Stoos Views

 By William Kevin Stoos  Monday, October 5, 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry (“Just Kidding When I Told You I Hope Your Newspaper Goes Out of Business” Reid), who for years has been afflicted with a Tourette’s-like illness which compels him to insult politicians, fellow Nevadans, American citizens, and respected military leaders, has decided to seek emergency medical treatment, according to America’s most trusted news source—Hugh Betcha. Chief Political Correspondent for the Stoos Views news conglomerate and long time confidante of the Majority Leader, Hugh was invited to the office of Senator Reid for a private discussion about the Senator’s health, before the official announcement was released to the press.

Upon entering the room, the reporter noticed the overpowering, sickening sweet odor of Glade cinnamon air fresheners strategically placed around the Senator’s office.  “What is up with that?” Hugh asked his friend.

“Oh, nothing,” the Senator replied, “just use those to cover the stench of the stinky tourists, who visit the Capitol, you know. Especially those right wing Christians—they smell the worst.”

Taken aback by the remark, Hugh discreetly sniffed his own armpits to ensure he did not offend the Senator.

“Don’t worry,” Reid assured him, “you are the fairest guy in the world, certainly not a damned Christian right winger. You smell fine. Sit down, please.”

“How are you feeling, Sir,” the reporter inquired.

“Well, I am generally fine, except when I have to deal with people,” he responded, looking down at his desk. “It seems that I have a problem in that regard,“ he conceded.

“Such as?”  Hugh inquired.

“You know, like when I insulted Bush 43 and his mother by implying that his mother was a b*** and W was just like him. Or the times I called W a “liar” and a “loser.”

“Well, I am sure you were just having a bad day,” the reporter said, reassuringly.

“Yeah, except I seem to have a lot of those. Like when I called Justice Clarence Thomas (a black man as you know) an embarrassment…”

“Well….”

“…or the time I referred to Marine General Peter Pace as incompetent….”

“Yeah, but everyone makes a mistake or two….”

“…or when I called Alan Greenspan a ‘political hack’ who attends too many cocktail parties, or insulted those ‘smelly tourists’ who tour the Capitol Building, or referred to anyone who protests Obama’s policies as ‘evil mongers,’ you know.”

“About the Las Vegas Review-Journal…”

“Yeah,” Reid interrupted, “I probably should never have told the guy that I hope his paper goes out of business. Sometimes I just can’t help myself.”

“What is the problem?” Betcha pressed the Senator.

“Well, it turns out that I really cannot help it…”

“Meaning?”

“…I saw doctors at Walter Reed, as well as at the Office of the Attending Physician here in the Capitol, for a second opinion. We get free medical you know. Turns out this is not my fault at all.”

“Please explain.”

“Well, my doctors all agreed that I have an unusual condition. Sadly, I was born without a personality.  It is rare, but true. This explains why I insult my fellow citizens, respected newspapers, military heroes, people’s mothers, black judges, and everyone else, with equal abandon. I cannot help it—it just comes out. I have no scruples, no discretion, no compassion-that it why I walk around with a sour hang dog look all the time. It is humiliating. I have had kids point at me on the street and tell their parents they want my autograph….”

“Why?”

“They confuse me with Droopy Dog…so embarrassing.”

“Geeze, I am so sorry. What are your plans?”

“Well, sometime before the 2010 senatorial election in Nevada, I am scheduled to undergo a personality transplant. They tell me that I will become warm and fuzzy, compassionate, discrete, treat others with respect, and become a generally good guy. I may even learn to smile now and then.”

“When is this scheduled?”

“Well, they need to find a donor first. It is hard to find one among the Democrats in the Senate.”

Asked what he plans to do if he is defeated in the upcoming 2010 election in Nevada, which pits him against several attractive Republican candidates—any one of whom beats him in the polls and each of whom has a personality—he responded:

“Motivational speaker.”

William Kevin Stoos Most recent columns

Copyright © 2009 William Kevin Stoos
The author of Stoos Views is a freelance writer, book reviewer, and attorney, whose feature and cover articles have appeared in Carmelite Digest,  Family Digest, Nature Conservancy Magazine, Liberty Magazine, Encyclopedia Britannica Online. He is a regular contributing author for The Bread of Life Magazine in Canada. His review of Shadow World, by COL. Robert Chandler, propelled that book to best seller status in the category of international politics and foreign affairs. His book, The Woodcarver (And Other Stories of Faith and Inspiration) © 2009, William Kevin Stoos (Strategic Publishing Company)—a collection of feature and cover stories on matters of faith—was just released in July of 2009. Royalties from that book go to support the Carmelites. He resides in Wynstone, South Dakota.

