The Palmetto Post

Closing Another Chapter

2012-02-07T18:28:00.000-08:00

With the passing today of Florence Green, another chapter in history has closed. Florence was the last known veteran of what was then known as the Great War. I always get a little touched by these stories, not only because the veterans lived through an obviously traumatic time, but also because I believe their suffering was needless. Approximately 17 million soldiers and civilians were killed in World War I, and another 20 million were wounded. At the time it was fought, WWI was thought to be the 'war to end war'; instead, WWI ended up being the breeding ground for the divisions, hatreds, and grievances that gave rise to communism, fascism, and national socialism. Most historians agree that the seeds for WWII were sown on the battlefields of WWI, so the millions more killed in the former can be directly attributed to the folly of the latter. Looking back on it all, was the assassination of one political figure really such a slight as to warrant the deaths of millions upon millions of people? In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."

Super Bowl Ads Too Racy?

2012-02-06T15:35:00.000-08:00

Totally agree.

"Florida Believes"

2012-02-01T09:05:00.000-08:00

I've seen some videos recently in which smiling Romney supporters are holding signs that say, "Florida Believes." Believes what? That Romney will actually make any difference in the White House? If the Florida primary results showed anything, it's that 93% of Florida Republicans are deluded.

Jeopardy!

2012-01-31T11:51:00.000-08:00

To use the popular game show format:

Answer: The predicted date upon which the national debt will be paid off.

Question: What is never?

An additional $1.1 trillion will be added to the debt this year according to the Congressional Budget Office. That will bring the total to well over $16 trillion. The CBO report expects a further $11 trillion to be added to the debt by 2022.

Notice in the article that none of the discussion - none of it - about how to close the budget gap includes any suggestions to cut spending. The Republicans are as addicted to spending as the Democrats.

People, mark my words: we are doomed. There is no way this amount of debt can be repaid. No empire in history has ever come back the kind of debt precipice we are now facing. The America you know and love will ultimately fail -- maybe not this year or next, but not too far down the road. The only question will be what sort of nation will rise from the ashes?

Global Warming Taking a Long Holiday

2012-01-29T13:24:00.000-08:00

Earth may be taking a 'chill pill', of sorts, according to the U.K.'s Mail Online.

Bonanza!

2012-01-28T10:28:00.000-08:00

Today's front page at Faux News is a veritable gold mine of stories illustrating the unlimited capacity of government to do stupid stuff. There is so much bloggable material there, in fact, that I have decided to take all of it on in a 'quick thoughts' format.

So here goes...

1). The lead article is about the deteriorating situation in Syria. It's interesting to consider Mordor-on-the-Potomac's reluctance to aid the Syrian resistance, whereas they were comparatively eager to meddle in Egypt and Libya. This probably has something to do with Syria's very recent history of supporting Palestinian resistance groups. Assad is evil, to be sure, but at least he's a known quantity, not to mention a secularist. If he goes down, it's highly probable he'd be replaced by an unpredictable Islamist regime, and Damascus is closer to Jerusalem than Cairo, Tripoli, or Tehran. The stupid part here is that Mordor meddled anywhere in the first place. Not only do such actions violate the sovereignty of foreign lands, create instability, and lead to unforeseen repercussions for America, but intervention in country A leads the good folk of country B to expect they'll receive similar aid. We intervened in Kuwait, but not Kurdistan. Korea, but not Budapest. Saigon, but not Prague. Our continued boasting of promoting democracy around the world is given the lie when we so obviously pick and choose where we will promote self-determination based on our own not-very-well disguised strategic interests. And then the sheeple wonder why we encounter so much opposition around the globe when we're so obviously the 'good guys'.

2). (Echoes of Bowie's Space Oddity reverberate in the background.) Ground control to Major Newt. Ground control to Major Newt. America is broke. There is no money for your grandiose schemes for moon colonies and other black holes for government largesse. Please do us all a favor and drop out of the race now.

3). The U.S. Air Force's super-ultra-really-big bomb turns out to be not super-ultra-really-big enough to take out Iran's underground nuclear program. Notice the article says "...the only country known to have buried its nuclear weapons." I wonder if this is an honest slip (Iran has no nukes), or whether Faux is deliberately attempting to plant the thought into the uncomprehending minds of its usual blood-lusting readers that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Also interesting is the part that says, "Initial tests reportedly indicated that the bomb wouldn't be able to destroy some of Iran's facilities, although it was unclear if depth was a factor, or if Tehran had since added new fortifications to protect them." Really? We seem to know an awful lot about Iran's supposedly secret underground facilities.

4). This last article illustrates that the Feds don't hold a monopoly on government stupidity. California bureaucrats on the Air Resources Board passed rules requiring 1/7 of all vehicles sold in California to be electric or zero-emissions by 2025. When will the government learn that top-down, heavy-handed decrees like these never make life better for people? Consumers obviously want fuel-efficient vehicles; that's why the Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit is the third-best selling car of all time. I snort with disdain every time I see some car commercial on TV, especially for the much-touted hybrids, in which something in the slightly over 40 mpg range of fuel economy is loudly trumpeted. The original diesel-engined Rabbit got 57 mpg, and it wasn't alone in the 50+ mpg category. New cars these days can't approach that figure because they are encumbered with hundreds of pounds of government-mandated equipment. Why not let the consumers decide? Put your $25,000 hybrid up against a stripped-down $15,000 gasoline-powered car that gets ten additional miles per gallon, and see which one consumers flock to. Contrary to what the average economically ignorant sheep might think, the auto manufacturers actually support the new rules. Well of course they do! Because they know that, thanks to the new rules, there soon won't be any $15,000 cars to purchase. Everyone will have to purchase the expensive hybrids and electrics, and the auto manufacturers will laugh all the way to the bank. And the energy producers won't care one way or the other, because all that electricity the new cars use has to come from somewhere -- and in the U.S. that usually means a coal- or oil-burning electrical power plant. Government -- it tends to be goofy and inefficient at every level.

Quick Thoughts on the Florida Debate

2012-01-26T19:52:00.000-08:00

Got home late and only saw half of the debate, so my comments pertain to only the second half of the festivities. Once again, in no particular order:

1). Ron Paul got stiffed on the face time again. He got completely passed over on two questions (Santorum was also passed over on one of the questions).

2). Lame debate format. The time allotted for responses allows for little more than sound bites. Very little of substance gets discussed, and virtually everything said by the candidates is old news. Letting the audience present the questions results in many narrowly-focused questions that are tantamount to asking for political favors. And please, asking the candidates why their wives would make the best first lady?

3). No matter how one feels about the Israel/Palestine situation, you have to feel sorry for the poor Palestinian-American guy in the audience. His question, which only Romney and Gingrich had a chance to answer, basically turned into a contest to see who could be the biggest cheerleader for Israel. Arab-Americans everywhere would have to be pretty oblivious to not notice that they were essentially told, "Screw you!" Way to reach out, GOP!

4). Santorum on the question of Cuba: sounds like if Santorum had the opportunity to nuke the Castro regime, he would. Which would finally put the Cuban people out of their misery. Forty years of poverty brought on by the American embargo, and how did that policy affect the Castro brothers? Not at all, except to drive them further into the arms of the Soviets, followed by any two-bit chump dictator that followed. Embargo is an act of war aimed at civilians. Embargoes invariably end up strengthening the regimes they are intended to weaken.

5). Brilliant answer by Dr. Paul on how faith would affect his presidency. He said it wouldn't, except for how his faith defines his character, and that his presidency would be bound by his oath of office and his promise to the American people. And since a man's character is defined not so much by what he says as by what he does, Dr. Paul clearly has the most Christ-like character of any of the remaining candidates.

