Frankfurt School Reigns Supreme at Notre Dame

American Thinker.

By James Simpson

Sunday May 17, 2009 Norma McCorvey, the notorious "Roe" in the landmark Supreme Court case "Roe v Wade" has been arrested. The plaintiff in the case that made abortion legal in the United States later became adamantly pro-life and in 1995 began a crusade to overturn the law she helped create. This fact has largely gone unreported by the mass media for reasons known only to them. McCorvey was taken into custody today without a struggle after trespassing on the grounds of Notre Dame University to protest the pending visit of radical pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

On Saturday, well known pro-life advocate Father Norman Weslin and nineteen others were arrested. Eighteen more got cuffed on Friday, including, Presidential candidate Alan Keyes. None of the protesters were in the least violent or provocative. Many carried signs like: ‘God Weeps for the Babies,' or ‘Notre Dame Cancel Obama,' or ‘Notre Dame Spiritual Sellout!'

The mass media has attempted to pass this off as yet another example of marginalized right-wing hysteria, but a peek just a little deeper into this controversy suggests other things at work.

First of all it is a disgrace that Notre Dame should choose to arrest peaceful protesters simply because they were "trespassing." What was the real message? The message I got was that this Notre Dame administration was unwilling to brook any opposition, even stooping to arrest Norma McCorvey, the elderly Father Weslin and Alan Keyes.

But more to the point is the willingness of this school president to break with sacred Catholic tenets (whether you agree with them or not) to the point where his action may threaten the very viability of the school. As of May 13, the Catholic News Agency reports that Notre Dame Alumni have already promised to withhold $14 million in donations unless Jenkins is replaced by someone who "is committed to the authentic identity of Notre Dame, grounded in the teachings of the Catholic Church."

Why would someone charged with the responsibility of maintaining both the traditional Catholic heritage and the financial soundness of a storied university like Notre Dame do such a thing?

Father Jenkins received a Masters of Divinity from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, California. If it is anything like its secular sister a few blocks down the street, then the teaching staff is likely saturated with Frankfurt School proponents. Indeed, on the "Our Faith" page of their website, a testimonial in the sidebar says:

"Hours of conversation, study, and prayer with my peers in ministry taught me that we want the Catholic community to lead the work of creating a just society," says Claire Noonan (M.Div. '00). The Program Organizer for Social Justice and Next Generation at Call to Action in Chicago, she creates educational programs and sustained action campaigns focusing on sweatshop labor.

Oh, brother, there's that word "Chicago" again. Now, in my mind "social justice" has always been a codeword for Marxism, or in this case, the ecclesiastical equivalent, "Liberation Theology." Of course many Jesuits have been unfortunately drawn into that false ministry. But where is any reference to Catholic, or even biblical teachings? The Jesuit School at Berkeley is a member of the Graduate Theological Union, which has many ties to the Frankfurt School. Jenkins also attended Oxford University, and Oxford has also been penetrated by the Frankfurt philosophy.

As some of you doubtless know, the Frankfurt School was founded by communists shortly after the Bolshevik coup in Russia, and is dedicated to destruction of the West by cultural corruption. Willi Munzenburg, one of the school's founders put it bluntly. The school's curriculum was designed to:

organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

David R. Carlin, author of "The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America" writes:

In general, the leaders of the Church have never understood the historical significance of the abortion-rights movement (and this can be said of the gay-marriage movement as well). What the abortion-rights movement wants is not simply the right to kill millions of unborn babies; what it also wants is the utter destruction of Christianity. (Emphasis mine.)

The pro-abortion movement has from the beginning wrapped itself in the mantle of "women's rights." But the fact of the matter is that in the abortion issue the radical Left saw a rare opportunity to split our society right down the middle, with the unstated goal of obliterating the moral principles that in the final analysis are our only non-violent defense against the designs of the communists. And they have been wildly successful. I do not believe there is a more divisive issue on today's political landscape, and the left relentlessly rubs salt in the wound.

