Saturday, August 20, 2011

Conservatives Don’t Hate Government

Conservatives Don't Hate Government
by Sheldon Richman, August 19, 2011

Sometimes I wonder whether the mainstream pundits listen to themselves. It's hard to believe they would say the silly things they say if they did.

For example, the talking heads on MSNBC, which works 24/7 for President Obama's reelection, like to say that conservative Republicans "hate government." "If you hate government," Chris Matthews, host of Hardball, asks, "why would you want to be the government?"

Matthews's evidence for this hatred is the conservatives' harping on the large national debt, which is about equal to the GDP, and deficit spending, which is close to half of total federal spending, and their opposition to higher taxes to shrink the deficit. To Matthews, expressing concern about those numbers and opposing further spending, borrowing, and taxing is proof of hatred for government. A devastating piece of evidence was Republican votes against raising the debt ceiling even though the package contained future spending cuts. (Of course, they were not real cuts, but merely small decreases in the rate of spending growth.) The symbol of conservative hatred for government, Matthews said, came during the last Republican presidential debate, when all the candidates raised their hands to indicate they would oppose a deficit-reduction package that contained $10 in spending "cuts" for every $1 in increased revenues.

Leaving aside the question of how sincere most Republican conservatives are when they rail against deficit spending, I would like Matthews and his ilk to answer a simple question:

How can a group of politicians and political activists be said to hate government, or "Washington," when they enthusiastically support: the U.S. government's global bullying; invasions, occupations, and endless wars; secret CIA prisons; torture as an interrogation technique; extraordinary rendition in which suspects are sent to foreign countries for torture by brutal dictatorships; support for "friendly" foreign autocrats and other oppressive regimes; the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless surveillance; national-security letters; the military-industrial complex; the war on drug users/sellers/makers; energy independence; intellectual-property enforcement; restrictions on immigrants and employer sanctions; consumption taxes; federal marriage regulation; and corporate welfare? I'm sure I've left some things out.

No one who embraces these liberty-killing actions can claim to be for small government, much less against government altogether. Most conservatives are as much for overpowering government as so-called liberals are. They just want the government to be overpowering in different matters, although that is less true than it once was. Conservatives have a cultural animosity to a welfare state that seems to cater to low-income people; apparently for them nothing is worse than an immigrant's going on the dole. On the other hand, they have little problem with middle-class welfare, such as Social Security and Medicare. One of their arguments against Obamacare was that it includes a half-trillion-dollar cut in Medicare. True, they sometimes talk about giving a role in these programs to private companies, but that's driven more by a pro-business orientation and a desire for efficiency than by any desire to end the programs.

So-called liberals, on the other hand, would expand all welfare- state programs while keeping the power "in-house" rather than farming it out to business they prefer government bureaucrats to corporate bureaucrats. There might have been a time when "liberals" could be said to oppose the global military establishment, but those days are long gone. When did you last hear a member of President Obama's party criticize his war program, which is virtually indistinguishable from George W. Bush's?

So the two dominant forces in American politics favor domineering government and, necessarily, a smaller sphere for individual freedom and free markets. Why, then, do Matthews & Co. insist that conservatives hate government? A reasonable explanation is that this strategy is intended to scare people into thinking there is no enlightened alternative to big-government pro-empire Progressivism. They can't hit conservatives on foreign policy and civil liberties because they hold the same views! So they have to convince Americans that conservatives would tear down everything they know and love. It's false, but it may be effective.

What's lacking is a true pro-liberty, anti-power alternative. Actually, it's not lacking. There are plenty of people promoting the libertarian vision. But the conservative and "liberal" intelligentsia have little interest in letting the American people in on it.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1108p.asp

Cowboys and Aliens

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ron Paul’s Exchange with Santorum Says It All

Friday, August 19, 2011
Ron Paul's Exchange with Santorum Says It All
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The exchange over Iran between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum in the recent Republican presidential debate goes a long way in explaining why the mainstream statists, including those in the Republican Party and the mainstream media, wish that libertarians would just go away.