6). One of CNN's people mentioned that Romney has a new debate coach. Did anyone ever doubt that Romney had a debate coach? Does anyone believe Dr. Paul has a debate coach?

More Window Dressing

2012-01-26T15:45:00.000-08:00

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has proposed a plan to cut "nearly a half-trillion dollars" from the U.S. ~~offense~~ defense budget.

Over a ten-year period, naturally (what is it with the magical ten-year number?).

Pffft -- please! Enough with the sham cuts already! $500 billion in "cuts" over ten years is $50 billion per year. That's less than 10% of the current annual ~~offense~~ defense budget. I've said it before, so I won't belabor the point: a 10% cut in ~~offense~~ defense isn't enough to stop the train wreck in the making that is U.S. federal spending.

Call us back, Panetta, when you come up with some real cuts.

Sweet Deal

2012-01-24T20:35:00.000-08:00

Ask yourself, what would happen to you if you went on a rampage that resulted in the deaths of 24 innocent people, including ten women and children and a man in a wheel chair? If you are a U.S. Marine in Iraq, the answer is, you get off with a slap on the wrist and an apology to the victims' families.

Military Spending in Perspective

2012-01-23T19:40:00.000-08:00

USA accounts for 55% of the world's military spending, and the neocons can't find anywhere to cut something? Anything?

Winners & Losers

2012-01-21T19:16:00.000-08:00

The South Carolina results are in, and Ron Paul lost, right?

I don't think so. The big loser is Rick Santorum. In the contest to determine who would be the neocon's Not-Romney, Santorum just took a big hit, coming in a distant third. That's two poor showings in a row, and potential campaign contributors are likely to take notice. I predicted Santorum wouldn't last much longer, and for sure he must be feeling the icy grip of defeat closing in this time.

Ron Paul came in fourth, this is true, but Paul isn't like the other candidates. He isn't campaigning for an office, but for an idea. And he still has money -- relatively lots of money. Soon, one more voice of deception will be gone on the neocon side, and Dr. Paul's message of liberty will get even more face time.

The Revolution rolls on!

The Spin Zone

2012-01-21T14:14:00.000-08:00

Faux News bloviator Bill O'Reilly declares his show is a "no-spin zone". He can say what he wants, but the truth is, Faux puts plenty of spin on events that don't fit its neoconservative worldview. Like this article on the Ron Paul campaign. Here's a few tidbits:

#1). "Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is already looking past the South Carolina primary with plans to make the most of a few states that could be more receptive to his libertarian, Internet-driven message."

Of course Paul is looking past South Carolina, you idiots, because South Carolina is voting today. Every other candidate is looking past South Carolina, too. And what the heck is "Internet-driven"? Paul doesn't make personal appearances? He doesn't have boots on the ground? Other candidates don't have an Internet presence?

#2). "Paul had a limited presence in South Carolina compared to weeks of heavy face-to-face campaigning in Iowa, where he placed third behind Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, and in New Hampshire, where he came in second to Romney."

Paul's third-place in the popular vote count resulted in winning the same amount of delegates as Santorum and Romney, therefore he essentially tied for first.

#3). "He even left the state for a full day Wednesday to fly back to Washington to cast a symbolic vote against raising the debt ceiling."

That crazy doctor! He actually did his job! And unlike the other Republican empty suits, he actually voted against further debt! What, is he some kind of fiscal conservative or something? Here Faux News tries to suggest that campaigning isn't important to Dr. Paul -- maybe he doesn't really want to be president.

Can't wait to see the next 'fair and balanced' Faux headline!

Four Questions for My Christian Readers

2012-01-21T09:52:00.000-08:00

A Christian friend of mine recently trotted out the tired lie that Ron Paul "blames America for 9/11." This prompted four questions in my mind that I would like my Christian friends to answer:

#1). Can you please quote for me, from either his speeches or writings, where exactly Dr. Paul blamed America for 9/11?

#2). Rick Santorum is on the record saying he would "...degrade those (Iranian) facilities though air strikes". Can you please show me from the New Testament where it is taught that either nations or individuals should use preemptive force against their enemies?

#3). Newt Gingrich received a standing ovation for invoking Andrew Jackson and suggesting that with regard to America's enemies, he would, "Kill them!" Can you please show me from the New Testament where Jesus or any of his disciples taught that we should kill our enemies?

#4). Mitt Romney has repeatedly stated, "This century must be an American century." The American Century he speaks of is being built upon an unprecedented mountain of debt. Can you please show me, again from the New Testament, anywhere where it is taught that either nations or individuals should use debt to further their aims, or that any one nation has a mandate to impose its stamp upon any other nation?

It's time for "values voters" to put up or shut up. Either you value the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, found in the New Testament, or you don't. Which is it? (Sorry, that was a fifth question, wasn't it? Oops -- make it six.)

Debate Stats

2012-01-20T12:07:00.001-08:00

See here for analysis of talking time.

Thoughts on the Debate

2012-01-20T09:48:00.000-08:00

Last night's debate in South Carolina featured only four candidates on stage. No Cain, no Perry, no Johnson, no Bachmann, nor even a Huntsman. But the stage was still too crowded. Having three shades of Republican Big Government and only one shade of Liberty obscured the fact that there were only two competing visions of America, not four.

Here are some quick thoughts on the debate:

1) I think Santorum hurt his cause the most. Can't put my finger on it exactly, but Santorum's whole demeanor came across poorly. He seemed almost petulant at times, and it bothered me the way he never seemed to be making eye contact with anyone when he spoke. I honestly think Santorum will be the next to drop out, even if he does well on Saturday, which is possible.

2) Gingrich got his shorts in a bunch when the moderator asked him about his ex-wife's accusation that Gingrich wanted an "open marriage". Sorry, Newt, but I believe the public, and by extension the media, is entitled to ask whatever questions they want, and your marital infidelity reflects on your character. If you did not honor your marriage vows, why should we expect you to honor your vow to protect and defend the Constitution?

3) Anybody notice that Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich all have something in common? Every single one of them has a record of flip-flopping on the issues. NOBODY has attacked Ron Paul for flip-flopping. Ron Paul has a twenty-four year documented, verifiable record in congress of rock-solid ideological consistency. Folks may not like his ideology, but they can't accuse him (much less convict) of being a political chameleon.

4) Once again, the debate utterly failed to address the one issue that should be dominating this campaign. It's not foreign policy, abortion, or creating jobs. It's monetary policy and public debt. Dr. Paul pointed out the lack of discussion on these issues. Current federal fiscal policy will ultimately ruin this country financially, and at that point the other issues will quickly fade into the background as the poor and newly-impoverished middle class scramble merely to put food on the table. I could almost hear crickets chirping in the auditorium whenever Dr. Paul answered questions with reasoned responses based on sound economics. The other candidates almost glazed over. This is what I can't wait for: Paul going toe-to-toe with one (or at most, two) other candidates on economic policy. He will shred them. Romney especially should be fearful of such a contest, for he is part of the politically-connected top 0.3%, born with a silver spoon in his mouth and with a fate inextricably tied to big banking.

5) CNN's introductions of the candidates were questionable. Dr. Paul was characterized as an "insurgent". Say, what??

6) Anybody who watched the debate in anticipation of any candidate dealing any other candidate a knock-out blow came away sorely disappointed. Most of the debate sounded like so much "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

7) Why were so many of the questions from the audience not from South Carolinians?

8) Santorum's blowing his own horn about his 'win' in Iowa was clownish. Note to Santorum: Paul and Romney won just as many delegates as you.

