You Forgot Fascist - They Loved Hitler

Gosh, Who Could Have Predicted This??

Venezuela clamps down on opposition politicians

"The sentence handed down Wednesday by the Supreme Court against David Smolansky, the opposition mayor of the Caracas suburb of El Hatillo, brought to 23 the number of mayors targeted by legal action, according to the opposition."

"... the ruling party's number two has warned that opposition candidates wanting to compete in upcoming elections would need certificates of "good conduct" from a newly installed Constituent Assembly stacked with Maduro loyalists."

Progressivism is progressing on schedule. Next stop "re-education" work camps.

The Hierarchy of Sanctimony: “I Am the Messiah I Have Been Waiting For”

While reading Peter A. Taylor’s analysis of Moldbug’s commentaries, I got sidelined by a link to the following observation:

“We are inheritors of a long, increasingly-complicated blame game, which cannot have any simple origin. My (provisional and low-value) intuition is that Christianity-Calvinism-Purtianism-Progressivism (-Neoreaction?) represents a process of consistently exacerbated sanctimony — which should not be hastily dissolved into its human-biological substrate. To use a word I tend to rely upon excessively, this is a process of successive hystericizations, so that a judgmentalism already universally demonstrated in our species (as ‘altrustic punishment’, for e.g.) is carried to ever more unrestrained forms of expression — one might say it is progressively ‘liberated’.

So I do think that Christianity is the world’s most sanctimonious religion, Protestantism is the most sanctimonious species of Christianity, Puritans are abnormally sanctimonious Protestants, and Progressives are — even by the standards to be expected of Neo-Puritans — best characterized as an adventure into the psychotic outer-reaches of uninhibited sanctimony.”

I disagree only slightly with this hierarchy of sanctimony. Islam, when practiced in the Qur’anic observation mode, is hands-down the most sanctimonious, and it is on a par with Progressivism. Nonetheless, Progressivism is a religion of messiahs, the Victimhood Class, and the Oppressor Class, with the sanctimony of the messiahs unmatched in its blind intensity by any Christian segment. Here's my analysis for comparison:

Christians have a messiah; they are sinners, not messiahs.

Muslims wait for a messiah; they act as proxy messiahs, to protect the putative honor of their deity.

Progressives claim they are messiahs; they will produce heaven on Earth, when the Oppressor Class is eradicated.

Progressives are natural Atheists, claiming secular godhood for themselves as the messianic class. These Atheists have the following principles, stated or unstated:

I am the messiah I have been waiting for.

I am the determiner of morality; thus I dictate morality, and I punish the immoral.

I have inherited the Will To Power; I will over power the heretics.

As messiah I have the endowed power, both moral and physical, to dictate the lives and thoughts of the herd.

Salvation is accomplished through submission to the messiah class.

Progressive Messiahism adopts the methods of Christianity without Christ or Christian principles. It applies the distillate of Marxist Three Class ideology as the model for progress toward an Earthly Utopia, unified in mindless obedience and submission.

Hence, for Atheist, Leftist, Progressive Messiahs, salvation is the exact equivalent of the lobotomy of the intellect for purposes of attaining maximal self-righteous sanctimony.

Mencius Moldbug connects modern Progressives to Christian Calvinism, without the deity part of course, but with the severity of Calvinism:

Neo-Calvinism, Crypto-Christianity, and Scientific Socialism

“The "ultracalvinist hypothesis" is the proposition that the present-day belief system commonly called "progressive," "multiculturalist," "universalist," "liberal," "politically correct," etc, is actually best considered as a sect of Christianity.

Specifically, ultracalvinism (which I have also described here and here) is the primary surviving descendant of the American mainline Protestant tradition, which has been the dominant belief system of the United States since its founding. It should be no surprise that it continues in this role, or that since the US's victory in the last planetary war it has spread worldwide.

Ultracalvinism is an ecumenical syncretism of the mainline, not traceable to any one sectarian label. But its historical roots are easy to track with the tag Unitarian. The meaning of this word has mutated considerably in the last 200 years, but at any point since the 1830s it is found attached to the most prestigious people and ideas in the US, and since 1945 in the world.

The trouble with "Unitarian" as a label is that (a) it exhibits this evolutionary blurring, and (b) it at least nominally refers to a specific metaphysical belief (anti-Trinitarianism). So I took the liberty of coining "ultracalvinist."

The "calvinist" half of this word refers to the historical chain of descent from John Calvin and his religious dictatorship in Geneva, passing through the English Puritans to the New England Unitarians, abolitionists and Transcendentalists, Progressives and Prohibitionists, super-protestants, hippies and secular theologians, and down to our own dear progressive multiculturalists.

The "ultra" half refers to my perception that, at least compared to other Christian sects, the beliefs of this faith are relatively aggressive and unusual.

In fact, they are so unusual that most people don't see ultracalvinism as Christian at all. For example, on the theological side, ultracalvinism is best known as Unitarian Universalism. (It's an interesting exercise to try to find any conflicts between UUism and "political correctness.") Ultracalvinists are perfectly free to be atheists, or believe in any God or gods - as long as they don't adhere to any revealed tradition, which would make them "fundamentalists." In general, ultracalvinists oppose revelation and consider their beliefs to be pure products of reason. And perhaps they are right in this - but I feel the claim should at least be investigated.

I am not a theist, so I don't care much for theology. Paranormal beliefs are not beliefs about the real world, and cannot directly motivate real-world action. As a result, they are usually of no adaptive significance, tend to mutate frequently, and are a dangerous basis for classification.

And when we look at the real-world beliefs of ultracalvinists, we see that ultracalvinism is anything but content-free. By my count, the ultracalvinist creed has four main points:

First, ultracalvinists believe in the universal brotherhood of man. As an Ideal (an undefined universal) this might be called Equality. ("All men and women are born equal.") If we wanted to attach an "ism" to this, we could call it fraternalism.

Second, ultracalvinists believe in the futility of violence. The corresponding ideal is of course Peace. ("Violence only causes more violence.") This is well-known as pacifism.

Third, ultracalvinists believe in the fair distribution of goods. The ideal is Social Justice, which is a fine name as long as we remember that it has nothing to do with justice in the dictionary sense of the word, that is, the accurate application of the law. ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.") To avoid hot-button words, we will ride on a name and call this belief Rawlsianism.

Fourth, ultracalvinists believe in the managed society. The ideal is Community, and a community by definition is led by benevolent experts, or public servants. ("Public servants should be professional and socially responsible.") After their counterparts east of the Himalaya, we can call this belief mandarism.

Now, where do these beliefs come from? What is their origin and etiology? Why do so many of us in 2007 believe in these particular concepts? Were they invented in 1967? Or 1907? Or 1607? Or what?”

There is little doubt that we are dealing with ultra-religious, moralizing, pseudo-intellectual, self-endowed messianic totalitarians, for whom eliminationism is a moral expectation as the drive to heaven on Earth/Utopia is mobilized under the guise of empathy, which is a barely recognizable fictional concept that is not expressed in any Progressive, intolerant, totalitarian.

The concept of the Progressive "Cathedral" is another summary:

The Cathedral in a nutshell

1. The Cathedral (aka the Clerisy, the Megaphone) is basically the Western world’s intellectual fashion industry. It consists of almost all of the respectable or even semi-respectable parts of the news media, the entertainment industry, and the softer social science and humanities parts of the education industry.

2.Basic economic theory predicts that these industries should be diverse in their approaches to politically sensitive topics. Unlike the field of particle physics, political fashions are not significantly limited by reproducible scientific experiments. The market should be fragmented, and the various firms should specialize in appealing to different segments of the market.

3.But this does not seem to be the case. Instead, the Cathedral seems much more homogeneous in its coverage of politically sensitive topics than it is in coverage of food, art, sports, religion, etc.

