The Eisenhower Warnings

Frequent Tizona Group commenter J.M. Heinrichs made the following comment in reference to a comment I made about Ron Paul being the only Team Elephant candidate who would take on the military-industrial complex.

People keep forgetting that Eisenhower issued two warnings, and the Mil-Industry one was the lessor.

That got me thinking. Everyone who knows anything about history is familiar with Eisenhower's admonition about the military-industrial complex. But another warning? I was intrigued. I googled Eisenhower's speech and found this.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.  (emphasis mine)

Does that sound familiar to you? It should.

The War on Man-made Global Warming (AGW) is just one example of what has become a symbiotic relationship between left-leaning politicians, left-leaning bureaucrats, and left-leaning academics. Science has been co-opted by this nefarious troika to the detriment of both science and humanity.

Government money is allotted to those scientists who come up with the "results" that government wants to see. Public policy is made on the basis of these "influenced" findings. And politicians leverage these "facts" to demogogue against those who question their agendas.

It's a pity that this Eisenhower warning wasn't given the same weight as the other, equally important warning. Only time will tell whether it will be the military-industrial complex that is our undoing or the scientific-technological elite.

The OC responds

I really like Hal (the OntologicalComedian, or OC for short).  He is smart and makes solid, effective arguments.

He and I recently got into a little back-and-forth over AGW (renamed yet AGAIN this week from 'Climate Change' to 'Climate Disruption' in an effort to mask the fact that there is no warming occurring in the 21st century).  His latest comment posts inspired me to make this entry.

Hal believes the AGW science.  I do not.  I won't be convinced that the frauds in East Anglia are doing anything but manufacturing propaganda to help bring about the glorious One-World Socialist Utopia.  Does this make me anti-science?  Hal intimates as much.

In the 60s/early 70s, when some idiots went around calling police "pigs" and that sort of thing, there was the saying "OK, when you get mugged, call a hippie". By the same token, since you don't seem to believe there is a real pursuit of truth in scientific institutions, if you get cancer, call a blogger.

But I haven't criticized medical science...or physical science...or any other branch of science.  The practitioners of those branches of science actually practice the scientific method - results are falsified, tested, and retested, until the findings are a certain as can be possible in this imperfect world.  No one shouts down scientists who deny that coffee is health food.  No one prevents the publishing of contradictory articles claiming that coffee is good for you or bad for you.  No one tries to deny funding to studies of pain management.  Or those trying to falsify the results of those studying it.  Yet those techniques are employed and applauded by AGW true believers!  If that doesn't make one suspicious, then I have no further argument that might possibly convince them.

Hal takes issue with my references to the Propagandist-in-Chief of the AGW crowd as "Al Gorebells".  Yet, can ANYONE deny that Gorebells is the best propagandist this world has seen since the master, Joseph Goebbels?  His movie is a monument to propaganda and quack science.  I will not cease to refer to Mr. Gorebells by that name until it is universally acknowledged that the man is a fraud seeking to cash in, not a prophet seeking to "save the planet".

Hal and I agree on one very important thing: government, in league with large multinational corporations, is a power to be feared.  Where we differ is in degree of guilt.  Prior to the 1850's there was no such thing as a giganticus mega-corporation.  What happened to change that?  Railroads.  The government started choosing winners and losers among those endeavoring to build America's railroads.  It was government that created the monster...and, before long, it was government in bed with that monster against We the People.  Hal believes it is the corporations who are the power behind the monster.  I disagree.  But only in degrees; after all, the people who power the multinationals are the same people occupying positions of power in our corrupt government.  See Chaney, Geithner, Greenspan, Bernanke, et al. 

One thing Hal said that I wish to correct, posthaste:

There is nothing magically virtuous or magically demonic about government, and you can't just trust a government with the power to redistribute all wealth, and expect good things to happen. The government is simply the Res Public, (ironically the party that took its name from that now goes around mouthing the belief that you can't trust anything to a Res Public, except the ability to wage war and seize people by force and put them in jail -- don't trust them with health care or you'll inevitably get a totalitarian society).

If by any stretch Hal thinks that I'm one of those "except the ability to wage war and seize people by force and put them in jail" people, I want to categorically disabuse him of that notion - right now. A true small-"L" libertarian wants neither government health care NOR a government running amok among the nations inflicting Democracy at bayonet point.  A libertarian wants the ridiculous laws that unnecessarily put people in jail for what are truly victimless crimes revoked.  Drug laws?  Not a Federal issue.  Prostitution?  I don't like it...but I don't want people in jail for it, either.  I, like other libertarians, simply want to be left alone to live our lives without the uncertainty of government sticking its nose into our lives.

