The last statesman in Marxist Europe

The most patriotic Americans come from Communist/Socialist countries abroad.. They came here to get away from that life, now we want to throw away, abandon everything that made us great. What made us great wasn't adopting Socialist policies, far from it. We "were" the worlds alternative.

Not so long ago, in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that permitted no alternatives and therefore also no parliamentary opposition. We learned the bitter lesson that with no opposition, there is no freedom.

~ Vaclav Klaus, address before the European Parliament, Feb. 19

Although my memory of Czech leader Vaclav Klaus (president since 2003, re-elected 2008) goes back to his days as prime minister (1992-1997), and to the time of Czechoslovakia's first president, the famous playwright and philosopher Vaclav Havel (1989-1992), I really didn't start actively following the career of this free-market iconoclast until radio host Michael Savage would have him on his show from time to time. This made me think to myself – as much as Savage hates Marxism, liberalism and European-style socialism, for him to have President Klaus on his program for an extended interview meant that Klaus had to be a man of stalwart principles and transcendent intellect. Indeed he is.

On Jan. 1, Klaus was appointed president of the European Union. Although this position is largely ceremonial, the EU is a very important economic cooperative represented by 27 nations and over 470 million people. Since President Klaus has a well-known aversion to European-style socialism and statist controls over the free market, he is set on a collision course with the leaders of the socialist welfare states of Europe now under his authority.

Journalist Dan Bilefsky in a recent article on President Klaus wrote:

An economist by training and a free marketeer by ideology, Klaus has criticized the course set by the union's departing leader, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. The ambitious Sarkozy has used France's European Union presidency to push an agenda that includes broader and more coordinated regulation by the largest economies to tame the worst of the market's excesses.

President Vaclav Klaus is a man after my own heart and makes me and other conservatives here in America yearn for a politician to rise up and become a real statesman in the tradition of Burke, Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan. For example, although he's president of the EU, a conspicuous socialist economic entity, Klaus refuses to sell out his principles and is a tireless advocate of laissez faire free-market capitalism in the tradition of his intellectual mentors, the Austrian-British economist Friedrich Hayek and the American economist and public philosopher Milton Friedman, whose free-market capitalist ideas Reagan used to build 20 years of sustained economic growth here in America.

Don't miss President Vaclav Klaus' book defending the free market against environmental extremism, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles"

Full article here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=89566

Is College a Scam? Me Not Know

This is an important debate we should be having. With the cost of tuition, we need to stop Colleges from bleeding the students dry by requiring them to take courses that are completely unnecessary. With the talking heads screaming about the cost of going to college, how come they never question them when they raise tuition or mandate students to take courses when many of the required courses could be self taught in order to take exams? It is a cash cow for the institutes of higher learning. Many of our founding fathers were self taught, we shouldn't burden those looking to become productive members of society with taking courses unrelated to the chosen profession.



Is college a scam? When it comes to careers like engineering, law, medicine, etc., of course an education is paramount. But answer me this: would an intense series of exams to test the knowledge of applicants for certification as say, a lawyer, not be just as effective as requiring 6+ years of college credit and passing the bar? They both would effectively measure knowledge of the field, but the aforementioned series of exams would not require the credit hours, and better yet the money to acquire those hours. Why is college credit required? Why can't self study, and proof of the necessary knowledge suffice?

I spent four years attaining my degree in a field that has nothing to do with my current occupation. Was it necessary? Well, yes, in order to get my job. But should it be? Perhaps not, it is not as if I am using any of the skills or knowledge from my degree, in a field that is totally unrelated. I could certainly do without the tens of thousands of dollars in debt my education blessed me with.

I'm not advocating the abolishment of the current higher educational system. I am simply posing the question for further thought; simply as an exercise in questioning the status quo.

full story:
http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/02/is-college-scam-me-not-know.html

The Neo-Marxist Change Wheel

The entire Democratic Party has been taken over by neo-Liberals who are Marxist/Socialist/Communist, whatever label you want to put on it. The change came during the 60's and 70's. The anti-war movement of the day was organized by Communists and still are today. The ideology was woven into the curriculum of Colleges across the nation. When it comes to Obama, his Church, his Pastor Rev Wright, followed Black Liberation theology which is a spin-off of Liberation theoology and is another form of Marxism. He idolized the teaching of Rev Wright and studied under the most radical of professors and mentors. His ideology hasn't changed, he only hides it with the smoke and mirrors of hope and change. That change will be to make over America, abandon everything our founding fathers and every soldier fought, bled and died for to resemble their own fantasy land of everlasting harmony. They American people do not realize that Marxism is alive an well in America and many are blind to the fact that we now have one of their most ardent students sitting in the White House today.

Dr. Laurie Roth

Already we are seeing the neo-Marxist cogs in the change wheel manipulating away our freedoms and treasure. Congress and this President have wasted no time; from the executive orders to the manipulative speeches and attachments to the ‘stimulus’ bill that insult and betray the American people.

