Some skeptics contend that it was an attempt to promote the international ‘green’ movement, which is not about the environment, rest assured. It is about promoting government control of a ‘green’ global energy supply and to shift the energy supply away from efficient producers like private oil companies.

Now energy prices in the US have reached the point where gasoline is twice as expensive as it was when Obama took office. Why?

Because ‘green’ policies push up prices by substituting inefficient energy sources like windmills and solar panels while blocking efficient coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power.

In fact the recent spikes in gasoline prices are directly connected to Obama’s ‘green’ policy blocking the Keystone oil pipeline.

Oh, no! That could never be! say the environmentalists. There are many factors pushing up gas prices in the US today! Not the Keystone decision!

Sorry, but wrong. Because the world oil market is getting the message from Keystone that America is not going to contribute to increasing energy supplies, and thus to keeping prices down.

And that refusal to contribute  is caused by ‘green’ energy obstructionists and profiteers like Al Gore who has accumulated a vast personal fortune while setting the intellectual template for blocking new oil production, nuclear plants, natural gas production and coal energy under the guise of ‘global warming’ alarmism.

In other words, environmentalists are getting richer while energy prices skyrocket and everyone else gets poorer. That is why your local environmental activist, who acts like just a regular guy down the street, never seems to be lacking for money to promote his cause – because wealthy left-wing millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires, or government grants, or university grants or wealthy enviro groups are funding him behind the scenes either directly or indirectly. The enviro movement is the most powerful special interest group in American history. And one of the richest, if not the richest.

And your local newspaper, often owned by a major corporation, is echoing everything the environmentalist says, giving incalculable value in free coverage. Because many corporations, particularly media companies, are part of the ‘green’ economy since they are on the political left and allied with the government.

The fact is that all prices for all global commodities are affected by psychological factors like the Keystone decision, especially in a worldwide sector like energy. Small events and decisions can link with others to cause big price variations. Even small interruptions in supply at the wrong moment can cause prices to rise rapidly. It is simple supply and demand.

When oil prices spiked between May and July 2008 the media went nuts blaming president George Bush, the oil companies and futures speculators.

Wrong. Here is an excerpt from rff.org (Resources for the Future) about why the 2008 oil price spike really happened:

‘Even seemingly small shocks may have large effects. Can they help explain the spike in oil prices in the first half of 2008? It was definitely a time of significant upheavals, some with the potential for sustained disruption of supplies. In February 2008 Venezuela cut off oil sales to ExxonMobil during a legal battle over nationalization of the company’s properties there. … in late March (in Iraq) saboteurs blew up the two main oil export pipelines in the south—cutting about 300,000 barrels per day from Iraqi exports. On April 25, Nigerian union workers went out on strike, causing ExxonMobil to shut in production of 780,000 barrels per day from three fields. Two days later, on April 27, Scottish oil workers walked off the job, leading to closure of the North Forties pipeline that carries about half of the United Kingdom’s North Sea oil production. As of May 1, about 1.36 million barrels per day of Nigerian production was shut in due to a combination of militant attacks on oil facilities, sabotage, and labor strife…. On June 19, militant attacks in Nigeria caused Shell to shut in an additional 225,000 barrels per day. On June 20, just days before the price of oil reached its historic peak, Nigerian protesters blew up a pipeline that forced Chevron to shut in 125,000 barrels per day. Each of these events clearly registered in the spot market. It is not implausible to believe that, arriving in quick succession, they contributed heavily to the rapid acceleration in the spot price of oil.’

Thus the overall problem in 2008 was not oil availability, market manipulation, oil company profits or futures speculation as the media charged, but rather it was loss of supply either at the hands of terrorists, communists (Venezuela) or labor unions which the same media never bothered to report on so that they could blame Bush and the oil companies and capitalist speculators.

This all was coupled to environmentalists persistently blocking supplies and the OPEC oil cartel pushing up prices artificially.

And what do these five forces – terrorists, labor unions, communists, environmentalists and OPEC – all have in common?

They are all diametrically opposed to the free-market principles of the American economy that could give us endless supplies of low-cost energy.

Meanwhile as environmentalists block or seek to block energy supplies in every way here in the US – the Keystone pipeline, ANWR, natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania and New York state, offshore, in wilderness areas etc., Associated Press recently reported:

LAS CABOS, Mexico (AP) — The United States and Mexico agreed Monday to work together when drilling for oil and gas below their maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mexico’s foreign minister signed the deal at a ceremony in the Mexican resort of Los Cabos as Mexican President Felipe Calderon and U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar looked on.

The cooperation stems from an understanding that President Barack Obama and Calderon reached in 2010 to share in the profits and work together to avoid spills.

Clinton said the deal would “ensure safe, efficient, responsible exploration of the oil and gas reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Notice the wording… ‘The United States and Mexico agreed Monday to work together when drilling for oil and gas below their maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico.’

‘…below their maritime border’ means ‘in Mexican waters’. That means that the drilling will happen in Mexico, not offshore in the US where Hillary’s enviro friends are blocking energy production in every way they can in imposing a ‘green’ agenda.

Indeed we are not going to see the increasing energy production that we need in the United States as long as Obama is president. And thus we are going to see more and more price rises. And that is why Obama must go.

Below is a commentary from January from nikitas3.com about America’s vast energy supplies. It is an eye opener because it deals in facts, not in manipulated statistics that you might read in an enviro pamphlet:

US Has Vast Energy Resources

If you were raised in the 1960s and 1970s, you heard about ‘energy scarcity’ right from the start. Certain groups with a bias against our advanced lifestyle and our economic success fed us the myth that our carbon fuels of coal, natural gas and oil are “limited” or “scarce” or “disappearing”.

One of the eco-shibboleths most often promulgated was,  and is, the myth of ‘peak oil’ which meant that America had produced a ‘peak’ amount of oil and that production is going to decline until we run out.

This is all a blatant deception or outright lie, friends. And take it from someone who has read lots of actual data from serious people who are charting the facts and not using false propaganda and skewed figures to mislead the public for the purposes of an agenda.

Here is an excerpt disputing the very concept of ‘peak oil’ from the executive summary of a recent report from the Institute for Energy Research (IER):

‘Moreover, it is important to note that that “reserves” estimates are constantly in flux. For example, in 1980, the U.S. had oil reserves of roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet from 1980 through 2010, we produced over 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, over the last 30 years, we produced over 150 percent of our proved reserves.’

It is important to remember that environmentalism has a clear agenda – to replace our energy abundance with energy scarcity through ‘green energy’. In other words ecologists themselves will create the very scarcity that they are warning about.

‘Green energy’ will drastically push up the cost of energy for all Americans by reducing the supply through gross inefficiency. Obama himself said that electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket” under his enviro policies.

Environmentalists know this and desire this because they believe that the human population is too large and should be drastically reduced. One way is to make life too expensive to live, essentially to starve people out. Don’t doubt this. These enviros literally hate mankind and love trees and bears. And they draw in gullible, irrational people to their angry agenda with utopian pictures of ‘clean energy’.

The IER study reflects statistics that have been around for decades that say that America is an energy-rich nation that easily can produce vast amounts of carbon-based power for centuries to come. And this report does not even discuss the most efficient energy source of all – nuclear power – which could multiply our effective energy supply significantly.

