Although the Iraq War was justified as is any war against any Islamic entity is, the aftermath was just plain stupid. In a bout of Naivete the Bush administration led by Wilsonian Progressives actually believed that Iraqis wanted Democracy. As it turned out, the Shias wanted an Iranian puppet regime and the Sunnis eventually threw in with the Islamic State. Donald Rumsfeld admits trying to install democracy in Iraq was a mistake.
Washington (CNN)Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted in an interview with CNN Tuesday that his recent comments about being skeptical about creating a democracy in Iraq did not contradict his previous positions about the Iraq War.
Rumsfeld also called the Times of London’s report over the weekend — which suggested his views were critical of his old boss, President George W. Bush — “ridiculous.”
“When we went in (to Iraq), my view — and I thought it was a broadly held view — was that the goal was to have Saddam Hussein not be there, and to have what replaced Saddam Hussein be a government that would not have weapons of mass destruction, that would not invade its neighbors, and that would be reasonably respectful of diverse ethnic groups — meaning the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds,” Rumsfeld told CNN in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. “And that was kind of the understanding I had and I thought everyone had.”
In a story titled “Bush was wrong on Iraq, says Rumsfeld,” Rumsfeld told The Times that “the idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words … I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories.”
Rumsfeld, who served as Bush’s defense secretary from 2001 to 2006, also told The Times that removing former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was a mistake because it destabilized the region.
Sadly many in both parties particularly the GOP think imposing Democracy should be done at all costs.
Tip of the hat to The Daily Caller whose video I did not embed here due to their insistence upon the usage of autoplay, something I view as evil. Please click here, for their story, complete with a recorded phone conversation in which an apologetic banker gets to tell a business owner who had held an account at said bank for over a decade, that the government had forced his account to be frozen for no other reason than the fact that the government no longer appreciates his industry’s contribution to our economy.
Yes, Operation Choke Point is an evil perpetrated by Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The fault dear Brutus however does not lie in our stars that we are underlings, but in ourselves. There are many who would point to the 60’s as the beginning of the Progressive’s gaining their stranglehold on our nation. Some point to FDR and the, “New Deal,” as that beginning point. I’ve heard that our troubles with the progressive movement date back to Woodrow Wilson and his Presidency. However, I would like to point out that the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments did far greater damage, even before Wilson took his position as our Chief Executive. (I realize that the Seventeenth Amendment became part of our Constitution about a month after Wilson’s Inauguration, but it was ratified before Wilson actually took office.) Many experts in our nation’s history will state that Teddy Roosevelt was the first Progressive to affect our national agenda, and granted he gave us a big push in that disastrous direction, and redefined the Executive Branch, but he was not where it all began. This all started with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This was the first victory of the Progressive Movement, and it has grown into the behemoth that allows Barack Obama to act as a man elected to be our emperor, rather than our President.
For those who are not familiar with it, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 established our very first Federal Agency. This agency was vested with the ability to create its own rules, its own authority to enforce those rules, and its own system to adjudicate the process for any who wished to push back against the decisions of the agency. Quite literally, we had managed to create an entity that had contained within its scope of operation, a body that was vested with all of the powers of governance, thus doing away with the separation of powers. Since that date in our history, any and all legislation has been written purposefully vague, only ever including a desired outcome, with the specific rules to be determined later by either an existing federal agency, or through the creation of a new federal agency. It is With this wonderful exercise of genius that the destruction of our Constitutional Protections began. Agency Law was created with the establishment of the ICC in 1887. It should also be noted here, that it took almost exactly five years for the agency purportedly designed to keep the railroad men from becoming too powerful for the liking of those who lobbied for this legislation, to be peopled entirely with those, “robber barons,” so feared and vilified that the agency was thought necessary. Funny how that works out.