The pro-abortion movement has from the beginning wrapped itself in the mantle of "women's rights." But the fact of the matter is that in the abortion issue the radical Left saw a rare opportunity to split our society right down the middle, with the unstated goal of obliterating the moral principles that in the final analysis are our only non-violent defense against the designs of the communists. And they have been wildly successful. I do not believe there is a more divisive issue on today's political landscape, and the left relentlessly rubs salt in the wound.

In his commencement address, Obama called for "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words" in looking for "common ground." But who has really been closed-minded here? Since 1973, the American public has been treated to a hateful propaganda blizzard vilifying pro-life citizens as Nazis who deny women's "rights," the non-existent "right to privacy" manufactured out of whole cloth by activist judges, and ever more radical legislation grounded in these flawed rulings.

Promises of restraint in the abortion industry have been followed by ever more extreme practices, including partial birth abortion (which early proponents claimed would never occur), to the point where today we are treated to a President who even supports killing children born alive after a failed abortion.

Do you honestly expect Obama to moderate his views at all? So do not be misled by his conciliatory tone! This deceptive talk is the one thing in which he excels - or at least in which his teleprompter excels.

I came across an unusually revealing article, which quotes Australian communists on the Marxist view of abortion. It is noteworthy because you rarely find communists being so straightforward. And the fact that it quotes Australian communists is irrelevant. Communists have the same core beliefs everywhere. Here is a key quote from the article:

The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by "someone of higher wisdom." The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the "social relationship" that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she "fantasizes" it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, "it is something else entirely." Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood.

Totalitarian control over our lives is the logical endpoint of this kind of "situational morality," and some Vatican intellectuals have argued Obama is leading us there.

Whatever Jenkins' reason for inviting Obama, I have little doubt about Obama's true motivation. Barack Obama, as I have extensively documented elsewhere, is a hardcore, doctrinaire communist. Conservative Catholics, Christians and other Americans committed to the sanctity of human life, i.e. the pro-life crowd, are some of the most principled and dedicated opponents of Obama's radical designs. What better way to disrupt, demoralize and divide that formidable group, and indeed the entire country, than to strike at the heart of this cherished bedrock Catholic institution?

That the President of Notre Dame, in a disgustingly servile, supplicating manner singled out one of the most extreme pro-abortion politicians in America for an honorary degree, while ignoring his ecclesiastical peers, a large body of the Notre Dame community, and even countenancing the arrest of harmless protesters, is a huge insult to Catholics everywhere and indeed a disgrace to all Americans. I believe it was deliberate.

The cultural Marxists are rejoicing today.

Businessman and freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

Related:

A Brief History Of Political Correctness

The Frankfurt school: conspiracy to corrupt.

“This Is Mind Control To Major Tom:” Leftist Propaganda Ministry Issues Pamphlet Ordering “Global Warming” Name-Change Scam

H/T Pat Dollard.

The New York Times:
 
WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.

And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

Miss USA California Responds To Gay Marriage Question at Miss USA Pageant

H/T to Trevor for all this info.

Miss California was asked what she thinks about legalizing gay marriage and she does not give the politically correct answer.

She was the runner-up. I wonder why?

I've included the video from the broadcast and the judges remarks after the show which he posted on youtube right after.

Also see FOX News

PoliticalCorrectness, Part 2

H/T Pat Dollard.

Political Correctness is a poison being handed out daily and in toxic doses by its proliferators.

“Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority & rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Libtards are positioned so far Left they would rather argue that they posses two Left Arms than admit to having anything resembling or categorized as right. The damage to all societies caused by the relentless and irresponsible spread of the PC doctrine will continue unchecked as long as WE tolerate it. PC has been around as long a Political Passivity and was present in the earliest writings of the communist parties strongmen like Mao and Lenin.

The Pacifist/Liberal movements have been tumors in the colon of society since humans have been organizing governments, and the Toxin known as Political Correctness will continue until we wipe it from the face of the earth.

For the conservative, to possess knowledge of the Frankfurt School, is to possess Excalibur.

A Brief History Of Political Correctness, Part 1

H/T Pat Dollard.

