Category Archives: Occupy Wall Street

The Triangle of Freedom

America is missing the most important component of freedom

guinnessIn his book, “UNSPEAKABLE – “Facing up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror,”  Os Guinness lays out a clear minded view of this moment in time. Of particular importance to Americans is the following section of his book, focusing on the “American Experiment.” He points out that we have forgotten an ingredient of our system that is more important that all the others. The following is directly from his book.

http://www.amazon.com/Unspeakable-Facing-Up-Challenge-Evil/dp/0060833009


“The Framers’ Forgotten Issue

The second grand erosion concerns the contemporary dismissal of the American Framers’ solution for the problems of freedom. For the brilliant generation that devised what George Washington called the “great experiment,” the hardest problem to solve was the transience of freedom. Not only is it harder to be free than not to be free, but freedom never lasts. In politics, as in all spheres of human endeavor, no success is forever. Success finally fails. The challenge therefore is not just to win freedom (the achievement of the revolution in 1776), or even to order freedom (the achievement of the Constitution in 1787); the challenge is to sustain freedom⎯an achievement that is never finished because it is the challenge not of years or even decades, but of centuries.

The Framers’ realism in tackling this task was born of their knowledge of history, and in particular their intimate knowledge of the classical understanding of why freedom never lasts. They used history to defy history, and the roots of their wisdom are the key to understanding the revolution of their solutions.

For such writers as the Roman statesman Cicero and the Greek historian Polybius, there were three menaces to sustaining freedom: external menaces from other powers, and two internal menaces⎯the corruption of customs and the passing of time. The American experiment was designed to counteract all three.

If asked today what the Framers’ solution was, most Americans cite the distinctive seperation of powers in the Constitution, and this is indeed a crucial part of the solution.

But in fact, the ingenius American system of checks and balances is only half of the framers’ solution, and in the framers’ view, it would be inadequate without the other part. The forgotten part of the framers’ solution may be called the enduring triangle of freedom: freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith of some sort, and faith requires freedom. Only so can a free republic hope to remain free.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” Benjamin Franklin said in support of the first assumption, and the framers’ unanimity on this point is a powerful chorus in his support. At the same time they were equally clear that law alone is not enough to restrain evil and sustain freedom. As John Adams put it⎯and the support was again overwhelming⎯”We have no government armed with powers capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The force of the framers’ declaration of this triangle of freedom is undeniable. But it is equally undeniable that many American leaders dismiss or overlook it today. On the one hand, the majority of believers in America have a faith so privatized that it has become “privately engaging and publicly irrelevant”⎯too amiably innocuous to serve the strenuous cause of freedom. On the other hand, the educated elite have espoused a different vision of public life, one in which faith, character and virtue are to be inviolably private and the public square⎯a neutral arena of competing interrests⎯is to be inviolably secular.

The framers’ arguments can be dismissed in one of several ways. Some argue that their views were only a matter of rhetoric and cant, though they themselves denied this. Others argue that they were children of their times, but a study of other republicans of their day shows this was not so. Finally, still others argue, we moderns have discovered some sustaining power for freedom that does what the framers thought the triangle of freedom was needed to do.

This last possibility is the most plausible, though people that make this claim should openly declare what the substitute is. Most people have nothing convincing to say at this point and fall back lamely on the answers of law and technology. A moment’s thought, however, would show that reliance on law without faith or virtue only produces more laws and greater regulations, just as reliance on technology without faith and virtue produces tighter and tighter systems of surveillance. In either case, freedom is steadily undermined.

It is also possible that the framers were not indulging in high-flying rhetoric better suited for the Fourth of July but were in fact correct⎯soundly, solidly correct with all the realism and wisdom of history and political theory on their side. For America to “work,” Americans must cultivate the virtues necessary for freedom and ensure that they are passed from generation to generation. This is the political challenge of our times. Without this triangle of freedom, freedom cannot and will not last. If we celebrate freedom but remove from it all virtue until no good remains, we will not only lose freedom but ensure that what is left is evil. Thus, if the framers were correct, the contemporary adulation of their genius that ignores the heart of their realism and brilliance is a fateful neglect that tips the scales toward some future evil that no checks and balances will be able to stop.

– by Os Guinness – Copyright © 2005


(Note: 2005 was before America elected Barack Obama)

To clarify my point, if our culture continues into moral ruin, with LGBT, 50 Shades of Perversion, abortion on demand and every other sin, we cannot continue to be free. Our freedom will surely and soon be taken away from us unless we repent and call out to God for forgiveness.

reprobate

Official holiday pic of the Obamas, before they took off for balmy Hawaii.