4. The mechanism for this homogenization is not obvious. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Cathedral has no pope (although I read recently that Warren Buffet owns 71 newspapers, and the New York Times is owned in part by Carlos Slim, whose vast fortune has a lot to do with his special relationship with the Mexican government). One factor is that the credibility of a set of information sources depends on their being able to agree on a story (coordination games, the peloton effect, the parliament of clocks). Another factor is self-dealing: people with high verbal skills tend to support a system of government that is controlled by people with high verbal skills, and once they control it, they tend to want it to be unlimited in scope. Another factor is self-selection: once an institution becomes dominated by members of a political movement, it tends to become unpleasant and career-limiting for anyone else to work there. Another factor is that the easiest way to write a newspaper story is to copy it from a politician’s press handout. To a considerable extent, these institutions are deliberately manipulated by politicians (broadcast licensing, educational and research funding, journalistic access, selective leaking of secrets, etc., aka Gleichschaltung; in many cases, journalists are literally married to political operatives or are involved in “revolving door” relationships with the political institutions they write about, such as Jeff Immelt of GE, MSNBC and the Obama administration). But the two biggest factors are probably that (1) intellectuals are seduced by political power (the Boromir effect), and (2) these institutions are quasi-religious, and have taken on the peculiar characteristics of the dominant quasi-religion of the day.

5. Three things make an intellectual movement quasi-religious: (1) the outputs that they produce are credence goods, (2) they provide a framework for competition for social status, and (3) this basis is insecure. The fact that credence goods are involved means that conflict about them will tend to be irrational. The fact that social status is involved, and that the basis for social status is insecure, means that this conflict will be relatively vicious, and will carry a strong odor of a witch hunt.

6. The Cathedral is powerful partly because its relative homogeneity allows it to serve as a gatekeeper of politically relevant mass-market information and interpretation. But its real power comes from control of what ideas are associated with high status. Everyone thinks, “I’m my own man. I think for myself.” But unconsciously, people tend to copy the opinions of people who are one step above them on the social ladder. This was explained in the Cerulean Top scene in The Devil Wears Prada.

The Cultural Hegemony of Jason Stanley

Fuck You, Assholes, Argued the Yale Professor

This Progressive literally steals the writings of Lenin for use in the Social Justice War on rational humanity. Read the whole thing to get the full story on this guy.

Violence and the Left.

The Class War and Identarian politics and policies promoted by the American Left has led to the racial schisms which produce the violence directed at attendees of Trump rallies. Now there is the idea that when the people leaving the rally PUNCH BACK, they are responsible for violence. The absurdity is being repeated often enough that it is obvious that the intent is to put the blame for the violence on Trump himself, for his supposed identarian statements, opinions NOT ALLOWED.

The constant class war from the Left has brought to fruition that which they falsely accused their hated opposition of from the start: white identity as a class, in the class war. The Tea Party was blamed for that, despite members of all colors-as-identities. But the consistency of the racial attacks from the Left has pushed whites into the position of defense, as a group, a class created ad hoc by the Left. The result is the acknowledgment that in the USA, the Class:Whites is under attack by numerous forces of racialists, from Holder and the DOJ, Obama, and the Leftists in the administration's bureaucracy, the judicial branch in certain states, to the Leftist organizations like ACLU, Southern Poverty Center, etc.

So the Left has successfully created what it really wanted: a coherent group to hate and attack.

This will very likely progress quite a bit further during the rest of the year. By "progress" I mean both increase in violence (blamed on Trump of course - the Left is "so enraged by Trump that they can't suppress their violence"), and also to follow the Leftists desire to foment violence based purely in racial hatred ("Make USA Mexican Again").

The Left's unsurpassable ability to take violent offense at any and all things uttered by both conservatives and specifically Trump is directly related to their presumption of moral authority to which they have anointed their elitist selves. If their every thought is moral without question (and that is the case they reassured us), then opposition is oviously Immoral without question. And that Immorality deserves only to be stamped out, as the Leftists install their own version of moral opinion (secularism and Class War) into both government and culture. After all,dissent is immoral and produces uncontrollable hysteria in those who hear it.

Because their own version of morality is just opinion without actual authority, the natural conclusion of Leftist Progress is always a disagreement between elitists as to the minutiae of "moral" decisions. This is closely followed by the eradication of one side of the debate by the other side of the debate: totalitarianism ensues as one opinion becomes the sole allowable dogma. This process is fully moral under the definitional understandings of the successful Progressive who emerges hegemonically intact at the end, which is the beginning of full repression of all contrary thought that might remain in some cranny somewhere.

Thus a Lenin is mysteriously disabled and a Trotsky is mysteriously struck in the brain with an ice-axe, leaving a Stalin without opposition. But like with Lenin, it always starts small. So the self-righteous, moral violence is justified, even against Progressives themselves as the Will To Power (the real moral principle) plays out.

The Abortion Slippery Slope Is Real: Time to Abort Ethicists

Killing one's progeny is now so common that it is just another thread in the social fabric, which is a shroud.

Declaring War on Newborns

The authors point out that each of these conditions​—​the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome​​—​​is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?

Yes. People who are personally troublesome should be aborted... at any age. That is the ethic of the totalitarian elitist, the one who is able to decide life/death for others, all for the common good of, well, that doesn't matter: "Common Good" is enough, and it is non-specific, a benefit to any rhetoric.

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either.

And of course we need to tell everyone exactly how "person" should be defined:

Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

And an ethicist is just an arrogant elitist who has "hung around too long". Not a real person; a parasite. What parasite is defined as a person?

As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time.

The article doesn’t go on for more than 1,500 words, but for non-ethicists it has a high surprise-per-word ratio. The information that newborn babies aren’t people is just the beginning. A reader learns that “many non-human animals … are persons” and therefore enjoy a “right to life.” (Such ruminative ruminants, unlike babies, are self-aware enough to know that getting killed will entail a “loss of value.”) The authors don’t tell us which species these “non-human persons” belong to, but it’s safe to say that you don’t want to take a medical ethicist to dinner at Outback.

But what about adoption, you ask. The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.” But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression. A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.” By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.” And for a very simple reason: These mothers “often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.” It’s simpler for all concerned just to make sure the loss can’t be reversed. It’ll spare Mom a lot of heartbreak.

Now, it’s at this point in the Journal of Medical Ethics that many readers will begin to suspect, as I did, that their legs are being not very subtly pulled. The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian​—​a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.

Because "progress" requires more change away from norms, it will never stop. Every change, such as abortion, becomes a norm, and therefore in order to have progress the culture must change even further from that norm. Constant change evermore toward the darkness is required in order to pursue progress. And that's why darkness is rationalized as "good", and the darkness is redefined as "light".

A Look at Democracy Alliance

This statement is embedded in the working papers of the “Democracy Alliance” which is a progressive money raising group:

“When Tea Party candidates prevail in statehouse races, women’s rights suffer, protections for working Americans are gutted, voting rights are constricted, the social safety net is slashed, and conserativve victors make sure they consolidate their power through redistricting, judicial appointments, and attacks on key sources of progressive power like labor and Planned Parenthood.”

Let’s take this one item at a time:

1. Women’s rights: this means cheap and available progeny killing, and free post-coital embryo destroying drugs. Feminists might include the destruction of all male dominance, with the installation of females into those positions; and the abolition of PIV sex which is rape.

2. Protections for working Americans: this means forced "dues" payments to unions in order to work.

3. Voting rights: this means preventing ID protections against voter fraud; reasoning is that blacks are too inferior to get IDs.

4. Social safety net is slashed: this means that growth of new funds to prop up Leftist Victimhood groups is contained to growth rates less than 100% per year.

5. Conservative redistricting: this means preventing the undoing the previous gerrymandering done by the Left.

6. Judicial appointments: this refers to the appointment of judicial candidates who lie about supporting the Constitution, and instead support “progressive programs”, which are prejudicial.

7. Key sources of progressive power: Unions (give them an auto company of their very own); Planned Parenthood (more abortions = more progressive power).

