Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Were The American Founding Fathers REALLY A Bunch Of Evil Hypocrites? 

Allow me to now discuss 1 of my biggest pet peeves with the Anti-American Left. "The Founding Fathers were hypocrites!"

I'm sure you've all heard this one: "Nice going, American Founding Fathers! Said all men were created equal & then DIDN'T LIVE UP TO IT!  These guys didn't really believe all men were created equal! They owned slaves! They didn't let women vote! Child labor!"

For a sterling example of this kind of accusation leveled at America's founders, take a look at this book review that appeared in the New York Times: 
THE founding fathers were paranoid hypocrites and ungrateful malcontents. What was their cherished Declaration of Independence but empty political posturing?......
The revolutionaries complained about a lack of representation in Parliament, but in this they were no different from the majority of Englishmen. What was more, the God-given or nature-given rights they claimed for themselves included the right to hold Africans in bondage. Edward Gibbon, who knew something about the ups and downs of history, opposed the rebels from the House of Commons. Samuel Johnson called them ''a race of convicts'' who ''ought to be thankful for any thing we allow them short of hanging.''
Observed from across the Atlantic, the story of the Revolution looks very different from the one every American child grows up with. To see that story through British eyes, as Stanley Weintraub's ''Iron Tears: America's Battle for Freedom, Britain's Quagmire: 1775-1783'' enables us to do, is to see an all-too-familiar tale reinvigorated. Weintraub reminds us that justice did not necessarily reside with the rebels, that the past can always be viewed from multiple perspectives. And he confronts us with the fact that an American triumph was anything but inevitable. History of course belongs to the victors. If Britain's generals had been more enterprising, if the French had failed to supply vital military and financial assistance, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and the rest would be known to us not as political and philosophical giants but as reckless (and hanged) losers, supporting players in a single act of Britain's imperial drama. We would all be Canadians now, with lower prescription drug costs and an inordinate fondness for winter sports.
In 1776, name ONE COUNTRY that declared all people were equal whether they fully lived up to it or not.

In fact, I'm gonna make this even easier for the anti-American critics: name just ONE  country in 1776 where all WHITE men were considered equal.  That's right; just the white men.

Look at the colonial powers of Europe at the time.  After all, the defects of America at it's founding that it's critics love to talk about, where did they come from? Is it not true that Americans weren't doing anything differently from the European cousins from whom they descended?  What is the idea here? That somehow American treatment of other races & women was somehow worse than what the British, the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Dutch, and the Belgians were dishing out at home and in their colonies abroad?

Note how the author of the book the NYT's reviewer is writing about in that quote above brushes aside the main point of the Declaration of Independence, where he claims the American colonists shouldn't have gotten their panties in a bunch over being treated as inferiors by the English ruling nobility.  Why, even many Englishmen didn't have real representation in Parliament!  Do you see them complaining about their lower station? Why couldn't Americans have that kind of good breeding, eh wot?! 

In fact the entire impetus for the American Revolution was the belief of the British noble class that Americans were inferior to them just like all their other colonial subjects and had no rights unless their betters granted them some.  The English nobility may not have viewed white Americans as lower than their subjects in India, but their conduct made it abundantly clear they did not view Americans as their equals.  

So while the English peasant class in England may well have accepted their lot in life, those upstart Americans across the pond were no longer willing to be ruled over by people who made a false claim to being special and above others.  

The American Founding Fathers created a new form of government dedicated to the PROPOSITION that all men are created equal. Therefore, there IS no 'special ruling class', there is no 'special something' that a noble class has that other people don't that gives them a right to lord it over others.  The authority to govern should come from the consent of the governed, not because some class of arrogant elites made false claims about itself.  

And so the American founders made it crystal clear why the time had come to cast off their connections to the British monarchy.  All men are created equal, therefore the British king can't treat us like this, and so we can legitimately break our bonds with England and form our own government based on the proposition of this equality.  

And the Founder's  critics LOVE to point out that these same men didn't immediately live in total accordance with this proposition from the very beginning.

But this overlooks the crucial point that you have to start SOMEWHERE. And where they started was: equality between WHITE MEN.

There was no country in the world that had set up it's government where all the white men were considered equal under the law.  In Europe, a white peasant could no more sue a noble for redress in court than a black man could.  It is completely overlooked that nowhere in the world at the time were white men considered equal to one another. The divine right of kings, the noble class, these things separated the white  rulers from the white  ruled.

