Yesterday, former SEIU President and Obama Administration appointee, Andy Stern, wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal lauding the virtues of the Chinese Communist centrally planned economy. He asserts that the Communist’s 12th Five-Year plan has set the goal of achieving low unemployment, public housing and rural development and with the extraordinary growth of the Chinese economy, central planning has proven itself to be a superior model to ” the free-market fundamentalist, share holder only model.”
Stern conveniently ignores the fact that the central planning model in China is having problems and that their economy is contracting month by month. As a member of the labor elite he should be concerned with this because one of the major stories of the past week in China is that the contracting economy has been causing labor unrest and out-of-control land grabs in rural areas. The underpaid factory workers (by most accounts the real engine of China’s extraordinary economic growth) have a history of unrest and their growing demands are usually stifled by the unions controlled by the Communist government. Ironically, with China’s embrace of markets, labor conditions and labor rights have also been enhanced, often despite the best efforts at the Communist Party to enforce labor discipline.
Of course, China- envy has been going on for some time now. Andy Stern is not new in his admiration of the authoritarianism of the centralized administrative state. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has long been an advocate of Chinese industrial development, and some American corporate types also like the known quantities of central planning. Casino magnates like Steve Wynn have praised the Chinese government’s stability. New experiments in this model are being attempted as well. The Congressional budget supercommittee was an attempt to implement a more rational, authoritarian and streamlined form of governance.
However, I wonder why American advocates of central planning have to go to a foreign Communist country to find intellectual support for their ideas? The United States has been experimenting with central planning for most of the 20th Century. The huge adminstrative apparatus of the federal government is really nothing more than centralized economic decision-making. And those states we call “welfare states” are really, in fact, experiments in central planning that rest on the basic idea that capitalism is a failure for many.
However, the economic failure of states like New York and California offer up-close and homegrown proof of the failure of central economic planning, and this is a very inconvenient truth for the China-envy crowd.
Books have been written on the miserable effects that central planning has had on New York, so we won’t go into all that here. One of the worst examples of New York government central planning are its economic development councils, or economic redevelopment agencies. They are fonts of political corruption and cronyism, and they keep the unions happy enough so that they keep electing Democrats.
And we know the results of multi-generational Blue statism: Like all socialist countries and other socialist entities, the people really, really, really want to get out. The 2010 Census shows that over 1 million people left New York between 2000 and 2009. Further data shows that they are leaving for low tax, Republican- controlled states like Florida, Texas, Georgia and other southern states.
We are witnessing the failure of central planning all over the United States. Budgets are bloated and cannot be paid for. The high taxation that results has driven businesses and population away. But faced with this reality, the advocates of central planning choose to ignore the empirical conclusions that can be garnered from their long-gestating experiments. Instead, they are (desperately) trying to convince Americans that a Communist country holds all the answers. To them and their technocratic allies, it appears that the the Constitutional order, the republican form of government, and American liberty itself, are no longer workable.That is why they think that only dummies can see value in such things.
What the American elite and ruling class fears more than an end to deficit spending and a return to the gold standard, is that the United States return to an isolationist foreign policy.
Although the “globalist” precedent-setting and poll boosting that is the underlying purpose of Obama’s Libyan action has been mentioned elsewhere by the likes of Limbaugh and Mark Levin, the legal aspects of his action bear analysis because Obama has said some extraordinary things which suggest he feels he has no need couch the globalist nature of U.S. military action in the language of national defense nor “national interest.”
As he said in a speech given in El Salvador, “we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. ”
But despite the protestations of his conservative critics, the use of the American military for international, United Nations sanctioned warfare has been the law of the land since 1949. In that year Congress passed the United Nations Participation Act, which grants the President the authority to send American forces into combat merely in support of peacemaking missions approved by the United Nations. The UNPA allows the President to do this without obtaining the authority of Congress beforehand.
Section 6 of the UNPA states: “The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter (UN Charter).” To date, the courts have upheld this under the dictates of customary treaty law, where treaties supersede domestic law-yes, even the U.S. Constitution.
In light of this old law and the decades-long globalist orientation of the U.S. military, the question of constitutional war powers appears to be moot. The more important and poignant question should be “When were we asked to make it so?”
Perhaps the answer to that was given by the court historian of the liberal regime, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in a 1995 symposium on American isolationism (for them a chronic problem). Notice in what he says that the isolationists tendencies of the people were suspect, so it is implied the question never would be directly put to the people. It would be engineered out of them. Do you expect anything less my dear readers? He said:
For President Roosevelt the great objective in 1943–1945, besides winning the war, was to tie the United States into a postwar structure of peace. The memory, still so vivid, of the repudiation of the League two short decades before was not encouraging. Isolationism had been the American norm for a century and a half; internationalism was only a two-year Wilsonian aberration. No one could assume that isolationism would simply wither away. It had, Roosevelt felt, to be brought to a definite end by binding American commitments to an international order. And he felt additionally that as many of these commitments as possible should be made while the war was still on, before peace could return the nation to its old isolationist habits. F.D.R. said privately, “Anybody who thinks that isolationism is dead in this country is crazy. As soon as this war is over, it may well be stronger than ever.”