Soul

2012-01-20T08:37:00.000-08:00

After watching political sleaze-ball Rick Santorum attempt to smear Ron Paul in the South Carolina debate last night, I came across this video. It resonated with me.

The Best Video on Ron Paul — Ever

Some who watch this may think that we Paul supporters view him as a kind of messiah. I can't speak for all Paul supporters, but for myself, I am eagerly awaiting only one Messiah (Philippians 3:20), but with regards to earthly affairs, I will gladly choose a man of uncompromising principle over a political animal like Santorum.

One Down, But Should Have Been Two

2012-01-19T12:19:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about political candidates this time. I'm talking about Eastman Kodak. The photography giant, practically synonymous with cameras for generations of Americans, filed for bankruptcy today, done in by the startlingly swift transition from paper* to digital photography. Kodak failed to see the change coming, then failed to adapt, and now it will pay the price.

Kodak's demise will trigger emotions for those of us that grew up in the days of 35mm film, but bankruptcy is the market's way of culling malinvestment and redistributing assets to more profitable ventures. It is a wholly natural part of doing business and should be welcomed, if not particularly enjoyed by those companies experiencing it.

But there should have been two companies taken down.

About midway down the article is this little note: "To keep the company operating while in reorganization, Kodak said it has secured a $950 million debtor-in-possession, or DIP, financing with an 18-month maturity from Citigroup."

That would be the same Citigroup that received $45 billion in TARP funds two years ago. In contrast, Kodak's red ink amounts to slightly more than $1 billion.

Unfortunately, Kodak isn't one of those politically connected Wall Street power elites considered "too big to fail".

Too bad for Kodak.

Too bad for the rest of us that the public trough feeder, Citigroup, didn't go down as well.

*Remember paper photography? Kids nowadays have no idea what it was like -- loading a roll of film into a camera, dropping it off for development, waiting to see how the pictures turned out (if at all, sometimes). Kids in high school don't have photography classes, complete with darkrooms, red lights, stopper & fixer, and all that good stuff. Kinda sad.

Splat!

2012-01-19T10:02:00.000-08:00

Rick Perry, in with a bang last summer, is now out with a whimper just days before the South Carolina primary. It was almost painful to watch Perry's campaign, storming in amid much fanfare and immediately claiming 'front-runner' status -- the man who was supposed to save social conservatives and Tea Party folks from the flip-flopper, Mitt Romney. Except a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination: Perry went on national TV. Many times. And people discovered that Rick wasn't, or least didn't give the appearance of being, well -- not too bright, shall we say. Naturally, on his way out, Perry gave an endorsement. His went to Newt Gingrich, another so-called social conservative, except in this case the term "social conservative" means talking the talk without actually walking the walk. Oh, well -- at least there will be one less Big Government neocon cluttering the stage for tonight's debate, and for that we should be thankful.

Follow the Money

2012-01-18T08:44:00.000-08:00

Compare this list of Romney's most generous donors with this list of the biggest TARP recipients. Notice anything?

New Year, New Look

2012-01-17T14:28:00.001-08:00

I changed my blog template -- just cuz I felt like it.

Ephesians 5:1

2012-01-17T14:19:00.000-08:00

Where are the imitators of God? They don't appear to be amongst evangelicals in South Carolina.

During the Faux News debate last night, Newt Gingrich, a twice-divorced adulterer and convert from protestantism to Catholicism*, espoused a viewpoint in direct contradiction of Matthew 5:43-45 and received a standing ovation. Ron Paul, an evangelical married to one wife for over fifty years, advocated the Golden Rule of Luke 6:31 and was booed.

*Please note carefully that I am attacking neither sinners nor Catholics.

It's a Two-Man Race

2012-01-15T21:10:00.000-08:00

Jon Huntsman will drop out of the race on Monday, sources say, ho-hum. This comes as no great surprise. Huntsman barely registered in the polls, did not contest Iowa at all, and came in an unimpressive third in New Hampshire. The question was never one of if Huntsman would drop out, but when.

You might be thinking that my math skills need brushing up, since my title says "two-man", yet there are still five men running, supposedly. I say 'supposedly' because there is really no difference between Huntsman and Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, or Perry. All of the aforementioned are big government Republicans. More evidence will be given for this fact when Huntsman endorses Romney on Monday (another complete non-surprise). One by one, Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry will also drop out, and each in turn will line up like good Republicans behind Mitt Romney, the anointed one. Only one man will not toe the party line.

It's really not a contest between two men, but between two ideologies: neoconservatism versus classical liberalism (not to be confused with modern liberalism). The former is the ideology of George Bush; the latter is that of Thomas Jefferson. The former is the political philosophy of Mitt Romney et al; the latter is championed by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul will not drop out of the race and endorse Romney, because to do so would be to betray every ideal for which he has fought, often alone, for going on forty years. Ron Paul will not go away soon, because he has the money and organization to be in this for the long haul, not to mention the devoted followers. Once the pretenders Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry are gone, eliminating the false sense of difference between them and Romney, the real choice will be clear: business as usual with Mitt, or liberty reborn with Ron.

Dr. Paul might win the nomination outright. Or, he might win enough delegates to require a brokered convention. But no matter what happens, the message of liberty cannot long be ignored. The baby-boomers who voted for Bush and McCain are on the way out; Ron Paul is the clear favorite among the younger set. If Romney wins, and nothing changes (which is pretty much guaranteed), the young voters will take note. And someday they will be the new majority.

Hopefully, that day won't arrive too late.

S.F. Rising

2012-01-15T20:14:00.000-08:00

One of the nice things about getting older is accumulating more memories, and those memories reaching farther back in time. I didn't really warm up to professional football until my late teens, but fortunately that age in my life corresponded to the rise of one of pro football's greatest dynasties: the San Francisco Forty-Niners. I saw it all: The Catch, the goal-line stand against the Bengals, the Montana-to-Rice's, the Young-to-Rice's, and even the Garcia-to-Rice's. Somewhere in the midst of sixteen consecutive seasons of ten or more wins, I told a dear friend of mine that we should enjoy the ride while it lasts, because all good things come to an end, but the Niners kept winning -- nearly twenty years of memorable moments.

The good thing that was the Forty-Niners came to an end when general manager Terry Donahue unceremoniously canned head coach Steve Mariucci, and what followed was nine years of misery in which the Niners never made the playoffs, coaches came and epically failed, and quarterback and number one draft pick Alex Smith became every Niners fan's favorite whipping boy (the Niners passed over another option at quarterback by the name of Aaron Rodgers). My current crop of eighth-graders were born three years after the Niners' last Super Bowl appearance. They have no memories of the Niners' glory days. Joe Montana and Jerry Rice are to them what John Brodie and the Million Dollar Backfield are to me -- pages in the Forty-Niners' history book that were written before my time.

But everything changed in the last thirty-six hours. After securing the NFC's number two seed following a 13-3 campaign, the Niners beat favored New Orleans yesterday in dramatic fashion. Today, the New York Giants humbled the equally favored Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field, setting up the showdown for the NFC championship that no pundits saw coming: the Niners hosting -- hosting -- the Giants. And now the Niners are one game away from making a sixth Super Bowl appearance. Alex Smith has all but erased completely the memories of his first six seasons of struggle, and the Niners may be erasing their collective bad memories as well.

Maybe, just maybe, the magic is back.

Go, Niners!

The Evangelicals' Choice for Not-Romney

2012-01-14T19:06:00.000-08:00

Evangelicals like Rick Santorum because of his strong pro-life stance. We know Rick is pro-life, because Rick himself likes to take every opportunity to spout off about how pro-life he supposedly is. Unless that life happens to be Iranian, of course. In that case, Santorum can't wait to pull the trigger.