Once that happened, what we see today, even though it has taken 128 years to get here, became inevitable. Give Barack Obama credit for this at least. He saw the potential to simply ignore the U.S. Constitution afforded to him by this set of circumstances, and has taken full advantage of it. All he needs to do is suggest or ask that one of the agencies situated under the federal umbrella, write some additional rules to add to the scope under which they operate, and he pretty much can enact unilaterally anything he wishes to codify as law. Yes, technically such efforts can be overturned by our Judicial Branch, and indeed many of these actions have been thus far. However, our Judicial Branch moves too slowly to monitor or even address every such indiscretion. Even if it were capable of keeping up, Agency Law itself has become so ingrained in our society, such Judicial oversight and pushback has itself become all too rare.
In our history, there have been two Presidents who’ve tried earnestly to do something to put an end to, or at least reign in this system run amok. The first was Richard Nixon, and I’m sure you all remember what happened to him for his efforts. The second was Ronald Reagan, who also failed, and in fact discussed that failure as being his lasting regret.
So far, 26 states throughout the fruited plains have formally adopted ballot initiatives in favor of an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing and debating Constitutional Amendments. I am most definitely in favor of this. By the way, many of the Liberals in our nation are as well, since they’re convinced that they would be able to alter the First Amendment to, “correct,” the Citizens United Decision.
One amendment that I’d like to see come to fruition would be something to put an end to Agency Law. Consider for one moment what this system has allowed for a President with dictatorial ambitions to do in only the short amount of time from early November until now. Barack Obama has rewritten our Immigration law, repealed the Second Amendment, pledged to unilaterally raise our taxes, promised to confiscate our 401k’s, threatened to fire the entirety of the retail financial services industry, instituted cap and trade, inflicted net neutrality, signed some very questionable treaties without the requisite Senatorial Consent, changed existing law, and all of this done with the statement that he gave Congress the chance to do what he wanted before he did it alone.
Don’t blame the Bamster however. While his actions are bad enough, it was we the people who didn’t realize that gridlock was itself a perk, gifted to us by the founding fathers, rather than a problem as proclaimed by the low information voting crowd. Barack Obama is merely the messenger, who has alerted us to a huge problem, and one that hopefully we can figure out how to correct.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on a platform that included ending the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. If the single most popular President in the modern era could not rid us of the two most unpopular facets of the federal behemoth, as he’d promised to do while campaigning, then what chance would anyone have to actually do something about reducing the size and scope of government? We keep talking about the symptoms, meanwhile, the cancer grows free. Something must be done to reign this monster in, and unless Agency Law itself is addressed, nothing will be successful.
This article presents a very well written analysis of something I’ve been trying to put together in my head for some time now. I’ve mentioned many times the lefts drive for vengeance in everything they do. They never grew out of the stage where they are trying to get even with everyone for some imagined slight in their past. I would go so far as to say that the difference from liberals and conservatives is that conservatives learned to “get over it” where liberals were taught they were precious little flowers and how dare they be treated that way. Anyway, for your enlightenment I am presenting this article from American Thinker. I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. And dreads what it portends for the next two years.
January 2, 2015
The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance
By J.R. Dunn
American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims. The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.
It all falls apart eventually — with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.
Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. “The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.
The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power — the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.
This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance — revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary, that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.
This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.
First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.
American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions — and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups — or lack of the same.
The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery — “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”
Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college, while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.
Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal.
One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.
Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter — white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.
Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.
Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something — all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.
Even more serious — for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved — is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)
Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac — a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes — though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.
The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood — it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden — his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response — and the response of the left as a whole — amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed — there is nothing left.
So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far — it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond.
So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years. It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.
“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.
But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_lefts_base_motive_vengeance.html#ixzz3Np0NHS9K
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The nation of Colombia has been a success story the last 20 years. Starting with the rise of the Rightwing paramilitary United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) that began to push back the Marxist guerrillas the FARC and enabling Alvaro Uribe to win the Presidency in 2002, Colombia has changed for the better. No longer the criminal cesspool it once was, it has become one of the safest nation on Earth now, although in all honesty it is a Rightwing crypto-Police State. This is needed as there are trouble makers in Colombian society who want to disrupt the economic and social progress Colombia has made. Colombia has averaged GDP growth of 4-6% annually, its unemployment rate is at historic lows of 8.8%, compared with 22% a decade ago.