How National Public Radio Skews the News

NPR: Nuanced Partisan Reportage

 By William Kevin Stoos  Thursday, October 1, 2009

National Public Radio—financed partially with public funds and partially through individual and corporate donations—in theory has a rule that its reporters may not engage in politics.  Having listened to NPR and a variety of other news outlets for years (in order to attain some semblance of perspective and balance) and having admittedly donated money to my local NPR station in the past, I have noticed a disturbing trend in their national reportage.

It is apparent that NPR’s alleged prohibition against engaging in politics is more honored in the breach than the observance. In divers and subtle ways, NPR skews the news, and has become a partisan ProBama cheerleader. While far more low key than MSNBC (Most Sycophants Nuzzling Barack Constantly), ABC (All Barack Channel), NBC (National Barack Channel) and CBS (Covering Barack Seriously)—NPR has, nonetheless, proved the truth of the old saw, “It is not what you say, but how you say it.”  Put simply, by inflection, nuance, and selective emphasis, NPR can and does, affect and mold public opinion. It can, in fact, be political without appearing so, and support liberal causes while pretending to be non-partisan. 

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I awoke at 6:00 a.m. to listen to the early morning NPR report—as was my routine. The candidates had been debating the War in Iraq—McCain arguing that the United States should stay the course and inject more troops into the battle; Obama campaigning on the promise to get the United States out of the war as quickly as possible, within months after he was elected.  A chorus of Democrat senators had shamelessly pronounced that the war in Iraq was “lost “ (Harry “Only Kidding When I Said I Hope You Go Out of Business” Reid among them) which , of course, must have done wonders for the morale of those brave young troops who were fighting and winning in Iraq. Such was the debate raging in the United States at the time. As I rolled over to catch a couple more minutes of half sleep, I listened with one ear to the NPR broadcast. What I heard was curious and disconcerting.

During the next twenty minutes or so, NPR broadcast at least four stories in a row, which—if one harbored suicidal ideation—might have sent him or her over the edge.  It seems there was no good news in the world this date and all was indeed lost in Iraq. The first story dealt with the declining number of volunteers at recruitment centers around the country. It seems that the military, according to NPR, could not meet its enlistment quotas.  Okay, that was not good, but certainly, there was something positive happening somewhere right? But alas, that was not to be.

The second story covered the fact that the caliber of enlistees in the service was declining and, in effect, the military was resorting to a waiver of certain educational or other qualifications in order to maintain the military.  This, of course, brought to mind that famous insult by Senator John Kerry to the effect that, “if you can’t make it in college you can go to Iraq,” which was an affront to thousands of patriotic troops who were there not because they lacked intelligence, but because they loved the country and met the call to defend it against those who declared war on us.  But the bad news did not end there.

The next story I recall, was the increase in the number of Americans killed in Iraq that month. News of course—and tragic news—but this third story in a row got me thinking: who is producing this stuff—the Democratic National Committee? Obama for President? Of course, this too was news, but there was no doubt that these stories were designed to convey to the public the sense that all is lost in Iraq and it was time to go. Who would benefit from that?  Was this news coverage political in nature?  Certainly, it helped one candidate who happened to be arguing in favor of an early withdrawal and in favor of a party that declared, “all is lost in Iraq.” However, the bad news did not end there.

Just as I hoped against hope to hear something positive, NPR finished with one last story: Civilian casualties were on the rise in Iraq.  In sum, according to Nuanced Partisan Radio: “We were running out of troops, they are being killed quicker than we can recruit them, they are getting dumber and dumber every day, and we are killing a lot of civilians over there.  Obama himself could not have scripted better new coverage for his campaign. Yet, if you paid no particular attention to the order of these stories or the theme than ran throughout, you might well not have noticed this subliminal message that all is lost and it is time to leave Iraq—just as Obama said.