Blowback Is Coming

2012-01-14T16:04:00.000-08:00

Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan died this week in what western governments disingenuously refer to as a "targeted killing". "Targeted killing" is a euphemism for "assassination". Since Roshan was a civilian, and since Iran is not at war with the U.S., Israel, or Britain (the leading candidates for the perpetrators of the deed), Roshan's killing cannot be honestly construed as anything other than murder. And now Iran is threatening to retaliate (duh!). This is what the CIA calls blowback. What form this blowback will take is the $64,000 question. But one thing is probable: it will be unintended. It may also be violent and directed at civilians. How exactly, then, do covert operations, such as those directed at Iranian scientists, make us safer? Bonus question: Is "targeted killing" the mark of a "Christian nation"?

Pissing on Their Own Polished Reputation

2012-01-11T17:00:00.000-08:00

Faux News reports on a YouTube video purportedly showing four U.S. Marines urinating on some dead Taliban. Naturally, the USMC quickly issued a statement saying, "While we have not yet verified the origin or authenticity of this video, the actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps." This is a standard military denial. Notice it has two parts: 1) question the authenticity of the charges, and 2) (just in case the charges are true) pin the charges on rogue elements within the Corps. In other words, no matter how many atrocities are committed, and now matter how much damning evidence of them is seen in the court of public opinion, the Corps must never, ever be seen as part of the problem. To admit any culpability, no matter how small, would be a blight upon the Corps' carefully cultivated public image. You know, the one that deep, manly voices on TV reinforce with catchy taglines like, "the few, the proud, the Marines" and "we're looking for a few good men." In their minds, the Marines must always be seen as the guardians of all that is good, and never as the perpetrators of anything that is evil.

The only problem with this self-delusion is that it completely overlooks the supreme ability of war to totally and utterly degrade even the most virtuous of human souls. The horrors of war -- friends killed, friends maimed, civilians killed, children killed, villages destroyed, the risk of losing one's life, the noise and confusion of combat, the ever-present risk of death -- take their toll on the human psyche (hence the extraordinary rate of military suicides). Many break, and many never completely recover. War causes good people to do bad things and bad people to do unspeakable things. No nation or people is immune from this phenomena, and to believe that U.S. soldiers are so good and so noble as to be the exception is incredibly naive.

I have little doubt that the video is authentic, and even if it turns out not to be, there are many other similar videos and stories circulating on the Internet -- enough to question whether the Corps' assessment of its own character is entirely correct. As the number of rogue behavior incidents mounts, when do we conclude that it's not really rogue behavior?

The Isolationist Lie

2012-01-11T09:51:00.000-08:00

Last night during its coverage of the New Hampshire primaries, Faux News again labeled Ron Paul as an "isolationist". Dr. Paul has never advocated for isolationism, and Faux knows this. The repeated application of the isolationist label is a calculated smear by the establishment mouthpieces at Faux. For those who need clarification on the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism (the philosophy of Dr. Paul), see the definitions here and here, as well as this brief discussion of the topic. And check here for a discussion of America's non-interventionist roots.

Thoughts on New Hampshire

2012-01-10T21:26:00.000-08:00

Quick thoughts on the New Hampshire primary:

1.) Romney won -- so what? His win was such a foregone conclusion that he had plenty of time to polish his very obviously rehearsed victory speech. That's Romney for you -- nice hair, nice teeth, easily digested platitudes.

2.) In total contrast to Romney's canned speech, Ron Paul's speech to his supporters was from the hip and quickly evolved into another teaching moment on a number of topics. The man never wastes an opportunity to spread the message of liberty.

3.) Faux News is completely, utterly evil. They continue to do their darndest to marginalize the Paul campaign, suggesting (among other things) that Paul "over-performed" relative to his polling numbers and that his campaign successes are a detriment to the efforts of more viable candidates like Gingrich or Santorum. The various Faux personnel were practically giddy over the Romney win.

4.) And the most evil voice on Faux tonight belonged to Brit Hume -- a complete slime-ball and a shame to true journalists everywhere.

5.) John McCain made an appearance to tout his man, Romney, whom he has endorsed. That would be the same Romney he personally ripped four years ago. Is there any better evidence that the game is rigged?

6.) So much for the Santorum surge. With 92% of the votes tallied, Santorum is coming in an underwhelming fifth. Look for Santorum to drop out soon and endorse Romney, who appears to be the establishment candidate elect.

7.) Despite coming in a distant third, Huntsman's showing is being loudly ballyhooed by Faux. Huntsman is the last Not-Romney who hasn't experienced a 'surge' of some sort. Huntsman's moment in the spotlight will be brief -- he has neither the money nor the organization to make a serious push.

8.) One has to wonder how much longer Perry will hang around. He's had his sights set on a strong showing in South Carolina, but getting only 1% of the vote in New Hampshire has to sting. As I predicted much earlier in this space, Perry's campaign is most likely doomed. You have to feel just a little sorry for the guy, though. He was supposed to be the true conservative, the Tea Party darling come to save the party from Big Government Republicans like Romney. Perry's campaign has been like a gigantic face-plant on the national stage.

9.) Ron Paul's 25% showing is very respectable. His poll numbers went up considerably in the weeks leading up to the vote, while Romney's fell somewhat. He is still second in the number of delegates garnered (Gingrich and Perry still have zero). And the Mordor establishment is deathly afraid of Dr. Paul, as evidenced by Faux's clownishly transparent efforts to downplay his campaign. Oh, they're not afraid he'll win the nomination (though he might) -- they're afraid he won't get the nomination and will decide to run a third party campaign. A third party run by Paul will absolutely doom the Republicans in November. Frankly, I am afraid for Dr. Paul's life and pray for his safety -- does anyone seriously doubt the establishment wouldn't resort to taking Paul out if he becomes a looming threat? It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

2012-01-07T20:24:00.000-08:00

Since the 9th Commandment states that one shall not bear false witness, one might assume that a supposed believer like Gary Bauer would abide by that commandment, instead of spewing forth the litany of absolute falsehoods contained in this vicious smear piece. Did Mr. Bauer even make any attempt at all to verify the assertions he makes, or did he just rattle off whatever script was placed before him? As a believer, I can agree with the Apostle Paul that there is no shame in the gospel of Christ, but it can certainly be embarrassing when members of the family of God go out of their way to slander and misrepresent other believers.

The Myth of 'Public Land'

2012-01-07T17:54:00.000-08:00

This article is a great example of why so-called 'public land' isn't really public. The shooting death of Margaret Anderson is a tragedy, to be sure, but she died on January first, and her killer was found dead the next day -- case closed. However, Mt. Rainier National Park remained off-limits to the public until today. What possible reason could the Park Service have for keeping the park closed for four additional days? Moreover, this incident serves to illustrate a little-appreciated fact: all the 'public land' in this country (national and state parks, national forest, BLM, etc.) isn't truly owned by the public, for if it were, the public would decide when and where to enter it (not to mention how much such entrance should cost, which is a whole 'nother topic). Rather, all those millions of acres are, in truth, held by various government entities who can, and do, shut down access to those lands for whatever reasons they want. Now, the question of who, if not the government, should manage all those lands is not the point of this post. I merely cite this as one more indication of how less 'free' we are in reality compared to cherished and closely-held perceptions.

Double Standard

2012-01-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

Suppose you are a student at school, and there is a big kid at school who takes your lunch money and threatens to beat you up if you don't do as he says. Moreover, this same student spreads rumors about you and tells the other kids not to play with you. What do we call that sort of kid?

We call that kid a bully, that's what we call him (or her).

