Friday, February 05, 2010

What is Your World View?


Would US Troops Fire on Americans?
By M. Ernest Smith
March 15, 2010
There were more than one hundred dead and wounded, including children and babies, in 1932 when US troops dispersed a camp of WW1 veterans demanding only what had been promised them.
Have No Doubt America ...
The question often has been asked, especially during these last few years, if American military troops would indeed fire upon American citizens if so ordered by Washington. The answer? Have no doubt America, because it's already happened.
WWI was a terrible war that introduced new weapons and tactics resulting 100,000 US deaths as well as US 200,000 wounded and gassed in the first eighteen months alone.
The soldiers fighting that war for America earned between $1.00 and $1.50 per day while those serving under Selective Service in factories supporting the war earned as much as ten times that amount. After the war, the veteran soldiers demanded to be paid what they had lost during the war years as "adjusted compensation" as promised by the United States government. Later, their detractors would call it a "bonus".
Fast Forward to 1928
Herbert Hoover, a self-made millionaire, said during his inaugural address that "the future of the country was bright with hope"... Seven months later the Great Depression hit. In 1932, there was 25% unemployment and many of the unemployed were WWI veterans and their families. It was decided that the veterans lead by Walter W. Waters would march on Washington, D.C.
By May of 1932, there were approximately 10,000 veterans and a few families totalling 30,000, who occupied what was called the Anacostia Flats neighborhood of Washington, D.C. where the vets slept in tents, barrels and some makeshift huts in almost a foot of mud.
Later, the veterans and their families proceeded to march and demonstrate to remind the Congressional representatives to keep their promise of compensation to the WWI vet, so badly needed and necessary during this nationwide financial disaster.
At first, the Congress approved the measure but the Senate soundly defeated it days later. It was during this time President Hoover resolved to drive the veterans out of Washington D.C. back to their homes. However, the larger problem was that most of the veterans didn't have any homes. Many were squatting in abandoned buildings.
Solution? President Hoover ordered the Washington, D.C. police to drive the vets out of the abandoned buildings. As with any forcible action, it was met with resistance...people fought the police...bricks were thrown and the police opened fire: two vets were killed.
It seems that anytime there is a police action around a government capital, troops are called...reader, take notice.
General MacArthur
President Hoover ordered General Douglas MacArthur who led 200 Cavalry, 400 armed troops, tanks and other armored vehicles against AMERICAN citizens and veterans of a war the government sent them to fight and die!
General MacArthur was not the only "Who's Who" participating in this "tyrannyfest", General MacArthur's aide, General Dwight D. Eisenhower and then Major George Patton also had a hand in the action. It should be noted that a witness, then seven year old Naamen Seigle, witnessed Major Patton draw his saber and lead the charge against the mass of veterans.
With Patton and the Calvary charging, the 400 ground troops dawned their gas masks and proceeded to hurl gas grenades into the crowd of veterans, a bitter reminder of battles such as in the Meuse-Argonne Forest in France.
No, this gassing was compliments of their own government. As the veterans ran choking from the effects of the gas, the troops with bayonets fixed, charged and jabbed their way into the crowd. Hundreds of veterans were injured and several killed.
After General MacArthur gained control of the situation, President Hoover ordered the General to proceed no further. But General MacArthur had other ideas. General MacArthur is quoted as saying "I cannot bother with pieces of paper during a military operation" and advanced on the Anacostia Flats encampment. It was during this unauthorized attack that MacArthur ordered the burning of the encampment to the ground.
What justification did General MacArthur use? He felt a Communist plot for revolution was at hand. Reader, beware.
What do we learn from this piece of history? The government will use our own military to suppress its citizenry if it feels threatened and it will use any excuse to do so.
Note: Posse Comitatus does not apply to Washington D.C. because it is a federal district governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article 1. Section 8. Clause 17). As usual, they have their bases covered.