However, the nuanced and subtly political coverage has not abated. During the recent health care debate and the town hall meetings held this past summer, during the congressional recess, NPR’s ProBama bent was never more apparent. I listened intently to their news coverage on the town hall meetings. In each and every instance when the NPR anchors described the citizens who spoke at the town hall meetings—sometimes in loud and vehement tones (which some might dare call, spirited debate)—they were referred to as “right wing” protestors. [sic] It seems the NPR reporters could not find any other adjectives to describe those who dared to argue against the proposed Obama Universal Coverage for Health (O.U.C.H.). They were not citizens, or concerned Americans, or members of the public, or taxpayers or middle class Americans. Nope, in each and every instance, the adjective of choice employed by Nuanced Partisan Radio was “right wing” protestors.  Through the liberal use of the adjective “right wing’ by NPR and the other ProBama media since the health care debate began, any and all protest against the takeover of health care, the banks, the auto industry, and all other facets of American life by the Obama administration has become synonymous with “right wing.” The longer the press hums this mantra, the more it becomes engrained in the American psyche, and soon everyone is humming it.  And, in time, protest itself or criticism of The Great One becomes something evil.

I hoped I was wrong. Maybe the use of the adjective “right wing” every time NPR described the health care debaters was just an aberration. Then I happened to hear a broadcast by NPR, again at 6:00 a.m., concerning the September 12, 2009 gathering in Washington, D.C.  A friend of mine, Dr. Tom Cook, an articulate, intelligent, patriotic American who served with valor in Vietnam, sent me a wonderful note about the gathering in D.C., which was touching and insightful:

“What struck me was the number of families present at the rally. There were many fathers and mothers with their children. There were people of all races present. The crowd was upbeat, happy, and not the least bit menacing. They were a huge gathering of great Americans of every stripe and physical attribute. There were many in wheelchairs, babies in mothers’ arms, and many gray heads. There were conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans and libertarians. However, had you polled them, they would undoubtedly have said they were first, and foremost, Americans. They were the heart and soul of America and incontrovertible proof of how out of touch the media and the government are. These folks just wanted their representatives to listen to them—they wanted the government to stop the trampling of their constitutional rights. They left their jobs to travel from all over the country to gather in protest against what they perceived as the ruination of our country by a government that is no longer listening to them.”

These folks—between one and two million strong—represented a cross section of America, and included, among others, a black woman who had also served as an Obama delegate to the Democrat Convention in 2008. The gathering was not organized by any particular group or political persuasion, but was, rather, brought together by a common concern over the direction their county was taking.

Knowing this information from a trusted source who was actually there and mingled with the crowd,  I listened with interest as the NPR reporter once again described the crowd as a group of “conservatives,” (yes, you guessed it) “organized by right wing groups.” [sic] Apparently, NPR—unbeknownst to the rest of us—had conducted a poll of all of those million plus persons who showed up to demonstrate against the threat of government oppression, which affects all of us equally and threatens our individual liberties, and concluded that all—each and every one—was a “conservative” or “right winger.”  Clearly, no bias or generalizing here.

It is fair to ask:  “Who benefits from this constant nuanced partisan reportage?” Who benefits whenever concerned citizens who oppose Obama for whatever reason are trivialized by NPR and dismissed as “right wingers” or “conservatives?”  NPR is too free with such adjectives and seemingly can find no others. You can be political without being political—so long as you are subtle and nuanced. We can only hope that this important news source might some day call things down the middle, rather than emphasizing that which only benefits the current regime in Washington.  But I am not holding my breath. And, (though I daresay they will not feel the pinch), until they find other adjectives to describe decent Americans who sincerely oppose Obama’s policies, they have seen my last nickel.

[Dedicated to COL Bob, the Bear, Bryan, and Dr. Tom, patriots all, who are, somewhere, this day, solving all the country’s problems.]

Jimmah’s One Sided Prayers

Copyright (c) 2009 William Kevin Stoos

Recently, Jimmah Carter, arguably the worst President in history, who brought us:

• Blindfolded American hostages paraded before the world press by a rogue regime in Iran (whose current president, of course, was one of the hostage takers);

• Helicopters crashing in the desert, and eight brave young Americans dying in the sand during an ill-conceived, abortive rescue mission which became symbolic of the Carter presidency;

• Oppressive home mortgage interest rates as high as twenty-one percent (21%);

• Billy Beer—a cheap swill shamelessly hawked by Jimmah’s brother Billy, who embarrassed the county and the president with inane TV commercials and half-sober interviews with the press,

and who distinguished himself by becoming the only President in recent history to openly and shamelessly criticizing a sitting President, went on another of his famous (and ineffectual) trips to bring peace to the Middle East. Why the Israelis would trust Jimmah—whose organization has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Arab lobby and who considers Hamas and Hezbollah “Freedom Fighters”—God only knows.