Now, keep that vision of a bully in your mind as you read this article. Sobering, isn't it?

O.K., some of you won't see the irony in the article, so let me expound (that's what one does in a blog, after all).

The first paragraph states that Iran is "...becom(ing) politically isolated due to sanctions." Sanctions are a form of telling Iran who they can or can't play with, to use playground terminology. See here for a list of sanctions in place against Iran. Pay very close attention to the paragraph subtitle "Effects". Look at whom the sanctions are hurting. Note where it says, "The effects of U.S. sanctions include expensive basic goods for Iranian citizens, and an aging and increasingly unsafe civil aircraft fleet," and, "This has weakened Iranian civil society and strengthen (sic) the state." There are those who argue that sanctions are a violation of Just War Doctrine, and it is hard not to conclude, as does the International Progress Organization, that sanctions are "...an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly."

The second paragraph of the Faux News article says, "Some lawmakers have expressed deep concern that Iran is boosting its presence in the Western Hemisphere to the detriment of U.S. national security interests." (Side note: the article doesn't state what these "national security interests" supposedly are.) The article also claims Iran is "...desperate for friends...", and U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) charges (I can almost hear the hysteria in her voice), "Ahmadinejad's desire to strengthen ties with anti-American dictators and expand Iranian influence in the Western Hemisphere directly threatens U.S. security interests." Before one succumbs to the panic expressed in these claims, it is worthwhile to examine this map which shows all the U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf region. Examine the case on its merits: Iran is merely visiting Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Colombia (not actually establishing any bases there), none of which share any land borders with the U.S., and most of which are too far away and possess far too little military might to be a credible threat to the U.S. (for example: Nicaragua's air capability consists almost entirely of helicopters and transport aircraft. They have forty-eight MiG-21's and Mirage M-50's on order -- both of which are 1950's vintage technology, and neither of which is a long-range strike threat). The U.S., on the other hand, has bases in a dozen Persian Gulf states, five of which border Iran directly, and maintains a massive military footprint in the region, including the entire U.S. 5th Fleet with its nuclear strike capability. So the question here is, Who represents the greater threat to whom?

The Faux article goes on to quote a U.S. State Department spokeswoman as saying, "Iran must stop defying international pressure to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful and that countries must make it clear that the only way to end its isolation is to come clean about its atomic ambitions." (I won't even bother to point out here that the U.S. made exactly the same sorts of demands about Iraq's purported WMD, which Iraq claimed not to have, a fact borne out during the subsequent U.S. invasion. Oops! I just pointed it out, didn't I?) In the U.S. we have a legal dictum, namely that the accused are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Only in foreign relations do we presume guilt and demand evidence of innocence. I only say this to emphasize that Iran has consistently claimed it has no nuclear weapons ambitions and no international agency or foreign government has ever proven the contrary. This doesn't mean that Iran doesn't have nuclear ambitions, only that no one has proven conclusively that they do, and until someone proves otherwise, all the accusations are hearsay and rumor -- the same tactics used by the playground bully.

It is interesting to note that one of the purposes of Ahmadinejad's visit to Nicaragua is to be present at the inauguration of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. It should be noted that Ortega is a democratically-elected head-of-state, whatever ill-will Mordor-on-the-Potomac might bear toward him stemming from his Sandinista days. What is so strange about Ahmadinejad, who is also a democratically elected head-of-state, being present at that ceremony? What might be considered strange is that the U.S., supposedly the champion of democratic elections, is sending a mid-level bureaucrat to the inauguration, which looks very much like a bully having a snit-fit about not getting his way.

I should point out that I am in no way trying to defend Iran. I am not trying to misconstrue any facts -- they are what they are. I am merely trying to draw attention to the fact that the U.S. seems to be accusing Iran of trying to throw its weight around, while at the same time engaging in the same kinds of behavior. If establishing a presence in the opposite hemisphere is bad for Iran, it should be equally bad for the U.S. Otherwise, the U.S. is simply engaging in a not-very-well-disguised double standard. In such a case, how can we blame other nations for acting in ways they judge to be in their own best self-interests?

Silencing the Troops

2012-01-05T12:45:00.000-08:00

The usual Republican party line is that our troops overseas are fighting and dying to protect our freedoms. Unless, apparently, one happens to be in the U.S. armed forces, where it seems that duty to country trumps any First Amendment right to free speech. There's a bit of irony in fighting for rights one doesn't have, isn't there?

She Gone!

2012-01-04T09:49:00.000-08:00

Michele Bachmann has suspended her campaign following her next-to-last showing in Iowa last night.

Good-bye, Representative Bachmann! You will be missed.

Ha ha -- not really.

Iowa Caucus Results

2012-01-03T22:17:00.000-08:00

So, it looks like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will wind up tied for first at 25% each, with Ron Paul coming in third at 22%. A big victory for the suddenly hard-charging Santorum, right?

Not so fast.

First of all, there are at least a few accusations of shenanigans taking place during the caucus. Are these accusations true? One would have to have a very great deal of faith indeed in the sense of fair play within the Republican party to believe that no such manipulations could take place. I, for one, knowing how desperate the Republican establishment is to avoid a Paul victory in Iowa, have no trouble believing the party would stoop to dirty deeds.

But, even supposing the absence of any voter fraud, the results do not necessarily mean what people think they mean. Look at it this way: Romney was always going to finish somewhere near the top. He has the organization, he has the money, and he appeals to moderates. However, a large block of Republicans do not like Romney's moderate views. They want a 'social conservative', and Santorum happened to be the only untried social conservative left for them to sample. Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich each had their turn, and each of them wilted in the spotlight. Now it's Santorum's turn in the spotlight, and I don't think that light will be too kind to the former senator.

Why do I say this? Because now that Santorum has garnered coveted 'front-runner' status, the question will be, what does the senator's track record reveal? And the answer will be: Not much.

In 1990, the newly elected Representative Santorum was one of the 'Gang of Seven', a group of freshmen congressmen most noted for blowing the whistle on the House banking and postal scandals. It made for great press, but what did it actually accomplish? Barbara Boxer, one of the top check kiters at the House bank, went on to become a senator for California, a position she occupies to this day. Even Newt Gingrich wrote 22 bad checks drawn on the House bank, and look where he is today.

Santorum claims to be a fiscal conservative. Yet during the 108th congress, when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of congress, Santorum and his fellow Republicans failed to reduce spending, balance the budget, pay down the deficit, or eliminate any federal-level departments.

Apart from his accomplishments (or lack thereof) in congress, Santorum has other baggage as well. In 2004, he demonstrated his willingness to lay aside political principle in favor of political expediency when he endorsed Arlen Specter's senate candidacy; Specter is a well-known moderate who bolted to the Democratic party in 2009, but even prior to that, he voted with the Democrats more than half the time. Santorum also endorsed Mitt Romney during the 2008 election cycle. Santorum also doesn't believe in a right to privacy. Plus many more foibles that I will save for later.

My favorite little quirk of Santorum's, though, is his penchant for railing against what he calls 'Islamo-fascism'. I'm not exactly sure what Santorum means when he uses the word 'fascism', but he almost certainly doesn't use it in the conventional sense. He would be very wise to drop his use of the term, lest someone point out to him publicly that there are nations far, far closer to home who do resemble fascist states in the conventional sense.

