This video is a great interview on last night’s Special Report. Move the cursor to 4:15 to hear Myron Ebell say something I have been waiting to hear since my first message board in 2000:
VIDEO ▼
Will Trump's EPA head be able to lead agency?
This excerpt from a thread i posted on Oct. 20, 2014 explains why Mr. Ebell put me on cloud nine:
Ebola & Thalidomide
Here is a compilation of observations I posted over the past 17 years:
The argument for gluttony at the public feed tub basically said that lazy, greedy, people getting their hands on tax dollars would improve government. At the same time that the “best people” were grabbing all they could get, people in the military, who actually defend this country, were told by Democrats they had it too good already. Ambition replaced achievement as personal political power made a mockery out of public service.
I wondered how the United States became the greatest country the world has ever known in the centuries before the “best people” were given the keys to state and federal taxing agencies. That ongoing P.R. campaign implies that civil servants who cared for their country prior to the overstocked public larder years were not the best people.
Every Socialist enters government to become a civil master rather than a civil servant. Servants serve — masters rule. For Socialism to work, Socialists must have the governmental power to tell private sector producer what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. One of the basic tenets of Socialism/Communism says that the government must control all resources and every means of production. In practical terms that means they must control the private sector worker; it does not mean that they will be satisfied owning the machinery in a factory, or the typewriter in an office. They must control the machine operator and the secretary if Socialism/Communism is finally to enslave. (Slavery and success mean the same thing to Communists.)
I often refer to Socialists/Communists in less than complimentary terms: public trough leeches, parasites, etc. Responsible civil servants working for the nation as a whole are not meant to be tarred with the same brush. My remarks are directed at those people I call the “tax dollar class.” Such people have no business getting their hands on tax dollars for any reason; not to maintain a welfare state, not for higher education, not for the arts, not grants, not subsidies, and certainly not to promote a political agenda or further a cause with tax dollars. Only those civil servants who are required to run a limited amount of necessary government should earn tax dollars, and respect, for their labors on behalf of this country.
Socialists must always leech off of the producers. If the producers aren’t working there is nothing to freeload. In the case of labor unions, Socialists are twice a leech. They donned a cloak of respectability by hiding in the ranks of unionized, necessary, civil servants, and at the same time they have camped under the same tent as private sector labor unions; feeding on, while controlling both.
Idiots born to govern is inherently offensive. Interestingly, the concept of civil service was a solution to the evils of nepotism that thrived in European monarchies. Contemporary nepotism not only usurped the procedure for becoming a civil servant, civil service itself has turned into a joke every time anyone claims they are going into government because they want to give something back. Many immigrants dive into the public trough as soon as they get here; often higher education; so I have to ask just what it is they give back? From the things I’ve heard educated immigrants say on the talkies over the years, I’d just as soon they not give anything back.
Presidents leave office in four or eight years, but once the political hacks he appoints get the title of civil servant their snouts are in the public trough forever; if not in the original job then somewhere else in government. The worst of it is the type of parasite filling those jobs. They are not civil servants by any stretch of the imagination.
Just to be clear, most of today’s bureaucrats are Public Trough Intellectuals. They should not be confused with legitimate civil servants. The difference is easy to spot:
1. Public Trough Intellectuals are social engineers serving one group or another, while civil servants serve the country as a whole.
2. Every Public Trough Intellectual is afflicted with the arrogance born of an undeserved tax dollar income. They know everything. They can tell you how to cure every evil in the world except how to chase them away from the public trough.
Civil servants should not have to lie. The fact is: Civil servants are bigger liars today than they were before they had unions. One would think that their unions would protect them when they told the truth, yet they only encourage them to lie, and then protect them when they do lie.
Today’s civil servants lie to advance and protect their careers, and are expected to lie for whatever politicians are selling at the moment.
High-ranking liars are in charge of low level civil servants. Suzy Five Shows is only one of the upper-echelon of liars involved in lying about the attack in Benghazi:
Obama’s first and second terms are monuments to lying. The most blatant lie, prior to the 2012 elections, was to claim that the Sept. 11 attack that killed our ambassador to Libya and three security personnel was a “spontaneous demonstration” based on a video regarding Mohammed. As we know, that was a blatant lie, but in her testimony before a congressional committee then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously asked “What difference does it make?”
In other words: What difference does lying make?
IRS civil servants lying to harm the Democrat party’s political opponents has become all-too-common:
XXXXX
EPA civil servants lie about everything in order to sell the United Nations to the American people. In effect, the EPA is a United Nations agency using the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to sell UN’s agenda.
Necessary civil servants deserve top pay. Tax dollar parasites deserve nothing.
VIDEO ▼
Will Trump's EPA head be able to lead agency?