There are still PLENTY of places in the world where equality between people is a foreign concept.

Dedicating their new government to a radical proposition that all humans were equal, the founders threw away over 1000 yrs of social compact and began a process of slow change to live up to it.  There is only so much radical change you can make at the start & today, living in a system where it's a GIVEN that all whites are equal, the critics completely overlook the radical BEGINNINGS of the Great American Experiment in Freedom.

When you study America, you are studying a people who began with a radical proposition & slowly began attempting to live it out.

You can call the American founders hypocrites, but in doing so you underscore their point: just how radical the proposition of equality was.  Nobody in the ENTIRE WORLD could live up to this in 1776.  The changes this proposition demanded was so radical, the chances of your being able to live up to it was nil.

And yet the Founders went ahead and established this radical proposition about equality anyway, knowing full well slavery and the status of women made them hypocrites in the eyes of history.  Radical change in relations between whites would have to come FIRST & be worked out before other huge societal changes could be addressed.

Picture a whole world lost in a dark pit.  Suddenly, in one country, someone sees a light.  It's way up there, at a great distance.  The light reveals to these people just how evil they are, how far short they come, and how high they would have to climb to cease being evil.  

What, I ask you, should they do? Should they resolve among themselves to begin climbing upwards to the light, slowly, painfully, realizing the crushing burden of just how much about themselves they are going to have to change? Or should they snuff the light out and remain where they are, cursing the darkness?  

If such a people decided to climb upwards to the light, would you criticize them for it? Mock them? Ridicule them?  Make light of their struggle?  Call them hypocrites for not being able to leap mightily from that deep pit in a single bound? 

What is the argument of the critics? Unless you can completely live up to such a radical ideal from the very start, and almost instantly reorder your entire society from the top down, HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A RADICAL PROPOSITION!? 

Who do you Founding Fathers think you are, you buncha rotten hypocrites!

Unable to radically alter their own society all at once from the start, should they have just abstained from making this proposition?  Dismissed the idea altogether? 

A proposition, let us remember, that NOBODY else in the world at the time was even thinking about living under, much less implementing?

Leave us remember, by dedicating their new government to this radical proposition, they were making a START.  People who claim the process of living up to the ideal should have reached  it's END at the same time the proposition was being introduced are speaking nonsense. 

Again: you have to START the process of radical implementation of your radical ideal somewhere. So the process of radical societal change/upheaval didn't happen all at once? How could it have?  What exactly are the critics demanding here? 

They BARELY got the Constitution passed as it was. It took years of argument and debate.  Just the START of the process, the fact they actually got it underway could be considered a miracle. 

B-b-but IRRELEVANT! They should have reformed their entire society perfectly from the start if they really believed it, say the critics.  

Even as they established & started working out equality under law between whites, the Founders weren't blind to the slavery issue. It's not like they didn't know the issue of slavery was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, if 'created equal' was to last.

And there WERE founders who pressed on that issue for abolition from the very beginning. But the fact was, the Southern colonies rejected these overtures.  The choice was forgoing the new Constitutional government altogether or going forward while carving out an exception for slavery.  To move forward on the radical idea of total white equality, with the PROMISE of future expansion to include others groups,  they actually had to accept inaction on slavery at the start. This is the sort of compromise politics necessitates.  To accomplish some good, you have to accept some trade offs.  The alternative is to scrap the whole thing and get nothing. 

But let's engage in a thought experiment here, shall we?  What if the anti-American critics had gotten their way?  What if the Founders had purposed to radically transform their society right at the beginning in 1780's by not only having equality between whites but also going on to immediately ratify equality with blacks & women?  Would this not have torn the society apart? Yes or no?   Think carefully before you answer.  Is what the critics demand even possible for the Founders to have done?  Could the newly minted Federal Government from Washington have by passing immediate laws forced all the states to radically alter what their citizens believed, how they lived, and how they interacted with one another? 

And assuming the answer to that question is yes, what do you supposed the result would have been? 

I am here pointing out the fact that those who believe such fast transformation could have been achieved don't grasp what they're  demanding of these men.  A new Constitutional form of federal government that from it's infancy attempted to make such radical changes on slavery & women's sufferage  to American society from the top down by force would have failed.  Is that not self-evidently true? Does it even need to be argued?  