You can read the entire report here

Consider the manipulation of language that environmentalists use. The IER explains that ‘proved reserves’ of coal, oil, natural gas etc…. ‘Refers to oil and natural gas that have already been discovered, typically through actual exploration or drilling, and which can be recovered economically today.’

IER goes on to explain that ‘proved reserves’ is the lowest number used to describe energy reserves out of the various terms used to describe them (technically recoverable reserves, estimated reserves etc.) and is commonly used by those promoting energy scarcity.

In other words, every word and phrase and statistic that environmentalists use is manipulated to instill uncertainty and fear and move us toward inefficient ‘green’ energy which in fact is the least sustainable energy form of all.

Because, for instance, the expensive labor required for manufacturing, installing and maintaining a massive army of scattered, individual, low-yield windmills is literally hundreds of times the labor required to build and operate a nuclear power plant of the same output (i.e., windmills are unsustainable economically).

This is why we have the ‘global warming’ attack on our carbon energy supply: Because it shifts the spotlight from the unsustainable nature of labor-intensive ‘green energy’.

In fact it never even has been proven that the ethanol produced from one acre of corn actually contains more energy than is required to plant that acre of corn, apply the petroleum-based herbicides and pesticides, harvest the corn, transport the corn to the distillery and run the distillation process.

Here are more excerpts from the IER study with a nikitas3.com comment after each.

Study said: When the authoritative Potential Gas Committee (PGC) at the Colorado School of Mines completed its most recent biennial resource evaluation in 2010, it found that total natural gas resources in the United States were at their highest level in the Committee’s 46-year history (the PGC has slightly more conservative estimates of total U.S. resources—2.17 quadrillion cubic feet—although this still represents a multi-century supply of domestic natural gas.) Comment: Astounding abundance. And increasing abundance, not declining abundance. Because new technologies allow us to find and extract more and more gas.

Study said: Another unconventional source is gas trapped in shale rock, or “shale gas,” which arguably represents the most promising source of current and near-future production. In 2010, the EIA estimated the United States had 347 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas resources but by 2011, that number is estimated to have almost doubled to 679 trillion cubic feet. Comment: Doubled in just one year… Amazing.  Because original estimates of energy production are typically low compared to actual production.  The original estimate for the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in Alaska was 1 billion barrels. By the time it is pumped out, it will have produced 18 billion.

Study says: In terms of energy capacity, North American recoverable coal could provide enough electricity for approximately 500 years at coal’s current level of consumption for electricity generation. Comment: And all that coal can be converted to motor fuel, heating oil etc., in a process developed in the mid-20^th century.

Here is the rest of the executive summary of the IER report:

‘The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.

That is more than the world has used since the first oil well was drilled over 150 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. For comparative purposes, the technically recoverable oil in North America could fuel the present needs in the United States of seven billion barrels per year for around 250 years.

Restrictions in the form of federal bans and leasing combined with declining offerings of lease acreage mean only about 2.2 percent of America’s offshore acreage is currently leased for production.

Proved reserves of natural gas in the United States and throughout North America are enormous, and the total amount of recoverable natural gas is even more impressive. The EIA estimates that the United States has 272.5 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves of natural gas. The total amount of natural gas that is recoverable in North America is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet.

Given that U.S. consumption is currently about 24 trillion cubic feet per, there is enough natural gas in North America to last the United States for over 175 years at current rates of consumption.

Total supplies of natural gas in North America dwarf those of other countries. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have more technically recoverable natural gas resources than the combined total proved natural gas reserves found in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan.

With respect to total recoverable resources, however, North America’s combined coal supplies are even more staggering. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have over 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal, or nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second largest reserves. North America’s recoverable coal resources are bigger than the five largest non-North American countries’ reserves combined (Russia, China, Australia, India, Ukraine).

North American recoverable coal could provide enough electricity for the United States for about 500 years at current levels of consumption.

While the US and North America contain enormous energy wealth, US policies have increasingly made exploration, development, production and consumption of that energy more difficult.

Therefore, a scarcity of good policies, not a scarcity of energy, is responsible for US energy insecurity.’

Read the entire report! It is exactly the kind of realistic picture of American energy reserves that the enviro propagandists do not want you to see.

And considering that the United States is just a fraction of the globe’s surface and that the whole world has resources that have not even been sought yet and you have a clearer picture of the truth about global energy supplies and the contrived need for unsustainable ‘green’ energy.

By the 1980s Japanese financiers had acquired ownership shares in many American businesses and properties like Rockefeller Center in New York City. And Americans were conceding glumly that Japan was going to overtake us, even in the heart of our financial capital.

If only it were so. Japan has so many serious problems today that it will never recover in the foreseeable future and it is not a threat to the United States economically in any way.

Japan has begun recognizing its own problems in a small way, however. Its famous government-owned Bullet Trains, which started service in 1964, were privatized in 1987 because the government was losing boatloads of money on them.

But until Japan makes many major reforms, it will continue to stagnate. And it is unlikely to make those reforms. Because Japan is in the iron grip of the socialist left.

And now we are worried about China. Should we be?

Not really. Here are some of the reasons we should not worry:

*China is a massively impoverished nation as a result of 63 years of communist rule, since 1949. It has one billion destitute citizens, more than three times the size of the entire US population in a nation almost exactly the same size as the United States.

*If the ‘Chinese Economic Bubble’ bursts – which it easily could if China is forced to stop manipulating its currency to make its exports favorably cheap – China could sink quickly like any other economy. It is not invincible by any means.

 *Up to 100 million Chinese are said to be part of a floating labor force that has no permanent jobs and that migrates around looking for work. These people are among the potential social powder kegs for the Chinese government.

*China is totally controlled by its communist government. Political instability can derail its economy by derailing the people in power. That is why no reforms are even suggested, although its capitalist economy probably will eventually undermine communism if it is allowed to continue functioning.

*China is very crowded and dirty. It is not an appealing or charming or beautiful European-type nation. It is more like a noisy, filthy factory with a very polluted environment.

*China has a massive imbalance in the number of young men and young women. Today there are tens of millions of Chinese males with no wife or no prospect of a wife because China’s one-child policy resulted in millions of boys being selected to be born versus abortion for girl fetuses. All this has happened under one of the most oppressive governments on earth.

So China has big problems. BIG problems. These are some of the major ones. There are many smaller ones.

On the other hand, Chinese poverty makes hundreds of millions of Chinese hungry to advance economically. They are willing to work hard and for little money, just as Americans once were. And this can only help China to expand.

Meanwhile millions of Americans shun hard work and want to live off the dole.

Overall, however, the United States can compete easily in the world market against China. Consider this interesting fact by Shikha Dalmia, writing in thedaily.com and reprinted in The Wall Street Journal:

‘The fact of the matter is that even though manufacturing employment has declined – America has lost 6 million manufacturing jobs since the sector’s peak in the 1970s – manufacturing output has been going up. Indeed, total output today is 2.5 times the 1972 level in adjusted dollars. In 2010, America produced $1.8 trillion in goods (in 2005 dollars) about $100 billion more than China, but with only about a tenth as many workers, thanks to automation and technological advances that have vastly increased American productivity. Goods that took 1,000 American workers to produce in 1950 now take 177. The choice for American companies, then, is not between American workers and Chinese workers, but between American machines and Chinese workers.’

