through the south, this decentralized textile industry which is springing up there.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, let me ask you this, quite seriously, is freedom necessary?

HUXLEY: As far as I am concerned it is.

WALLACE: Why? Is it necessary for a productive society?

HUXLEY: Yes, I should say it is. I mean, a genuinely productive society. I mean you could produce plenty of goods without much freedom, but I think the whole sort of creative life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom, of initiative, creation, all these things which we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.

WALLACE: Well, Mr. Huxley, take a look again at the country which is in the stance of our opponent anyway, it would seem, anyway it would seem to be there, Soviet Russia. It is strong, and getting stronger, economically, militarily, at the same time it's developing its art forms pretty well, er... it seems not unnecessarily to squelch the creative urge among its people. And yet it is not a free society.

HUXLEY: It's not a free society, but here is something very interesting that those members of the society, like the scientists, who are doing the creative work, are given far more freedom than anybody else. I mean, it is a privileged aristocratic society in which, provided they don't poke their noses into political affairs, these people are given a great deal of prestige, a considerable amount of freedom, and a lot money.

I mean, this is a very interesting fact about the new Soviet regime, and I think what we are going to see is er... a people on the whole with very little freedom but with an oligarchy on top enjoying a considerable measure of freedom and a very high standard of living.

WALLACE: And the people down below, the 'epsilons' down below...

HUXLEY: Enjoying very little.

WALLACE: And you think that that kind of situation can long endure?

HUXLEY: I think it can certainly endure much longer than the situation in which everybody is kept out; I mean, they can certainly get their technological and scientific results on such a basis.

WALLACE: Well, the next time that I talk to you then, perhaps we should investigate further the possibility of the establishment of that kind of a society, where the drones work for the queen bees up above.

HUXLEY: Well, but yes, but I must say, I still believe in democracy, if we can make the best of the creative activities of the people on top plus those of the people on the bottom, so much the better.

WALLACE: Mr. Huxley, I surely thank you for spending this half hour with us, and I wish you God speed sir.

HUXLEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: Aldous Huxley finds himself these days in a peculiar and disturbing position: a quarter of a century after prophesying an authoritarian state in which people were reduced to cyphers, he can point at Soviet Russia and say, "I told you so!" The crucial question, as he sees it now, is whether the so-called Free World is shortly going to give Mr. Huxley the further dubious satisfaction of saying the same thing about us.

Republicans reveal their Big Government side for political gain

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

Attention all you Tea Party members, Tea Baggers if you watch MSNBC, this is an update for all of the naive FOX watchers and Republican loyalists -- they are lying to you.

President Obama spoke again this week to support financial regulatory reform. Blaming "lobbyists" and corruption is always at the core of his lectures while proclaiming we can't allow "history to repeat itself"

You may have heard tough language of opposition, especially from Scott Brown: "Shame on the president" as Brown "complained that President Barack Obama was derailing bipartisan negotiations on Wall
Street reform
for short-term political gain." (Politico article, see below)

I heard and saw clips as I surfed through the news. Of course, the Republicans hot air will fill a room if it will benefit their political gains.

Because the Massachusetts Senator said this:

"The bottom line is, where there are problems [on Wall Street], we
should fix them. I’m not
going to vote on anything or make any statements until I read the
bills,” (adding he'd take a hard look at the proposals and get up to speed)

Where's all of Scott Brown's Ronald Reagan language about "government being the problem, not the solution"?

All we have to do is look to the former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, who

"... formed an unlikely alliance with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to
propose reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which
separated commercial banking from investment banking. That law was
repealed in the late 1990s, and many critics say it allowed for the
growth of mammoth and risky
investment banks. Fully reinstating the law would be further
than the Obama administration has proposed."

