The WSJ writes in Obama Among the Dictators that when an American President appears to be chummy with a dictator it sends a message to those he oppresses. The article uses a now-forgotten parallel. “The now-famous photograph of Barack Obama sharing a handshake and mile-wide smile with happy Hugo Chávez recalled to mind a visit years ago of Philippine strong man Ferdinand Marcos to The Wall Street Journal’s offices in lower Manhattan. … They had been sending the Philippines images of Marcos in the company of American symbols — bankers, journalists, politicians. Propaganda. The message for the Philippine opposition was: Behold, the Americans are with me, not you.”
Meanwhile, the AP says that Russia has moved troops closer to Georgia’s capital. “Russia has stationed its forces just 25 miles (40 kilometers) from the Georgian capital, in violation of the EU-brokered cease-fire that ended last year’s brief war. And in recent weeks, it has sent even more troops and armored vehicles to within striking distance of the city ahead of street protests against Georgia’s president.”
Pakistani government forces and the Taliban have clashed 60 miles from the capital. “Pakistani paramilitary troops rushed to protect government buildings and bridges from encroaching Taliban militants just 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the capital quickly came under fire Thursday by gunmen who killed a police officer, authorities said. … In recent days, the valley’s militants have entered Buner in large numbers — establishing checkpoints, patrolling roads and spreading fear in an area some 60 miles (97 kilometers) from Islamabad. Their movement has bolstered critics’ claims that the [peace] deal would merely embolden the militants to spread their reign to other parts of the province bordering Afghanistan.”
General Petraeus, speaking at the Kennedy School of Government, urged the Pakistanis to de-emphasize their conflict with India and turn to what he believed was the real thread. “yesterday, at a forum here at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, U.S. Central Command chief General David Petraeus had a message for the Pakistanis: Get over it. These days, your biggest enemy isn’t India. It’s home-grown extremists.”
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
70 Comments, 70 Threads, 2 Trackbacks
1.
Doug
Mark Frobose says Hugo is someone normal people have a hard time warming up to.
Characterizes him as the kind of guy that greets you and says,
“How are the wife and kids?”
Then pulls his coat back to reveal a .45 pointing in your direction.
Says he hosts a weekly TV program
“Talk to the President”
in which he sits at a table with his men who have been told what to say and how, and if they don’t, they are in deep do do thereafter.
… show often goes on for FIVE Hours.
BHO had some adolescent snarky comment about Venezuela hardly being a threat to the USA, citing what they spend on defense.
Seemingly never having given a thought about Hugo’s threat to the people of Venezuela/Columbia/South/Central America.
Insightful, Colorful, Biased and Misleading. Lacks Balanced Historic Perspective,
By Mark Frobos
I must say that “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” is an informative, insightful, colorful, yet extremely biased view of the failures of Latin America explained through the lens of a very misleading leftist ideology.
Of course, atrocities and unfairness abound in the history of every country and on every continent. What is lacking in Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America” is a truly balanced historical perspective.
Galeano describes accurately America’s military and expansionist intervention in Latin America, but he fails to mention American economic and medical aid, student exchanges, as well as the oppression of Latin American governments upon their own people.
Clearly there existed atrocities which did not begin with the arrival of the Europeans on the continent. The Mayan and Aztec rituals of human sacrifice and cannibalism on a massive scale, the wholesale slaughter of entire tribes of Indians to feed their particular religion’s need for a constant flow of innocent blood, are barely mentioned in Galeano’s book.
“Open Veins of Latin America” does read like a classic Marxist attack on capitalism. However, Galeano appears to have problems in bringing home his point to vilify capitalism and glorify socialism.
My question is this? How many people do you see escaping free capitalist countries like the United States to live in socialist countries like Cuba or Russia? The entire world, not just the United States, has repeatedly chosen freedom over slavery, and the prosperity and opportunity of capitalism over the poverty and misery of socialism. Extreme socialist and communist governments have always failed in every country where they have existed, often leading to some of the world’s greatest atrocities and massacres such as Stalin’s murder of 20 million of his own people and Pol Pot’s massacre of one third of his country’s population in the killing fields of Cambodia.
And how about the effect of foreign interests in Latin America? It is true that foreign interests have influenced and afflicted Latin America in very negative ways since the Spanish conquest. No one can deny this. The problem is that Galeano’s book has an agenda, which is not to inform but rather to persuade the reader that capitalism is the cause of the problem, and that socialism is the cure. This is simply not the case, and a truly accurate study of Latin American history will clearly prove this point.
—
Mark says the Caribe Indians that Columbus encountered practiced boiling young babies to consume as a delicacy.
Also reminds that the Aztecs slaughtered 70,000 fellow tribesmen in a single Ceremony.
wonder whether we’re going to get attacks in india preparatory to or simultaneous with raids on islamabad. it’d be the best strategy. i have to admit this whole Pakistan-destabilization campaign has been deftly run. must be nice to be able to depend on a whole population of demoralized eloi-worshippers in the West, to say nothing of the effeminated lotus-eaters of the East. what a shame. if the sino-soviet axis really is behind this they have done incredible work: so many crucial dominos wavering in the wind now.
Roger Simon says the UN’s anti-racism conference sort of shut itself down on Wednesday, even though it was scheduled to run through Friday. He says a scheduled meeting on “Islamaphobia” got cancelled.
It seems to me that this “conference” may be important for two reasons: (1) it’s another stake in the heart of the UN, and (2) the West got the moxie to stand up to the Arabs and their religion of peace.
How much longer can the UN stagger along doing absolutely nothing except accepting and giving bribes, and how will the heaving Muslims accept the stony silence of the West towards their whines and grievances?
The left showed little or no remorse for the fate of Vietnam when it (the left) abandoned the country to its fate. The left sees no enemies on its left.
So what is going on now with Obama foreign policy? Perhaps the left cannot resist its delight in seeing every Bush initiative and legacy as flawed and contaminated. Any entity that Bush abhorred (e.g., FARC, Chavez, Taliban) must be reconsidered and offered legitimacy, since anything that the evil Bush abhorred must be, ipso facto, good.
Hillary is nervous about Pakistan. But, on the other hand, Bush worked in various ways to buck up Pakistan for the war against AQ and fellow travellers. Therefore Pakistan will have to fall. The problem was caused by Bush.
So Pakistan’s government believes that now’s the time to accuse India of supporting a Baluch insurgency? Baluch? I have no idea whether India supports them; probably they do, at least tacitly. However, the Army of Darkness sits cleaning its AK-47s 25 miles northwest of Islamabad – and this is the time to accuse India over Baluchistan?
Whatever. All I can say is: I thank God that I was born an American.
“… when an American President appears to be chummy with a dictator it sends a message to those he oppresses.”
And recall that the Left thinks so highly of demonstrations and other symbolic actions, even as they characterize embarassing protests as mere street theater and handshakes with dictators as simple diplomatic courtesy.
