1/6/2005
The Peace Movement: A Leftist Tool
In realizing what I know of the “peace” movement and understanding what is being asked of me to post in solidarity with the other two bloggers at It Is What It Is, I’d like say just a few words about the “peace” movement. I have no problem praying for the victims of the tsunami, but I do have a problem with praying for “peace”. While we lose our rights to preach the Bible (click here).
I was listening to news radio the other day, and they were saying Jackie Chan and some others Asians have re-worked and re-recorded “We Are The World” for the benefit of the Tsunami victims click here. I’m sorry. We’re not “The World”, we’re the United States and we should remember that. Particularly in the perilous days ahead of us.
And these are some of the reasons why I say this. These photographs were taken during a “peace rally” right here in the United States. “Peace Movement” advocates were in attendance: International A.N.S.W.E.R, Raging Grannies, Code Pink, Ramsey Clark’s pet project known as the International Action Center (IAC), The Korean Truth Commission and Pastors for Peace (who are staunch allies of Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro), and more. I really wonder of anyone really stops to think about what they’re doing when they’re “praying for peace”. Does anyone even stop to think what movement they’re riding on when they talk this rhetoric? What exactly are these peoples’ definition of it, I wonder click here? How long does it take before you realize exactly what the answer to that is?
Cross-posted to It Is What It Is
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
California Conservative linked with An “Anti-War” Movement?
Oblogatory Anecdotes linked with Not Anti-War When Taking Sides With The Enemy!
NIF linked with The First Thursday of the Rest of Your Life
January 6th, 2005 at 7:21 am
The First Thursday of the Rest of Your Life
Today’s Dose of NIF
January 6th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Actually Cao…I don’t know what the “peace movement” is either. I was talking about wishing and praying for the peace of those souls. I’m a southern baptist, not a hippy. Peace!
January 6th, 2005 at 8:06 am
“Peace of the souls”? You mean like they’re suffering in pergatory or something? Isn’t that more like a catholic idea rather than “southern baptist”? Sorry, I don’t even use that term because of what it represents. Even though some people would like to whitewash the world with their blind optimism, in the meantime real live people are suffering under oppressive communist regimes that the peace movement here in the United States is supporting….and we are losing our freedoms because of their efforts. Let’s not forget there’s a movement called “Pastors for Peace“, and those guys are not all about preserving our religious freedom.
The fact that people are so afraid to talk about these things or take a position on them because they’re afraid to “offend someone”–is also a part of this whole movement. I know you want us all to hold hands and “get along”–but our very existence is at stake here.
January 6th, 2005 at 8:21 am
My pastor suggested it. LIke I stated in my email…tell me how you would like it worded and I will change it right now.
January 6th, 2005 at 8:31 am
So he’s a “pastor for peace”, too, huh? Sorry, I’m not taking it down, for you or anybody else. I am, after all, still entitled to my opinion, right? Even if it disagrees with yours? We can agree to disagree and celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we’re still free to do so.
Although with the announcement that 8 Christians are facing 47 years in prison for preaching the bible in public, that freedom may well be disappearing as we speak.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 6th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Cao, on a different subject. When will the other site be up, are those of us you invited to join to be contributers,
Or just participants? And yes, the global peace movement is a leftist backed conspiracy.
January 6th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Thanks, ****, you’re an author-a contributor. As a matter of fact, go take a look-Rick from Rightwing Nuthouse just posted. It’s underneath the “call to arms” post. There are two initiatives here, as I’ve said. Re read your invitation email. Rick was supposed to wait to post until the design is finished…but it’s good to know how excited people are about the project.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 6th, 2005 at 8:43 am
Now Blog Explosion put me in here. Funny. Anyway..Uh, no. He is not a “pastor for peace” He is a pastor for God. I’m not asking you to take it down. Who cares about your post. I ask you to reword the prayer request the way YOU think it should read and I will change it. What of that do you not understand?
January 6th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Why on earth should I re-word your request? It’s up to YOU to CLARIFY what you mean, OK? It seems rather strange to me that a self-proclaimed “genius” would ask me to do her thinking for her. As for me, I will pray, on my own, in my own way to God the Father, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. Fair enough?
And btw, if that were my pastor, I’d be asking some pretty tough questions.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 6th, 2005 at 10:51 am
In 1991 when the Communists gave up the ghost in the former Soviet Union, chaos reigned for a couple of months and about 2 million pages of KGB documents were either stolen by activists or released by the Yeltsin government.
What they contained is quite simply, mindboggling.
In what has to be one of the most underreported stories in history (for obvious reasons) the documents revealed nearly 40 years of KGB infiltration of peace movements around the world…with several prominent peace “activists” receiving monies with full knowledge of where it came from.
The media, with few exceptions, ignored the revelations. But they’re part of the historical record. “The Black Book” written by apologetic leftists who realize that their support of communism undermined freedom, is a must read for anybody who wants to understand the peace movement and what their motivations are.
Today’s moonbats are’nt quite as organized…but some of the same funding sources are at work. And their desire is not for peace, per se…but rather the “peace of the grave.” They want to destroy western industrialized civilization. They hate capitalism as much as any communist ever did. They hate religion, commerce, automobiles, personal freedom, the rich, and any accutrement of modernity.
Their ideal society can be found in the Amazon Rain Forest or African plains. They sing the praises of tribal life and its accompanying mystical attatchment to the earth. And they are absolutely dead serious.
They pray for catastrophe…they long for an end to the human race as it now exists. They couch their dangerous ideas in comforting words like “population control” and “sustainable development…” while supporting the idea of government control of family planning and a planned reduction in the earth’s population to a “sustainable level”…less than 1 billion people, they believe.
They must be opposed. They must be defeated.
January 7th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Excellent post. It’s great that you are consistantly saying things that must be said.
January 7th, 2005 at 3:44 am
World peace as a goal is a leftist conspiracy? I can think of no better reason to be a leftist. Perhaps some people in the “peace movement” support Communist dictatorships. Perhaps some people in the “war movement” support Fascist dictatorships. Both are deluded and wrong. The “peace of the grave” you speak of will most certainly come if the neocons and development-at-all-costs corporatists have their way. Rational limits on fossil fuel emissions and on the destruction of oxygen-producing rainforests are means to avoid environmental catastrophe and ensure the continued survival of human life on earth.