One aide said McCain's vote on Financial Regulatory Reform will "will depend entirely on his analysis of how it plays among Arizona
primary voters"


“I’m looking at everything. I have not made any decisions.” - Olympia Snowe

“We need to prevent large financial firms from holding taxpayers hostage. I’m still looking at issues.”
- Susan Collins

“I think we all want to see financial regulation take place; I really do. These things
are very solvable. It just takes a little grind-it-out work.” - Bob Corker

The letter to Harry Reid from the Republicans stated:

"As currently constructed this bill allows for
endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and
unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and
community banks."

In Senator Richard Shelby's letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner we read how this is a slush fund for the Treasury to use as
they see fit, would encourage bailout over bankruptcy and explain how
this is the government running financial interests.

That is what the Tea Party and many motivated individuals are fighting to stop. Unfortunately, the Republicans are no different that their socialist counterparts on the far Left - power is more important and they don't care what we think.

Do NOT be fooled by the liars on the right. Look at their voting records, read between the lines and find the Constitutionalists that will fight to save this country.

Farewell and Wake Up

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

Coping with the loss of my 27-year-old Stepbrother has been extremely difficult for my parents, understandably. But equally as difficult is the reality of consequences for a lifetime of sinful behavior.

The reckless, sinless world where personal responsibility is often cast aside, basically consumed my brother as he failed to escape.

In the Bible, Paul speaks to these consequences in Romans 1:18-32 (NIV):

18The wrath of God isbeing revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and
reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of
God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the
Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 26Because of this, God gave them over to
shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,
he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of
envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters,
insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they
disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do
these very things but also approve of those who practice them.In moments of crisis and despair we set aside our lives and ask why?

Just as Paul looked out over pagan Rome, we look out over the modern world, especially America where debauchery is king. From Caligula to Nero, Paul had witnessed the Roman onslaught and persecution of Christians as the Emperor led society down the road of wickedness (as he describes)

How is that different than today? What do we need to wake up and see the parallels and therefore, understand the disappointment, frustration and ultimately, anger from our Creator.

My Stepbrother was always a good-willed kid, but seemed to always be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the "bad kids". Time and punishment never resolved his judgments and it ultimately cost him his life.

He made his decisions, will we learn from his mistakes and heed Paul's warnings?

Star Wars Uncut and the Haters

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

"Star Wars Uncut" is a project to have fan film short segments from the original "Star Wars: A New Hope" film, splice them together with the original sound for....well, amusement.

From the site:


You and 472 other people have the chance to recreate Star Wars: A
New Hope
Below is the entire movie split up into 15 second clips.
Click on one of the scenes to claim it, film it, and upload it. You
can have up to three scenes!
When we're all done, we'll stitch it all together and watch the magic

You can watch some of the clips of the completed segments.

Star Wars: Uncut Trailer

The Huffington Post report that the film is set to premiere in Copenhagen describing it as "going to be awesome" touting the "Do it Yourself" charm.

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but it looks completely entertaining and a great time. So, with that said, cue the haters.

Sure I don't want to see another George Lucas incarnation of the "Star Wars" films, especially in 3-D. To Lucas I'd say: Let the legacy breathe and work on new material.

Recently however, the "Star Wars" hate squad stated the following on a local website:

I'll never understand the appeal of Star Wars beyond Lucas's ability to
sell the hell out of his brand for every last penny...

The world would be a better place had Star Wars never been made...In
my opinion its a gimmick movie but thats just my opinion...
I think the firs Star Wars wasnt made in mind as a marketing tool. in
fact it was so low budgeted that the studio nor the actors had much
faith in it. was it a gimmick? in a way. Lucas basically couldnt get
Lord Of The Rings or Flash Gordon (or was it Buck Rogers?) off the
ground and i think he knew that his claim to fame was American
Graffitti. so what did he do? easy make an old fashioned sci-fi film
that was one part Lord of the Rings (Obi Wans fate at the hands of Darth
Vader at the loading bay and Gandalfs demise at the hands of the Balrog
at the exit or Moria are exact.) and one part the sci-fi space operas
like Flash Gordon that the American Graffitti loving Baby Boomers used
to watch. that equals a hit. and it was. so maybe it was a gimmivk but
to me it was more of a calculated career move by Lucas.
Star Wars is over-rated, and it is a gimmick movie. Lucas does not have
an original idea in the movie, or in the series. I grew up with Star
Wars, though, so it is a part of my youth, and that is why I love it,
despite its flaws. Star Wars, not counting effects, would not do well if
it were released today.

