Kelly O’Connell

Here is a deeply disturbing truth of our age—one American group, our most aggressive political ideology, is dangerously reactionary, exhibiting all the hallmarks of a fundamentalist movement. Is this the Conservatives? No. This group is, of course—modern liberalism. In fact, during a recent debate witnessed by this author, one party claimed that any person holding a literal belief in the Bible should be kept from public office by law. Why? Because such persons are generally assumed unfit as they are incapable of rational thought. Specifically, the left must keep a perennial eye peeled for the advent of a theocracy.

Sadly, this dismissive instinct towards forging a Conservative ghetto to “protect the country” is getting stronger. Signs of this idea are regularly given in the mainstream media. For example, the preoccupation with claiming each and every Conservative presidential candidate is simply too stupid to be considered for office. The implied evidence being they are too dumb to realize Conservatism is idiotic. Likewise, the claim that electing a strong Christian would destroy the country by Taliban-like activities—proved by the terrifying fact that the would-be-politician actually believes the Bible.

And yet, most of the distinctive elements making the West the preeminent place of learning and enlightenment for the last 500 years are directly, or indirectly tied to our historic Christian faith. Further, attempts to employ Marxism and other socialist ideologies have resulted in the greatest human rights disasters ever recorded, with hundreds of millions murdered in the name of the State. This article is composed to point out the absurd contradiction in these facts and suggest a more tolerant view of religion in our society.

I. What is Modern Liberalism

Those demanding that Conservatives be politically sidelined are modern liberals—but what is modern liberalism? This definition is essential. Scholars claim the term “liberal” was employed during the last three centuries to describe the theories espoused by advocates of liberty. Then, around the turn of last century, socialists decided this term would be helpful to spread their ideas. Writes historian of Liberty Ralph Raico.

“Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals, ie socialism.

The most important thinker in the history of classical liberalism is probably religious enthusiast John Locke.

II. Hallmarks of Modern Liberalism, aka Socialism

So what are the traits of modern liberalism, aka socialism? In brief here is a description which hits upon the parochial and inflexible nature of its outlook. First, it makes dramatic and exclusive claims about reality which then implies those who disagree display perilous mental infirmity, suffer an utter lack of education or unforgivable moral bankruptcy. Second, given its primitive structure, it cannot accept compromise, since it claims a position of exclusive, unparalleled truth. Third, it is simplifying to a startling degree, and simplistic in its claims of the nature of reality. As such, it cannot risk engagement in debate, and therefore constantly seeks to derail any meaningful dialogue. Fourth, it has an autocratic leadership structure taking the place of an inner set of “core truths,” and so is capable of infinite permutations and contradictions. Fifth, it is overwhelmingly religious in its vision and structure, and so is held with all the fervor of pagan beliefs common thousands of years ago. Finally, as in all true fundamentalism, it seeks to either permanently silence or annihilate its critics.

To explain why modern leftism has the characteristic structure it does goes farther afield than the purpose of this article. But it does have everything to do with the fact that socialism and all progressive ideologies, including Marxism and Fascism, derive their structure and purpose from Joachim of Flora’s heretic 12th century Catholic writings (as detailed here).

III. Modern Liberals Belching Bigotry

A. Stupid is as Stupid Does

As Newt Gingrich has recently risen to the top of the GOP 2012 presidential primary heap, he received the de riguer mainstream press treatment of prominent conservatives being insulting described as not-intelligent. The following headlines illustrate the point:

Politico, website of conservative knee-capping (which single-handedly committed itself to the demise of Herman Cain) asks: Is Newt Gingrich as smart as he thinks? The author then writes,

“Nobody thinks of Gingrich as a wonky type. Nobody thinks of him as someone who has serious positions, white papers, policies on a wide array of issues coming from deep knowledge and experience,” said Roderick Hills Jr., a constitutional law professor at New York University who’s active in the conservative Federalist Society. “I don’t think of him that way, and I don’t know of any professor who thinks of him that way.”

Paul Krugman: Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Stupid Man’s Idea Of What A Smart Person Sounds Like’. NY Times columnist Krugman has established recent high-water-marks on ill-advised and frankly idiotic commentary, but may have reached his zenith here. When asked why Gingrich has gained in the polls, preternaturally childish Krugman said:

It was his time, the Republican base doesn’t want Romney and they keep looking for an alternative, and Newt—although somebody said ‘he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like,’ but he is more plausible than the other guys they’ve been pushing up..

But how can ALL conservative politicians be described as dumb unless the conservative movement itself is lacking in any intellectual soundness? This question is well-examined here: Liberals Are a Thousand Times Smarter Than Conservatives—Just Ask Them!

B. Christianity—Dangerous Fundamentalism!

Further, it is assumed that anyone who believes literally in the Bible cannot think rationally, accept logic or science, or if elected—lead outside of direct application of all scripture. This is why the mainstream media cannot rest until each candidate receives vigorous personal attacks, outside of which, these politicians would come into a race against Obama unduly strong versus his weakling profile.

For example, to choose just one target, Rick Perry’s faith has come under scrutiny:

Is Rick Perry as Christian as He Thinks He Is?

Maddow (Rachel Madcow) discusses Rick Perry’s connections with a Christian conspiracy group

Rick Perry Agrees With Wife, He Has Been Brutalized for Christian Faith.