January 7th, 2005 at 7:36 am
Amen! Res ipso loquiter
January 7th, 2005 at 7:42 am
There is no “war movement” that I’ve heard of. Most rational people see the Iraq war for what it is…a necessary evil to achieve an enormous good; bring democracy to the heart of the middle east.
For all the left’s ranting about Iraq, the only concrete proposal I’ve heard to make us safer is for the United States to change its foriegn policy. I assume (moonbats are very vague about specifics…after all, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant) that this would mean tailoring our policies to placate people like Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This would mean getting out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the middle east in general; overthrowing the Sheiks and other kleptocrats that rob their own people blind; and ultimately, converting to Islam and giving homage to the newly reconstituted Caliphate of Bagdhad.
I submit that changing our foreign policy in the face of threats to our national existence is foolhhardy at best and treasonous on its face. Anyone who thinks the terrorists will leave us alone if we only do what they say needs to get back on their meds and have their weekend passes from Bellevue revoked. It’s insane.
And yet, this is the “alternative” we get from leftys. Either that or leave things as they are…the status quo is fine. We’ll continue to muddle through until the next time a 9/11 (or worse) happens.
I guarantee you, the next time an attack occurs, it won’t be the fault of terrorists…it’ll be blamed by moonbats on our response to terrorism. Or more likely on George Bush himself.
Monnbattery!
January 7th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Wow! I am having some trouble understanding were some of these people are coming from. Oh, I forgot left field is it not. Especially this tomi person! As for the South American rainforest, well this guy needs to look into his own backyard before talking about that subject. Please note that we (the United States) continue to cut down trees at an alarming rate but I do not hear very much about that subject, it’s all about the rainforest. The IAH Airport in Houston recently expanded the area under their control taking out over 500 acres of trees. Wake up! We are doing it to ourselves!
Peace is the goal of any right thinking person and I do not mean right-wing either. Only by putting pressure on the elements (dictators, extremist religion fanatics, terrorist, etc.) that continue to use force to achieve their ends can we ever achieve peace. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is not an example of a peaceful government. A person like Leslie Cagan, who is one of the leaders of the peace movement in the US, is a fine example. She rants about America is wrong to take the war to Iraq (who has sponsored terrorist) and raves that the war has nothing to do with Saddam’s refusal to allow UN inspectors or that he is a dangerous madman. No, she just wants peace! Note that this person admires the workers paradise that Castro has made of Cuba, she thinks Castro is a “Great Man”. Note that many of the brush wars in Africa had “volunteers from Cuba”, does this sound like the Cuban communist government wants peace. Governments not people make wars.
If you wish to live under a Communistic government you are free to leave the country any time you wish. America does not have to build walls to keep our people from leaving. We do not require you to leave a relative in the US as hostage for your return. If communistic states are so great why do they have to force many of their own people to stay there? We do not have to this, just the opposite; we have to watch for many people trying to enter our country illegally if this is the only way they can get into the US. Again, Wake up! Marxist/Socialist communist left-wingers advocate the overthrow of the US constitution by any means (including force). Become a leftist and join in with them but you and Leslie can move to Cuba together. I am sure they can put both of you to work in the cane fields.
January 8th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Simple rule: deal with what I say, not with what YOU say I say. Anything less is dishonest. I DO NOT support communist dictatorships. Nor do I, unlike the Bush administration and apparently you, support fascist dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan. Have you checked on the status of democracy in those countries lately?
Legitimate wars of self-defense are one thing: opportunistic invasions of oil-rich countries are another. My point about the rain forests is related, since I was accused of advocating “the peace of the grave.” My point is that the peace movement are not the ones who are leading us to extinction as a species. That dubious honor belongs to short-sighted developers who will squander every life-giving resource the earth possesses just to make a buck and to the politicians who offer them the services of the US military to further that end. A simple question: If security and democracy are our goals, why did we not invade North Korea? A simple answer: No oil.
No, it’s not just the rainforest: it’s overdevelopment everywhere that concerns me. Read Jared Diamond–civilizations aren’t destroyed by war and revolution; those are just the final straws. Civilizations crumble because they outstrip their resources. And we’re now a civilization with a global reach. You do the math.
If you are having trouble figuring out where I’m coming from, I would suggest that you take some steps to educate yourself. Then you would at least be able to offer coherent counterarguments.
January 8th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Ok tomi-lets have it your way for a bit here. Let’s stop consuming the world’s resources-this means for you, me, your doctors, your liberal friends: Go back to the days of horse driven buggies; no more trains and planes or cars; no more supermarkets and freezers to keep food fresh; who cares that millions will die of diseases spread by poor food handling. For that matter, millions more will die of plagues. Lets stop doing everything we do-because you earth freaks claim a bunch of BS is happening with global warming; lets go back to the cave men days. I want to see you give up life as you know it. I want to see you live in a cave, in a New England winter. Lets watch tomi grow his own food and hunt for his own meat; lets watch tomi live the good life he speaks to here.
Moron. I am not ashamed to be living the life I live and I do not fall for the pack of lies about consumerism is evil…global warming-there is no real proof that bad things are coming and I for one, will not live in fear of something that could turn out to be faux.I’m sick and tired of hearing people like you rant and rave about how awful we are. Go to France where they out consumer the US with their buying spurts; where they work 3 days a week just so they can enjoy their consumer ridden lifestyles. I don’t care about your petty little worries-it’s all a bunch of BS. Many more people don’t care either-so go find another issue to whine about. In other words-grow up.
January 8th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
A bug is a dog is a man. That’s what they believe, and if you had to chose between the three, they’d have to really think about it.
To see an American example of the “save the earth crazies, a good example is the Ruckus Society, a group of anarchist Greens who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots.
Greenpeace is another one, best known for its illegal actions, endangering humans in order to make a point about the environment.
The grant-making institutions of the Left and their feverish moonbat recipients ultimately form an amorphous, leftist entity. One never needs to search very far to find connections between a leftist foundation and extreme advocacy groups. Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center; Tides funds the National Lawyers Guild, CAIR, MoveOn.org and United for Peace and Justice; and those organizations then unite in fluid coalitions to protest against their common political enemies (Republicans).