This excerpt from a thread i posted on Oct. 20, 2014 explains why Mr. Ebell put me on cloud nine:
A few years back I was really confused me when UN employees/officials were being identified as international civil servants. Those people serving their homelands at the UN are civil servants for the country they represent. They cannot be defined as international civil servants.
Why is it important to prick this particular balloon? International law and international civil servant are global government inventions; neither one exists. Look at how non-existent “international law” is slowly gaining acceptance and you’ll begin to see the danger. International civil servants are being put on the same road to acceptance as is international law. Neither exists, yet the repeated, unchallenged, use of the term “international law” gave most Americans a vague notion that it is real.
Why is it important to prick this particular balloon? International law and international civil servant are global government inventions; neither one exists. Look at how non-existent “international law” is slowly gaining acceptance and you’ll begin to see the danger. International civil servants are being put on the same road to acceptance as is international law. Neither exists, yet the repeated, unchallenged, use of the term “international law” gave most Americans a vague notion that it is real.
XXXXX
The term international civil servant first caught my attention in 2003. That sent me to my dictionaries. This is what I found in my computer dictionary:
civil servant (noun)
A person employed in the civil service.
civil service (noun)
Abbr. CS
1. Those branches of public service that are not legislative, judicial, or military and in which employment is usually based on competitive examination.
2. The entire body of persons employed by the civil branches of a government.
A person employed in the civil service.
civil service (noun)
Abbr. CS
1. Those branches of public service that are not legislative, judicial, or military and in which employment is usually based on competitive examination.
2. The entire body of persons employed by the civil branches of a government.
This is what I found in my dependable one hundred dollar Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
civil servant,
a civil-service employee. [1790-1800]
civil service,
1. those branches of public service concerned with all government functions outside the armed services.
2. the body of persons employed in these branches.
3. a system or method of appointing government employees on the basis of competitive examinations, rather than by political patronage. [1775-85]
a civil-service employee. [1790-1800]
civil service,
1. those branches of public service concerned with all government functions outside the armed services.
2. the body of persons employed in these branches.
3. a system or method of appointing government employees on the basis of competitive examinations, rather than by political patronage. [1775-85]
No matter which dictionary you check, a civil servant has to work for a government to be defined as a civil servant. Did someone establish an international government and hire civil servants while I wasn’t watching? And where were the competitive exams given? And what is the abbreviation for the term “international civil service?” Logically it should be ICS, but that can easily be reworked by skeptics to mean International Communists Socialists.
Colin Powell was my next encounter with international civil servant. He also referred to UN sharpshooters as international civil servants. Because Powell used the phrase, I considered the possibility that a person could be working at the UN while being a civil servant for a specific country. Happily, the phrase made no sense for obvious reasons.
Let's use the United States as an example and say our international civil servant is a man. The question then becomes: Which entity is that international civil servant loyal to? Some might say he is loyal to both the UN and the US, but then I ran into the matter of divided loyalties; serving two masters, and that kind of stuff. Would you trust an employee who espouses loyalty to a competitor? As a matter of fact, quite a few American internationalists who support the UN do not say things that encourage trust in their loyalty to America.
And if the man in my example is paid by the American government, he can't really be an international civil servant no matter what his UN duties entail. He is an American civil servant paid by American tax dollars. That is not to say that every “American” assigned to the United Nations is a loyal American. I certainly had my doubts about Suzy Five Shows. (Samantha Power makes Suzy look like Molly Pitcher.) I’m simply pointing out that if my example is paid by the UN or one of its agencies he is working for an organization and cannot be defined as a civil servant —— international or otherwise.
What if the UN administered civil service exams? I suppose that would be okay so long as Exxon, General Motors, or the Boy Scouts of America gave exams and was allowed to call the people they hired civil servants.
Colin Powell was my next encounter with international civil servant. He also referred to UN sharpshooters as international civil servants. Because Powell used the phrase, I considered the possibility that a person could be working at the UN while being a civil servant for a specific country. Happily, the phrase made no sense for obvious reasons.
Let's use the United States as an example and say our international civil servant is a man. The question then becomes: Which entity is that international civil servant loyal to? Some might say he is loyal to both the UN and the US, but then I ran into the matter of divided loyalties; serving two masters, and that kind of stuff. Would you trust an employee who espouses loyalty to a competitor? As a matter of fact, quite a few American internationalists who support the UN do not say things that encourage trust in their loyalty to America.
And if the man in my example is paid by the American government, he can't really be an international civil servant no matter what his UN duties entail. He is an American civil servant paid by American tax dollars. That is not to say that every “American” assigned to the United Nations is a loyal American. I certainly had my doubts about Suzy Five Shows. (Samantha Power makes Suzy look like Molly Pitcher.) I’m simply pointing out that if my example is paid by the UN or one of its agencies he is working for an organization and cannot be defined as a civil servant —— international or otherwise.
