The View From 1776

Global-Warming Judicial Activism

Congress and the Copenhagen convocation having failed to impose draconian measures to please advocates of man-made global warming, liberal-progressives are reverting to the courts for an end-run around the will of the people.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/28 at 08:24 PM
  1. One should never assume that Mr. Brewton has sunk to his lowest point in his malevolent depravity, because there is always Tom's next post to read.
    So, rest assured, your morbid curiosity will not be disappointed! There are depths of infamy yet to be plumbed!

    In this post, Mr. Brewton has scooped the FBI, the New York City Police and all historians. Tom has finally determined that the 1920 Wall Street bombing should be pinned on....drum roll!!....

    Yes! you guessed it!

    "Liberal activists!"

    For the last 90 years, no party was ever accused of setting the explosion at 23 Wall Street. Some even suggested that a trader in black market explosives had had an accident.

    But thanks to Tom Brewton, we now know it was those Liberals who did the dastardly deed! Tom, we thank you for your scholarship.

    Tom goes on to opine,

    "SUCH ATROCITIES, along with secular religious belief in man-made global warming, are what liberal-progressives proudly regard as their efforts to perfect humanity."

    So, liberals use murder to "perfect humanity."

    I do not know how those liberal sleep at night.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  11:09 PM
  2. Eugenics, anyone? Abortion on demand with tax dollars?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/29  at  01:16 PM
  3. Mr. Jay:

    "So, liberals use murder to
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/29  at  05:47 PM
  4. Mr. Brewton,

    It is difficult to know where to start in making sense of your wild contentions. (You did not deny fabricating the lie that liberals were somehow responsible for the 1920 Wall Street bombing, but lets not dwell on that.)

    Your equation of modern liberalism with Mao, Nazis, Auschwitz, Castro, is of course ridiculous. (The Nazis were right wing industrialists, and were the farthest thing from "Socialists" -the term "National Socialism," notwithstanding.)

    You follow that paragraph by "excepting Germany" from the indictment of being a liberal. If you are making an exception for Germany, then why include it in your original attack?

    But for the sake of argument, if we accept your (false) premise, it would logically, of course, put you on the other side, squarely equating your viewpoint with that of the Spanish Inquisition, the Burners of the Salem witches, Pol Pot, and every other criminal reactionary who loves the status quo ante. You apparently favor preserving feudalism and aristocratic privilege and may align yourself with the ideas of Francisco Franco (Spain), Antonio Salazar (Portugal), Maurice Pujo (France) and probably Marshal Petain, and other defenders of state supported religion.

    You claim that the majority of this country "resist liberal-progressive plans," but somehow you seem to have been asleep during the last presidential election when all those poisonous liberals were elected with overwhelming majorities. You seem to have forgotten that it was the conservatives who were soundly defeated. But perhaps you are only claiming the country has been suddenly afflicted with buyer's remorse.

    Since you are an eminent and proud Harvard graduate, I was taken somewhat aback that you use, as your final epithet,

    "imposing a HARVARD-Cornell-Columbia vision of Utopian security" to describe what you decry.

    John Harvard and Increase Mather would not look kindly on your disloyalty.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/30  at  06:33 PM
  5. Mr. Jay:

    I will address your points above shortly.

    In the meantime, please correct your misapprehension that I am a proud Harvard graduate. At the age of my attendance I was too young and inexperienced to understand Harvard's despicable role in corrupting American education with its shift to secularity and promotion of socialism.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/30  at  08:42 PM
  6. I think The View just uses the issue of eugenics as an awkward red herring to beat up on liberals. It is a false assumption on its part that liberals kill people in order to "perfect humanity". In fact it's the other way around, that The View and its conservative followers are the ones who would really love to kill off liberals and any other undesirable in order to achieve their perfect humanity. You can hear it in their religious claptrap and in their opposition to pluralism and pragmatism.

    Liberals are the ones who hold humanity accountable, liberals and conservatives alike. That is why liberalism gained the upper hand centuries ago, after the English Civil War. In contrast, conservatives are incline to hide things under the rug or use ugly manipulative tactics in order to achieve their narrow aims, like happened during the last administration. And as we know, that hiding and manipulation created a house of cards that came crashing down. Conservatives can only be trusted with their own kind. For them the rest can be discarded or be force to live lies and falsehoods like they do.

    If conservatives were in power we would be in a state of perpetual war and crusades, killing more people than they accuse liberals of, in order to create their so-called "perfect humanity". Liberals use more a carrot and persuasion to try and perfect humanity, whereas conservatives are more likely to use a stick or worse, a baseball bat and violence.

    Conservatives of the ilk we find here are more like the communists of the past, who would use force, intimidation or worse, like killing their opponents, in order to have things their way, leaving no opposition to question their motives. Thank goodness they are not the prevailing influence in the world. If communism had continued, like that in the Soviet block, the rest of the world would not have discovered until it was to late the horrendous damage they had done to the environment in its push to beat the more responsible liberal, democratic world. Conservatives, like those here, would just be as happy to continue the Soviet ways of covering up and distorting reality.

    Conservatives have accused liberals of masterminding The French and Russian Revolutions, and the slaughter that ensued (like they really give a shit - the caring is all a pretense). The fact is that if the conservatives who ran France and Russia at the time hadn't been so stubborn but willing to relinquish some power and share it with their people, those revolutions would never have happened.

    The Industrial Revolution was triggered by the liberalization of civilization, a revolution that conservatives are all now too happy to support because it has brought then wealth. But I am sure that if conservatism had held sway back then it would have been against that revolution and would have tried to prevent it because of the fear that eventually it would lead to the emancipation of the world, leaving conservatism and hierarchy in the dust.