Foreword: This article is rather long but I implore you to read it carefully and comprehend what is written, for it is key to what we so going on in America today.
Part 2 will include several videos which will give a more complete picture of the overall  perils we face.
Consider your future and that of your children. Please.

GWB is the link for the article.

by Graham L. Strachan

In parallel with the programme of economic globalisation, euphemistically called ‘economic reform’, is an ambitious programme of social globalisation. While economic globalisation transfers ownership of the world’s economic assets and the control of a single integrated global economy into the hands of monopoly capitalists, the social programme delivers control of the world’s people, including their thoughts and actions, into the hands of global monopoly socialists. The aim of the social programme is to completely remake human society, indeed human nature, to make them conform to leftist ideology.

National governments undertake to implement this programme by signing various treaties and agreements at the United Nations. Representatives are then sent to regular UN conferences, from which they return with agendas for implementation at national level. For every treaty there is a UN agency which ensures, through regular inspections and assessments, that national governments implement the terms of the treaty. To understand the programme and how it all fits together, one must first understand socialist ideology.

An ideology is a kind of story, a fantasy about the world intended to justify political action. The story need not be true, in fact in the case of socialist ideology it isn’t. Its purpose is not to explain the world in any objective sense (which distinguishes it from a genuine theory), but to motivate people to take political action. It’s like a faith, a political faith. If the believers are required to destroy an existing social order, as they are in this case, the ideology portrays that order as ‘outmoded’ or ‘unnatural’. Similarly, if the purpose is to overthrow the position of certain classes in the society, those classes are portrayed as evil, accused of ‘discrimination’, ‘wrongs of the past’, and so forth. The purpose of the ideology is to stir up hate for the existing order and the people that support it, and instill a belief in the true believers that they have been chosen by destiny to lead the human race to utopia.

If the ideology conflicts with history, the true believers ignore history, or try to re-write it. If it is contradicted by facts, they ignore the facts, and suppress them by curbing free speech, banning or burning books, or by trying to censor the Internet. If the ideology runs counter to scientific evidence, again that evidence will be ignored or suppressed, or alternative research faked which supports the ideology. In other words, facts do not bother the true believers. Their imaginary world is the real reality, the real world is only a temporary reality which is about to be changed. As Marx said, philosophers try to explain the world, the problem (for social scientists) is to change it.

The particular ideology of the globalist left is traceable initially to Friedrich Engels and his book ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’ (1884), and it goes basically like this. Once upon a time man lived in a state of blissful communism where there was no hate, no crime, no violence or war, only universal love. This was possible because there was no private ownership of property. Everything was shared by all and allocated according to the principle ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’. In fact nobody laid personal claim to anything, not even their own body. There were no moral rules or restrictions, everybody was bisexual and could have sex with anybody and everybody else regardless of age or sex. The society was a matriarchy, ruled by women, and there were no such things as nations or national borders which might cause wars or conflict. This was allegedly the human race in its original state, and because it was the original state (so the story goes) it must be the ‘natural’ state, the way humans would still be, if it weren’t for an awful thing that happened.

One day white men came along, and conspired together to invent private property. Then they invented the institution of marriage to enslave women. Then they invented nations and borders which caused wars, and they turned the society into a heterosexual patriarchy (the ‘male dominated society’), and they invented laws and moral restrictions as a form of social control. Ever since then the world has been fraught with evil, guilt, crime, wars, conflict, and social injustice. What needs to be done is for an historically determined revolutionary class to overthrow the partiarchal system along with its private property, marriage, the family, moral rules, individualism, the rule of law, heterosexuality, nations and national borders, and let the human race revert to its natural communist, bi-sexual, matriarchal state. Then and only then will the people be ‘free’ to ‘explore choices’ and ‘fully develop their human potential’. Only then will the complete human story have been told, and that will be the ‘end of history’.

