Angel remembers: "I was there at the Pit, the night the workers brought the latticework facade down. It was December 2001, a night seared in my memory forever..."
Pam Geller presents a moving tribute to those who perished and those who persevered. Go and see...
Ace of Spades
Stop the ACLU presented us with this online video
Yes, Tom, the reality remains the same. President Obama calls them "a sorry band of men?!" No, they were ruthless cowardly terrorist islamofascists, Mr. President, get your facts straight! Your cabinet and your advisors are the sorry band of men...
This Administration has been a living example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as they relentlessly seek to drag the country downhill. Amy Proctor points out the alarming fact:
excerpt below"The Great One (in his own mind) cannot blame his 19 month reckless spending spree on anyone other than himself and his political party.
In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan..."
As Barking Moonbat reports:
In case you don’t have it all memorized by now, Sowell points things out in today’s Town Hall online magazine, debunking a number of media myths and shooting a few sacred cows.
The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama “inherited” the big federal budget deficits and that he has to “clean up the mess” left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.
No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.
The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called “the Clinton surplus.” But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.
The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.He also reminds us that it was Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd behind the subprime mortgage fiasco. With the full support of the Witch’s Chorus.
Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.
At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.
When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.
Remember these names in NOvember.
If we are going to talk about “the policies that created this mess in the first place,” let’s at least get the facts straight and the names right.
The current policies of the Obama administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems-- all in the name of “change.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all.
Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.
In ten years, our country has gone from the most prosperous and powerful and generous nation in the history of the planet to a strange new world where the people in power are at complete odds with the public.
In more than one way, we are at the Gates of Vienna in our society today. We are not far from throwing away the freedoms that the Founding Fathers fought to win us and the rights that are meant to be based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights rather than the opinions of liberal loons in black robes.
We were under attack on 9/11 and we are under attack now.
The last word goes to our troops via BlackFive. Thank God for our brave men and women in uniform!
Stand and Never Yield, Sheepdogs!
Postscript for further reading:
The Gates of Vienna
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Thilo Sarrazin vs. the Ruling Multicultural Oligarchs
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
It is true, as some observers point out, that many people make stupid choices and more or less freely vote for parties that insult them and take away their freedom and dignity. This is a very real problem and exposes some of the flaws of mass democracy. I don’t question that. The issue is whether there is also something else at work in the modern West in addition to this, and my answer to that is “yes”. As Bat Ye’or has demonstrated in her pioneer work Eurabia and I have confirmed in my own book Defeating Eurabia, the leaders of the European Union have been promoting Third World mass immigration, including Muslim immigration, as a long-term policy for decades. Similar policies are no doubt at work in North America.
The harassment of the popular immigration critic Thilo Sarrazin in Germany and the hostile international reactions to the referendum against Islamic minarets in Switzerland clearly demonstrate that we are also dealing with a self-appointed transnational elite in power throughout the Western world who are consciously and deliberately trying to dismantle Western nation states using international law combined with massive propaganda campaigns, “anti-racist” brainwashing of people of European origins and above all mass immigration.
US writer Lee Harris is the author of the recent book The Next American Civil War — The Populist Revolt against the Liberal Elite and the previous title The Suicide of Reason, which I have discussed before. In his essay The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals, Harris describes how the USA’s intellectual elite has become radically out of touch with the sensibility of a large chunk of their nation’s population. He notes the “mounting dissatisfaction at living in a society in which a small group has increasingly solidified its monopoly over the manufacture and distribution of opinion, deciding which ideas and policies should be looked upon favorably and which political candidates will be sympathetically reported.”
According to Lee Harris, “The goal of such censorship is to create a population that has been so well trained and disciplined by the political elite that it will be incapable of even thinking forbidden thoughts.” Due to the existence of modern mass media of unprecedented power, especially the visual mass media such as television, “If the censors have the power to eliminate thoughts they find objectionable, what will prevent them from abusing their formidable capacity by imposing their own narrow agenda on the rest of society, and for their own selfish purposes? Indeed, what is to keep them from establishing a totalitarian regime that does not need to rely on terror or brute force simply because it has developed far more effective methods of obtaining the consent of the masses — namely, cultural indoctrination?”
A thematically related article about the “ruling class” of the USA, written by Professor Angelo M. Codevilla, appeared in the American Spectator in July 2010. He believes we are witnessing a clash between what he dubs “the country class” and a liberal, urban ruling class. Tensions arise because the majority “discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them.”
- - - - - - - - -
As Codevilla notes, the ruling class has grown and set itself apart from the rest by its connection with ever bigger government. They claim to be upholders of “science” and “reason” and that those who disagree with them and their views are ignorant and superstitious bigots. This arguably constitutes their weakest spot. If their critics can prove that these self-appointed elites have lied about major issues such as global warming, Islam or genetic differences between various ethnic groups they can strike a serious blow to their regime.
Author Christopher Lasch warned against such trends in his 1996 book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. While these examples are from the USA, very similar forces are at work simultaneously from Austria to Australia and from Sweden to Britain. In the case of Sarrazin the Multicultural oligarchs made many mistakes, above all by being too open with their censorship. This approach breeds resentment and anger and could potentially make the peasants look for their pitchforks. The elites are increasingly nervous and therefore increasingly sloppy, which is good. They have showed their hand and demonstrated openly that we live in an oligarchy, not a democracy. There is a theory that all alleged democracies are actually hidden oligarchies, since a few rich and powerful individuals, groups and families will control much of the propaganda flow and pull the strings behind the scenes.
The problem with the Western oligarchs is that they are actively hostile to the long-term interest of the white majority population. China is an oligarchy, too, but despite their numerous flaws the Chinese oligarchs today are arguably better at promoting the long-term interests of their people. At the very least they are not deliberately mass importing hostile tribes who immediately proceed to rape their daughters and stab their sons. Western elites do this on a daily basis. It would be interesting to analyze the motivations behind the evil actions of the Globalist Multicultural oligarchs of the West, but this has to await a later essay.
Multiculturalism is in some ways almost more totalitarian than Communism. We just didn’t realize this at first. In Norway, Khalid Salimi, a Pakistani “anti-racist,” complained about the fact that too many white natives peacefully enjoyed music at a festival together in their own country. This wasn’t “diverse” enough. Soon whites will literally be banned from congregating in separate groups. I no longer consider this a joke. The “conservative” President Sarkozy has said publicly that native Frenchmen have to mix with immigrants. It is thus mandatory in France to import Africans and breed with them. Not even Stalin did this. In the modern West, the state wants to regulate who we have sex with and from which ethnic group.
Communist societies were based on fear. So are Multicultural ones. The control mechanisms are normally more subtle, to be sure, but they exist. What happened was not that totalitarianism died with the Cold War, but that non-lethal means of manipulating and controlling the masses were perfected within the West. We don’t have a Gulag, but (white) people constantly live in fear that saying something “racist” could end their careers. Yet this “fear of being called a racist” is currently weakening. This means that the Multicultural oligarchs have to quickly manufacture new lies and come up with alternative strategies for keeping the masses in their place, or they will be forced to apply increasingly heavy-handed censorship, which will breed resentment, expose their rule and demonstrate that they have no real arguments in their favor. For critics of Multiculturalism, this can only be a good thing.