Branding someone the most "anything" is a risky endeavor; superlatives will always be suspect.  But I cannot find words strong enough to condemn George Soros.

If you haven’t heard of him, you’re not alone.  Outside of politics wonks and special-interest-group gravy-train riders, he is not well known.

But he should be.

There is no doubt in my mind that George Soros is the most dangerous man in America.  Pick most any attack upon our culture you please — that on Christianity, the push to legalize recreational drugs, the drive to grant amnesty to invaders, the trampling of our constitution, the metastasizing of the nanny state, and many others — and Soros’ fingerprints are all over them.  He funds leftist causes to the tune of 400 million dollars a year.  This article partially exposes the machinations of this creature, and here is an excerpt:

Didn’t the mainstream media report that 2006’s vast immigration
rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million
angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship
in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio
announcer?

Turns out that wasn’t what happened, either. Soros’ OSI had
money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund
lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the
immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist
groups for subsequent court cases.

Soros is the invisible hand behind much of the manipulation of our culture.  He reminds me of the evil emperor in Star Wars; his minions are all about bedeviling us, but you don’t see him much.  He stays behind the scenes, scheming, calculating, making his deals with the Devil and pulling strings.  He is the miasma beneath the demon wings of the foot soldiers who do his bidding, the dirtiest of dirty work.

What is truly disgusting about this man is that he tirelessly tries to destroy the very civilization that gave him the opportunity to make billions.  Of course, he has made his money through noble pursuits such as breaking currencies, so I’m sure he sold his soul long ago.

Even more shameful, though, is the media’s abdication of its responsibility.  The author of the piece I cite bemoans the lack of transparency with respect to Soros’ schemes, but the media can render something transparent as easily as invisible.  Barack Obama is a "rising political star" because the media decided that he fit their favored profile; Michael Savage is ignored perhaps because they know that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.  If the media did its job and spotlighted Soros to a degree commensurate with his endeavors, they would be transparent.  Then, the American people could make their decisions with open eyes.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t say that the media have to score Soros as I do.  However, movers and shakers should be scrutinized based on how much they move and shake, not based on which way they move and who they shake.  The truth is that the media is one of the greatest enemies our country could have.

So the cancer metastasizes, steadily, inexorably, perhaps irrevocably, as we die a death by a thousand cuts.

Some things bear repeating.  Much has been written about Mitt Romney’s sudden "conversion" to traditionalist principles in his late fifties; we hear about his newfound pro-life and pro-marriage stances, for instance.  What amazes me, though, is that people always miss the 800 pound gorilla in the center of the room.  To wit: The most damning thing about Romney is an action he took quite recently, right before leaving the governor’s office.  I wrote about this in January of this year and here is the relevant excerpt:

On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a
universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists
everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain
health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed
1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a
new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother’s infinite wisdom,
determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help,
Mitt. Or, is it “Vinny the Chin”? I mean, this sounds like an offer you
just can’t refuse.

To justify his socialist brainchild, Romney uses the argument
that it is no different from requiring people to carry car insurance.
Ah, speciousness, thy name is Romney. Mr. Governor, you can choose not
to own a car.

Everyone must have a body.

How can we even consider nominating a man who conjured up a health plan right out of Lady MacBeth’s playbook?

After writing my Romney piece, quite predictably, I was excoriated on pro-Romney websites.  I also received an email from a Republican Party official in Massachusetts.  She was very polite and civil, but also quite naive.  She tried explaining to me the reasoning behind Romney’s Orwellian plan, saying that the law mandated that the uninsured have to be covered anyway, and they were costing the system billions.  So, said she, Romney’s plan just ensures that no one will get a free ride.

The example she gave went something like this: There’s a young guy in his twenties who has a feeling of immortality and doesn’t acquire health insurance.  Then he breaks his arm playing basketball or engaging in some high-risk pursuit, goes to a hospital, and they have to treat him regardless of whether or not he can pay the bill.  Under Romney’s plan, said this official, people like this fellow will no longer get a free ride and drain the system, as they will all be required to purchase insurance.  It’s an argument that makes sense to many, imbued as we are with statism.