The biggest troublemakers in Colombia are NGOs. These groups try to whip up sentiment against major parties in Colombia, most of whom range from center-right to Nationalist right. In the most recent Colombian election in June, the libertarian leaning ruling party Social National Unity Party faced off against the Russian backed Democratic Center Party which is nationalist and envisions Colombia taking back lost provinces that are now the nations of Panama, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia. The politics of that nation skews to the Right, hence the Leftist NGOs want to change that.
The opening shots of the demonization of Colombia has been taken by the Guardian. This rag which is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Transnational Progressive movement, has an article trashing Colombia. It is whining about the Rightwing death squads and the pockets of poverty left in Colombia. The article advocates that US and UK break relations with Colombia. This would be a huge mistake, as Colombia would quickly align with Putin’s Russia, whom they ideologically are close to.
The Colombian port of Buenaventura is a place of misery and fear. Four-fifths of the mainly black population live in dire poverty and paramilitary gangs exercise a reign of terror. Most of Colombia’s imports come through the port, which is being massively expanded to meet the demands of new free trade agreements.
But there’s no sign of any benefit in Buenaventura’s slums, whose deprivation is reminiscent of the worst of Bangladesh. Most of the city’s population have no sewerage and many no power. Tens of thousands have been forced off their land around the city to make way for corporate “megaprojects”.
Most horrifically, paramilitaries have been dismembering those who cross them with chainsaws in shacks known as chophouses. The police admit a dozen have met these grisly deaths in recent months, but Buenaventura’s bishop says the real figure is far higher.
The government insists the rightwing paramilitary groups that have terrorised Colombia’s opposition have been dissolved. But in Buenaventura, they can be seen openly fraternising with soldiers on the streets, and they even publish their own newspaper.
Colombian officials talk peace and human rights with an evangelical zeal and a dizzying array of flipcharts. But, as one independent report after another confirms, there is a chasm between the spin and life on the ground. Laws are not implemented or abusers prosecuted. Thousands of political prisoners languish in Colombia’s jails. Political, trade union and social movement activists are still routinely jailed or assassinated.
A quarter of a million have died in Colombia’s war, the large majority of them at the hands of the army, police and government-linked paramilitaries. Five million have been forced from their homes. Although the violence is down from its peak, the killing of human rights and union activists has actually increased in the past year.
One of those jailed is the trade union and opposition leader Huber Ballesteros, arrested last year as he was about to travel to Britain to address the Trades Union Congress. Speaking in La Picota prison in Bogotá last week, Ballesteros told me: “There is no democracy in Colombia, we are confronting a dictatorship with a democratic face.”
Seumas Milne is just whining the Colombians do not tolerate Leftist trouble makers. They either jail or put bullets in heads of Leftist filth. I have predicted here on this blog, that an anti-Colombia campaign will begin. The NGOs will begin in social media and Lefty blogs to put sob stories about how mean the Colombians are.
The real reason Colombia will be demonized is becasue it is a Latin America success story. What the anti-Colombian critics will soon realize, that Colombians don’t put up with insults and many of the critics will end up dead.
Colombia is proof that free markets combined with rule of law and National Unity leads to success. Funny, that’s how America used to be before our 2 major parties decided to divide Americans for political purposes! I wish the American Right would support their ideological brethren in Colombia, but I will not hold my breath.
The Progressive movement’s darling of the hour; Elizabeth Warren aka Fauxahontas rails about big corporations and the 1%. When push came to shove, she defended the interest of the same entities she denounces. An alliance of Social Conservatives/Tea Party and Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative Republicans are blocking the renewal of the corporate welfare based Export-Import bank. This is nothing but a form of welfare to prop up big corporations, many of whom outsource jobs overseas. When invited to join opposition to this from welfare, Elizabeth Warren defended the EX-IM bank.
It was a really nice try.
Heritage Action (the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation) invited Senator Elizabeth Warren to speak at an event dedicated to phasing out the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im, as it’s known inside the Beltway, has become a favorite target of populist forces on right.