Obama, On National Debt (Back Then & Now)

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.
Obama

Just how patriotic is that? After all, if Obama can use the increase in the national debt to question Bush’s patriotism, doesn’t it follow that increasing deficit spending by 152% per month makes Obama 152% more “unpatriotic” than Bush?
Ed Morrisy

Victor Davis Hansen: Obama as Chaos: (exerpt)

When he brags of the present chaos in the Middle East by saying that “a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa” during his administration, we translate that into 100,000 are dead in Syria and U.S. credibility about red lines is shredded; the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt followed by a coup and rule by a junta; “leading from behind” in Libya resulting in a virtual Somalia well before the Benghazi disaster; abdication in Iraq, which is now less stable than it was in 2009; and Vietnam circa 1975 looming in Afghanistan.

When the president boasts that the deficit is actually shrinking under his leadership, we assume he is referring to the forced budget cuts brought about by sequestration that he not only opposed, but also warned would be disastrous.


These paradoxes could be interpreted in various ways. True, Obama is a politician who takes up and discards arguments as he finds them useful, always branding those currently in use as somehow morally superior to the alternative. Obama is also a zealot and a community organizer who is not content with opposing the positions of his opponents, but always must impugn their motives as well.

But a third explanation is more likely. Obama simply couldn’t care less about what he says at any given moment, whether it is weighing in on the football name “Redskins” or the Travyon Martin trial. He is detached and unconcerned about the history of an issue, about which he is usually poorly informed. Raising the debt ceiling is an abstraction; all that matters is that when he is president it is a good thing and when he is opposing a president it is a bad one. Let aides sort out the chaos. Obamacare will lower premiums, not affect existing medical plans, and not require increased taxes; that all of the above are untrue matters nothing. Who could sort out the chaos?

When other presidents act unilaterally, Obama cites his constitutional experience in demagoguing them, as he did against Bush during the crafting of the war on terror legislation. When he wishes either to violate the law or to adopt a prior Bush protocol, then he simply does so, and lets others sort out the inconsistency. Sometimes the result is so chaotic that Obama ends up bragging that he wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay, which he has kept open for five years, as if it was long ago virtually shut down. When we go into Libya, we do so instead of going into Syria because Libya is said to be a war and the violence in Syria a mere police action; when Libya turns out to be a disaster, then we will go into Syria.

During the present crisis, Obama simply asks his aides what are the arguments of the day to be made. When he is instructed that Republicans are doing something bad, something unprecedented, and something anarchic, then like his often referenced hero LeBron James, Obama wants the rhetoric ball to complete the demagogic play, which results in the usual chaotic invective. That the Republicans are doing something that is not unprecedented or anarchic, but similar to what Obama himself and his party have done in the past, is not even noticed.

A List of Obama Expiration Dates; Jim Geraghty:

By popular demand, a comprehensive list of expired Obama statements . . .

HEALTH-CARE MANDATES
STATEMENT: “We’ve got a philosophical difference, which we’ve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don’t have it is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.

HEALTH-CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN

STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.

EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health-care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”

RAISING TAXES

STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)

EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is ‘agnostic’ about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

STATEMENT: Then-senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”

BORDER SECURITY
STATEMENT: “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” Then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a “virtual fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.

GUANTANAMO BAY

STATEMENT: Executive order stating, “The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.” January 22, 2009.

EXPIRATION DATE: November 19, 2009: “Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed.”

MILITARY TRIBUNALS

STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006

EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”

RECOVERY.GOV

STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009

EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going . . . The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn’t have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” April 2, 2009

Eighteen from his first 100 days:

1. “As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

2. “I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA].“

3. Opposed a Colombian Free Trade Agreement because advocates ignore that “labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis.”

4. “Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

5. “If we see money being misspent, we’re going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it.“

6. “Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.”

7. “I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper.”

8. “[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell.”

9. “Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online.”

10. “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’s seniority, rather than the merit of the project.”

11. “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

12. “Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights.”

13. “We must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.”

14. “Lobbyists won’t work in my White House!“

15. “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.”

16. “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.”

17. “Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.

18. A special one on the 100th day, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”

And a list from of promises that expired during the campaign:

IRAQ

STATEMENT: “Based on the conversations we’ve had internally as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up,” Obama to the New York Times, November 1, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: March 7, 2008: Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, to the BBC: “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that [Obama has] crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.”

Also: July 3, 2008: “My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I’ve said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe,” Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota. “And my guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

STATEMENT: On June 14, Obama foreign-policy adviser Susan Rice called the RNC’s argument that Obama needed to go to Iraq to get a firsthand look “complete garbage.”

EXPIRATION DATE: On June 16, Obama announced he would go to Iraq and Afghanistan “so he can see first hand the progress of the wars he would inherit if he’s elected president.”

DEBATES

STATEMENT: May 16, 2008: “If John McCain wants to meet me, anywhere, anytime to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I’m happy to have.”

EXPIRATION DATE: June 13, 2008: Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: “Barack Obama offered to meet John McCain at five joint appearances between now and Election Day — the three traditional debates plus a joint town hall on the economy in July [on the Fourth of July] and an in-depth debate on foreign policy in August.”

IRAN

STATEMENT: “We can, then, more effectively deal with what I consider to be one of the greatest threats to the United States, to Israel, and world peace, and that is Iran,” Obama speaking to American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago, March 5, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny . . . They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” – May 20, 2008
STATEMENT: Question at the YouTube debate, as the video depicted leaders of the countries, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”

“I would,” Obama answered. July 27, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: May 10, 2008: Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign-policy adviser to the Democratic candidate: “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

JEREMIAH WRIGHT/TRINITY UNITED

STATEMENT: “I could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than I could disown my own grandmother.”

–Barack Obama, March 18, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: on April 28, 2008, Obama cut all ties to Wright, declaring, “Based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought.”

STATEMENT: Obama said on March 18, 2008, that his church, Trinity United, “embodies the black community in its entirety” and was being caricatured.

EXPIRATION DATE: On May 31, 2008, Obama resigned his membership at Trinity United Church.

JIM JOHNSON

STATEMENT: Criticism of running-mate vetter Jim Johnson’s loan from Countrywide was “a game” and that his vice-presidential vetting team “aren’t folks who are working for me.” June 10, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 11, 2008, when Obama accepted Johnson’s resignation.

FISA

STATEMENT: Obama spokesman Bill Burton on October 24, 2007: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

EXPIRATION DATE: June 20, 2008: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”

NUCLEAR ENERGY

STATEMENT: “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.” Barack Obama, December 30, 2007

EXPIRATION DATE: The above statement actually was the expiration date for his previous position, “I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix,” expressed on July 23, 2007; the above statement expired when he told Democratic governors he thought it is “worth investigating its further development” on June 20, 2008.

NAFTA

STATEMENT: Tim Russert:: “Senator Obama . . . Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, ‘This has not worked for us; we are out’?”

Obama: “I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.” February 23, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 18, 2008, Fortune magazine: “’Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,’ he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA ‘devastating’ and ‘a big mistake,’ despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

“Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? ‘Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,’ he answered.

“‘I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally,’ Obama said. ‘I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.’”

PUBLIC FINANCING

STATEMENT: “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Also, a Common Cause questionnaire dated November 27, 2007, asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”, Obama checked, “Yes.”

EXPIRATION DATE: June 19, 2008: Obama announced he would not participate in the presidential public financing system.

WORKING OUT A DEAL ON PUBLIC FINANCING

STATEMENT: “What I’ve said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.”Obama to Tim Russert, Febuary 27.

EXPIRATION DATE: When Obama announced his decision to break his public-financing pledge on June 19, no meeting between the Democratic nominee and McCain had occurred.

WELFARE REFORM

STATEMENT: “I probably would not have supported the federal legislation [to overhaul welfare], because I think it had some problems.” Obama on the floor of the Illinois Senate, May 31, 1997

EXPIRATION DATE: April 11, 2008: Asked if he would have vetoed the 1996 law, Mr. Obama said, “I won’t second guess President Clinton for signing” it. Obama to the New York Times.

GAY MARRIAGE

STATEMENT: “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.” – campaign spokesman, May 5, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 29, 2008: “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states . . . Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.” — letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

STATEMENT: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.” – interview with Relevant magazine, July 1, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: July 5, 2008: “My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases.” — statement to reporters.

