Search This Blog

Friday, July 10, 2009

Radicalism Goes Mainstream

Artim: 20090707 - Saul Alinsky, liberals, america, takeover, government, leftists, tactics

Why does the Left sympathize with radical Islamic extremists? Over the July 4th weekend a story about how a recent New York City Council resolution that recommend the city’s school system shut down to commemorate two of the most important Muslim holidays was picked up by Islamic groups and declared as a victory for Allah and Islam. Why would these nut-balls do such a thing? By “nut-balls,” I mean the New York City Council. This is the same New York City that went through the horrors of 9–11. What are these people thinking? Even Mayor Bloomberg has better sense. Give him time. It won’t be long before he capitulates. “Righteous violence” has always been rationalized by the Left going back to early Union violence because it was a means to bring down the establishment:

A Second Stimulus Package? Yikes!

India, Japan and the U.S. repeatedly deliver unaffordable and ineffective spending proposals.
clipped from www.forbes.com


"Calls Grow to Increase Stimulus Spending," says a recent front-page Wall Street Journal headline. Author Deborah Solomon claims, "Some economists are pressuring the White House to enact a second round of stimulus spending." The article mentions only two economists, however, one of whom heads "a left-leaning Washington think tank" (the Economic Policy Institute) that always tries to pressure the government to spend more. The other, a former Bush official, dreams of "something that is relatively fast and thoughtful" like "personal tax cuts." But asking Congress to do something fast and thoughtful is like asking fish to fly.

Ironically, another headline in the same paper on the same day said, "Spending Spooks India's Sensex." The article read: "Indian stocks fell 5.8% Monday amid concern the proposed government budget will add to the country's fiscal deficit."

Monday, July 06, 2009

Our Laws, Not Foreign Laws

One of the threats facing our judiciary is the view that judges can use the laws of foreign nations to interpret the American Constitution.

This is not an abstract argument but a view shared by legal minds across the country and put into practice by our own Supreme Court. It must be refuted and rejected - it is dangerous, and it is wrong.
It is dangerous to our rights and liberties and to the Constitution that protects them. It is wrong because it violates the entire concept of republican government, in which the moral authority of our laws derives from the fact that they represent the justly expressed will of "we the people." Simply put: Do judges serve American citizens or the citizens of the world?