The most striking example I can think of on the score of this wacked out environmentalism is with the outbreak of Malaria after “Silent Spring”. Before the appearance of Silent Spring, the use of DDT pesticides had eradicated malaria worldwide. Four decades later, the ban on DDT resulted in a pan-African genocide. Two-to-three million people die needlessly from malaria every year, all of them in Third World countries (most in the Indian subcontinent and Africa.) The World Health Organization reports 2,500 children under the age of five die of malaria every day. In all, the DDT ban has threshed a deadly harvest of 50-90 million African lives. Nearly half-a-billion people contracted malaria in 1999 alone, 90 percent of them in Africa. Young people are among the most susceptible.
Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s 1962 best-selling book, paved the way for the Environmental Protection Agency’s ban of DDT use ten years later. The Natural Resources Defense Council compares the book to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It is Rachel Carson’s great achievement and claim have her book listed among the 100 most important books of the 20th Century by the New York Times. Silent Spring was a manifesto warning about the deadly effects of DDT, a pesticide widely sprayed to kill mosquitoes, on plant and animal life, which Carson claimed had caused irrevocable harm producing cancer and genetic defects, and that it had damaged the world food supply. Forty years after the publication of Silent Spring, its findings are largely dismissed by scientists. As Todd Seavey of the American Council on Health and Science has noted:
No DDT-related human fatalities or chronic illnesses have ever been recorded, even among the DDT-soaked workers in anti-malarial programs or among prisoners who were fed DDT as volunteer test subjects — let alone among the 600 million to 1 billion who lived in repeatedly-sprayed dwellings at the height of the substance’s use. The only recorded cases of DDT poisoning were from massive accidental or suicidal ingestions, and even in these cases, it was probably the kerosene solvent rather than the DDT itself that caused illness. Reports of injury to birds could not be verified, even when one researcher force-fed DDT-laced worms to baby robins. Reports of fish kills have been greatly exaggerated, resulting from faulty data or aberrant, massive spills or overuse of the chemical that do not hint at a general danger in its use.
Despite these facts, Carson’s book produced a wave of anti-DDT sentiment so strong that the Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT use in the United States and any nation receiving American foreign aid. The administrator who made the ruling had not attended the DDT hearings, overruling the judge who had attended and did not support the ban.
Yeah, these greens are really far out….and they reach back to Europe. They’ve been at this stuff a long time. It is telling that the fall of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980s tore the veil off the carefully constructed Soviet myth, revealing that the most economically regulated societies on earth were also the most ecologically degraded. No good can come of reviving their failures. No infusion of tax-exempt, capitalist cash will sweeten their noxious dreams.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 8th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Dear Raven,
I’ve heard this all before, and it’s a non-starter. In your formulation, there are only two choices: unchecked consumption and living in caves. I would suggest to you that unchecked consumption WILL lead us back to the cave, very rapidly and painfully. When all the dinosaur juice is gone, we’ll have no choice and no alternatives. It is rational consumption, with a full awareness of the consequences of our actions and with the full weight of modern technology driving efficient use of energy rather than opportunistic and wasteful extraction that will enable us to continue to lead something resembling “the good life” into the foreseeable future. Sticking your head in the sand won’t help.
Again, deal with what I say, not what you THINK I say. You’re fighting cartoon monsters, while reality marches up behind you.
January 8th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
I suspect that my courteous recent visitors like deviantsubculture1 is one such character.
With forty years of hindsight, celebrating Rachel Carson’s misguided book seems the height of reactionary pig-headedness, a monument to never having to say your sorry. Its unproven scientific assertions led to the deaths of tens of millions. But then admitting as much might take away some of the self-righteous confidence of the Green cause. Hence Green radicals like Teresa Heinz Kerry have a serious vested interest in pretending this history never happened.
In the 1930s, the suppression of Germany’s Communist Party created a unique new hybrid, the “beefsteak Nazi”: brown on the outside, Red on the inside. The beefsteak Nazi was a Marxist who believed his economic theories were close enough to those of the National Socialist Party that he could safely jump ship. The modern equivalent is the Red environmentalist. Having been rebuffed by 70 years of history, Marxist ideologues have not given up the dream; in addition to their influence on college campuses, they have found new vitality as the Green Left has accepted central tenets of their platform. Today, the Green/Red coalition yokes sincere (if misled) environmentalists and those seeking socialism for its own sake – not to mention the increasing number of people, like David Brower, who straddle both movements. Conservation, a positive reaction to the excesses of Gilded Age capitalism whose chief proponent was a Republican president, has since become the convenient cover for advancing a creeping socialist economic model. Teresa Heinz Kerry’s support for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) offers an excellent example.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Tomi is a pacifist and an environmentalist. Fine. Contrary to popular liberal belief, the Iraq war was not, is not, nor will it ever be a war for oil. Haliburton did not get the no bid contracts because they are friends of Bush. Haliburton is the only company in the world that can handle everything they are doing. Even Clinton gave them no bid contracts, but one never hears about those. As for North Korea, they haven’t bred nor aided terrorists as far as I know. They are a nuclear threat, again, thanks to Clinton and Albright and their failed policies.
It is amazing what the earth can endure. Did you know that the Mt St. Helens eruption in 2004 spewed more stuff in the atmosphere than all the cars and manufacturing plants in the US put forth in a year? Did you know the Krakatau eruption in the 1800’s put more stuff in the atmosphere than man has during his entire existence on this planet? The fact is the earth’s environment changes,and life adapts to that changing environment. Besides, what if all the oil was used up tomorrow? Would the earth stop rotating? Would man give up and die? No, of course not.
Our capitalistic society breeds creativity and innovation. That is why this country is where we are today. The strength of man is adapting to changes, environmental, economic, and societal. Our civilization will survive, I have no doubt about that. When man no longer finds this planet suitable or sustains his needs, he will be able to move to another planet and rape those resources.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Dear Cao,
DDT causes environmental destruction, loss of species, possibly damaging to humans. Yet it controls malaria, thereby saving human lives. This is what is known as a “hard choice.” The logical option is to use the DDT to save lives while searching for an alternative that accomplishes the goal without doing irreparable harm to the ecosystem. What you would apparently rather do is to damn the torpedoes and spray indiscriminately. This is not rational and certainly not intelligent. Again, it’s the cartoon solution: in your worldview there are no hard choices, and consequently you consistently choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In your last post contained unattributed quotations from FrontPage magazine, specifically:
. Do they know you are posting their material under your own name?
