The New Terrapin Gazette
It is, as history attests, a grave error to conclude that because our vices are social rather than natural, they will be easier to cure; but radicals have thought just that for the past two hundred years.
From here comes a cold, hard fact:
…it would appear until further notice that we’ll have to rely on the center-right blogosphere and its social media, its pundits, and its few friends in the establishment press to expose anything the Obama administration would rather the world not see or know, and then figure out how to get it out there for low-information voters to see.
This commentary explains why that’s true.
When a journalist says this: “…(the White House is) undercutting the First Amendment — it’s state-run media”, you know there’s a problem.
There are very real social problems that contribute to differences in murder rates. If gun availability is one of those contributors, it must be a very unimportant part of that contribution. Perhaps those focused on gun control as a method of saving lives might be better off concentrating on the social problems that really matter.
See how the author of the above assertion arrived at his opinion.
The NRA adds to its advocates.
It’s your turn: you provide the sentence that makes folks want to read the text to which this hyperlink leads. Portray the subject as worth the reader’s time, please. This is the hyperlink.
Three Fearless Prognostications That Just Might Prove Prescient
First, insight into economics and politics (from here):
The left talks a big game about helping the bottom half, but its policies are gradually ruining the economy, which will have catastrophic results once the safety net is no longer affordable.
Second, a linchpin of a quote on the subject of the Muddle East: “Syria is the place where the will of Iran could be broken.” This is scary stuff, though. Read about it if you are feeling strong and solid today.
Third, Benghazi: if anything is clear, it is that Hillary “willing suspension of disbelief” Clinton is up to her neck in trouble here, even though she faced down the quasi-competent Republicans who had questions for her. If the full story ever comes out, she will be exposed as a moral leper. The remarks she made after the attack, promising that the novice film maker would be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for having upset some implacable enemies of Western Civilization, will prove damning. For a secretary of state to denounce freedom of speech and press is inexplicable and unforgivable. As things stand, multiple committees are investigating the attack, and doubtless dozens of people are frantically trying to tailor the evidence and the evaluation of events so as to protect their careers.
Continuing: if this looks familiar, it should. You may recall that Disney and ABC tried to create a docudrama about the failure of the Clinton administration to target bin Laden and follow through on the information available. Slick’s crew made a hash of almost everything, with Sandy Berger being just one of a cynically amoral bunch who should never have been involved in anything important. Know this: the Clintons will fight dirty to protect their claim that they are clean. They are anything but sanitary, but if you have evidence that demonstrates that, you are very likely to be silenced. That is to say that censorship is a tool Slick and Co. have employed and will employ in the future. That censorship will be imposed by a gaggle of lickspittle operatives and unshakably loyal Democrats who will apply heavy pressure to anyone they can reach in order to protect the Clintons from justifiable criticism. The pressure can be extraordinarily intimidating. Its sheer energy proceeds from the desperate horror of exposure of information shedding light on Clinton skulduggery, corruption and malfeasance. The full story must remain unadvertised.
It is, therefore, extremely easy to predict that the findings of all these various committees will result in…next to nothing. Who, after all, wants to commit lese majeste?
The shame of it is that a hyper-hormonal and shameless Peter Pan of an ex-president and his nonsense-babbling familiar have this kind of power — that they command the unstinting loyalty of influential people whose ethics have evaporated.
In the unhappy event that you wish to learn more about censorship Clinton style, go to this website first. It won’t remind you of Hillary’s stunning prowess as a commodities trader when she was the wife of the governor of Arkansas, nor will it remind you of TravelGate or the Rose Law Firm’s missing documents, and it won’t tell you anything about Messrs. Hsu or Yee, but it will give you an introduction to some pre-Obama hijinks. You can take it from there.
Ultimately, you will find it necessary to answer these questions: when you are confronted by charges of wrongdoing, what is the ethical response? Is it, for example, proper for you to answer the accusations and refute the ones you disagree with, or is it morally best to use your connections to bring pressure to bear on relevant parties in order to get the charges themselves removed from public view, thereby preventing your accuser from expressing himself?