In this, as in all things, they want to have it both ways.
i have been ”commuting” between dubai and santa cruz bolivia since 2005. i am involved in a gas conversion project (gtl) which has been nothing but heartaches due to the ignorance and regressive idealogy of evo ”monkey man” morales. chavez is head chimp for the region so his thugs are regularly involved in all forms of decision making either through his national oil company or banks operating in various countries.
santa cruz an oil/gas center providing from its fields 73% of all natural gas consumed by sao paulo, brazil. it is also the heart of anti-evo/chavex opposition.
if i had a dollar for everytime i have been stopped in a shop or at a chic dinner party and asked”when will america free us from this dictator” ??? all types of people rich and poor, white and brown asking the same question.
and now you ask about the messages sent to the various oppositions in argentian, equador, bolivia and venezuela ????
the black moses just pissed on the dreams of half a continent seeing their futures in a perilous state.
the words of disappointment could not be contained by freedom loving people when the u.s prez came to ”rap” with acknowledged thugs. it was a sad day to be a ”gringo” in latin america.
Not only does Obama support ‘the oppressors.’ He supports those that would oppress us.
His flipping on the ‘torture’ prosecutions is testimony that He values terrorists rights more than the lives of the citizens He is supposed to protect.
i think if you’ve watched the progress of legislative efforts in venezuela in the last few years you’ll notice that chavez is using the veneer of legality to certify his personal rule. he lost the “president for life” plebiscite, but that has been his only defeat. presumably it will come again; if other means are necessary, others will be found. what was his latest victory? that he can rule by decree? i forget – someone please help Neil and i.
Holding elections may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not sufficient. If someone is voted into high office via democratically elected means, but then changes the rules about how elections are held or not held (think Castro), that can hardly be considered a democracy. As dan@19 has noted, Chavez lost the president for life plebiscite, but the issue will surely be raised again. Next time, we can be sure there will be more coercive measures to ensure its approval.
Technically speaking, Hugo Chavez isn’t a dictator. Yet. He is a dictator wannabe. He is also a popularly elected tyrant.
Likewise, Apartheid South Africa was not undemocratic. It was highly democratic. It was also tyrannical, repressive, and racist.
Democracy can often mean that the majority votes for the expropriation of the property of the minority. America’s founding father’s called this a “Tyranny of the Majority”. Democracy can also mean that the majority votes for the expropriation of the property of people who don’t get to vote. A democracy can even vote for the enslavement of other people; that has happened in the past.
Let’s not assume that democracy is an unalloyed good.
NahnCee @ #10: Yes, another stake in the heart of the UN for sure, but methinks that’s an organization whose heart can take a LOT of stakes. As my brother so accurately labels them: “a bureaucracy of clowns. . . that doesn’t take itself seriously enough to follow through on its own resolutions.” Just ask yourself how valuable (or even serious) any institution is that can see itself ignored so consistently on the very issues for which it is supposed to be responsible. My instinct tells me if the US stopped paying its UN assessment the organization would whither away — with a lot of anti-US press in attendance. F
South Africa had a Parliamentary & even consitutional form of government but it was not a democracy because 80% couldn’t vote.
There is a dicotomy between democracy & freedom not just over property but on the majoritiy’s right to tell you what got to worship or what plant to smoke. Bad as it may be we have found, in Churchill’s phrase that it is not as bad as all the others.
Certainly government imposed from outside is almost never best, except, perhaps, for the outsiders & even then Iraq has shown the US has no talent for it.
Exhelo I don’t think it should be necessary to point out why Saddam’s elections were sham.
1) Does he get frog marched out of the White House wearing handcuffs?
2) Does he get vaporized by a terrorist’s nuke?
3) Does his office simply disappear after a constitutional convention?
4) Does he get voted out like Jimmy Carter after one term?
5) …
15. downtowndubai: if i had a dollar for everytime i have been stopped in a shop or at a chic dinner party and asked”when will america free us from this dictator” ??? all types of people rich and poor, white and brown asking the same question.
My guess is not ever, after Iraq. I just don’t see honestly Americans want to be involved in freeing up others or give democracy a damn. Not voluntarily, and certainly will not do so for a shadowy organization (AQ or not).
Athens, pre-Civil War America, pre-Victorian England, were all democracies and all had severe restrictions on the franchise. Property or poll tax qualifications, and of course no women voting.
Switzerland, a famous democracy, only granted women the right to vote in the early 1970′s. France resisted giving women the right to vote for decades within the Third Republic, ironically because the Left then feared conservative minded women voters.
Democracies need not be universalist, constitutional, or compatible with freedom. Democracy is entirely compatible with suppression of minorities or even, the other way around, coalition of minority groups to suppress the majority, which described Apartheid South Africa, and probably the current state of affairs in the US. Sadly, human beings are not Angels and even they had their problems, reputedly.
“Athens, pre-Civil War America, pre-Victorian England, were all democracies and all had severe restrictions on the franchise. Property or poll tax qualifications, and of course no women voting.”
I have mixed opinions about Robert Heinlein but I think he was onto something in his belief that some sort of public service involving personal risk should be a precondition for voting, e.g. military service, Peace Corps service to a failed state, etc. I recognize that such a system could be abused by a tyrant. However our current democratic system is actively being abused by the MSM. Also, I would go a step further and argue that only honorably discharged military officers preferably with combat experience should be allowed to serve as President or in the US Senate. Again, I know this is fantasy.
“sort of public service involving personal risk should be a precondition for voting”
I think the only condition should be that you are not on the public dole. Voting yourself more goodies is the tyranny of the welfare class. If government gets too big, than government should be forbidden to vote themselves more public funds, growth, etc. If a electoral majority works for government, how could a stable system be maintained?
In ‘Starship Troopers’ (most often cited on this topic), the restriction of voting to veterans had been instituted as a grass-roots movement following devastating wars — that old external driver of change.
Since we are dreaming, is part of our current problem ‘Representation Without Taxation’? Maybe we could think about weighting votes according to the taxpayer’s prior year tax payment? Risky, I know, given the prevalence of wealthy liberals — but at least they would be authorizing the spending of their own money.
The biggest dream of all would be to restrict the Federal Govt to taxing only the States. Only States & their political subdivisions would be allowed to tax individual citizens.
I would argue that apartheid South Africa was a democracy so long as the demos was circumscribed to only the “white” population. Who defines the demos? One of the problems with limiting the franchise is that the majority of those who can vote will often use their ballots to take resources away from people who can’t vote.
Was the United States a democracy before 1965? If apartheid South Africa wasn’t a democracy, one could argue that the United States wasn’t a democracy either. Many states in the Union denied certain people franchise too. For that matter, was Athens truly a democracy?
Two of the intrinsic questions of democracy are the question of citizenship and the question of franchise. They define the nature of the demos. I would argue that Jacksonian democracy is a form of democracy. Jacksonian democracy is elitist, for while it seems to oppose class based distinction, it promotes race based distinction. The worldview of apartheid South Africa was not much different from the worldview of the original Jacksonians; they were nearly identical. Each ideology combined “anti-elitist” white populism with blatant racial elitism.
The economy of Athens was based upon slavery. Being seen with dictators is bad, financially supporting either them or monarchies is worse. Dubai ?? yeah that is a real democracy
I have a few thoughts on two subjects that have appeared in this thread and in others. Likely they will continue to be much discussed topics, particularly by those of us on the right or in the center.
The first is the idea of a constitutional convention. Before anyone suggests a new constitutional convention as a cure for the shortcomings of our present condition I would advise them to study the first constitutional convention in depth
Once those who propose a new convention understand what a monumental task it was to build the first constitution they would doubtlessly drop the notion of having a new one. It would be a most dangerous undertaking.