It Truly is All in the World View
By Lynn Stuter
February 2, 2010
As the State of the Union address having been delivered up by the resident in the White House, usurper to the Oval Office, it would stand to reason that this column would focus on exposing it. But a lot of good columns have been written since Also Known As (AKA) Obama stood before Congress with Jack-in-the-Box Pelosi popping up and down behind him on cue, delivering one more round of half-truths and out-right lies to the Congress and the American people.
That AKA was angry that his Marxist agenda is being opposed by a growing number of the American people was apparent. That he hasn't gotten the message that the American people want nothing to do with his Marxist agenda was also apparent.
Howard Galganov has published one of the better synopses of the AKA "presentation".
It is amazing how the Obama/Biden stickers have disappeared off bumpers and back windows in the last six months. Observed on the back of an old SUV the other day was a bumper sticker that said, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Hussein!" Another, next to it, exclaimed, "Only an idiot would vote for a Marxist!" One could generally conclude that the driver/owner was a tad on the miffed side at the general state of the American populace, that it voted for a Marxist in the first place.
Not that the fascist running as the Republican candidate, John McCain, was any better. Born in a hospital on Panama soil, of American parents in the military, John McCain was no more a "natural-born citizen" than AKA who is not eligible to the office he holds by his own admission of being a dual citizen at birth. A natural-born citizen is born of two American parents on American soil. AKA's father was a British subject and McCain was born on Panamanian soil. Both could be naturalized citizens but not natural-born. Both can be senators but neither can be president.
History will undoubtedly show that AKA was not eligible to the office of president, was not the legitimate POTUS, but that the damage inflicted by his Marxist anti-American agenda will take generations, if even then, to reverse.
The only difference between a fascist and a Marxist is how fast the implementation of the agenda is pushed. As has become more than readily apparent to the American people, AKA wants Marxism implemented yesterday; while McCain, a fascist, and a neo-Con (a leftist who advocates imperial expansionism through continual war just as did the USSR), was willing to continue the gradual atrophy to the Marxist state.
In this sense, it was better that a true Marxist be elected than a neo-Con, for the American people are rapidly getting their blinders removed and their dander up. Had McCain (God help us) been elected, the American people would have remained asleep at the wheel of a sinking ship. George Soros' puppet, AKA, may be the best medicine for the American people even though not what Soros intended when AKA was (s)elected on November 4, 2008.
Fascism is one head of a three-headed snake, all sharing one body: Marxism. The other two heads of the three-headed snake are national socialism (Nazism) and communism. The difference between the three is not in basic philosophy but in who owns the means of production.
What is the basic philosophy of Marxism? To understand that we need to understand the underlying religion of humanism.
But humanism isn't a religion? Wrong. Religion is synonymous with philosophy and world view.
One's philosophy or world view is how one perceives the world and the purpose of it, one's viewpoint, beliefs, values, way of life.
There are many different religions in the world: humanism, New Age, B'nai, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Paganism, Satanism, Atheism, Gnosticism to name but a few of the more well-known.
In response to my last article, I received a response from a self-avowed liberal, challenging my statement that government schools, to meet the requirement of the First Amendment, have to offer courses based on every religion as education, in every instance, is based on world view.
A for instance? Government schools are teaching science based on the theory of evolution. A theory is an unproven supposition or hypothesis; a matter of conjecture.
The theory of evolution believes that species evolved even though there has been no definitive proof presented that such is the case. Darwin was an evolutionist. Evolution is a central tenant of the religion of humanism. Humanists believe that man evolved even though the "missing link" between man and ape has never materialized and, since the advent of DNA testing, the theory of the missing link has been generally discredited.
Creationism is another theory, also unproven, that God created the Heavens and all therein, Earth and all upon it. The Bible tells us that God is the one true God; that His word is irrefutable; His word is the first and the last.
In order for the government schools to meet the requirements of the First Amendment, they must not only offer science based on the theory of evolution but also the theory of creationism. Unless they do, they are unconstitutional.
An education course based on Biblical teaching and one based on humanism approach every subject in a different manner. The same is true of every other world view; every other religion. This is why the Founding Fathers gave the federal government no authority and no part in the education of children.
