 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought June 12, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins One might well wonder why the left is so inclined to hug Mark Felt, who was in their knickers for so long. Here is the primary reason: The left never did get over the fact that Nixon was the one who crucified their little darling Alger Hiss, who was the father of the United Nations. He also had a great deal to do with cutting the Communist movement to pieces in this country. Hillary made sure that she was part of the retaliatory strike against Nixon many years later. Even though Nixon started many of the things that liberals love, he still had much to do with removing their communist friends, or at least exposing them. This is why the ACLU was the first national organization to press for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. The ACLU had the same problems that Alger Hiss did. They were constantly being taken to task for their communist ties. They never forgave him for what he did to Alger Hiss, either. After Nixon was removed from office we saw a flurry of anti-intelligence bills and committees such as the Church Committee. This showed the presence of the CIA in our Universities. I can’t imagine why they would have been so concerned about communist influences in our universities. They may have been trying to prevent anti-Americanism from becoming the standard in our educational institutions. It appears the liberals didn’t agree with that thinking even back then because they proceeded to shut down the investigations of both the CIA and the FBI within our country. Apparently, personal liberty was more important than protecting it from subversion. Nearly every single internal investigation was shut down after Mr. Felt’s revelations and the many hearings and committees that followed. Many people complained that the intelligence networks let us down and that was why 9/11 was possible. I’m more inclined to point to those hearings and committees that were spawned by the second to worst President we’ve ever had, Jimmy Carter. He used to be the worst one, but then there was Clinton. The left has done nothing but undermine our intelligence gathering abilities and ruin our universities. I was listening to a former recruiter and operative for the CIA on television one night. He said that they used to get their agents from the Ivy League schools. That is no longer the case. They are getting their recruits from the Midwest and the South now because the Ivy League universities are filled with little Ward Churchills. Radical liberals, who want the rights and none of the responsibilities that are attendant with those rights, have in some ways overtaken us. The left wing communist dialecticians have done everything they can to weaken the most critical aspect of intelligence gathering, the HUMINT aspect. But there are darker currents out there. I will be discussing those next week. Because of all of the above, the leftists have also weakened themselves and it may come full circle. The gutting of the school curriculum has created a problem for the left. According to some recent polls, there are now a great many students out there that believe the media should have a lid slapped on them. I would prefer it if the people were a little smarter and understood that the media likes to be polemic and divisive so that they can make more money selling cage liners and fish wrappers. I read an article recently where a girl had the ACLU going after the FBI because she felt intimidated. It was because they wanted to talk with her. When she declined they left her alone, but she claimed that she felt “intimidated” by them. If this is what now passes for the radical leftist, they have indeed managed to weaken themselves. Their predecessors had a bit of nerve. The ACLU has created a bunch of dunderheads that don’t understand that all they have to say is "No." Maybe the leftists in the school system shouldn’t have been so quick to remove civics from the curriculum. Ahh! The best laid plans of weasels and worms. The olde timey radicals would have realized this meant they were under scrutiny. And they would have acted accordingly. These days they run to the ACLU and whine, and they, in turn, go and whine for them. And I again use the same quotes as I used last week. Nicolai Lenin said: "We must build communism with non-Communist hands." George Dimitrov,
a Soviet Dialectician, defines a Communist front: "Advice to the
Lenin School of Political Warfare," as quoted in the report of
the American Bar Association Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy
and Objectives--CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 22, 1958, page 17719. "As
Soviet power grows, there will be greater aversion to Communist Parties
everywhere. So we must practice the techniques of withdrawal. Never
appear in the foreground; Let our friends do the work. We must always
remember that one sympathizer is generally worth more than a dozen militant
Communists. A university professor, who, without being a party member,
lends himself to the interests of the Soviet Union, is worth more than
a hundred men with party cards. A writer of reputation or a retired
general are worth more than 500 poor devils who don't know any better
than to get themselves beaten up by the police. Every man has his value,
his merit.” R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
|
No column this week. |
||||||||