There is not a scrap of truth in any of it. It is pure fantasy. The primitive races Engels based the theory on (the Gentes) have since been shown to have had tribal ownership of land, private ownership of possessions, moral restrictions and laws [see Hans Kelson, ‘The Communist Theory of Law ’]. No society has ever been found without those things [see Margaret Mead and others]. Society is impossible without those things [see F.A.Hayek, ‘Law, Legislation and Liberty’]. But apart from that, even if such a society had ever existed, there is no ground for saying that ‘therefore’ it is the natural or desirable state of man, justifying the destruction of existing civilisation so the human race can revert to it. The propositions (1) that the original state is the natural state, or (2) that the natural state is necessarily a good state, are two of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. But as with facts, if ideology conflicts with logic, ignore logic. Logic is dismissed as an artificial construct of the partiarchy. The true believers have ‘special ways of knowing’.

The programme of compulsion which forces this world view on the broader community has become known as ‘political correctness’ (PC). The name ‘political correctness’ originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and people tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. PC is not funny. It has been described as ‘cultural Marxism’.

The origins of political correctness are traceable to Germany, and the Institute for Social Research, established in 1923 by Felix Weil, Marxist son of a millionaire German trader, in association with Frankfurt University. The work of the Institute, which came to be called the Frankfurt School, was to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Political Correctness as it is known today was created by that Institute. Essentially the task had been completed by the end of the 1930s.

Other key members of the Frankfurt School were Theodore Adorno, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduced the central sexual element into Political Correctness. The call for sexual liberation, which will supposedly lead to human sensual happiness, figures prominently in the work of the Institute. In a 1936 essay, ‘Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation’, Frankfurt School director Max Horkeimer discussed the “hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” He referred favourably to the Marquis de Sade for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.” Marcuse called for a world of ‘polymorphous perversity’. Erich Fromm advanced the idea that masculinity and femininity are not reflections of biological differences, they are the result of social conditioning.

When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933 they closed down the Frankfurt School and its members, mostly Jews, fled to New York where the Institute was re-established with help from Columbia University. When the second World War began in 1939, some of them went to work for the American government. Herbert Marcuse became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), while others, including Horkheimer and Adorno, moved to Hollywood.

After the war, Marcuse wrote a key book, ‘Eros and Civilization’, which virtually became the bible of the student movement during the 1960s. In it Marcuse argued that repression of the sexual instincts was the essence of the capitalist order, causing hang-ups and neuroses (an idea borrowed from Freud). The repressive order needs to be destroyed, so that eros, the libido, can be liberated. The human race can then look forward to a future of ‘polymorphous perversity’, in which everybody can ‘do their own thing’. ‘If it feels good, do it’. It was Marcuse who created the phrase, ‘Make love, not war’. He defined ‘liberating tolerance’ as intolerance for anything coming from the Right, and tolerance for anything coming from the Left.

The purpose of PC is to force people to think, speak and act in accordance with leftist ideology, even though that ideology conflicts with the facts of history, science, reality, logic, and social custom observed over the past (at least) 5000 years. The idea is to force people to live in a new reality ‘legislated’ by the left under threat of ostracism, persecution, prosecution and even execution for failure to comply. The idea is that if enough people can be forced to think and act in accordance with a particular view of the world, that world view will become the reality. It is the ultimate rationalism, known as idealism: reality is all in the mind, in this case the collective mind of the populace. Get enough people to believe something, and that becomes real. The mind determines reality, not the reverse. As Hegel said (and the left believe it) ‘the real is the rational, and the rational is the real’. Dreams can come true if enough people can be forced to dream them.

The people inventing this stuff don’t believe a word of it. But the ideology, by appealing to the superstition, basic instincts particularly sexual, and desire of many to see perceived injustices of the past avenged, is used to recruit what Lenin called ‘useful idiots’. Those useful idiots are persuaded, particularly in the social science faculties of Western universities, that existing civilisation is unnatural, a deliberate construct of white heterosexual males to dominate the rest of society, including the natural environment. The ideology then instills in the useful idiots a sense of moral righteousness, a belief that they are the ‘historically determined’ revolutionary class, and exhorts them to undermine and overthrow civilisation as it is now known. As the ‘vanguard’ of social change, their destiny is to ‘liberate the human race’, and allow it to revert to its so-called ‘natural’ state of primordial, pan-sexual, matriarchal communism.