Government is a necessary evil.  Without government, the "society of contract" cannot exist.  Without the "society of contract", trade cannot exist, and we're back to feudalism.  But when government starts to dictate winners and losers, especially via a tax structure that specifically targets small businessmen and the upper middle class as "losers", that is a government that must be changed.

Something different

Too often this blog is nothing but a giant bitch fest.  Bitch, bitch, bitch.  Moan.  Complain.  Grumble.  Kvetch.

Not today.  Today I wanted to share something I stumbled upon while reading Will Griggs's excellent article entitled Shadows and Foreshadowing at Nagasaki.  The "something" to which I refer is this paper written by scientists and engineers detailing their findings in the wake of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings of August 6th and 9th of 1945.  The paper was published on June 29th, 1946, so it contains none of the faux PC bullshit hand-wringing or political overtones we've come to associate with present-day reporting on that topic.

I highly recommend giving it a look.  I found it quite enlightening.

Wiener of the Week

The U. S. Army has become neutered. Political Correctness has overwhelmed common sense and has turned the Army (with the exception of their elite forces) into meals-on-wheels with guns.

The idea that an Army base has a policy of NO WEAPONS is the quintessence of a complete lack of common sense. It was this ass-headed policy that made it impossible for the soldiers at Ft. Hood to defend themselves when Major Jihad shot the place up.

The idea that an officer can declare allegiance to Islamist practices, proselytize soldiers in an attempt to convert them to Islam, and receive a PROMOTION is the quintessence of a complete lack of common sense.

The idea that this officer should be deployed to a war zone -- where an Islamic enemy is being fought -- is asinine in extreme. That he was even still IN the Army was asinine in extreme.

Congratulations, Army. You suck at so many things, but you have Political Correctness down to a science. Oh yeah, and you're the Wiener of the Week.

Domestic terrorists...us?

DHSS (not a misspelling - you can't spell Schutzstaffel without the double 'S') has determined that there is a grave threat of internal terrorism in this country. This threat isn't from active, organized groups like ALF (Animal Liberation Front) or ELF (Environmental Liberation Front), groups who have an actual history of terroristic acts. No, this threat is from Right-Wing Extremists. You know, like....well, apparently, anyone to the right of Mao Tse Tung.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Yep, that's right. As someone who 'reject[s] government authority in favor of state or local authority', yours truly is, according to der Staat, a domestic terrorist. Never mind that this Vulture has neither engaged in nor advocated any act of violence against the US government (or, for that matter, acts of violence against anything at all with the exception of computer keyboards). Never mind that this Vulture is a hard-working taxpayer living what's left of the American dream and whose only 'crime' is a wish to return to the founding principles of Life, Liberty, and Freedom. I oppose collectivism; I am, therefore, a thought criminal.

And it isn't just me! If you're ex-military, you're a likely terrorist! Why is that? Why, Tim McVeigh was ex-military. Ergo, all ex-miltary are suspect, according to chief DHSS asshat Janet Napolitano.

"I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution," Ms. Napolitano said.

Quod erat demonstrandum. NOT!

The White House has distanced itself from this inflamatory report (WHY does that seem to be a running theme with the Obey-me administration? One of the organs of der Staat issues a controversial 'ruling', and the White House runs for cover).

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, a Democrat, was extremely unhappy with the report and wants answers - now!

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.

"As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.

The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide.

The American Legion has slammed the report as well.

American Legion chief David Rehbein on Tuesday blasted the report as "incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased" and took special aim at its warning that returning veterans having difficulties reintegrating society could be recruited by right-wing groups for possible terrorist attacks.

In a letter to Napolitano, Rehbein underlined the document's mention of Oklahoma City bombing author Timothy McVeigh's US Army background and called it "as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."

"The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," said Rehbein, who group comprises some 2.6 million members.

So what's my take on it? It's simple, really. When King Obey-me took office, he appointed former Clinton administration cronies to head key federal agencies and cabinet positions. Hearken back with me to those halcyon days of yesteryear, when Clinton administration paranoia about Right-Wing Extremists ran amok. For the nostalgic among you, this is just like going back to 1993 all over again...except without the dreadful Mariah Carey soundtrack.