The first constitution came very close to never happening and reached it’s first test in the Presidential election of 1800. However, prior to that, one has to know that scholars are almost unanimous in their understanding and appreciation for the collection of men that debated the archetecture of the constitution that came into being. These men are generally considered by scholars to have been the greatest collection of informed ,enlightened, and educated, and intelligent men ever to have come together to form a government.
Alexander Hamilton’s college entrance exam consisted in part of reading aloud the Bible written in Latin and translating it into Greek as he spoke the words, in Greek. He was not an exception to the knowledge the Founders had. Knowledge that covered philosophers from pre Plato through the Enlightenment.
To have a constitutional convention would be suicide. The product at this time in history would end with a dictatorship. It is much better to go the way of amendments to the present document than to open up the entire framework to the light of perverted philosophies. Additionally there is no guarantee that the fifty states would participate once the convention opened. They would be under no compact at that time to reform a United States .
The second issue is term limits. Term limits are already in place. We have elections every two years for the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate.
That states return the same members year after year is the will of the people, not of some artificial construct that prevents the will of the people from being translated into the republican form of government we have.
Each of us must look at ourselves and ask, “What have I done to force change? Have I worked for the party I support? Have I walked precincts for the candidate I like? Have I done anything other than type on a blog to others who are 90% in agreement with me to begin with?”
For change to come about you must actively participate in that change, not simply wait for election day to arrive , go vote and feel you have done your duty. Voting is de minimus for the citizen. Giving money is in the same catagory.
Would you drive from Nebraska to DC to participate in a million citizen show of discontent?
If we want change we must WORK for it not simply bemoan our station in life and then change the channel.
this gets to the problems regarding the idea of every last person being able to voice his position regarding any or every issue.
1) Who decides the issue before the demos?
Jimmy Carter proposed instituting some kind of technology that would allow the folk at home a way to register their vote on any or every issue, as though that would eliminate representative government from deciding an issue or law proposal via Carter’s home opinion poll device.
that brings us right back to #1
2) the issue of same sex marriage was decided, most recently, by referendum in california, not once but twice. One man/one woman marriage prevailed there [again] by roughly 60%+ margin, as it has in every other state that put the Marriage issue to referenda.
That only the registered voter was the majority in that contest is of little relevance, when compared to the recent passage, by Vermont legislature, of same sex mariage via legislation, opening the issue to the “social justice” [civil rights] canard of (establishing) a “right” to you know what, and that’s Polygamy.
the Vermonts legislatures actions are very much removed from the direct affirmation/refusal of the electorate via referenda. It is, as Ms. Prejean said, not an issue regarding ones “opinion”, or “feelings” regarding a “right” to same sex marriage or “sexual orientation” itself (as some would have us believe) as defined and settled by referenda: whatever your “opinion” is, or your “feelings” are (on “social justice’ or a “civil right”). If you lost based on referenda, you lost.
The “civil rights” canard is used to get around the democratic process, and have it “decided” outside that process entirely. For our own good.
Vermont legislature has again opened up the possibility to establishment of polygamy as a right, just as courts in Mass. have done, by deciding the issue by extra-referenda. and both courts and Vermont legislature will deny their responsibility, culpability , and hand in “tribal” rights [civil rights, "social justice" canard] of polygamy when polygamy is propagated that way before them.
And I think we all know what 0′s position vis a vis polygamy as a “civil right” will be. He’s just biding his time.
Referenda decided by registered voters is the only acceptable form of deciding an issue or law extra-legislatively (outside of representative legislature). It is also more directly democratic than a (indirect by comparison) legislature
And we all know about voter fraud almost universally tilted in the direction the “social justice”,” civil rights” canard APORN tax pirates crowd. And still they lost in california. (and lose plural, in other states such as Oregon).
Same sex marriage as a “right” is held by the limited demographic of the narrow confines of the itty bitty gay/lesbian celebrity community, for purposes of generating publicity [as exemplified by perez hilton], and propagated as such in stark contrast to gay/lebian community members who support Ms. Prejean’s stance 100%, and state that hollywood stance on this is opposed to theirs.
Same sex marriage would still lose even if we could utilize Carter’s device.
I would like to suggest a corollary to Godwin’s Law:
“The first person to suggest a comparison to Robert Heinlein automatically wins the argument.”
Representation without Taxation, as has been ably pointed out already, has put the productive class on a collision course with the dependent class. It’s simply not sustainable. What we are witnessing is a short-sighted power/money grab by the Left – their politicians and connected businessmen are diverting billions into their own coffers, and will continue to do so until some sanity is restored to gov’t.
Reading the articles recently with the shocking headlines “TARP and Bailout Money Fraudulently Obtained and Stolen.” Color me surprised. And no one should delude themselves as to the level of knowledge our betters in Congress had about all this. They knew exactly what would happen with the unsupervised and secret giveaway of billions, and many played an active role in securing funds for favored companies.
“We didn’t know. We had no idea this would happen.” It’s truly sickening, but perhaps the worst part is that they’ll get away with it, because the people electing them are getting their cut, too.
democracy is an Ideal, and we strive for it. Republican government is the only realistic way to get anywhere close to democratic ideals, which I think, is Habu’s point. And a constitutional convention is just the sort of trojan horse that can lead to dictatorship; an easy, convenient fad of an idea, as he describes it.
Habu, as far as I can see a constitutional convention will be the civilized way of dealing with Obama and his minions.
If you won’t allow us that, then we’re left with pitchforks, tar and feathers.
Either that, or waiting until DC gets nuked by the Russians / Chinese / Arabs / North Koreans / “interested others”, at which point we’ll be forced to start all over again.
Frankly, option #3 looks like the cleanest and fastest way to go.
Rights, civil or otherwise, are often just a rhetorical tool to discredit, or otherwise invalidate, opposition to a point of view. What is needed is a clearer understanding of the difference between a right and a privilege. A privilege can be taken away; removal of a right requires considerably greater effort.
Driving, e.g., is considered a privilege which can be denied if abused. Most people would consider elementary and secondary education for everyone to be a right. If it were a privilege, it might make it easier to remove the trouble makers when it is clear that their actions and attitudes abuse their privilege to attend class.
Is universal health care a right? Its supporters advertise that it is. But if supporting it requires repressive taxation, as seems likely, then the “right” to health care will have to be rethought, although not without social upheaval.
“Frankly, option #3 looks like the cleanest and fastest way to go.”
A variation of option #3 is option #6 (Buddy got option #5):
6) The various states become tired of playing with the federal government and don’t want to be liable for the enormous federal debt so they one-by-one succeed from the union until only Vermont or California is left holding the bag.
In all seriousness, option 6) could actually happen.
*who will show up?
* will a quorum be present?
*will Texas reassert indepndence?
*will California cut a deal with Mexico and it all become Mexifornia?
*will the old South reform and assert it’s rights?
*who will preside over the convention?
These are just a very very few of the challenges a new conventiona would bring.
We have the amendment process in place. Let’s use it and preserve the Union and save a new history of chaos and turmoil.
The first convention barely ratified the first Constitution … we’re lucky to have a Republic, lets get busy preserving it.
47. Eggplant; What makes you think bankrupt California will last long enough to “hold the bag”. I’m thinking its more likely the Marin-Berkeley-SF crowd might withdraw from the hoi polloi with their portion of the Golden State to join the original 13 and a few hanger-ons and form the US’s final socialist experiment, before collapsing into utter chaos.