Watching 'Lincoln' the other day, it was brought home even more powerfully, how slowly such radical changes come to a society. It is easy to say, "This is our ideal, this is the proposition upon which we base our government' and our society here in America'.  Living that out however becomes a herculean task.

It took 70 years and a bloody Civil War for the great moral evil of slavery to be eradicated from the United States. When America finally had it out over slavery, whether this country ever would live up to it's claim about equality, it was a huge bloodbath.  But hey, who cares? The Founders totally should have taken care of all this back in the 1780's by passing a few laws, right? 

Over 7,000 Americans fell in 20 minutes at Cold Harbor on June 3rd, 1864

And when the time came to consider the status of women, that change wasn't overnight either. It took years of dedicated struggle.

Societies change slowly, if at all, when it comes to their basic makeup. A group of men in Washington can say whatever they want, pass whatever laws they want.  The country has to be READY to live up to any such laws for them to mean anything.  You have to prepare the ground and wait for the time to be right.
The Founders understood this. You have to prepare the ground for radical change, you just can't spring it on a people all at once by fiat.  People who constantly criticized Lincoln for moving too slowly against slavery also miss this fact.  The time was barely right for the passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery in the United States, and as the film 'Lincoln' depicts, it took all kinds of shenanigans to pull it off.  

So people who berate Lincoln and others for not having accomplished this grand work years earlier are missing a vital point.  

Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites because they couldn't force all of America to live out this proposition on equality from the very beginning?   I say no.  Had our Founders demanded an end to slavery, and given women the vote in the 1780's, the country would have torn itself apart in a great societal upheaval. Any European country that had attempted such a feat would have likewise utterly failed.  There's an assumption here by the critics that such fast societal change was even possible. Was it really?  There is a good case to be made that it wasn't.

I hope I've given you some food for thought. America's history is one long, hard struggle to live out that great proposition, sharing it with the world.  

Better to dedicate yourself to the radical proposition, strive for it and fall short at first, than to never claim such a lofty ideal in the first place.  That's my view.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Learning To Counter The Progressive Left's Constant Use Of OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™

I should like now to discuss the constant use of OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ by the Left in place of actual argument over public policy.

If you've debated political issues with Progressives for any amount of time, you've no doubt encountered the use of OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™

Take the issue of ObamaCare. Remember during the years ObamaCare was debated, how many times Progressives said the following:

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #1: "Why do you HATE sick people and want them to die??!!!"

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #2:  "Why don't you want to do anything to fix the health care problem? What's WRONG with you? Why don' t you CARE?!"

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #3: "How DARE you keep lying about what ObamaCare will do! No one will lose their health insurance plans or their doctors, you creepy lying liar!"

Starting to remember, aren't you? Probably because the Left is still making OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ in defense of ObamaCare right now. 

Want another example of use of outrage statements in place of an actual argument? How about Texas rolling back it's abortion limit last year.

One one side, you had people making an actual ARGUMENT:

1) Roe vs. Wade established viability as litmus test for State acting on human life.  
2) Preemies born at 26 weeks were now being saved at a GREATER than 93% rate as of 2000. 

3) Decades ago when the 26 week legal abortion limit was set, 26 weeks was FAR from viable.  Today it's not.
4)  Therefore, it was time for the law to RECOGNIZE the change in viability and roll back the legal limit from 6 1/2 months to 5 months. That's changing the legal limit for an abortion from 26 weeks [6 1/2 months] to 20 weeks [5 months] for those of you in Rio Linda.

Now notice what I just did there. I made an actual argument.  I used 4 points to build a case for the state of Texas to act.  How did many on the Left respond to Governor Rick Perry and others who made that 4 point argument?

Do any of the following OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ sound familiar?

OUTRAGE STATEMENT #1: Why do you HATE women?!

OUTRAGE STATEMENT #2:  How DARE you try to interfere with women's control of their bodies!

OUTRAGE STATEMENT #3: Admit it! You want women back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, don't you, you misogynist bastards!

Now, as my good friend Tom Doran just pointed out to me on Twitter, it's true there are people on the Right who use their own OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™.  This is true. Instead of making a good case for rolling back the legal limit, you CAN just scream "HOW DARE U KILL BABIES!" at people. 