So, while the war was still on, Roosevelt organized international meetings at Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks, San Francisco and elsewhere to involve the United States in the international machinery that would deal with postwar questions. In particular, in the words of the diplomat Charles E. Bohlen, who served as White House liaison to the State Department, F.D.R. saw the United Nations as “the only device that could keep the United States from slipping back into isolationism.” And, as Winston Churchill said on his return from the Yalta Conference, this new international organization must “not shrink from establishing its will against the evildoer or evil planner in good time and by force of arms.” Once again, the ultimate guarantee of peace, the ultimate test of collective security and world law lay in military enforcement.
That the American people do not understand that their military is the spearhead of global governance and the United Nations is nothing new.
That they believe their law is purely derived from the U.S. Constitution and not from international legal institutions is nothing new either.
In a country that continues to celebrate a war (WW2) that had as its most important outcomes the enslavement of 1/3 of humanity under the iron heel of International Communism and the establishment of global governance by its “most popular” president, is it any wonder?
When the American people wake up and begin to understand that their corrupt elite has been using their blood, labor and treasure to subvert America and end its sovereignty in the name of the New World Order, I certainly hope there will be hell to pay.
I would not expect anything less.
(Hold on, it’s coming. Hold on, it’s almost here.)
The definition of a tsunami, a.k.a. tidal wave:”a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of a body of water. Owing to the immense volumes of water and the high energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions.”
“Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions (including detonations of underwater nuclear devices), landslides and other mass movements, meteorite ocean impacts or similar impact events, and other disturbances above or below water all have the potential to generate a tsunami.”
So, what that all means is that the massive displacement of water in a large body of water is caused by large energy-producing events well beneath the surface of said body. So much water is originally displaced by the event, that when it returns, naturally, it overloads the the boundaries that once held it where it was. The effects, as we have seen in Japan, are devastating to coastal communities.
In recent years, many have been complaining, documenting, lamenting and cheering that in America and Western Civilization in general, traditional forms of masculinity are dead. Instead, they say, what has arisen is a very effeminate, weak, and childish man, especially amongst white (European) males. We have miraculously gone from what was falsely deconstructed as a “male dominant patriarchal society” to one in which women are increasingly becoming the dominant gender in the workplace and in education.
S o, to answer the question “Where are all the real men?” the tsunami is actually a pretty good analogy. Masculinity has receded simply because it has been displaced by many forces that wanted to see it go. But unless men of all stripes, and especially western men, do not want to be forever emasculated and demoted to second-class citizenship, they must regain their self-respect and dignity and come back to their natural place in society.
Where have all the real men gone then? They sit and watch in silence, waiting for the moment of their return, and when they do, they will bring with them an energy that will overwhelm the boundaries the left had been trying to forge.
According to a Harris poll released on March 5, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, would come in first if the first round of Presidential elections were held this year. That puts her ahead of both President Sarkozy and Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry.
Marine Le Pen is the daughter of controversial founder of the National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen. She has also taken controversial positions on the European Union, immigration and other social issues.
Here is a video of Le Pen. Notice her startling analysis of the the European Union and the Euro. The comparison of the EU to a “dead star” is classic.
House Passes Luetkemeyer Amendment to Halt Taxpayer Financing of UN Climate Panel
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a major victory for American taxpayers, the House of Representatives today passed a budget amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The amendment, which is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Luetkemeyer, was passed in a direct challenge to the president’s request to fund the IPCC, which has provided information that purports to support the administration’s call for job-killing cap-and-tax legislation. Luetkemeyer’s amendment was one of 19 amendments highlighted this week by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for at a time of out-of-control spending and historic debt, which is why I am extremely pleased that my amendment passed,” Luetkemeyer said. “It is time for Washington to combat this year’s record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt. This amendment is part of that effort.”
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
On April 13, 2010 the Tea Party Express III came to the City of Buffalo, NY and held a two-hour rally on the City’s waterfront. During the rally, according to a number of witnesses, attempts were made by various individuals to infiltrate and disrupt the gathering.
e witnesses at the rally reported that disruptive language and behavior was mostly attempted by lone individuals aged between 20-25 yrs old. Some of these individuals came from a crowd of counter-protesters that had gathered outside the main area of the rally.
After the counter-demonstration ended, some Tea Party attendees noticed that some of the counter-protesters wandered into the Tea Party crowd and proceeded to heckle its speakers. They provoked no incident and left shortly after their attempts at disruption failed.
However, there was an effort by anti-Tea Party provocateurs that successfully disrupted the Buffalo rally.
About 45 minutes into the Buffalo Tea Party Rally, a group of young men approached the crowd wearing the uniform of colonial British soldiers, waving the Union Jack. As they wound their way through the Tea Party crowd, they began to heckle the speakers in British accents.