Yet over and over many in America now are pointing to China as a great threat to America. But our problems are nothing compared to China’s just as our economic prospects in the 1980s were strong over the long run compared to Japan’s, as time has proven.

China could easily collapse. In fact it already has. It really collapsed in the 1950s when communism strangled it. And only its totalitarian communist government – exploiting capitalism and American technology to create a world export market – will hold the nation together through even more oppression and control.

In the meantime, America’s current economic problems can easily be overcome by voting out the far-left Democrats who are strangling our own economy.

Even some Chinese economic leaders, who see the folly of their communist past, are ridiculing America’s surge toward socialism.

Here are the ways the United States can immediately start to revitalize our economy, put millions of Americans back to work, compete in world markets and take back our international leadership:

*Stop the Democrats from treating American businesses like piggy banks. The more you tax business, the more businesses are likely to move their operations overseas. Businesses, like consumers, are willing to pay reasonable taxes, but not excessive taxes. The Democrat approach is that all business profits belong to the government. Only when business is allowed to keep the fruits of its labors will business – like individuals – thrive and prosper.

*Stop the environmentalists from throttling business with unnecessary protection for every rat and spider on planet earth. Stop the requirement that businesses file lengthy impact statements for every project. One single 115-foot-tall cell phone pole in upstate New York required a 4-inch-thick enviro impact statement. This is outrageous and is pushing jobs abroad by pushing up the cost of all development in America. When the fake ‘spotted owl’ controversy arose in Oregon in the 1990s, 30,000 American loggers lost their jobs and hundreds of thousands of other rural people were adversely affected. Those jobs went straight to the forests of Canada.

*Stop the regulators from imposing more and more requirements on business for more benefits, more sick leave, more rules over health care, more this, more that, all coming from the Democrat party.

*Stop the labor unions – closely allied with the Democrat party – from strangling American businesses. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, during unprecedented prosperity, unions destroyed many businesses, entire industries and millions of jobs through strikes and outrageous wage demands. When Boeing decided in 2008 to move production of its 787 Dreamliner aircraft out of its Washington state production center because of strikes and other disruptive labor actions, the federal government actually tried to stop Boeing from opening a factory in South Carolina, which is a “right to work” state.

These are the types of union actions that actually push companies to move their operations overseas rather than put up with America’s corrupt unions, which are mostly run by organized crime and have been since the 1930s.

*Stop the trial lawyers – all of them Democrats – from threatening every business in America with frivolous lawsuits. The Democrats then protect these lawyers and take huge campaign contributions from them. While American workers lose their jobs.

Japan was no real threat to America because it has more heavy-handed socialistic policies than America and has cut its own throat. China is no threat to America either if we can simply allow business to create jobs and wealth without the government blocking it every day.

The really big threat to America is not abroad. It is right here at home.

Friends, and Fellow-Citizens:

The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful citizen to his country, and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I am not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I have been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our Affairs with foreign Nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions, with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your Union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people, is now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence; the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, – northern and southern–Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only, that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

In all the changes to which you may be involved, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions;–that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country;–that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular references to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasion of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes, that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it; can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:–Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient Government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defense posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government–the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

George Washington

Yes, certainly, he is electable.

To get a perspective, look at the 2008 election. We had a Republican president in George W. Bush with a wildly unpopular Iraq war and then, just as the election loomed, an economic collapse. We had a lousy GOP candidate in John McCain who seemed at times to not even want to be president.

We saw Obama taking many conservative positions in order to appeal to voters (he said he favored the 2^nd Amendment, nuclear power, opposed homosexual marriage etc.). We had Obama promising ‘hope and change’ to a frightened populace. Obama played ‘the race card’ all the way (i.e., elect The First Black President). There was total 120% media sycophancy for Obama.

Yet Obama only won a modest victory of 6 points over a completely hapless McCain.

So even with everything going in his direction, Obama still was not a very popular candidate; don’t let the media rewrite history. And today Obama’s popularity is much lower than it was back then. Don’t let the growing media spin fool you. It is all geared toward election day and toward dispiriting Republicans.

And since Obama was elected, his weaknesses have shown bright. We have seen big Republican wins in almost every single election from the New Jersey governorship, to NY-9 – the New York City congressional district that voted Republican for the first time since 1922 – to the November 2010 Republican landslide with more than 680 federal and state electoral seats, including governorships, going from Democrat to Republican. Even Obama’s own former US Senate seat went to Republican Mark Kirk.

So don’t think that Obama is a political juggernaut. He is not. Trends are running strongly against him in almost every demographic.

Meanwhile his media cronies continue to tout ‘the power of the incumbency’ when actually that power only applies to incumbents who are popular. Obama is not.

Can Santorum beat Obama?

Again, yes. But remember how the Democrats operate. This will be the dirtiest campaign in history, with 150% media compliance. Democrats are desperate to keep Obama in power but they are deathly afraid of his weaknesses. Don’t be fooled by the media template that Obama and the Democrats are all confident.

Americans will see through all this media bias, however, because these are trying times. This election is different. Voters are going to think very clearly about what direction the nation is going in. And right now they are very negative about Obama.

And don’t forget that the ‘occupy’ movement is going to be another albatross around Obama’s neck. Because this movement is going to explode in the Autumn of 2012 with chaos and violence. And as it is tied to Obama, it is going to alienate millions of voters.

So while Santorum certainly faces major challenges like any candidate for the presidency does, let’s consider the positive aspects of a potential Santorum candidacy:

*Santorum is not Barack Obama. He does not have the terrible economy to take responsibility for. This is the Number One issue. Don’t let the Democrats and media mislead you about contraception and other social issues.

*Santorum can rightly tie Obama to crooked corporations (non-tax-paying General Electric, Solyndra etc.), crooked Wall Street (Democrats Corzine, Madoff etc.) and crooked government (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac).

*Santorum can be seen as a humble “man of the people” with his big family and his honest ways and his modest sweaters. Democrats always like to say that that is who they are. Nonsense. They are the party of the super-rich elite. Santorum is the real deal. He indeed is “one of us”.

*Santorum will energize conservative voters, including Christians. Millions of these voters are angry at the GOP Establishment and could stay home if Romney is the nominee. Even some conservative Democrats – so-called Reagan Democrats – will vote for Santorum.

*Liberals are calling Santorum “too conservative” and “too Christian”. This is because they are afraid that he will take on Obama bluntly and confront the nation’s moral decline foursquare. Every word that Santorum says will be heard ‘round the nation in a presidential campaign. The media cannot censor him. Thus well-chosen words will echo widely.

*Santorum does not have the ‘occupiers’ and Maxine Waters and the media smear machine doing his dirty work. And he can expose them all by going “over the heads” of the media and appealing directly to voters as Ronald Reagan did.

*Americans are very nervous about the future. Because there is not only a jobs crisis, but an energy crisis, a housing crisis and a debt crisis. Santorum is much more likely to hit Obama hard on every issue. Romney has too often seemed like a “nice guy” Republican who won’t go after Obama. This is how McCain blew it.

*As a conservative Santorum won two terms (1994-2006) in the US Senate from Pennsylvania, which is considered a ‘swing state’. His critics explain that he lost re-election by a wide margin in 2006. But that was when the Republican party was badly beaten nationally in response to the unpopularity of the Iraq war. And Santorum was beaten by a pro-life Democrat.