But Creationism is absurd? Says who? Says you? And you know how? But you believe in evolution? That's your humanist world view or religion speaking. Is evolution more viable than Creationism? No.
There is not one person on the face of this earth that does not have a world view. And people would do well to define what their world view is.
What does a humanist believe as opposed to a Christian?
Among the more apparent beliefs, a humanist believes in collectivism; that the individual brain is but an atom in the molecule that represents the collective brain of mankind; that mankind has no ability to think and reason for self; that man must, by necessity, be conditioned to his environment, whatever that environment is perceived to be. Karl Marx believed Christianity should be stamped out because Christianity believes each individual is made in the image of God, is complete in self, with the ability to think and reason as an individual (self-will).
A humanist believes there is no deity; that if earth is to be saved, mankind must save it. This is the whole concept behind the Sustainable Global Environment based on systems philosophy or theory: the world is a system of subsystems (also called systems), all interconnected and interdependent to form a wholistic or holistic system; that within any system is an infrastructure that is analogous (the same) across systems, irrespective of physical appearance. In other words, mankind must "Create the Future" and people must be conditioned to the environment of the created future.
An off-shot is New Age that incorporates a metaphysical belief that god dwells within (self-divination) and presents the systems philosophy as the Gaia Hypothesis: the world is a living, breathing organism, irreducible to its parts; that what affects one part, affects all parts; that in the name of saving spaceship Earth, we must change our society.
On the other hand, Christianity teaches that if we take care of the earth as God commands us to, that God will take care of us.
A humanist believes that man is inherently good, that it is only his environment that makes him bad. This tenant can be seen in the belief of leftists that if they change the environment, that the "victim of a bad environment" will be good. Thus it is that if we place a promiscuous woman with a passel of kids, all by different men, in a good environment, ie, pay their way in society, they will turn out. Thus we have the social welfare programs that reward bad behavior and are a colossal failure at achieving their stated goal, but a roaring success in justifying the existence of bigger government requiring more and more taxes until they are at the point they are now, about to self-destruct. The welfare state is the necessary precursor to the oppressive Marxist state in which the government controls everything, including where you live, where you work, how many children you have, what health care you get. The body human becomes nothing but a human resource (a term used widely now) to be used, abused and discarded at the whim of the state acting on behalf of the collective.
Christianity, on the other hand, believes in the sin nature of man; that it is only by living by the Ten Commandments of God that man can achieve virtue, placing chains upon his intemperate mind, his own intemperate appetites, to exercise the self-discipline and self-government necessary to lead a better life for himself and the society in which he lives, starting at the individual level and progressing to the family, the local community, etc, right on up to the nation as a whole.
Humanism believes in equality of outcome where man is perfectly assimilated in his passions, opinions and prejudices; each according to his needs irrespective of ability, willingness to work, and choices.
On the other hand, Christianity believes in equality of opportunity, where outcomes are the result of one's choices, ability, and willingness to work to achieve. Equality of opportunity is a tenant our Founding Fathers wrote extensively about and was the basis of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.
I have had people tell me that "religion" is the cause of every war in the world. They err when they define "religion" as Christianity. If there is one religion that has killed more people in this world than any other, it is the religion of humanism. Humanism is the very basis of Marxist thought and belief. It was the religion of Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler; it is the religion of Red China. Millions have been murdered in the quest to establish the Marxist state, whether communist, fascist or national socialist (Nazi).
Hitler was also into Satanism which, like New Age, adds a spiritual (metaphysical) component to humanism. Satanists consort with demonic spirits (called spirit guides by New Agers) who appear, as 2 Corinthians 13:15 tells us, as angels of light:
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. An no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (KJV)
We heard much, in the early 1990's, of shifting the paradigm in America. What is a paradigm? It is the basic model on which something is built.
On what paradigm was our nation built? As I stated in my last article, our nation was founded on the Christian world view or paradigm.
If that paradigm is being changed, to what paradigm is it being changed?