So, since she seemed like a nice, reasonable person, I responded to her email and explained the fallacy in her thinking.  The problem she addresses is not one of a free economy, but of socialism.  It arises when you create a situation wherein people are held responsible for the bad decisions, mistakes and misfortune of others through government.  He who pays the piper calls the tune, and with responsibility comes authority.  If you’re going to give government the responsibility of taking care of you, you should expect that it will soon demand the authority necessary to ensure that you don’t act stupidly (or what it considers so) or become too much of a burden on the system.  It starts acting in loco parentis.

The answer is that instead of growing government even further in an effort to compensate for problems caused by the growth of the little g to begin with, we should shrink government and make it less intrusive.  I suppose I’m a voice in the wilderness on this nowadays, but I believe that free medical care should be the domain of private charities, of which there are many.  Besides, eliminate the illegal aliens — who receive free care and are bankrupting our hospitals — and our medical costs will drop precipitously.

Sadly, though, many so-called conservatives have unwittingly accepted many statist suppositions, as they are now woven into our culture.  And it is one of the greatest victories of the left.

In the news section, we have a WorldNetDaily.com piece about how officials at Kansas City International Airport have denied that their recently installed footbaths are designed specifically for Moslems.  We are to believe they are for everyone’s washing pleasure.  OK, fine then, I have an idea.

Airports have food courts, and the next time you step on a piece of bacon and it gets stuck on your shoe (don’t you just hate when that happens?), I suggest that you put those footbaths to good use.  Or, you could be wearing sandals and drop your pulled pork sandwich on your feet; it’s very annoying when those slivers of delicious pig meat get stuck in your toes, you know.   And, of course, there is the grease and fat as well.  A good cleansing would be in order.

Then, you might step in the droppings of man’s best friend . . . well, some men’s best friend, anyway.  Now, you wouldn’t want to trudge around an airport in such an excrementitious state, especially since certain people seem to fancy dogs unclean animals.  The solution?  Hey, you know where to go to clean your dogs.

After all, the footbaths are for everyone.

We have heard much lately about dangerous Chinese products that have come to our shores, from the lead paint-laden toys to the poisoned food and toxic toothpaste.  And it seems that most anything you buy nowadays has a "Made in China" label on the back.  But I ask you, do we really need this junk?

You see, I’ve observed that it isn’t just the toxic products that make the news that are the problem; it seems to me that Chinese goods are shoddily made in general.  For instance, there’s a certain brand of Chinese-made telephone headsets that I and two people I know had the misfortune of purchasing, a very common brand.  I’m not exaggerating when I say that in every case the equipment malfunctioned (to the point where one couldn’t use it) within a few months of acquisition.  The trash only has a 90-day warranty, too, which is not surprising since it seems to be loaded with a self-destruct mechanism that activates after about 90 days.  To place this in further perspective, among the three of us we probably had about 10 of these headsets (owing partially to the fact that a few malfunctioned within the 90-day period and the fact that one or two kindly retailers were willing to replace them even beyond that short time frame), and, again, every one malfunctioned.  It’s staggering.

In my mind, this is just another reason why I can do without "free trade."  How does it really benefit us?  While we are enjoying cheaper goods over the short term, our manufacturing base has been destroyed; we’re filling the coffers of despotic, anti-American regimes; and we’ve introduced dangerous products into our market.  As for the last point, when we buy produce grown abroad — in Mexico, South America or elsewhere — do we really know what chemicals it’s treated with?  If the product is packaged food, do we know how hygienic these Third World factories are?  Does anyone in government really care?  We should remember that these Third World nations don’t have the regulations or standards we do and are rife with disease and corruption.  If their packaging plants were infested with rats (a good bet, I’d say), would their governments really care?

I don’t propose that we eliminate foreign trade, but I do support the institution of high tariffs, a practice that accords with American tradition.  So, no, I don’t believe in free trade — except within these 50 states.