To see a compehensive review of senator Santorum’s entire voting record, go to issues200.org

Santorum often seems like a good conservative, and for the most part he is. But certainly not always. In fact some conservatives call him a big-government Republican. Here is just a selection of his political positions from issues2000.org:

He wants a 0% corporate tax rate, not the current 35%. Voted to limit the power of trial lawyers. Rated only 27% by the National Education Association (teacher unions). Voted for new oil drilling in ANWR in Alaska. Has voted to end solar energy subsidies. Has a 100% free-trade voting record according to the Cato Center. Opposed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. Wishes to repeal ObamaCare. Rated 0 by radical peace group SANE.

He supports the reinstatement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation on homosexuals in the military. He supported Bush’s Medicare prescription program. He is rated only 25% by the American Civil Liberties Union. He voted against adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.

He wants to make English the official language of the United States. He wants illegal aliens barred from Social Security. Rated 0 by the AFL-CIO for an anti-union voting record. Says public-employee unions have bankrupted states.

He supported raising the Social Security retirement age. Wants to eliminate the “death tax”. Wants capital gains tax reduced. Opposes internet sales tax. Wants to stop Iran from getting nukes.

Santorum promotes marriage and the nuclear family. Wants to block-grant Medicaid, welfare and food stamps to states. Says Great Society program of the 1960s fractured families. Santorum is strongly Christian. He has said that the poor should get school choice vouchers.

So if you look at Santorum’s record, it would have wide appeal because
Americans still are generally much more conservative than liberal.

And if he can cut through the media caricature of him over his Christian faith, he could win the White House. Don’t be swayed by the radical media template. Because the same people said that Ronald Reagan was unelectable just a few months before Reagan trounced Jimmy Carter.

Rick Santorum, however, is not Ronald Reagan. But then again, nobody knew who Ronald Reagan really was until after he got elected.

The Western Railroad confronted a great wilderness in the so-called ‘hills’ of Western Massachusetts known as the Berkshire Range, rising to an elevation of only several thousand feet. It is considered to have been the first mountain-climbing railroad in the world. At the time, this region was considered impenetrable, odd-sounding today since it is only 20 miles across, while the highest point of the line itself is only 1,458 feet.

But the need for a railroad was clear. Without it, Boston would in effect be cut off from American trade except by sea. Only a railroad would do.

The route of the Western was surveyed by the ingenious engineer Maj. George Washington Whistler (1800-1849), a West Point graduate. One of the courses of study for engineering at West Point was bridge building.

Whistler earlier had worked on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, running through mountainous areas of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and on canals.

Top: The tallest of the Arches is 70 feet. It no longer carries trains. In summertime, the swimming underneath it in the cool, lazy pool is like a trip into another world, a unique venue in all of New England. Notice the massive leaning buttress wall visible through the arch. Center: These leaning buttresses keep the structure from shifting by their sheer weight. It is a show of brute force. Notice the ‘sharp’ corners on the blocks. Those corners line up perfectly, and were intended to quickly reveal any shift in the structure. There has been none except for the lower corner where the Westfield River has eroded the base. Bottom: The easternmost bridge, this double-arch span still carries the railroad tracks. Talk about form and function! Beauty is the hallmark of these structures.

The rail route roughly follows the serpentine Westfield River from Springfield, Massachusetts westward up into the hills. It bridges the river repeatedly, requiring 10 keystone arch bridges. Whistler insisted on a more expensive double-track width for the route, a configuration which eventually came into heavy use, as it is today. At the time of its construction, the grade was so steep that there was no locomotive that could climb it, and engines were designed specifically for it.

The Arches themselves are based on Roman designs developed 1,700 years previous. They are constructed of local granite without any mortar using a ‘keystone’ design where the arch’s own weight and that of the train on top is dissipated through its legs through simple geometry. Every single stone in the arch is a perfect sub-form that joins with other perfect sub-forms to create a functioning arch form.

In 1830, small steam locomotive weighed only 12,000 lbs. The heaviest locomotives to have crossed the Arches in the early 20^th century were 215,000 pounds, while today modern diesels using the route weigh more than 400,000 pounds and cross the arches with no ill effect.

Arch construction was expensive and therefore was used only in remote locations where there was no alternative. They were built block by block atop wooden forms that were the shape of the arch. After the keystone was set, the wooden forms were removed and gravity held the arches in place.

The grade along the route of the Arches is one of the steeper slopes in the Eastern United States at 1.65% (1.65 feet of rise for every 100 feet in length). The famous Berkshire steam locomotives were built in nearby Schenectady, New York and tested on this grade, thus their name.

Eight of the original ten Keystone Arches still are in use. The main track was realigned in 1912 leading to the abandonment of the structure pictured in the top photo above, and another nearby arch 65 feet in height.

The Arches themselves were constructed under the supervision of stonemason Alexander Birnie of nearby Stockbridge, Massachusetts who also built the culverts and retaining walls. Part of the massive stone retaining wall is visible in the upper right corner of the top photo. It extends several hundred feet down the line and has prevented the trackbed from tumbling into the river.

If the name Whistler sounds familiar, it should. Maj. Whistler was the father of James Abbot McNeil Whistler, the artist of the portrait called Whistler’s Mother, also known as Portrait of a Painter’s Mother

Engineer Whistler’s accomplishment in Massachusetts was duly noted and he was commissioned in 1842 by the Russian czar to construct the Moscow-St. Petersburg rail line, which eventually became a leg of the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

Whistler died of cholera in Russia in 1849.

Today, the Keystone Arches are accessible along hiking trails. Many hikers access the Arches along the railroad right-of-way which is trespassing and is discouraged. Trains can be moving downhill quickly without making much noise.

The artistic elegance of the Arches shows once again that form and function always rise together, and that a great engineer also is an artist. The Arches are structures of great beauty in a fantastic rural setting. They are technically located in Middlefield, Massachusetts if you would like to do a MapQuest search.

The name Frederic Remington is synonymous with artistic depictions of the American West. Yet he was a born-and-bred Easterner who worked during his adult life in a studio near New York City. Educated at Yale University, he was born in 1861 and died prematurely in 1909 of a burst appendix. In his shortened career, he produced more than 2,700 artworks ranging from paintings to illustrations for Harper’s Weekly and Scribner’s to 23 separate bronze cowboy sculptures that are eminently collectible today in their many edition multiples.

This exhibit is a compact survey of Remington’s oeuvre which introduced Easterners to the American West at a time when the Old West in fact was disappearing into history. And perhaps that is the beauty of Remington, that he captured it so adroitly while it still was genuine, at the end of the sheriff-and-outlaw and cowboy-and-Indian eras, but before the advent of the automobile.

Whether Remington was merely an illustrator or a real artist is open to a debate that plagued him throughout his life. But in light of the sharp decline in standards in art today, we should give all benefit to this man who singularly captured the spirit of all things Western. His works are a delight to the eye.

In a painting like Indian Trapper of 1889 (above, detail), Remington offers a trademark vision of a lone Native American on a horse. The sheen of the horse’s hind quarter, the Indian’s dramatic gesture in turning to the painter, the horse’s static but at the same time dynamic pose with its tail and mane in motion, make this painting quintessential Remington. Meanwhile, the impressionistic quality of the landscape in Indian Trapper was another Remington style, showing a lesser concern for landscape than for the people he pictured.