    What a lot of bullshit they spout.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/31  at  03:58 PM
  7. Mr. Airth:

    First, where in this post did I refer to eugenics?

    Second, your assertion that, "The Industrial Revolution was triggered by the liberalization of civilization, " is not one that you can substantiate.

    The industrial revolution began, in Great Britain, around 1760, almost thirty years before the French Revolution. The industrial revolution did not spread to liberal-progressive-socialist France until 1830.

    Triggering it in Great Britain were invention of the steam engine (ca. 1698) and its refinement by James Watt (1769), along with the widespread use of coal for energy. Political liberalism had nothing to do with it. As late as 1776, when Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, England still was dominated by mercantilist economics, and it was without question a monarchial nation.

    Edmund Burke eloquently delineated the profound differences between the English polity and French liberal-progressive-socialism in 1790.

    If, instead, you mean the original version of liberalism, it was the antithesis of present-day liberal-progressivism's anti-individualistic, collectivistic worship of the political state. The original version of liberalism meant individual freedom, politically and economically, from arbitrary government power. Original liberalism was advocated by Adam Smith and brought to fruition by Richard Cobden and John Bright in their successful campaign to repeal the Corn Laws and implement laissez-faire free-trade in the 1850s.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/31  at  06:29 PM
  8. Mr Brewton,

    You and your fellow travelers have used eugenics in other posts to lambaste liberal. It is a sick argument against liberals that intelligent people know has no foundation.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/31  at  07:32 PM
  9. Mr. Airth:

    Eugenics was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. Its strongest supporters were the Eastern liberal establishment, led by such notables as Supremce Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Teddy Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), and Madison Grant, who authored "The Passing of the Great Race," which Hitler used as one of his arguments for the Holocaust.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/01  at  12:45 AM
  10. David, intelligent, historically literate people understand the connection completely. Progressives like you seem to be incapable of moving beyond nice sounding words or their fixation on their 'good' intentions. Liberals then, are by defintion, unintelligent. I've never heard a guy shoot his mouth off in such an incredible display of arrogance, ignorance and blatant stupidity. You do not understand what 'Liberalism' is. It is statism, collecticvism and fascism based, usually, on some of the most hare-brained theories and ideas. The most nonsensical manifestations are, in fact, eugenics, global warming and central planning. One could go on and on. It is pure idiocy. Learn something about the practical history of your belief system. A good place to begin would be the intellectual background of eugenics and it's legacy of 20th century totalitarianism. Don't be stupid. Learn something. Your 'feelings' are meaningless.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/01  at  12:31 PM
  11. The industrial Revolution was certainly triggered by the liberalization of civilization. If the conservatives of the time, like the Church, had control of the trajectory of civilization it may not have occurred because they were against the science and discoveries that propelled it.

    "The industrial revolution began, in Great Britain, around 1760, almost thirty years before the French Revolution. The industrial revolution did not spread to liberal-progressive-socialist France until 1830."

    I don't understand your connection Mr. Brewton. But then, France did not get the Industrial Revolution until later because it first had to 'clear the slate' with the French Revolution in order to create the environment that would be conducive to industrialization, in order to support and maintain an advancing society.

    Burke did eloquently delineated the difference between the revolutions. But he didn't understand why the French Revolution had to occur. (Why would he since he was too close to it?) It unfortunately had to occur because the ruling class in France was far more intransigent than that in Britain. Don't forget, though, Britain also had its civil revolution (although not so barbaric) without which it would not have liberalized in order to usher in the industrial revolution.

    Essential liberalism means the same today as it did at its origin, an opening up. However, it does have its perverse qualities and always will. I guess that's what bothers conservatives, that there is no end to the extent of liberalism. Its like once the genie is out it is impossible to put it back. But if we control the process too much, like conservatives want to do, the whole system would essentially shut down since it would basically put an end to growth and expansion.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/01  at  01:26 PM
  12. Mr. Airth:

    Sorry to be contentious, but liberalism, or more accurately liberal-progressive-socialism, to day means the opposite of your definition. It means a closing down of individual initiative and transference of individual freedom to the political state. Liberal-progressive government means suffocating regulation under the secular, amoral, political state, in which the only source of "correctness" is PC, as defined by academics and the editorial boards of propaganda organs such as the New York Times.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/01  at  06:11 PM
  13. Mr. Brewton:

    One thing I see is that under liberal-progressivism the world works better and is more fluid. The inclusion, integration and interactivity it encourages has makes the world more even-keeled. The opposite political philosophy, conservative angst, creates a more fractious existence.

    Libertarian-conservative policy, which you seem to champion, hugely contributed, though not exclusively, to the financial-economic downturn America is now facing. If we had to live under that umbrella instead of liberal-progressive the world would constantly be living in an Orwellian experience.

    I accept that liberal-progressivism requires a counterbalance like conservative-angst because many times it can get over exuberant and out of hand. But its exuberance is preferable to that of the far right, which would have civilization going backwards and atrophying.

    It is the best of all possible worlds, under the circumstances.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/02  at  11:50 AM
  14. No, david. Classical Liberalism was the ideoology of liberty and limited governmnet. It has devolved quite intentionally, into social statism. Like most of the innovations of that strange mind-set called 'progresivism', with it's scientism, expertism, appeals to auhority and other mythologies, it is based on a deliberate fraud in service to the central administrative state and the abstract collective. Get your facts straight. Feeling good about silly names and categories when you have no idea what you are talking about is for the unintelligent and the oblivious.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/02  at  06:57 PM
  15. The model dissertation can be required by scholars if include the knowledge related to this topic. I do guess the it is achievable to detect the buy dissertation service that will be able make this writing.
    Posted by Lisa30Jy  on  01/06  at  09:06 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.