DIVISION OF JERUSALEM

STATEMENT: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” – speech before AIPAC, June 4, 2008

EXPIRATION DATE: June 6, 2008: “Jerusalem is a final-status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.” – an Obama adviser clarifying his remarks to the Jerusalem Post.

Worth Reading

A commenter calling himself webnetcity makes the following observations over at newsbusters.org:

"No matter how many instances I give you, you will deny and excuse every one of them.
If you don't believe what I said about democrats, then your're either lying or you've been hiding under a rock somewhere...
look it up yourself

Now let's talk about your false messiah

* I would have never lied to the American people about a trillion dollar spending bill and then used it to pay back my supporters

* I would have never sent millions of dollars to Africa to kill unborn children

* I would have never taken over 2 automobile companies and broke bankruptcy laws to do it.

* I would have never abused my power and written 161 executive orders, mostly to bypass congress

* I would have never lied about the sequester and shut down white house tours and then take a $60-$100 million dollar trip to Africa

* I would never spend so much time on the golf course

* I would never allow myself or my family to spend millions of dollars on high priced vacations when Americans can't find jobs

* I would never refuse to obey some laws (DOMA) and enforce others

* I would have never given millions to my friends to start green energy companies that went bankrupt and stole taxpayer money

* I would never threaten seniors and hold their social security checks hostage just to raise the debt ceiling

* I would never have lied about what it would cost to pass an abomination like obamacare and then issue waivers and delays

* I would have never let Iranians die in the street when they were screaming my name to help them fight for freedom

* I would have never lied about an arab spring that turned into a muslim brotherhood nightmare

* I would have never provided information about the seal team that killed bin laden, just to kiss my own butt, only to watch terrorists murder them because I'm narcissistic

* I would never allow my AG to send guns to drug cartels in Mexico that killed an American border agent

* I would have never sued states for trying to enforce their borders and protect voting rights

* I would never allow my AG to be held in contempt of congress.
* I would never allow gays to serve openly in the military and at the same time restrict the religious rights of christian soldiers
* I would never try to force churches and religious institutions to provide birth control

* I would never sign a law that allows american citizens to be arrested and be detained indefinitely without due process

* I would never go around the world apologizing for America

* I would never allow the muslim brotherhood into the white house

* I would never promise hope and change to the black community and ignore them after I won

* I would never bow down to a foreign leader

* I would have never flown to vegas and left 4 Americans to die in Benghazi and then lie about it and blame a video

* I would never give money and weapons to foreign countries that burn our flag

* I would never use dead or living children as props to pass a socialist agenda

* I would never give an IRS agent a paid vacation after targeting my political opponents

* I would never lie and call myself a christian and then recite the koran and pray in a mosque

* I would never lie about climate change and prepare to bankrupt the coal industry, just to raise taxes

* I would never lie about an immigration reform bill that will take jobs from Americans and provide my party with 11 million new voters

*I would never use the death of a 17 year old black kid as an opportunity to take guns away from law abiding citizens

* I would never take a teleprompter with me to talk to kids in an elementary school

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you'll find someway to excuse everything I wrote
and last but not least...
you proved my point and committed your BIGGEST FAIL of all
There is no way in the world I could hate black people
especially when I happen to be one"

Why Julia Loves the Gang Of 8

It's all right here.

Silverman On Morals

David Silverman is the President of American Atheists, the organization started decades ago by Madelyn Murray O’Hair. Silverman gets a lot of face time in his official capacity, and he has started to appear at Progressive functions, since, as he puts it,

” The progressive community is chock full of atheists. The National Organization of Women, People for the America Way, the ACLU, Americans United, the Creating Change: these are movements, these are organizations chock full of atheists that need to know that we’re here, that need to know that we’re here to help them, and that need to know that we’re here to help them by fighting their fight with them.”

This time Silverman is at Netroots Nation, and is interviewed by Raw Story. The most interesting response by Silverman is this:

” Now, to your question about morality. What needs to be said about morality is that people make their own moral decisions. Everybody makes their own moral decisions. Then a theistic person would go to a church and find a place where the church agrees with him or her and actually say, “Well, okay, now my morality comes from my church. Now my morality is perfect. Now my morality is flawless, unchangeable, and unquestionable.” And atheist will say, “I have this opinion, but of course it can be changed.” A theist will change their opinion, too, then they change churches, and when they change churches, they again reinforce their opinion of morality with the dogma of the church they have chosen because it matches their opinions. So when we’re talking about politicians using religion as a morality, what we have to understand is that it’s not that religion is the source of morality. Humanity is the source of our own morality. And when they use religions to justify it, what they’re really doing is hiding behind their religion so that they don’t have to justify their positions. And I think that’s what has to be exposed. When somebody says, “I believe X because that’s what my god tells me,” that’s a lousy answer, and we have to expose that.”

Silverman makes two claims here.

First, he claims that theists have changeable morals, and that they choose a church based on its dogma. What he assumes is that the moral premise changes radically from church to church, when in fact, it does not because the moral premise is contained in a document which is not edited by the individual church. The Christian theist has a fixed morality which is contained in a document which is not church-specific. And no Christian theist will actually claim to be perfectly moral. The Christian claim is to be struggling with the fallen nature of man. Silverman has outlined his own ignorant and prejudiced view of how Christians think in a false cartoon which he pushes as truth. Silverman has created his own personal “reality” which doesn’t reflect actual facts. It is worse than that: it is purposefully false; a lie. Perhaps Silverman is projecting the moral concept which Atheists themselves have: make up your own morals to match your Atheist proclivities, and find reasons to support it with rationalizations. Whether Silverman knows it or not, that is the reason that a great many Atheists (Atheists are mostly male) are NOT feminists: it's not what they want.

Second, Silverman admits fully that for Atheists, morality is merely opinion. “Of course it can be changed”, he says, referring to the volatility of Atheist morality. As for a lousy answer, the Atheist claim of “morality” certainly qualifies, in spades. A changeable opinion might serve as a temporary ethic, but it is not morality. The volatility of Atheist “morals”, and their self-directed, self-enabled moral authority are precisely why Atheists are not trusted: they can generate no consistent moral responses upon which to depend and trust. They have no consistent moral code, so it is impossible to have a consistent Atheist moral response. No consistency, no trust. And in fact, the Silverman misrepresentation of theist thinking is an example of an opinion which is not trustworthy. Yet Silverman, like most activist Atheists, spends a lot of time making moral judgments. And since he makes those judgments based on cartoons rather than real facts, plus his admission that Atheist morals are merely opinions which can change, Silverman's moral proclamations are completely dismissable.

What Silverman has done, inadvertently to be sure, is to admit to Progressivism being heavily Atheist, and that Atheism is without any common, demonstrable morality, yet Atheists make moral judgments and pronouncements almost daily. He should be given credit for the truth of those statements. Thanks, David.

Progressivism and Pedophilia

The Progressive Problem
The current mantra of “hope and change” marks the Progressive problem: hope for what, and change to what, are not specified. We get constant change, driven by the rejection of “old morality” and in exchange we are forced to accept the “new reality” which is imposed upon us, mostly by unelected judges. This is implemented in the Hegelian manner of incremental steps between thesis, antithesis and synthesis, repeat. Repeat. Repeat. The pressure is constant, like water eroding the granite foundations of great structures of yore.

The synthesis is never a slippery slope, according to the antithesis protagonists. We just want this one concession. To claim slippery slope is hysterical, they say. The evidence, however, is conclusive. The slope is not merely slippery, it no longer has any traction at all.

Progress never stops for the progressive, and the march toward elimination of moral principles is indefatigable. Moral principles hamper the Progressive view of themselves, which is that they are self-endowed with overweening “morals” which supersede the old morality. The replacement of “old moral principles” with new ones which are dictated by the Progressive results in the new moral principle of “tolerance”: tolerance of only those principles with which Progressives agree, and complete intolerance of disagreeable principles and those who hold them.

Tolerance of me, not of thee.

This is born out in universities which allow only Leftist speech and Leftist professors, and now the major institutions of government are found to be nearly completely populated with Leftists (who are free, and enabled, to persecute those deemed disagreeable). Disputing this is futile, considering the daily news reports.