Jimmah’s pro-Arab inclination was never more evident than during a recent interview with a certain ProBama cable channel reporter which I happened to hear on the news one evening on the way home from work.  The reporter asked Jimmah:  “What are the prospects for peace in the Middle East?”  The former President replied:  “There is a lot of pessimism in the Middle East right now.” When the reporter pressed Jimmah as to what can be done to bring peace to the Middle East, Jimmah responded: ”We are praying for the end to the Israeli settlements….” Period. Now, of course, I waited with bated breath for him to finish what I expected to be a complete thought—you know, some symmetrical, diplomatic response to sort of round out the interview and show the slightest semblance of balance. But alas, it never came.

You know…the rest of the sentence like: “We are praying for an end to the Israeli settlements… and that Hamas and Hezbollah will stop arming themselves with thousands of missiles purchased from the Bazalt weapons works in Russia with Iranian funding.”

Or, perhaps even:  “We are praying for and end to the Israeli settlements… and that Hamas and Hezbollah will change their charters which call for the destruction of Israel and decry all efforts at negotiations with Israel as foolishness.”

Yeah, something like that. But, not so surprisingly, Jimmah—who has become an unapologetic shill for the radical Arab lobby—just cannot bring himself to pray for an end to the violence perpetuated against this tiny island of democracy and our only true friend in the Middle East. Nope, if only Israel would stop the settlements, all will be well in the Middle East. Forget about the three thousand missiles purchased by the terrorist groups who Jimmah champions and are sworn to destroy Israel. Forget about the Iranian President who continually denies the Holocaust and who threatens Israel with nuclear annihilation. We need not worry about them or pray that they have a change of heart.

Jimmah has become irrelevant, shrill, and incredible. Until he prays for true peace, and for real change on both sides of the dispute, his one-sided prayers are hollow, his words as dry and lifeless as the desert sand.

Obamalympics 2016: President Kicks off Presidential Campaign in Copenhagen

Copyright © 2009 William Kevin Stoos

             Ignoring less important matters like our troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear threat, and other such matters, the Vacationer in Chief, Barack Obama, has announced plans to travel to Copenhagen to persuade the International Olympic Committee to choose Chicago as the site of the 2016 Summer Games. Traveling with him on the President’s 53rd vacation overseas since assuming the presidency, will be Stoos Views’ Chief White House correspondent and most trusted name in journalism–Hugh Betcha. Summoned to the White House for a private meeting with the President, Hugh interviewed Obama in the Oval Office about their upcoming trip.

             “Is it unusual for a sitting President to meet with the Olympic Committee to sell a site for the Olympics, Mr. President?” Betcha–famous for the hard hitting yet fair and balanced approach to presidential interviews that has made him the most trusted name in news–asked the President.

             “Well, certainly it is a first. But, with these dire economic times, we can sure use a boost to the economy. And if anyone can sell Chicago, it is I,” he exclaimed. “Who better than I to sell this as an Olympic site? I am not only President of the United States, but the most beloved leader in the world. I could sell ice to Eskimos–just like I sold the country on my candidacy. There is no question I can sell Chicago as the next site for the Olympics.”

             “Aren’t there more important issues facing the country right now?” Betcha inquired.

             “Well, there certainly are other issues, but, as President, I must prioritize these things. Afghanistan can wait awhile–it will still be there when I get back. Yeah, my generals asked for more troops, and suggested we will lose the war without them, but I need to take my time and think about that one. Getting away from it all, will help clear my mind. And that little S.O.B. in Iran firing off those missiles…well, they don’t have a long enough range to hit the United States as yet, so I am not worried about him just now. I plan to issue a very stern statement just as soon as I get back. I have not had a foreign trip for about two weeks now and I need a break.”

             Asked who is going to accompany him on the trip, Obama replied: “Well, my wife and kids of course–they are my goodwill ambassadors if you will. And some assorted movie stars, former Olympic athletes, and a couple of consultants.”

             “Consultants? Who?”

             “Oh, Senator Burris and others.”

             “Like who?” the reporter pressed him.