President and Mrs. Obama bring you a teachable moment

[rep-ruh-beyt]
noun
1. a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
adjective
3. morally depraved; unprincipled; bad.
4. rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
verb (used with object), reprobated, reprobating.
5. to disapprove, condemn, or censure.
6. (of God) to reject (a person), as for sin; exclude from the number of the elect or from salvation.


Proverbs 6:12-19

A troublemaker and a villain,
who goes about with a corrupt mouth,
who winks maliciously with his eye,
signals with his feet
and motions with his fingers,
who plots evil with deceit in his heart—
he always stirs up conflict.

Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant;
he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.


Count the details in the description in Proverbs.
It seems our president has scored 100%!

Obama downplays blood-thirsty ISIS but targets right-wing Americans as extremist terrorists

The jihadists who call themselves the Islamic State (formerly ISIS or ISIL) are Islamic fundamentalists who, convinced that the apocalypse is imminent and that they are its agents, are committed to purifying the world in the name of Allah by killing vast numbers of people. (See “Major U.S. magazine breaks with Obama admin by calling ISIS Islamic and apocalyptic“)

But Barack Obama simply refuses to call the Islamic State, who now controls a third of Syria, as either Islamic or a state. Instead, in his speech of Sept. 10, 2014 and since, he calls ISIS jihadists — who have been slaughtering Christians in Iraq, Syria, and most recently beheading 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya — generic “terrorists.”

Incredibly, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf recently proclaimed that America can’t win against the Islamic State “by killing them” and ought instead to focus on addressing their root problem of a poor economy and a lack of job opportunities.

While treating the jihadists with denial and kid gloves, Obama doesn’t hesitate to identify millions of “right wing” Americans as “extremist terrorists,” the latest example being an intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Evan Perez and Wes Bruer report for CNN, Feb. 20, 2015, that a new intelligence assessment, circulated by the DHS this month, focuses on the “domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists,” who reject government authority, carry out sporadic terror attacks on police, and threaten to attack other government buildings.

Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS.​

Note: The sovereign citizen movement is a loosely affiliated group of Americans who believe they are free people and reject many elements of federal, state and local governance, including, but not limited to, taxation. According to Colorado Prowers County Undersheriff Ron Trowbridge, he was told at a Colorado State Police training session on April 1, 2013, that sovereign citizen groups include Americans who believe the United States was founded on godly principles and “fundamentalist” Christians who take the Bible literally. (See Trail Dust’s “Have you ever heard of a ‘Sovereign Citizen’?“)

The DHS report, produced in coordination with the FBI, defines sovereign citizens as “extremists” who believe they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order. The report counts 24 “violent” sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010, including:

  • In 2012, a father and son allegedly engaged in a shootout with police in Louisiana in which two officers were killed and several others wounded. The confrontation began with an officer pulling them over for a traffic violation. The men were sovereign citizen “extremists” who claimed police had no authority over them.
  • In 2013, a man who held anti-government views carried out a shooting attack on three Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees at Los Angeles International Airport, killing one TSA officer.
  • In 2014, a couple killed two police officers and a bystander at a Las Vegas Walmart store.

Other findings in the DHS intelligence assessment include:

  • An expectation that sovereign citizen “violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect’s home, during enforcement stops and at government offices.”
  • “Law enforcement officers will remain the primary target of (sovereign citizen) violence over the next year due to their role in physically enforcing laws and regulations.”

Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, said that by some estimates, there are as many as 300,000 people involved in some way with sovereign citizen extremism, with a core of perhaps 100,000. Potok says sovereign citizen groups have attracted support because of poor economic conditions. Some groups travel the country pitching their ideology as a way to help homeowners escape foreclosure or get out of debt by simply ignoring the courts and bankruptcy law.

While groups like ISIS and al Qaeda garner the most attention, for many local cops, the danger is closer to home. A survey last year of state and local law enforcement officers listed “sovereign citizen terrorists” as the top domestic terror threat, ahead of foreign Islamists and domestic militia groups. The survey was part of a study produced by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Sheikh Sa'ad Musse Roble at WH summit2nd and 3rd from left: Imam Abdisalam Adam of the Islamic Civil Society of America and Imam Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble

The DHS intelligence assessment coincides with the Obama administration’s convening of a White House summit on fighting “violent extremism” last week.

Penny Starr reports for CNS News, Feb. 19, 2015, that the second day of the summit had opened with a Muslim prayer by an imam, Sheikh Sa’ad Musse Roble of the Minneapolis’ World Peace [sic] Organization, following remarks by Obama administration officials and Democratic members of Congress. No other faiths were represented.