This is DoublePlusGoodHopeChange. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Update: William Norman Grigg hits it out of the park. Seriously, if you haven't checked him out, do so! He's positively brilliant.

Happy ending

The Navy Seals proved once again why they are among the most elite fighting units ever assembled.

Navy snipers on the fantail of a destroyer cut down three Somali pirates in a lifeboat and rescued an American sea captain in a surprise nighttime assault in choppy seas Easter Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between a team of rogue gunmen and the world's most powerful military.

Naturally, King Obama, Savior of Big Media (the BM for short) took full credit for the decision to take out the scumbags. I suppose it comes with the job; you try to deflect blame when things go wrong and you take full credit when things go right.

Of course the US action was met with threats from the Somalis.

Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding the Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, said: "Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," he told The Associated Press. "We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men."

Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old self-proclaimed pirate, told the AP from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl, that: "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)."

"Now they became our number one enemy," Habeb said of U.S. forces.

Oooh. We're quaking in our boots. What is it with people in that part of the world? These so-called pirates are just like the current Al Queda leadership -- all threats, no action.

It's nice to have something positive to say on a Monday for a change. Go Navy!

Bad Policy, Bad Ethics, Bad Karma

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt either the source or the reporting, then King Obama is a worse snake than I had previously estimated.

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

Let's hit the bullet points, shall we?

1. Obama proposes to force private insurance companies to foot the bill for medical costs incurrened as a result of an individual's military service.
2. He 'refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations' he would abrogate.

I know what you're thinking: what do you expect from a Fascist/Socialist like Obama? To him, the government and the private corporations will soon be one entity anyway, so what not start now by forcing them to pay for military injury claims?

Striking, isn't it? What, you ask? Why, the ease with which Leftists like Obama casually throw around words like force.

Il Duce would be proud.

Piracy Update

Piracy in the area around the Horn of Africa is back in the news. It seems that the United States Navy is planning to join the fight after all. Well, sort of.

A new international naval force under American command will soon begin patrols to confront escalating attacks by Somali pirates after more than 100 ships came under siege in the past year, the U.S. Navy said Thursday.

But the mission—expected to begin operations next week—appears more of an attempt to sharpen the military focus against piracy rather than a signal of expanded offensives across one of the world's most crucial shipping lanes.

The force will carry no wider authority to strike at pirate vessels at sea or specific mandates to move against havens on shore—which some maritime experts believe is necessary to weaken the pirate gangs that have taken control of dozens of cargo vessels and an oil tanker.

Typical. Too little. Too late. Too toothless. The Somalis are quaking in their boots.

Not to worry, though. The Somali pirates have released the oil supertanker they hijacked late last Fall. Of course, it took a substantial ransom to accomplish the vessel's return.

But, in what can only be deemed an amazing bit of irony, some of the pirates won't get to enjoy their ill-gotten booty because they're dead.

Five Somali pirates drowned when a wave washed off their getaway boat as they squabbled over over how to split their $3 million ransom.

Ah, sweet schadenfreude!

Liberty in Eclipse -- a review

I discovered William Grigg's excellent website, Pro Libertate, quite by accident. What a fortunate accident it was! I was instantly aware that this was a writer of no small talent nor intellect. His insights into the nascent police state the Dear Leader (GWB) is assembling are dead on accurate and simultaneously chilling.

Because I enjoy Mr. Grigg's blog so much, I decided to purchase and read his book, Liberty in Eclipse. Oh. My. God.

For the first time in my life I understand, REALLY understand, what has happened to us as a nation. To use a Matrix analogy, I took the red pill when I read this book. Hang on, Dorothy! This book is the literary equivalent of a two-by-four to the mind.

The first thing that struck me was how unaware I was of the construction of Police State infrastructure that had been happening right under my nose for more than a decade. I was wholly unaware of the number of Congressional bills signed into law with innocuous sounding names like the Military Commissions Act. These bills served to bestow more and more power to the president to trample on the human liberties of both citizen and non-citizen alike.

Had you heard anything about the MCA before I mentioned it here? I ask because I hadn't, and I consider myself to be extremely well-versed in the political and social issues of our day. While the mainstream media is consistently beaten up for leaning to the left, I think a more apt description may not be "left-leaning" but rather "pro-Big Brother". How else can you explain why only Jack Cafferty of CNN (who usually comes across as a socialist stooge) said jack about the MCA during the course of its run through congress as it became the law of the land?