In a word, the paradigm is being shifted to the humanist world view upon which the three-headed snake of Marxism is built.
People have wondered for some time why they are uncomfortable with what comes out of AKA's mouth.
Why they are uncomfortable is because the paradigm AKA espouses to, covertly, is not the paradigm on which most Americans, even the ones who don't go to church regularly or don't espouse to a Christian world view, were raised.
But Christianity, as the basis of our limited form of government, has been under attack since before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And nowhere is that more apparent than when the compulsory attendance law was passed in the mid-1800's bringing about government control of what had been local schools under the control of parents and local school boards. While the world view of the curriculum used in these schools started out as Christian, R L Dabney correctly foretold that it would only be a matter of time before that world view was changed. That happened in 1963 when prayer was outlawed in government schools. The world view of government schools is now humanism/New Age.
Just as Christianity as the world view of education violated the First Amendment so does humanism/New Age. The only difference is that the religions of humanism/New Age are oppressive and cannot, therefore, tolerate a religion that espouses freedom of the individual to live according to God's law requiring a very limited form of government. In a word, Christianity is about freedom of the individual while Marxism is about control over everyone.
This is why Christianity is taboo in the classroom, but children are immersed in pagan ritualism and New Age spiritualism in the form of guided fantasy/guided visualization, dream catchers, the worship of animals (Indian spirituality), chants around candles, radical environmentalism, etc. This is also why fits are thrown at the mere mention of Creationism, Christ, Christmas, Easter, etc. One teacher even went so far as to demand students wearing necklaces with crosses remove them so as "not to offend other students." Yet students wearing "peace" signs—a Satanic symbolization of the victory of Satan over Christ—were not deemed offensive to Christian students who are expected to be tolerant, but T-shirts bearing the words "in God we trust" were not allowed. In another instance, when a young girl wrote about God, she was ordered, by the teacher, to change "God" to the universal "god" in order not to "offend others." (In all cases, however, when challenged, the schools were forced to back down.) But the attack on Christianity, and the reason for it, cannot be ignored.
If we want to remain a free people, the only way to do that is to govern ourselves and control ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
The alternative is the one presented by AKA and his elitist comrades, one where the government will meet your needs in accordance with your value, as a human resource, to the government. The USSR, as a communist nation, held this basic belief. As the Russian people can tell you, it was no way to live. In fact, it is a miserable existence. There is more to the old adage, "I'd rather be dead than Red" than meets the eye.
Will we listen? Will we learn from the past; from what Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mussolini inflicted on the world and the people they sought to control? Or will we have to repeat their warped philosophy, religion, world view to learn? How many generations of our progeny are we willing to commit to oppression?
It truly is all in our world view.
Blair’s world view: simply goodies v baddies
For him the Axis of Evil was not just a soundbite but a profound philosophical insight. That’s why he has no regrets
Matthew Parris
From The Times
January 30, 2010
Within minutes of the start of yesterday’s proceedings of the Chilcot inquiry, a tanned Tony Blair gave us the key to understanding his motivation. But it took the whole day’s grilling, right through to his final, defiant Je ne regrette rien, for me to solve a bigger puzzle: our own motivation. Why the national and media infatuation with making this man squirm?
First, to what makes Mr Blair tick. How many viewers, watching the inquiry yesterday, noted his answer to a very early question? He rolled together in a single two-word phrase two political groupings in the Middle East who were in fact bitterly opposed to each other: “these people” was his collective term for Baathist nationalism and internationalist Islamic fundamentalism.
Worlds apart, surely? Forgive the italicisation, but this cannot be overemphasised: Tony Blair believes that all bad people are on the same side.
The key to explaining this man, and to understanding his genuine fellow-feeling with the former President George W. Bush and with the mindset of the American Right, is his religious outlook. Until you recognise that Mr Blair really does do God — and recognise the way in which he does God — you will miss the philosophical mainspring.