In a highly charged composition like Past All Surgery (Aiding A Comrade) (below) from the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, we see full-bore Remington, a hotshot action picture with dust and hooves flying, bridles snapping, three men splashed across the canvas in wild bodily gesticulations and horses straining in every possible contortion. The picture is centered, and brightly lit, like many of his works, showing the folks back East that ‘Home on the Range’ indeed was where ‘the skies are not cloudy all day’. The reference to “surgery” indicates that the fallen man probably cannot be saved.

What is interesting is the dissimilar treatment of the two different subjects. The US Calvary and cowboys generally are depicted in wild motion, while Indians are seen more stoically and serenely, perhaps Remington’s interpretation of the polar civilizations confronting one another on the plains and mountains of the West.

The Defiance of 1890 shows us “a brave warrior, noble and solitary, rebelliously resisting the regrettable but inevitable invasion onto his land”, says the wall label. And the painting is almost inert, of a Native American holding a talisman high in a defiant gesture, his horse relaxed in a foreshortened perspective, his headdress impressionistic in nature, the entire composition set in a bright, golden sunshine on this small canvas, about two feet tall.

Meanwhile Cowboy of 1890 is horizontal, and shows a rider on a horse that is positively clipping across the land, its four legs off the ground in a dazzling gesture of speed, the cowboy leaning forward, and the entire composition resembling a speeding bullet.

In 1895, Remington decided to try his hand at bronze casting, and his first effort is included in the Clark exhibit. Broncho Buster shows a horse rearing, and the piece took 9 months to compose. But it is one of Remington’s most famous bronzes, with 90 copies originally sold.  Also in the Clark exhibit is Wounded Bunkie, a side-by-side 2-horse-2-rider composition of 1896 with only 2 legs out of 8 fastened to the base and holding up the sculpture. It never had the commercial appeal of Broncho Buster but appears more challenging sculpturally.

In an effort to make his paintings as accessible as his illustrations, Remington made some canvases in black and white for reproduction purposes, which offers an interesting departure for a gallery exhibit. Pursuing the Indians of 1896 is one such B&W, a group of cavalry men firing rifles in a planar composition. It was reproduced as part of the biography of a man named Nelson Miles.

Later in his career, Remington experimented with a variety of nighttime compositions using only the moon as the light source. These paintings tend to be dank green, blue, grey and brown, are far less detailed than his sunlit compositions, and include pictures like Indian Scouts at Evening of 1906, in which Remington said he wished to study “how to do the silver sheen of moonlight.” Another, A Reconnaisance of 1902, shows a group of horseback trackers near a dark and menacing forest under the stars, with danger suggested in the brush. All in all, he captured nighttime scenes with as much aplomb – although a different type of aplomb – as his daylit pictures.

Remington’s few drawings in this small but enlightening exhibit show his efforts to be more illustrational than draughtsmanly. But no matter. His paintings are a joy to look at as lively documentation of a time and place now gone, like most in art’s history.

Claude Lorrain Drawings acquired by the Clark: Also on view at The Clark during the Remington exhibit was a series of 18 drawings and one small painting by the French landscape artist Claude Lorrain, who lived 1600-1682. His real name was Claude Gelee.

These drawings are so classically European that it stirs the soul to see them here in America in one of the largest groupings outside of the Continent. One of the most amusing pieces in this small show is a two-sided Study for a Seaport of 1640-41, in which the sketchy drawing of an urban port appears to be reversed on each side of the paper (it is exhibited in a two-sided frame) almost as if each line had bled straight through the paper. What the artist’s intention was in making it is hard to know. Perhaps as a test of drawing skill and proportion? The drawing in fact is crossed by diagonal composition lines.

Other nice touches include Cascades of Tivoli (1640) (above, detail), which shows a rocky, tumbling landscape that looks like a waterfall; and A Wooded Landscape and Distant Buildings, which demonstrates the artist’s multiple talents in handling both the natural and the man-made in the same image.

Pastoral Landscape and Trees of 1640 is another classically Euro drawing with brown wash applied only partially and almost haphazardly, as if the artist decided against it halfway through. The only painting in this group, the elliptical Rest on the Flight into Egypt shows Lorrain deftly using the tiniest of his brushes to its fullest potential in a way that makes us long for more Old World artisanship.

Assault of a Citadel of 1658 presents a small army marching through a treescape toward a fortress bastion, with much human action simply and astutely captured in the surging crowd of soldiers.

In Lorrain’s cattle, landscapes, cityscapes, rocks, seaports and trees, we see a world long gone that thankfully is preserved for us to relive in this fortuitous exhibit. The Clark’s acquisition of these works adds enormously to the institution’s growing prestige.

Robinson wrote: China, for better or worse, is a serious country. The United States had better start acting like one. Comment: Uh, Mr. Robinson, the United States is a serious nation. It is unproductive media liberals like you who have ruined us and made us non-serious, like teaching kids how to put a condom on a banana in our horrible Democrat-controlled public schools.

Robinson wrote: I got a glimpse of the future Wednesday in the vast ballroom of a Washington hotel where hundreds of august dignitaries — and some journalists as well — gathered at a luncheon in honor of Vice President Xi Jinping, who is widely expected to become China’s top leader after a year-long transition. Comment: If a ‘glimpse of the future’ is entertaining a communist dictator, then we know what kind of person Robinson is. China is a backward, uncreative, mimic nation that operates 100% on Western/American technology, much of it stolen. This is not a “glimpse into the future”. It is a glimpse of a thieving, oppressive plutocracy.

Robinson wrote: It is useful to remember that the country we now think of as a trillion-dollar creditor and the manufacturer of iPads was once a Maoist bastion, hermetically sealed against the capitalist influences of the Western world. Comment: Oh, sure, just a ‘Maoist bastion’. It is only the suppressing influence of publications like the Washington Post that have managed to bury China’s massively genocidal past. Robinson and his friends seek at every turn to avoid mentioning 60 million Chinese murdered under Mao. And one billion destitute citizens today. Just a slip-up, for sure.

Robinson wrote: Let me interject that this column will include quite a few Chinese names, which can be hard for English speakers to follow. Please make the effort. Comment: Yes, dear leader Robinson. We Americans are all so stupid! Please guide us so that we can better know glorious China!

Robinson wrote: Being an informed citizen of the world is increasingly going to require some level of comfort with Chinese nomenclature. Comment: Certainly… terms like “60 million murdered by the Mao regime” and “China is the worst international trade outlaw on earth”.

Robinson wrote: Xi’s father, Xi Zhongxun, once one of Mao Zedong’s lieutenants, fell out of favor and was persecuted during much of that era. Xi Jinping is part of a remarkable generation that survived the apocalypse of the Cultural Revolution; as a teenager, he spent long, hard years living in a cave in the poor, remote Shaanxi province. Xi fared better than the man considered his chief rival for power and influence in China — Bo Xilai, the Communist Party chief for the Chongqing metropolitan area, which is home to nearly 30 million people. Bo’s father, Bo Yibo, was one of Mao’s most trusted associates before being purged in the Cultural Revolution. The whole family was sent to a prison for five years, then to a labor camp for another five. Bo Xilai’s mother either committed suicide or was beaten to death. Comment: So there you go… Apocalypse? Why don’t you just say “genocide” so that we all understand, OK, Mr. R? And now, Mr. Robinson, you have just 59.99999 million more deaths to explain away after Bo Xilai’s mother. But we won’t wait for you to do it. You are too busy telling us how stupid we all are compared to Chinese greatness.