My first viewing of Star Wars came when I was like...18 or something...I
had seen both Return Of The Jedi and Empire in the theaters when they
were re-released with the new and improved FX (barf!) and thought they
were ok...Its just...Considering the hype built around that movie it was
somewhat disappointing when I finally saw it...I'll always blame Lucas
for being the godfather of modern crappy movies...Or atleast the guy who
hooked it on steroids...

Maybe it's because I wasn't around for the hype surrounding the initial
releae of Star Wars, but the movie doesn't do much for me. I mean, I
like the bar scene as much as the next guy, but I've seen Star Wars
once, maybe twice and that's enough for me.

As I've also asserted: time and place. If you were a child during the "Star Wars" craze, you were consumed into the frenzy. It changed science fiction, it changed the toy industry, the marketing for films, merchandise in meals for kids - "Star Wars" really did change everything.

I can understand the perspective in hindsight, but it was break through film with blue screen technology and model work that were unprecedented.

I really hope the "Fan Film" actually takes off and gets some sort of distribution because it really does seem like fun.

Seems like a better way to spend a few bucks than lining the pockets of an unrepentant, alcoholic drug addict dressed in a brightly colored iron suit playing a womanizing, alcoholic superhero.
Star Wars debate comments from:

From 1953 to Today, Looking Back in 3-D

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

April 8, 1953, nearly 50 years ago, the first big studio 3-D movie was officially introduced to the mainstream public. "Man in the Dark" was produced by Columbia Pictures and followed Robert Stack in Arch Oboler's "Bwana Devil" (a small production) to usher in the 3-D craze and boom.
Wired Magazine:
"Man in the Dark was a noir film starring Edmond O'Brien, a remake of the 1936 Ralph Bellamy movie, The Man Who Lived Twice. As 3-D it was underwhelming -- the climactic roller-coaster scene was described as flat -- and it apparently wasn't much of a flick, either, at least not to a New York Times critic who called it "a conspicuously low-grade melodrama."
The Globe in New York was the setting as Hollywood would fully embrace the "3-D" film technology and, as they say, the rest is history.
Now our local multiplex is again full of 3-D films. Maybe you endured "Alice in Wonderland" or enjoyed the scenic "Avatar" on an IMAX 3-D sceen. Well, strap yourself in, the list of upcoming 3-D experiences is longer than my grocery list. "Toy Story 3", the 4th Shrek film (Shrek: Forever After", Dreamwork's "Oobermind" and "Dispicable Me" are the creme of the crop for kids and "Harry Potter", "Tron", Joe Dante's "Hole" and a remake of "The Gate" will give adults a dose of the 3-D movie watching.

There is also those nightmarish rumors that "Star Wars" will be re-re-released in 3-D.
Everything seems to come full circle and 3-D technology took a few years to recoup from the disastrous "Jaws 3" but now, nearly 50 years later, fans are still thirsty for the lifelike realism 3-D films delivers.
It's hard to believe is all really exploded with a "Man in the Dark" and a small film with Robert Stack.
For the fanboys: Yes I know "Bwana Devil" was NOT the first 3-D film, but it was the first one in "Natural Vision" (first color stereoscopic 3-D feature). I also know that "Power of Love" in 1922 is officially considered the first 3-D film, however; the point of the article is the recognition of the anniversary of the 1950's 3-D popularity.

