We’re Living ‘1984’ Today (+video)

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: jason ilaganIt appears that the police now have a device that can read license plates and check if a car is unregistered, uninsured or stolen. We already know that the National Security Agency can dip into your Facebook page and Google searches. And it seems that almost every store we go into these days wants your home phone number and ZIP code as part of any transaction.

So when Edward Snowden — now cooling his heels in Russia — revealed the extent to which the NSA is spying on Americans, collecting data on phone calls we make, it’s not as if we should have been surprised. We live in a world that George Orwell predicted in “1984.” And that realization has caused sales of the 1949, dystopian novel to spike dramatically upward recently — a 9,000% increase at one point on Amazon.com.

Comparisons between Orwell’s novel about a tightly controlled totalitarian future ruled by the ubiquitous Big Brother and today are, in fact, quite apt. Here are a few of the most obvious ones.

Telescreens — in the novel, nearly all public and private places have large TV screens that broadcast government propaganda, news and approved entertainment. But they are also two-way monitors that spy on citizens’ private lives. Today websites like Facebook track our likes and dislikes, and governments and private individuals hack into our computers and find out what they want to know. Then there are the ever-present surveillance cameras that spy on the average person as they go about their daily routine.

The endless war — In Orwell’s book, there’s a global war that has been going on seemingly forever, and as the book’s hero, Winston Smith, realizes, the enemy keeps changing. One week we’re at war with Eastasia and buddies with Eurasia. The next week, it’s just the opposite. There seems little to distinguish the two adversaries, and they are used primarily to keep the populace of Oceania, where Smith lives, in a constant state of fear, thereby making dissent unthinkable — or punishable. Today we have the so-called war on terror, with no end in sight, a generalized societal fear, suspension of certain civil liberties, and an ill-defined enemy who could be anywhere, and anything.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Childless City

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: SPLASH NEWS/CORBISWhat is a city for? Ever since cities first emerged thousands of years ago, they have been places where families could congregate and flourish. The family hearth formed the core of the ancient Greek and Roman city, observed the nineteenth-century French historian Fustel de Coulanges. Family was likewise the foundation of the great ancient cities of China and the Middle East. As for modern European cities, the historian Philippe Ariès argued that the contemporary “concept of the family” itself originated in the urbanizing northern Europe shown in Rembrandt’s paintings of bourgeois life. Another historian, Simon Schama, described the seventeenth-century Dutch city as “the Republic of Children.” European immigrants carried the institution of the family-oriented city across the Atlantic to America. In the American city until the 1950s, urbanist Sam Bass Warner observed, the “basic custom” was “commitment to familialism.”

But more recently, we have embarked on an experiment to rid our cities of children. In the 1960s, sociologist Herbert Gans identified a growing chasm between family-oriented suburbanites and people who favored city life—“the rich, the poor, the non-white as well as the unmarried and childless middle class.” Families abandoned cities for the suburbs, driven away by policies that failed to keep streets safe, allowed decent schools to decline, and made living spaces unaffordable. Even the partial rebirth of American cities since then hasn’t been enough to lure families back. The much-ballyhooed and self-celebrating “creative class”—a demographic group that includes not only single professionals but also well-heeled childless couples, empty nesters, and college students—occupies much of the urban space once filled by families. Increasingly, our great American cities, from New York and Chicago to Los Angeles and Seattle, are evolving into playgrounds for the rich, traps for the poor, and way stations for the ambitious young en route eventually to less congested places. The middle-class family has been pushed to the margins, breaking dramatically with urban history. The development raises at least two important questions: Are cities without children sustainable? And are they desirable?

..Demographic trends seem to bear out this vision. Over the past two decades, the percentage of families that have children has fallen in most of the country, but nowhere more dramatically than in our largest, densest urban areas. In cities with populations greater than 500,000, the population of children aged 14 and younger actually declined between 2000 and 2010, according to U.S. Census data, with New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit experiencing the largest numerical drop. Many urban school districts—such as Chicago, which has 145,000 fewer school-age children than it had a decade ago—have seen enrollments plummet and are busily closing schools. The 14-and-younger population increased in only about one-third of all census-designated places, with the greatest rate of growth occurring in smaller urban areas with fewer than 250,000 residents.

Consider, too, the generation of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 in 2000. By 2010, the core cities of the country’s 51 most populous metropolitan areas had lost, on average, 15 percent of that cohort, many of whom surely married and started having children during that period.

Read more from this story HERE.

The End of Republican Party

/8 Comments/in , /by

They call it the Grand Old Party. It may be old, but it’s anything but grand right now.

