Day: November 12, 2017

Climate Change Policy and the Constitution


The United States needs a climate change policy grounded in and consistent with the Constitution. We don’t have one.

The incoherence and ineffectiveness of our current climate policies are a consequence of the unconstitutional, extraconstitutional and swamp-weasel approaches practiced by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Clinton refused to take Kyoto to the Senate for ratification; Bush refused to “unsign it” or to take it the Senate, and Obama and John Kerry negotiated the Paris “agreement” as a “voluntary” international agreement not requiring Senate approval. Trump withdrew the U.S. from Paris, but making the Senate vote on it would have been the best strategy for achieving a climate change policy grounded in the Constitution — and dealing with swamp-weasels.

Here are some of the numerous ways that climate change policy is violating, skirting or simply ignoring the Constitution:

  • Article 1, Section 1.  Legislative power is vested in the Congress, and Congress hasn’t passed a national climate change policy. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court, at the behest of Democratic state attorneys general, creatively rewrote the Clean Air Act to include CO2 as a criteria pollutant, and much executive and advocacy mischief has ensued. President Obama took that ruling and quickly made an executive “endangerment” finding justifying aggressive government action to save the planet, including the Clean Power Plan. So SCOTUS and POTUS declared a national climate change policy, but the Congress, vested with all legislative powers, has not and repeatedly has declined to do so.
  • Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. Two international climate change policy agreements have been signed by the United States- Kyoto and Paris, but neither has been ratified, or even voted on, by the Senate. The Treaty power is shared between the President and the Senate, with 2/3 majority needed for ratification. The Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate after that body voted 95-0 against the terms of Kyoto in the Byrd-Hagel resolution — but efforts to implement Kyoto continued in blue states and at the EPA. The Obama administration chose to employ a swamp-creature fiction that the Paris agreement was not a treaty because it was “voluntary”, and thus did not require Senate ratification. Senate leaders from both parties went along these extraconstitutional but politically convenient fictions.
  • Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.  Foreign Policy is the province of the President and Congress, and State agreements and compacts with foreign powers and other states require the consent of Congress. That consent has not been given or even asked for in numerous climate change policy agreements between the states and foreign powers. In August 2001, just months after President Bush had rejected (but not unsigned) Kyoto, New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers signed an agreement to reduce GHG emissions. The agreement was an updated version of the Kyoto protocol, and became the basis for the current Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an emissions cap and trade program the blue states hoped would be a national model. There are similar interstate regional efforts on the west coast. None of these agreements has Congressional approval. Interestingly, the swamp-weasel “voluntary” argument was initially developed to avoid Congressional approval of interstate agreements, and then expanded to avoid Senate ratification of Paris.
  • The First Amendment, protected speech and Citizens United. SCOTUS has ruled that political speech is protected from government censorship, regardless of the source or content. But a coalition of Democrat State Attorneys general, backed by Tom Steyer and gubernatorial ambitions, have launched an investigation of climate change skeptics and Exxon Mobil, including issuing subpoenas to libertarian and conservative think tanks. The swamp-weasels, inspired by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), claim it’s a fraud investigation, but it’s a transparent and arrogant attempt to use government power to silence skeptics.
  • Article 6, Clause 3. No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust. It can easily be demonstrated that environmentalism is a modern version of the ancient creed of panthiesm, with its own theology, holy books, prophets, saints, demons, hell, and paradise. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s confirmation hearings gave ample evidence that such a religious test is being applied. Both Senator King and Senator Collins voted against Mr. Pruitt because he does not share their alarmist beliefs and policy preferences. There is a growing Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement against climate policy skeptics in the US… it certainly looks like a religious test to this non swamp-denizen.

Until our climate change policy is firmly grounded in the Constitution, it will continue to be divisive, ineffective, and unsustainable. A good start would be an up or down Congressional vote on the Paris Treaty and the regional agreements, especially as blue states seek to implement Paris despite President Trump’s withdrawal. I have asked both my senators to do that, with no response. Next stop, Senator Inhofe.

Jon Reisman is associate professor of economics & public policy at the University of Maine at Machias

The United States needs a climate change policy grounded in and consistent with the Constitution. We don’t have one.