January 8th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
So…we went to Iraq for oil…
Ya know, you’re right! Why, just yesterday I was passing by the Uncle Sam Gas Station and lo! Sign said “No Gas.”
And I heard that the United States Government owned and operated refinery on the other side of town is closing because they’ve run out of oil! Tsk…tsk…is this a bad situation, or what?
What’s that you say? THere IS no government owned refinery? What, no gas station owned by the government?
THEN WHAT THE HELL DOES THE US GOVERNMENT NEED OIL FOR!
Oh that’s right…it’s the OIL COMPANIES (evil music in the background). Perhaps you can enlighten us as to when the “oil companies” (or just one would do) called the President on the phone and ordered him to go into Iraq, destroy the infrastructure of that country so that oil WOULDN”T FLOW…and then, what? Steal it? Carry it off in the dead of night when no one was looking?
It’s a constant source of amazement to me the ease with which moonbats claim that this war is all about oil…and then CANNOT OFFER ONE SHRED…NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT UP!
If we went to war for “oil”, where is it? Who’se got it? Why would Bush jeapordize his re-election by doing something that caused the price of oil to skyrocket? I mean, I know you think he’s stupid, but come on! He’s the goddamn President of the US…you don’t get there by being a total idiot! You gotta have some political smarts. And you don’t get re-elected by doing something that results in gas prices going through the roof.
As for those evil developers raping Mother Gaia of all her precious resources, it might interest you to know that about 40% of destruction of the rainforest is carried out by indigenous peoples…just like they’ve been doing for around 3500 years. It’s called “slash and burn” agriculture and it’s the single most destructive force working on the rain forests…more destructive than road building or land clearing for cattle grazing. And as far as Jared Diamond, I’m not sure which book you refer to…I read “Guns, Germs, and Steel” with great interest. Mr. Diamond was talking about the Aztecs, the Easter Islanders (who stood by and watched the last tree cut down on their island 200 years before Europeans arrived). What those societies don’t have is market based economies. When a commodity gets scarce, the price increases and incentives are created to find alternatives. No such incentives were present in primitive societies.
Finally, one company of United States Marines have done more for world peace than all the dingaling, moonbat, nutball peace activists who everlived. Ghaddafi didn’t give up his WMD because Sean Penn asked him to or because the yahoos who were demonstrating in NY at the Republican convention scared him with all their drum playing and bell ringing…he dropped his WMD program because he’d just seen what those Marines (and Airmen, Army and Navy guys) had just done to Saddam…gone through him like **** through a sick moonbat.
I don’t trust people who spout off for peace…not when they’re more than likely to sell out our country’s interests to achieve the wisp of an ephemeral fantasy: Peace…and at any price.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
That material is also posted on this website, and I gave them credit where credit is due. You can look it up under the Kerry/Bush Campaign over to the left. Or just click here. It’s Teresa Heinz Kerry’s 57 Varieties of Charitable Causes, which I posted here in honor of my friend Rage, who lived in Germany and was concerned about the Green movement here. It’s Chapter V, “Shades of Green” –but make sure you thank deviantsubcultureof1 for me, will you, for that information? Isn’t it just too bad that you greens don’t like the facts that David Horowitz has uncovered about you over there? Tsk tsk.
Must bug the hell out of you that a growing number of other people know about it, too.
Oh and btw, there is no proven reliable scientific evidence that DDT causes environmental destruction; it’s a myth perpetuated by the left in SPITE of the evidence, in order to pass more regulations. It’s a clear bigger government agenda: increasing the size and scope of government and its restrictions on industry such as farming, mining, forestry etc..at the expense of the private sector and the little guy.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Dear Superhawk,
How many times must I say it: Respond to what I say, not to what you CLAIM that I say.
I didn’t say that development is inherently evil; just that development without limits and without rational policy will destroy the whole shooting match. Here’s the problem with the “invisible hand” of the market as a regulatory mechanism. It works too slowly to keep up with our destructive capabilities. We have to bang into a wall before we change course, and this particular wall is going to be cripplingly strong. The adjustment will be painful at best, impossible at worst. A few farsighted policies, like mandating fuel efficiency increases, would have helped, but we don’t seem to be interested in that.
You say that the US government isn’t interested in oil? If so, I would say then that they are failing in their mission to look out for our economic interests. Oil is of vital importance to our economy, for better or for worse; my quarrel is with what the current administration is choosing to do about it. Obviously they didn’t intend for the invasion of Iraq to result in the cutoff of the Iraqi oil suppy. We all know that Bush didn’t intend to fail. What they intended was to install a US-friendly government who would ensure our continued access to the precious juice. The problem is that they failed. And continue to fail. Saddam was deposed; that was only Step One of a long and difficult process, whether our goal was securing the oil supply or the establishment of a viable democracy. We have failed in every subsequent step.
Furthermore, I didn’t advocate a return to a primitive agricultural model. That model was destructive and wasteful, yes. And we seem to be emulating it more than we would like to admit. In fact, we haven’t really gone beyond it–we have merely perfected and extended it to the entire globe.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
“That material is also posted on this website, and I gave them credit where credit is due.”
Isn’t credit also due in the blog comments, where it appears that these words are your own when they in fact are not?
January 8th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
tomi-you don’t give any examples of what you call ratonal consumption…lets here one. Please.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
I have no idea, ask your buddy, deviantsubcultureof1. If it’s supposed to be here, I’ll put it here.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
“tomi-you don’t give any examples of what you call ratonal consumption…lets here one. Please.”
An energy policy that promotes fuel-efficiency would be a good start. MPG targets for private vehicles, promotion of public transportation, etc. Of course some people think that this infringes on our God-given right to burn as much fossil fuel as we want. Again, we’re back to hard choices. But it’s certainly preferable to “use it until it’s gone and then figure out something else.”
January 8th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
Tomi
I feel that responsible use of our resources is and should be a prime concern for all right thinking (no, I am not talking about right-winger) people. Yes, unrestrained use of the resources we have can only cause the eventual collapse of all civilization.