And the Republicans who replaced the Whigs may soon be as relevant as Andrew Jackson’s party if they are not very careful.

What do I mean?

America is at a politically critical turning point – a point of no return.

If Republicans don’t use the power they have in the House of Representatives to defeat amnesty and defund Obamacare, they risk political obsolescence – as well as a future America with no chance to return to constitutionally limited government.

The way things look right now, Republicans do not have the will or intestinal fortitude even to fight back, let alone play the cards voters overwhelmingly gave them in 2010.

Maybe Republicans need a reminder: They control one-half of a bicameral legislature – the half needed to approve all funding for all programs, agencies, departments and initiatives of the federal government.

Republicans have the power to kill Obamacare by defunding it. They don’t need a single Democratic vote.

Read more from this story HERE.

Climate Change ‘Experts’: You Should be Dead by Now

/9 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: MDGovpicsAny thinking person (that leaves out Al Gore) knows that science is never “settled.” Further, as Galileo taught us, there is no such thing as science by “consensus.” Famed physicist Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” This is a great truism to keep in mind when encountering climate alarmists who promote themselves as “experts.”

According to a theory proposed by climate scientists known as the “hydrate hypothesis,” global warming will melt the permafrost in the polar regions, suddenly releasing massive amounts of methane hydrate into the atmosphere. Since methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, climate Armageddon will ensue.

An article compiled by John Stokes in the “socially progressive” newspaper and blog The Canadian, contends that the resulting climate devastation will kill an estimated 4.5 billion people in five years. The only problem with this prediction is that the article was written in 2007. What was our fate to be?…

Read more from this story HERE.

Can You Have Economic Prosperity and a Presidential “War” on Carbon Energy?

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Irish CentralI have been writing on the need for America to take advantage of the vast energy resources it has below the surface in order to become completely energy independent. Not only will this make our economy leap forward, it will vastly improve our national security by not having us dependent on foreign sources.

I invited Dick Storm to give us his perspective from an energy producers standpoint on the state of America’s quest to become energy independent. Web: Citizens for Common Sense Policies.

Dick is an expert in power generation. He started out as a results engineer with Babcock and Wilcox (USA). Over the next 30 years, he held several positions in the energy industry including Senior Service Engineer with Riley Stoker Corp., Principal Engineer-start-up and testing at Carolina Power and Light, and department head of Technical Services at Flame Refractories, Inc.,

In 1992 Dick founded Storm Technologies, Inc., a well established company of Engineers and Combustion Specialists that has worked around the world:

Beneath the average American Citizen’s radar are the ever increasing regulations that cause irreparable harm. For those of us productively employed in the energy industries, we know first-hand how President Obama and the Senate Democrats through federal agencies and their regulations, cripple America’s productive capacity.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute the total costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.806 trillion in 2012. For the first time, this amounts to more than half of total federal spending. It is more than the GDPs of Canada or Mexico.

Then there are the obvious assaults on our domestic energy supply such as the Keystone Pipeline, the ban on offshore oil production, the sealing off of federal lands for energy production and the “War on Coal.”

Since President Obama has been in office, over 100 coal plants planned to power America in 2008, have been canceled or delayed. These would have provided millions of jobs, not only in the construction of them but in the support and manufacturing sectors as well

In a classic example of how he ignores economic realities, President Obama during his recent trip to Africa, lectured Africans to not make our mistakes in using carbon based fuels. Even though America has done pretty well using carbon based fuels, being the most advanced society in the world.

Today traditional Fossil fuels plus nuclear provide over 90% of America’s total energy. A clear example of Obama’s fecklessness on energy is to stand in front of a group and discuss the benefits of “Green Energy” when America and his administration depend so much on traditional fossil fuels.

The job killing poisons that are harming American public health are not the exhaust gases of power plants; it is the regulations that are spewing from Washington. One of the greatest threats to the American lifestyle that we all came to enjoy is the Obama Administration and their “War on Carbon.”

Our challenge is to educate the general public, to make them aware of how Obama, aided and abetted by the Democrat’s in the Senate and Environmental Extremists, are weakening America.

Much of this will not be understood until it is too late. Once manufacturing capability and infrastructure is killed, it is very difficult to rebuild.

One energy equipment manufacturing example is the American Nuclear Industry. Once thriving and employing hundreds of thousands of highly skilled factory workers, engineers, technicians and administrative people. Now the nuclear industry in America is a bare skeleton of what it once was.

The great Westinghouse Nuclear division was sold off years ago to Toshiba. Now, if a new nuclear power plant is built, most of the components will be “Globally Sourced”. That is code for, “Not Made in America.”