So, even if Santorum wins the final Iowa vote tally, or even ties for first, it is no great blow to the Paul campaign. Dr. Paul will still have a very strong third-place showing, and he still has the funds, organization, and followers to be a force deep into the election cycle. On the other hand, the establishment Republicans still have too many horses in the race, and somebody was bound to do poorly. Huntsman didn't even contest Iowa, so the big loser will be Bachmann. She may decide to drop out. Or she may decide to soldier on, but she can't withstand too many more 5% finishes. Gingrich and Perry aren't in much better shape. And that is why the Paul campaign should be happy. Even though the media and the Republican establishment have done their darndest to minimize Paul's impact on the race, he's still in it, and his message will be harder to ignore as more of the Clones drop out.

Before You Post Comments, Please Read This

2012-01-02T21:01:00.000-08:00

I write this blog to air out my views, and I do not expect that you, the reader, will agree with everything I say. You are welcome to post comments about anything I write, but please remember these rules (which are not in any particular order of importance and which I am making up as I go):

1. This is my blog, so I reserve the right to delete anything you post, for whatever reason. I haven't done so yet, but I reserve the right.

2. If you comment, keep it civil. I despise flamers and will delete anything written in that vein.

3. Please respond to what I have actually written, not to what you think I mean. I don't mind if you disagree, but I hate it when people draw false conclusions from what I post, or (worse in some cases) presume to know what I think about an issue. Don't put words in my mouth -- I'm quite capable of forming them myself, thank you. If you're not sure what I meant, then ask for clarification. Don't go into attack mode prematurely.

4. If I link to an article or video in my post, it helps if you actually read the article or view the video before making comments. Rule #3 applies to any linked material, too.

5. Get your facts straight. Although I do not document most of the assertions I make in my posts (this isn't a scholarly blog, after all), I do make sure I get my facts from reputable sources. If I say, for example, that x number of people are estimated to have been killed in y event, I didn't make those numbers up. You do likewise.

6. I reserve the right to respond or not respond to what you write. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with what you wrote. I may not feel like responding to you, or I may be tired of the topic, or I may not have enough time to respond, or whatever. Don't infer anything from my silence.

7. I'm not interested in 'winning' an argument. If you wish to discuss an issue, then fine. If you wish to bludgeon me into cognitive submission, then don't bother. You'll just piss me off. See rule #1.

8. I reserve the right to make up additional rules at any time. You may be the inspiration for one of these rules. I may even name it after you. Consider yourself honored.

Cheers!

Why the Palmetto Post?

2012-01-02T20:27:00.000-08:00

I am now well into the fourth year of publishing this blog, and I thought I would take up some space to explain why I do this. It can't be for the fame and/or popularity, because as can easily be seen in my viewing statistics, practically no one reads this stuff. I do this primarily for two reasons. First, about twenty years ago I was given a word from the Lord that I should write. I wasn't told what to write about, but politics and world events are important to me, and these seem as good as any topics to expound upon. Second, I write because writing helps me sort things out in my own mind. A minor consideration is given to the fact that possibly I might change someone's way of thinking, but this doesn't appear to be happening at this point. Oh, well.

If you read the content of my blog at all, you will have noticed that I have had some significant changes in worldview over the last five years, and that change, about which I am passionate, fuels much of what I post here. So perhaps I should give a little testimony. After my conversion to the Christian faith, I became a typical Christian right voter. Ronald Reagan won his first term in office shortly after my conversion, and though I wasn't old enough to vote for him the first time around, I voted to re-elect him in 1984 and thereafter voted straight Republican in every election until 2006. Shocking, eh? Along the way, though, I kept wondering why the Republican party never seemed to have anything better to offer other than what they regularly trotted out. In 2007 I began researching candidates for the 2008 election cycle, and that is when I discovered Ron Paul, whom I had previously never heard of in spite of his long service in D.C. What very much attracted me to Dr. Paul was his strict adherence to constitutionalism. I was sure such a political philosophy would endear him to the Christian right, but boy was I wrong! The shocking manner in which Dr. Paul was treated by both the media and the Republican establishment was the goad that started me on my journey to political transformation. I began reading Dr. Paul's books, along with books and essays by Thomas Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, Henry Hazlitt, John Stoessel, Lew Rockwell, Laurence Vance, Chuck Baldwin, and others. I quickly learned that there was little substantive difference between the agendas of the traditional right and left, and that evangelicals in particular were being more or less strung along by the Republican party -- Christian junkies hooked on the socially conservative rhetoric by a party that repeatedly failed to deliver on any promises made. After Dr. Paul failed to secure the Republican party nomination in 2008, I quit the party and have been a happy independent ever since. That same year, I started the Palmetto Post, so I could have a place to rant, think out loud, and drag out my soapbox when I felt like it. I now have six dedicated followers, one of whom is me, and one of whom is a duplicate subscriber, meaning I have four unique followers. Whoo-hoo! The name 'Palmetto Post' was chosen to honor my progenitors, South Carolinians who fought in defense of their homeland during the War of Southern Secession. I hope this blog embodies just a bit of their courage, determination, and sacrifice.

I haven't yet fully decided where I fall along the political spectrum. In fact, I don't believe I fit perfectly into any particular ideology (who does?). I remain a registered independent, but my views are a mixture of libertarianism, constitutionalism, and even anarcho-capitalism, All of this I filter through the lens of a Christian world view, rejecting whatever I find to be at complete odds with orthodox Christianity. At times, the two, politics and faith, do not seem to mesh very well, and I confess both that I do not have (or perhaps have not arrived at) all the answers, and that others have done far better at articulating what I sometimes feel but cannot adequately explain. To these others I am indebted, and you will find many of them linked to in the left margin.

For true believers in the promises given to us by Jesus Christ and his prophets, as recorded in Scripture, these are indeed interesting times. I believe we may very well be far down the timeline allotted for the present world as we know it. 2012 in particular, with the fate of America hanging in the balance during the current election cycle, could be of greater than usual significance. Ponder these events with me, won't you?

Oh, It's Embarrassing Alright!

2011-12-31T11:26:00.000-08:00

Virginia's Attorney General, who is (surprise, surprise) a Republican, is expected to propose legislation that would allow candidates onto the state's primary ballot, even though those candidates did not get the required 10,000 signatures to be eligible. A former Virginia AG called the Virginia ballot process a "legal and constitutional embarrassment". What's truly embarrassing is that Perry et al either a) couldn't find 10,000 supporters in Virginia, or b) couldn't get their rears in gear and put together the organization necessary to get the 10,000 signatures. Now these sore losers are getting their lackey to use political chicanery to get them what they couldn't get for themselves fair and square. These same hypocrites didn't utter a peep when Gary Johnson was kept out of practically every Republican debate. It must surely be a sign of desperation that these people will resort to patently transparent means to get The Clones on the ballot.

The Santorum 'Surge'

2011-12-29T18:51:00.000-08:00

The latest Faux News headline says Rick Santorum is 'surging' in Iowa.

No, he isn't.

Santorum's poll numbers may be up (16% in the latest CNN poll), but he's still a long way behind Romney and Paul. Not surprisingly, Santorum's 'surge' corresponds with Gingrich's recent free-fall. It seems obvious that Santorum's up-tick represents mainstream neocons looking for the next not-Romney, and Since Santorum is the only not-Romney left in the field who hasn't yet surged and then flamed out, it makes sense he's the one to pick up the votes.

Bold prediction: Santorum will flame out, too. But even if he doesn't, there's little to distinguish him from Romney or anyone else amongst The Clones. This race will boil down to two competing ideologies: the business-as-usual neoconservatives (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman) versus the free market, sound money, reduced government, non-interventionist Ron Paul. One message represents the last best hope for America. The other represents a sure demise.

Bold prediction #2: If Santorum's 16% poll numbers turn into a 16% showing in the caucus, look for Faux and all the other Mordor-on-the-Potomac mouthpieces to loudly trumpet it as a major victory. They are desperate for anybody other than Paul to do well in Iowa.