Foes to Infiltrate the Tea Parties

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

The website is the epicenter of the anti-Tea Party movement advertising plans to infiltrate Tea Party rallies with phony signs, make wild claims on TV interview and exaggagerate extremist stereotypes to discredit Tea Party members.
From the website:
Who We Are: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are sick and tired of all that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself "The Tea Party."
What We Want: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.
How We Will Succeed: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion...we have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.
Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.
I know and have met several people who attended Tea Party rallies and that includes several minorities and women who would contradict these ridiculous stereotypes.
So this proves several points
  • Tea Parties are a threat otherwise there wouldn't be a movement to destroy them.
  • Tea Parties are NOT full of racist, homophobic morons are there wouldn't be a need to implant them.
  • Tea Party members can spell or there wouldn't be a need to portray them as illiterate.
  • Tea Party members are not extremists because the "fools" interviewed and portrayed by the media may already be plants.
Stefanie Schappert reporfts that: "Although Crash’s website states that they will take down the tea party “by any non-violent means necessary”, the anonymous founder of the group (known as the “Mad Hatter” or Twitter name “tpartycrasher”) tweeted this on April 8th:
“When Glenn Beck dies, I plan to pour a pint of whiskey on his grave. I hope he doesn't mind if I run it through my kidneys first!!!.”
To quote Robert Ditmar's Examiner piece on this story (sited below):
"This sounds just like the totalitarian tactics of radicals such as Saul Alinsky. It just proves the lying, liberal leftist hypocrites cannot tolerate any intelligent challenges to their ridiculous dreams of a socialist, Utopian left-wing communist paradise-on-Earth society."
Of course it would be easy enough to dismiss this group as extremist fringe themselves, but they are NOT the only group.
The Coffee Party ( phony left-wing group posing as Conservatives, an offshoot of the Tea Party Movement, but rooted in the goals of stereotyping the Tea Party members as radical extremists. "The Coffee Party" was established by Annabel Park who volunteered for Democrat Jim Webb's Senate campaign and President Obama's 2008 campaign - not exactly aligned withe the Tea Parties.
The outrage over the Health Care Reform Law would have waned over the months, but these idiotic efforts will only backfire and motivate more Tea Party participants. I'm sure it would....NO, I KNOW IT WOULD be easier if every opponent of Barack Obama was a racist, sexist, homophobic moron, but unfortunately, America is better than that.
Sooner or later groups like these will find that out.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Arctic Sea Ice Returns to Normal Levels

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

Despite all of the SUVs and abuse of the environment by Al Gore's standards, the earth continues to change climate - it colder. A historical winter and yielded so other news of relief, the Arctic Ice levels with return to normal.

From the NSIDC:

Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the
first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as
defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time
of year.

Some of the statements released:

  • The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record.

  • The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean.

Dr. Walt Meir on the cause:

Basically, it is due primarily to a lot more ice in the Bering Sea,
as is evident in the images. The Bering ice is controlled largely by
local winds, temperatures are not as important (though of course it
still need to be at or at least near freezing to have ice an area for
any length of time). We’ve seen a lot of northerly winds this winter in
the Bering, particularly the last couple of weeks.

Yes, they make my head hurt too - temperature are not as important...sigh. That's his quote, the article had the statement in parenthesis so I'll assume they added it.

From Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC:

“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years,
but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions
seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, also a professor
in CU-Boulder’s geography department. “We still expect to see ice-free
summers sometime in the next few decades.”

Referring to the "Death Spiral Theory" that the Ice will just suddenly melt away by 2013. Read it here:

Some expects and blogs published how there is some recovery.

"...sea ice appears to have turned the corner as of Sept 13th data. While
that is just one data point, it turned the corner about this time last
year, and the year before."

One Global Warming blog:

So now that Arctic ice has returned to normal extent and area, we
eagerly await the explanation from the experts about how that fits into
the “death spiral” theory. Richard Feynman famously said “Science
is the belief in the ignorance of the experts


Time will tell. 2010 is looking promising for sea ice
recovery again. After all, who wouldn’t want the Arctic Sea ice
to recover? WUWT is predicting a recovery again this year, which we
started mentioning as a prediction last fall.