Santorum pointed to 1979, the year of the Iranian revolution, when the Iranian people took U.S. diplomats hostage and held them in captivity for about a year. Santorum pointed to that pivotal event to show that the United States has been at war with Iran ever since.

For statists, Santorum's point is the end of the discussion. The U.S. government is good. It is innocent. It was just minding its own business when Iranian revolutionaries attacked our country without any reason whatsoever.

We saw the same phenomenon after the 9/11 attacks. "They just hate us for our freedom and values," U.S. officials cried. We were just minding our own business when the terrorists decided to kill Americans. The sentiment was the mindset of American statists.

And what happens if a libertarian says, "Wait a minute. The story isn't that simple. Let's look at what motivated these foreigners to do these things. Let's examine what the U.S. government has been doing in foreign affairs"?

Well, we all know what happens. The statists go ballistic, both in politics and in mainstream newspapers across the land. "Oh, you're blaming America! You hate our country! You must be a terrorist yourself. America, love our government or leave our country!"

In fact, Paul's exchange with Santorum wasn't the first time this has happened. Recall that famous debate exchange between Paul and Rudy Guliani four years ago. Paul pointed out that the terrorists came here on 9/11 to kill us because our government had been over there for years killing them.

Guliani went ballistic, as did his fellow statists on the stage. Their fellow statists in the mainstream media went crazy too. No one, and certainly not a presidential candidate, is supposed to say such things. It's considered beyond the pale. Everyone knows that our government is good, wise, and benevolent, believes in freedom and democracy, and would never do anything bad to foreigners.

Yet, that's actually when Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign took off. Tens of thousands of ordinary Americans instinctively knew that here was a man who wasn't feeding them pabulum. Here was a man who had the courage to speak the truth about U.S. foreign policy. He was willing to observe openly that the emperor wore no clothes.

And that's why the statists wish that Ron Paul would just go away. It's why they wish libertarians would just go away. That's why they resent us. We cause people to confront reality, which is sometimes not a comfortable thing to do. In a sense, we libertarians are therapists, people who help their patients confront realities that are oftentimes quite painful to face.

Look at the drug war. The statists just want to keep doing what they've been doing for 40 years -- busting drug sellers, busting drug users, and locking people up for the rest of their lives. Along come libertarians and point out the utter inanity of the whole thing. The never-ending deaths, destruction, corruption, violence, gang wars, and infringements on privacy and liberty. Libertarians say: End this idiocy by legalizing drugs.

But that's considered outside the pale for the statists. It's okay to call for reform of such programs. But abolition? "Oh my gosh! I wish those libertarians would just shut up and go away. Everything is working out so fine without them."

Look at how Ron Paul responded to Santorum. He explained to Santorum that the history of bad relations between Iran and the United States did not begin in 1979 but rather in 1953. That was the year that the CIA, the U.S. government's secret intelligence force, entered into Iran and ousted the democratically elected prime minister of the country, Mohammed Mossadegh, a man who had been named Time Magazine's "Man of the Year."

Why did the CIA do that? No, not for freedom and democracy, as the statists would like to believe. Instead, the CIA interfered with the internal affairs of Iran to retaliate for Mossadegh's nationalization of British oil concessions. Yes, the CIA's anti-democracy coup was about oil, not freedom and democracy.

In fact, having ousted a democratically elected prime minister, the CIA proceeded to install a non-elected brutal dictator, the Shah of Iran, into power. The CIA then proceeded to train and work closely with the Shah's counterpart to the CIA, his brutal and tortuous Savak intelligence force. The Shah then proceeded to impose one of the harshest dictatorial regimes in the world on the Iranian people, with the full support of the CIA and the rest of the U.S. government.

Of course, U.S. officials didn't care one whit what the Shah was doing to the Iranian people. All that mattered was that he was "our friend."

Imagine if Savak had assassinated John Kennedy in order to get Lyndon Johnson into power. How would the American people feel about that some 50 years later? I'll tell you: the deep anger and rage would still be palpable.

Well, that's how the Iranian people felt about the U.S. government in 1979. That's why they took the U.S. officials hostage. They were still angry about the CIA's ouster of their democratically elected prime minister. They were still angry about the Iranian people who had been brutalized, incarcerated, and tortured by the Shah and his goons, with the full support and cooperation of the CIA.