Robinson wrote: I recount this history because it helps me understand why the men — and a few women — now running China are the way they are: impatient to make up for lost time, pathologically wary of the slightest instability, tough, resourceful, adaptable, coldly unsentimental … Comment: No, sir, they are that way because they are vicious communists seeking to hold onto power.

Robinson wrote: There was an overall message, however. Xi referred to the U.S.-China relationship as “an unstoppable river that keeps surging ahead.” He was pointing out the obvious: For decades to come, the United States and China will be the world’s two biggest economic powers. We’re stuck with each other, like it or not. Comment: China is rising rapidly and competing with the US only because Robinson and the Democrat party have been undermining the American economy for decades.

Robinson wrote: China is a one-party state, but that does not mean there is no debate about the country’s direction. Xi is considered likely to keep the nation on its current path of free-market economic growth. His political adversary Bo Xilai advocates a more robust safety net to care for the millions who are being left out of the Chinese economic miracle. Comment: It’s OK, Mr. Robinson, say it! Say it! D-I-C-T-A-T-O-R-S-H-I-P! It’s OK! Come on, Gene, you can do it! And by the way, sir, the “Chinese economic miracle” refers to China using the capitalist principles that Democrats like you are seeking to obliterate here in the US.

Robinson wrote: Addressing the environmental cost of (China’s) rapid development will be an urgent task for the incoming leadership. China’s records on human rights and political openness are still abysmal. Comment: Ouch! A slight criticism of the mighty China! This must be very hurtful to the exalted Chinese leader from a usually reliable ally, an American liberal like Mr. Eugene Robinson with his endless slander of America!

Robinson wrote: These are serious questions, but Chinese leaders at least are grappling with them in a serious manner. But here in the United States? “We’re having the most frivolous of conversations — in an election year!” This assessment came from Jon Huntsman, a former ambassador to China who recently ended his bid for the GOP presidential nomination and who attended the lunch for Xi. We hear a lot of China-bashing on the campaign trail. Comment: There has been hardly any China-bashing. But to a liberal, one errant syllable about China is one syllable too many. And of course we Americans are obsessed with “frivolous” things like our economy! We are so dumb! Please make us better, Mr. Robinson!

Robinson wrote: What we’re not hearing is a serious debate about farsighted reforms that are needed to keep the United States from falling behind. Comment: What the heck is Robinson talking about? We hear about necessary reforms every single day from Republicans and conservatives – reforms to the tax system and to tax rates, reforms of Social Security, of entitlements, of wasteful spending on a gargantuan scale. Obama and the Democrats will have none of these reforms, however. And Robinson will write columns saying that we are not talking about them. Unbelievable…

‘Discrimination against African-Americans is a significant social problem. Discrimination against whites, well, not so much.

Discrimination in favor of African-Americans is often explicit and trumpeted, which leads whites to perceive it as bias against them.

Nevertheless, the findings of the study showing that whites perceive a high and growing level of bias against their own group don’t surprise me. The authors suggest that white perceptions result from whites seeing race relations as a zero-sum game. I suspect that something else, or at least something additional, is going on.

Both because of law and evolving social norms, intentional discrimination against blacks tends to be subtle and covert. Moreover, psychological studies suggest that many whites exhibit, and sometimes act on, unconscious biases.

By contrast, discrimination in favor of African-Americans (and other minorities) is protected by law in some contexts, and is often not just explicit, but proudly trumpeted.

Consider the legal profession. With the approval of the U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and at the insistence of American Bar Association accrediting authorities, law schools blatantly prefer African-American and Hispanic admissions candidates with weaker credentials than their white (and Asian) competitors; law firms advertise summer positions that are limited to minority candidates; and general counsels of major corporations insist that the law firms they hire impose staffing quotas for minority attorneys.

While affirmative action advocates don’t perceive of such preferences as anti-white discrimination, many whites do. Given the overt nature of such preferences, and many whites’ own perceived self-interest in the matter, it’s not terribly surprising that whites subjectively perceive discrimination against members of their own group as an especially significant and growing problem, even though, objectively speaking, bias against blacks is far more pervasive, problematic and ill-intentioned. Whether affirmative action preferences are compatible with harmonious race relations in the long run remains to be seen.’

These comments are nothing more than an academic Fifth Column for legitimized and government-sanctioned discrimination and racism against white people. It explains away anti-white racism with carefully crafted words. In that way it is very dangerous.

Look at that abhorrent fact about law firms and law schools that intentionally, legally and without conscience discriminate against whites. This is anti-American and anti-liberty to the core.

Then consider the Democrat mantra for decades: Affirmative action is fine, but of course we must never set quotas.

Yet today this discrimination has segued seamlessly into quotas without any challenge or concern. At law schools and law firms to boot. And these schools are legal training grounds that themselves no longer even uphold the law and the American concept of Constitutional equality, but legally undermine it.

This is the road to serfdom, friends. And it is happening right under our noses. These left-wing lawyers are seeking to destroy universal law and freedom and replace it with dogma.

Look at this again:

‘and general counsels of major corporations insist that the law firms they hire impose staffing quotas for minority attorneys.’

So even our corporations are engaging in active discrimination.

Look at what Bernstein says:

‘While affirmative action advocates don’t perceive of such (law school) preferences as anti-white discrimination, many whites do.’

 Of course whites do. Because the policy says: ‘Whites need not apply’, that’s why. It’s pretty straightforward, Mr. Bernstein. If it said ‘Blacks need not apply’ what would you think?

And then these black lawyers are going to become judges and activists who will use the legal system to legally uphold discrimination against whites and who will even uphold law school quota policies that discriminate against whites, furthering the cause of anti-white prejudice.

In the New Haven, Connecticut case Ricci v DeStefano, for instance, even four liberal Supreme Court justices agreed that white firefighters who passed a promotion test could legally be denied those promotions simply because no blacks had passed the test.

So the blacks did not study, or were not smart enough to pass the test, and they are supposed to be advanced anyway?

Under affirmative action, of course. And that means, by the way, that the people of New Haven are going to be less safe if less qualified firefighters are advanced simply on account of race. After all a fire captain needs to know precisely what to do in the event of a fire. There are established rulebook practices that lead to increased safety for both fire victims and firefighters. If an unqualified person is in charge, more deaths will result.

Fortunately the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the white (qualified) firefighters.

So here’s a suggestion: Let’s have an affirmative action airline in which pilots will be promoted not on account of their skills and knowledge but on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation or political persuasion. And certainly liberals will all flock to that airline, won’t they?

No, they will be the first to shun it because liberals never live by their own beliefs. And the airline will go out of business rapidly as its planes go down.

In fact Bernstein is talking casually about blatantly stacking the American law schools and ultimately the law profession and the whole judiciary with left-wing affirmative-action blacks who are going to rule against whites in every forum from hiring to college admissions to promotions, and to institutionalize government-imposed discrimination against whites.