Tolerance proves to be something other than a behavior, something other than an attitude. Tolerance in Progressive parlance means to do nothing, to ignore whatever onerous encroachments onto the culture which the Progressives seek at any particular time. To object (ie. Not ignore, to do something contrary to Progressive cant) is deemed a moral failure: intolerance, which is not to be tolerated, so is designated Hate, and where possible is codified into criminal law.

Intolerance of Contrary Opinion, With the Claim of Tolerance.
The issue of the slippery slope is borne out with

(a) no-fault divorce resulting in destruction to marriage with divorce now destroying half of marriages (that’s the synthesis), and the next antithesis being homosexual marriage;

(b) women’s right to kill their unborn progeny resulting in more than 50 million deaths (the synthesis) and unaccountable abattoirs focused on blacks, with the new antithesis being the push for the Right to kill defective newborns and young children;

(c) the sexual revolution resulted in the current fad of cohabitation until tired of it, with countless single mothers and fatherless children resulting and expected promiscuity in every TV show and movie;

(d) the unionization of education resulted in ever increasing illiteracy;

(e ) the unionization of government employees, resulting in Leftist policies of persecution by government agencies;

(f) the war on poverty resulted in more poverty and increased taxation of the productive as well as the re-enslavement of blacks onto the Progressive plantations of welfare entitlement.

The list goes on and on. Gays? AIDS. Responsibility for consequences? denial. Persecution of dissenters? punish whistleblowers who contribute to dissent by revealing Leftist activities.

The idea that there is no slippery slope with Progressivism is false.

It is demonstrable that Progressivism is destructive when the government becomes the messiah for the culture. Progressivism is infested with elitist messiahism and self-anointed messiahs. Progressives feed their egos by designating categories of victims for whom to provide salvation from their oppressors. Thus the existence of oppressors is absolutely required, so they are designated and vilified constantly and shrilly: oppression is intolerable, and the oppressors cannot be tolerated. And denial of the moral authority of the messiahs is also intolerable: messiahism is exactly the moral thrust of Progressivism. As discussed above, that which is designated intolerable is the moral crime of “hate”, which must be abolished from humanity by means of harshest punishment. So Hate Legislation ensues to harshen punishment of otherwise ordinary crimes, but against protected categories.

Continuums of Normal Behavior: A Moral Concept
The Kinsey Report, the Kinsey book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and its enthusiastic acceptance by progressives is a case-in-point. The metanarrative of Kinsey’s position is that there is a continuum of behavior, none of which should be accorded moral approbation. Hence, homosexuality is purely a behavior (not a disorder) and thus not subject to moral judgment.

”But the scientific data which are accumulating make it appear that, if circumstances had been propitious, most individuals might have become conditioned in any direction, even into activities which they now consider quite unacceptable. There is little evidence of the existence of such a thing as innate perversity, even among those individuals whose sexual activities society has been least inclined to accept.”
Kinsey, et.al., ”Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”, Saunders and Co, pubs, 1948, pg 678.

Kinsey reported extensively on child sexuality, from anal contact to coitus to oral contact and orgasms. (Ibid, pp 157 – 192).

He proceeded to address the concern of “normal” vs. “abnormal”:

"Most of the complications which are observable in sexual histories are the result of society’s reactions when it obtains knowledge of an individual’s behavior, or the individual’s fear of how society would react if he were discovered. In various societies, under various circumstances, and (as we shall show later) even at various social levels of the population living in a particular town, the sex mores are fundamentally different. The way in which each group reacts to a particular sort of history determines the “normality ‘or “abnormality’ of the individual’s behavior – in that particular group (Benedict 1934). Whatever the moral interpretation (as in Moore 1943) , there is no scientific reason for considering particular types of sexual activity as intrinsically, in their biologic origins, normal or abnormal. Yet scientific classifications have been nearly identical with theologic classifications and with moral pronouncements of the English common law of the fifteenth century. This, in turn, as far as sex is concerned, was based on the medieval ecclesiastic law which was only a minor variant of the tenet of the ancient Greek and Roman cults, and of the Talmudic law (Angus 1925, May 1931)….”

The concept of amoral spectrums of behavior has permeated western society, at least the Progressive faction. This is coupled with the moral protection of the continuum or spectrum concept, which is now a moral feature, and to some extent protected by law, and enforced governmentally.

The question of how pedophilia fits into this environment is almost moot; with the ever-changing DSM, the ever present pressure against old standards, and the always present slippery slope, the hazard of social acceptance of pedophilia is possible. Not by present standards, of course, but due to the philosophy that “cultural acceptance” changes (note 1), and that morality is culturally deterministic. There is no possible way to predict that culture will never accept any given change, especially in an atmosphere where “change” itself is revered for its own sake.

The idea that mental disorders as presented in the DSM are fixed concepts or representative of reality is not the case. The DSM has just changed, yet again, to its fifth iteration. The author of the DSM IV is a heavy critic of the content of the new DSM V, and it is becoming clear that even the definitions of the term “disorder” are debatable. So under the American Psychiatric Association, mental disorders are relative to the opinions of certain influential people or groups, they are not fixed, objective principles of nature, or the universe, or biology, or even psychology. Again, relativism leads to continuums of arguably unproblematic symptoms.

Still, DSM IV TR retains the definition of DSM III and DSM III R, as follows:

In DSM IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or patter that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example the death of a loved one. Whatever it’s original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction of the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as described above).
DSM IV TR, pg xxxi. (emphasis added).

Further, DSM IV TR defines paraphilias (pedophilia is a paraphilia) thus:

”A Paraphilia must be distinguished from nonpathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors as a stimulus for sexual excitementin individuals without a paraphilia. Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g. are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships).
(emphasis in original)

For homosexuality, the issues of distress, impairment, legal complications, and social relationships have been eliminated as factors because they are now attributed to cultural stigmatization of that behavior. The idea of nonconsenting individuals concerns rape, which is a separate legal issue: that of consent and who can consent, and legally, who actually did or did not consent when they could have. (Note 2)

For Pedophilia, the same issues and eliminations can logically apply.

In fact, the DSM IV TR definition of pedophilia disorder (actually a paraphilia) is not predicated solely on the possession of a certain set of mental proclivities or attitudes, it is predicated on the consequences of those proclivities or attitudes:

(a) possession of sexual urges or feelings regarding children;
(b) acting on those feelings.

Both (a) and (b) must be in place in order for the diagnosis of pedophilia to be made. Thus, just feelings or urges alone do not qualify for the diagnosis of pedophilia; action is required. It is the action which is a moral consideration under the current culture (which will be discussed below). And it was denied in the original definition, above, that deviant sexual behavior is a reason for diagnosing a disorder. So the diagnosis of Pedophilia is somewhat of an incoherent statement, contradicting the very definition of disorder.

It has been suggested by a reader that a disorder is defined as follows:

1. Harm to others or self
2. Personal distress
3. Inability to fulfill necessary obligations, (viz, employment, parenthood).
4. In violation of cultural norms (which is flexible and changes over time).

None of these conditions suggests the possession of a pathological mental attitude or urge, including the propensity toward behaviors which are culturally repugnant. All of these conditions are specifying only the consequences, personal or social. And even the personal consequences can be explained in terms of social approbation. So there is still no deviancy seen in pedophilia, except in the social context.

However, if we accept that the definition of disorder is actually those four consequences of a behavior, rather than the possession of the psychological need to behave a certain way, then there are few, if any behaviors which are not acceptable… unless specific circumstances stack against a certain specific individual. For example, there is no way to predict that loving sex with a child will always produce problems for the child later in life. There is no way to predict that every and all parents will have problems with the fact of their child having loving sex. There is no way to predict that all pedophiles have problematic lives due to their proclivity for sex with children. So there is no disorder to be predicted with pedophilia, except the cultural revulsion, which can be destigmatized just as was homosexuality (Note 1), which still engenders revulsion in most of the population.