That's what Santorum and his fellow statist cohorts don't want to confront. They want to continue living their blissful little lives of delusion. For them, the federal government is god. It is all-good. It is all-knowing. It is all-powerful. It doesn't support dictatorships. It believes in freedom and democracy. It never does bad things to people, not even conduct syphilis experiments on them.

That's the myth that is inculcated in every public school across America and in most government-licensed private schools. That's the mindset that is produced in people like Santorum and the other statist candidates on that stage.

It's also the mindset of the mainstream news media reporters asking the questions. That's why they feel so comfortable with the statists on stage. That's why they feel so uncomfortable whenever Ron Paul is answering their questions.

Let's face it: the statists wish that libertarians had never been born and are extremely concerned about the rising popularity of libertarianism among the American people. That's why they've done their best to lock the Libertarian Party out of the political process with their inane ballot-restriction barriers. That's why they kept Ron Paul, a long-serving congressman, out of the early presidential debates four years ago. That's why they are keeping Gary Johnson, a popular two-term governor of New Mexico, out of the current round of debates. After all, Johnson, another libertarian, is also calling for ending the drug war and bringing the troops home. Why should it surprise us that they're locking him out of the presidential debates, as they tried to do four years ago with Ron Paul?

They think that if they can just keep hewing to their little myths and delusions and keep teaching them to their children in their government-approved schools, everything will be fine. If they could only shut out those pesky libertarians who confront people with truth and reality, everything would be hunky dory.

But truth will out, which is why so many people are gravitating to Ron Paul. They instinctively know that he's speaking truth to power, and they can see that power doesn't like it.

Ron Paul summed up the problem most eloquently when, in response to Rick Santorum, he stated, "We just plain don't mind our own business. That's our problem."

Of course, that's the problem with statists. They mind everyone else's business but their own.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-08-19.asp

Solar Storm Threatens Power Cuts - TONIGHT

A huge mass of electrically-charged particles thrown out by a

gigantic eruption on the Sun is due to strike the Earth tonight.

Scientists expect it to trigger one of the most violent

geomagnetic storms ever recorded.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200952/power-cuts-threat-sun-storm-hits-earth.html#ixzz1VTThDpk0

Power cuts threat as sun storm hits earth

Sun spots: charged particles
head for earth

A huge mass of electrically-charged particles thrown out by a gigantic eruption on the Sun is due to strike the Earth tonight.

Scientists expect it to trigger one of the most violent geomagnetic storms ever recorded.

The result could be widespread power surges and even blackouts, disrupted TV and mobile phone signals, and broken down communication satellites.

At the same time the Northern Lights, normally confined to polar latitudes, may produce dazzling displays in the skies above southern Britain.

At least one satellite has already been knocked out of action by the storm. Japan's space agency said its Kodama communications satellite had been temporarily shut down after malfunctioning.

The solar flare that caused the eruption burst out of a sunspot at 10.54am yesterday.

Experts said it was the strongest flare seen in the past 30 years. The explosion caused a coronal mass ejection (CME) which is now speeding towards Earth.

Disruption

Last week another CME only hit the Earth a glancing blow, yet was able to disrupt airline communications.

The solar flare was classified as an X18-category explosion, meaning it can trigger planet-wide radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms.

Although the charged particles present no direct danger to people on the ground, they could have a devastating effect on electrical equipment.

Geomagnetic storms are classified on a scale of one to five. Initial indications are that the looming storm could reach the highest G5 level and last for 24 hours.

Northern Lights

The most obvious manifestation of the storm is likely to be glorious auroras lighting up the night sky.

Usually the Northern Lights, or aurora borealis, is only visible in Britain from northern Scotland. The Earth's magnetic field channels the solar particles that cause auroras towards the poles.

But experts say that over the next two days the Northern Lights may be seen at latitudes as low as Florida and Texas - and even south enough to cover the whole of Europe.

