Prismatic Transparency Pt. 2

Still reading the May 2010 National Security Strategy. It is amazing how aloof our President is. As if he lives in a world of peace, love and cotton candy. Under the section titled "Pursuing Comprehensive Engagement" the following reads

"Succesful engagement will depend upon the effective use and integration of different elements of American power. Our diplomacy and development capabilities must help prevent conflict, spur economic growth, strengthen weak and failing states, lift people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease, and strengthen institutions of democratic governance."

• Prevent conflict - Why? What's to gain by that? We would still be under the rule of England if our revolutionary conflict were prevented. One of the smartest things ever said by President John F. Kennedy, in reference to the Vietnam conflict before it got fully underway, was "It's their war, let them fight it."
• Spur economic growth - In what way are we talking about? Oh, I get it... globalization. We'll ship more American jobs overseas to spur the economic growth of another country. Is that a great idea or what?
• Strengthen weak and failing states - I believe the "bailout" metaphor works nicely here. If a business is failing, it is best to allow said business to heal itself or die. In the case of a country, the same should hold true. It is up to the peoples of any nation to make due for themselves. Except in such instances where tyranny is the cause for national insolvency. In this regard ONLY, should another government interfere with the sovereignty of another nation.
• Lift people out of poverty - Sounds like welfare to me. Is this an allusion to a new policy of "stimulus" for entitlements? We can't even afford our own welfare entitlements, what makes this administration think it can afford to prop up those of other countries?
• Combat climate change - Interesting choice of words. To combat... does that mean Green Peace will now train as a para-military pressence to enforce cap and trade? I'm sure some of you have seen that cable show "Whale Wars", where animal rights activists COMBAT whaling ships. It seems like it is only a matter of time before environmentalists take up guns and terrorize businesses for their percieved carbon foot print.

Interjection - Nothing thwarts Earth in her own forces. This world will take care of itself. If man causes too much damage to her, then Earth will let us know by killing off every insectile human who dwells on her surface. That doesn't mean that I think we should allow toxic waste to be dumped in our streams or let the oil in the gulf just sit on the shorelines. But it does mean that man should not hold down man with an iron fist for using Earth's resources to improve life. If a hippie wants to live barefoot and naked in the woods they should be allowed to, but to enforce such a minimalistic lifestyle on the masses is unrealistic and undermines personal freedom.

The next section is titled "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order". The first paragraph alone speaks volumes to its intents.

"Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable international order—just, because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all, and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges."

Friends and neighbors, this is Socialism on a worldwide scale. Just how just can it be?

• Advances mutual interests - Mutual interests do not exist on a global scale. What's good for one nation is often times bad for another. Like globalization, shipping American jobs overseas is bad for us, but good for the country who is taking them.
• Protects the rights of all - This is an impossibility. Does that mean an international order will protect Israel's right to exist, while simultaneously protecting Hezbollah's "right" to wipe them off the face of the Earth? When enacting laws for one group of people, you oppositely alienate another group of people. It is a paradox.
• Holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities - So, the responsibility of a sovereign nation to do what it is told by a global authority, thus negating said nation's sovereignty. Another paradox.

Sustainable... yeah, only in political theory, but not in reality.

• Based on broadly shared norms - This means, in socialist parlance, that whatever the majority of a particular issue wants is what is adopted into the plan. That's the democracy part of Democratic-Socialism (an oxymoron in and of itself). But because that becomes the plan, any deviations from the means to that end are disregarded. Because it is impossible to quantify the personal needs of every individual, it is impossible for a one-size-fits-all plan to maintain effectuality, and therefore is unsustainable. The only "broadly shared norm" is that we are human and work toward our own individual ends.
• Fosters collective action - Another allusion to collectivism (as discussed in previous post), which is purposely ambiguous in its usage with "broadly shared norms" to not specify what those particular norms are, or what, if any, "collective action" is to be taken. This is highly important to the function of a socialist system for the sole purpose of my previous point in that not one plan will ever be agreed upon.
• Addresses common challenges - By keeping terms limited to "general welfare", "general interest", "common good", "common purpose", "social goal", etc. it becomes a tool of those in executive power to effect their own idealogical ends. Inevitably it becomes evident that no one can agree on anything (abortion, gay marriage, economy and politics are all good examples of this) and that nothing is getting done. This is when it is deemed neccessary to suspend democratic process in the name of the "common good" to appoint a legislative council or even an autocrat with supreme power to get things done. We've seen this happen before. That's how Germany got Adolph Hitler. And we see it today with the President's commissions and czars on everything from healthcare to the BP debacle.