In fact their efforts will bring about anarchy and social chaos, serving to ‘prove’ that the existing system is ‘unworkable’, and justifying the imposition of a global totalitarian state by a self-styled elite waiting in the wings: Plato’s Republic on a global scale.

In the meantime, children are being pumped full of the ideology in schools by teachers encouraged in the social science faculties to regard themselves as ‘change facilitators’. The world is reduced to a child-like medieval morality play: women, blacks, homosexuals and children are defined as good by nature, the ‘victims’ of white male aggression; white men, non-feminist women, old people, heterosexuals and Christians become evil by definition. The former are capable only of love, incapable of wrongdoing unless driven to it by heterosexual white men; the latter are capable only of hate, ‘discrimination’, various ‘phobias’ and ‘wrongs of the past’. The former come to be identified automatically as ‘right’, and are justified in commandeering the power of the state and the law to secure their ends; the latter are evil and deserve to be vilified, mistreated, denied justice and democracy.

To intimidate and silence people who dare to challenge PC dogma, a whole range of nasty names have been invented. There are globophobes, xenophobes, homophobes, femophobes, male chauvinist pigs, sexists, rednecks, reactionaries, racists, populists, neanderthals, troglodytes, simplistic jingoistic anachronistic good ol’ boys, ageists against youth, baby-boomers, right-wing extremists, religious fundamentalists, anti-semites, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, scaremongers and conspiracy theorists. Because most leftist ‘argument’ has to avoid confronting facts at all costs, it invariably boils down to senseless name-calling. That, plus the fact that leftist ideologues now dominate the media, academia and the treaching professions, explains much of the tragic decline in journalism, scholarship and public debate under the influence of PC.

Invoking Lenin’s injunction to ‘call your enemies what you are’, the globalist left, while continuing their hate-driven war on civilisation, answer their critics by calling them names and accusing them of ‘spreading hate’. It works. The masses still haven’t woken up.

Who Will Run America?

By John Stossel

Some of you think you went to the polls yesterday to pick someone to run America.

"Who do you want to have run this country?" Chris Matthews asked repeatedly on MSNBC.

"One of these guys is going to be running the country," said Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News.

Really? Run the country?

That has to be a joke -- or a misunderstanding," said George Mason University economist Walter Williams on my recent TV special,"John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics".

Williams pointed out that the White House doesn't govern what happens in your house. And a president certainly cannot control the economy. We, all of us, run the country.

"Politicians have immense power to do harm to the economy. But they have very little power to do good," Williams says.

The failure to understand this is at the root of many of our problems. "Most of life is outside the government sector," says David Boaz of the Cato Institute. "Most change in America doesn't come from politicians. It comes from people inventing things and creating. The telephone, the telegraph, the computer, all those things didn't come from government. Our world is going to get better and better, as long as we keep the politicians from screwing it up."

It's easy to find examples of government screwing up what it should have left alone.

Take farming. Every year politicians promise to save the family farm, and this year, Congress passed another $300-billion farm bill. More subsidies after generations of subsidies. John McCain opposed the bill, saying that it will "do more harm than good." But Barack Obama and most of Congress supported it.

Small farms are important," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, told me.

"I don't think we want anybody in this country to starve," Rep. Randy Kuhl, a Republican from New York, added.

People would starve?

"They go out of business, and then they'd be forced to move elsewhere and find different jobs," Kuhl replied.

That's not starving. That's finding a different job.

"But if they don't have a job, then they're going to starve."

Please.

He and others in Congress also claim that subsidies "insure a food supply for this nation."

That's more nonsense.

It's the free market that "insures" the food supply. You may not know that most farmers get no subsidies. Growers of apples, bananas, broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, grapes, lemons, limes, lettuce, onions, oranges, peaches, pears, pineapples, potatoes, spinach, squash, tangerines, tomatoes and dozens of other crops are on their own. There's no cabbage crisis or pineapple panic.

The farm bill doesn't even keep its other promise: saving family farms.