Getting back to these shoddy products, I find it disheartening that modern Americans so readily accept low standards.  Not that long ago, people had the expectation that a product might last a lifetime.  Now, when you buy an appliance, the salesman will inquire as to whether you want an extended service warranty to cover the product after, let’s say, a year’s time.  If you don’t have confidence that an expensive item you carry will last for at least a few years without breakdown, why are you selling it to me? 

This is just another example of the complete breakdown in standards in the West.  But, hey, in the same way that people get the government they deserve, I suppose they get the products and services they deserve, too.  And there really is a connection there, as our products and politicians seem to decline at the same rate.

So Dan Rather has filed a 70 million dollar lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract, claiming that the station used him as a scapegoat after the revelation surfaced that he peddled fraudulent documents designed to impugn President Bush.  Personally, I don’t think he has a leg to stand on and believe he’ll lose his case.

The obvious explanation for this action is that Rather wants to salvage his reputation, but I also see this as the behavior of a petulant child.  Remember that Rather has a history of such behavior, once storming off the set upon learning that his newscast would be preempted by some U.S. Open tennis matches.  Really, though, I can sympathize.

I was always perturbed when the relation of truth would be preempted by Dan Rather. 

And that’s more than just a quip; Dan Rather has been a propagandist for decades.  Oh, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t accuse him of being a deceiver of others; rather, Rather deceives himself.  What I mean is that he is a rationalizer, a typical leftist who is so awash in relativism that he long ago lost the ability to discern truth.

This state of his explains well his demise.  According to author and media guru Bernard Goldberg, who worked with Rather for years, the newsman was intimately involved in the preparation of his stories and cannot fall back on the excuse that it was only underlings who were remiss.  Having said that, like Goldberg, I don’t believe for a second that Rather knowingly peddled phony documents.  While I don’t hold him in high regard, he is neither that low nor that stupid; he’d know that such an action could scuttle his career.  So what explains his journalistic incompetence?

It’s simple: Rather saw something he wanted to believe and believed it.

The false documents affirmed his false beliefs, his prejudices; why, of course big bad Republicans like GWB would be guilty of such things, so it just has to be true.  It’s much like believing that a fellow has to be a drunkard because he is an Irishman, like watermelon because he is black or be a scoundrel because he is a newsman (in reality, the last thing is true only 98 percent of the time).  Once your prejudices become reality to you, your judgment becomes distorted, preventing you from perceiving facts even when you want to. 

The truth about Rather’s ignominious end is that he was merely hoisted on his own petards — and it should have happened sooner.  Rather had been cutting corners — not first in his story preparation but first in his mind — for decades, and it finally caught up with him.  He lost in the workplace and now he should lose in court.  Sadly, though, the real losers were the American people who imbibed the journalistic effluent he disgorged during his many attempts at rendering news.   He is off the air and won’t be missed — not by me, anyway.

Dan Rather?  I’d rather not.

Former Arkansas governor and presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has been picking up some support lately, allowing him to actually register in the polls.  Why, he just seems like a golly-gee good old boy.  There is something everyone seems to have forgotten about Huckabee, though: He sold his soul in shamelessly pandering to the illegal alien lobby.

As pointed out in this NewsMax piece, Huckabee actually implied that those who want illegals deported are tantamount to slave masters.  Said Huckabee,

One of the great challenges facing us is that we do not commit the
same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population that we did with
African Americans 150 years ago and beyond. We’re still paying the
price for the pathetic manner in which this country handled that . . . I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.

This inane comment should outrage everyone — save those who have invaded our country and flout our laws.  To equate overt and egregious discrimination against citizens with the insistence that aliens respect our laws and sovereignty is so preposterous that, quite frankly, mere words cannot sufficiently relate the disgust I feel.  And I imagine that many black folks will be pleased as punch when they hear about Huckabee’s drawing of this equivalence.

Then, "Huck the Huckster," as he should now be called, was speaking to the League of United Latin American Citizens.  While again doing some hispandering he said,

"Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority."