What if the UN administered civil service exams? I suppose that would be okay so long as Exxon, General Motors, or the Boy Scouts of America gave exams and was allowed to call the people they hired civil servants.
XXXXX
Bottom line: There is a vast difference between legitimate civil servants and hustlers who do what they do for money and nothing else.
Ebola & Thalidomide
Here is a compilation of observations I posted over the past 17 years:
The argument for gluttony at the public feed tub basically said that lazy, greedy, people getting their hands on tax dollars would improve government. At the same time that the “best people” were grabbing all they could get, people in the military, who actually defend this country, were told by Democrats they had it too good already. Ambition replaced achievement as personal political power made a mockery out of public service.
XXXXX
I wondered how the United States became the greatest country the world has ever known in the centuries before the “best people” were given the keys to state and federal taxing agencies. That ongoing P.R. campaign implies that civil servants who cared for their country prior to the overstocked public larder years were not the best people.
XXXXX
Every Socialist enters government to become a civil master rather than a civil servant. Servants serve — masters rule. For Socialism to work, Socialists must have the governmental power to tell private sector producer what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. One of the basic tenets of Socialism/Communism says that the government must control all resources and every means of production. In practical terms that means they must control the private sector worker; it does not mean that they will be satisfied owning the machinery in a factory, or the typewriter in an office. They must control the machine operator and the secretary if Socialism/Communism is finally to enslave. (Slavery and success mean the same thing to Communists.)
XXXXX
I often refer to Socialists/Communists in less than complimentary terms: public trough leeches, parasites, etc. Responsible civil servants working for the nation as a whole are not meant to be tarred with the same brush. My remarks are directed at those people I call the “tax dollar class.” Such people have no business getting their hands on tax dollars for any reason; not to maintain a welfare state, not for higher education, not for the arts, not grants, not subsidies, and certainly not to promote a political agenda or further a cause with tax dollars. Only those civil servants who are required to run a limited amount of necessary government should earn tax dollars, and respect, for their labors on behalf of this country.
XXXXX
Socialists must always leech off of the producers. If the producers aren’t working there is nothing to freeload. In the case of labor unions, Socialists are twice a leech. They donned a cloak of respectability by hiding in the ranks of unionized, necessary, civil servants, and at the same time they have camped under the same tent as private sector labor unions; feeding on, while controlling both.
XXXXX
Idiots born to govern is inherently offensive. Interestingly, the concept of civil service was a solution to the evils of nepotism that thrived in European monarchies. Contemporary nepotism not only usurped the procedure for becoming a civil servant, civil service itself has turned into a joke every time anyone claims they are going into government because they want to give something back. Many immigrants dive into the public trough as soon as they get here; often higher education; so I have to ask just what it is they give back? From the things I’ve heard educated immigrants say on the talkies over the years, I’d just as soon they not give anything back.
XXXXX
Presidents leave office in four or eight years, but once the political hacks he appoints get the title of civil servant their snouts are in the public trough forever; if not in the original job then somewhere else in government. The worst of it is the type of parasite filling those jobs. They are not civil servants by any stretch of the imagination.
XXXXX
Just to be clear, most of today’s bureaucrats are Public Trough Intellectuals. They should not be confused with legitimate civil servants. The difference is easy to spot:
1. Public Trough Intellectuals are social engineers serving one group or another, while civil servants serve the country as a whole.
2. Every Public Trough Intellectual is afflicted with the arrogance born of an undeserved tax dollar income. They know everything. They can tell you how to cure every evil in the world except how to chase them away from the public trough.
XXXXX
Civil servants should not have to lie. The fact is: Civil servants are bigger liars today than they were before they had unions. One would think that their unions would protect them when they told the truth, yet they only encourage them to lie, and then protect them when they do lie.
Today’s civil servants lie to advance and protect their careers, and are expected to lie for whatever politicians are selling at the moment.
High-ranking liars are in charge of low level civil servants. Suzy Five Shows is only one of the upper-echelon of liars involved in lying about the attack in Benghazi:
Obama’s first and second terms are monuments to lying. The most blatant lie, prior to the 2012 elections, was to claim that the Sept. 11 attack that killed our ambassador to Libya and three security personnel was a “spontaneous demonstration” based on a video regarding Mohammed. As we know, that was a blatant lie, but in her testimony before a congressional committee then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously asked “What difference does it make?”
In other words: What difference does lying make?
XXXXX
IRS civil servants lying to harm the Democrat party’s political opponents has become all-too-common:
XXXXX
EPA civil servants lie about everything in order to sell the United Nations to the American people. In effect, the EPA is a United Nations agency using the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to sell UN’s agenda.
XXXXX
Necessary civil servants deserve top pay. Tax dollar parasites deserve nothing.