Then consider Sarah Palin, who along with Tim Tebow have received astounding anti-Christian attacks because of their faith: Tebow, Palin & the Logic of Thanksgiving

Overall, the attacks against religious politicians make no sense given the utter inability for liberals to make progress on America’s problems.

IV. Why the Traditional Western Christian Viewpoint Trumps Liberalism

A. General Impact of Christian Ideas on West

Various stories of how Christians uniquely influenced history to the benefit of mankind have been detailed, a few in this column. For example, it was a Christian who laid out the most important document in the history of British law and liberty—the Magna Carta—Archbishop Stephen Langton, as described here: Why Separating Church & State is a Fool’s Errand: Consider Magna Carta’s Origins.

And even religious tolerance itself was a Christian concept, as outlined by Puritan philosopher John Locke, who wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration which outlined his ideas on tolerating unpopular or diverse religious beliefs. And from a completely different angle, it was a Christian set of beliefs that led to the creation of modern science, as detailed here: The Christian Foundation of Modern Science.

B. Natural Rights—A Christian Theory

But it was even Christian scholarship which created the raw material that the entire modern view of government and law is based upon—Natural Rights Theory. In fact, it was William of Occam who first articulated modern Rights Theory as we might understand it. Occam was a famed Christian scholar regarded as one of the most brilliant and learned men of his day.

According to Brian Tierney, in The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150 1625, Occam was a colossus of Right’s Theory who wrote from an explicitly Christian viewpoint. In other words, the idea of modern rights, so essential to liberal and even radically humanistic ideals, would not have occurred without biblical scholars positing Christian rights doctrines.

Paul E. Sigmund, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University, in NATURAL LAW, CONSENT, and EQUALITY: WILLIAM of OCKHAM to RICHARD HOOKER, writes:

Ockham’s writings on natural law are significant for the ideas of both individual rights and consent to government. Defending his Franciscan order against papal criticisms of their teachings on spiritual poverty, he distinguished among the various meanings of the Latin word jus (law, right) and dominium (rule, property) to defend an individual right to property. While he was not a canon lawyer, he cited arguments from medieval Church lawyers who had already debated the status of property and attempted to explain and justify the transition from communal property before Adam’s Fall to the contemporary institution of private property. Ockham was also one of the first to derive the legitimacy of government from consent. He drew on statements from Roman and canon law about man’s original freedom and equality in order to explain the establishment of legitimate rule in both state and Church through the consent of the governed. He even used the term “the state of nature” (which became so important in the later theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) to describe man’s original condition. In the case of the Church, that consent was expressed through the universal council that could limit and even depose the pope. In the temporal order, Ockham argued that the Holy Roman Emperor held his office because of the consent of the Roman people (i.e. those subject to the Holy Roman Empire) as expressed by the bishops and nobles who were the imperial electors. His arguments were based partly on the Bible and on the history of the Church and the Empire. More fundamentally, he derived the necessity of consent from natural law doctrines of original freedom and equality and from the “equal natural rights” of all mankind.

But to set aside Christian values of tolerance and rectitude would mean that only those who agreed with socialism would be allowed to silence any group that disagreed with their premises, as occurred in the USSR, etc.

V. Conclusion

Christianity is responsible for most of the West’s distinctive doctrines, a few of which are outlined above. Therefore, it would be both unwise and unjust to penalize Believers simply for their belief, by keeping them from public office. Further, since modern liberalism, aka socialism is so failed at building an economy, and seems so ill-designed for the actual construction and direction of a proper modern democracy, it seems suicide to treat our Conservative politicians like garbage. The only way forward through these staggering times is undoubtedly setting aside trendy, failed policies and embracing what made America superb in the past.

Tweet

Posted by Judson Phillips   Tea Party Nation Forum

Islam and Islamists continue their war against free speech.   One of the most recent battles occurred in Nashville where “The Constitution or Sharia: Preserving Freedom” conference was being held.

The Conference was originally scheduled to be held at the Hutton Hotel but the Hutton breached the contract the organizers had with the hotel because they allegedly received threats against the hotel.

One of the speakers was Tennessee Representative Rick Womack. Now the pro-Islamist media is going after Rick Womack.

What is Womack’s crime? 

Stating the obvious.

Womack stated at the conference that America is at war with Islam.   Muslims are not allowed to kill other Muslims.  If the purpose of the military is to kill our enemy and our enemy are Muslims and Muslims cannot kill other Muslims, then it is obvious Muslims cannot serve in the military.
 
Womack, who was a fighter pilot in the first gulf war, was interviewed by Thinkprogress.org (that was his first mistake), where he said, “Personally, I don’t trust one Muslim in our military. If they truly are a devout Muslim and follow the Quran and the Sunnah, then I feel threatened because they’re commanded to kill me.”

Womack has a point.  It is not just unreasonable paranoia.  On March 23, 2003, Hasan Karim Akbar, a soldier in the 101st Airborne rolled a couple of grenades into a tent, then shot American soldiers.  Two were killed and 14 were wounded.  While in confinement, Akbar smuggled a pair of scissors to the courtroom and during a break stabbed an MP.     Akbar’s motive was Islam.  Moments after his arrest, he told fellow soldiers, “You guys are coming into our counties and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”

On November 5, 2009, Major Hasan Nidal went on a rampage at Fort Hood.  Screaming “Allah Akbar,” he killed 13 people and wounded 29.  Nidal told people prior to the killing that he did not want to deploy and kill fellow Muslims.