             “Well, Blagojevich for one. He is out of work right now.”

             “Why them?” Betcha asked, incredulous.

             “Well, they will be “coordinating” with some lower level Olympic bureaucrats–sort of liaisons if you know what I mean,” said the President as he rubbed his index finger and thumb together. “And they will be handing out some advertising and promotional items to the Olympic functionaries with whom we will be meeting,” Obama said, as he opened a box next to his desk and pulled out some promotional items, including red, white and blue tee shirts and bumper stickers labeled “OBAMALYMPICS 2016,”  “SUMMER GAMES, 2016–CHICAGO–HOME OF BARACK OBAMA.” “ACORN will handle the marketing of Olympic Souvenirs and Obamamemorabilia. Bill Ayers will be attending as my Special Consultant on Security Against Terrorism.”

             Asked by the reporter whether the trip had any political implications, the President smiled wryly: “Of course not. Although I do admit that the Committee will announce during my presidency and in advance of the 2012 election, this trip has nothing to do with that. I am going strictly to promote the United States. That I am going with my family at taxpayer expense in order to bring the Olympics to Chicago, will generate worldwide publicity, get my face in front of the world wide press once again, and look like a hero if I pull this off, is purely coincidental.  Besides, I cannot run again in 2016 anyway can I? Unless, of course, I were to stack the Court with a couple more justices and they were to declare the term limits imposed by the Twenty Second Amendment unconstitutional and I could run again–you know, something weird like that.  But that would be the farthest thing from my mind.”

Copyright (c) 2009 By William Kevin Stoos  Monday, September 7, 2009

In the forests of New England
It built a colony,
And, dreaming of a nation
Where men could dare live free
It paused to wipe its sweaty brow
And set forth then to build
A place where freedom’s promise
Could be, in time, fulfilled.

And labor drove the wagons on
A westward odyssey,
Then turned the rolling prairie land
Into a golden sea;
Labor built the railroads
That spurred us in our quest
And by a steel highway bound
The east coast to the west.

And that selfsame hardy spirit
Of those pioneering men
Which never once did stop to rest
Rolled up its sleeves again,
And built a million factories,
Transformed the land pristine
And forged the greatest industry
The world had ever seen.

Through our patchwork quilt of history,
There runs a common strand:
‘Twas the selfless, rugged toil
That built this blessed land.
And lest we e’er forget them,
I raise my humble pen
In tribute to the builders—
The common working men.

It was not the labor unions
Or any corporation,
Or economic theory
That built the greatest nation;
Or master politician
Who ever had a plan—
But the simple sweat and toil of
The common working man.
(For while dreamers pen their visions
Of how things ought to be,
It is the noble builder who
Makes dreams reality.)

And for this nation’s builders
Who’ve long since gone away,
And those whose honest toil
Sustains us still today,
We should be ever thankful—
And reverent of their lot…

For no dream was built more nobly than
This land their labors wrought.

By William Kevin Stoos  Tuesday, September 1, 2009

—Satire—

Senator Harry Reid, fresh from trashing the most influential newspaper in Nevada—telling them that he “hopes they go out of business,” [sic], did what all smart politicians in Washington do when they are in trouble: they call the most respected name in journalism—Stoos Views’ own, Hugh Betcha. Hugh, Chief Political Correspondent for the Stoos Views media conglomerate and journalist who commands the respect of politicians of all stripes, responded to a frantic call from Senator Reid last evening, beckoning the reporter to a hastily arranged meeting with the Senator at his Washington, D.C. office.

After a long flight from the lush prairie of South Dakota—God’s country—to the center of political intrigue and corruption, Hugh alighted from the luxurious Senate jet dispatched by Senator Reid to convey the reporter to D.C. There he was met by a luxurious Senate stretch limo driven by a Senate limo driver, sent to transport him to the Senator’s luxurious Senate office suite.

As he entered the Senator’s office, Hugh was met with a handshake and a rather unorthodox greeting, by a grinning Reid: “Hey, you no good son of a #####!” Whereupon the Senator slapped him on the back and invited the puzzled reporter to sit down.

“Only kidding!” Reid remarked as he sat down in his overstuffed chair. Good to see you, Reid began.

“Thanks for the opportunity,” replied Betcha as he took out his reporter’s notepad to scribble a few notes. “About your remark that you hoped the Las Vegas Review-Journal goes out of business,” Betcha began, “don’t you think that was a little over the top?”