The incoherence and ineffectiveness of our current climate policies are a consequence of the unconstitutional, extraconstitutional and swamp-weasel approaches practiced by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Clinton refused to take Kyoto to the Senate for ratification; Bush refused to “unsign it” or to take it the Senate, and Obama and John Kerry negotiated the Paris “agreement” as a “voluntary” international agreement not requiring Senate approval. Trump withdrew the U.S. from Paris, but making the Senate vote on it would have been the best strategy for achieving a climate change policy grounded in the Constitution — and dealing with swamp-weasels.

Here are some of the numerous ways that climate change policy is violating, skirting or simply ignoring the Constitution:

  • Article 1, Section 1.  Legislative power is vested in the Congress, and Congress hasn’t passed a national climate change policy. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court, at the behest of Democratic state attorneys general, creatively rewrote the Clean Air Act to include CO2 as a criteria pollutant, and much executive and advocacy mischief has ensued. President Obama took that ruling and quickly made an executive “endangerment” finding justifying aggressive government action to save the planet, including the Clean Power Plan. So SCOTUS and POTUS declared a national climate change policy, but the Congress, vested with all legislative powers, has not and repeatedly has declined to do so.
  • Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. Two international climate change policy agreements have been signed by the United States- Kyoto and Paris, but neither has been ratified, or even voted on, by the Senate. The Treaty power is shared between the President and the Senate, with 2/3 majority needed for ratification. The Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate after that body voted 95-0 against the terms of Kyoto in the Byrd-Hagel resolution — but efforts to implement Kyoto continued in blue states and at the EPA. The Obama administration chose to employ a swamp-creature fiction that the Paris agreement was not a treaty because it was “voluntary”, and thus did not require Senate ratification. Senate leaders from both parties went along these extraconstitutional but politically convenient fictions.
  • Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.  Foreign Policy is the province of the President and Congress, and State agreements and compacts with foreign powers and other states require the consent of Congress. That consent has not been given or even asked for in numerous climate change policy agreements between the states and foreign powers. In August 2001, just months after President Bush had rejected (but not unsigned) Kyoto, New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers signed an agreement to reduce GHG emissions. The agreement was an updated version of the Kyoto protocol, and became the basis for the current Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an emissions cap and trade program the blue states hoped would be a national model. There are similar interstate regional efforts on the west coast. None of these agreements has Congressional approval. Interestingly, the swamp-weasel “voluntary” argument was initially developed to avoid Congressional approval of interstate agreements, and then expanded to avoid Senate ratification of Paris.
  • The First Amendment, protected speech and Citizens United. SCOTUS has ruled that political speech is protected from government censorship, regardless of the source or content. But a coalition of Democrat State Attorneys general, backed by Tom Steyer and gubernatorial ambitions, have launched an investigation of climate change skeptics and Exxon Mobil, including issuing subpoenas to libertarian and conservative think tanks. The swamp-weasels, inspired by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), claim it’s a fraud investigation, but it’s a transparent and arrogant attempt to use government power to silence skeptics.
  • Article 6, Clause 3. No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust. It can easily be demonstrated that environmentalism is a modern version of the ancient creed of panthiesm, with its own theology, holy books, prophets, saints, demons, hell, and paradise. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s confirmation hearings gave ample evidence that such a religious test is being applied. Both Senator King and Senator Collins voted against Mr. Pruitt because he does not share their alarmist beliefs and policy preferences. There is a growing Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement against climate policy skeptics in the US… it certainly looks like a religious test to this non swamp-denizen.

Until our climate change policy is firmly grounded in the Constitution, it will continue to be divisive, ineffective, and unsustainable. A good start would be an up or down Congressional vote on the Paris Treaty and the regional agreements, especially as blue states seek to implement Paris despite President Trump’s withdrawal. I have asked both my senators to do that, with no response. Next stop, Senator Inhofe.

Jon Reisman is associate professor of economics & public policy at the University of Maine at Machias



Source link

Godless! Atheism and the Texas Church Shooter


“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.  Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S.  history, is bound to raises hackles.  Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all. 

George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people.  This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other.  But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith. 

A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.”  I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times.  In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”

But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him?  We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey.  But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences.  (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.)  In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within. 

I know what I can say to the man.  On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”

Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic.  If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong.  Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.” 