New Jersey is a horrible place to do business. How horrible is it? So horrible that builder William Juliano has posted a billboard near the Delaware Memorial Bridge that reads: “Welcome to New Jersey. A horrible place to do business.” Mr. Juliano’s anger stems from a fight with the State DEP, which has forbidden him from building a Home Depot on what it claims is a protected wetlands area. Now, ordinarily, this kind of issue would be clear cut for me. I’m the kind of guy who sides with the free market—when in doubt, I go with the businessman over the bureaucrats. So part of me wants to say they should just let Juliano build his stupid tool store. However, I’m not “in doubt” here. And I’m not going to side with the businessman over the bureaucrats, either. As somebody born and raised in New Jersey, I am 100 percent certain my home state is not a horrible place to do business. And, if anything, it may be a little too good. In order to understand what I’m getting at, you first have to understand New Jersey. And in order to understand New Jersey, you have to understand that New Jersey doesn’t really exist. Oh, maybe in the technical, geographical sense it does. Mapmakers certainly recognize it. And it certainly has its own license plates. But actual New Jerseyans know “New Jersey” is a misnomer—an oversimplification, if you will. You see, there are actually two New Jerseys—North and South. I’m from North Jersey. And, yes, there’s a difference. I was 18 before I met anyone from South Jersey. I swear it was like talking to a foreigner. Simply put, these people pronounce their words weird. Take bagels, for instance. They don’t call ‘em bagels in South Jersey. They call ‘em “beggles.” This blows my mind. What the hell is a beggle? Is that some kind of puppy? Why would I eat a puppy for breakfast? North Jerseyans know better. We call ‘em “bay gulls.” The word derives from Staten Island’s seagulls—literally, gulls by the bay. Then there’s ice cream. North Jerseyans top their ice cream with multicolored bits of sugary goodness called sprinkles. In South Jersey, however, they have this maddening habit of calling sprinkles “jimmies.” That’s right. Jimmies. I can’t even tell you how angry this makes me. Yes, I realize it’s only an ice cream topping. But it’s also a matter of principle. Sprinkles are sprinkles. There’s no such thing as jimmies. How can you top your ice cream with something that doesn’t exist? (Has it come to this? Am I really defending sprinkles here?) The point is, the two New Jerseys are noticeably different. North Jersey is the New Jersey of 7-Eleven, the Statue of Liberty, and The Sopranos; South Jersey is the New Jersey of Wawa, LBI, Tastykakes, and scrapple. And while South Jerseyans care entirely too much about football, North Jerseyans spend time actually thinking about getting good parking spots. Of course, some New Jerseyans claim to come from “Central” Jersey. But I would contend that this very idea goes against everything New Jersey stands for. I mean, when you get right down to it, the entire state is really just a precious piece of land between two major cities—New York in the North, Philadelphia in the South. Both halves identify strongly with their corresponding cities, and to that end they are merely extensions of them. (It’s not uncommon for a North Jerseyan to say he “comes from New York,” or a South Jerseyan to say he “comes from Philly.") So the only way you can come from “Central” Jersey is if you happen to get both cities’ TV stations—which, admittedly, some people do. But even then, Central Jersey isn’t a state of being so much as it’s a state of mind. Ultimately, though, the very cities that differentiate North and South Jersey also make them exactly the same. New York and Philly are so big, you see, that the whole state is effectively one giant metropolitan area. You can’t escape all the suburbs and overcrowded highways in New Jersey. The North and South may identify with different cities, but those cities, combined, make the whole state seem like a certain Hell for Claustrophobes. That’s what gets me about Mr. Juliano’s stupid tool store. How can you tell me New Jersey is a horrible place to do business? Have you been to New Jersey lately? Do you know how many Home Depots (and Lowes) there are? Have you counted all the Wal-Marts and Kmarts and Targets and Sears? The McDonalds, Burger Kings, and Wendys? The Blockbusters, Hollywoods, and E-Z Videos? New Jersey is swarming with businesses. In fact, it’s nothing but business. If you took pictures from space, the state would look like two giant strip malls with a single row of stop-and-go traffic in between them. That’s how “horrible” it is to do business here. New Jersey may not be a free market paradise, but it’s not where capitalism goes to die, either. Look, I realize the reason New Jersey has so many stupid tool stores is because there’s a palpable need for them. I won’t fault any businessman for trying to fill that need. But all the same, New Jersey is on track to be the first state to actually run out of room. That’s creepy. And the same DEP that Mr. Juliano complains about today has also enabled him—amongst others—to build many other things over the years. I’m not familiar enough with this fella’s work to blame him, outright, for packing the state like a can of sardines. But, dude, take a chill pill. Slow down a little. And spread out. God forbid the most densely populated state in the country should have 1,000 Home Depots instead of 1,001. Is that really so horrible? Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
"The Left has always hoped for globalization without the market—an ideologically correct world government." 1 Therefore, it might seem inconceivable to hear conservatives speak about promoting globalism unless the listener is aware that in addition to this first characterization, there can be an entirely different connotation if you consider that, "Globalization simply means freedom of movement for goods and people." 2 I believe that having two completely different meanings has resulted in a lot of confusion about which reference is inferred when using this term. From a leftist perspective, globalism entails working toward a global world order. And under this circumstance, the unique governing principles of this country along with the confluence of rich cultural and ideological views that are continually churning and evolving would be supplanted by one artificial philosophy that suppresses individual ideas and the initiative to act on them. According to the authors of the Index of Economic Freedom, "The countries with the most economic freedom also have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than are those with less economic freedom." 