“Geeze, you stupid bastard, you know what a kidder I am, don’t you?” laughed Reid, slapping his knee. “Just kidding, of course! I know you are not stupid!”

After a quizzical look from the reporter, Reid explained: “See how things can be misinterpreted? I just called you a no good sumbitch and a stupid bastard and you thought I was serious. You know I was just joshing you—I have a dry wit you know—sometimes people just don’t get the joke. Everyone knows what a card I am…life of the party and all that. You oughta see me with a lampshade on my head! No, I was simply joking with that newspaper guy—everyone knows that!”

“Well…” the reporter replied, before he was rudely interrupted by the Senator again.

“…like you know, the other day I was in the President’s office joking around and I called him an incompetent socialist bastard who is spending money like a drunken sailor and how dare he try to impose his will on the Senate, and we laughed till we cried…”

“But…” the reporter said before being interrupted again.

“…or the other night, I was in Pelosi’s office talking to her about some legislation and just for the fun of it called her a power hungry, femi-NAZI, who may be third in line for succession to the presidency, but has an IQ ten points higher than a toaster and I just cracked up everyone in the room.”

When asked about his chances for reelection to the Senate in the next election, Reid replied, jokingly, “If those dumb bastards in Nevada don’t have enough sense to vote for me, then there is no hope for them….just kidding! Don’t print that!” exclaimed the Senator, laughing out loud. “The voters in Nevada know me and love me and I will be a shoo-in for Senator next time. After all, I am the most powerful and funniest Senator ever elected by the people of Nevada. They appreciate my wit and wisdom, even if that stupid excuse for a newspaper does not. Only kidding! “

After an hour or so of such funny banter from the Senator, Hugh excused himself from the Senator’s presence to head back to the beautiful wilds of South Dakota. As he left the Senator’s office, he bid the surprised Senator goodbye:

“Thanks for your time, you no good, milktoast, grumpy, free spending, power hungry, unfunny, Obama butt kissing, radical socialist, corrupt old curmudgeon who does not have a ghost of a chance being re-elected to the Senate again in this lifetime,” Hugh said on the way out the door.

“What???” the confused Senator asked, mouth agape.

“Only kidding!”

Through the Stained Glass Darkly

Beware Obama’s Fabian Window

William Kevin Stoos  Bio

Email Article

Shop CFP

Photo Gallery

 By William Kevin Stoos  Friday, August 21, 2009

If you feel the ground shaking under your feet; if the America you once knew seems to be changing daily; if you feel that you have less and less control over your life and the country is being governed from the top down, then you should take heed. Someone is “remoulding the world nearer his heart’s desire,” and he has the biggest hammer in the world. If you want to understand Obama’s agenda, you need to peer into the Fabian Window.

The Fabian Window is a beautiful, if sinister, thing. Although it currently hangs in London, it should be hanging in the White House, for the message in the window is an eerie reflection of what is happening in the United States before our very eyes. Built to commemorate the founding of the Fabian Socialist Society, the Fabian Window contains images that are clear, unapologetic and, as a friend of mine once said—brazen. It is one thing, as Lenin said, to howl like wolves in order to live among wolves; however it is quite another to advertise the fact that you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yet, the socialists who constructed the window had no qualms about advertising the fact that they had a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda when it comes to reshaping the world.

The window contains the image of two men—founders of the society—hammering the globe (from the top down no less) with sledgehammers—imposing their will on the world so to speak. They are not voting; they are not persuading; nor are they preaching to the masses. They are hammering the world with very big hammers. If imposing one’s will from the top down does not remind you of the current occupant of the White House, then you have been living in a cave for the past eight months. The Czar and his Commissars are imposing their will on America every day, ramming legislation down the collective throat of America—legislation that Congress itself does not even read. And we are paying hundreds of billions of dollars, ceding our personal freedom, and witnessing the centralization of power in the federal government to an extent never before seen since we declared independence from the last dictator to rule America over two centuries ago. Are we being governed from the ground up—by the consent of the people? Or, is someone imposing their will upon us—hammering us from above?