Good-Bye, Gary

2011-12-28T17:20:00.000-08:00

Gary Johnson has withdrawn from the race for the Republican nomination and will seek the nomination of the Libertarian party. Mr. Johnson had some good things to say during the few debates he was allowed to join, and he comported himself with dignity. Now the choice really does narrow down to Ron Paul or The Clones.

Bring It On!

2011-12-28T16:26:00.000-08:00

Says here that Newt Gigrich thinks Ron Paul's foreign policy views are "...totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American." That's only true if by "decent American" Gingrich means economically ignorant, warmongering statists such as himself. Now that Paul is the front-runner in Iowa, the establishment clones are shifting into full-blown attack mode. What better way to show how much difference there is between them and the only decent candidate in the field?

If Chinese Troops Occupied Texas

2011-12-24T10:41:00.000-08:00

If Chinese Troops Occupied Texas

Why isn't the logic of this video more obvious to more people, especially Christians (Luke 6:31)?

Grasping at Straws

2011-12-17T21:12:00.000-08:00

Rick Perry, whose position in the polls has been slipping ever since the masses discovered that he is exactly as brilliant and articulate as George Bush the Younger, has trotted out the tired earmarks argument in an attempt to smear Ron Paul, the true model of rugged, Texas-style independence. Perry, like most people it seems, equates earmarks with reckless spending. But, like most everyone else, Perry doesn't seem to know exactly what an earmark is. An earmark is simply a request to have already appropriated funds designated for certain projects. Earmarks are not the same as pork, which is when additional budget items are appended to unrelated spending bills, thus inflating the final price. If a representative like Ron Paul does not request earmarked funds for his district, it does not mean those funds won't be spent -- they will either be designated by other representatives for other districts, or, if not used by the legislature, they will be farmed out by the executive branch. That money will be spent, one way or the other, so Paul is doing the right thing by seeing that his constituents get some of the pie. What Perry will most likely not point out, however, is that Congressman Paul routinely votes against the earmark-laden appropriations bills.

Nice try, Perry.

No Fear

2011-12-16T06:37:00.000-08:00

One of the candidates in last night's debate criticized Iran for codifying jihad in its constitution, but he needn't fear. Having something written in a constitution is no predictor of a nation's behavior. After all, just look at the United States.

"Jobs Creation"

2011-12-13T16:30:00.000-08:00

Anytime you read about government and "jobs creation", you should be very, very wary. Says here that the F-22 Raptor program is coming to an end.* The article also says some congressman were "...reluctant to scrap the F-22 program because of the jobs it created."

Excuse me??

Now hear this: the government never "creates jobs". Never. What the government does is take capital from one segment of the economy and transfer it to some other segment. For example, each Raptor costs $153 million dollars. For comparison, that's more than the payrolls for 27 of Major League Baseball's thirty teams. Or 41,351 80" plasma TV's, take your pick. So what the government does when it wishes to purchase one of these incredibly expensive airplanes is tax or borrow $153,000,000 and then give it to the politically-connected Lockheed Martin Corporation. The government doesn't earn the necessary $153,000,000 in the open and competitive marketplace -- it just takes what it needs (and the government monopolizes this right to take money by force -- if you try it, it's called theft). Every dollar the government takes is one less dollar you, the taxpayer, have to spend on things like plasma TV's. Since every F-22 purchased means that taxpayers will purchase 41,351 fewer plasma TV's, that means Sony et al will produce that many fewer TV's, thus requiring fewer employees to design, build, and ship them. So you see, government didn't create any jobs -- it just transferred them to a different sector of the economy. Fewer jobs at Sony, more jobs at Lockheed.

This is an oversimplification of the process, of course, but the basic premise is sound -- government taxing and spending transfers wealth from taxpayers to politically-connected sectors of the economy. Moreover, without such government wealth transfers, vast portions of the economy would disappear. After all, how many private citizens have the means and the desire to purchase an F-22? Or anything else produced by Lockheed Martin?

*Ending the F-22 program doesn't mean the government will save that much money. The Raptor program is just a tiny portion of the bloated Department of Defense budget. Besides, all that taxed and borrowed money will now be used to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters -- which also happen to be built by Lockheed. So only the taxpayers will still be taking it in the shorts.

The Debates Finally Get Interesting

2011-12-10T20:17:00.001-08:00

More doesn't always mean better.

With Cain having dropped out of the race, and the inconsequential Jon Huntsman nowhere to be found, the Republican debate in Iowa this evening became slightly more interesting than its predecessors. My take on the candidates:

Rick Santorum: Oh, he's still in the race?

Michelle Bachmann: Oh, she's still in the race, too?

Rick Perry: Rick said he was inspired by Ron Paul to learn about the Federal Reserve, and Ron Paul has been waging a virtually solo war against the Fed for over thirty years, so why vote for the paduan learner when you can vote for the jedi master?

Mitt Romney: Did he say anything other than defend his belief that he didn't support individual health care mandates for the whole country?

Newt Gingrich: Right now, he's thanking his lucky stars that no one other than Paul attacked him for being a serial flip-flopper.

Ron Paul: Paul easily defended his current ad exposing the flip-flopper, Newt. Paul stuck to his themes of sound money, limited government, and non-interventionist foreign policy. Paul was cited by two of the other five candidates for being an influence on their current thinking. Romney cited Paul as the only candidate whose supporters show up in droves to support him at the debates. No one successfully attacked Paul. No one even tried.

So, how much post-debate discussion did the Teflon-coated Dr. Paul get from the ABC News talking heads?

Not one second.

Once again, the media lapdogs continued their efforts to distort the race by talking endlessly of the so-called front-runners, Romney and Gingrich, while completely ignoring Congressman Paul.

Not gonna work, you media goons. After Iowa, Santorum will most likely be gone. Bachmann may well be gone, and Perry likely will not be far behind. Huntsman is so far gone, they're going to start putting his face on milk cartons. The race will be Romney, Gingrich, and Paul. And with only two establishment hacks to deal with instead of six, Paul's light will shine brighter and brighter.

Special kudos to Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos for the stupidest question of the evening, in which they asked each candidate to name the number of jobs they would create and the number of years it will take to create them. While the candidates are at it, why don't they just pick me some winning Lotto numbers, too? Paul was the only candidate who refused to directly answer such a lame question.

Thank You, Captain Obvious!

2011-12-08T11:30:00.001-08:00

Says here that our Bomber-in-Chief ruled out several options for eliminating the problem of Iran having one of our now-not-so-secret spy drones. A senior official says that Obama will not use special ops or airstrikes to take out the drone because such actions "...could have been seen as an act of war".

Duh!!

But apparently overflying other countries on secret military/CIA spy missions is not an act of war, at least not when Americans do it. I wonder if the same standard would apply were Iran to carry out such a mission over the U.S.?

Blowback

2011-12-07T13:49:00.001-08:00

December 7th ought to be a national day of reflection. Instead, it is a day when Americans are again inundated with the national myth surrounding our participation in the Second World War. (Before going any farther, this post is not an attempt in any way to belittle the pain and suffering of the thousands who perished that day, or of the many more thousands who perished in its aftermath.) Many will pay their respects to the Greatest Generation who prevailed in Europe and the South Pacific, but few will pause to ask, was it all really necessary? One of Ron Paul's greatest contributions to the national discussion, in my opinion, is raising the issue of blowback (a term coined by the CIA). Blowback is an astonishingly simple concept that few Americans seem to grasp: when provoked, our "enemies" will react, often in ways that are both unforeseen and unexpected. In many ways, Pearl Harbor was blowback from U.S. foreign policy in the Far East. The Japanese Empire needed raw materials, many of which it formerly purchased from United States interests. After the U.S. embargoed these materials, Japan felt compelled to look for them elsewhere -- in Southeast Asia. Going after those materials meant eliminating the other major Southeast Asia player -- the United States. Thus, U.S. foreign policy was a contributing factor in Imperial Japan's decision to strike at Pearl Harbor. That's blowback.