This drew laughter from the crowd, although the humor does seem to elude me.  Of course, it may actually be a good thing if he means Southern white guys exactly like him; in other words, pandering, pusillanimous, puerile demagogues who have no regard for their culture, language or for the sacrifices made by ancestors who helped forge this nation.  I don’t know about anyone else, but I think embracing policy that will forever change the cultural ecosystem of the United States and transform her into a Third World nation should evoke tears, not laughter.

Huck the Huckster is right about one thing, however, in that the Lord may be giving us a second chance to do better than we did before; that is, in electing a president.  His outrageous comments on immigration alone — regardless of whatever else he may do or say or however he may try to spin it —  should disqualify him from holding any public office.  Huck makes John McCain look like a nativist.  He is despicable. 

There is, though, one parallel between the plight of antebellum slaves and that of the invaders: Both situations were welcomed by people who wanted cheap labor.  And, as far as Invasion USA goes, it’s also welcomed by those who want cheap votes.

So the two bigots, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are once again injecting themselves where they don’t belong.  They have slithered down to Jena, Louisiana, to protest charges brought against six black youths who assaulted a white teen named Justin Barker, who was knocked unconscious.  The two uncivil-rights bots are doing their usual schtick, claiming that this incident is another example of racial injustice and double standards in America and giving their careers as professional rabble-rousers their periodic dose of media juice. 

I won’t say much about the details of the case, except to point out that the two demagogues’ poster boy for racial injustice, Mychael Bell (parents who embrace irregular spellings of common names have a certain hang-up), has four convictions for violent crimes.  Yes, a real choir boy.

What really interests me about this case are the real double standards.  In this TimesOnline article some of them are evident, such as the notion that whites are treated more leniently by the justice system.  The truth is that if six white students had beaten a black teen, the perpetrators would be charged with a hate crime and the story would have been all over the national media from the get-go.  As for this case, it’s only receiving more attention now because the two racial hustlers showed up, and the focus is on absolving the guilty.  The article, though, states,

". . . they [the protesters] were against the unequal
application of justice in America . . ." 

Yes, there certainly is unequal justice in America.  If a group commits an inordinate amount of crime, its members are more likely to be punished.

Even more outrageous is the equivalence some are trying to draw between symbolism and substance.  Many are complaining about the fact that white students who hung some nooses on Jena High School grounds — which they say sparked this violence — were punished with only school suspension, while the book is being thrown at the black students. 

This is a diversionary tactic and much reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case.  If you remember, Simpson’s defense shysters and the media shifted the focus to the fact that Detective Mark Fuhrman once used the word "nigger," making it the issue.   It was as if  a racial epithet was a more serious charge than a brutal and bloody knife-slaying of two innocent people.  Likewise, there are some now who act as if the hanging of a noose equates to a brutal beating and, in fact, mitigates it.

This strategy serves two malevolent purposes.  Over the short term, the miscreants who perpetrated this assault may enjoy slap-on-the-wrist justice.  The long-term effect, though, is far more ominous. This proposition lays the groundwork for hate speech laws, as it further convinces people that "offensive" words and symbols need to be prohibited because, hey, it’s not just sticks and stones that may break my bones. 

Sorry, folks, but this is a dangerous road to travel; the rendering of political and social statements — no matter how odious they may be — must never be equated with actual violence, and to do so is an immoral act that does violence to our First Amendment.  It may hurt the perverts to hear this, but the right to freedom of speech wasn’t secured to protect pornography.

Speaking of perverts, if we do want to start punishing criminally those who erect offensive symbols, let us start with people such as Andres Serrano, the "artist" who immersed a crucifix in a jar of urine. 

Until you put that on the table, leftists, you can flush your double standards right down the Jackson.

It has been a long time in coming, dear readers, but we have finally rolled out the new SelwynDuke.com; it just became operational September 24.  The design differences are obvious, and if the feedback we’ve received thus far is any indication, they’re a hit.  But more than just the style has changed.

(more…)