But the problem I am addressing here is people knowing they have to make a difficult case like say, keeping abortion legal at 26 weeks. Or they have to try to defend a law where they made all kinds of BS promises to get it passed & now it's blown up in their faces. It's HARD to do. 

So many don't even try, opting instead to just go the OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ route. Because defense is hard. Especially when you know you're trying to defend the indefensible. 

All during that big controversy over the new Texas law last year, I saw precious few trying to build a true COUNTER-argument for 26 weeks. And right now, following Harry Reid's lead, the big strategy on defending ObamaCare seems to be a blanket denial of the bad results.

Charles C. W. Cooke  pointed out in recent column how Dem's strategy seems to be following Monty Python's 'Argument Clinic' skit.
This isn't making a counter argument, this is just contradicting and throwing out OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™. 

Another example of attempts to use OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ to silence and misdirect important discussion on a public issue? How about this one.  Now that Paul Ryan is daring to address what 50 yrs of Progressive social welfare policy has done to the black family, what is the response?

OUTRAGE STATEMENT #1: "Hey Paul Ryan...why do you HATE black people?  

OUTRAGE STATEMENT #2: "You only talk about this due to your RACISM!"

Obviously social policies directed at black community that achieved these 'spectacular' results cannot be laid at the feet of Conservatives. There isn't much of a defense that can be made.  Like scalded puppies, the Progressive Left can only react with immediate, strong OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ to try to shut Ryan up.

When following a debate on social issues and public policy, it helps to recognize which side builds a case & which one resorts to outrage. When your policies place you in position of having to defend the indefensible, the louder you yell out your OUTRAGE STATEMENTS the better.

I've just explained to you the true purpose of just about every host on MSNBC, BTW.  You're welcome.

Yep. Think about it.

You can be OUTRAGED all you want, folks. But when it's time to make a case for the actual policies you want to enact or defend, stop it. You can't build public policy or agitate for change just based on the outrage you feel. You have to have an actual argument. Running around all the time screaming about how outraged you are may make you FEEL good, but it's not an agenda for fixing problems and addressing important issues.

You want to keep abortion legal up to 26 weeks or even beyond? MAKE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT then. Stop the constant misdirection & man up.

You want to defend ObamaCare? Quit issuing blanket denials & insisting 'nobody' has lost plans/Dr.'s due to the new law you passed.

Want to defend what 40 yrs of welfare policy did to the black family in America? Quit screaming 'Racist!' at people who address it.

Conservatives often advance an actual case for policies. In response they get a series of 'When are you gonna stop beating your wife?!' outrage.

How about this one? I want to stop over 1 million illegal immigrants from coming into America every year by closing the borders. WHY would I like to do that?  Simple:
I want unemployment to go down & I'd like wages to rise.

And every year we let in over a million low skilled illegal immigrants, we'll get a glut in the labor market, high unemployment, low wages.

But guess what? You AREN'T ALLOWED to discuss the actual impact of insane Open Borders immigration policies. If you try to discuss what Open Borders does to our employment rate & wages here in America, guess what that makes you?

OUTRAGE STATEMENT™ #1: Why do you HATE poor immigrants!
OUTRAGE STATEMENT #2: How DARE you want poor immigrants to die in the desert!

How about Global Warming? Question the science?

'We shouldn't force Catholics to violate their 1st Amendment rights."

How about one of the best examples in decades? How about the TrayVon Martin case? 

Remember how that case was introduced to the public, the false narrative that was relentlessly pushed in media? A hulking huge white racist jumped out of a car, ran down, tackled, beat the sh*t out of, then cold bloodedly executed a tiny black child?

Remember how the Left responded with scads of OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE!!!11!!! if you er....QUESTIONED that narrative? Even a little bit?




And what do we know NOW that all the facts came out of the trial? A Hispanic guy was getting his ass beat for over 90 seconds.

At first they couldn't admit Trayvon was over 6 ft tall, which is why you only saw pics of him as a 12 yr old.

 Then they couldn't admit there had been an actual fight. They needed it to be Trayvon screaming, crying, wailing for help on the 911 audio. In fact, as was shown at trial, that's George Zimmerman wailing & screaming and crying for help for over a minute & 1/2 as Martin beats him up.