But I think those of us who are conservatives (actually traditionalists or Constitutionalists) feel we are in the fight of our life. And I think we’re right.
This mid term election can be a game changer. If we lose more support there will be a revolution I am quite sure. But we owe history and the millions who have gone before us to fight the fight first at the ballot box..if that doesn’t work we go to the pitchforks.
Is this a contradiction of my no new constitutional convention position. If we have a convention and somehow manage to keep all 50 states together surly the Left will have dictated the new constitution. I will not live under the bootheel of the Marxist left. I will die first in revolution attempting to, as a great American once said,
“Fight our way back to the Constitution”
That great American…Buddy Larsen.
I honestly believe that if we could marshall one , better yet two million conservative/middle of the road citizen in Washington ,DC with everyone carrying a broom to represent a rifle the pols would be scared out of their jobs and the MSM would not be able to work around reporting a gathering that large.
It would be entirely possible to scare Representattives and Senators out of office with daily sit ins, constant harrassment patrols of their homes and use all the Alinsky tools and some Sun Tzu we could intimidate the left. Now they are intimidating the hell out of the right. Personally I don’t like it.
Tax revenues are already collapsing at all levels.
The ‘business model’ of the Leftists is breaking up faster than an Antarctic floe.
Unlimited immigration by dependent and poor illegals CANNOT work in a welfare state.
Permitting such massive labor flows across the border is extremely harmful to both Mexico and the United States.
A society is built on human connections and traditions. Mega-migrations of ‘fissioned families’ ™ result in broken bonds and a cultural implosion for the evaporating society.
Re-bonding is brutish and nasty in as much as the prior cultural structure is greatly missing in the new land. Further, in practice, wage competition is Hobbesian.
Of necessity the mega-migrants displace ENTIRE native work forces from assembly lines and construction crews and service craftwork large and small.
The economic effect while this dynamic unfolds is to elevate the elites yet higher still: real assets rise in value relative to labor — more grease is applied to the climbing pole!
When permitted to go the limit, the relative wage rates for the common man crash as he can’t escape the vortex.
Wide open borders are so destabilizing that anarchy and upheaval must be expected. The anarchy in Mexico is now manifest — and it’s heading to Arizona. Thank you, Napolitano!
Immigrants are a cultural spice: welcome in proper proportion — bitter even toxic when over done.
The guy at Yankee Sailor in his analysis of the situation gives Georgia 10-14 days tops after fighting begins. What is all this for if not to topple the government of Georgia one way or another?
I don’t think the O in his hallowed wisdom has said one word of public support to Georgia in a way that would give Putin pause. I expect O to offer to mediate the transition to a dictatorship for the Georgian People, to make sure there is a “peaceful solution”.
I do blame Bush partly for the plight of the Georgians now; he did nothing to rearm them knowing full well that Obama was likely going to be next President and would betray the Georgian people in a heartbeat.
unsk, Georgia is home to perhaps the oldest Christian iconography on earth. Georgians have fought the Rus collosus for independence now for a thousand years. It’s a rotten shame what’s happening.
Kinuachdrach, as someone with one hell of a 1040, I call that taxation with proportional representation. If the populous wants to vote away my industry and the resulting property, then my vote should be counted in proportion to my industry and produced property.
Petraeus doesn’t understand the nature of the Islamic beast. India, being non-Muslim, is by definition the enemy. They must always be fought and conquered, no matter what squabbles you have in-house.
France resisted giving women the right to vote for decades within the Third Republic, ironically because the Left then feared conservative minded women voters.
I find that bizarre, since female voters are far more liberal than men are in every first-world democracy.
“For Mr. Chávez it was priceless. Merely being seen or photographed in the presence of civilized society — at summits, negotiations, in state visits — empowers the autocrat and discourages his opposition.” –WSJ
The WSJ and Daniel Henninger have a good point. Obama has now legitimized Chavez’s past crimes and encourages more. Chavez will kill and jail more of his people because Obama has essentially given him the green light to do so.
Worse, Obama may adopt some of Chavez’s tactics and start tossing his opposition into jail.
I see that Obama cronies have said they will not rule out “prosecuting” George Bush or Dick Cheney. That is thuggish and smacks of the workings of a dictator.
“I do blame Bush partly for the plight of the Georgians now; he did nothing to rearm them knowing full well that Obama was likely going to be next President and would betray the Georgian people in a heartbeat.”
Unsk, I was in Gerogia on the EJAT in Aug-Sep 08. You don’t know what you are talking about. The FDO worked and the Russians halted, we did what we could legally do -your beef is with Congress not Bush.
No society is an absolute democracy – children, the insane & usually serving prisoners get excluded – but I think we can see a difference between one where 80% vote (here), 80% are excluded (apartheit South Africa) & the demos being limited to 1 (Stalinist USSR) & resreve the term to the former. By that definition Venezuela is a democracy (& at times the US have been supportive of much less democratic regimes there).
Heinlein suggested a number of different coting restrictions – the only one I think would not be so open to abuse as to be worse than currently was restricting from those on welfare, though I would have to include all government employees as being on welfare.
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has suggested giving a 2nd vote to male heads of families between 40 & 60 to provide stability. This also fits with his Confucian prejudices as I suppose did Stalin’s “one man one vote & I’m the man” system.
they say Lee Kuan Yew is a fascist or at least an authoritarian –but “they” pays no attention to his nation’s rathering astonishingly successful & contentededly stable prosperity & well-being.
Neil – You make the mistake so many do in discussing the US. You assume we are a Democracy, we are not. We are a Democratic Republic. There are worlds and worlds of differences.
Whether they are Democrat or Republican, politicians have now become a permanent class in the capital, existing along with a giant bureaucracy, operating the government for their own sake. Unless that is changed, they will simply continue to increasing until they bankrupt the country.
"Fun read and a great first effort. The characters have distinct personalities, the action is gripping and there's a sense of realism without becoming overly technical. It's a story that you think may have actually happened in the real world. On the downside, the start is a little stilted and the author doesn't hit his pace until about 30 pages in but this is a quibble. Make it that far and you'll be in for a treat. ." -- by Jim (Virginia)
Mark Frobose says Hugo is someone normal people have a hard time warming up to.
Characterizes him as the kind of guy that greets you and says,
“How are the wife and kids?”
Then pulls his coat back to reveal a .45 pointing in your direction.
Says he hosts a weekly TV program
“Talk to the President”
in which he sits at a table with his men who have been told what to say and how, and if they don’t, they are in deep do do thereafter.
… show often goes on for FIVE Hours.
BHO had some adolescent snarky comment about Venezuela hardly being a threat to the USA, citing what they spend on defense.
Seemingly never having given a thought about Hugo’s threat to the people of Venezuela/Columbia/South/Central America.
What is The Belmont Club counterpropaganda plan for all those RBN/GRU Cyber Militia trolls the Second Russo-Georgian War will bring in here?
The “official” critical blurbs @ Amazon are laughably laudible:
—
“Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”
Insightful, Colorful, Biased and Misleading. Lacks Balanced Historic Perspective,
By Mark Frobos
I must say that “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” is an informative, insightful, colorful, yet extremely biased view of the failures of Latin America explained through the lens of a very misleading leftist ideology.
Of course, atrocities and unfairness abound in the history of every country and on every continent. What is lacking in Galeano’s “Open Veins of Latin America” is a truly balanced historical perspective.