Power companies prepare as solar storms set to hit Earth

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-utilities-noaa-solarstorms-idUSTRE7746UA20110806

Power companies prepare as solar storms set to hit Earth

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Three large explosions from the Sun over the past few days have prompted U.S. government scientists to caution users of satellite, telecommunications and electric equipment to prepare for possible disruptions over the next few days.

"The magnetic storm that is soon to develop probably will be in the moderate to strong level," said Joseph Kunches, a space weather scientist at the Space Weather Prediction Center, a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

He said solar storms this week could affect communications and global positioning system (GPS) satellites and might even produce an aurora visible as far south as Minnesota and Wisconsin.

An aurora, called aurora borealis or the northern lights in northern latitudes, is a natural light display in the sky in the Arctic and Antarctic regions caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere.

Major disruptions from solar activity are rare but have had serious impacts in the past.

In 1989, a solar storm took down the power grid in Quebec, Canada, leaving about six million people without power for several hours.

The largest solar storm ever recorded was in 1859 when communications infrastructure was limited to telegraphs.

The 1859 solar storm hit telegraph offices around the world and caused a giant aurora visible as far south as the Caribbean Islands.

Some telegraph operators reported electric shocks. Papers caught fire. And many telegraph systems continued to send and receive signals even after operators disconnected batteries, NOAA said on its website.

A storm of similar magnitude today could cause up to $2 trillion in damage globally, according to a 2008 report by the National Research Council.

"I don't think this week's solar storms will be anywhere near that. This will be a two or three out of five on the NOAA Space Weather Scale," said Kunches.

SOLAR SCALE

The NOAA Space Weather Scale measures the intensity of a solar storm from one being the lowest intensity to five being the highest, similar to scales that measure the severity of hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.

The first of the three solar explosions from the sun this week already passed the Earth on Thursday with little impact, Kunches said, noting, the second was passing the Earth now and "seems to be stronger."

And the third, he said, "We'll have to see what happens over the next few days. It could exacerbate the disturbance in the Earth's magnetic field caused by the second (storm) or do nothing at all."

Power grid managers receive alerts from the Space Weather Prediction Center to tell them to prepare for solar events, which peak about every 12 years, Tom Bogdan, director of the center said.

He said the next peak, called a solar maximum, was expected in 2013.

"We're coming up to the next solar maximum, so we expect to see more of these storms coming from the sun over the next three to five years," Bogdan said.

NASA Warns of Earth's Destruction By Aliens if You Don't Jump Aboard the Anthropogenic Global Warming Bandwagon

Liberals are already destroying the planet with their out-of-this-world idiotic ideas.

NASA Warns of Earth's Destruction By Aliens if You Don't Jump Aboard the Anthropogenic Global Warming Bandwagon

doctorbulldog | 19 August, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Categories: Global Warming, Insanity, Obama Sucks, politics, Science, Technology | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7iC

Is it just me, or is the AGW crowd getting even more insane?:

"Ack-ack-ack ack!!!" Translation: "Reduce your emissions or die!!!!"

Pay Your Carbon Taxes To Al Gore Or Space Aliens Will Attack
Global warming alarmists invent new hoax after failing with everything else

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, August 19, 2011

Having failed with drowning polar bears, global superstorms, rising sea levels and a myriad of other manufactured hoaxes, global warming alarmists have invented a new threat to try and persuade us to pay carbon taxes directly to Al Gore and the global elite – vengeful environmentalist extraterrestrials from outer space.

"It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim," according to a Guardian report.

A new study conducted by researchers at Nasa's Planetary Science Division posits that "green" ETs might get angry at Bubba driving his gas-guzzling SUV and respond by wiping humankind off the face of the earth to "protect other civilizations".

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

Is it really any wonder why polls show belief in global warming is collapsing? A recent Rasmussen survey found that 69 per cent of Americans believed scientists had likely falsified climate change data to push their agenda.

They've fed us with drowning polar bears, overpopulation paranoia, global superstorms and all manner of manufactured lies in an effort to terrify people into accepting the hoax and blithely handing over their carbon taxes to Al Gore and the Rothschilds, but none of it has worked. Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has all but collapsed. The fact that they have now resorted to playing the "alien invasion" card illustrates how desperate and discredited the climate change cult has become.