And what is the significance of the MCA? It basically makes the president a law unto himself. Anyone, citizen or non-citizen, once designated an "enemy combatant", loses ALL Constitutional protections as well as protections that pre-date the Constitution, such as Habeas Corpus. Once you're designated as an Enemy of the State (to use Soviet nomenclature) , you can kiss your ass good-bye; it's off to the Gulag for you!

One thing that really jumps out and grabs you about this book is how patently EVIL GWB is. Two things that really stand out are:

• He has been the driving force for torture of "enemy combatants" against the wishes of the military whose job it is to administer the torture.


• He has used the practice of "signing statements" (utilized in the past by presidents to clarify to those charged with implementing a signed congressional bill what they are implementing or how to do it) a staggering 435 time during his presidency; prior to GWB, that practice had been utilized only 322 times in 212 years. And he's not using those signing statements to clarify; rather, he's using them to NEGATE and effectively override the will of Congress and substitute it with his own will.

God help us!

Among the other topics dealt with in the book are no-knock warrants, the militarization of Police departments, and the manifest ways that the government tries to "collectivize" us.

Mr. Grigg finishes his book with a chapter which proclaims his optimistic opinion that all is not lost, that what we had CAN be recovered. I wish I could say I was that optimistic. But I'm not. We're too far down the rabbit hole to make it back without some sort of miraculous change in the mindset of the American people. Given my utter lack of faith in them, chances are slim.

I would strongly encourage you to read this book. Get your eyes opened to what we've become. It's some kinda education.

Military Freedom(?) of Speech

I'm not sure why Admiral Mullen felt compelled to write this warning. But I know that the fact that he wrote it unnerves me somewhat.

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway."

Is it just me, or is Admiral Mullen afraid of something beyond the scope of routine candidate support from among the troops? Like the writer said, this is a most unusual step by the JCS. I certainly don't recall ever seeing anything like this before.

How does one interpret this? Is the Admiral telling the troops that they cannot engage in Constitutionally protected activities (as one would surely be inclined to think given the wording of his warning)? Or...and I'm just pulling this out of my nether regions...is he afraid of what might happen to military funding if President Obama rightly perceives that the military rank-and-file are more disposed to Senator McCommie than to him? I'm just saying....

Perfect storm brewing?

Two seemingly unrelated news items appeared as links at WorldNetDaily.com the other day. The first dealt with the new, much ballyhooed, extensively reported-upon North American Army. What? You didn't hear about it? No kidding! That's because the news media was too busy chasing after Lindsay Lohan's slutty ass to be bothered with something that affects the lives and liberties of Americans.

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis. (emphasis mine)

Isn't that special? So......let me get this straight. We can call in the Canucks any time we want to quash a "domestic civil emergency"? And we can do this even if Canada isn't "threatened" by said "emergency"? O-k-a-y.

It couldn't get any better than THAT, could it? Read this -- and try to keep your head from exploding.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks. (emphasis mine)

Okay, you're telling me that this "plan" was carried out without so much as a peep from our elected representatives? And doesn't this agreement fall into the category of a treaty, which, if I remember my 12th grade Civics, HAS TO BE RATIFIED BY THE SENATE? Once again, the Constitution is toilet paper to our elitist leaders.

And just what might this little "Army of North America" be used for? Maybe to keep uppity states like Montana in line.

Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.
...

The dispute goes back more than a century. Back in 1889, the settlers of the Montana territory struck a deal with the federal government: They agreed to join the union, and the government agreed that individuals had the right to bear arms.

That has worked fine for the past 118 years, but the Supreme Court is expected next month to hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the appeal of a federal court decision striking down the District's gun-ownership ban on Second Amendment grounds.

You may recall that just last month (as reported by me here) Traitor-in-Chief Bush's administration filed an Amicus brief for this case ON BEHALF of Federal gun control. In other words, Bush is thumbing his nose at us all, particularly Montanans.

But Montana can't secede! After all, didn't the tyrant Abe Lincoln see to that once and for all? There'd have to be military action against Montana, in the Lincoln tradition. But surely the American military would NEVER attack Montana now, not with prima facie evidence that they are in the right here. The Canadians..........who knows? It would certainly qualify as a "domestic crisis", would it not?

I'm just sayin'............