Army Specialist Jason Abdo was a cause célèbre among liberals.  A Muslim soldier, who requested conscientious objector status, he was the poster child for groups that were against America’s war on terror.  While his CO status was being determined, investigators found child porn on his computer.  Abdo then went AWOL and was discovered trying to buy components for a bomb and weapons so he could attack Fort Hood.
 
Womack made a statement that makes a lot of sense.  During World War 2, we did not allow soldiers with close ties or relatives in Japan, Germany or Italy into sensitive positions.  During the Cold War, being a communist was a disqualifier.    Now that we have at least part of the Islamic world making war on us, it makes sense that Muslims be excluded from sensitive positions.

Womack made his remarks and they have been blasted through the blogosphere.  The pro-Islamists were quick to react.

One Muslim called for Womack’s immediate impeachment.  The Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately jumped in demanding that State and National Republican Leaders repudiate Womack. 

Fortunately the GOP has not.

It is no shock that CAIR jumped to the defense of radical Islam.  They were named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror finance trial of the Holy Land foundation and many in law enforcement believe CAIR is the product of a Hamas Support Network in the United States.

Womack stated the obvious.  Since Islam is at war with America, we do not know if we can trust Muslims.  

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we have been fed the myth that Islam is a religion of peace since 9/11.  How many more American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have to die before we wise up and realize that Islam is our enemy?

When will we stop the politically correct nonsense that makes us ignore the obvious and allow more Americans to die at the hands of those who wish to destroy America and replace it with a violent theocracy?

Radical Islamists want free speech silenced.  They want Womack to be “repudiated” which is just another word for being silenced.  Radical Islamists to not want anyone to be able to say anything negative about Islam.  

We need to stand with Rick Womack.  Not only is he right about Islam, but he has the right to speak.

We cannot let the Islamists stop him from exercising this right.

By Pamela Geller

Ronald Reagan saw this coming, and Barack Obama is making his prediction come true. Moammar Gaddafi got what was coming to him.  Of course, the concern now is the jihadist and al-Qaeda elements that are positioned to replace him.  Years ago, Ronald Reagan called Gaddafi the “mad dog of the Middle East” and said that his goal was a worldwide “Muslim fundamentalist revolution.”  Many others besides Gaddafi shared that goal, including those who opposed him, and with Gaddafi’s death, that goal is closer than ever to being realized.  Here we are, thirty years after Reagan made these remarks, in the throes of a worldwide Muslim fundamentalist revolution.

Still, Reagan’s warning of a worldwide “Muslim fundamentalist revolution” was prescient.  Can you imagine the Muslim Brotherhood stooge in the White House ever uttering those words?  Imagine: Ronald Reagan saw back then the objective of Islamic imperialism.  He may not have appreciated the full scope of it, but he understood it.  Clearly he believed that it could be contained.  Reagan came into office, and the Ayatollah Khomeini released our hostages; the Islamic world was intimidated, cowed by Reagan’s testicular fortitude.  Reagan made this statement before the jihad attack on the Khobar Towers, before the jihad attack on the USS Cole, before the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the 7/7 attack in London, and the 3/11 attack on a train station in Madrid. 

 Reagan warned of a worldwide “Muslim fundamentalist revolution” before the Islamic jihad massacre committed by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas; before the Islamic jihad massacre in Bali; before the jihad massacre in Mumbai, and before the numerous thwarted attempts at jihad attacks in the United States over the last two years.  Reagan spoke before the nearly 18,000 Islamic jihad terrorist attacks that have been committed since 9/11. Reagan spoke before there was a significant Muslim presence in Europe. 

Now the threat and intimidation by Muslims throughout the countries of the European Union is growing at every level.  And now Gaddafi is gone, but the threat of a worldwide “Muslim fundamentalist revolution” remains, and is stronger than ever, thanks to Barack Obama. Jihadists, who were prominent among the resistance to Gaddafi from the very beginning of attempts to overthrow his government, recently revealed their goal of taking power in a post-Gaddafi government and creating an Islamic state.  U.S. intelligence agencies announced this early in September. 

 Where were these government agencies five months before that, when the uprisings began and were being universally hailed as bringing democracy and freedom? If I knew, why didn’t Barack Obama and the U.S. intelligence services?  Readers of my website AtlasShrugs.com are not surprised by what is happening in Libya, as I warned about it back in March and several times in April.  Yes, I told ya so.  And I told you back in February that the Muslim Brotherhood would be taking over in Egypt. Obama did this. Was there any thought in Washington to what we were doing in Libya when it became evident back in March that al-Qaeda was in and among the “rebel” faction? 

The question still has not been answered: how is al-Qaeda preferable to Gaddafi? Obama spent billions of your money to assist in the Islamic takedown of yet another country.  America, under Barack Obama’s “leadership,” did this.  And America will pay.  The Obama legacy will not only be the degenerate spending which led to the economic downfall of this country; he will also go down in history as the first anti-freedom leader whose foreign policy led to serious attempts to reestablish a universal caliphate across the world.  I predicted all this in my book, The Post American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.  