I was, to my shock, confronted with this recently when by chance I encountered Mr Blair outside Westminster Cathedral, where he had been queueing to touch a casket containing the touring bones of a Roman Catholic saint. I was reminded of it again yesterday when, for all his slipperiness in avoiding difficult questions from the Chilcot committee, I got the strongest of impressions that Mr Blair was utterly sincere about the decisions he took on Iraq.
He was asked why, in 2002, his attitude changed to the already well-known risk posed by Saddam Hussein, even though the facts remained the same.
“After September 11,” Blair replied, “I realised we could not take risks with these people at all.” These people. Which people? But Tony Blair does not confuse them. He acknowledges (he did later) that Saddam had no links with al-Qaeda.
Mr Blair does distinguish the many and various dangerous forces around the globe. He distinguishes them but he sees no difference between them.
This was evident later when he was asked about other threats, his questioner citing Yemen, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran. “I’m afraid,” Blair replied “my view is that they’re all part of one picture.”
Tony Blair is a Manichean, or dualist. He believes that the Universe is best understood as an eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil, in contention for dominance. Christians are supposed to believe that the battle is already won, and Mr Blair’s dualism is (paradoxically) closer to Islamic fundamentalism than to the Gospels. For Mr Blair at least “Axis of Evil” was not just a Bushite soundbite: it was a profound philosophical insight into the meaning of world history. Once you understand this, there is no arguing with him.
But as I watched Mr Blair an unfamiliar feeling stole over me. Sympathy. Here was a team of pre-eminently Establishment figures, prodding and needling and raising the occasional eyebrow in discreet incredulity. And all — make no mistake — for a simple reason. Because the war on Iraq turned out badly.
Imagine (I thought) that those weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found. Would we be quibbling about whether the evidence beforehand had been sexed up? Imagine that after the toppling of Saddam a grateful Iraqi nation has linked arms to establish a happy and united democracy.
Would we now be picking over the legal precedents and finer points of international law? Would we be agonising over whether the Attorney-General was or wasn’t arm-twisted into giving that final green light, if the green light had led, in the end, to success? The dubious legal basis for the Iraq occupation was not the reason it went wrong; nor was the failure to find WMDs. And many’s the capricious and hastily planned adventure that nevertheless yields a happy outcome.
When Mr Blair remarked, rather wistfully, yesterday: “It all depends on what happens afterwards as to how people regard your behaviour at the time,” he was surely right.
What will doom Mr Blair’s personal legacy is the lethal confluence of two very different tendencies in British opinion. The first, of course, is those millions who opposed the invasion from before the start — many of us making it clear we would think it a mistake even if it succeeded in its aims. Among us there’s an appetite for rubbing his face in the failures of the mission. We’d be happy to stage one of these inquiries every five years (say) — like a traditional morality play, school Nativity play or pantomime, where the plot and the dramatis personae remain familiar and unchanging, and the audience knows when to boo.
But in recent years a second and, for Mr Blair, more ominous grouping has joined the critical chorus: those who supported the invasion and now feel they have been made fools of by events. They include many instinctive neoconservatives who have been bruised by the disrepute into which the adventure has fallen. They include, too, a range of media commentators and democratic politicians (including many senior Tories) who are embarrassed by positions they once took and feel, perhaps unconsciously, that they’ve got some explaining to do.
They include, most ominously of all, a number who have not really repented of their doctrine of muscular interventionism, are now eyeing up Iran, and badly need to distinguish between what happened last time and what might happen if we try it again.
This brigade of hindsight-doubters share an interest in blaming Mr Blair and Mr Bush personally for their conduct of the mission. The brigade’s unspoken refrain is that there was nothing wrong with the idea (that’s why they supported it) but everything wrong with the bungled execution.
That they have now turned on Tony Blair dooms his legacy in a way that the bleatings of peaceniks like me never could.
And so, as former friends desert, our former leader heads off into the wilderness, a scapegoat burdened down with the consequences of what was, in truth, a bad idea — not a good idea badly executed. Mr Blair will spend the rest of his life (as someone once said of Edward VIII) growing more and more tanned, and more and more tired. Yesterday, and for the first time, I almost pitied him.