The TrayVon Martin case is THE best example of how the LEFT use OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ to try to save a false & failing narrative. Every single step along the way as the facts started to come out they screamed and wailed and cried their outrage about it.

They wanted a racial narrative in which a white racist chased down then murdered a helpless black child as he screamed for help. The Left fought for over 2 years to save that narrative as the facts slowly came out.  They savagely attacked people who told the truth. And in the end.....THEY LOST.   

But don't worry, they'll do it again when the opportunity comes around once more. Some case where they can hide facts to make it 'fit' the story they want to tell. 

No matter what issue is - learn to spot the constant use of OUTRAGE STATEMENTS™ instead of argument. On abortion, global warming, immigration, ObamaCare, the latest media-driven false narrative, whatever the Progressive cause du jour of the month is.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

High School EMT Trainee Spends 13 Days In Jail For Having A Pocket Knife In The Trunk Of His Car

Just when you think you've seen it all, they come up with new ways to surprise you.


Jordan Wiser, a student at Ashtabula County Technical School in Jefferson, is finishing up his senior year from home after school officials searched his car in December and found the folding knife and an Airsoft gun. School officials called police, who charged him with illegal conveyance of a weapon onto a school ground based on the three-inch knife.

“I declined to allow them to search myself or my car and that I wanted to talk to my lawyer or my father,” Wiser told FoxNews.com. “They told me it wasn’t an option.”

Wiser, an EMT trainee who hopes to become both a police officer and a soldier, spent 13 days in the Ashtabula County Jail following the incident. The knife, which Wiser said is part of his first responder's kit and can be used for slicing an accident victim's seatbelt, was found tucked inside his EMT medical vest in the trunk of the car. The Airsoft gun, which fires non-lethal pellets, was not illegal and was used by Wiser in a shooting club he belongs to, he said.

School officials told FoxNews.com that possession of the pocket knife was a violation of the school’s zero tolerance policy for bringing weapons on campus and that based on a message he posted on an online forum, they had probable cause to search Wiser and his car. They also insisted Wiser consented to the search.
Question: Is it time to put actual thinking adults in charge of public schools? Or should we continue the present course of kids being suspended for making 'finger guns' or drawing a picture of a soldier with a gun? If they can't tell the difference between a gang member with a knife hidden on him and this, what's the point?

UPDATE: Read the incredible statements by the prosecutor who put this kid in jail for 13 days.  Originally Wiser was held on a bond of HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.  For a pocket knife locked in the trunk of a car. 

HuffPo did an interview in which they say this: 

On Dec. 12, 2013, administrators at A-Tech approached Wiser after someone allegedly tipped them off about videos Wiser had uploaded to YouTube.
The YouTube account in question appears to include reviews of video games and merchandise, demonstrations on home defense tactics and an interview with a local police officer.
I've had a look at Jordan Wiser's YouTube page. It's full of EMT training videos, police officer related videos, game reviews, and obvious airsoft competition videos. Whoever watched that stuff and felt like they had to 'warn' the school officials about this kid like he was somebody dangerous should come forward and get the full mockery they deserve.

Why is that person allowed to remain anonymous? Do they think ALL EMT's, police & soldiers are dangerous people that can't be trusted?

The fact this kid was open about the fact he wanted to be an EMT & a police officer after serving a stint in the Army, and was MAKING VIDEOS in which he he showed what EMT's and police officers do on the job, stuff that sometimes involves using FIREARMS and KNIVES,  obviously made him a dangerous weirdo that authorities needed to thoroughly investigate.  To protect the public, of course.  

"We charge [people] with everything that we feel they are guilty of, and in this case, he is guilty of a felony," Harold Specht, the chief assistant prosecutor at the Ashtabula County prosecutor's office, told HuffPost. 
Specht said the charge is related only to the knife found inside Wiser's vehicle. The teen is not facing charges for possession of the stun gun or the Airsoft guns. 
"I was in jail for almost 13 days," Wiser said. "The first bond hearing I went to was on December 15. The judge ordered me [to be] held on a half million-dollar bond, pending a psychological evaluation. I did that and passed. They found I was not suicidal, homicidal or a threat to anybody. My attorney brought it up in front of a different judge, who let me out on a $50,000 bond and an ankle monitor. I was released from jail on Christmas Eve."