Below, the President expresses his love for a one world government. Even if he does admit it has its flaws. He seems to believe that those flaws are reconcilable.

"In recent years America’s frustration with international institutions has led us at times to engage the United Nations (U.N.) system on an ad hoc basis. But in a world of transnational challenges, the United States will need to invest in strengthening the international system, working from inside international institutions and frameworks to face their imperfections head on and to mobilize transnational cooperation. We must be clear-eyed about the factors that have impeded effectiveness in the past. In order for collective action to be mobilized, the polarization that persists across region, race, and religion will need to be replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest. Swift and effective international action often turns on the political will of coalitions of countries that comprise regional or international institutions. New and emerging powers who seek greater voice and representation will need to accept greater responsibility for meeting global challenges. When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them."

Replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest? Where is this mythic land where region, race, and religion cease to be polarizing issues? I wanna go there... Do they call it Shangri-la-la land? Has civilization really evolved to such utopian proportions that we would be willing to give up the sovereignty of our nation? And how exactly is this galvanized sense of shared interest suppossed to happen? Well, let's think about this...

... I remember the morning of September 11th, 2001 very clearly, and even the few months following. It sure seemed then that there was a galvanizing sense of shared interest to go kick the sh!t out of some terrorist cowards. Or possibly this administration's moratorium on offshore drilling because of the galvanizing sense of shared interest that we could suffer another catastrophe.

Both of these scenarios have multiple conspiracy theories attached to them. Some say the Bush administration worked in collusion with al-qaida to mobilize the military industrial complex. Some say that Obama had the Deep Water Horizon rig sabotaged (and possibly the West Virginia coal mine incident) to advance the progressive cap and trade agenda.

A galvanizing sense of shared interest. Man, what on Earth could invoke such a sense? There are only two things I can think of that would transcend the issues of region, race, and religion and cause a galvanizing sense of shared interest.

1. An asteroid hurtling toward Earth that would wipe out mankind indeffinitely.
2. Jesus drives a shiny white Cadillac back to Earth to clean house.

Unless of course what causes the galvinization is in response to a threat of worldly origin. Such as the deliberate collapse of a national economy for the purposes of driving the masses into the embrace of Socialism.

Ever heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Look it up, it will explain a lot. Basically, the strategy is to "organize" poor and ethnic communities for the sake of getting them on welfare. This "community organizing" educates the people... not on how to better themselves, no... it educates them on how to drain the system. Once enough people are on welfare it will bankrupt the nation, thus causing mass panic and rioting due to hunger and homelessness, at which time the progressives believe the conditions will be ripe for Socialism.

The last sentence of the paragragh, "When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them.", is a very dangerous proposition. In advancing this international order or one world government, we give up our rights to govern ourselves. If the central body of government is the United Nations, then those international norms will be based on what the majority of countries deem them to be. Unfortunately, America's "norms" vastly differ from those of most other countries.

There is a lot in the National Security Strategy that I do agree with, and I believe that our President has good intentions... or at least, I hope and pray he does. For as intelligent as he seems to be, you'd think that he'd have researched Socialism and its pitfalls before acting in a way that advances its principles. Hmm... food for thought.

Thanks for reading.... more to come later.

Prismatic Transparency

I'm currently reading the President's National Security Strategy from Whitehouse.gov, drafted May 2010. With curious concepts like "international order" and "international norm" it reads more like a Global Security Strategy. However, I believe that "security", in this regard, is a concept invoked in the interest of Government rather than that of its people.