To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong.  If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”?  Consider my standard explanation:

If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not.  It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference.  Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?

If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference. 

Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference. 

This is irrefutable.  The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality. 

And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference.  Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness.  Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion. 

This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard.  “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter.  So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion. 

The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith.  We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish.  Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible.  For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should

People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face.  It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity.  Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.

Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either.  Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to.  As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence.  Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist).  For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath.  You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about. 

Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined).  So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac.  But ideas have consequences.  Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive. 

This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything.  Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter. 

When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct.  Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.

It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.

And that’s the problem.  Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic.  But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation.  Atheism’s mistake is one of omission. 

This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences.  Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse. 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.  Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S.  history, is bound to raises hackles.  Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all. 

George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people.  This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other.  But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith. 

A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.”  I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times.  In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”

But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him?  We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey.  But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences.  (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.)  In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within. 

I know what I can say to the man.  On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”

Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic.  If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong.  Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.” 

To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong.  If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”?  Consider my standard explanation:

If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not.  It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference.  Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?

If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference. 

Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference. 

This is irrefutable.  The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality. 

And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference.  Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness.  Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion. 

This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard.  “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter.  So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion. 

The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith.  We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish.  Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible.  For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should

People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face.  It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity.  Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.

Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either.  Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to.  As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence.  Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist).  For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath.  You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about. 

Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined).  So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac.  But ideas have consequences.  Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive. 

This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything.  Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter. 

When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct.  Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.

It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.

And that’s the problem.  Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic.  But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation.  Atheism’s mistake is one of omission. 

This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences.  Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse. 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Roy Moore vs. the Swamp


The Swamp is in full panic mode.  They are pulling out the big guns.  They claim Judge Roy Moore is a pedophile and cannot be allowed to represent the good people of the great state of Alabama.  If Moore wins the election the Senate should refuse to seat him.  The Washington Post claims it stumbled across this story by accident:  

“While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls.”   

The Swamp media would have us believe that they do not have a double standard when it comes to conservatives.  When Sarah Palin was selected for vice president David Corn claimed, “Alaska’s getting pretty crowded…with investigative reporters and scandal-chasers.”  Six weeks after being offered an exclusive story by Paula Jones the Post printed nothing.  The Post’s managing editor, Robert Kaiser claimed, “We have an obligation to the Post’s readers to do our best to establish the truth and not simply to print damaging accusations the moment they are made.”

The authors of the Washington Post article on Moore is very conscious of the problems the paper has with credibility.  They go to great lengths to establish the main accuser’s bona fides. Leigh Corfman is not like Paula Jones, who Newsweek’s Evan Thomas called “some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.”  McCrummen claims, “none of the women has donated to or worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent.” Corfman voted for Republicans and even voted for Trump.  She described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post.  Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.  All were initially reluctant to speak.  Corfman claims, “I have prayed over this.”  She is obviously what the Post’s Michael Weisskopf called one of the people who are “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.”

The Swamp accepts Corfman’s allegations without reservations.  No one from the Swamp asked, “Why is this coming out now?”  After 38 years, is it possible that the memories of a girl from a broken home might be distorted.

Corfman has been divorced three times and has been plagued by financial problems.  She blames her chaotic teenage recklessness, drinking, drug abuse, promiscuity and a suicide attempt on Moore.  By contrast Moore is a West Point graduate, a Vietnam veteran, a law school graduate, and what some would describe as a “holy roller.” This is not to say that “holy rollers” have not been known to “misbehave.”  People have to decide who is more credible.

The question of credibility frequently depends on which side of the political spectrum an individual is on. Members of the Swamp will immediately side with Corfman.  The Swamp creatures have revealed themselves yet again.  Mitch McConnell is leading the charge.  McConnell stated, “If these allegations are true, he must step aside.”  He was followed by Sen. Jeff Flake who argued, “If there is any shred of truth to the allegations against Roy Moore, he should step aside immediately.”   Sen. Susan Collins said, “If there is any truth at all to these horrific allegations, Roy Moore should immediately step aside as a Senate candidate.”  Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, “I’m horrified.”  Sen. Rob Portman said, “It was very troubling … if what we read is true and people are on the record so I assume it is.”  Sen. John McCain had no doubts about Moore’s guilt.  He tweeted, “The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying. He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of.”  All of these Senators are Republicans and member of the Swamp.