As someone who had to suffer through a year in that hellhole jungle war of Vietnam I would like peace as much, if not more than most people. War is a dirty degrading thing, to purposely go out and kill a fellow human is a terrible thing to have to do. Also anyone who likes being shot at or having people try and blow him up is short of more than a few brain cells. My father died in WWII, my stepfather fought in the Korean War (1st Calvary) holding the line so the Marines trapped at Chosen had a safe place to head to. My brother still carries the scars (physical & mental from Vietnam) from has tour in Vietnam. So please do not get on your hobby horse about war) as I and my family have had enough of those horrors. I can really feel for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, I must point out to you that blaming the Iraqi war on Oil is just exactly what the liberal communist leaders of the peace movement have been doing. If you take their side then do not blame me and others like me for equating you with them. Most of the liberal Democrat leaders (including Kerry/Clintons) after 9/11 wanted Bush to do something about Iraq and Saddam’s ties with the terrorist (look at many of the statements made at that time). But when Bush did do something they stood back a took cheap shots at him and started this think about Oil. NO, I do not think Bush has done every thing right or even if it was right did he do it the right way. Afghanistan has no Oil so why are we there. The war in Iraq was to remove a dangerous madman with strong links to terrorist groups involved in attacks against America. Now we just hope to give them a better government before we leave. To use your own words “Deal with it”
You say that we “unlike the Bush administration and apparently you, support fascist dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan” wow what field did that come out of (left maybe). First Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship (read the facts) it is a Monarchy. The Saudi ruler is called King. Egypt have you even been there? I worked there for 3 ½ years I think I know the Egyptian people a little better than you. Pakistan well you may have a point, I for one would like to stop all aid to that country. However, even during the cold war America sent millions of bushels of wheat to Russia to help their starving people. They had lost most of their crops a couple of years in a row. Did that mean we were supporting the communist leadership of Russia, wrong.
I am agreeing with you on the fact we are most likely going to destroy our civilization by unrestrained use of the world resources and it need to be addressed properly. But that does not stop me from understanding that a more immediate threat to our way of life and the America Constitution are the Marxist/socialist who also happen to be at the forefront of the peace movement.
January 8th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
tomi the biggest problem with your theory about invading Iraq for it’s precious oil is simple. Iraq only supplies the WORLD with 13% of it’s oil needs. Iraq doesn’t produce enough oil to make it worth a war…the USA gets 47% of it’s oil from the Americas…23%from the middle east (including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait) Canada and Venzuala supply us with FAR more oil than the middle east. We don’t need Iraq for oil; many have said we don’t need Saudi Arabia either.
Source: http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602chart.pdf
January 8th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
“I have no idea, ask your buddy, deviantsubcultureof1. If it’s supposed to be here, I’ll put it here.”
I have no idea who that is.
I suggest that you contact FrontPage and ask them about their policy on reprinting their material. Most publications allow links but would like their material to be properly quoted and attributed if it appears in any other form. When material is presented without quotation marks and attribution, the assumption is that the person named in the byline wrote it. Otherwise it is plagiarism. It’s FrontPage’s call. Maybe they don’t mind, but they could take legal action if they wanted.
January 8th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
They’re watching my every move I wonder if they can see me going to the bathroom, lol…
Does anybody know what the rules are for this kind of thing in the comments section of a blog?
I have the disclaimer on the post, am I supposed to have it in the comments, too? What the hell, I’ll put it in every godddam comment–armies of lawyers, ruthless cyberterrorists who can see (and let me know) what sites I visit, when I go to dictionary.com or frontpage magazine–what’s next?
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 8th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Dear Cecil,
Thank you for your honest and rational response. I still disagree with some of your points, but you are obviously a reasonable person and deserving of respect and an open ear.
My point about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt is that none of them are democracies, yet they are all our allies. I wouldn’t make the distinction between a monarcy and a dictatorship: monarchy is just the old-fashioned form of it. It’s still the rule of one man by force, without the consent of the people.
I think that Afghanistan was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attack. There are things there that probably could have been done better, but I don’t fault the basic premise of that war. But I’m one of those who thinks that Bush dropped the ball when he turned his eyes on Iraq. Iraq was certainly not our friend, but the world is full of governments that fit that description. The threat was not reall and imminent, and I think the intelligence books were cooked to give legitimacy to a war which was undertaken to: (a) get a US foothold in the Middle East other than Saudi Arabia; (b) ensure access to its oil reserves; and (c) finish Daddy Bush’s unfinished business. We’re losing ground in Afghanistan now because of the Iraq war. I can’t help but conclude that oil is the reason for that war.
Yes, we sent food aid to Communist Russia, but not military equipment. We supply all the above-named countries with military hardware. Hard to say that isn’t support.
Once again, you address issues rather than just calling names, and I respect you for that. Hats off to you, because in this world we all need the kind of dialogue that might actually get somewhere.
January 8th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
“I have the disclaimer on the post, am I supposed to have it in the comments, too? What the hell, I’ll put it in every godddam comment–armies of lawyers, ruthless cyberterrorists who can see (and let me know) what sites I visit, when I go to dictionary.com or frontpage magazine–what’s next?”
I don’t care what sites you visit, but when I read something and think “that sounds familiar,” I get curious. The ethical point is simple respect for the original work of another writer, especially one from “your own side,” and not presenting said material as your own. The legal point is copyright.
January 8th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
#29: tomi- what do you thnk about this article: click here
I have read similar things elsewhere also.
January 8th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Tomi
America gives aid (money maybe some weapons) to many countries other than Egypt and Pakistan. These other countries have what you term “It’s still the rule of one man by force, without the consent of the people” and none of them have oil we import. Can you name me the actual percentage of countries we send aid to that are truly ruled with the consent of the people. Countries like Nigeria, Angola, Gold Coast, Ethiopia, Thailand, Sudan, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Somalia, etc. do not fit your description of countries ruled by the consent of the people yet we provide aid to them. Saudi Arabia buys their weapons from us we do not give them the weapons, same for Egypt. Yes we give Pakistan too much, one cent is too much. I can only guess that you are saying that we should not help the countries less favored than us because they are not truly democratic.
But to get back to the subject this blog was written on. The peace movement has been high jacked by the liberal left-wing along with their good friends “Blame America First Group”. This is a fact no matter how much you wish it would go away. Again I must state that this is evident to anyone willing to really look at who is the leaders of the so called peace movement. Show me one conservative that is in the forefront of the peace movement, please I am waiting.
January 8th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
FYI Tomi, fuel efficiency actually increases the amount of hydrocarbons released from the vehicle. You see, fuel vapors are not hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are produced when the internal engine combusts fuel and air. Therefore, the more fuel efficient you make cars, the more those fuel efficient cars produce hydrocarbons. It is a little known fact that is not highly publicized. You don’t want fuel efficient cars, you want clean burning fuel.