This concept was brought to fruition in 1998 when the American Psychological Association published a peer-reviewed study by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman, which was a metastudy of 59 other studies. Now known as the Rind Study, it concluded that the activities traditionally called child sexual abuse, or CSA, were not only not necessarily harmful to children, but also were not necessarily associated with long term psychological harm in adulthood. The abstract is here:

”Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.”
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm

After an organization called NARTH discovered and revealed the study to a wider audience, conservatives took note and objected, resulting in an unprecedented condemnation of the article by both chambers of Congress, which had never before condemned a scientific finding.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hconres107

The findings were referred to the AAAS:

”On July 12, 1999, our meta-analysis on child sexual abuse published in Psychological Bulletin, one of the American Psychological Association's (APA) premiere journals, was condemned by the U.S. Congress (H. Con. Res. 107). The condemnation followed months of attacks on the article, the APA, and us by various social conservatives and psychoanalytically-oriented clinicians. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was asked by the APA to independently review our article. After considering criticisms of it and the article itself, AAAS declined, but commented that it was the criticisms, not our methods or analyses, that troubled them because these criticisms misrepresented what we wrote.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12119-000-1025-5

In 2005, a subsequent study by Heather Ulrich confirmed the findings of the Rind Study:

Abstract:
”Research conducted during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s consistently reported widely accepted negative outcomes associated with child sexual abuse. In 1998 Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman conducted a meta-analysis challenging the four most often reported correlates of child sexual abuse. The present study attempted to reexamine the four main objectives of the Rind et al. (1998) study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam et al. (2001) and Ondersma et al. (2001). The current meta-analysis supported the findings by Rind et al. (1998) in that child sexual abuse was found to account for 1% of the variance in later psychological outcomes, whereas family environment accounted for 5.9% of the variance. In addition, the current meta-analysis supported the finding that there was a gender difference in the experience of the child sexual abuse, such that females reported more negative immediate effects, current feelings, and self-reported effects. The implications of these findings, problems with replicating the Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis, and future directions are discussed.”
http://www.srmhp.org/0402/child-abuse.html

Further observation:

”In addition to their perceived potential misuse by individuals with certain personal or ideological agendas (e.g., individuals with favorable attitudes toward pedophilia), one likely reason that Rind et al.’s findings were roundly denounced is that they directly contradicted many individuals’ intuitions and convictions. The Rind et al. affair demonstrates that when social science research and common sense clash in the court of public opinion, common sense is often the winner (see Shermer, 1997, for other examples). Dr. Laura’s remark that any scientific findings that conflict with common sense should typically be regarded as erroneous strikes a responsive chord with much of the general public. Nevertheless, it reflects a deep—although widely held—misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise.

Karl Popper (1965) and many others (e.g., Meehl, 1978; Platt, 1964) have pointed out that science involves placing favored hypotheses in grave danger of refutation. The more cherished a claim, the more deeply ingrained it is in a belief system, the more crucial subjecting it to the risk of falsification becomes. As Carl Sagan (1995) pointed out, one must be especially cautious about accepting claims that accord with strongly held beliefs, as such claims are often found to be subjectively compelling or even intuitively obvious (see also Rind, Bauserman, & Tromovitch, 2000). The scientific method remains the optimal means of rooting out error and myth (Bartley, 1984; Popper, 1965), and this method grinds to a halt if the process of self-correction that is so essential to science is short-circuited. If Richard Feynman (1985, p. 311) was correct that the essence of science is bending over backward to prove oneself wrong, then scientists must be encouraged to report findings anddraw conclusions that run counter to common sense. It is also probably worth recalling Voltaire’s (1764/1972) admonition that common sense (which, in contrast to my usage here, Voltaire conceptualized as scientific/logical reasoning) is not especially common.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20030429000006/http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ble/SciSoc/lilienfeld02.pdf

The purely rational conclusion, scientifically supported and without moral input, would be that in loving family environments the natural sexual urges of children could be fulfilled without harm to the child, even later in adulthood. Without harm, the practice is acceptable. One might argue that intellectual, social, and hunger appetites are willingly fulfilled by loving adults in the child’s life; how does that differ from sexual appetites and development? I’m certain that if I can conceive of this train of thought then the pedophile community can also dredge it up.

The Issue Of Consent
If child sexual activity can be harmless and supported in certain environments, then the remaining objection is functional: the child cannot consent. Yet parents consent all the time to various commitments for the child, commitments which the child might even hate, like attending school or eating vegetables or doctor appointments and vaccinations or not playing video games. And the parents can commit the child to pleasurable activities like going to parties, soccer teams, summer camp, etc. When pedophilia is mainstreamed, the issue of consent becomes moot. Parents these days are told to accept their child’s homosexuality as normal; should they not be told to accept their child’s budding sexuality as normal?

Any further objections are moral in nature, and concern the “ick” factor which is roundly rejected as a valid response to any behaviors on the continuum, especially homosexuality, transgenders, fetishists, etc., who recently have been mainstreamed. Morality is no longer accepted; the continuum of acceptable is amoral, and moral proclamations regarding behaviors on the continuum is now designated to be Hate thought. So the “ick” factor and any moral concerns are dismissed, a priori, as valid objections regarding behaviors along the continuum of behaviors.

The Over-Arching Principles of Tolerance And Change
The dedicated pursuit of cultural and political amorality to which Progressives adhere is unconstrained, morally, except for self-defensive principles such as “tolerance” and “change”. Tolerance becomes the anti-moral principle, declaring all behaviors to be acceptable. Change becomes the Great Commandment for the messiah class: all society which is not Progressive (or is the stupid herd) is evil and must be changed. Constraint and personal restraint in the moral sense, including personal responsibility for consequences, are intolerant demands on the pursuit of Change. It can be seen that messianic failures never constrain future messianic assaults on cultural norms; personal responsibility is never taken by the messianic class. (Note 3)

The demolition of morals and “good character” has consequences which can be foreseen, especially given the history of Hegelian Progressivism and its anti-moral assaults on culture. Those consequences include the acceptance of almost any behavior (logically, the absolute acceptance of all behaviors), and the denial of responsibility for consequences of their own beliefs and behaviors. As with government spending, failure (economically or socially) means only that more is needed. More Progressivism is always the answer, regardless.


NOTES:

Note 1: The homosexual war for cultural acceptance is outlined in the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the90's (Plume) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Sep 1, 1990).

Note 2: For some Progressives such as Whoopi Goldberg, sex with children who consent is not “rape rape”, and punishment is unfair and unjust.

Note 3: Thos. Sowell, “The Vision Of The Anointed; Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”; 1995; Basic Books/Perseus Book Groups.

When Correlation Looks Just Exactly Like Causation

Blogger "taxprof" presents data from professor Robert Anderson that shows that, of the top ten agencies, 96.9% of gov't lawyers donated to Obama, and 3.1% donated to Romney, with 100% Democrats in the NRLB, the UN, and the Department of Education. The IRS is not even in the top 5, it is number ten on the list. The remainder of the list shows that all of the agencies analyzed, even the Defense Dep't, are way heavy on Democrats.

Is this accidental? Or can one suspect some sort of ideological screening? Perhaps, as someone suggested, only Leftist activists actually go into government. Regardless of the cause, the burden of the progressives in government on the future of the country is a correlation that cannot be ignored.

With the unelected bureaucracies being controlled by toadies of the Left, what should we expect from them? We should expect exactly what we are getting.

Obama Administration Scandal List; Updated 6-11-13

UPDATE, 6-11-13: Too much data. Only new scandals will be added daily, at the top of the list, then moved to the bottom in due time.

UPDATE, 5-23-13: New additions will be placed at the top of the list daily, then moved to the bottom of the list in a day (or so).