McConnell and the other Swamp creatures would rather have a Democrat in this Alabama Senate seat.  George H.W. Bush voted for Hillary Clinton and is an unlikely Moore supporter.  Max Boot, a Rubio consultant said, “I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump.”  He is also an unlikely Moore supporter.  These are not 38-year-old allegations.

The Swamp’s Claude Rains imitations are unconvincing.  Presently Senator Bob Menendez is being investigated for financial corruption.  Federal prosecutors believe that “defendants Menendez and Melgen had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.”  These are not 38-year-old allegations.  Three women who made the prostitution allegations later recanted and said they were paid to level the charges.  Who paid them?  Is the Post interested?  

Sen. Lindsey Graham has testified as a character witness for Menendez.  Are Swamp creatures outraged by the recent release of FBI documents claiming Martin Luther King engaged in sex orgies?   Are they outraged by a Hollywood producer, Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old?  Or was this not a case of “rape-rape?”

Charges of sexual misconduct have been successfully used by the Swamp in the past.  In 1989 Senator John Tower was nominated for Secretary of Defense.  The day the debate on Tower’s nomination began in the Senate, Bob Woodward’s article entitled, “Incidents at Defense Base Cited, Drunkenness, Harassment of Women Alleged” appeared on the front page of the Washington Post.  Bob Woodward reported that informed sources claimed Tower had been drunk at Bergstrom Air Force Base.  

Tower was not confirmed and the next day it was revealed that Woodward’s source was discharged from the Air Force for psychiatric reasons.  Another story used against him was that he danced naked on a grand piano with his mistress, a Russian ballerina. This was reported by Leslie Stahl on CBS, even though the FBI had reported they had reason to believe it was not true. 

Rarely has a pile-on been more hypocritical than when Sen. Ted Kennedy told students at Yale University that he was “troubled” by reports that John Tower drank excessively and made improper advances toward women.

For many Trump supporters, an attack on Judge Moore by McCain is the next thing to an endorsement. If McCain opposes him he must be a patriot.  The president missed a great opportunity to embarrass the Swamp.  He reportedly said that Moore will “step aside” if the charges are true.  He should have mentioned that in light of the Swamp’s past behavior this is unlikely that the charges are true.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).  He has a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations from St. Mary’s University.  He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Swamp is in full panic mode.  They are pulling out the big guns.  They claim Judge Roy Moore is a pedophile and cannot be allowed to represent the good people of the great state of Alabama.  If Moore wins the election the Senate should refuse to seat him.  The Washington Post claims it stumbled across this story by accident:  

“While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls.”   

The Swamp media would have us believe that they do not have a double standard when it comes to conservatives.  When Sarah Palin was selected for vice president David Corn claimed, “Alaska’s getting pretty crowded…with investigative reporters and scandal-chasers.”  Six weeks after being offered an exclusive story by Paula Jones the Post printed nothing.  The Post’s managing editor, Robert Kaiser claimed, “We have an obligation to the Post’s readers to do our best to establish the truth and not simply to print damaging accusations the moment they are made.”

The authors of the Washington Post article on Moore is very conscious of the problems the paper has with credibility.  They go to great lengths to establish the main accuser’s bona fides. Leigh Corfman is not like Paula Jones, who Newsweek’s Evan Thomas called “some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.”  McCrummen claims, “none of the women has donated to or worked for Moore’s Democratic opponent.” Corfman voted for Republicans and even voted for Trump.  She described her story consistently in six interviews with The Post.  Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post.  All were initially reluctant to speak.  Corfman claims, “I have prayed over this.”  She is obviously what the Post’s Michael Weisskopf called one of the people who are “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.”

The Swamp accepts Corfman’s allegations without reservations.  No one from the Swamp asked, “Why is this coming out now?”  After 38 years, is it possible that the memories of a girl from a broken home might be distorted.