These might be called Frank Crow laws. The old Jim Crow laws discriminated against blacks by government fiat, and are reviled in history. Frank Crow laws are the equivalent but they discriminate against whites and they are openly embraced by the Democrat left as in the New Haven case.

This shows Democrats for who they really are. And this is why they despise our Constitution; because it guarantees equality by restraining the government. Liberals want to impose their vision of equality by unleashing government in active discrimination, which always leads to the collapse of freedom.

Look at Bernstein’s comment again:

‘…Given the overt nature of such preferences, and many whites’ own perceived self-interest in the matter, it’s not terribly surprising that whites subjectively perceive discrimination against members of their own group as an especially significant and growing problem, even though, objectively speaking, bias against blacks is far more pervasive, problematic and ill-intentioned.’

‘…Objectively speaking, bias against blacks is far more pervasive, problematic and ill-intentioned?’

Sorry, but this is baloney. Look at how discrimination against whites today is all three – not only overt, but also subtle and covert.

Consider just one single innocent-sounding subject – the constant media ridicule of NASCAR racing among the Democrat elite and in the liberal sports media (yes, the sports media are liberal too).

Oh, that’s nothing! says the casual observer. That’s just a joke! They’re just poking fun!

Nonsense. This ridicule happens for one reason only – because there are no black drivers in NASCAR and few black spectators. Period. End of story. And this is the type of blatant discrimination that is both overt yet it is subtle and covert as well, but with most NASCAR fans or Americans in general not even understanding why it is happening.

Another example: There are literally millions of very liberal companies and universities and media businesses across America where a heterosexual white man is the last person who would be considered for a job no matter his qualifications. He is covertly ruled out as soon as the company knows who he is. His resume may even be tossed out simply because he is a man just as a law firm job application may be tossed out because the applicant is white.

Just ask any white man who has been denied a job because he is white.  In short, anti-white discrimination is built into the economy in myriad ways. It is overt, subtle and covert. It is a trifecta.

This old canard that America still is a racist nation biased against blacks is nonsense. Americans even elected Obama simply on the basis of his (half) blackness, i.e., blacks get preferential treatment all the way to the White House.

America today is biased against white people in another crucial way. Look at crime statistics and you will find that whites are victims of black crime at many times the rate that blacks are victims of white criminals, up to 20 or 50 or 80 times the rate depending on the crime and the means of calculation. Yet somehow this is not called black bias or black racism by the elites.

 Because we are all supposed to ignore these statistics because white people are endlessly portrayed as racists.

In fact these crime statistics show blatant, brutal anti-white racism that is happening every day. And that this issue is never, ever discussed by the Ivy League/media elite is yet another example of how this elite constantly covers for black racism and focuses only on farcical precepts like ‘Bias against blacks is far more pervasive, problematic and ill-intentioned.’

Tell that to the white cabbie and the white passenger in Philadelphia who were viciously attacked in January 2012 as anti-white slurs were being shouted.

Yet the black attackers are not going to be brought up on the ‘hate crimes’ charges that the left has been promoting for 50 years.

This is another example of blatant anti-white racism.

The academic elites like Bernstein who cover for this type of bias are part of a dishonest machine of disinformation and lies coming from the Democrat left. It is time to expose them at every turn.

‘The Defense Department may have to force soldiers, Marines or other members of the military out of the services for the first time since the aftermath of the Cold War to achieve the spending reductions in its budget proposal.

The Pentagon plans to cut 67,100 soldiers from active and reserve Army units and the Army National Guard in the five years starting Oct. 1, as well as 15,200 from the active and reserve ranks of the Marine Corps as part of an effort to save $487 billion over a decade, according to the budget sent to Congress today. The Navy and Air Force would lose fewer people — 8,600 and 1,700 respectively — because of their role in a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East.’

It is a national travesty that those brave heroes who are willing to serve their country and even die for their country might now actually be forced out of the military.  But this is the Obama Left at work…

Meanwhile here is an excerpt from thedaily.com about wasteful spending of the kind that is leaving our military underfunded:

‘America’s most distinguished leaders get their hair cut at the Senate barbershop, but taxpayers are the ones really getting clipped. The (taxpayer-financed) barbershop ran almost $300,000 in the red last year but received an infusion from Senate coffers that is keeping it in business, the Senate sergeant at arms, Terrance Gainer, told The Daily.
….To support his argument, (former US senator Peter) Fitzgerald contrasts the salaries and benefits of the Senate’s stylists to what is offered by (private-sector) Capitol Barber, three blocks away. Capitol’s four barbers and stylists made $22,000 to $30,000 last year with no benefits, manager Lynn Dang said. At the Senate barbershop, formally called Senate Hair Care Services, the top four barbers and stylists made more than twice that — $54,761; $70,349; $73,658; and $81,641 — plus they have a generous 401(k) plan, health care and paid vacation. In all, the government contributed $230,000 in benefits for the barbershop, said Eve Goldsher, a spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee.’

So as our military is gutted our overpaid unionized government workers like federal barbers get exorbitant wage, benefit and pension packages.

Oh, but that’s just a few people! say the Democrats in their usual charade.

No, friends, multiply the barbers by tens of millions of people getting government checks – including government workers, people collecting federal payouts and those on the federal dole – and you have the reason for our fiscal crisis.

Is it any surprise that our nation is falling deeper and deeper into debt?

At the same time, when was the last time you heard about any cuts in government handout programs for ‘the poor’, many millions of whom are scamming the system and have been for decades? How about one single probe into massive fraud in the $100 billion Social Security disability program, which is rife with abuse?

Nothing. Zero. Zip. While a unionized barber in the US Senate makes anywhere from $55,000 to $82,000 a year without batting an eye. And that is just a part of their compensation. These barbers get huge benefit, health insurance and pension packages like all of the 2.2 million federal workers who are living off of the taxpayer.

And then add that to the generous payouts to 70 million others who get some sort of check from the federal government with no questions asked.

Yet we are supposed to say: “Wonderful! Good for the barbers! They should make good wages!”

With which we conservatives agree. Because we believe that all workers should make good money – working in the private sector that is. But as more and more wealth is sucked out of the private economy by taxes to pay federal workers and federal bills and handouts, private sector workers are making less and less while at the same time they are paying more and more in taxes.

As the military is being shrunk down and our defenses gutted.

This is all socialism, friends, a massive shift of wealth away from the productive, tax-paying private sector and the crucial military to a pampered handout class and to a federal government worker class that has actually increased in size as the Obama Depression has plundered the private sector of millions of jobs and trillions in wealth.

America really needs to eliminate hundreds of thousands of federal government workers and privatize many of those remaining jobs. Their exorbitant labor costs are gutting our economy.

And the federal government must make major cuts in every single other check issued.

Meanwhile in Massachusetts two towns are vying for $2.3 million in federal aid. And again this seems like a minor story. But it is happening all over the nation, town by town, and it again points to the roots of the fiscal crisis.

The towns are seeking the federal aid for a completely unnecessary bike trail in a region that is in rapid economic decline because of its liberal policies that have chased business away with steep taxes and invasive regulations.