Tweet

 
Did you hear the news? Chris Christie is going to save the Republicans from Rick Perry, who was supposed to save them from Mitt Romney but turned out to be a completely inept debater and a traitor on issues like illegal immigration and injecting little girls with mental retardation. Now, granted, Christie has said a hundred times that he isn’t ready to run for president and won’t do it. He’s even threatened to kill himself to show how serious he is. But with Perry proving himself less than ideal, the never-satisfied GOP elite is once again pining for a conservative savior who can unite the party (or at least the anti-Romney faction of the party) and defeat President Obama. According to various reports, Christie is telling donors that, public refusals notwithstanding, he’s open to reconsidering. Yesterday, former New Jersey governor Tom Kean said Christie is “giving it a lot of thought.”

But if conservatives think Christie is the answer to their every prayer, they may be making the same mistake they made with Perry — allowing themselves to become enamored with the idea of Christie, while overlooking who he actually is. Conservatives know the New Jersey governor is a straight-talker who slashes budgets and takes on the public unions and yells at people on YouTube. Which is all great, obviously. But on some issues, Republican primary voters would be in for a rude awakening.

1. Illegal Immigration
The biggest chink in Rick Perry’s armor so far has been his record on illegal immigration — specifically, the legislation he passed as governor to allow illegal immigrants to pay the in-state tuition rate when attending state colleges and universities. It’s this policy that has led many Republicans to question whether Perry really gets illegal immigration at all. But Chris Christie is hardly the ally that illegal-immigration foes are looking for. In 2010, Christie told Politico that America needs to come up with a “clear path to citizenship.” He didn’t say “for illegal immigrants,” but since America already has a clear path to citizenship for legal immigrants, that’s what he meant. This is an entirely reasonable and mainstream position, but in much of the GOP, they call it “amnesty.”

Christie’s opponents could also point to the time he insisted that being in the country illegally is not a crime but an “administrative matter.” He’s right — simply overstaying your visa, for example, can get you deported but can’t land you in jail. But to impassioned illegal-immigration warriors, we’re not sure the nuance will be appreciated.

Then there’s Christie’s record on illegal immigration as a U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, the job he held before he became governor. Back in 2008, Bill Tucker, a producer on Lou Dobbs’s now-deceased CNN show, could only find thirteen illegal-immigration cases prosecuted by Christie’s office between 2002 and 2007. Tucker compared that to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Kansas, which, despite a much smaller population, prosecuted 597 cases in the same time period. “This man is an utter embarrassment,” Dobbs wailed.

2. Gun Control
In an October 2009 appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, Christie voiced support for some gun-control laws:

HANNITY: Are there any issues where you are, quote, moderate to left as a Republican?

CHRISTIE: Listen, I favor some of the gun-control measures we have in New Jersey.

HANNITY: Bad idea.

CHRISTIE: Listen, we have a densely-populated state, and there’s a big hand gun problem in New Jersey. Now, I don’t support all the things that the governor supports by a long stretch. But I think on guns — certain gun control issues, looking at it from a law-enforcement perspective, seeing how many police officers were killed, we have an illegal gun problem in New Jersey.

HANNITY: Should every — should every citizen in the state be allowed to get a licensed weapon if they want one?

CHRISTIE: In New Jersey, that’s not going to happen, Sean.

HANNITY: Why?

CHRISTIE: Listen, the Democratic legislature we have, there’s no way those type of things — listen, at the end of the day, what I support are common sense laws that will allow people to protect themselves, but I also am very concerned about the safety of our police officers on the streets, very concerned. And I want to make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there.

Again, most people believe in having some “common sense” gun-control laws. But when politicians say “common sense gun-control laws,” conservatives hear “seize all weapons and ban hunting and make everyone eat tofu.” Compare Christie’s even-handedness on guns to Perry, who literally goes jogging with a laser-sighted pistol in case he needs to shoot any coyotes. When Perry was asked earlier this month whether the supports gun control, he responded, “I am actually for gun control. Use both hands.”

3. Climate Change
Rick Perry claims that climate change is a hoax that scientists have concocted as a way to get more funding. Chris Christie, after going back and forth on the issue a bit, said just this August that “climate change is real” and “human activity plays a role in these changes.” As for those scheming scientists, Christie said that “when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts.”

4. Race to the Top
Race to the Top, the federal program created by President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan in which large grants are offered to states that reform their education systems, shouldn’t necessarily be a problem for conservatives. After all, some of the reforms Race to the Top hopes to incentivize, such as measuring teachers based on the success of their students, are goals shared by Republicans. But apparently it’s a sin these days to support anything the Obama administration does. In the last GOP debate, Rick Perry proclaimed that “there is one person on this stage that is for Obama’s Race to the Top and that is Governor Romney,” adding, “[T]hat is not conservative.” Mitt Romney then tied himself up in knots trying to deny the accusation. “I’m not sure exactly what he’s saying,” Romney claimed. “I don’t support any particular program that he’s describing.”