Take mining say for rare earth materials or copper, such as the Alaskan Pebble Mine. Yes, the EPA is against these too. Did you ever hear of the UN Agenda 21? Well if weakening America and spreading your wealth to the rest of the world is the goal of Agenda 21, which just may be at the heart of the Obama agenda. It certainly is not the best interests for America.

_____________________________________

Ed Farnan is the conservative columnist at IrishCentral, where he has been writing on the need for energy independence, strong self defense, secure borders, 2nd amendment, smaller government and many other issues. His articles appear in many publications throughout the USA and world. He has been a guest on Fox News and a regular guest on radio stations in the US and Europe.

Brent Bozell to GOP on Obamacare: “You Fund It, You Own It”

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: CNSNewsAt the launch of a campaign to deny any further funding for implementation of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, dubbed “You Fund it, You Own It,” Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, a non-profit 501(c) organization, said Republicans in Congress will be held accountable for their upcoming budget votes.

“This is a ‘Come to Jesus’ moment for Republicans,” Bozell said at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday co-hosted by the Tea Party Patriots. “They better get religion soon.”

“The voters out there are unequivocally fed up with inaction from those who promised action,” Bozell said.

“It’s a very simple proposition,” Bozell said. “If you fund it, you own it.”

Bozell and Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, were joined by members of Congress and other grassroots groups at the event.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Idiotic Grand Bargain: ‘If GOP Raises Corporate Taxes, I’ll Spend More on Public Works and Obamacare’

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Getty ImagesBy Wall Street Journal. In Chattanooga on Tuesday, the latest stop on his economic inequality tour, President Obama made himself an offer he couldn’t refuse. If Congressional Republicans agree to a corporate tax increase, he said, then he’ll agree to spend more money on his favorite public-works projects. If Republicans bargain hard, will he also offer an expansion of ObamaCare as a sweetener?

We know this sounds like an exaggeration, but that’s the essence of what the President proposed as what he called a new “grand bargain.” Mr. Obama will agree to reform the corporate tax code—a GOP priority and one even the President claims to support—but only if the reform raises more revenue and only if he is allowed to spend that windfall on his priorities.

A White House press release clarified that the President would also like to raise taxes on individuals, not just businesses, while allowing federal spending to rise still higher. But showing they retain a sense of humor in the West Wing, the press release suggests that the President is willing to forgo this tax increase for now because he wants to “work with Republicans.”

This isn’t a serious proposal, and he knows it. It also isn’t bipartisan, since he is offering a compromise with appeal to the ideological spectrum running from Elizabeth Warren to Chuck Schumer. Perhaps these are the only Members of Congress whom Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has in his iPhone.

The real bipartisan reform opportunity would be to get behind the chief Senate and House tax writers, Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Dave Camp. They’ve been holding hearings on tax reform for years, and Mr. Baucus has even invited all Senators to send him a list of tax provisions they’d like to retain and why. Read more from this story HERE.

________________________________________________________________

Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough

By The Free Press.

President Obama,

Welcome to Chattanooga, one of hundreds of cities throughout this great nation struggling to succeed in spite of your foolish policies that limit job creation, stifle economic growth and suffocate the entrepreneurial spirit.

Forgive us if you are not greeted with the same level of Southern hospitality that our area usually bestows on its distinguished guests. You see, we understand you are in town to share your umpteenth different job creation plan during your time in office. If it works as well as your other job creation programs, then thanks, but no thanks. We’d prefer you keep it to yourself.

That’s because your jobs creation plans so far have included a ridiculous government spending spree and punitive tax increase on job creators that were passed, as well as a minimum wage increase that, thankfully, was not. Economists — and regular folks with a basic understanding of math — understand that these are three of the most damaging policies imaginable when a country is mired in unemployment and starving for job growth.

Even though 64 percent of Chattanooga respondents said they would rather you hadn’t chosen to visit our fair city, according to a survey on the Times Free Press website, it’s probably good that you’re here. It will give you an opportunity to see the failure of your most comprehensive jobs plan to date, the disastrous stimulus scheme, up close and personal. Read more from this story HERE.

Defunding: The Framers’ Remedy for Presidential Lawlessness
 


/8 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: American Spectator President Obama does not have the authority to choose which parts of the law are enforced. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously against President Richard Nixon’s inflated claims that he could selectively carry out the law. But going to court to keep presidents in line is slow and necessitates finding litigants to sue the president. The framers gave Congress a more practical way to resist a power-hungry president: defunding. Defunding is precisely what members of Congress are supposed to do when a president breaks the law. It’s checks and balances in action. Two centuries ago, the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution James Madison declared in Federalist No. 58 that Congress’s authority over spending is the “most complete and effectual tool” to stop a president from grabbing more power than the Constitution allows.


