Stoos Views

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

“We Won’t Let Granny Die?”

(Obama’s Hollow Health Care Promises)

Copyright © 2009 William Kevin Stoos

             When the President assured the crowd at a recent town hall meeting on health care that their grandmothers were safe under his proposed health care plan (whatever that is) and that rumors of rationing and D.E.A.T.H. (Department of Euthanasia And Triage of Humans) [see “Shut Up and Hand Me the Wrench!” The Future of Health Care Under Obama Universal Care for Health (O.U.C.H.)” July 16, 2009 Canada Free Press http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12970] Committees were simply right wing extremist propaganda, my first thought was: really?  Just how credible is Obama the Secular on the issue of  life and where did this newfound compassion come from? Since a single payer plan is inevitable if Obama gets his way, since private insurers (villains, according to Obama and Pelosi) will be driven out of the industry to be replaced in time by government regulated fees, doctor salaries, and low premiums set by Congress; and given the fact that the government does not run many things well and cost overruns are inevitable, how can he, or we, be to certain that the government will not be forced to ration health care? It is as certain as the sunrise. And when the time comes to make hard judgments about cutting federal costs, it is a certainty that the elderly and the dying will be screened by politically appointed bureaucrats who must, of necessity make hard decisions about the worth of a human life and the cost-benefit ratio involved in sustaining their lives.

             But more to the point: from where does this newfound compassion for life come? And how credible is Obama on the issue of life to begin with?  Considering the fact that this president is the most pro-death president in history, we should take with a grain of salt his statement that Granny is safe. Frankly, given his past track record, I fear for your Granny and mine.

             Of course we know that Obama would not want his daughter to be “punished with a baby” [sic] if she became pregnant.  And we know that in February of 2004, Michelle Obama authored a fund raising letter soliciting funds for Obama’s senatorial campaign. Preaching to the radical, left-wing, pro-abortion, feminist choir, she railed against the federal partial birth abortion ban, and trumpeted the fact that her husband would never allow pro-life judges to interpret the law and would preserve the right of a woman and her doctor not just to perform an abortion, but to kill viable babies who were inches from life, by stabbing them in the head with scissors and sucking their brains out—euphemistically referred to as “partial birth abortion.” (Perhaps if commentators, politicians, and the rest of us referred to the procedure as “stabbing a nearly-born baby in the head and sucking his or her brains out” rather than “partial birth abortion,” people would better understand the hideous nature of this procedure.) But, back to the fund raising letter. Michelle  Obama, when raising money for her husband, referred to “partial birth abortion” (“stabbing a nearly born baby in the head and sucking his or her brains out”) as: “…a legitimate medical procedure.” [sic]

The Obamas, when raising money for his senatorial campaign, elicited money from the radical left pro-baby- killing wing of the Democratic party, bragged that Obama would prevent the politicians and the courts from ever presuming to protect babies, and trumpeted the “legitimate medical procedure” [sic] of stabbing babies in the head and removing their brains—just inches and moments from birth.  Things do not look so good for Granny, if Obama is willing to tolerate the killing of nearly born babies.

But it gets worse.  Forget about “punishing your girl by allowing her to have a baby,” or stabbing live babies moments from birth in the head with scissors and sucking their brains out. Obama does not even favor protecting innocent babies who actually are “lucky” enough to survive late term abortions. In testimony before the United States Senate just before the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act was passed (98-0 with Hillary Clinton supporting the Act) the Senators heard of instances in which babies surviving late-term abortions were actually thrown into waste bins or allowed to die by indifferent doctors or mothers who found the babies inconvenient. This is not just an abortion, this is not just a partial birth abortion; this is nothing less than infanticide.  However, when a similar measure was brought to committee in the Illinois Senate–a committee chaired by none other than then Illinois Senator Barack Obama–he let the measure die in committee.  Like the babies who survived late-term abortions and then were allowed to die, the bill protecting born alive babies in Illinois was allowed to die by none other than now President Barack Obama. Put simply, whenever Barack Obama had the chance to vote on and promote a bill in the Illinois Senate which would have prohibited doctors from allowing born alive babies to die or be killed or be thrown into dumpsters, Obama—the family man with good ole fashion American values—did nothing. Worse yet, he prevented the bill from being passed and argued against it. He would, as it turns out, let born alive babies die rather than prevent their deaths because to do so might some day, restrict a woman’s right to an abortion or result in the questioning of Roe v. Wade—God forbid.  (See: “ObamAbortion, Abomination,” CFP, 10/27/08 http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5841)