Of course Hillary, exasperated by your efforts if she knew of them, would screech at you: “What difference at this point does it make?” Well, to principled folks, all of this makes a huge difference.
The Tea Party As A Conspiracy Of Vandals, And The Government As The Nation
Efforts to discredit and cripple the Tea Party continue. Consider these quotes taken from the remarks of Clinton’s secretary of labor, Robert Reich:
Imagine a plot to undermine the government of the United States, to destroy much of its capacity to do the public’s business, and to sow distrust among the population. … imagine they not only paralyze the government but are on the verge of dismantling pieces of it. … the Tea Partiers now running the GOP are serious only about dismembering the government. … the President should let the public see the Tea Partiers for who they are — a small, radical minority intent on dismantling the government of the United States.
Briefly, and without attempting a comprehensive analysis and rebuttal: the Tea Party hopes for limited government that hews to the express mandates of the federal constitution. No “paralysis” or “dismantling, dismembering” is intended; the morbidly obese bureaucracy needs to be put on a diet, and government must be protected against self-destruction, for it has a strong tendency to grow, spend, borrow and extend its control beyond its constitutional role. These imprudent practices are natural but ultimately suicidal; they require constant attention and occasional reform.
This attack on the Tea Party attempts to smuggle two hidden assumptions past the unattentive: first, that whatever the government does should not be undone or altered by the electorate (in fact, even to imply that reform could be accomplished is outrageous and heretical). Second, it assumes that nation and government are identical (the nation is its government, and the government is the nation). Accordingly, whatever the “progressive” ruling elite creates must never be de-funded — lest something like treason be committed.
Clear thinking reveals that the nation is neither its government nor any federal administration, and that no agency or instrumentality of that government should be granted full immunity from change and/or abolition. The commonweal requires the monitoring and, on evidence of need, renovation of all the instruments of governance. To deny that fact is to promote the imposition of rule that has three vile features: first, it is rule beyond the control of the citizenry; second, it is rule that accepts rational management only at its pleasure; and third, it is eternal rule.
The federal constitution is unambiguous: it declares its purpose to be, among other things, “to promote the general Welfare”. That effort would be futile if the acts and creations of both the representatives of the people and of the executive branch of the government were above and beyond alteration, reform, and abolition by the voters.
The careful observer will see that ideology has inspired the former secretary of labor to deliver himself of his toxic sentiments. In fact he assumes the validity of Utopian mythology. That fantasy proclaims that a proper social/economic/governmental regime and rationale, once established and in control, will eliminate the need for (and possibility of) all improvement. With that, history ends.
Moreover, the Breitbart organization notes that
… key Chicago strategist Robert Creamer wrote in proposing the Democrats’ future health care strategy–from federal prison–in 2006-7: “To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion–fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”
Clearly, Reich is doing his best to arouse fear and loathing of the Tea Party’s enlightened concepts of constitutional self-government.
Think the facts through: denying the people the power to alter or abolish any government bureau makes representative democracy impossible. A transfer of ultimate authority from the electorate to the ruling elite, when accompanied by the concept that the government is the nation, makes reform treasonable.
This reminds of the misrule of Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Indeed, Reich’s ignorant calumny is an unintentionally candid admission that fascism is the heart and soul of “progressivism”. (See the book review in Nr. 273 of this newsletter.)
Yes, that means the current propaganda campaign to demonize the Tea Party does have historical parallels. The cautionary lesson is available.
Ignore it at your peril.