It's why although Nebraska corn farmer Mike Korth received about half a million dollars in subsidies, he's still against the farm bill. "We sold this on the fact that this is helping the family farmer and the small beginning farmer. It's not. It's hurting them."

That's because most subsidies go to those that are best at manipulating government: the agribusiness giants. Small farms can't compete.
A Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City study found that the more farm aid a county gets, the more likely it is to lose population.

So not only do farm subsidies cost every taxpayer $550 per year, they also raise food prices by paying farmers not to grow certain crops. Other crops are subsidized and exported, destroying the livelihoods of poor farmers in the Third World.

"This is just a crazy system," said the Cato Institute's David Boaz (www.cato.org). "It's left over from the 1930s, left over from the Depression. And it's a great example of how nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program." Of course, without subsidies, some farms would go out of business. That's OK, says Walter Williams. It's the creative destruction that makes America strong.

"The guy who delivered ice to my house, he doesn't have a job because we have refrigerators. We're better off. We would have been held back if we had tried to save his job."

I said to Congresswoman Jackson Lee, "If this works so well, why don't we just subsidize everything?"

Her answer? "You don't want to push us."

How frightening is that?

Video - Muslims: The New Protected Species - Calling Bloggers

Cross posted from Miss Beth's Victory Dance. Special thanks to Maggie at Maggie's Notebook .

Battle Cry for Britain

Quotes from the video:
More polygamy, domestic violence, forced marriages, and honor killings.
A time when silence becomes a guilt, a sin
Whole sections of Britain are now considered dangerous "no-go" zones for non-muslims
A government haunted by political correctness.
A hornets nest of extremism in Britain
Hardcore Islamisits have not been assimilated into society
Many Muslims do not want Shari'a law, yet it might be foisted on them by political leaders

Note from Maggie:
Assimilating hardcore Islamists into society"

It is essential to understand that "hardcore" Islamists will NEVER be assimilated into society. Britain's leadership has been courting Muslims for a very, very long time.
That relationship enabled the theft of Israel's mandated land at the time of their statehood.
The world cannot show one capitulation to Islam that has been for the good of society

Calling All Bloggers: "Capitulation to Islam is Inevitable

Cross-posted by Loyal Eagle fromDaily Insults

I'm hoping other bloggers -- no, I pray other bloggers will pick-up this story and drum the hell out of it; bloggers better suited than I to prepare the rest of us for the battle on the horizon. Let our cry be: "We Will Not Let Freedom Die Without Us At Her Side."

This story is about one blogger in particular, Paul Ray, and what's happening to him and to our brothers and sisters across the pond. The politically-correct, multiculturalism, British thought-police arrested Ray for blogging about radical Muslims who were promoting jihadism. They arrested Ray for allegedly inciting racial hatred - not the radical imams. His specific crime? Well, he called the radicals who advocated the beheading of infidels - meaning us -- 'savages.' For the life of me, I wouldn't know what else to call them either.

Capitulation to Islam is becoming a reality, and it's also closer to home than you think. From what I now understand, there are other similar instances that occurred here in the United States, which I hope bloggers across the Internet will investigate.

First, take a look at what's going on in England. See anything familiar?

The [British] government has made so-called "hate speech," illegal, but it also depends on who is doing the hating. When one group of British citizens protested the Mohammed cartoons at the Danish embassy in London in 2006, they expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and called for beheadings and nuclear attacks against Denmark Britain and America. Yet British police arrested no one, until there was a public uproar.

Compare that to when Britain's Channel 4 Dispatches program exposed violent rhetoric in local mosques. British police initially decided to charge - not the radical imams who were promoting violence and bigotry - but the news program that did the report, for allegedly stirring up racial hatred.

For now, it suffices to scream a new battle cry in unison, "We will not let Freedom die without us at her side." Those are fighting words, my friends, and perhaps I could even be arrested for writing and promoting them. But, I was born in New Hampshire and my "Live Free or Die" spirit came with me.

End Loyal Eagle's post.

Related:
Lionheart: The End
No More Mosques - The Need for Radical Thinking
Read more written by Lionheart, Paul Ray, in the archives of RADARSITE