So given what we know today, what will NSIDC highlight
in their April Sea Ice News?

General George Patton Quotes

Originally Posted at The Desk of Brian,

I just don't think we have men like this anymore.

A good plan, violently executed now, is better
than a perfect plan next week.

A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution
applied ten minutes later.

America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why
America has never, and will never, lose a war.

A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood.

By perseverance, study, and eternal desire, any man can become great.

Do everything you ask of those you command.

Do more than is required of you.

Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.

Good tactics can save even the worst strategy. Bad tactics will destroy
even the best strategy.

I always believe in being prepared, even when I'm dressed in white
tie and tails

I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.

If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.

If I do my full duty, the rest will take care of itself.

In case of doubt, attack.

It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon
he uses, that insures victory.

Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.

Live for something rather than die for nothing.

May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.

Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic
in men.

Never let the enemy pick the battle site.

No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Success is how you bounce on the bottom.

The leader must be an actor.

The soldier is the army.

There is only one type of discipline, perfect discipline.

War is simple, direct, and ruthless.

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men.

You’re never beaten until you admit it.

You shouldn't underestimate an enemy, but it is just as fatal to overestimate

Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and
hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tire, more hungry. Keep punching.

In landing operations, retreat is impossible, to surrender is as
ignoble as it is foolish. above all else remember that we as attackers
have the initiative, we know exactly what we are going to do, while the
enemy is ignorant of our intentions and can only parry our blows. We
must retain this tremendous advantage by always attacking rapidly,
ruthlessly, viciously, and without rest.

An Army is a team; lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap.

War is the supreme test of man in which he rises to heights never approached in any other activity.

No sane man is unafraid in battle, but discipline produces in him a form of vicarious courage.

A man must know his destiny. if he does not recognize it, then he is
lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times,
fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder. if he has the
imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what
fork in the road he should take, if he has the guts, he will take it.

In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the
offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.

Wars might be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the victory.

Many, who should know better, think that wars can be decided by
soulless machines, rather than by the blood and anguish of brave men.

Tanks are new and special weapon-newer than, as special, and certainly as valuable as the airplane.

An incessant change of means to attain unalterable ends is always
going on; we must take care not to let these sundry means undue
eminence in the perspective of our minds; for, since the beginning,
there has been an unending cycle of them, and for each its advocates
have claimed adoption as the sole solution of successful war.

Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets.

The obvious thing for the cavalryman to do is to accept the fighting machine
as a partner, and prepare to meet more fully the demands of future warfare.

Many soldiers are led to faulty ideas of war by knowing too much about too little.

Dr. Weiss's Secrets & Warnings about the economy -- psst: there's a lot of debt

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

Dr. Martin Weiss published these 11 staggering facts that
every American needs to know — and that every investor won't be able to
succeed without ...

11 startling facts that Obama and Bernanke do
NOT want you to think about

FACT #1:

The official national debt now stands at $12.68 trillion — an amount equal
to about 88.5% of all the goods and services our economy produces in an
entire year.

FACT #2:
Contingent obligations for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
veterans, and pensions now stand at an additional $108 trillion over
and above the "official" national debt.

FACT #3:
State, county and local governments are nearly $3 trillion in debt.
Many can't pay and will ultimately demand that Washington assume
responsibility for that debt as well.

FACT #4:
Total federal, state and local government indebtedness now stands at a
mind-blowing $123.6 trillion.

FACT #5:
Last year, Washington added $1.4 trillion to the debt. In this fiscal year,
the Obama administration will add another $1.6 trillion!
FACT #6:
In addition to funding the current trillion-dollar-plus deficits, the U.S.
Treasury must borrow MORE each year to replace bills, notes and bonds that are maturing.
FACT #7:
This record-shattering borrowing by the Treasury has resulted in a Mt.
Everest of Treasury obligations being dumped onto the market, which
naturally depresses bond prices and drives interest rates higher.