The Ex-Im gives U.S. taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to the foreign customers of giant U.S. corporations that don’t need the help. It socializes the risk while privatizing the profits. Basically, it’s free money for big businesses like GE, Caterpillar, and particularly Boeing (hence the outfit’s nickname, “the Bank of Boeing”). Even Barack Obama, shortly before he became president, derided Ex-Im as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”
As first reported by Bloomberg News, Heritage sent Warren a letter asking her to speak against Ex-Im “and the political favoritism it engenders.”
“We, like you, are frustrated with a political economy that benefits well-connected elites at the expense of all Americans,” Michael Needham, the head of Heritage Action, wrote. “Your presence will send a clear signal that you are going to fight the most pressing example of corporate welfare and cronyism pending before Congress right now.”
Warren didn’t take the bait. Her spokeswoman told Bloomberg, “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations.”
I’m not so sure there’s a contradiction here. Rather, I think we’re seeing why there will never really be a bipartisan Left–Right alliance against crony capitalism and corporate welfare.
The Right’s “libertarian populism” wants to separate big business and big government. That means no more “too big to fail” and no more of government picking winners and losers.
The Left’s anti-big-business populism is very different. It doesn’t want to cut the government’s incestuous relationship with big business; it simply wants to bring business to heel. Big business should do what Washington tells it to do, and when it does, it will get treats. When it doesn’t, it will get the newspaper to the nose. But big business will never be let off its leash, if the Left has its way.
The Progressive rhetoric against big corporations, is just all talk. In reality the Progressives are tied to the hip with big companies like Goldman Sachs and GE. In a heavily regulated economic structure, politically connected big corporations thrive, while medium and small firms die. This is the reason why Silicon valley, Wall and Corporate CEO’s support the Democrat Party. They ensure the government prevents competitors from rising, thus hindering the free market and destroying economic mobility.
Elizabeth Warren’s support fior the corrupt and Fascist like Export-Import bank shows that Democrats despite their rhetoric love big businesses. Fauxahontas is fraud and hypocrite like all Progressives. They just want to control those corporations to do their buidding.
If the Republicans would stop obsessing with Gays in comic books or other useless cultural crusades, they might actually be able to hit the Democrats on their Achilles heel of being the party of the well connected. Americans are hurting economically as take home pay is less than it was 14 years and many people have lost hope for the future. I will not hold my breath expecting The GOP to embrace a Libertarian-Populist ideology, hammer the Progressives on their Fascist ideology and promote a POSITIVE future oriented agenda to benefit all Americans.
In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren is laughing all the way to the bank!
On another note, I really recommend reading Pat Buchanan’s new book: “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create a New Majority.” It shows how the Republicans after their 64 debacle were politically resurrected by Nixon. Richard Nixon for all his faults, helped the GOP adapt to the electorate that existed and forged a coalition that would go 5-1 from 1968 to 1988. This is a lesson the GOP of today can learn if they were a serious entity.
Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries
By: Human Events
5/31/2005 03:00 AM
HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.
1. The Communist Manifesto
Authors: Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels
Publication date: 1848
Summary: Marx and Engels, born in Germany in 1818 and 1820, respectively, were the intellectual godfathers of communism. Engels was the original limousine leftist: A wealthy textile heir, he financed Marx for much of his life. In 1848, the two co-authored The Communist Manifesto as a platform for a group they belonged to called the Communist League. The Manifesto envisions history as a class struggle between oppressed workers and oppressive owners, calling for a workers’ revolution so property, family and nation-states can be abolished and a proletarian Utopia established. The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice.
2. Mein Kampf
Author: Adolf Hitler
Publication date: 1925-26
Summary: Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was initially published in two parts in 1925 and 1926 after Hitler was imprisoned for leading Nazi Brown Shirts in the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” that tried to overthrow the Bavarian government. Here Hitler explained his racist, anti-Semitic vision for Germany, laying out a Nazi program pointing directly to World War II and the Holocaust. He envisioned the mass murder of Jews, and a war against France to precede a war against Russia to carve out “lebensraum” (“living room”) for Germans in Eastern Europe. The book was originally ignored. But not after Hitler rose to power. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, there were 10 million copies in circulation by 1945.