Corfman has been divorced three times and has been plagued by financial problems.  She blames her chaotic teenage recklessness, drinking, drug abuse, promiscuity and a suicide attempt on Moore.  By contrast Moore is a West Point graduate, a Vietnam veteran, a law school graduate, and what some would describe as a “holy roller.” This is not to say that “holy rollers” have not been known to “misbehave.”  People have to decide who is more credible.

The question of credibility frequently depends on which side of the political spectrum an individual is on. Members of the Swamp will immediately side with Corfman.  The Swamp creatures have revealed themselves yet again.  Mitch McConnell is leading the charge.  McConnell stated, “If these allegations are true, he must step aside.”  He was followed by Sen. Jeff Flake who argued, “If there is any shred of truth to the allegations against Roy Moore, he should step aside immediately.”   Sen. Susan Collins said, “If there is any truth at all to these horrific allegations, Roy Moore should immediately step aside as a Senate candidate.”  Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, “I’m horrified.”  Sen. Rob Portman said, “It was very troubling … if what we read is true and people are on the record so I assume it is.”  Sen. John McCain had no doubts about Moore’s guilt.  He tweeted, “The allegations against Roy Moore are deeply disturbing and disqualifying. He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of.”  All of these Senators are Republicans and member of the Swamp.

McConnell and the other Swamp creatures would rather have a Democrat in this Alabama Senate seat.  George H.W. Bush voted for Hillary Clinton and is an unlikely Moore supporter.  Max Boot, a Rubio consultant said, “I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump.”  He is also an unlikely Moore supporter.  These are not 38-year-old allegations.

The Swamp’s Claude Rains imitations are unconvincing.  Presently Senator Bob Menendez is being investigated for financial corruption.  Federal prosecutors believe that “defendants Menendez and Melgen had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.”  These are not 38-year-old allegations.  Three women who made the prostitution allegations later recanted and said they were paid to level the charges.  Who paid them?  Is the Post interested?  

Sen. Lindsey Graham has testified as a character witness for Menendez.  Are Swamp creatures outraged by the recent release of FBI documents claiming Martin Luther King engaged in sex orgies?   Are they outraged by a Hollywood producer, Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old?  Or was this not a case of “rape-rape?”

Charges of sexual misconduct have been successfully used by the Swamp in the past.  In 1989 Senator John Tower was nominated for Secretary of Defense.  The day the debate on Tower’s nomination began in the Senate, Bob Woodward’s article entitled, “Incidents at Defense Base Cited, Drunkenness, Harassment of Women Alleged” appeared on the front page of the Washington Post.  Bob Woodward reported that informed sources claimed Tower had been drunk at Bergstrom Air Force Base.  

Tower was not confirmed and the next day it was revealed that Woodward’s source was discharged from the Air Force for psychiatric reasons.  Another story used against him was that he danced naked on a grand piano with his mistress, a Russian ballerina. This was reported by Leslie Stahl on CBS, even though the FBI had reported they had reason to believe it was not true. 

Rarely has a pile-on been more hypocritical than when Sen. Ted Kennedy told students at Yale University that he was “troubled” by reports that John Tower drank excessively and made improper advances toward women.

For many Trump supporters, an attack on Judge Moore by McCain is the next thing to an endorsement. If McCain opposes him he must be a patriot.  The president missed a great opportunity to embarrass the Swamp.  He reportedly said that Moore will “step aside” if the charges are true.  He should have mentioned that in light of the Swamp’s past behavior this is unlikely that the charges are true.

John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).  He has a Master of Arts Degree in International Relations from St. Mary’s University.  He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.



Source link

Harvey Weinstein, Socialism, and Mass Murder


“The frivolity of evil” — that’s the phrase coined by British author and physician to the poor, Theodore Dalrymple.  The words appear in his 2005 book, Our Culture: What’s Left of It.  Dalrymple’s analysis of the precipitous decline of British society provides a salient response to the “motive” question that currently permeates our media in the wake of the “senseless” murders in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. 

Dalrymple’s professional life as a psychiatrist working almost exclusively with prisoners, and England’s underclass gave him a perspective miles apart from shrinks who massage the egos of celebrities and millionaires on New York’s Upper East Side.  Dalrymple (nee, Anthony Daniels) actually has the temerity to focus on the self-destructive actions of his patients and especially on their abysmal family lives.