Just a little chemistry lesson here on Cao’s blog.
January 9th, 2005 at 7:50 am
Dear Cecil,
My point is that we shouldn’t be providing weapons and military support to dictators, and we should be watching the humanitarian aid to them very closely to see that it’s getting where it needs to go. It’s hypocritical to claim to be all about promoting democracy while you’re arming very undemocratic regimes.
I’m not sure what you call a “fact” and what you call a “forefront,” but Pat Buchanan has consistently and vocally opposed the war in Iraq. He’s pretty conservative in my book. Besides, why does any position have to have conservative endorsement to have validity. You’re begging some pretty big questions there.
January 9th, 2005 at 7:54 am
Dear Cracker,
I think you’re confused about what “fuel efficiency” means. It doeesn’t mean that you burn fuel at a very rapid rate; it means that you burn less fuel for the distance travelled. Less fuel burned=fewer hydrocarbons produced. I’m not sure what point you’re making about fuel vapors–they are produced even when no burning occurs. In any case, I’m for both fuel efficiency and cleaner-burning fuel. They aren’t mutually exclusive goals. Actually, less reliance of fossil fuels all around is a better goal.
January 9th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Sorry about the burp, folks, just getting rid of a little pest and my hacks messed up the blog functions for a bit.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 9:58 am
OK Tomi, I’ll go slow for you. Fuel efficiency is based on the combustion of fuel. Gas and air are mixed, a spark is provided, combustion ensues which drives the pistons… In less fuel efficient cars, there is still unburned gas (fuel). So to make a car fuel efficient means to burn ALL the fuel (that is the goal) because the more efficiently the engine burns fuel, the more miles a car can get out of a gallon of gas. This is where the increased MPG comes in in the fuel efficiency thesis. Therefore, the more fuel efficient cars get, the more hydrocarbons are emitted.
To build on what you said, less fuel is used for more miles because that fuel is being burned more efficiently. For example, a car gets 20 mpg with 50% efficiency. If efficiency were 100%, that car would get 40 mpg. However, there are twice as much hydrocarbons produced by the higher effiency.
As I said before, a little chemistry lesson (and a bit on the internal combustion engine). I hope this clears it up a bit for you.
January 9th, 2005 at 10:09 am
It’s junk science, Cracker. The same brand of science that won John Edwards millions of dollars and caused doctors to leave his state because their malpractice insurance skyrocketed, that Ralph Nader uses to push more regulations on eeeevil corporations, (and that American taxpayer dollars, in many instances, go to pay for, as in the perverted Kinsey “science” that spawned the sexual revolution, to force upon us the ridiculous notion that sexual perversion is mainstream.) I don’t know why you’re even bothering, guys. Lost cause.
Cao
(autopen)
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Tomi: From your comment above that I was responding to:
“Legitimate wars of self-defense are one thing: opportunistic invasions of oil-rich countries are another…”
If that doesn’t sound like “war for oil” I don’t know what would.
As for your statement:
“What they intended was to install a US-friendly government who would ensure our continued access to the precious juice…”
More “war for oil”…and as far as access, we already have that through something called “the market.” Saddam was deposed because he was a dangerous nut case who, given half a chance, would have supplied terrorists with WMD. The UN was ready to give him that half a chance and more by lifting sanctions on him due to the biggest bribery scheme ($24 BILLION and counting) in history. Regime change was supported by Democrats and Republicans as far back as 1998. Given that Clinton wanted to achieve this goal without military force, Saddam’s replacement would ostensibly have been just as corrupt and probably just as anti-american as Saddam.
The point is, the imposition of democratic government on Iraq will, by all logic, make us safer. After 9/11, that would seem to be the only rational goal of US foreign policy.
Those who wish to continue to “War for Oil” meme without offering an iota of evidence to back it up should either put up or shut up.
January 9th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
Dear Tomi:
Pat Buchanan? That is the best you can do??!! I have not seen him on the platform at any of the peace rallies. He usually makes any comments in the background or on the sidelines. Anyone who calls him a “mainstream conservative” obviously does not comprehend what he really stands for. Sorry to disabuse you but he is an Anti-Semite so-called conservative with some rather weird friends.
Lenora Fulani (Buchanan campaign co-chairman) and Fred Newman are both well known as being Socialist and Anti-Semite. Susan Lamb has close ties to David Duke and the “National Association for the Advancement of White People”. Samuel Francis who has called for a “white reconquest of the United States”. Vincent Bruno who has strong ties with the KKK and David Duke.
In his speech against the Gulf War, he described Congress as “Israeli-occupied territory”, and opposed the Gulf War by saying only “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States” wanted to fight Saddam Hussein.
Again, look at who leads the peace rallies, look who stands up on the stage at the rallies and spouts off about peace. Look whose names appear in the News media as the organizers of the peace rallies. If the leaders of the peace movement are all Marxist Socialist liberals (remember the Marxist Socialist want to destroy the constitution) then it really begs the big question of “What are they really after?” These are the facts I talked about.
January 9th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Love that one, “only the conservative position has validity here”. Riiiiight. And I suppose only the Green/Socialists who champion their self-righteous views as superior to ours on behalf of the “downtrodden” who’ve been “discriminated against” are the ones who should have the only voice, and should have full authority to beat the rest of us into submission at gunpoint.
Both the Green Party and Democratic Socialists of America have long histories that lead back to their bloody red roots. The July 2000 Green Bulletin states, “For those of you not familiar with us, The Greens/Green Party USA started in 1984 as the Committees of Correspondence.” Alan Caruba, the editor of the National Anxiety Center’s publication, Warning Signs, traced this history: “The Communist Party that took over Russia in 1917 began as ‘committees of correspondence.” In 1989, its name was changed to Green Committees of Correspondence and, in 1991, to The Greens/Green Party USA.”
This is about opposing an ideology that would kill everyone in their path for disagreeing them, it’s not about republican versus democrat or conservative versus liberal. Cecil himself was a democrat until he figured out who hijacked the democratic party. Democrats are leaving that party in droves for this very reason.
click here for Nader: More Red than Green
Cao
autopen
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Tomi,
What gives you the personal right to determine what I do? That’s the bottom line of many of the posts to what you propose. You propose to enact limits on things such as MPG ratings — by what right? Do you claim personal ownership of the entire earth?