Monday, March 10, 2014

The Biggest Threat To The
Tea Party ISN'T The IRS

The reason the Tea Party had it's influence cut drastically from 2010 to 2012 WASN'T just the IRS going after Tea Party groups.

It was also the political 'business-as-usual' establishment tricking Tea Party donors into giving them their money.

The Tea Party sprang up so quick before the 2010 mid term elections that the political establishment never had a chance to 'catch the wave' so to speak and get their hands on any of that cash.

Long time political establishment leeches watched that huge wave of Tea Party cash pass them by in 2010.

These permanent political operatives told themselves there was NO WAY they were going to miss getting their hands on a big chunk of that Tea Party cash the next time around.

You know what they did? They went out & founded dozens of FAKE TEA PARTY groups & tricked people in giving them their donations.

 So you see, by 2012, they had solved the 'problem'. This last election cycle, they 'caught the wave' and made sure that millions of those Tea Party dollars ended up in their pockets.

MILLIONS of dollars that could have gone to Tea Party candidates & causes instead went right into the same old political machine.

Blogger and investigative reporter Lee Stranahan has been doing God's Work on this, exposing how long time political establishment types have siphoned off millions of donated dollars from the Tea Party.

Thanks to Stranahan's legwork, we now know of several fake Tea Party groups, including one called TeaParty.net,  that took in more than $3.4 million in donations and handed out just $137,000 in contributions to political candidates - several of whom weren't Tea Party candidates at all but were instead GOP establishment politicians like Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn. 

Right now, these political tricksters are priming themselves to pull in a big haul of Tea Party money in the 2014 and 2016 election cycles.  And they are NOT HAPPY that somebody has blown the whistle and pulled back the curtain on them so America's Conservatives can see what's been going on.  

You think Hillary can't win in 2016 and the Democrats will be forced to give up the Senate? Guess again.  If millions of dollars that people think they're giving to Tea Party & Conservative groups gets sucked down the political establishment black hole again in the next two election cycles, we'll end up with the same outcome we got in 2012.  

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Just Over A Week Ago, 
Secretary of State John Kerry Was Insisting The Biggest
Threat Facing The 
International Community Was...
Global Warming


After having been in charge of State for a year, it looks like Kerry has finally gotten around to initiating his very first department-wide policy change.  
In his first department-wide policy guidance statement since taking office a year ago, he told his 70,000 staff: "The environment has been one of the central causes of my life." 
"Protecting our environment and meeting the challenge of global climate change is a critical mission for me as our country's top diplomat," Kerry said in the letter issued on Friday to all 275 US embassies and across the State Department.
"It's also a critical mission for all of you: our brave men and women on the frontlines of direct diplomacy," he added in the document seen by AFP. 
He urged all "chiefs of mission to make climate change a priority for all relevant personnel and to promote concerted action at posts and in host countries to address this problem."
10 years from now, after global warming/climate change/whatever the heck they're calling it next week has been debunked so thoroughly even the die-hardest #AGWFRAUD cultist has started keeping his views to himself, anybody think John Kerry will still be describing reducing CO2 emissions as a critical mission? 

Of course he won't. He'll just never bring it up again. 

But note what he's doing here: as the world becomes increasingly unstable due to the withdrawal of American influence overseas, he's going to have our entire 70,000 strong State Department spending a big chunk of it's time focusing on a non-existant threat.  

As Obama's gone about creating a power vacuum by pulling back and retreating, the Putin's of the world have begun stepping up to fill the void left behind.  The world's bad actors have realized they have at least a three year window to redraw the world's geopolitical lines more to their liking before America has a shot at new, stronger leadership.  

And John Kerry continues to cluelessly demonstrate exactly why America needs new leadership.  

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

How A Criminal Conspiracy 
Between Lawyers & Environmental 
Activists Defrauded Chevron
Through A $16 Billion Judgment 

This case has been making it's way through the courts for a number of years.  

The short version: A group of lawyers and environmental activists claimed they had proof supplied by expert witnesses that proved that Chevron's oil drilling and related activity in Ecuador had caused catastrophic damage to the environment going back to the 1970's.  In 2011 an Ecuadoran court found in the plaintiff's favor and awarded them $16 billion in damages.  For the past 3 years the lawyers have sought to have the judgment enforced in the US and tried to compel Chevron to hand over billions of dollars to them. 