That Darn Sequester, Explained
This is genuinely helpful:
(a) The president and his administration are responsible for the sequestration idea. (b) Before that fact became widely known, Mr. Obama misled Americans of that fact in a debate with Mitt Romney — and his aides did the same thing in the aftermath of the debate. (c) Thanks to Bob Woodward’s The Price of Politics, the White House has now been forced to admit that, as top White House adviser Gene Sperling put it on Sunday, “Yes, we put forward the design of how to do that [implement sequestration]”. (d) Over the last several weeks, the president vilified sequestration as a brutal, savage, and inhumane idea. (e) At a press conference last Friday, when sequestration cuts began and the world as we know it did not end, the president began to moonwalk away from his scorching rhetoric, saying, “Just to make the final point about the sequester, we will get through this. This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said”. (f) Since the sequestration idea was first signed into law by President Obama in 2011, House Republicans have twice passed legislation to make the cuts more reasonable — and Democrats have refused to act on it. (g) In the last week, Republicans have tried to give the president greater authority to make more reasonable cuts — but he has refused it, allowing unnecessary pain to be inflicted on Americans in order to blame Republicans.
To summarize, then: The president has spoken in the harshest possible terms about an idea he and his White House originated and signed into law. He has used apocalyptic language leading up to the sequestration — and then, as the sequestration cuts began, lectured us that “this is not going to be an apocalypse” as “some people have said”. And Mr. Obama has warned about the devastating nature of the cuts even as he has opposed efforts to make the cuts less devastating.
That’s quite a hat trick.
The folks at Commentary often have good, useful, ethically admirable items like this. If you want to get some solid facts and lots of excellent commentary, you should have a look at their online publication from time to time. Click on this hyperlink. Meanwhile, to read the entire article from which the above quote was extracted, go here.
To repeat and verify: the sequester was Obama’s idea. The shameless liar later denied that fact.
Finally, ponder this quote (from here): “While the sequester will reduce spending authority by $85 billion, the actual cuts that will occur in 2013 will be $44 billion. That is a mere 1.2% of total federal spending this year.” And just what, pray tell, would cause any rational human to panic when faced with that fact? One point two percent? Good grief…if that causes The One to predict doom and gloom, then he needs a long vacation in a very quiet, protective environment. If you believe his cries about a falling sky, you need even more help.
The “wingnut” outfit PJMedia says this “…is about a responsible free media in a democratic society escaping the clutches of the authoritarian mindset”. Wow. That reads like something this newsletter might publish (with the word “media” correctly employed as the plural it is, of course)…. Here’s a quote from the piece: “…the First Amendment is too important to be left to journalists to defend.” Yep, that’s exactly correct. So: recommended. (In case that’s not tempting enough to get you to click and read, consider this: there’s gossip at the link regarding Michelle Obama’s attitude that makes for some scandalized tut-tutting; the White House definitely does not want that item spread around, so the loyal Obamites have closed ranks. Who knows — the naughty rumor might even be true.)
The One is now a climatologist, rather like Al Gore. And…
…reader JY provides two links to commentary by Dennis Prager, whom you may recognize (he’s a powerful, persuasive prodigy). He explains his views on anthropogenic global warming here and then here. Recommended.
Regarding the cost of gasoline: it’s a difficulty that’s exacerbated by the government’s regulations, as this commentary explains.
A “wingnut” who frequently posts video commentaries asks who would benefit most if Obama were martyred (!!). His views are either (a) cynicism gone goofy, (b) on target, or (c) a little of each. He’s correct about how the news media and the Obamites would react, but the rest of it…well, you decide. It’s a horrid subject, and one has to wonder why he brought it up. Well, not all “wingnuts” are wired correctly.
The battery of the future?
Surprise! Here’s an instance of propaganda masquerading as telejournalism. (That means it’s fawning and censorious.)
Business ventures in China are different enough to be interesting. Remember the Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times”.
So you know I’ve been a soldier in the armies of the night
And I’ll find the fatal error in what’s otherwise all right
Something shines around you that seems to my delight
To give me just a little sweetness…
Just a little sweetness…
Just a little sweetness…
Just a little light
The masthead includes a quote from the works of Noel Malcolm.
The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Slackware Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.
Publisher: The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.