Dalrymple speaks of “the frivolity of evil” (a telling modification of Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil”) to fit the self-conscious actions of women whose serial romantic choices condemn both themselves and their luckless children to neglect, assault, and rape.   The same applies to aimless, drug-addled men who, without compunction, sire children by various women and thus multiply the number of souls who’ll endure the same paternal abandonment they themselves curse. 

When considering why such irresponsible behavior has become endemic in Britain, Dalrymple points in two directions — first, toward a welfare structure that undermines personal responsibility and even rewards irresponsible choices.  In this system mothers without husbands or employment are set up by the government with housing, food, and enough money to focus on something that gives their lives meaning.  Often that something revolves around romance and domestic trauma — even at the expense of their children.

If one asks why the government supports this dysfunctional system, that query points in another direction, toward intellectuals and their cohorts in the media, including “novelists, playwrights, film directors, journalists, artists, and even pop singers.” According to this mélange of moral miscreants, the poor must be viewed as victims who aren’t responsible for their actions.  External factors such as poverty, “food deserts,” and capitalism are seen as the true culprits — an analysis that bolsters the ego of nonjudgmental elites and places ever more power in the hands of government officials, therapists, and social activists “who have themselves come to form a powerful vested interest of dependence on the government.”  

Moreover, these benefits showered on the poor are seen as theirs “by right.”  Thus, no moral stigma attends failure to make personal choices that would secure these basic benefits, and no government is so callous as to suggest that most folks should care for themselves.

In addition to these beliefs, intellectuals and their media cohorts have embraced the notion that the elimination of taboos constitutes the royal road to personal and social Nirvana.  In the world of entertainment, I note, this process is uncritically hailed as “pushing the envelope” — where taboos like cursing, adultery, drug use, and ever-increasing depictions of violence and sexual perversity fall by the wayside.  Dalrymple observes that “the prestige intellectuals confer upon antinomianism soon communicates itself to non-intellectuals.  What is good for the bohemian sooner or later becomes good for the unskilled worker, the unemployed, the welfare recipient — the very people most in need of boundaries to make their lives tolerable or allow them hope of improvement.”

Instead of obligations, especially to one’s children, emotional self-fulfillment becomes the primary basis for action.  After all, as the popular saying goes, “How can you love others unless you first love yourself?”  Ignored in this self-destructive psychological calculus is the fact that self-respect derives precisely from fulfilling one’s obligations.

My conclusion:  Who better in contemporary American society to symbolize the philosophy of taboo-breaking than a member of the media establishment who embodies the very antinomianism he disseminates constantly to the general public — namely, Harvey Weinstein.  And lest we dismiss Weinstein as an anomaly, let us not forget the standing ovation given at the Academy Awards to child rapist Roman Polanski. 

In an environment where personal responsibility is undermined by Socialist dogma and where intellectuals and their media groupies constantly tout the elimination of taboos, is it any wonder that some folks (as in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs) will take these beliefs and actions to their logical destructive conclusions.

I’m not responsible.  Others are the reason for my failures and disappointments.  Child rape is now ok.  Harvey Weinstein got away with all kinds of illegal acts.  Society owes me.  Now “society” is going to pay for my misery — Quentin Tarantino style!  

A culture with over a million abortions each year and illegitimacy rates well north of 70% in some communities shouldn’t have to scratch its head when mass murders occur.  

Intellectuals and media powerbrokers, however, never look at the destruction their ideas and actions have wrought.  If they did, “they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior” or give up the cherished notion of their moral superiority.  Consequently, “neither pols nor pundits wish to look the problem in the face.”

Nuclear families that eat together and acknowledge legitimate obligations and reasonable moral boundaries are what hold a society together.  Socialism, intellectuals, and Harvey Weinsteins in the media pull it apart — sometimes violently.

Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book Moral Illiteracy: “Who’s to Say?”  is also available on Kindle .

“The frivolity of evil” — that’s the phrase coined by British author and physician to the poor, Theodore Dalrymple.  The words appear in his 2005 book, Our Culture: What’s Left of It.  Dalrymple’s analysis of the precipitous decline of British society provides a salient response to the “motive” question that currently permeates our media in the wake of the “senseless” murders in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. 