If Obama will not protect babies lucky enough to survive botched abortions, then his promise to protect Granny, his promise that there will be no rationing, and his assurance that elderly or dying Americans will not be screened by federal D.E.A.T.H. committees seems–like most of his promises–hollow indeed.

Stoos Views Exclusive: The Great Obama Giveaway Program Continues

‘Cash for Clunkers, Chunkers, Lunkers, Punkers, and Spelunkers’

William Kevin Stoos  Bio

Email Article

Photo Gallery

 By William Kevin Stoos  Monday, August 10, 2009

In an effort to explain his controversial federal (”Spend Money Like a Drunken Sailor”) stimulus policy, President Obama invited the most respected financial reporter in America–Stoos Views own Hugh Betcha–to the White House this week for a private interview. Touting the “success” of the “Cash for Clunkers” program, through which the federal government takes $4,500 from the pockets of taxpayers who do not need new cars and gives a $4,500 rebate to taxpayers who were likely to purchase a new vehicle this summer anyway, Obama was met with skepticism by the reporter.

“How does this create wealth, or new jobs, or stimulate the economy?” Betcha asked.

“It doesn’t,” the President smiled wryly.

“Then what does it accomplish, exactly?”

“It makes people feel good and gives them the illusion that things are getting better,” the President responded as he took a drag off his Marlboro. “And darn it,” he continued, “it is fun to spend other people’s tax money. ‘Cash for Clunkers’…don’t you just love it? The people eat this up.”

“Yeah, cute,” replied the reporter. Asked what he planned to do next, the President responded:

“Well, Michelle, Dead Fish, our economic advisors, and I were sitting around drinking wine until late in the evening and getting a little silly, you know. Someone mentioned the Cash for Clunkers program and we all started giggling about it. Someone said, ‘Hey, let’s think up some more fun ways to spend the taxpayers’ money.’ So, we sat around thinking of new programs that rhymed with “Clunkers.” Everyone was ‘faced and they thought that was just hilarious.”

“Isn’t that a little arbitrary?” the reporter asked.

“Well, sure,” the President replied, “but no more so than spending billions on bridges to nowhere, unnecessary roads, Frisbee Golf courses, dog parks, gangster museums, and NEA funding for such works of art as “Pi** Christ,” where the government paid $50,000 to some artist who urinated in a bottle and dunked a crucifix in it. Geeze, I got the Congress to spend hundreds of billions without even reading the stimulus bill!” Obama smiled as he put out his cigarette. “Here,” he said as he handed Betcha a list of new federal spending programs.

The reporter ticked off the items on the President’s list:

“One thousand dollars to each person who loses 20 pounds during the preceding calendar year?”

”Cash for Chunkers,” the President responded. “Encourages people to lose weight and cuts down on medical costs.”

“One thousand dollars to each person who has caught a 6 pound bass during the last calendar year?”

”Cash for Lunkers,” replied the President. “Encourages people to enjoy the outdoors.”

“One thousand dollars to each person who starts an alternate rock band during the preceding year?”

”Cash for Punkers,” laughed the President. “That was mine. I like punk rock you know. It is a great way to encourage the performing arts.”

“One thousand dollars to each person who has explored a cave during the preceding year?”

”Cash for Spelunkers,” replied the President. “Encourages exploration. Bat guano is a promising alternative energy source. Some day we will run our cars on it.”

Asked whether any of these so-called stimulus programs had anything to do with stimulating the economy, the President bristled.

“Of course not,” he replied.

“Then why?”

“To make taxpayers feel good, while I am busy screwing with the economy, consolidating my power, and turning this country into a socialist state. Marx was wrong when he said that “religion is the opiate of the masses,” Obama declared. ”Religion is not the opiate of the masses. Free stuff is.”