While it is true that global economy, finance and trade are interconnected, it is not true that "international order" will help to bring prosperity to the masses. In fact, it will only serve to limit production, increase tax burdens and create a new caste system in which personal freedom and liberty will give way to abuse, corruption and tyranny. The words used in this National Security Strategy of good intentions may be eloquently written, and posting this document to Whitehouse.gov may be an effort at transparency, but the only thing transparent about this administration's strategy are the lies that can be seen through its prism.



An excerpt from the text reads "Engagement is the active participation of the United States in relationships beyond our borders. It is, quite simply, the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes. Indeed, America has never succeeded through isolationism. As the nation that helped to build our international system after World War II and to bring about the globalization that came with the end of the Cold War, we must reengage the world on a comprehensive and sustained basis."

Interjection-
[Globalization is a controversial subject. Proponents believe that it helps poor countries to modernize in order to compete globally with industrialized nations through employment and technology. Critics believe it undermines national sovereignty by outsourcing industry overseas where labor is cheaper (or done by slaves, sweatshop workers, or children).]

Another excerpt reads "Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms."

There is that concept again "international norms". Is that a reference to laws? What else would there be to enforce? Hmm.... curious. Go on....

"Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict and pandemic disease."

Well, at least the text affirms that there are shortcomings in the international system, but the important phrase to note is italicized in bold. To strenghthen international institutions would be to give greater power and authority to the United Nations and NATO (further undermining national sovereignty). To galvanize collective action is akin to "central planning", a tenet of Collectivism (which to the uninformed is a political system upon which socialism, communism, and fascism are based). This is fun... I feel like I'm learning something. Let's go on....

"The starting point for that collective action will be our engagement with other countries. The cornerstone of this engagement is the relationship between the United States and our close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East - ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and the broader security and prosperity of the world. We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence - including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia - so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, in no longer a zero sum game. We are expanding our outreach to emerging nations, particularly those that can be models of regional success and stability, from the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia. And we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions."

I have to disagree with the above italicized statment in bold. To engage in this collective action for international order, power would become confined to a zero sum game. America has long been the brightest beacon of individual freedom and liberty in world history. We have also been uniquely positioned as the mightiest nation on Earth. We have used our power in the world to overthrow oppressive despots, tyrants and sycophants, rescue Europe in its darkest hour, and cause the collapse of a communist giant (U.S.S.R.). It would be foolish for the United States to cede that power to anyone. An international order would allot zero power to any one nation, in effect making it near impossible to get anything accomplished. This brings us to the concept of Collectivism.

Collectivism can only work with "central planning", meaning that a central body dictates what is produced and how it is equitably distributed. But it breaks down in that it presupposes that a single plan of action will work for everyone. I'm sure you've heard the idiom "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". But under collectivism, the only asshole farting will be that of the central governing body. Tasteless joke, I know, but so is Socialism. A single plan of action doesn't take any individual concerns into account. Which means that if the gov is set up as christian, then all other religions will not be tolerated. If you are gay in a straight nation, you're screwed. If you're ethnicity differs from that of the "norm", then you will be removed or eliminated. Okay.... let's move on...

"This engagement will underpin our commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities. International institutions must more effectively represent the world of the 21st century, with a broader voice - and greater responsibilities - for emerging powers, and they must be modernized to more effectively generate results on issues of global interest."

The text seems to suggest that we should modernize third world countries to ensure they produce for the benefit of the global interest. That's interesting... that sounds just like the downside to globalization that I was talking about earlier. Weird.

"Constructive national steps on issues ranging from nuclear security to climate change must be incentivized, so nations that choose to do their part see the benefits of responsible action. Rules of the road must be followed, and there must be consequences for those nations that break the rules - whether they are nonproliferation obligations, trade agreements, or human rights commitments."

This just keeps getting better. Incentivized... I like it. We create incentives for them to do the right thing. Obviously they won't do the right thing without incentive to do so. How do we create those incentives? Well, we impose sanctions, cut off trade, threaten military action. Oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like coercion. Like a shakedown or other mafia tactics. What else is interesting about the last paragraph? In the italicized bold above we see that there will be consequences for those nations who do not abide by the rules of (radicals) the road. Wasn't it mentioned earlier though about China and the Middle East? Aren't those some of the worst human rights offenders around? It seems the muck just gets thicker as you go along.