I’m not saying I have a God-given right to burn as much fossil fuel as I want, but if I do want to burn any fossil fuel that I own, by what right do you claim to limit me?
January 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
OK Cracker, and I’ll go even more slowly for you. By “fuel efficiency” I’m referring to the ability to travel the greatest distance on the least amount of fuel, not to the ability to completely burn the fuel. Maybe the more accurate term would be “fuel economy.” A vehicle that is lighter, for example, will burn less fuel to cover the distance than will a heavier vehicle, thereby emitting fewer hydrocarbons. All you’re telling me is that fuel that doesn’t burn doesn’t pollute. Bravo. Park your car and we’ll all breathe better. (BTW, even unburned fuel emits hydrocarbons, but that’s another issue.)
Cars that are lighter and have smaller engines are the wave of the future as our petroleum becomes scarce and our air becomes foul. Of course, we’d all be more crashproof in Abrams tanks, but that would just accelerate the coming end of petroleum reserves.
Cecil–you asked me for an anti-war conservative, and I gave you one. Buchanan’s not my guy, because as you may have guessed, I’m not a conservative. But I don’t like being told that only conservatives are allowed to have opinions. Which leads to…
Cao–I have never, nor would I ever, challenge your right to express what you express here. I reserve the right to tell you that you’re wrong and to tell you why. Your demonization of the opposition is comical–do you really believe that I want to “kill everyone in [my] path”? As for the evidence of the name “Committees of Correspondence” that you use to link the Green Party to the Communist Party, perhaps you are unaware that the original “Committees of Correspondence” in American history were the Sons of Liberty: you know, the Boston Tea Party, the Continental Congress, the Founding Fathers, all that good stuff? Were they Commies too?
Ogre–
“I’m not saying I have a God-given right to burn as much fossil fuel as I want, but if I do want to burn any fossil fuel that I own, by what right do you claim to limit me?”
We have this thing called civil society, which operates by laws, ostensibly for the common good. I personally have no right to limit you. I do have the right to vote for a candidate, policy, etc. that WOULD limit you if I think that such a policy is vital to our species’ survival. If I want to defecate on my neighbor’s yard, by what right can he stop me? By right of the laws of the society in which we both participate. Without that, it’s just the law of the jungle and who has the bigger gun. Is that the world you choose to live in?
January 9th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
Dear Tomi:
Just don’t want to give another John Edwards type the opportunity to make a few bucks.
You’re right, Tomi, there’s nothing wrong with mass graves or ovens, what was I thinking?
The Ruckus Society doesn’t believe that destruction of property is wrong, in their terrorist training camps they learn rapelling off buildings, breaking windows, and they teach that breaking and entering is justified, and now to get around the law. Hell, they were the ones that caused the riots in Seattle, and were probably the ones that threw those pies at Ann Coulter. There is only one group of people, according to the greens, who should follow the law, and it’s not them, because their cause is a holy one and it’s in ‘everyone’s best interest’ because we’re not “enlightened”. These people are EXTREME. And btw, I’ve been receiving some EXTREME uh–feedback, if you will, from these people.
And we could go to any number of other organizations connected with the Green movement who are pushing the red agenda along…Earth Action Network, which takes a stand on a number of issues, which aren’t even environmental, like opposing homeland security and advising on Foreign policy, standing against our military by opposing things like missile defense systems, they even stick their noses in military aid to Indonesia.
As another example of how greens are pushing their politics, one of Terry Heinz’s pet charities, CELDF, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, wrote a manual on how a green can run a successful political campaign as a member of the Green Party.
I’m well aware of who you guys compare yourselves to, and it’s really unbelievable that you go for that dezinformatsia. You should look for a more appropriate comparison-in Nazi Germany-and Die Gruenen. And in the ’30’s, they were socialists, just as they are today. Greens compare themselves to the revolutionaries fighting King George III, antislavery, to women’s suffrage movements, the farmers’ revolt of 1887 against the banks and railroads. I know all that ridiculous malarchy. I also know the kinds of people they attract: The eternal victim who’s been “oppressed”. Anybody who wants to sit on a “pity pot” can fit into one of the Greens’ supposed “oppressed groups.”
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Tomi — no, it’s not the “common good” or “civil society” that gives me the right to stop my neighbor — it’s property rights. You are confusing individual rights with collective rights — of which there are none.
I have a right to do with what I own, whether you disagree with that. If I own oil, you have no right to take it from me in any manner — you do not own the earth simply because you claim to have “common good” at heart.
January 9th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Where did you get those property rights? Did God come down and hand you a deed? No, you worked and earned money (an abstract social construct) and gave it to someone else in accordance with a set of laws (another social construct) and became the legally recognized owner of a parcel. It’s all part of the functioning of civil society, a mutually-agreed-upon set of rules that we choose to live by or choose to suffer the consequences of defying. There are no collective rights? Then there are no laws whatsoever, since law in a democracy applies equally to all. No one wants to take your property–well, I certainly don’t. But that doesn’t mean, for example, that you can raise hogs in a suburban neighborhood, or start a junkyard on your front lawn. There’s always a balance to be struck between individual rights and the common good. Otherwise, as I said, we’re back to the law of the jungle. Democracy doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want with no limits whatsoever–that’s less than childish, it’s infantile.
January 9th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
ahhh yes, these people will never have enough because others have too much.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
“ahhh yes, these people will never have enough because others have too much.”
Cao,
What on earth are you talking about? Have you even read my post? Balancing the rights of the individual with the common good: that’s the essence of our democracy. Perhaps you don’t really care much for democracy. It appears that you don’t. There are no “these people”–it’s democracy, it’s all of us. Property rights are individual; civil rights are collective. Ask any political scientist.
January 9th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
What on earth are YOU talking about? I am so sick of hearing that “common good” rhetoric. It’s “each according to his abilities, each according to his need”. I don’t buy into the philosophy (because it doesn’t work!!!) so you can write more and more, until you’re blue in the face, you’re not going to convince me that socialism/communism is better than what we have. You should reap what you sew, rather than sit around like the grasshopper while the ant’s working all year–it’s a great philosophy in la-la-land, which apparently is where you live.