Today's Addition(s):

A. Scandal number five: Insider-trading probe of Medicare announcement reveals hundreds of HHS employees had secret info
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/10/scandal-number-five-insider-trading-probe-of-medicare-announcement-reveals-hundreds-of-hhs-employees-had-secret-info/

B. Psst: There are four separate scandals going on at EPA right now
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/10/psst-there-are-four-separate-scandals-going-on-at-epa-right-now/

C. SNOOPING CONCERNS EMERGE OVER CONGRESSIONAL BLACKBERRIES SERVICED BY VERIZON
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6274381712003139086#editor/target=post;postID=921921445208355230;onPublishedMenu=postsstats;onClosedMenu=postsstats;postNum=2;src=link

D. What If China Hacks the NSA's Massive Data Trove?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6274381712003139086#editor/target=post;postID=921921445208355230;onPublishedMenu=postsstats;onClosedMenu=postsstats;postNum=2;src=link

E. CBS News: U.S. State Department Cover-Ups Range From Prostitution Charges to Drug Rings
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6274381712003139086#editor/target=post;postID=921921445208355230;onPublishedMenu=postsstats;onClosedMenu=postsstats;postNum=2;src=link

F. White House Calls for 'Paycheck Fairness,' But Pays Female Staffers 13% Less
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/white-house-calls-paycheck-fairness-pays-female-staffers-13-less

G. Watchdog: Thousands of feds sign off on own travel cost
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2531588#.UbcYP3gouu0.twitter

H. EPA 'Mistakenly' Gives Names of Farmers to Radical Groups
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/10/epa-mistakenly-gives-names-farmers-radical-groups

I. Wow: IRS Claims Law Protecting the Privacy of Taxpayer Information Also Protects the Privacy of Those Who Violate Taxpayer Privacy
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/340776.php


They are coming in too fast to keep track of. Gotta make a list.

It cannot possibly be a true surprise that a man who was raised by Communists, taught the values of Alinsky, declared his own values to be consequentialist, wanted positive rights (only those specifically allowed by government), went to black liberationist church for 20 years and denied any influence from it, and concealed all his records from birth through college... that such a man would provide such anti-liberty governing when given the chance. All these things were known prior to the first election of obama, at least by anyone who did the slightest personal vetting of the man. The MSM cannot have "not known". They are actually cut of the same cloth. And now their hero has turned on them, too.

1. DOJ Fast and Furious: hundreds killed via gunwalking by US Gov’t and Holder; no one cares anymore.

Agent: I was ordered to let u.s. guns into mexico:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

DOJ leaks in order to smear Fast and Furious whistleblower.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/20/DOJ-Inspector-General-confirms-US-Attorney-DOJ-headquarters-leaked-documents-to-smear-Fast-and-Furious-whistleblower

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/watchdog-report-says-doj-official-retaliated-against-furious-whistle-blower/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

2. DOJ racist favoritism (Black Panthers Skate); also Pigford.
Holder Denies Allowing Pigford Fraud
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/15/Eric-Holder-Denies-Allowing-Pigford-Fraud

3. DOJ collusion with Leftist spinners

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/18/emails-show-holder-justice-department-colludes-with-lefist-outfit-to-attack-pjm-writer/

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/22/journolists-irs-angle-begins-to-gel/

4. State Dept Benghazi

http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-shuts-down-benghazi-questions-youll-have-to-take-my-word-for-it/article/2529622

Benghazi scapegoat speaks out
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

More Benghazi Whistleblowers
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

Benghazi Suspects ID'ed but Administration won't nab them because it doesn't want to send them to gitmo
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/21/benghazi-suspects-idd-but-administration-wont-nab-them-because-it-doesnt-want-to-send-them-to-gitmo/

White House suppressed Benghazi data: "...the White House Counsel’s office, which is led by Kathryn Ruemmler, advised the officials to not release any information to the public out of fear it could be used against them in any subsequent investigations and other legal complications."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/advisers-urged-obama-early-on-to-release-comprehensive-bengh

Patraeus might present info on prior warnings of threats to Benghazi which were edited out of WH talking points.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/petraeuss-role-in-drafting-benghazi-talking-points-raises-questions/2013/05/21/db19f352-c165-11e2-ab60-67bba7be7813_story.html

5. IRS targeting enemies

IRS releases personal data
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confidential-docs

IRS religious profiling
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/05/politics/irs-graham-letter/

IRS targeting journalists
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529471

Did DOJ use false information to obtain warrants? Rep. Goodlatte wants to know.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/31/rep-bob-goodlatte-fox-news-did-eric-holder-commit-perjury


IRS operatives in the media
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/

IRS war on women http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-was-just-stay-at-home-mother-i-was.html

IRS demands no opposition to Planned Parenthood; reveal content of prayers http://washingtonexaminer.com/congressman-irs-asked-pro-life-group-about-the-content-of-their-prayers/article/2529924

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/19/irs-to-pro-life-groups-you-know-youre-gonna-have-to-give-up-this-whole-protest-thing-right/

IRS used by Durbin
http://pjmedia.com/blog/durbin-asked-irs-shulman-to-probe-several-conservative-501c4-groups-in-2010/

IRS used by Schumer and Franken
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/flashback-schumer-franken-urged-irs-to-target-tea-party-in-2012/

Treasury and higher-ups knew
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578488833834357540.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/300573-dem-ex-irs-chief-lied-to-congress

IRS steered 2012 election to Obama by eliminating some competition
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-irs-deliberately-chose-not-fess-scandal-election_724711.html

IRS and Harry Reid
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/did-the-irs-give-romneys-tax-returns-to-harry-reid/

IRS targeted conservative Hispanic groups
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/16/irs-allegedly-targeted-latino-run-conservative-group/#ixzz2TSlLopHG

IRS is co-managed by union bosses
"The fact that, under Executive Order 13522, federal agencies are being co-managed by union bosses and it appears that the perpetrators of the IRS scandal are likely to be members of the IRS union makes one wonder how coordinated the attacks were–especially as four of the alleged perpetrators are claiming their bosses made them do it."

The union, NTEU, is partisan to Obama and the Left.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/16/meet-the-partisan-union-behind-the-partisan-internal-revenue-service/

IRS is sued by CA organization for the theft of 60,000,000 medical documents, including including medical records of all California state judges.
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/irs-face-lawsuit-over-theft-60-million-patient-health-records

IRS suddenly approves Tea Party applications
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/05/16/irs-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-once-congressional-scrutiny-began/

IRS demanded names of high school and college students trained by conservative group
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/05/15/document-irs-ordered-conservative-educational-group-to-turn-over-a-list-of-high-school-and-college-students-it-trained/

IRS Employee: Everything Comes From the Top
http://washingtonexaminer.com/anonymous-cincinnati-irs-official-everything-comes-from-the-top./article/2530001?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

IRS's Lois Lerner takes the Fifth
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130522/DA6E7MA81.html

IRS tabled "True the Vote's" application for three years, after the organization observed voter fraud.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348961/true-vote-files-suit-against-irs-ian-tuttle

IRS targets 69% of adoptive families (in defense of Planned Parenthood, who kills rather than adopts out?)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2013/05/22/the-irs-targets-adoptive-families/

Lois Lerner has a history of harassment (at Federal Elections Commission).
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irss-lerner-had-history-harassment-inappropriate-religious-inquiries-fec_725004.html?page=3

Inspector General withheld IRS targeting info so it "wouldn't be leaked to the public"
http://washingtonexaminer.com/emails-show-how-treasury-delayed-alerting-congress-to-tea-party-targeting/article/2530314

Legal opinion and samples of IRS harassment letters.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6274381712003139086#editor/target=post;postID=3560762172719155651;onPublishedMenu=overview;onClosedMenu=overview;postNum=1;src=link

Jay Carney lies about the IRS profiling having stopped in 2012: ACLJ represents parties still profiled today
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349066/it-didn%E2%80%99t-end-ian-tuttle

Pic: Lois Lerner is the face of the IRS
http://twitchy.com/2013/05/23/arrogance-is-bliss-whats-up-with-lois-lerners-obama-face/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Pelosi blames (who else) George Bush for IRS targeting Tea Parties
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/nancy-pelosi-george-bush_n_3326029.html

IRS Org chart puts Ingram and Lerner at center of power. Cindy Thomas signed off on sending confidential tax documents to ProPublica
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/23/EXCLUSIVE-IRS-Org-Chart-Puts-Ingram-and-Lerner-At-Center-of-Power?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Lois Lerner Lied
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/lois-ive-done-nothing-wrong-lerner-signed-irs-letters-harassing-tea-party-groups/