Galeano describes accurately America’s military and expansionist intervention in Latin America, but he fails to mention American economic and medical aid, student exchanges, as well as the oppression of Latin American governments upon their own people.
Clearly there existed atrocities which did not begin with the arrival of the Europeans on the continent. The Mayan and Aztec rituals of human sacrifice and cannibalism on a massive scale, the wholesale slaughter of entire tribes of Indians to feed their particular religion’s need for a constant flow of innocent blood, are barely mentioned in Galeano’s book.
“Open Veins of Latin America” does read like a classic Marxist attack on capitalism. However, Galeano appears to have problems in bringing home his point to vilify capitalism and glorify socialism.
My question is this? How many people do you see escaping free capitalist countries like the United States to live in socialist countries like Cuba or Russia? The entire world, not just the United States, has repeatedly chosen freedom over slavery, and the prosperity and opportunity of capitalism over the poverty and misery of socialism. Extreme socialist and communist governments have always failed in every country where they have existed, often leading to some of the world’s greatest atrocities and massacres such as Stalin’s murder of 20 million of his own people and Pol Pot’s massacre of one third of his country’s population in the killing fields of Cambodia.
And how about the effect of foreign interests in Latin America? It is true that foreign interests have influenced and afflicted Latin America in very negative ways since the Spanish conquest. No one can deny this. The problem is that Galeano’s book has an agenda, which is not to inform but rather to persuade the reader that capitalism is the cause of the problem, and that socialism is the cure. This is simply not the case, and a truly accurate study of Latin American history will clearly prove this point.
—
Mark says the Caribe Indians that Columbus encountered practiced boiling young babies to consume as a delicacy.
Also reminds that the Aztecs slaughtered 70,000 fellow tribesmen in a single Ceremony.
“The message for the Philippine opposition was: Behold, the Americans are with me, not you.”
Somehow I doubt Obama gives a damn about the Venezuelan opposition or the messages he’s sending thereto.
Muslims cannot live in peace with Hindus.
The creation and continued existence of Pakistan is based upon that assumption.
Prove that assumption to be false and the whole house of cards collapses.
India doesn’t want them.
wonder whether we’re going to get attacks in india preparatory to or simultaneous with raids on islamabad. it’d be the best strategy. i have to admit this whole Pakistan-destabilization campaign has been deftly run. must be nice to be able to depend on a whole population of demoralized eloi-worshippers in the West, to say nothing of the effeminated lotus-eaters of the East. what a shame. if the sino-soviet axis really is behind this they have done incredible work: so many crucial dominos wavering in the wind now.
soon.
Roger Simon says the UN’s anti-racism conference sort of shut itself down on Wednesday, even though it was scheduled to run through Friday. He says a scheduled meeting on “Islamaphobia” got cancelled.
It seems to me that this “conference” may be important for two reasons: (1) it’s another stake in the heart of the UN, and (2) the West got the moxie to stand up to the Arabs and their religion of peace.
How much longer can the UN stagger along doing absolutely nothing except accepting and giving bribes, and how will the heaving Muslims accept the stony silence of the West towards their whines and grievances?
The left showed little or no remorse for the fate of Vietnam when it (the left) abandoned the country to its fate. The left sees no enemies on its left.
So what is going on now with Obama foreign policy? Perhaps the left cannot resist its delight in seeing every Bush initiative and legacy as flawed and contaminated. Any entity that Bush abhorred (e.g., FARC, Chavez, Taliban) must be reconsidered and offered legitimacy, since anything that the evil Bush abhorred must be, ipso facto, good.
Hillary is nervous about Pakistan. But, on the other hand, Bush worked in various ways to buck up Pakistan for the war against AQ and fellow travellers. Therefore Pakistan will have to fall. The problem was caused by Bush.
The rest (from the left) will be silence.
http://tinyurl.com/cx8ml4
So Pakistan’s government believes that now’s the time to accuse India of supporting a Baluch insurgency? Baluch? I have no idea whether India supports them; probably they do, at least tacitly. However, the Army of Darkness sits cleaning its AK-47s 25 miles northwest of Islamabad – and this is the time to accuse India over Baluchistan?
Whatever. All I can say is: I thank God that I was born an American.
“… when an American President appears to be chummy with a dictator it sends a message to those he oppresses.”
And recall that the Left thinks so highly of demonstrations and other symbolic actions, even as they characterize embarassing protests as mere street theater and handshakes with dictators as simple diplomatic courtesy.
In this, as in all things, they want to have it both ways.
The left runs on semiotics –semiotics and swag (& ‘legal’ swag is best of all).
hey
i have been ”commuting” between dubai and santa cruz bolivia since 2005. i am involved in a gas conversion project (gtl) which has been nothing but heartaches due to the ignorance and regressive idealogy of evo ”monkey man” morales. chavez is head chimp for the region so his thugs are regularly involved in all forms of decision making either through his national oil company or banks operating in various countries.
santa cruz an oil/gas center providing from its fields 73% of all natural gas consumed by sao paulo, brazil. it is also the heart of anti-evo/chavex opposition.
if i had a dollar for everytime i have been stopped in a shop or at a chic dinner party and asked”when will america free us from this dictator” ??? all types of people rich and poor, white and brown asking the same question.
and now you ask about the messages sent to the various oppositions in argentian, equador, bolivia and venezuela ????
the black moses just pissed on the dreams of half a continent seeing their futures in a perilous state.
the words of disappointment could not be contained by freedom loving people when the u.s prez came to ”rap” with acknowledged thugs. it was a sad day to be a ”gringo” in latin america.
i rest my case.
What are the odds of a simultaneous Isreali/Indian coordinated strike on their respective bad neighbors?
They both have fanatics threatening them who are about to have nukes next door.
Seems like a double-I alliance might be a natural.
Not only does Obama support ‘the oppressors.’ He supports those that would oppress us.
His flipping on the ‘torture’ prosecutions is testimony that He values terrorists rights more than the lives of the citizens He is supposed to protect.
Chavez is not a dictator he was elected. One may disagree with the people’s choice but it is a misuse of language to call him one.
i think if you’ve watched the progress of legislative efforts in venezuela in the last few years you’ll notice that chavez is using the veneer of legality to certify his personal rule. he lost the “president for life” plebiscite, but that has been his only defeat. presumably it will come again; if other means are necessary, others will be found. what was his latest victory? that he can rule by decree? i forget – someone please help Neil and i.
Holding elections may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not sufficient. If someone is voted into high office via democratically elected means, but then changes the rules about how elections are held or not held (think Castro), that can hardly be considered a democracy. As dan@19 has noted, Chavez lost the president for life plebiscite, but the issue will surely be raised again. Next time, we can be sure there will be more coercive measures to ensure its approval.
Saddam Hussein was elected, too. 99.9% voted for him, if I remember correctly.
NC:
Technically speaking, Hugo Chavez isn’t a dictator. Yet. He is a dictator wannabe. He is also a popularly elected tyrant.
Likewise, Apartheid South Africa was not undemocratic. It was highly democratic. It was also tyrannical, repressive, and racist.
Democracy can often mean that the majority votes for the expropriation of the property of the minority. America’s founding father’s called this a “Tyranny of the Majority”. Democracy can also mean that the majority votes for the expropriation of the property of people who don’t get to vote. A democracy can even vote for the enslavement of other people; that has happened in the past.