But the very liberal population in Massachusetts is happy to accept millions from a federal government that is spending debt money that it does not have. For a stupid bike trail. Because to socialists like overpaid barbers and other overpaid and unnecessary government workers and freeloaders who have been living on the dole for decades, the federal government seems to have endless piles of money. Because the federal government can print all the money that it needs.

But rational people know that that $2.3 million will be paid for down the road in taxes by future generations, while this generation lives high off the government hog. As our military is cut.

This is all totally unacceptable.

Meanwhile, in another example of ridiculous government spending, the Dohn Community High School near Cincinnati, Ohio has launched a $40,000 program to reward students who… come to school.

Yes, this is our government education system at work again. Students will get Visa gift cards for going to school every day, for being punctual and for staying out of trouble.

You know, things that kids did naturally before the socialists ruined America with their Anything Goes culture and decimated the family structure with a dog-pack mentality in which millions of kids have no idea who their fathers are or how to behave responsibly.

Indeed, this is our irrational and out-of-control government at work.

Appalling. Utterly appalling.

‘(Reuters) – The Greek parliament approved a deeply unpopular austerity bill to secure a second EU/IMF bailout and avoid national bankruptcy, as buildings burned across central Athens and violence spread around the country.

Cinemas, cafes, shops and banks were set ablaze in central Athens as black-masked protesters fought riot police outside parliament.

State television reported the violence spread to the tourist islands of Corfu and Crete, the northern city of Thessaloniki and towns in central Greece. Shops were looted in the capital where police said 34 buildings were ablaze.’

This violence is an act of war, friends, from within Greece. Sound familiar? Does this not sound like the ‘occupy’ goons here in America?

Yes. Because the Greek terrorists and the ‘occupy’ goons are the same people, rest assured. But the ‘occupy’ terrorists so far have only managed to foment small amounts of violence. But they will try their best to do better. They already are gearing up for 2012.

Remember that Democrats nationwide embraced the ‘occupy’ movement at first, saying that it really had a good point despite their insidious and illegal ways.

Yet when Tea Partiers had a good point and were completely peaceful and legal they were ripped to shreds by the same Democrats and called every name in the book.

Meanwhile, even before the ‘occupiers’ arrived, Democrat strategist James Carville predicted that violence might be coming to America after it flared up in Greece last year. Here is what Carville said in 2011: “People, you know, if (the economic crisis) continues, we’re going to start to see civil unrest in this country. I hate to say that, but I think it’s imminently possible.”

Yes, it’s possible because the ‘occupy’ left is going to start it.

But Carville doesn’t “hate to say that”. He embraces it. All of these far-left Democrats want violence deep down inside, or will rationalize it. Because violence will upset the status quo and empower the ‘occupy’ thugs who are being organized by radical labor unions and communist groups and funded by ultra-rich Americans leftists like George Soros who also has predicted violence. As he himself funds the agents who will become violent.

Because Carville and most Democrats in America today are all on the hard political left. The ‘occupy’ terrorists are on the hard political left. And the terrorists who are burning Greece are on the hard communist left.

Oh, sure, Carville and his media cronies sit in a TV studio in their business attire acting like they are just innocent observers.

Nonsense. Carville and friends are nothing more than ‘occupiers’ in the suites, not in the streets. Don’t let their calm demeanor fool you. In their hearts they support everything the ‘occupy’ hoodlums do. And in their hearts they sympathize with the Greek terrorists but won’t say that aloud.

If any Republican or Tea Partier were condoning violence in any way, shape or form, however, they would be called out and condemned immediately.

No, Tea Partiers did not take over public parks and defecate in the streets and kill one another and spread disease and rape women and set fires and destroy businesses and seek to shut down ports – as ‘occupy’ terrorists did in just their first two months in existence.

Meanwhile Greeks protested and rioted last year when their retirement age was raised. Despite the fact that these ridiculously low retirement ages like 53 are mathematically unsustainable

But people on the left don’t add up the columns of figures. They simply proceed on the assumption that the government has endless supplies of money.

In America the average know-nothing on the political left, whether completely uneducated like many of the ‘occupiers’ or whether educated at Harvard like Obama, has been taught to believe that since the total size of the American economy (GDP) is $15 trillion that that $15 trillion is available to be spent on government programs.

And that when only $4 trillion is spent in the annual federal budget they say that somehow “the rich” are sitting on the rest. This is the kind of demagoguery that the ‘occupy’ terrorists use and disseminate to agitate their ignoramus followers, just as Islamic terrorists propagandize their followers with endless lies.

America’s current debt is about 100% of GDP which is dangerously high; 60% is considered the safe maximum. Greece is about 160% of GDP, one of the highest rates in the world and an utterly destructive rate of spending. Yet after decades of debt spending the Greek terrorists are saying that 160% is not enough, that somehow that the government must spend more and more and more and that if it does not that the nation will be destroyed.

By them…

This is how communists always work. They are violent, angry, destructive and manipulative people. And this is the kind of sophistry and demagoguery that is rampant on the political left. This is why communist nations always slide down into poverty and stasis.

So where are the ‘occupy’ riots to overthrow the communist dictators in China or North Korea who have made those nations savagely destitute compared to their wealthy capitalist next-door neighbors? Where were the riots against the poverty, starvation and genocide that communists Lenin and Stalin brought to Russia while the powerful elites stole everything in sight?

There are none and there were none. Because the ‘occupy’ rioters and their brethren in Greece are leftists/communists themselves. And once communists seize power they take control of everything like they want to do in Greece. And they crush any opposition for decades on end as they have in Cuba. And then they make the society genuinely poor while rewarding a handful of the ‘occupier’ types with plum government jobs and high standards of living.

These terrorists in Greece actually would like to spark a civil war. Ideally they would use violence to push the government to react, where the government calls out the army. Then they would seek to start a war with many people taking the terrorist side against the government and the army. And of course the world media would side with the communists, never pointing out that they started the war in the first place.

These ‘occupy’ terrorists are doing the same thing here. They would like to start a new American civil war. They already have tried it on a small scale by assaulting the police repeatedly. And don’t think that they are not gearing up for more this year.

Much more…

Look at what happened one year ago in Wisconsin. Leftists and union organizers did hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the state capitol building and grounds just because Republicans changed the collective bargaining law.

But only Democrats and union goons and socialist radicals are allowed to cause so much destruction over a simple and legal change in the law without being held to account by their media allies. There has been zero media outrage over the damage.

Meanwhile those same media go to Tea Party rallies looking for one dropped candy wrapper in order to tag the Tea Parties as violent and law-breaking.

No, friends, the lawless ones are and always have been and always will be 99% on the political left. Yes, indeed, they are the 99%.

And what do these destroyers think they are going to achieve by calling strikes and destroying businesses like they are doing in Greece and like they did in Oakland, California?

Well, we know one thing – they are NOT seeking to help solve the problem by promoting economic growth and stability and self-sufficiency and fiscal restraint but are trying to foment violence in order to destroy the economy so that extremist factions can take over, which is what they would like to do in Greece.

Because remember that ‘occupiers’ and communists are lazy, ignorant and violent people who build nothing. They do not work for a living. They seek to live off of the government and off of the toil of others but cloak themselves in the rhetoric of “the working man”.

And they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of dominance and a utopian freeloader life for themselves. And that is what they wish to do in Greece. And what may be coming to America soon if James Carville has his way.