Well, we know Chris Christie supports Race to the Top, because as governor, he applied for its funds. Christie also called Obama a “great ally” in education reform and praised Duncan as an “extraordinary leader on this issue.”

5. Muslims
Remember when people pretended, for a little while, that the ground-zero mosque was a slap in the face of the victims of 9/11? In the heat of the controversy, as Republican politicians demagogued the issue to death, Christie claimed that the mosque was “being used as a political football by both parties.” He added that while we must “give some measure of deference to the feelings” of 9/11 families, “it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans.”

And while we’re talking about Muslims, Christie came under fire by some anti-Islam hysterics this summer for his appointment of Sohail Mohammed to New Jersey Superior Court. Mohammed, a Muslim lawyer, at one point represented Mohammed Qatanani, a New Jersey imam facing deportation who had alleged past ties to Hamas. The ties were never proven and Qatanani wasn’t deported, partly owing to the support he received from Jewish leaders, politicians, and law-enforcement officials like Chris Christie, who called Qatanani “a man of great goodwill.” As for the outcry over his nomination of Mohammed, Christie said, “It’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

Tweet

In an interview with WESH-TV in Orlando yesterday, President Obama described the nation he was elected to lead the way one might describe Boston Red Sox pitcher Josh Beckett.

“This is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track.”

Last night, a lot of conservatives seemed to react angrily to that statement, as though calling America soft were to be considered automatically indefensible, no matter the context. My reaction was: “last couple of decades”?

We already know what this president thinks of this country: It’s no more exceptional than any other country, but it might turn out to be exceptional someday if only we let him change it as he sees fit. So he also thinks it’s flabby in the middle? No surprise.

What’s more troubling is that he apparently thinks the current economic mess was caused by Americans spending the “last couple of decades” eating Cheese Doodles and watching NASCAR. (If only the national economy were roaring like NASCAR.)

The bad economy used to be all Bush’s fault. But the voters aren’t buying that anymore, so the president’s trying a new line: the whole country got a little lazy — you know, like Americans do — and now he’s got to save it. That’s why this recovery is so hard, you see. He doesn’t have just four years of Bushonomics to undo, he’s got several decades of couch-surfing by the entire American populace to undo.

But don’t worry; the country is still awesome, he said.

“I would not trade our position with anybody on Earth. We still have the best universities, the best scientists, best workers in the world; the most dynamic economic system in the world.”

Errr, but you just said we’d spent the last couple of decades going soft. If we’re still the best economically, then why are things so bad?

“We just have to bring all those things together,” he said.

To fix the softness America has accumulated over the last couple of decades, someone just has to bring together all the top-notch American professionals who are off somewhere engaging in self-indulgent solo projects. In short, America just has to get the band back together.

This isn’t economics. It isn’t even Obamanomics. It’s just nonsense.

And it doesn’t get any better when the president switches to Obamanomics. Here is what he told the Florida TV station when asked how his new jobs bill would create jobs in the Sunshine State:

“There are a lot of construction workers in Florida who have been laid off. Putting those construction workers back to work on construction projects in Florida would make a huge difference right now. There have been difficulties for state and local governments keeping their teachers in the classroom. So they would get a direct benefit.”

The first is simply a blatant falsehood. The jobs bill would not create any construction jobs “right now.” From a Tuesday Politico story headlined “‘Shovel ready’ jobs could take time”:

“As a rule of thumb, you’re looking at three years for a project, really going from the time the federal government says we have the money and want to spend it,” [Cal-Berkeley civil engineering professor William] Ibbs said. But that’s for the easiest, simplest projects, such as building a road through an uninhabited piece of land. “The politicians really don]t understand how cumbersome the process is these days,” Ibbs said. “Environmental permitting, especially on road projects can take years. You’re hiring attorneys, not really shoveling a lot of dirt.”

The reality is the quickest projects to jump-start are simply resurfacing existing roads with asphalt — not the best way of reining in the national infrastructure crisis — and the massive infrastructure improvements that promise generations of benefits can easily double and triple that time frame.

And teacher jobs? He’s going to fix Florida’s unemployment problem by subsidizing teaching and construction jobs?

That’s not an economic plan, it’s an economic surrender — to left-wing special-interest politics.

America hasn’t gone soft. The President has gone out to lunch.

Tweet

Tweet

Kelly O’Connell  Sunday, September 25, 2011
All  rights tto Site Copyright 2011 Canada Free Press.Com

While it cannot come as a surprise after so many liberal hoaxes, it’s still shocking to find we’ve been duped again—this time by the “Peak Oil” myth. Peak Oil is the theory the world is on the verge of a catastrophic decline in global petroleum reserves that will result in major energy crises causing chaos across the world. This notion has now been proved demonstrably false—yet, how was it accepted in the first place?

It was the result of the hypothesizing of noted geologist Marion King Hubbert who claimed as a simple fact that oil production would reach a peak and then decline by 1970. But instead of being based upon provable data, this idea was the result of Hubbert’s extreme leftist beliefs called “Technocracy,” which for short a time swept the world, capturing millions of cult-like followers. This is similar to the millions who pathetically cling to the Global Warming myth despite repeated examples of falsified proofs surfacing weekly.