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao
Author: Mao Zedong
Publication date: 1966
Summary: Mao, who died in 1976, was the leader of the Red Army in the fight for control of China against the anti-Communist forces of Chiang Kai-shek before, during and after World War II. Victorious, in 1949, he founded the People’s Republic of China, enslaving the world’s most populous nation in communism. In 1966, he published Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, otherwise known as The Little Red Book, as a tool in the “Cultural Revolution” he launched to push the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese society back in his ideological direction. Aided by compulsory distribution in China, billions were printed. Western leftists were enamored with its Marxist anti-Americanism. “It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism,” wrote Mao.
4. The Kinsey Report
Author: Alfred Kinsey
Publication date: 1948
Summary: Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University who, in 1948, published a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, commonly known as The Kinsey Report. Five years later, he published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. “Kinsey’s initial report, released in 1948 . . . stunned the nation by saying that American men were so sexually wild that 95% of them could be accused of some kind of sexual offense under 1940s laws,” the Washington Times reported last year when a movie on Kinsey was released. “The report included reports of sexual activity by boys–even babies–and said that 37% of adult males had had at least one homosexual experience. . . . The 1953 book also included reports of sexual activity involving girls younger than age 4, and suggested that sex between adults and children could be beneficial.”
5. Democracy and Education
Author: John Dewey
Publication date: 1916
Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education–particularly in public schools–and helped nurture the Clinton generation.
6. Das Kapital
Author: Karl Marx
Publication date: 1867-1894
Summary: Marx died after publishing a first volume of this massive book, after which his benefactor Engels edited and published two additional volumes that Marx had drafted. Das Kapital forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly phase in the development of human society in which capitalists inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits. Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.
7. The Feminine Mystique
Author: Betty Friedan
Publication date: 1963
Summary: In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, born in 1921, disparaged traditional stay-at-home motherhood as life in “a comfortable concentration camp”–a role that degraded women and denied them true fulfillment in life. She later became founding president of the National Organization for Women. Her original vocation, tellingly, was not stay-at-home motherhood but left-wing journalism. As David Horowitz wrote in a review for Salon.com of Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz (no relation to David): The author documents that “Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.”
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy
Author: Auguste Comte
Publication date: 1830-1842
Summary: Comte, the product of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French Revolution, turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in the six volumes of The Course of Positive Philosophy, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.
9. Beyond Good and Evil
Author: Freidrich Nietzsche
Publication date: 1886
Summary: An oft-scribbled bit of college-campus graffiti says: “‘God is dead’–Nietzsche” followed by “‘Nietzsche is dead’–God.” Nietzsche’s profession that “God is dead” appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but under-girded the basic theme of Beyond Good and Evil, which was published four years later. Here Nietzsche argued that men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside religiously inspired moral rules, which he deemed as artificial as any other moral rules, to craft whatever rules would help them dominate the world around them. “Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation,” he wrote. The Nazis loved Nietzsche.
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
Author: John Maynard Keynes
Publication date: 1936
Summary: Keynes was a member of the British elite–educated at Eton and Cambridge–who as a liberal Cambridge economics professor wrote General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.
These books won votes from two or more judges:
The Population Bomb
by Paul Ehrlich
What Is To Be Done
by V.I. Lenin
by Theodor Adorno
by John Stuart Mill
Beyond Freedom and Dignity
by B.F. Skinner
Reflections on Violence
by Georges Sorel
The Promise of American Life
by Herbert Croly
The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Madness and Civilization
by Michel Foucault
Soviet Communism: A New Civilization
by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Coming of Age in Samoa
by Margaret Mead
Unsafe at Any Speed
by Ralph Nader
by Simone de Beauvoir
by Antonio Gramsci
by Rachel Carson
Wretched of the Earth
by Frantz Fanon
Introduction to Psychoanalysis
by Sigmund Freud
The Greening of America
by Charles Reich
The Limits to Growth
by Club of Rome
Descent of Man
by Charles Darwin
These 15 scholars and public policy leaders served as judges in selecting the Ten Most Harmful Books.