This is not the first time that the DHS identifies “right wing” Americans as “domestic terrorists.

In 2012, a DHS-funded study, Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008 — by the same University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism that conducted the 2014 survey of state and local police officers — characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

In fact, University of Maryland’s National Consortium was launched with the aid of DHS, that is, taxpayers’, funding to the tune of $12 million.

See also:

H/t ZeroHedge and FOTM’s dee

~Éowyn

U.C. Berkeley student protest against Ferguson police violence turns violent

Yesterday (Dec. 6) evening, University of California, Berkeley students organized an ostensibly peaceful protest against racism and police violence “in solidarity” with Ferguson protesters against the St. Louis County grand jury’s decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of black teen Michael Brown.

Alas, the Berkeley students did not get the memo about the irony and the hypocrisy of a protest against police violence itself descending into violence and senseless trashing and looting of businesses that have nothing to do with Michael Brown or racism or blacks.

Berkeley riot Dec. 6, 2014Click map to enlarge

As recounted by the Berkeley Police Department:

Berkeley, California (Saturday, December 6, 2014) – This evening, a peaceful protest turned violent when several splinter groups broke off and began hurling bricks, pipe, smoke grenades, and other missiles at officers.

The protest began peacefully, and moved from Telegraph Avenue into the downtown area, and then to in front of the Police and Fire Public Safety Building. There, a small portion of the group splintered from the peaceful demonstrators and started throwing rocks, pipes and bottles at officers.  Numerous officers were struck, and one officer was struck with a large sandbag, and treated at a local hospital for a dislocated shoulder. These splinter groups also ran through several Berkeley neighborhoods vandalizing cars and breaking windows and looting businesses.

The crowd continued marching, arriving on Martin Luther King Jr. Way and University Avenue. Members of the crowd began vandalizing businesses on University Avenue, including Trader Joe’s, Radio Shack, and Wells Fargo Bank.

The crowd moved west, splintered and regrouped several times, as they moved to 6th/University, then back east to San Pablo Avenue and nearby streets, and eventually east up University Avenue, through the downtown area, and up Bancroft Way to Telegraph Ave.

Berkeley Police used smoke and tear gas after crowds refused to disperse and continued to vandalize local businesses and pelt officers with rocks, bottles, and pipes.

Numerous police vehicles were vandalized as the crowd moved through the south campus area….

The Berkeley Police Department is being supported by over a hundred officers from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Oakland Police Department, Pleasanton Police Department, Hayward Police Department, Alameda Police Department, California Highway Patrol and the BART Police Department.

Daily Mail says the protesters numbered around 400; 6 people were arrested.

Here are a video and photos from the Berkeley Riot of December 6, 2014. As you can see, most of the “protesters” are white college-age. Some were wearing U.C. Berkeley (“Cal”) sweat shirts.

BerkeleyBerkeley1Berkeley2Berkeley3

Ransacking the Radio Shack store

Ransacking the Radio Shack store

Berkeley5Berkeley6Berkeley7Berkeley8Berkeley9Berkeley10Berkeley11Berkeley12

A lone non-college age man

A lone non-college age man

Reportedly, members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Workers World Party, Occupy Wall Street, and pro-Palestine statists have joined the Michael Brown protests across America. Read more here.

Update (Monday, Nov. 8):

Last night, there was another “protest” of 500-600 people which also devolved into violence. Stores along Shattuck Ave. in downtown Berkeley were looted.

~Eowyn

The Worst RACISTS in America! (They HATE Black People!)

Do you know who was the biggest supporter and promoter of slavery in America?

Do you know who was so outraged by the abolition of slavery in this country that they formed the Ku Klux Klan and participated in countless murders, beatings, and lynchings?

Do you know who is responsible for undermining the black father and removing him from the home, thus creating an endless cycle of crime and poverty within the black community?

Do you know who is most responsible for promoting abortion among black mothers?

Do you know who has the most to gain by maintaining an underclass of black Americans and preventing them from attaining financial independence?

Do you know who is most adamant about judging people by their skin color rather than their character?

Do you know who is the biggest promoter of division among the races today?

The answer to all of these questions is… the Democratic Party.

Wall Street owns Clintons; Goldman Sachs biggest donor

Faces of Hillary

So much for the fiction that Democrats are for the poor, the oppressed, the little guy. In truth, Democrats only use them for their votes to stay in power — in other words, as Useful Idiots.

Here’s the evidence.

The Wall Street Journal reports (via Zero Hedge) that, even before Hillary “What difference does it make?” Clinton formally declares she’s running for POTUS in 2016, the Clintons already have accumulated the most formidable war chest in the history of the United States.