Peak Oil theory has radically affected generations of leaders, public policy makers and the general populace. In doing so it has robbed countless persons of cheaper energy and their countries of smarter energy policies. Further, Peak Oil has been taken by the environmental cabal as another proof that mankind is badly out of touch with the earth. But all recent data shows the globe is not running out of oil, but to the contrary we now have more discovered oil than ever before. And as technology improves, the number gets even higher. So how did Hubbert get it so badly wrong? This essay tells the story of Hubbert’s massive mistake which still gravely deforms global energy policy to this day.

I. Peak Oil—An Alarming Theory

A. Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory

Peak Oil is a scientific theory predicting collapse of global oil production by geologist M King Hubbert. It is claimed the earth is running out of petroleum, sooner rather than later. This notion is prized by environmentalists who therefore demand cuts in oil consumption, more “green” energy, and other measures against “Man-made Global Warming.” One site describes this:

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached. Afterward, production enters terminal decline. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines—sometimes rapidly—until the field is depleted.

B. Energy Apocalypse

Various doomsday scenarios have been suggested as a result of reaching Peak Oil, as described in Kunstler’s The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. A video series created by The Nation magazine, titled “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate,” is described here:

Scientists, researchers and writers interviewed throughout “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate” describe the diminishing returns our world can expect as it deals with the consequences of peak oil even as it continues to pretend it doesn’t exist. These experts predict substantially increased transportation costs, decreased industrial production, unemployment, hunger & social chaos as supplies of fuel dwindle & eventually disappear.

What many leftist writers suggest is a coming apocalyptic scenario where stronger and wealthier nations battle against the poorer ones for ever-dwindling resources, creating Peak Oil Wars while production and farming ebb, as mass starvation and transportation collapses play out in the background. But is this what the near future holds for earth?

II. Marion King Hubbert—Mr. Peak Oil

A. Advent of a King

So who was Marion King Hubbert, Mr Peak Oil? One writer describes him:

Marion King Hubbert was one of the most eminent—and controversial—earth scientists of his time. Born on a ranch in San Saba, Texas in 1903, he did his university education, including his Ph.D., at the University of Chicago. One of his fundamental objectives was to move geology from what he called its “natural history phase” into its “physical science phase,” firmly based in physics, chemistry and, in particular, rigorous mathematics.

Hubbert had a powerful mind, taking three different degrees as an undergraduate. But he also had, as is true of many intellectuals, a bent towards demanding leadership of the elites over the uneducated. This is the model used by all socialists, Marxists, and other progressives, first adumbrated by Joachim of Flora in the 12th century (see: Obama, the Duke of Babylon & the Christian Origins of Marxism). In Hubbert’s case, his ideas took root in a leftist movement called “Technocracy,” quite reminiscent of August Comte’s plan to have all of society run by an autocracy of “scientists” (see: Sources of Madness—The Insane Thinkers of the Modern Age)

B. Scientific Prophet of Doom

Hubbert gave interesting quotes revealing how ideologically leftist he was in his beliefs, being anti-growth and socialist-minded. Further, it is fascinating how he deluded himself into thinking his own area of expertise—geology—was the study of studies for mankind as a whole. But, as the saying goes—to the carpenter, all the world looks like a nail. He writes:

The knowledge essential to competent intellectual leadership in this situation is preeminently geological - a knowledge of the earth’s mineral and energy resources. The importance of any science, socially, is its effect on what people think and what they do. It is time earth scientists again become a major force in how people think rather than how they live.

He also doomsayed the coming chaos after Peak Oil:

The steep ride up the and down the energy curve is the most abnormal thing that has ever happened in human history. Most of human history is a no-growth situation. Our culture is built on growth and that phase of human history is almost over and we are not prepared for it. Our biggest problem is not the end of our resources. That will be gradual. Our biggest problem is a cultural problem. We don’t know how to cope with it.

III. The “Technocracy” Movement: Socialist Scientific Tyranny

A. Technocracy

M. King Hubbert’s answer to the problems of society was a movement called “Technocracy”—but what did Technocrats believe? In short, they claimed all politicians were incompetent in our age of technology. Therefore, they needed to step aside to allow the “experts”—scientists, but especially engineers—to lead mankind into the future. This is exactly what the deranged Comte’ taught, as well.

B. Anti-Capitalism

More darkly, yet befitting Marxist dogma, Technocrats believed anti-capitalist theory… “The Technocracy movement aims to establish a zero growth socio-economic system.” They rejected all economic systems, even Soviet, claiming a higher level of socialist purity of a non-economic system.

One author describes their bizarre ideas:

Technocracy claimed politics & economic arrangements based on the “Price System” (i.e., traditional economics) were antiquated. The only hope of building a successful modern world was to let engineers & other technology experts run the country on engineering principles. Rejecting all traditional political science, Technocrats refused to even use standard geographical maps as their boundaries were political, so only referred to states by geographical coordinates.

C. Energy as Money

But the movement was really focused upon turning money currency into “energy units” while making scientists in various disciplines the default leaders of society. This is almost an exact replica of madman August Comte’s Positivist society, which had absolutely no human rights or laws for private property. According to another writer:

Technocracy was a weird movement flourishing briefly during the Great Depression, advocating the merger of all of North and Central America into one nation, ruled by scientists & engineers replacing politicians. The dollar was to be replaced by the erg, the centimeter-gram-second (CGS) unit of energy. The movement’s fondness for matching red and grey uniforms & militaristic fleets of grey vehicles brought it under great suspicion given the state of Europe, and interest in the movement soon collapsed.