Utah Senator Mike Lee is taking a page out of Madison’s playbook. On July 17 Lee urged Congress to vote against any continuing resolution to fund the federal government after September 30 so long as it funds Obamacare. “Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not…[by] the president, who has now amended Obamacare twice. Once by saying individuals have to comply with the law during their first year but employers don’t. Then in saying we aren’t even going to require people to prove their income.” Lee said that if the administration is not prepared to fully enforce Obamacare as enacted, it should agree to delay the entire law and remove its funding from the budget. Eleven fellow Republican Senators and at least 60 Republican House members have signed on to Lee’s defunding stance.

Lee’s constitutional case is air tight. Yet the Democratic Party and Obama’s supporters in the media are trying to label the defunding strategy “government sabotage,” “radicalism,” and “obstructionism.” They need a refresher course on the Constitution.

Read more from this story HERE.

Tit for Tat on Preferred Legislation

/2 Comments/in , /by

If liberals can refuse to defend laws that they don’t like, then conservatives can refuse to fund those that they deem undesirable.

As most who follow politics well know, on the issue of marriage, twice recently, liberals refused to honor the law when it comes to marriage. Of course, as we also know, such efforts were successful.

Particularly troubling was the case involving California’s Proposition 8. Because the state of California refused to defend Prop 8 in court, it was left up to plaintiffs without legal “standing” to do so…Since the state of California still refuses to defend what was passed by their citizens, same-sex marriages were allowed to resume in California. In other words, California officials scanned the political landscape and deemed it now safe to simply ignore the law.

Other states are taking notice. Earlier this month, the Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, announced that her office would not defend her state’s ban (since 1996) on recognizing same-sex marriages.

Liberals across the country seem to be perfectly content with this approach. However, they will howl like rabid dogs whenever it is proposed that the House GOP may consider a similar approach when it comes to funding Obamacare. As some conservative pundits have recently noted, most notably Rush Limbaugh, there are republicans that are also balking at the proposition of not funding Obamacare.

Read more from this story HERE.

Sex Crimes in the Military: A Response to Senator McCaskill and her Conservative Supporters

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: DVIDSHUBThe military is a specialized community. Commanders have unique control over their soldiers’ lives and for good reason—they are responsible for the health, welfare, and combat readiness of their units. A commander’s raison d’être is good order and discipline within his or her unit, whether on a ship, in a combat zone, or in garrison; and a commanders’ purview extends to preferring charges to initiate the courts-martial process when a soldier has been accused of a crime. However, a move is afoot led by Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to remove commanders from that role in the military justice system when allegations of sexual assault and rape exist.

Senator Gillibrand is widely quoted as saying, “Commanders aren’t objective. Commanders may have different training, different perspectives. They may or may not want women in the armed forces. They may not understand what sexual assault is, or what constitutes rape. They may not agree, what is a rape or not a rape.” Similarly, Senator McCaskill claims that removing commanders from the process will result in “more and better prosecutions.”

Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill’s position not only casts doubt on the judgment of the very officers to whom we entrust the lives of our young soldiers in the most stressful and life-threatening of situations, but it also betrays a fundamentally poor understanding of the military justice system. In general terms, when there is an alleged sexual assault in the military, it is investigated by Criminal Investigations Division (CID) or an independent investigating officer or both.

A Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer then looks at that independent investigation to ensure that it is thorough and sufficient. Based on the investigation, a JAG officer, again independent, advises the commander regarding whether to bring forward the charges or not. Well over 95% of the time, the commander follows the JAG officer’s recommendation. In recent years, the Army has added Special Victim Prosecutors (SVPs) into the mix. SVPs are JAG officers who specialize in prosecuting sexual assaults, and as part of their education must go through an internship with civilian SVPs in a major metropolitan district attorney’s office.

Critics like Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill, who often cite a “low” conviction rate as evidence that the system does not work and that the military is not taking sexual assault seriously, have turned reality on its head. Military SVP’s will tell you that “low” conviction rates are a direct consequence of taking the very hardest cases to trial, cases that their civilian counterparts would never touch. Most are classic “he-said, she-said” cases that involve intoxication by both parties and actions and words by the accuser that strongly indicate consent. This sort of evidence rarely will produce a conviction. Indisputably, the military, like the U.S. culture as a whole, has room to improve in creating an environment free from sexual harassment and assault. However, diluting a commander’s authority within his or her unit is not the solution for this issue and will compromise what a commander does best—command.