Chevron responded to the court's ruling by launching a case of it's own in which it contended that the lawyers & activists suing them had conspired together to present fraudulent evidence, fake expert witnesses, and used bribery in order to obtain that $16 billion judgment. 

Here's how the New York Times reported the original $9 billion judgement against Chevron back in 2011 [The judgment was later increased to $16 billion]

Today US District Judge Lewis Kaplan [Southern District of New York] released his ruling in which he lays out in stunning detail how Chevron proved it's case that it was indeed a victim of an organized fraud.  Kaplan's ruling is over 500 pages long, but he sums up his findings in a 5 page introduction that makes for incredible reading.  

Judge Lewis Kaplan of the US District Court, Southern District of NY

The entire ruling can be found here. 

The money quote: 
Click on the picture to see it full size

There is no doubt whatsoever that more than few people are headed for jail if even 1/2 what Judge Kaplan lays out in detail is true.  And lawyer Steven Donziger, as the chief architect of this huge fraud, would certainly be one of the first targets for an indictment. 

Attorney Steven Donziger, whom Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan states led a 
criminal conspiracy to defraud Chevron of billions of dollars. 

 This isn't the biggest environmental damages award ever made - the BP Oil spill's $20 billion is larger - but sure could be the biggest attempt at fraud ever proven in court.  

Nobody should defend an oil company when does it something wrong or causes real damage, such as in the case of the BP Oil Spill or the Exxon Valdez disaster.  But this case where greedy opportunists decided to manufacture a disaster where there wasn't one should give people pause and end the knee-jerk bias that an oil company is always guilty as charged. 

Monday, March 3, 2014


How embarrassing for the Democratic Party in Texas. As the Texas Tribune showed the other day, right now in the race for the US Senate seat held by John Cornyn, the leading Democratic challenger is....Kesha Rogers.


"In the Democratic primary, the candidate who has been on the ballot the most times,Kesha Rogers, leads the best-financed candidate, David Alameel, 35 percent to 27 percent."
Who is Kesha Rogers, you ask?

She's a committed member of the Lyndon LaRouche cult, a fact her Wiki bio makes very plain:


"Lakesha (Kesha) Rogers (born December 9, 1976) is an American political activist in the Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas, and former candidate for Texas's 22nd congressional district.[2]Rogers, an African American, is a follower of Lyndon LaRouche and his LaRouche movement. She has called for the impeachment of U.S. President Barack Obama."
Kesha Rogers with eccentric Lyndon LaRouche

In case you don't know who Lyndon LaRouche is, he's a perennial Democratic candidate for President who is a committed Marxist and a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Members of his movement are often mistaken for Conservatives since they view themselves as a revolutionaries in direct opposition to the present Democratic party leadership because it isn't extreme enough in it's Leftist views.

Remember when 'Tea Party Conservatives' were supposedly showing off protest signs where President Barack Obama sported a Hitler mustache?


Kesha Rogers proudly posing with her inflammatory 'Obama = Hitler' sign at a Tea Party rally

That was actually due to LaRouche cultists like Kesha Rogers infiltrating Tea Party protests.

You can read more about LaRouche's extreme views here:


Inside Higher Ed. columnist Scott McLemee wrote a detailed article about the LaRouche Youth Movement when it first began to assert itself on college campuses back in 2007:


With it's hero worship of a political crackpot & it's strange views about subjects like economics & foreign policy, the movement has always been quite small and at the current time only has around 1,000 members.

It's quite telling that at the present time a committed member of a crackpot extremist's sect running as a Democrat has managed to get out in front of the race for a U.S. Senate seat here in Texas.

I think it's clear most Democratic voters in Texas don't really know who Kesha Rogers is, what she believes, or about her ties to the LaRouche sect. It will be interesting to see how long she's able to maintain her current lead. If she manages to actually win the primary, the Texas Democratic Party will be forced to publicly state it will give her no help or funds for her campaign since she isn't really a Democrat.

The Texas Democratic Party has been in this awkward position before: Rogers actually won the primary to fill Tom DeLay's old seat a few years ago, as Dave Weigel at Slate notes here.

A Possible Democratic Disaster In Texas