IV. Meaning of “Technocracy”—or Why “Science” Trumps Democracy

A. Scientific Heaven Earth

Technocracy represented a summary of the classic progressive dream of using people to build paradise on earth via scientific humanism while an elite herd the dumb masses towards enlightenment. This audacious idea was first outlined in Joachim of Flora‘s 13th century writings, and has been the model in every leftist scheme since. As one writer describes the movement:

Technocracy was a utopian dream, a cult-like movement, and a concept that captured the public’s attention. The fingerprints of Technocracy are deeply impressed upon today’s political, economic, military, social and spiritual landscape. There isn’t anything Technocracy hasn’t touched, chiefly because as a type of meta-philosophy, it rests on the most basic principle of human rebellion: By pursuing god-like illumination, Man can become as God. Man, not God, is the ultimate engineer of human destiny—therefore, Man is God. Technocracy represents the pinnacle of Man’s quest for self-deification: The perfectibility of Man through the thoughts of his mind and the subsequent works of his hands. It’s the cosmic taunt, stemming from the most ancient of days. What God can do, Man can do. The Garden of Eden will be remade.

B. Scientism

The cult of science, or Scientism, and the desire to see society run with exactitude by “experts” predates August Comte, going back to the ancient Gnostics, according to Eric Voegelin in New Science of Politics. Voegelin’s theory was the logic of ancient Gnosticism reasserted itself in socialism’s infatuation with a society run by elites who directed the ignorant. Gnostics taught salvation came by way of education, as opposed to the work of God. Notes one author:

Technocracy in the modern sense is an idea that came to prominence during the early decades of the 20th century. Auguste Comte (1798-1857) offered mankind a “Religion of Humanity.” Understood through the laws of science, Humanity was the “only true Great Being,” and thus Humanity should “direct every aspect of our life, individual or collective.” Comte called this Positivism, and viewed it as the pinnacle stage of human development; scientific laws determine truth, therefore only a scientifically enlightened elite should guide humanity. Positivism was a “regenerating doctrine,” an “all-embracing creed” that would lead the world out of ignorance, corruption, and anarchy through a positive, scientific worldview.

C. Engineers Are Gods

It turns out Hubbert was merely a conceited worshiper of his own expertise, seeing in it an opportunity for godlike guidance and salvation of the ignorant masses, being a celebrant of the religion of humanism. In this sense, he like many other members of the cult of Scientism developed an unhealthy, and even malignantly narcissistic insanity. For no one in their right-mind would believe science is a fit replacement for religion. Highly self-regarding writer Thorstein Veblen and his Darwinist interpretation of society were of special preeminence to Technocrats.

States another author:

At its core Technocracy seeks the “engineered society”—not through conventionally understood ideologies such as capitalism or socialism, but through a scientific/engineering mindset. In this sense technology plays a defining role in society, and “social engineers” wield the technical means to transform a population. From economics and industry to population size and general education, the desire of Technocracy was to remake the world in a way that exemplified “efficiency” and guaranteed social harmony.

V. Death of Peak Oil: Why The Theory is Wrong

A. The Misinformed King

Hubbert was wrong for a host of reasons, but specifically because he neither understood how newer technology affects the oil industry, nor how economics works in general. Daniel Yergin writes,

“Hubbert was imaginative and innovative,” recalled Peter Rose, who was Hubbert’s boss at the U.S. Geological Survey. But he had “no concept of technological change, economics or how new resource plays evolve. It was a very static view of the world.” Hubbert also assumed that there could be an accurate estimate of ultimately recoverable resources, when in fact it is a constantly moving target.

Hubbert, as another worshiper of the science of humanism, greatly overestimated the ability of “experts” to understand the world and control it. Worse, his egotism informed him humanity could not survive without such insane conceit. Adds Yergin:

Overall U.S. oil production has increased more than 10% since 2008. Net oil imports reached a high point of 60% in 2005, but today, thanks to increased production and greater energy efficiency (plus the use of ethanol), imports are down to 47%.

B. American Oil

In other words, America has yet to “peak” in oil production, but will continue to raise its output for the foreseeable future due to changing economics and technology. Further, we could produce even more oil if the politicians would step aside from renewed exploration. For example, consider that Montana and Dokata’s Bakken formation contains over 500 billion barrells of petroleum, or consider what is held in the Colorado Rockies alone:

Studies over the years by industry and government alike estimate that there may be between 800 billion and more than one trillion barrels of oil locked up in the Colorado rocks—nearly 3 times known reserves in Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Exxon in the US Gulf just discovered three majors finds directly after the end of the Obama moratorium. In fact, according to the Saudi Gazette, America will become the NUMBER ONE oil producer by year 2017! And much of America is unexplored for oil formations with modern technology because of regressive and illogical bans of drilling.So who knows how much more petroleum lies below our land and beyond our shores.

The fact is that all “known recoverable” petroleum reserves are constantly in flux because of continually improved extraction technology and newly discovered pools. But such facts, and inconvenient details are quickly swept under the carpet like so much embarrassing detritus by environmentalists.