FACT #8:
In adesperate attempt to keep interest rates low, the Bernanke Federal
Reserve has created $1.25 trillion out of thin air to buy
mortgage-backed securities ... another $300 billion to buy U.S.
Treasuries ... and yet another $170.6 billion to buy other government
bonds — a total of nearly $1.7 trillion in all.

FACT #9:
From September 10, 2008 to March 10 of this year, Bernanke increased
the nation's monetary base from $850 billion to $2.1 trillion — a 250%
increase in just 18 months.

FACT #10:
Despite this massive money-printing, the yield on the benchmark 10-year
Treasury note has STILL risen by more than one-fifth — from 3.2% to
3.86% — since December.

FACT #11:
Because of this massive money-printing, the U.S. dollar has lost nearly
10% of its value in the past 12 months alone.

The President and the Treasury Department have colluded with the Fed to create economic slavery for our country. On the surface, Democrats present that they are for the "little man" when in fact, they have driven a biggest wedge between the "Haves" and "Have Nots".
More and more people with suffer when the debt reality unravels, leaving multitudes destitute and dependent on government entitlement programs.

As the Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel said: "No crisis should be wasted" so this explosion of poverty, broke retirees, overwhelmed nursing homes, and bankrupt State budgets will allow the Federal government to grab (and hold) more power.

Are you preparing for this economic disaster? Do you even understand what any of this means or do you still have your head in the sand, believing the propaganda that "the economy is recovering", "can't happen in America" or the biggest lie: "The Republicans still have time to fix this."

Judge Napolitano: Supreme Court may save us from Obamacare...someday

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian,

Newsmax released Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's interview with Ashley Martella

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments. Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

"That's called commandeering the legislature. That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”

Napolitano on the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there and the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"

The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.

"I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party. There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.

"President Obama obviously is squarely within the Democratic branch. The president who had the least fidelity to the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who waged war on half the country, even though there's obviously no authority for that, a war that killed nearly 700,000 people. President Obama is close to that end of lacking fidelity to the Constitution. He wants to outdo his hero FDR."

For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational.

Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Moreover, Napolitano says it takes an average of four years for a case to work its way through the various federal courts the final hearing that's expected to come before the Supreme Court.

"You're talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this," he says.

Other issues that Napolitano addressed during the wide-ranging interview:
  • He believes American is in danger of becoming "a fascist country," which he defines as "private ownership, but government control." He adds, "The government doesn't have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I'm in that group, is about to come our way.
  • Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want -- that's never happened in our history before," Napolitano says. "My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn't have that kind of power under the Constitution."
  • The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create "a very unique and tricky constitutional problem" for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution's equal protection clause according to Napolitano. "So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don't have to pay what the rest of us do," Napolitano says.
  • Exempting union members from the so-called "Cadillac tax" on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. "The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can't say, 'Here's a tax, but we're only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here's a tax, and we're only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.' The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination."
  • Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation's founding document, Napolitano says. "The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem," says Napolitano. "The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who's the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, 'Judge, most of what we do down here,' referring to Washington, 'is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we're prohibited from regulating healthcare.' Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. "He's turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature," he says. "It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states."
  • Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. "They reject Jefferson's argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they're natural rights, therefore they can't be legislated away," Napolitano says. "They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They're wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way."

Disturbing 2010 Census Video

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, :

The government propaganda just continues as the political themes are interwoven with dependency on the government in this Census Video.

"Are you ready to party?"


"Health care for the kids..."

uh what?

"Brown like that...I'm Black like that..."

What's he talking about?

"A lot of things on the wish list

health care, tuition..."

"government assistance"

"Count me in."

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the song is made public within week or so or the health care reform bill being signed and as President Obama deepens the government's role in tuition costs.

Yep, must be a coincidence.