More ominous still—the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Amazingly, the Fabian Window contains an image—just above the fellows hammering the world—that is as clear as it is foreboding: the socialists are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I often wonder why they did not choose a less ignoble animal. What about a courageous lion? A proud bull? A vigilant hawk? A noble horse? No, they chose a wolf—a cunning, ravenous, devious, and scary critter—and cloaked him in a sheepskin. Why? Because, as Lenin taught, if you want to operate in a capitalist society you must disguise yourself. Put the sheepskin on and you can easily mingle with the flock. Until you decide to shed the skin and consume the flock. The most frightening thing about the image is that the socialists make no apology about being wolves and living among sheep.

Creeping socialism has pervaded our government. We can deny it, wish it were not so, and the captive media can dismiss the notion as “right wing propaganda,” but the truth is plain. Power is being consolidated daily in the central government—at the expense of the governed. The current occupants of the White House look and dress like capitalists and profess to believe in freedom—all the time hammering the world and remoudling it nearer their heart’s desire—which, of course, is the motto inscribed on the Fabian Window. Does it say, “remould it nearer the will of the people?” Or, “remould it nearer the will of the voters?” No, the socialist window commands them to: “remould it nearer [their] heart’s desire.” This should send chills down the spine of every freedom loving American. We should question what is in their hearts and the wisdom of giving them the hammers.

Fast forward to the present day. Is someone pounding our world with a very big sledge hammer, imposing his will on the country? Or do we feel as if we have control over our lives? You be the judge:

—Obama tours the world apologizing for the greatest country on earth, which has given away more of its wealth and sent more of its young men and women to die for people in faraway countries than any other nation in history. Is he remoulding our history—about which we should be proud?

—Obama denigrates religion, covers up religious symbols when he speaks in churches, and proclaims that we are not a “Christian” nation. In fact, we are a Christian nation, but not exclusively so, and far more tolerant of all believers and disbelievers than the Arab countries from whom he courts favor. In those countries you may be maimed, banished or killed if you are not Muslim. Freedom of religion in those countries is but an empty phrase in constitutions that exalt Islam over all other religions. Is Obama remoulding our religious heritage?

—Obama fosters class envy by punishing those who create jobs and wealth, financing his grandiose programs—which we cannot afford—by taxing the wealthy (anyone making over $150,000?) and redistributing income. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” sounds a lot like Obama’s economic philosophy. The only problem is that Karl Marx coined the motto. Is our economic system being remoulded nearer his heart’s desire?

—Obama stated in no uncertain terms that “if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them” [sic] and implicitly threatened any company that wanted to start a new coal-fired energy plant. Since when do Presidents brag about punishing such an important industry—one that furnishes the vast majority of the energy which heats and lights our homes and businesses? Since when did government become the enemy of capitalist enterprise? Should big government selectively punish some industries and take over others? Is he remoulding the relationship between industry and big government nearer his heart’s desire?

—Obama proposed the creation of a “domestic security force.” Hitler had them too—they were called the SA and the SS. To whom will they swear allegiance and why do we need them? We already have a domestic security force. We call them “police.” Is he remoulding the state’s police power nearer his heart’s desire? And to what end?

—Obama proposes a national health care system which will inevitably lead to the elimination of private health insurers, budget-induced rationing, cost overruns, congressionally-mandated premiums, charges, doctor salaries, and care. Is he remolding the private relationship between the doctor and patient? Is he seeking to consolidate life and death decision-making power in the federal government—soon to have access to everyone’s private health information when all our records are computerized?

—Obama rammed through the biggest spending bill in history—hundreds of billions spent through the TARP bill—and few, if any, of our elected representatives had any interest in reading it before voting to pass it. What do you call it when an elected body, ostensibly representative of the people, passes a bill without reading it—just because the Great Leader says so? Dictatorship. In effectively bypassing the legislative process altogether, imposing his will on Congress, and prevailing on them to pass this huge spending bill—just because he wanted them to—Obama has fundamentally remoulded our republican form of government nearer to his heart’s desire. When the day comes that a President of the United States can compel the Congress to spend hundreds of billions of dollars by passing a bill they never read, it is fair to ask: why a Congress at all? What is the need? We should simply ask what the President wants, and then pass it by acclamation—the way the Soviet Politburo used to do.