Prof. Brad Birzer
Vice President & Executive Editor
Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Prof. Marshall DeRosa
Florida Atlantic University
Dr. Don Devine
Second Vice Chairman
American Conservative Union
Prof. Robert George
Prof. Paul Gottfried
Prof. William Anthony Hay
Mississippi State University
Prof. Mark Malvasi
The Witherspoon Fellowships
Prof. Mark Molesky
Seton Hall University
Prof. Stephen Presser
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Here is another case of Psych “experts” trying to excuse behavior because “you’re just programmed that way”. Hey, but there’s good news. According to this self-serving article, the more you read articles like this, the less you believe in prison and capital punishment. So, see there is a silver lining.
Free will is just a myth according to these people you are just a preprogrammed set of impulses so it’s wrong (and probably racist) to insist that these people be locked away or executed where they can’t continue to harm those around them.
Hey, maybe this is the basis behind Obama’s catch and release terrorist program.
Enjoy this exercise in absurdity in it’s entirety.
Minimizing belief in free will may lessen support for criminal punishment
Exposure to information that diminishes free will, including brain-based accounts of behavior, seems to decrease people’s support for retributive punishment, according to research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
People who learned about neuroscientific research, either by reading a magazine article or through undergraduate coursework, proposed less severe punishment for a hypothetical criminal than did their peers. The findings suggest that they did so because they saw the criminal as less blameworthy.
“There is no academic consensus on free will, but we already do see discussions of brain processes and responsibility trickling through the justice system and other social institutions — for better or worse,” says psychological scientist and study author Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon.
While research suggests that most people believe in free will, Shariff and colleagues wondered whether increasing exposure to information about the brain, which suggests a more mechanistic account of human behavior, might have consequences for how we reason about morality and make moral attributions.
They hypothesized that exposing people to information that diminishes belief in free will — neuroscientific or otherwise — would, in turn, diminish perceptions of moral responsibility; ultimately, this shift in belief would influence how people think about crime and punishment.
So, for example, if people come to believe that the brain drives behavior, they may be less likely to hold others morally responsible for criminal actions, eliminating the need to punish so that they receive their “just deserts.”
In an initial experiment, Shariff and colleagues had college students read a passage and then read a fictional scenario about a man who beat another man to death. Some of the students read a passage that rejected free will and advocated a mechanistic view of behavior, while others read a passage unrelated to free will.
Those students who read the passage rejecting free will chose significantly shorter prison sentences, about 5 years, than did those who read the neutral passage, about 10 years.
The effect also emerged when the manipulation was more subtle: Students who read an article about neuroscience findings that only implied mechanistic explanations for human behavior chose shorter prison sentences than did their peers who read about nuclear power or natural headache remedies.
Not only that, they also placed less blame on the transgressor. Further analyses revealed that decreased blameworthiness actually accounted for the relationship between diminished belief in free will and lighter sentences.
Interestingly, students who freely enrolled and participated in an undergraduate course in cognitive neuroscience also showed the effect. Students who took a neuroscience course chose a lighter prison sentence at the end of the semester than they had at the beginning of the semester; this decrease in recommended sentence was associated with self-reported increases in knowledge about the brain over the course of the semester.
Students enrolled in a geography course, on the other hand, showed no change in their sentencing recommendations over time.
“These results show that our students are not only absorbing some of what we’re teaching them, but also seeing implications of that content for their attitudes about things as fundamental as morality and responsibility,” says Shariff. “It underscores the consequences that science education — and perhaps psychological science education, in particular — can have on our students and, ultimately, the broader public.”
Shariff and colleagues believe that their findings could have broad implications, especially in the domains of criminal justice and law.
This project was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Award 07-89249-000-HCD), by the Regents of the University of California, and by the John Templeton Foundation.
In addition to Shariff, study co-authors include Joshua D. Greene of Harvard University; Johan C. Karremans of Radboud University Nijmegen; Jamie B. Luguri of Yale University; Cory J. Clark of the University of California, Irvine; Jonathan W. Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Roy F. Baumeister of Florida State University; and Kathleen D. Vohs of the University of Minnesota.