Give it a rest, I am really not interested.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Not interested because you obviously don’t understand. I didn’t advocate redistribution of property. You’re so fixated on Communist hobgoblins that you can’t focus on the matter at hand. I’m talking about responsible use of resources, conservation, if you will. All you seem to be able to do is scream “Communist” when you are unable to adequately address an issue. Good luck with that.
January 9th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Marx said one is the predecessor of the other. I understand they are different; there are many variations many shades of red and pink, if you will.
Comments are moderated-they will go into the queue-I’m going to bed, which means-you will not see them if you post after this–until the morning when I approve or disapprove.
This is because I’m still getting some trackback spam, although not much. Looks like my little pest flew into the flytrap.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 9th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
First of all, democracy is a way of ruling, “mob rules”, the majority rules. It is not a set of guiding principles. America is a republic because our founding fathers knew democracies (real and total) will fail. You can view a few of my recent posts at my blog http://www.uncivilrights.blogspot.com.
I must alter what you said: there is a fine line between individual rights and the rights of the masses (please don’t use “common good”).
I think you’re getting into a bunch of semantic arguments and misunderstandings and probably misperceptions. Tomi, I have libertarian leanings and there are certain words that mean one thing to me and I think means something different to you. At least that’s the way I’m reading your posts.
Yes conservation is good, however, when it stymies our innovation, creativity and growth then it’s a problem. The earth will survive mankind. Whether or not mankind leaves this planet before that happens is another matter. Anyway, it will be a very very very long time.
Cao, Tomi seems nice enough (compared to others we know), so take a deep breath…hold it…hold it…are you seeing stars yet? Good. It’s a nice break in the day, isn’t it?
January 9th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Tomi, you claim to not want to take my property, but at the same time you say that you do. If you want to regulate automobiles so that manufacturers can only make 125mpg machines, in order to enforce that, you will have to take my automobile. That’s taking, no matter how you look at it.
If I want a junkyard in my front yard, and I have one, by what means do you propose to force me NOT to have one, other than by taking of said property?
As for where I got the rights, yes, God did grant people the right to own property. On a completely different note, you mention ways of obtaining property — by agreeing to a free exchange — not a social concept of common good, a simple concept of freedom of exchange.
January 9th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
The statement you made in the last post “you can’t focus on the matter at hand. I’m talking about responsible use of resources, conservation, if you will.” points out that you failed your test of intelligence, this article was about the Peace Movement until you high jacked it into another realm. If you feel that strongly about it start your own blog and let the rest of us discuss the issue of this article.
Oh, I could tell you are a liberal from your first post but I was also hoping that you were willing and capable of learning when the facts walk up to you and say, HI!! You continually avoid what makes you feel uncomfortable. If the leaders of the peace movement are all Marxist Socialist liberals (remember Marxist Socialist want to destroy the constitution) then it really begs the big question of “What are they really after?” These are the facts I talked about not that conservatives are the only ones whose opinions count. Liberals do have a bad habit of trying to put words in other people’s mouths to avoid having to face the issue squarely. You brought up Buchanan babe not me! Is it not odd that not one mainstream conservative has gone to the forefront of the peace movement. Maybe they just do not like the company they would have to keep and the Socialist pap they would have to agree with. Again nobody, who has fought in or has sons/daughters in the military or has lost relatives in war, likes war.
Have you looked into the questions and who is leading the peace movement as I asked? From your later postings I would have to say, NO, you have not.
Can you not see that the left-wing organizers and leaders of the peace movement encourage bigotry. We do not have to “do is scream “Communist” as they are there and they promote communist propaganda (brochures, pamphlets, etc.) at these rallies. To see and face these facts is a sign of intelligence, to ignore them is a sign of stupidity. These same bunch of people say things like “And I think the revolt of September 11th was about ‘F– you! F– your order.”, this was said by Castro lover, peace movement supporter Director Oliver Stone. Do you deliberately shut your eyes to this or are you one of the ignorant gullible stupid people who have swallowed this liberal pap whole heartily. Ignorance is when you are uninformed, Stupidity is when you do not even try to learn. The only one who can keep you in ignorance is yourself. If you are unwilling to really study the issue (That the Socialist have high jacked the Peace Movement) and just continue to sprout the same old liberal pap, you are stupid. Well, wallow in your liberal ignorance and stupidity as it has become very obvious you do not wish to face the issues and refuse to even try to learn.
January 10th, 2005 at 6:09 am
Any student of Marx (whether they agree with the philosophy or not) knows that socialism is the predecessor to communism–it’s the desired goal, in fact! As unrealistic as that is!
Thanks, guys. I get a little frustrated with people who ignore all the facts, all the data (we have expressed far more than mere opinions here), and keep jumping from one subject to another without addressing the very issues they bring up. I should get used it, I suppose…this is the kind of “dissent” that is really frustrating to me–the people who call the terrorists we’re fighting “freedom fighters”, who for all intents and purposes, are siding with the enemy in the war on terror. There was a day when this was called “treason”. It is, in fact, aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.
We are seeing on the Islamic message boards the same type of writings they were writing in Nazi Germany in the ’30’s. Their intense hatred of the west and of our Judeo-Christian heritage is intensifying, and they control the Arab media just like the Nazis did in the ’30’s. (That’s why Al Jazeera is alternatively known as the “voice of Al Qaeda”.) All the while, people like the greens are supporting their efforts….the goal of the Islamists (who are also socialists) is and always has been, to wipe us off the face of the earth. While the media here in the US and people like Michael Moore embraces a peculiar brand of political correctness for “tolerance” of these people–it’s just paving the way for future attacks. If you want me to take it easy, then don’t talk that pinko Chomsky-ite Bin Laden rhetoric. After all, bin Laden himself said: “”There is nothing wrong in Muslim interests converging with those of the socialists in the battle against the Crusaders.”
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
September 26th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Not Anti-War When Taking Sides With The Enemy!
Cindy Sheehan was arrested today. They should keep her in a cell where she belongs. She calls herself a peace activist but then aligns herself with avowed enemies of our country from within and from beyond our borders.
You think groups like United…
September 26th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
peace to them means they want to take our freedom away by piece by piece.
September 26th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
An “Anti-War” Movement?
On the heels of the breaking news of the ‘anti-war’ movement’s poster girl Cindy Sheehan getting arrested today in front of the White House (with a big smile on her face nonetheless - but no, they didn’t go there to get arreste…