More to come later..... I've got a lot of research to do in order to do this right, so check back often. Thanks for reading.

Hell's Road, Paved With Good Intentions

The scariest part of our downward spiral into Socialism, is that too many supporters and proponents of the idea don't recognize what needs to be done in order to advance their agenda. They don't seem to understand that liberties will have to be suspended and freedoms revoked. That businesses will fail in large part to crippling regulations and restrictions required by nationalization.

Many proponents of socialism, progressivism or by whatever other name you want to call it, I believe, have good intentions. They care about their neighbors, communities, etc. They want to see their fellow man prosper. No one likes to see the homless people begging on street corners, no one likes to see the face of a starving child, no one takes comfort in the dismal rate of unemployment in this country, and EVERYONE wants to find a solution. But government control is not the answer.

History Lesson #1: After World War I, Germany was broke, its people were starving and they had to do something about it. Along comes the National Socialist Party with a plan to put things right. Their plan includes government control of the means of production and nationalization of all industry. In their desperation, they legally granted dictatorial authority to their democratically elected Chancellor, Adolph Hitler, who had promised to lead Germany to prosperity. Promising them a great change. We know what happened from there, and prosperity never makes an appearance in that story.

Sound familiar? It almost reads like contemporary news headlines. Government takes control of auto industry, healthcare, soon energy and climate. Legislation for government control of water, ALL water, even your own private well or the creek that runs through your property. The oil industry is next. You don't think so? Well, if the progressives have their way, that's exactly what will happen. I'm not a fortune teller, clairvoyant, mystic, prophet or seer, but anyone who has eyes and half a brain can see and intuit what will happen if we continue down this spiral to Socialism.

Don't believe me? You don't have to. Just ask yourself a couple of questions.

1.) Is Government efficient?
2.) Is Government effective?

If you answered yes to either of the questions, then the Gov. entity you have in mind is probably the Internal Revenue Service. Being the only one that really follows through with their beuracracy. Otherwise, the answer is a resounding NO!!

I live in Alaska where summer is affectionately referred to as "construction season". I see the construction crews, often times, just standing around. Or they set up their equipment and then leave. The "flaggers", who stand there with a sign, guess how much money they make? Seriously, you won't believe it.... between $27 and $36 per hour. Because they are Union workers earning money from Government contracts. Not only do they get paid well, but they get a pension, health benefits, can't get fired and can be as lazy as they want. Kinda makes you want to go work for a Union, doesn't it? That's the inefficiency I'm talking about.

How many days has it been since the deep water Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf? I believe we are on day 72 and not only is the clean up effort painfully slow, but the well head is still gushing millions of gallons of oil. The Government isn't any closer to fixing this problem than they are to having an exit startegy for our wars in the Middle East. That's the reality of the Government's ineffectuality.

History Lesson #2: When this country gained its independence from the tyranny of King George of England, a Constitution was drafted to grant liberty and ensure freedom for the people. Our government was set up in three branches to provide checks and balances so that not one branch of government could seize more power than another. The Executive Branch and the Presidency were set up for the sole purpose of National Security.

Our current President acts more like a Legislator and policy maker. Under our Constitution, that authority is delegated to the Legislative Branch of government (being the Senate and House of Representatives, for those who don't know). By issuing Executive Orders, our current President flexes a power that does not belong to him. Disregarding the Constitution as some aging document that doesn't apply to our current state of liberty and freedom.

Our current President also acts like a Litigator and Judge. When he passes judgment on the legality of Arizona's immigration law and vows to sue them on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, he is overstepping his bounds. Especially when it was Arizona who is doing the President's job for him. Our breached borders are a matter of National Security, (the President's job) and without his direct involvement, Arizona has stepped up.

The point, is that our current President is beginning to act like a dictator. That soon, the progressive agenda will be forced down our throats until we wake up one day to Totalitarianism. The progressives and democratic-socialists' heads will spin at how fast they regret getting us all into this mess once they realize that what they tried to do with good intentions, has done nothing but damn us into oppression.