C. American Gas

But these oil facts do not even address massive natural gas reserves discovered in the Marcellus Shale, which holds 84 trillion cubic feet, nor America’s newest petroleum and natuiral gas bonanza—Eagle Ford in Texas. America currently has over 100 years of natural gas.

Yet, Global Warming activists desperately fight against “fracking” use despite no major problems associated with the technology. It seems these modern Luddites cannot abide the idea of economic growth, much like M King Hubbert, despite their underlying beliefs continually being disproved.

VI. Conclusion

In summary, God help us from humanists similar to “Peak Oil King” Hubbert who will not rest until all of humanity lies in chains under command of megalomaniac busybodies intent on “saving” humanity by way of tyrannical, bureaucratic slavery—designed to cancel our God-given liberties.

  Kelly O’Connell

Tweet

By Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

The aftershocks of Gaddafi’s downfall are spreading south — and spreading fast.

Since the de facto downfall of the Gaddafi regime, much analysis has justifiably focused on the questions of Libya’s internal dynamics and future stability. However, the possible implications on the security of the wider region, extending south through the Sahel to Nigeria, have been less widely considered.

One cause for concern that should have been raised during NATO’s campaign in Libya was the fact that airstrikes did not target Gaddafi’s vast stockpiles of missiles and other arms. The predictable result of this massive error has been that several arms depots — including one that contains SA-7b Grail heat-seeking missiles imported by the Gaddafi regime from former Soviet bloc countries — have been found looted in Tripoli.

The consequences of this development are very worrying indeed. The greatest danger is that smugglers could hand over these weapons to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which is the local affiliate branch of the jihadist group across northwest Africa and the Sahel. As Peter Bouckaert — emergencies director of Human Rights Watch — put it, “If these [munitions] fall into the wrong hands, they could turn all of North Africa into a no-fly zone.”

AQIM initially began as an anti-government insurgency (also targeting Berber activists) in the Algerian Civil War of the 1990s under the name “Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat,” eventually swearing allegiance to al Qaeda in 2006.

AQIM has since furthered its range of operations southward into Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Senegal. The group primarily engages in suicide bombings and other attacks on outposts belonging to the Algerian security forces, and has been involved in kidnappings of foreigners elsewhere (e.g. in December 2009, an Italian couple en route to Burkina Faso were taken hostage by AQIM in Mauritania).

The outcome of the Libyan civil war will no doubt give further impetus for AQIM to step up its attacks on the Algerian government, which made the tactical error of openly backing Gaddafi against the rebel forces and could well see further unrest among the population.

A further problem is posed by the outflow of pro-Gaddafi Touareg fighters from Libya into the country’s southern neighbors. The Touareg are a nomadic Muslim Berber group, whom Gaddafi supported in their insurgency campaigns against the governments of Chad, Mali and Niger. Gaddafi never disguised his hatred of Berber language and culture, but his cooperation and cordial relations with Touareg fighters were partly rooted in his later rhetoric that called for a borderless Islamic republic across the Sahara.

As Tristan McConnell points out, the Touareg have controlled traditional caravan trade routes across the Sahara, now used for arms smuggling and human trafficking. Disgruntled over the loss of support with the overthrow of Gaddafi, mercenaries within the Touareg might forge ties with AQIM, a development that would only strengthen the latter and foster greater security threats to nations like Niger.

Yet perhaps most troubling is the fact that AQIM has recently been establishing contact and financial links with an Islamist group in Nigeria known as “Boko Haram” (meaning “Western Education is Forbidden”). Some members of Boko Haram may also have received training from AQIM militants. If AQIM gets hold of weaponry from Libya, it is probable that some of those arms will be supplied to Boko Haram as well.

Boko Haram, originally founded in 2002, is a group that seeks to transform all of Nigeria into an Islamic state. Among the organization’s “grievances” include the supposed unacceptability of teaching that the Earth is spherical and the “sinful” idea that rain is caused by evaporation and subsequent condensation of water. Boko Haram came to widespread attention in 2009 for its massacres against minority Christians in the north, and it poses a particular threat in a nation that has a sharp sectarian divide between a predominantly Muslim north and a primarily Christian south.

Unfortunately, the Nigerian government has effectively engaged in a policy of appeasement towards Boko Haram, which forced one university in the country’s northeast to close indefinitely in July (and may be aiming to target other universities in the south), bombed police headquarters in Abuja, the capital city, in June, and was responsible for a car bomb attack on the UN headquarters in Nigeria last month, killing 23 people.

On the other hand, as disclosures from Wikileaks cables show, the Nigerian authorities have released known terror suspects — including affiliates of Boko Haram and AQIM — in an attempt to placate Muslim tribal elders in the north, who were supposed to act as parole officers for released detainees.

In light of these trends, consider how much further damage deeper cooperation between Boko Haram and AQIM will do to Nigeria’s stability.

Unfortunately, NATO, which has been spending billions of dollars trying to prevent the return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan (even though the group is hardly likely to want to return there anyway), now appears to have significantly increased the risk of the creation of a strong hotbed of Islamist militancy in a vast region extending from Libya and Algeria down toward Nigeria.

Tweet

 by The Economist

Tweet