—Now we witness the health care debate in dozens of town hall meeting across the country. When people show up and vocalize their opinions—passionately at times—criticizing the administration’s proposed plan for national health care, Obama and his minions decry the citizens as NAZIs. They suggest that it is somehow disloyal, mean- spirited, or racist to disagree with, or criticize, the President. Just a few short months ago, we heard liberal politicians declare that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Put simply, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. When the Democrats and liberals were out of power, dissent (even mean spirited dissent suggesting President Bush should be killed or impeached) was applauded by the Left. Now that Obama the Secular has risen to power, dissent is not tolerated, but condemned as un-American. The Fourth Estate, which traditionally kept Presidential power in check, is now nothing more than a cheering section. Obama has remoulded the relationship between the press, the citizens and their government. The captive press now denounces criticism of the Great One as “disloyal and unpatriotic.”

The thud of the sledgehammer is getting louder and more frequent every day. Those who care about the country and about individual freedoms should take heed of that sound. Those who worry about the unbridled power of the federal government would do well to study the Fabian Window. It should be installed in the White House; it is how the President sees the world. We have given him a very big hammer indeed. And he is using it to remould us in ways we could never have imagined. Starting in 2010, it is time to take his hammer away.

Whose Side Is The Afghan President On?

“I Beg Your Pardon, Is That a Karzai Crony Poppy Garden?”

William Kevin Stoos  Bio

Email Article

Shop CFP

Photo Gallery

 By William Kevin Stoos  Friday, August 14, 2009

Lemme get this straight: Hamid Karzai is the President of Afghanistan, whose country we are propping up in order to hold free and fair elections, allow the Afghans to establish a democratic state where people have the right to govern themselves, while keeping the Taliban at bay.  In order to do this, we have spent billions of dollars, and sent thousands of brave men and women to risk life and limb (losing dozens of them per month) fighting a bunch of knuckle dragging religious zealots who believe that women are a lower form of human life, who should be covered with sheets and beaten with pipes.

I recall that some of the women were publicly executed, stoned, and had their tongues cut out. Yeah, that bunch. We threw them out years ago. Now they are back–threatening our troops, killing dozens of them, and holding their own against the world’s best military, and our generals are not at all sure that we can defeat them without ten times more troops that we already have in place.

Back to Hamid. In order to curb drug traffic and expedite prosecution of drug traffickers in the country, the United States has spent tens of millions of dollars and untold time and effort to establish Afghan drug courts.  This is because the traditional judicial system in Afghanistan is too cumbersome, inefficient, and corrupt to handle these cases. Why is this important? Well, the bad guys who are shooting at our wonderful young men and women and blowing them up with IEDs are being financed by the opium trade.  If we can persuade the farmers not to grow poppies, in favor of some other cash crop, and if we prosecute the big fish who are trafficking in opium and financing the bullets and IEDs that are killing our brave troops, then we might make some headway in our fight to establish a viable, democratic government over there and protect it against the Taliban.  However, there seems to be one big hitch in this plan: the Afghan President himself.

Yes, it seems that the President of Afghanistan is not even on the same page as the United States, and is in fact working against us. How? Well, those bad guys who are trafficking in dope, financing the war on our brave troops, and helping the bad guys–those whom we spent tens of millions on, to track down, prosecute, and convict in Afghan courts, are being pardoned by the dozen. And by whom? Of course, the President of Afghanistan himself. It seems that his government is so corrupt that the people running Karzai’s campaign have rather seedy relatives who are working against the United States and financing the Taliban through the drug trade. But, since Karzai—above all–wants to be reelected, and since he needs the support of the same well to do supporters whose relatives are working against our wonderful troops, he has decided his main priority is to be reelected. So, in the worst tradition of Chicago politics, Karzai (probably for financial gain or in any event to curry favor with his top supporters) lets the dirtbags go…the ones we just spent millions to convict.

This, of course, begs the question: Whose side is Karzai on? With friends like him, who needs enemies? If he is willing to free bad people who are directly financing the war against the United States, all for political gain, then he is no friend of ours and his agenda is not ours. If he gets reelected in part because he curried favor with the relatives of the druggies who are financing the war against us, then how can we ultimately trust him anyway?  Put simply–what is the difference between Karzai and the Taliban?  Ultimately, he is no less inimical to long term American interests than the Taliban. The only difference is, he is not shooting at us.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime Afghanistan Opium Survey, 2008, revealed that opium production remains strong, though somewhat reduced, and that tens of millions of dollars are being funneled to the Taliban to finance the war against the Afghan government and its allies.

William Kevin Stoos Most recent columns