Let’s not assume that democracy is an unalloyed good.
NahnCee @ #10: Yes, another stake in the heart of the UN for sure, but methinks that’s an organization whose heart can take a LOT of stakes. As my brother so accurately labels them: “a bureaucracy of clowns. . . that doesn’t take itself seriously enough to follow through on its own resolutions.” Just ask yourself how valuable (or even serious) any institution is that can see itself ignored so consistently on the very issues for which it is supposed to be responsible. My instinct tells me if the US stopped paying its UN assessment the organization would whither away — with a lot of anti-US press in attendance. F
South Africa had a Parliamentary & even consitutional form of government but it was not a democracy because 80% couldn’t vote.
There is a dicotomy between democracy & freedom not just over property but on the majoritiy’s right to tell you what got to worship or what plant to smoke. Bad as it may be we have found, in Churchill’s phrase that it is not as bad as all the others.
Certainly government imposed from outside is almost never best, except, perhaps, for the outsiders & even then Iraq has shown the US has no talent for it.
Exhelo I don’t think it should be necessary to point out why Saddam’s elections were sham.
exhelodrvr said:
“Saddam Hussein was elected, too. 99.9% voted for him, if I remember correctly.”
I remember reading that Joseph Stalin was elected unanimously. The Nazis were relatively unpopular. The best they could muster was 44 percent.
On the subject of popularity, apparently our Messiah is the greatest President ever:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21605.html
I’m reminded of those Goebbels’ movies showing young girls going bonkers at the sight of Adolf Hitler.
I wonder how it will end for the Messiah?
1) Does he get frog marched out of the White House wearing handcuffs?
2) Does he get vaporized by a terrorist’s nuke?
3) Does his office simply disappear after a constitutional convention?
4) Does he get voted out like Jimmy Carter after one term?
5) …
Hoping for option 4)…
15. downtowndubai:
if i had a dollar for everytime i have been stopped in a shop or at a chic dinner party and asked”when will america free us from this dictator” ??? all types of people rich and poor, white and brown asking the same question.
My guess is not ever, after Iraq. I just don’t see honestly Americans want to be involved in freeing up others or give democracy a damn. Not voluntarily, and certainly will not do so for a shadowy organization (AQ or not).
Athens, pre-Civil War America, pre-Victorian England, were all democracies and all had severe restrictions on the franchise. Property or poll tax qualifications, and of course no women voting.
Switzerland, a famous democracy, only granted women the right to vote in the early 1970′s. France resisted giving women the right to vote for decades within the Third Republic, ironically because the Left then feared conservative minded women voters.
Democracies need not be universalist, constitutional, or compatible with freedom. Democracy is entirely compatible with suppression of minorities or even, the other way around, coalition of minority groups to suppress the majority, which described Apartheid South Africa, and probably the current state of affairs in the US. Sadly, human beings are not Angels and even they had their problems, reputedly.
NC @24…
You seem to be afflicted with Bezmenov’s Syndrome:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
One must conclude that your profile conforms exactly to the KGB ‘torture against truth’ ™ cohort.
For us it is only necessary to know what your template is and what your script portends.
Yuri Bezmenov — someone really worth listening to.
Whiskey said:
“Athens, pre-Civil War America, pre-Victorian England, were all democracies and all had severe restrictions on the franchise. Property or poll tax qualifications, and of course no women voting.”
I have mixed opinions about Robert Heinlein but I think he was onto something in his belief that some sort of public service involving personal risk should be a precondition for voting, e.g. military service, Peace Corps service to a failed state, etc. I recognize that such a system could be abused by a tyrant. However our current democratic system is actively being abused by the MSM. Also, I would go a step further and argue that only honorably discharged military officers preferably with combat experience should be allowed to serve as President or in the US Senate. Again, I know this is fantasy.
Neil Craig,
And the problems in Venezuela’s elections have also been well-publicized.
“sort of public service involving personal risk should be a precondition for voting”
I think the only condition should be that you are not on the public dole. Voting yourself more goodies is the tyranny of the welfare class. If government gets too big, than government should be forbidden to vote themselves more public funds, growth, etc. If a electoral majority works for government, how could a stable system be maintained?
“I have mixed opinions about Robert Heinlein”
In ‘Starship Troopers’ (most often cited on this topic), the restriction of voting to veterans had been instituted as a grass-roots movement following devastating wars — that old external driver of change.
Since we are dreaming, is part of our current problem ‘Representation Without Taxation’? Maybe we could think about weighting votes according to the taxpayer’s prior year tax payment? Risky, I know, given the prevalence of wealthy liberals — but at least they would be authorizing the spending of their own money.
The biggest dream of all would be to restrict the Federal Govt to taxing only the States. Only States & their political subdivisions would be allowed to tax individual citizens.
I would argue that apartheid South Africa was a democracy so long as the demos was circumscribed to only the “white” population. Who defines the demos? One of the problems with limiting the franchise is that the majority of those who can vote will often use their ballots to take resources away from people who can’t vote.
Was the United States a democracy before 1965? If apartheid South Africa wasn’t a democracy, one could argue that the United States wasn’t a democracy either. Many states in the Union denied certain people franchise too. For that matter, was Athens truly a democracy?
Two of the intrinsic questions of democracy are the question of citizenship and the question of franchise. They define the nature of the demos. I would argue that Jacksonian democracy is a form of democracy. Jacksonian democracy is elitist, for while it seems to oppose class based distinction, it promotes race based distinction. The worldview of apartheid South Africa was not much different from the worldview of the original Jacksonians; they were nearly identical. Each ideology combined “anti-elitist” white populism with blatant racial elitism.
Pakistan is going down. Gen. Petraeus has (had) the right idea, but it won’t be adopted by the Pakistani government or its people.
What are we going to do about it? What can we do about it?
The economy of Athens was based upon slavery. Being seen with dictators is bad, financially supporting either them or monarchies is worse. Dubai ?? yeah that is a real democracy
I have a few thoughts on two subjects that have appeared in this thread and in others. Likely they will continue to be much discussed topics, particularly by those of us on the right or in the center.
The first is the idea of a constitutional convention. Before anyone suggests a new constitutional convention as a cure for the shortcomings of our present condition I would advise them to study the first constitutional convention in depth
Once those who propose a new convention understand what a monumental task it was to build the first constitution they would doubtlessly drop the notion of having a new one. It would be a most dangerous undertaking.
The first constitution came very close to never happening and reached it’s first test in the Presidential election of 1800. However, prior to that, one has to know that scholars are almost unanimous in their understanding and appreciation for the collection of men that debated the archetecture of the constitution that came into being. These men are generally considered by scholars to have been the greatest collection of informed ,enlightened, and educated, and intelligent men ever to have come together to form a government.
Alexander Hamilton’s college entrance exam consisted in part of reading aloud the Bible written in Latin and translating it into Greek as he spoke the words, in Greek. He was not an exception to the knowledge the Founders had. Knowledge that covered philosophers from pre Plato through the Enlightenment.
To have a constitutional convention would be suicide. The product at this time in history would end with a dictatorship. It is much better to go the way of amendments to the present document than to open up the entire framework to the light of perverted philosophies. Additionally there is no guarantee that the fifty states would participate once the convention opened. They would be under no compact at that time to reform a United States .
The second issue is term limits. Term limits are already in place. We have elections every two years for the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate.