Although the “Reds” heckling appeared humorous because they were ostensibly mocking “colonial yankees” and were playing along with the imagery evoked by the Tea Party, their antics managed to disrupt the rally for a few minutes, at least.
Shortly after they began their heckling, the leaders of the Tea Party asked the “Reds” to leave. Outraged by this request, the “Reds” made their way to the Tea Party organizers, where, according to some witnesses, they complained that their freedom of speech was being violated.
Shortly after they started complaining, however, some witnesses observed a wire hanging out of the coat pocket of one of the “Reds.” reportedly, a Tea Partier (in the photo below) grabbed the wire which revealed a tape recorder or some other audio recording device. Immediately, the “Red” began screaming that he was being violated and the Tea Partier backed away.
Eventually, the Tea Party organizers quelled the situation, and asked the “Reds” to desist and they eventually left. Debbie Lee, the mother of the first Navy SEAL to be killed in Iraq, Marc Allan Lee, was instrumental in talking the “Reds” out of their disruptive intent.
It is important that Tea Partiers be on the look out for this kind of tactic. While at first it may seem funny and not all that threatening, be aware that tape recorders will be playing.
The Federalist Blog explains the politics behind judicial decisions that have allowed the unconstitutional expansion of the Federal government in the United States.
If you think fighting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a matter solely devoted to filing lawsuits you are deeply mistaken. The reason lawsuits will have little effect is because the entire judicial system is a house of cards built upon a foundation of fiction and lies the court is willing to jealousy defend even if they must continue with deceit. Justices on the court are no longer concerned with defined limited powers or original meaning behind enumerated powers anymore then they are interested in why States refused to surrender domestic concerns over to the general government.
The court has increasingly grown in modern times to concern itself only in declaring what it feels the Constitution ought to have said instead of what it was approved by the people of the States to have said.
Lawsuits against Obamacare is by no means frivolous, but because the court in the end will always choose not to disturb the great centralization of power that has been judicially created by deferring to Congress. Example: When the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was challenged, the court held that “The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as here applied, we find to be plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude.”
In other words, since a majority in Congress had decided discrimination was something they ought to regulate within State limits the court was not going to entertain any serious factual analysis to whether the regulation of commerce ever had anything remotely to do with intrastate discrimination. This act of judicial restraint has become a valuable defensive tool the court employs to protect the centralization of federal power within State limits.
Likewise, members of Congress will avoid the question all together by pointing to the courts past deference when the court would uphold the power of Congress to “regulate many aspects of American life” through the Commerce Clause. This deferring back-and-forth assures questions of limited powers and original meaning will go ignored by both branches.
Neither the court nor many members of Congress have any desire to defend their self-created powers publically over anything having to do with buying and selling because they know they cannot defend such powers in any open, honest public forum where facts can be presented to dispute the courts numerous instances of ignoring historical facts.
The court would consider it a nightmare to have to defend such positions as “the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices” in the face of overwhelming evidence such nonsense was never part of the practice of regulating commerce. Price control never remotely had anything to do with the regulating the exchange of trade for that was something strictly left to the exclusive legislative powers in making rules for buying and selling – something Congress does not possess intrastate. The fact is the regulation of commerce was solely to protect or encourage domestic manufactures through imposts and duties on importable articles of trade insures the court will avoid any evidentiary analysis of its meaning and constitutional purpose. (See here for a historical analysis of the regulation of commerce.)
The court will almost assuredly resort to the great defense shield of denial known as “stare decisis” as a clever way of protecting the courts own judicial malpractice from scrutiny while at the same time leaving its vast centralization of power in Congress intact. Therefore, all the lawsuits in the world challenging Congress or the courts own erroneous interpretations of the past will fail.
A better way to attack Obamacare than with lawsuits will be to confront justices of the court and members of Congress indirectly with the truth. Wouldn’t take long before the media starts questioning why they court is not responding to questions of how their stated precedent could be so wrong.
An example for an indirect question for the court is a half-page Ad in the WSJ that asks the court and Congress how did the States and other Nations regulate their commerce with each other before and after the adoption of the Constitution? Answer: The Levying of imposts and duties on “goods, wares, and merchandizes” imported.
Billboards could quote James Madison on the purpose behind the power to regulate commerce among the States as growing “out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
Alternatively, how about quoting Madison on the understood meaning of regulating commerce: “The power (regulation of commerce) has been understood and used, by all commercial and manufacturing nations, as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.”
As these two quotes show (find more here), the regulation of commerce was never understood to embrace laws on buying or selling. If it had meant that you could bet none of the original 13 States would had ever consented to adopting the Constitution.
While such tactics might not change anything over night, it could ultimately prove to influence the court enough to realize their bogus constitutional revisionism lacks critical factual analysis, and thus, makes them nothing less than a judicial accessory to despotism by continuing with their game of constitutional deceit.