Dalrymple’s professional life as a psychiatrist working almost exclusively with prisoners, and England’s underclass gave him a perspective miles apart from shrinks who massage the egos of celebrities and millionaires on New York’s Upper East Side.  Dalrymple (nee, Anthony Daniels) actually has the temerity to focus on the self-destructive actions of his patients and especially on their abysmal family lives.

Dalrymple speaks of “the frivolity of evil” (a telling modification of Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil”) to fit the self-conscious actions of women whose serial romantic choices condemn both themselves and their luckless children to neglect, assault, and rape.   The same applies to aimless, drug-addled men who, without compunction, sire children by various women and thus multiply the number of souls who’ll endure the same paternal abandonment they themselves curse. 

When considering why such irresponsible behavior has become endemic in Britain, Dalrymple points in two directions — first, toward a welfare structure that undermines personal responsibility and even rewards irresponsible choices.  In this system mothers without husbands or employment are set up by the government with housing, food, and enough money to focus on something that gives their lives meaning.  Often that something revolves around romance and domestic trauma — even at the expense of their children.

If one asks why the government supports this dysfunctional system, that query points in another direction, toward intellectuals and their cohorts in the media, including “novelists, playwrights, film directors, journalists, artists, and even pop singers.” According to this mélange of moral miscreants, the poor must be viewed as victims who aren’t responsible for their actions.  External factors such as poverty, “food deserts,” and capitalism are seen as the true culprits — an analysis that bolsters the ego of nonjudgmental elites and places ever more power in the hands of government officials, therapists, and social activists “who have themselves come to form a powerful vested interest of dependence on the government.”  

Moreover, these benefits showered on the poor are seen as theirs “by right.”  Thus, no moral stigma attends failure to make personal choices that would secure these basic benefits, and no government is so callous as to suggest that most folks should care for themselves.

In addition to these beliefs, intellectuals and their media cohorts have embraced the notion that the elimination of taboos constitutes the royal road to personal and social Nirvana.  In the world of entertainment, I note, this process is uncritically hailed as “pushing the envelope” — where taboos like cursing, adultery, drug use, and ever-increasing depictions of violence and sexual perversity fall by the wayside.  Dalrymple observes that “the prestige intellectuals confer upon antinomianism soon communicates itself to non-intellectuals.  What is good for the bohemian sooner or later becomes good for the unskilled worker, the unemployed, the welfare recipient — the very people most in need of boundaries to make their lives tolerable or allow them hope of improvement.”

Instead of obligations, especially to one’s children, emotional self-fulfillment becomes the primary basis for action.  After all, as the popular saying goes, “How can you love others unless you first love yourself?”  Ignored in this self-destructive psychological calculus is the fact that self-respect derives precisely from fulfilling one’s obligations.

My conclusion:  Who better in contemporary American society to symbolize the philosophy of taboo-breaking than a member of the media establishment who embodies the very antinomianism he disseminates constantly to the general public — namely, Harvey Weinstein.  And lest we dismiss Weinstein as an anomaly, let us not forget the standing ovation given at the Academy Awards to child rapist Roman Polanski. 

In an environment where personal responsibility is undermined by Socialist dogma and where intellectuals and their media groupies constantly tout the elimination of taboos, is it any wonder that some folks (as in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs) will take these beliefs and actions to their logical destructive conclusions.

I’m not responsible.  Others are the reason for my failures and disappointments.  Child rape is now ok.  Harvey Weinstein got away with all kinds of illegal acts.  Society owes me.  Now “society” is going to pay for my misery — Quentin Tarantino style!  

A culture with over a million abortions each year and illegitimacy rates well north of 70% in some communities shouldn’t have to scratch its head when mass murders occur.  

Intellectuals and media powerbrokers, however, never look at the destruction their ideas and actions have wrought.  If they did, “they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior” or give up the cherished notion of their moral superiority.  Consequently, “neither pols nor pundits wish to look the problem in the face.”

Nuclear families that eat together and acknowledge legitimate obligations and reasonable moral boundaries are what hold a society together.  Socialism, intellectuals, and Harvey Weinsteins in the media pull it apart — sometimes violently.

Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book Moral Illiteracy: “Who’s to Say?”  is also available on Kindle .



Source link