That states return the same members year after year is the will of the people, not of some artificial construct that prevents the will of the people from being translated into the republican form of government we have.
Each of us must look at ourselves and ask, “What have I done to force change? Have I worked for the party I support? Have I walked precincts for the candidate I like? Have I done anything other than type on a blog to others who are 90% in agreement with me to begin with?”
For change to come about you must actively participate in that change, not simply wait for election day to arrive , go vote and feel you have done your duty. Voting is de minimus for the citizen. Giving money is in the same catagory.
Would you drive from Nebraska to DC to participate in a million citizen show of discontent?
If we want change we must WORK for it not simply bemoan our station in life and then change the channel.
this gets to the problems regarding the idea of every last person being able to voice his position regarding any or every issue.
1) Who decides the issue before the demos?
Jimmy Carter proposed instituting some kind of technology that would allow the folk at home a way to register their vote on any or every issue, as though that would eliminate representative government from deciding an issue or law proposal via Carter’s home opinion poll device.
that brings us right back to #1
2) the issue of same sex marriage was decided, most recently, by referendum in california, not once but twice. One man/one woman marriage prevailed there [again] by roughly 60%+ margin, as it has in every other state that put the Marriage issue to referenda.
That only the registered voter was the majority in that contest is of little relevance, when compared to the recent passage, by Vermont legislature, of same sex mariage via legislation, opening the issue to the “social justice” [civil rights] canard of (establishing) a “right” to you know what, and that’s Polygamy.
the Vermonts legislatures actions are very much removed from the direct affirmation/refusal of the electorate via referenda. It is, as Ms. Prejean said, not an issue regarding ones “opinion”, or “feelings” regarding a “right” to same sex marriage or “sexual orientation” itself (as some would have us believe) as defined and settled by referenda: whatever your “opinion” is, or your “feelings” are (on “social justice’ or a “civil right”). If you lost based on referenda, you lost.
The “civil rights” canard is used to get around the democratic process, and have it “decided” outside that process entirely. For our own good.
Vermont legislature has again opened up the possibility to establishment of polygamy as a right, just as courts in Mass. have done, by deciding the issue by extra-referenda. and both courts and Vermont legislature will deny their responsibility, culpability , and hand in “tribal” rights [civil rights, "social justice" canard] of polygamy when polygamy is propagated that way before them.
And I think we all know what 0′s position vis a vis polygamy as a “civil right” will be. He’s just biding his time.
Referenda decided by registered voters is the only acceptable form of deciding an issue or law extra-legislatively (outside of representative legislature). It is also more directly democratic than a (indirect by comparison) legislature
And we all know about voter fraud almost universally tilted in the direction the “social justice”,” civil rights” canard APORN tax pirates crowd. And still they lost in california. (and lose plural, in other states such as Oregon).
Same sex marriage as a “right” is held by the limited demographic of the narrow confines of the itty bitty gay/lesbian celebrity community, for purposes of generating publicity [as exemplified by perez hilton], and propagated as such in stark contrast to gay/lebian community members who support Ms. Prejean’s stance 100%, and state that hollywood stance on this is opposed to theirs.
Same sex marriage would still lose even if we could utilize Carter’s device.
I would like to suggest a corollary to Godwin’s Law:
“The first person to suggest a comparison to Robert Heinlein automatically wins the argument.”
Representation without Taxation, as has been ably pointed out already, has put the productive class on a collision course with the dependent class. It’s simply not sustainable. What we are witnessing is a short-sighted power/money grab by the Left – their politicians and connected businessmen are diverting billions into their own coffers, and will continue to do so until some sanity is restored to gov’t.
Reading the articles recently with the shocking headlines “TARP and Bailout Money Fraudulently Obtained and Stolen.” Color me surprised. And no one should delude themselves as to the level of knowledge our betters in Congress had about all this. They knew exactly what would happen with the unsupervised and secret giveaway of billions, and many played an active role in securing funds for favored companies.
“We didn’t know. We had no idea this would happen.” It’s truly sickening, but perhaps the worst part is that they’ll get away with it, because the people electing them are getting their cut, too.
democracy is an Ideal, and we strive for it. Republican government is the only realistic way to get anywhere close to democratic ideals, which I think, is Habu’s point. And a constitutional convention is just the sort of trojan horse that can lead to dictatorship; an easy, convenient fad of an idea, as he describes it.
btw, the question in #38 should be- “Who decides what the issue or proposed law is to be put before the demos?
not as vaguely stated in 38. Damned semantics
Habu, as far as I can see a constitutional convention will be the civilized way of dealing with Obama and his minions.
If you won’t allow us that, then we’re left with pitchforks, tar and feathers.
Either that, or waiting until DC gets nuked by the Russians / Chinese / Arabs / North Koreans / “interested others”, at which point we’ll be forced to start all over again.
Frankly, option #3 looks like the cleanest and fastest way to go.
I speak/text/e-mail daily with my friends in Tbilisi, and it appears tensions are pretty high among the population.
I don’t think anyone believes Russia will physically move on Tbilisi, but it is in the back of everyone’s mind.
What’s confounding to me is the lack of pressure, from any quarter, to put the Bear back in its cage.
With the upcoming NATO “Partnership for Peace” exercises, it should prove to be a very interesting month.
blert/29; see more Bezmenov references scattered among the Nyquist essays here.
Eggplant/26:
5) the JCOS stroll over to the WH, pull out wrenches and bolt cutters, and cut off the water & electricity.
Rights, civil or otherwise, are often just a rhetorical tool to discredit, or otherwise invalidate, opposition to a point of view. What is needed is a clearer understanding of the difference between a right and a privilege. A privilege can be taken away; removal of a right requires considerably greater effort.
Driving, e.g., is considered a privilege which can be denied if abused. Most people would consider elementary and secondary education for everyone to be a right. If it were a privilege, it might make it easier to remove the trouble makers when it is clear that their actions and attitudes abuse their privilege to attend class.
Is universal health care a right? Its supporters advertise that it is. But if supporting it requires repressive taxation, as seems likely, then the “right” to health care will have to be rethought, although not without social upheaval.
NahnCee said:
“Frankly, option #3 looks like the cleanest and fastest way to go.”
A variation of option #3 is option #6 (Buddy got option #5):
6) The various states become tired of playing with the federal government and don’t want to be liable for the enormous federal debt so they one-by-one succeed from the union until only Vermont or California is left holding the bag.
In all seriousness, option 6) could actually happen.
42. NahnCee
Tomorrow the constitutional convention begins
*who will show up?
* will a quorum be present?
*will Texas reassert indepndence?
*will California cut a deal with Mexico and it all become Mexifornia?
*will the old South reform and assert it’s rights?
*who will preside over the convention?
These are just a very very few of the challenges a new conventiona would bring.
We have the amendment process in place. Let’s use it and preserve the Union and save a new history of chaos and turmoil.
The first convention barely ratified the first Constitution … we’re lucky to have a Republic, lets get busy preserving it.
http://tinyurl.com/crngkh
47. Eggplant; What makes you think bankrupt California will last long enough to “hold the bag”. I’m thinking its more likely the Marin-Berkeley-SF crowd might withdraw from the hoi polloi with their portion of the Golden State to join the original 13 and a few hanger-ons and form the US’s final socialist experiment, before collapsing into utter chaos.
Conservatives by nature are…conservative.