All materials have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework and can be accessed at osf.io/dy3pm. The complete Open Practices Disclosure for this article can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/by/supplementaldata.
This article has received the badge for Open Materials. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/view/ and http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.full.
For more information about this study, please contact: Azim Shariff at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The article abstract is available online: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/09/0956797614534693.abstract
Putting this up as per request. Thomas Sowell skewers nation building and compassionate warfare.
The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists have now taken over cities that American troops liberated during the Iraq war must have left an especially bitter aftertaste to Americans who lost a loved one who died taking one of those cities, or to a survivor who came back without an arm or leg, or with other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. Others say we should never have pulled our troops out when we did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the notion of “nation-building,” especially nation-building on the cheap, and to the glib and heady talk of “national greatness” interventionists who were prepared to put other people’s lives on the line from the safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President George W. Bush for everything bad that has happened since he left office should at least acknowledge that he was a patriotic American president who did what he did for the good of the country — an assumption that we can no longer safely make about the current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush’s gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn. A thriving free society in the Muslim world, and the values and example that such a society could represent, might undermine the whole hate-filled world terrorist movement that is seeking to turn back civilization to a darker world of centuries past.
But creating such a society, if it is possible at all, cannot be done on the cheap, with politicians constantly calling for us to announce to the world — including our enemies — when we are going to leave. The very idea is silly, but everything silly is not funny.
We haven’t yet announced when we are going to pull our troops out of Germany or Japan, and World War II was over more than 60 years ago. Turning those militaristic countries around was one of the great achievements in human history. Their neighboring countries have been able to enjoy a peace and security that they had not known for generations.
Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and Japan made it seem that we might achieve something similar in Iraq. But “the greatest generation” that had fought and survived the horrors of war around the world was under no illusion that trying to turn our defeated enemies around would be easy, quick, and cheap. Creating democracy in Germany and Japan was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable and viable government amid the ruins and rubble of war was the first priority and a major responsibility. You cannot create instant democracy like you are making instant coffee.
There are prerequisites for a free society, and the foundations of democracy cannot be built on chaotic conditions with widespread uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for the sake of holding elections is to abdicate responsibility for the sake of appearances. The biggest danger is that you will create a government that will work at cross-purposes to everything you are trying to achieve — a government you cannot rein in, much less repudiate, without destroying your own credibility as representatives of democracy. That has happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
By contrast, in both Germany and Japan, power was turned over to elected officials at such times and in such degree as conditions seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But we didn’t publish a timetable.
Today, with terrorists threatening to at least fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a sobering thought that Barack Obama and his key advisers have a track record of having been wrong about Iraq and other foreign-policy issues for years, going back before they took office — and no track record of learning from their mistakes.
You will notice that I have been posting these with the full article and video and no comment from myself. I have had a reason for my actions, and it isn’t laziness on my part. I feel these articles are incredibly important, so much so that I want to make sure that the original author and investigators receive all credit for their hard work. Any comments that I could have made would have, in my honest opinion, just detracted from their hard work putting together these exposes. I honestly feel that these are that important.
These articles may be about the White Privilege conference (a taxpayer funded conference for educators at every grade level that has gone on for fifteen years at this point), but this is about far more than that. These articles are being posted here for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, what have you. That is because what is being conducted here is dangerous. Not just for “whites” but for everyone that wants to have the ability to speak their minds, or have their children live in a country where they will be allowed to speak openly. These conferences are about nothing less than suppression of free speech. They want to shut down everyone who disagrees with them, and they want to go further by ensuring that your children are educated in such a way that they will never know what free speech is.
This is not about one conference. In fact there are many of these held around the country at different levels, in different places, all over this great country of ours. We shouldn’t demand these conferences be shut down, (it would be nice if they weren’t being paid for out of peoples tax money though), but these conferences should be taken out of the darkness and shown in the light for all to see and hear. These are the educators in this country, this is what they want to teach your children. Suppression of speech, capitalism is evil, and the United States is responsible for all evil on this planet. These ideas are not just dangerous, they are enough to bring down the country if put into the minds of the future.
Somehow I have posted these in the wrong order, I hope it hasn’t messed anyone up.