"Lois Lerner Told Republican in 1996: “Promise me You Will Never Run Again, and We’ll Drop This (FEC) Case”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/breaking-lois-lerner-told-republican-in-1996-promise-me-you-will-never-run-again-and-well-drop-this-fec-case/

Head of IRS went to White House FAR more than any other administration official (with graph)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/30/boy-the-head-of-the-irs-went-to-the-white-house-a-lot.html

6. AP and other media phone taps

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/15/white-house-answer-leads-to-more-questions-in-the-ap-scandal/

Justice investigated NYT reporter
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-investigated-york-times-reporter-too-185853445.html

7. WH taps phones of Congress

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/15/would-you-believe-the-administration-bugged-the-phones-in-the-house-of-representatives/

8. Sebelius’ Obamacare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lamar-alexander-sebelius-fundraising-arguably-an-even-bigger-issue-than-iran-contra/

Sebelius under fire
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/05/24/Sebelius-Defends-another-Administration-Misstep.aspx#page1

HHS "Fusion Centers" target everyone (even ACLU), but not terrorists
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/even-politicians-tire-of-failure-prone-f

Sebelius' Navigators: more snitches
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/05/29/obamacare-navigators-another-sebelius-snitch-brigade-n1608092

9. EPA political favoritism

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529609#.UZIq1hQ69Ts.twitter

http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-was-just-stay-at-home-mother-i-was.html

http://cei.org/news-releases/epa-gives-info-free-big-green-groups-92-time-denies-93-fee-waiver-requests-biggest-con

10. Press conflict of interest

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/13/top-cbs-abc-cnn-execs-all-have-relatives-working-as-advisors-for-white-house/

11. Punishing whistleblowers

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/why-you-should-care-about-whistleblowers/

12. Ideological punishment

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/flashback-obama-targeted-gibson-boeing

Gibson Guitar Intimidation
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm

13. ObamaCare lies and fails

http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed-what-is-to-be-done-reveal-and-replace-obamacare/article/2529777

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/05/15/cbo-obamacare-costs-double-to-1-8-trillion-in-first-decade/

ObamaCare is failing at the start, and illegal gov't actions are trying to save it.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/22/the-obamacare-nightmare-scenario

ObamaCare conflict of Interest: Medical record Co. CEO in charge of your records.
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/22/the-obama-crony-in-charge-of-your-medical-records/

ObamaCare unintended consequences: Skinny coverage to void fines
http://bighealthreport.com/8264/employers-offering-skinny-coverage-to-side-step-obamacare-fines/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/another_enormous_obamacare_oops_vY4KousCRUXPprm4FgGc2I

House votes to repeal ObamaCare, 229 to 195; bill moves to Senate

ObamaCare rate to increase in CA by up to 146%; Aetna CEO says rates can double.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

14. FIRST: WE HAVE TERRORISTS IN THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM? SECOND: WE LET THEM FLY COMMERCIAL IN THE U.S.? Yep. The country’s in the very best of hands.

15. Solyndra, et. al.

16. Financial rape of GM bondholders and investors as company was given to the union.

17. Debt transfer to future generations
Chuck Bently: The REAL scandal is Profli-Gate (runaway federal spend-borrow-spend)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/05/22/forget-the-irs-and-benghazi-heres-the-real-scandal/

18. ICE releases hundreds of illegal aliens with criminal records.

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/05/17/ice-admits-hundreds-of-illegal-immigrants-with-criminal-records-released/

19. Perpetual War, not won

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2013/05/pentagions-special-operations-chief.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10065802/Al-Qaedas-Syrian-wing-takes-over-the-oilfields-once-belonging-to-Assad.html

20. Cornering the market on ammunition possession via Homeland security purchases of war-quantities. Even cops can't get ammo.

21. NLRB non-recess appointment

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-nlrb-appointments-declared-unconstitutional-by-another-appeals-court

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/second-appeals-court-finds-obama-recess-appointment-is-unconstitutional/2013/05/16/272770ba-be57-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html

Senate GOP asks Supreme Court to invalidate Obama's "recess" appointments
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/labor/302217-senate-gop-ask-supreme-court-to-invalidate-recess-appointments

22. Coming soon: a fully nuclear Iran. (Obama: "I never bluff" is blinking madly).

23. Assassinating a US citizen without due process.
US admits killing Americans in drone strikes, and killing groups of men based on presumptions of association with Al Qaeda, regardless of collateral damage to civilians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html?_r=0

Obama: Drones vs. trials: "Obama turned more than a few heads by declaring his “strong preference” for “the detention and prosecution of terrorists” over sending an armed robot to end their lives. It’s hard to know what to make of that. The simplest interpretation is that it’s a lie. Whatever Obama’s preferences are, he has killed exponentially more people than he has detained and prosecuted."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/detention-fubar/


24. Obama's phony SS#, issued in a state in which Obama never resided. Never mind his phony birth document.

25. DOJ attacking Reporters

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328031/Report-Justice-Department-targeted-TWO-Fox-News-reporters-producer-talking-government-sources.html

Holder approved seizure of FOX emails
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18451142-holder-okd-search-warrant-for-fox-news-reporters-private-emails-official-says?lite

Google gives emails to DOJ

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/co-conspirator-fox-news-reporter-james-rosens-private-emails-given-to-justice-dept-by-google/

Fox News phone records seized
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/21/Report-DOJ-Seized-Records-of-Five-Fox-News-Phone-Records
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/looking-more-and-more-like-a-doj-war-on-fox-news-not-just-james-rosen/

Most Transparent Administration in History Releases Completely Redacted Document About Text Snooping To ACLU
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/most-transparent-administration-in-histo

26. I nearly forgot: ACORN scandal.

27. The use of "Czars" to circumvent Congressional approval process for government operatives.

28. U.S. borders are porous, still.

29. Bailouts for bankers; none in prison. Many are political donors.

30. Posse Comitatus is disemboweled: Enclosure 3.1.b

http://publicintelligence.net/dod-civilian-law-enforcement/

31. Administration ignores requests made under the FOIA Act

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html

32. Weaponized Journalism: Journolist as arm of the Obama thought control machine

https://twitter.com/arishapiro/status/336925791155789824

33. Homeland Security won't enforce law.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

34. Whistleblower: State Dept sold Stinger Missiles to Al Qaeda; Stevens was in Benghazi to buy them back
http://nation.foxnews.com/benghazi/2013/05/21/new-benghazi-whistle-blowers-making-devastating-new-claim

35. Obama's unauthorized warfare:

"President Obama not only unilaterally dispatched forces to Libya (hello, Benghazi!), he didn’t even bother to follow up 90 days later with a request for authorization, as specified under the War Powers Act."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/22/obama-s-war-on-journalism-an-unconstitutional-act.html

36. Original White House war on Fox News in 2009

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511541363270618.html

http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/bloomberg-checks-obama-transparency/

37. Judge orders Google to comply with FBI's secret NSL demands:

A federal judge tells the company to comply with the FBI's warrantless National Security Letter requests for user details, despite ongoing concerns about their constitutionality.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587003-38/judge-orders-google-to-comply-with-fbis-secret-nsl-demands/

38.The FBI Changes Its Story (Again) on the Ibragim Todashev Shooting

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/fbi-changes-its-story-again-ibragim-todashev-shooting/65750/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/yet-another-explanation-for-the-killing-of-ibragim-todashev/276421/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333101/Friend-Boston-Marathon-bomber-UNARMED-killed-FBI-agent-confess-triple-murder.html

39. Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas

“The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging".

It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power".

The directive also contemplates the possible use of cyber actions inside the US, though it specifies that no such domestic operations can be conducted without the prior order of the president, except in cases of emergency.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas

40. NSA, PRISM and FISA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_print.html

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance
Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily
Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

How the Gov't Lies With Numbers. So a single order issued to Verizon Business Solutions in April covered metadata for every phone call made by every customer. That’s from one order out of what will probably be about 200 reported in next year’s numbers.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-n

UPDATED as new info emerges.