But I think those of us who are conservatives (actually traditionalists or Constitutionalists) feel we are in the fight of our life. And I think we’re right.
This mid term election can be a game changer. If we lose more support there will be a revolution I am quite sure. But we owe history and the millions who have gone before us to fight the fight first at the ballot box..if that doesn’t work we go to the pitchforks.
Is this a contradiction of my no new constitutional convention position. If we have a convention and somehow manage to keep all 50 states together surly the Left will have dictated the new constitution. I will not live under the bootheel of the Marxist left. I will die first in revolution attempting to, as a great American once said,
“Fight our way back to the Constitution”
That great American…Buddy Larsen.
Personally, I hope Leahy goes first.
47. Eggplant
#6 has already been tried. It failed.
I honestly believe that if we could marshall one , better yet two million conservative/middle of the road citizen in Washington ,DC with everyone carrying a broom to represent a rifle the pols would be scared out of their jobs and the MSM would not be able to work around reporting a gathering that large.
It would be entirely possible to scare Representattives and Senators out of office with daily sit ins, constant harrassment patrols of their homes and use all the Alinsky tools and some Sun Tzu we could intimidate the left. Now they are intimidating the hell out of the right. Personally I don’t like it.
Tax revenues are already collapsing at all levels.
The ‘business model’ of the Leftists is breaking up faster than an Antarctic floe.
Unlimited immigration by dependent and poor illegals CANNOT work in a welfare state.
Permitting such massive labor flows across the border is extremely harmful to both Mexico and the United States.
A society is built on human connections and traditions. Mega-migrations of ‘fissioned families’ ™ result in broken bonds and a cultural implosion for the evaporating society.
Re-bonding is brutish and nasty in as much as the prior cultural structure is greatly missing in the new land. Further, in practice, wage competition is Hobbesian.
Of necessity the mega-migrants displace ENTIRE native work forces from assembly lines and construction crews and service craftwork large and small.
The economic effect while this dynamic unfolds is to elevate the elites yet higher still: real assets rise in value relative to labor — more grease is applied to the climbing pole!
When permitted to go the limit, the relative wage rates for the common man crash as he can’t escape the vortex.
Wide open borders are so destabilizing that anarchy and upheaval must be expected. The anarchy in Mexico is now manifest — and it’s heading to Arizona. Thank you, Napolitano!
Immigrants are a cultural spice: welcome in proper proportion — bitter even toxic when over done.
Bezmenov’s end state is here.
Be very afraid.
Barry, old Joe, Pelosi, Clinton: yiikes!
On the bright side: the NY Times is toast.
They’re bleeding cash all over…
Their assets are mill stones: web presses and the guild…
Their edifice tower is a glut on the market…
Their business model is in the ditch…
Their street cred has already been pimped…
An entire generation of J-whores ™ has hit the streets…
Instead of Speaking-Truth-to-Power Pinch should have concentrated on telling the truth to empower the public.
Spending large to discover that ex-generals agree with policies that they established on their watches — what a total idiot!
Pinch is a ‘SMALL SHOT.’ (Read John Wareham — executive types.)
Dan @ #43
The guy at Yankee Sailor in his analysis of the situation gives Georgia 10-14 days tops after fighting begins. What is all this for if not to topple the government of Georgia one way or another?
I don’t think the O in his hallowed wisdom has said one word of public support to Georgia in a way that would give Putin pause. I expect O to offer to mediate the transition to a dictatorship for the Georgian People, to make sure there is a “peaceful solution”.
I do blame Bush partly for the plight of the Georgians now; he did nothing to rearm them knowing full well that Obama was likely going to be next President and would betray the Georgian people in a heartbeat.
I’m gonna bring my pitch forks and three forms of ID with me to the ballot box, and demand that all others do too.
habu/50; aw, shucks –a felicitous turn of phrase, now must needs add another –hmmm…workin’ on it –
unsk, Georgia is home to perhaps the oldest Christian iconography on earth. Georgians have fought the Rus collosus for independence now for a thousand years. It’s a rotten shame what’s happening.
downtowndubai… They need to stand up for themselves. The US keeps selling South America out. (Columbia trade agreement???)
I don’t see this changing. Freemen need to earn their freedom.
29. blert:
NC @24…
You seem to be afflicted with Bezmenov’s Syndrome:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
==================================
Interesting link.
Destabilization:
Takes 2-5 years.
Destroy Economy,Foreign Relations, Defense systems.
How about 100 days?
I guess in a couple of years I will be able to move to Berkeley. After it’s cleaned up, of course.
Kinuachdrach, as someone with one hell of a 1040, I call that taxation with proportional representation. If the populous wants to vote away my industry and the resulting property, then my vote should be counted in proportion to my industry and produced property.
Petraeus doesn’t understand the nature of the Islamic beast. India, being non-Muslim, is by definition the enemy. They must always be fought and conquered, no matter what squabbles you have in-house.
France resisted giving women the right to vote for decades within the Third Republic, ironically because the Left then feared conservative minded women voters.
I find that bizarre, since female voters are far more liberal than men are in every first-world democracy.
“Eggplant:
I wonder how it will end for the Messiah?
1) Does he get frog marched out of the White House wearing handcuffs?”
I vote for number one. The guy is up to eyeballs in fraud and RICO activities.
“For Mr. Chávez it was priceless. Merely being seen or photographed in the presence of civilized society — at summits, negotiations, in state visits — empowers the autocrat and discourages his opposition.” –WSJ
The WSJ and Daniel Henninger have a good point. Obama has now legitimized Chavez’s past crimes and encourages more. Chavez will kill and jail more of his people because Obama has essentially given him the green light to do so.
Worse, Obama may adopt some of Chavez’s tactics and start tossing his opposition into jail.
I see that Obama cronies have said they will not rule out “prosecuting” George Bush or Dick Cheney. That is thuggish and smacks of the workings of a dictator.
@ Unsk 56
“I do blame Bush partly for the plight of the Georgians now; he did nothing to rearm them knowing full well that Obama was likely going to be next President and would betray the Georgian people in a heartbeat.”
Unsk, I was in Gerogia on the EJAT in Aug-Sep 08. You don’t know what you are talking about. The FDO worked and the Russians halted, we did what we could legally do -your beef is with Congress not Bush.
Gylar, what do you think will happen now? Opinion, i mean.
No society is an absolute democracy – children, the insane & usually serving prisoners get excluded – but I think we can see a difference between one where 80% vote (here), 80% are excluded (apartheit South Africa) & the demos being limited to 1 (Stalinist USSR) & resreve the term to the former. By that definition Venezuela is a democracy (& at times the US have been supportive of much less democratic regimes there).
Heinlein suggested a number of different coting restrictions – the only one I think would not be so open to abuse as to be worse than currently was restricting from those on welfare, though I would have to include all government employees as being on welfare.
Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has suggested giving a 2nd vote to male heads of families between 40 & 60 to provide stability. This also fits with his Confucian prejudices as I suppose did Stalin’s “one man one vote & I’m the man” system.
they say Lee Kuan Yew is a fascist or at least an authoritarian –but “they” pays no attention to his nation’s rathering astonishingly successful & contentededly stable prosperity & well-being.
Neil – You make the mistake so many do in discussing the US. You assume we are a Democracy, we are not. We are a Democratic Republic. There are worlds and worlds of differences.
Indeed Robohobo & I pointed out some of the difference in post 24.