To date, during two decades on the national stage through campaigns, paid speeches, and a rat’s nest of organizations advancing their political goals, Clinton Inc. has raised about $3 billion from all sources, including individual donors, corporate contributors and foreign governments.

More than $1 billion of Clinton Inc.’s war chest come from U.S. companies and industry donors, of which Wall Street financial services firms have been one of the single largest sources of money. And of those Wall Street donors, the No. 1 supporter of the Clintons — accounting for nearly $5 million in donation — is Goldman Sachs.

Clinton Inc1The WSJ concludes:

Those deep ties potentially give Mrs. Clinton a financial advantage in the 2016 presidential election, if she runs, and could bring industry donors back to the Democratic Party for the first time since Mr. Clinton left the White House. […]

Not counting about $250 million the Clinton foundation has received from foreign donors, at least 75% of the money arrived in large donations from industry sources, a category defined by federal regulators and the Center for Responsive Politics. […]

“She has the credibility among Wall Street donors that could make it likely that Wall Street moves back into the Democratic fold,” said Sam Geduldig, a Republican lobbyist and fundraiser who represents Wall Street firms.

 ~Eowyn

Shocker: States that voted for Obama have most income inequality

. . . and of all those red states, Washington, DC is the most unequal!

I’m shocked! Just shocked!

[Big Smirk]

~Eowyn

cold

Frances Martel reports for Breitbart, March 10, 2014:

The top five states with the highest income inequality rates all voted to reelect President Barack Obama, though no state boasted a higher rate of inequality than Washington, D.C. This is according to a study released this week by MoneyRates.com.

The study used data from the Bureau of Labor statistics to measure how many times more money the top-earning income bracket of a state made than bottom earners. Researchers compared the top 25th percentile earner to the bottom 25th percentile earner and divided the sums into each other, then ranked states by number. California, in which a top 25th percentile earner makes 2.55 times more than a bottom 25th percentile earner, is by far the most unequal state, followed by New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and President Obama’s home state of Illinois.

In Washington, D.C., however, a top 25th percentile earner makes 2.6 times the amount of money a bottom 25th percentile earner makes, which represents the biggest gap in the nation. Maryland and Virginia both make the top ten group of biggest gaps in income, and Maryland experienced the largest gap increase in the past decade of any state: 12.05%. Breitbart News has previously reported that eight of the 13 wealthiest counties in the U.S.A. are in the D.C. region. Texas and Louisiana are the only red states in the top ten.

The state with the least income inequality is South Dakota, where a worker in the top 25th percentile makes only 1.89 times the money someone in the bottom 25th percentile makes. Maine and Vermont, both blue states, follow suit. Iowa and New Hampshire, at seven and eight on the list, round out the blue states in the study with lowest income gaps. Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Nebraska also are among the top ten most equal.

Richard Barrington, the researcher who published the report, explained on MoneyRates.com that the research points to two findings: Democrats are more sensitive to income inequality because it is more prevalent in states that elect them, and economic inequality is not necessarily a bad thing for the state’s economy. Barrington explains that, since “people in states who supported Obama are experiencing more income inequality than people in other states,” and those people also tend to vote Democrat, the Democratic Party has an incentive to vocalize concerns that Republican constituents deal with less often.

Barrington them completely rejects what those Democrats are arguing: that income inequality is a problem that must be solved. “[D]ifferences in income are a natural condition of a capitalist society,” Barrington writes, adding that the study corroborates the claim that “incentives created by income inequality make the economy more dynamic,” and that “a reasonable degree of income inequality is actually good for a state’s prosperity.” He notes that the median worker in more unequal states makes more money than the median worker in other states.

Opponents of the President’s crusade against income equality have long argued that wealth redistribution solves no economic problems, using evidence from the President’s own policies to prove that policies that require wasteful government spending actually increase the gap between the rich and poor. Government spending has caused an internal devaluation of the dollar that suppresses wages. Pro-corporation tax loopholes and globalization have done even more to increase the wealth gap, increasing corporate profits while tearing the floor out from under the American laborer. Economic policies are not the only thing coming out of the Obama administration that has contributed to income inequality; a study by the union Unite Here concluded that the Affordable Care Act will actively make income inequality worse by cutting wages and weakening employers.

Nonetheless, the White House is determined to make income inequality a pivotal issue for years to come, with President Obama calling it “the defining challenge of our time.” Press Secretary Jay Carney denied that the Obama administration’s policies damaged income inequality when confronted with the question, suggesting instead that the uptick in the wage gap began under President George W. Bush. Not all on staff stuck to the message so strictly; one pollster publicly described income inequality as an issue that was “a bit overhyped.”