What is the “change agenda” of this administration and congressional Democrats? It is becoming vividly clear the goal is Socialism and Marxism; neo-Marxism. Freedoms have to boldly go while control has to dramatically grow in all areas for this to happen. Surely no one will notice. After all, half the country wanted change! The other half can be seduced and distracted into silence...or can we?

“Karl Marx said it first: Socialism is not a form of government but is a state, a policed and engineered state in which a nation takes on while in ‘Transition’ from a Capitalist to a Communist society, while the “Communist Utopia” is the ultimate desired outcome of the full transition; a world with no police, no property, no religion, no classes, even no need for government, no war…a fantasy land of everlasting harmony…” – From Hitler, Socialism and the Racial Agenda” Justin Stamm, The Epoch Times.

What are the sucking sounds...draining our freedoms and setting us up for this new world?

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/l_roth/2009/02192009.htm

Home Grown Jihad: Paramilitary training camps in America

We have known about camps and people associated with terrorist groups that are in our country for years. There are countless OTM, other than Mexican illegals from Arab countries that cross our border every month. Why are we unable to crack down on these groups? It is all documented, yet the law is unable to take action. When something happens, all our elected officials will start playing the blame game. Why do we need to be hit and respond to the attacks rather than be pro-active and crack down BEFORE people die? All rhetorical questions, of course we know what the answers are to all these questions.


Sean Hannity speaks with a man who has visited several of these training camps in the United States. There are up to 35 of these training camps across America. Some locations are in New York, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, and as far west as Washington State. These groups continue to exist because federal and state laws protect them. It is pretty unsettling. These groups are a part of an organization called Muslims of America or Jamaat Al-Fuqra. Watch the video at Foxnews.com Videos.

The alleged leader of these groups is Sheik Mubarak Ali Gilani (Mubrik Ali Shah Jilani). He is thought to be responsible for setting up journalist, Daniel Pearl, to be captured and beheaded.

On the evening of February 11, 2009, the Christian Action Network (CAN) held a special showing of Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around the U.S. at the Landmark Theater in Washington, DC. Ryan Mauro, a terrorism analyst for CAN, says the video exposes the terrorist training activities at 35 compounds in the U.S., run by a Pakistani national known as Sheik Muburak Ali Gilani. Compounds identified in the documentary are located near communities like Commerce, Georgia; Hancock, New York; and Red House, Virginia. "You see them setting off explosives, training how to kill guards, highjack cars, all forms of terrorist attacks," Mauro says of the film. "And he actually says on this video if you want training in these tactics [to] contact any of my Muslim in America compounds in the United States."

But Mauro says, incredibly, the U.S. government does not have the authority to shut the camps down. "The big problem here is that his group is not listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department," he points out. "So the authorities don't have the legal authority to go and shut these places down."

http://theflamingblog.com/2009/02/17/homegrownjihad/

136 UFOs Violated U.S. Restricted Airspace

From Covertress..

No, they weren't little green men in flying saucers but, any one of them could have been "terrorists on a plane" with their sights on the next U.S. target.

A startling report from the Government Accountability Office states that there were about 3,400 reported violations of restricted U.S. airspace in the three years immediately following 9/11 (from September 12, 2001, to December 31, 2004.)

Though the report was quick to point out most of the illegal fly-overs were committed by general aviation pilots, it seemed to downplay the amount of incidents where the plane was not identified, graphing the percentage of occurrences (4%) rather than reporting an actual figure.

Simple math reveals that total to be 136 incidents where the FAA could not identify the plane executing the restricted fly-over.

According to FAA, here's how restricted fly-overs are handled:

FAA controllers are to advise the pilots to change their course or altitude if they are on a course toward prohibited or restricted airspace without authorization, or if they are circling or loitering over a sensitive area. Sensitive areas include airspace over dams, nuclear and electrical power plants, chemical storage sites, the location of the President, or military facilities.

Full story at:

http://covertress.blogspot.com/2009/02/136-ufos-violated-us-restricted.html

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yduz6U6U6U

Mr.EPluribus closes out the Honoring America's Heroes segments from the Rose Bowl by visiting with Rolling Thunder's Joy "Chaplain" Jeannette.

Brent Bozell's statement on ABC's George Stephanopoulos and his daily strategy phone calls with Obama chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel. posted on EyeBlast... the rights answer to YouTube.


http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=ydnzVrvknz

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil - When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

Very moving editorial. It is sad that our new President apologized for Bush liberating millions of Muslims and using the term war on terror. Those who liked to bash Bush for "incitement" are the enemies of freedom. The least Pres Obama could have done was acknowledge, like Bush did so many times, that we are not at war with Islam, but terrorism. No, he couldn't do that and now we have people in his Administration that do not take terrorism seriously and would rather not be labeled for offending those who excuse the evil that men do in the name of Allah. They don't want to seem offensive and refuse to speak the truth or defend the innocent people that are the victims of their terror sponsoring leaders.


By JUDEA PEARL
This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former WSJournal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy? The answer does not come easily.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 02 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, oftencloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

Full article here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362422088941893.html