3 It should not be any surprise, then, that developing countries want more globalization, not less. Therefore, when conservatives discuss promoting globalization, they are trying to export liberty and the free market which promotes it. Not knowing which frame of reference is being considered when referring to globalism is a pretty serious problem. The late Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster) made a name for himself as a writer of best selling children's books by playing with homonyms; words that sound or are spelled the same but have different meanings, in The King who Rained and Chocolate Moose for Dinner. Any teacher who reads these books aloud in a first grade classroom quickly discovers even 6 year olds can understand the difficulty misinterpretation poses. Whether or not you can take a pro-globalism or anti-globalism stance really depends on the accepted meaning of this idea. This needs to be clarified when world leaders are discussing free trade and the need to open up our markets. This is obviously much different than collectivizing land and setting up cooperatives. This needs to be clarified when discussing the value of advanced placement courses, which challenge high school students with college level curriculum in contrast to the International Baccalaureate program that, while promoting a global world order, does not encourage the unique circumstances of our country which allow capitalism to thrive. If the byproduct of globalization erodes our national sovereignty, then it can be judged as antithetical to freedom and in the long run will destroy our way of life. One need only look at the number of aliens immigrating to our country and seeking our wealth of opportunity, to understand that the motives of those who seek to destroy these very same freedoms should be seriously questioned. 1, 2 Anti-Globalism = Anti-Americanism 3 2005 Index of Economic Freedom Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
What happened when that list of "Axis of Evil" was drawn up? Where was Red China! Hard to imagine that they don't fit the definition of supporting terrorism. Maybe eliminating terrorism is not the real motivation behind this 'so called' war? Pick and choose the enemy flavor of the month must mean that we give a pass to strategic trading partners. Or what is that other name: "Permanent Normal Trade Partner". It is difficult to see any real differences in the end results of trade policy under either political party. Clinton clearly betrayed America during his tenure. Motivations and objectives may be different but the end result always is the same. When the conservative cause is defined by liberals as corporate greed we usually dismiss the source as avid socialists. But sometimes their comments have a prophetic irony when describing the nature of the problem. As we all know far too well, their solutions rarely offer an alternative that benefits the American people. Consider an article over a year and a half old, from The American Prospect: My Heart Belongs to Daddy. More to the point might be: and I can't get you out of my head. Ignore the slant that favors the last administration, and look at the underlying pro Chinese disposition of the Bush crowd. When George I proclaimed the New World Order at the end of the Gulf War, most refused to accept that America's interests were different from that of the international community. Now that we have emerged into a state of permanent war, should we not revisit just what the NWO means for our country? Hardly a word has been in the mainstream press about the role China plays in the murky underground of the network of state sponsored disorder. George W Bush remarked that China policy would be one of "competition" rather than "strategic partnership'. Words that Republicans welcome. But does this competition extend to a global effort to round up every terrorist cell? As distasteful as the notion of any kind of strategic brotherhood with the Chinese might be, maybe this is the time that we need to know just where they stand in this rapidly changing political environment. Are the Chinese a full partner in the NWO or are they the next diabolical domain? For us who accept that the international community is the crux of the real evil empire, it only matters if anyone is left to challenge the flow of global synthesis. Every country that offers resistance to the NWO is targeted for disciplinary action. One need not defend ruthless regimes to be against the ultimate ruler. It is most revealing to witness the pattern of bringing any dissenting nation into the web of singular union. NATO taught the Serbs a lesson and Slobodan Milosevic's address is now a Hague jail cell. Is there any country left who will defy the might of the military machine, meant to make the world safe for corporate monopolies? Yes, the virtues of free trade are shared for the benefit of only NWO loyalists. Most Conservatives want to believe that Jr. is different from the father. But when it comes to accepting the policies that shape the shadow world of a new international kingdom, he is just like the dad. If you are one of the many Republicans that dismiss the danger of such a power concentration, you might do well to ally yourselves with your Democrat interventionists. There seems little difference between the foreign policies of either party at this point. The friends of Robert Reich back at the American Prospect, would gladly give you a trial subscription to their rag. Or go directly to the definitive source and start getting your Foreign Affairs magazine sent directly to your door. They are the same people who drive the think tanks and supply the super stars that create this New World Order. You know their names, all are Council on Foreign Relations members! But if you smell a rat that America has no representation at this table, you just might want to ask why we are loosing all our own freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism? The game should be clear for those with the courage to face the reality of the ultimate goal. Comply to the new rules of the NWO or you will become the next terrorist state. Forget all the diversions, ignore all the party labels, this is a fight to the end. The excuse that fighting terrorism requires conducting continuous war, creates more terrorists than any preventive strike upon weapons posed against us ever will result in real protection. Smedley Butler on Interventionism is the authority that exposed the fallacy that U.S. Internationalist Foreign Policy can ever reduce hatred by foreign regimes towards America. Iraq, Iran and N Korea are all terrible governments. But so is China! What makes them immune from attack. Could it be their nukes? And just who gave them the technology to pose a serious threat and who made them into a strategic partner in the first place? Both Bush Presidents serve the NWO. Not us ...
|
||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Saturday, June 18, 2005 11:04 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||
