Why are so many people who are opposed to development nevertheless in favor of "redevelopment"? The short answer is that development involves decisions made in the market by large numbers of people in the general population, in their own personal interests, while redevelopment involves taking decisions out of the hands of the population at large and putting the power to make those decisions in the hands of elites.
As I write, Congress is indulging in one of its usual shams: a “hearing” to determine whether blatantly unconstitutional, unconscionable federal crimes are in fact constitutional and conscionable — or can at least be made to seem that way. Specifically, the Subcommittee on National Security is listening to assorted “experts” and at least one victim (Alaska’s state representative, Sharon Cissna, who famously travelled four days via car, small plane and ferry rather than endure a groping at Seattle’s airport) in a farce it entitles "TSA [Transportation Security Administration] Oversight Part I: Whole Body Imaging."
Within the past decade, I've written three columns titled "Deception 101," "Stubborn Ignorance," and "Exploiting Public Ignorance," all explaining which branch of the federal government has taxing and spending authority. How can academics, politicians, news media people and ordinary citizens get away with statements such as "Reagan's budget deficits," "Clinton's budget surplus," "Bush's budget deficits and tax cuts" or "Obama's tax increases"? Which branch of government has taxing and spending authority is not a matter of rocket science, but people continue to make these statements. The only explanation that I come up with is incurable ignorance, willful deception or just plain stupidity; if there's another answer, I would like to hear it.
Hillary Rodham, born in 1947 and raised in a United Methodist Republican family in middle-class Park Ridge, Illinois, first met radical revolutionary Saul Alinsky as a teenager. She had been introduced to him at a church outing by her liberal youth minister, Don Jones, who greatly admired Alinsky. Jones, 26, a U.S. Navy veteran, would become the most important teacher in Hillary’s life before college.
I pride myself on my understanding of the economy. It’s based upon an objectivist approach, one facilitated by my being in the trenches as a manufacturer, grinding it out day to day in the private sector and observing the nuances which affect our customers in their efforts to sell industrial or consumer products.
When aliens invade Planet Earth, who else but the U.S. Marine Corps can save the day? That is the premise for this year’s action-packed film Battle: Los Angeles. Unrealistic? Of course. Predictable? Certainly. But entertaining? Without a doubt.
The destruction of the American Republic will not come at the hands of terrorists nor, in all likelihood, from any nation or coalition of nations arrayed against us. It will be done by us, and we are making great progress at it, as Thomas E. Woods, Jr. amply demonstrates in his latest book, Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse.
It’s rare that I applaud a fool, but this time I think the Lord would as well. Notorious atheist Michael Newdow, he of the easily ruffled sensibilities and eagle eye for stealth Christianity, recently brought yet another lawsuit. No surprise here: the Feds’ money offends him because it bears the motto, “In God We Trust.”
When most Americans hear of Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, they have an almost knee-jerk, visceral response that elevates Lincoln to the level of the great emancipator of enslaved African Americans, national unifier, America’s first great non-racist and tolerant President, and defender of the Union and the racial equality of blacks. While this romanticized notion of Lincoln and his presidency has pervaded the national consciousness for almost 140 years, objective historical evidence paints a radically and fundamentally different picture of the real Abraham Lincoln.
If you want to be able to understand Obama, our Community Organizer-in-Chief, you have to read Saul Alinsky’s two books, Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals, which Obama read and obviously absorbed. Otherwise, you won’t have a clue as to what he means by his words and actions. Those two books contain the basics of Alinsky’s ideas of revolutionary radicalism which Obama spent several years learning.