Understanding how U.S. actions lead to war with Japan ought to cause thinking people everywhere to question whether such a conflict may have been avoided. For example, why was the U.S. in the Far East in the first place? Upon what possible constitutional grounds did the U.S. justify its occupation of the Philippines and its close ties to to the dictatorship of Chiang Kai-Shek? Were there not other means of containing Japanese ambitions? That last question is particularly relevant in light of U.S. policy regarding the Soviet empire, a policy of containment rather than open conflict, and a policy that brought about the eventual collapse of that empire with only a fraction of the bloodshed.

In light of the hundreds of thousands of combatants that were killed, the millions more civilians killed or displaced, and the enormous economic toll of the war, shouldn't more Americans spend less time glorifying the dead and more time asking how they might have been kept alive? And perhaps if more Americans studied how past foreign policies lead to past open warfare, perhaps fewer Americans would be so fervent in their desire to use the same strategies again with regard to our current slate of "enemies". As 2,402 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen learned in the early morning hours of that day seventy years ago, ignoring the concept of blowback can be fatal.

The Iranian Bogeyman and the Perils of Moral Relevancy

2011-12-05T14:55:00.001-08:00

Putting Iran in perspective -- well worth reading.

George Orwell on the Evil Iranians

So, What?

2011-12-05T14:44:00.001-08:00

Says here NASA scientists have discovered a planet that might* be inhabitable. Now, as a science-type myself, I find some of NASA's achievements astounding: moon landings, pictures from the Hubble telescope, rovers on Mars -- all heady stuff, to be certain. However, the time has more than come to be asking, why do we have NASA anyway? You see, if people want to go searching through the galaxy for extraterrestrial life, that's fine -- but it's time for them to do it on their own money. Purely aside from questions about whether it is morally acceptable for the government to forcibly take money from the people and use it for such programs, the fact is we are broke, and extravagances like NASA should be among the first to be cut. If there is a demand for services like finding hospitable planets that humans will likely never be able to reach (this one is an incomprehensible 600 light years distant), then the free market will provide them. If the market doesn't provide them, then that is a strong indicator that the endeavor was a waste of money in the first place. It is difficult to justify an agency like NASA when hyperinflation may be just around the corner.

*The article says the galaxy might be "crowded with life". Any science writer who uses the term "crowded" with anything relative to the galactic scale needs to have his/her credential pulled.

One Down, Six to Go

2011-12-03T11:59:00.001-08:00

To no one's great surprise, Herman Cain "suspended" his campaign for the Republican nomination today. Cain found himself waging a hopeless struggle against mounting accusations of marital infidelity. I feel sorry for the man, honestly I do. None of us is free from moral failure, and this episode will no doubt be very painful for him, his wife, and his family to resolve. His marriage may not survive, but who knows? Bill Clinton seemed to come out OK after his extra-curricular trysts, but then he was a Democrat, and the voters seem to prefer a whiter shade of purity in their Republican choices.

Regardless of the cause, I am glad Cain is out of the race. Now there is one less voice competing with Ron Paul's message of freedom. And the fact that Cain will soon endorse one of the remaining candidates (not Paul, obviously) will only give further evidence that there is no substantive difference between the other candidates. The race is, and always has been, a contest between Paul and the Seven Clones.

Except now there are only six.

Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These Eleven Reasons by Dave Trotter

2011-12-01T09:49:00.000-08:00

An excellent piece:

Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These Eleven Reasons by Dave Trotter

Especially noteworthy is this last bit:
"One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: if you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neoconservative like Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third party ticket, and due to the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9%). That would undoubtedly reelect Obama.
Is that what you want?
Save your outrage and answer instead this question: given your less than courteous opinion of Paul, how can you possibly explain your sense of entitlement toward his supporters and their votes? Answer: you can’t.
Besides, even if Ron Paul did not run third party, and even if he were to endorse the neoconservative Republican nominee, his supporters wouldn’t necessarily follow his lead. I know I wouldn’t."

And I won't either. Since there is not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and any of the Republican establishment hacks, I will wholeheartedly endorse a Paul third-party candidacy, should such a candidacy become reality. I do not care one iota if that helps to take down the Republican party, a party I regard for the most part as a great evil. And, in the event he does not win the Republican nomination, if Dr. Paul declines to run on a third party ticket, then I will write his name in, as I did in 2008. I will never vote for another warmongering statist again.

More Rights Eroding

2011-11-29T17:54:00.001-08:00

The America you think you know and love is vanishing before our eyes. First, they expanded the definition of 'terror'. Now, they are attempting to expand the scope of the 'battlefield'. Next, they will expand the definition of 'combatant'. Probably not too long after that, people will start disappearing, a la Chile circa 1973.

Another Pointless Debate

2011-11-22T19:18:00.001-08:00

CNN aired yet another meaningless "debate" between the eight candidates for the Republican presidential nominee. I only watched about twenty minutes worth, but that was enough. With the exception of the lone candidate for peace, Ron Paul, the positions of the other seven clones can be summed up as follows: 1) They want more war. 2) They want more government intervention abroad. 3) They want more government intervention at home. 4) They still believe in 'guns and butter'. 5) They have never read Henry Hazlitt.

That the Best You Could Do, CBS?

2011-11-21T15:13:00.001-08:00

Clumsy, clumsy hit piece by Bob Schieffer. This is exactly why many people are flocking to alternative news sources.

Warning: There Are Seriously Deluded People Out There!

2011-11-21T09:34:00.000-08:00

I thought Faux News was taking a crack at comedy when they posted this this morning, but apparently the authors of the piece are quite serious. No, really -- they are! (Notice it took two of them to arrive at this brilliant conclusion.)

Epic Fail in the Making!

2011-11-21T09:25:00.000-08:00

The deficit panel is days away from failure. Seriously, did anyone expect anything different? Congress isn't the answer -- congress is the problem.

I Hear the Bell Tolling

2011-11-16T21:11:00.000-08:00

National debt passes $15 trillion, with no end in sight. Bunker-buster bombs to target Iran? More war, more debt -- how long can this last?

Plan B, Plan C, Plan D, Plan E...

2011-11-14T09:50:00.000-08:00

Big surprise out of Mordor: the Super Committee can't agree on how to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal trough over ten years. This, of course, should actually surprise no one, since the committee is made up of the very same Mordor insiders that created the mess in the first place. I think I may safely predict that the committee will come up with exactly nothing in the way of meaningful cuts. Meanwhile, true reformer Ron Paul (who was given less than two minutes of air time in the last so-called 'debate') has a plan to cut one trillion from the budget in one year, mostly by giving a lot of federal freeloaders their pink slip invitations to join the private work force. I said it before and will say it again: the time for half-measures and gestures is over. America is in decline, and the slope is steeper and slipperier than the average reality TV junkie realizes. Think the latest Not Romney, Newt Gingrich, has any idea on how to halt the slide? Hardly!

Honoring Some True Heroes

2011-11-11T11:38:00.000-08:00

On this Veterans Day I will honor three men who, unlike the dubious heroes of today's armed forces, actually fought to repel an invader from their home soil. Great-great-grandpa Emon fought with the 18th South Carolina Infantry and spent three years in a Union prisoner-of-war camp. Great-great-great-grandpa Franklin served with the 39th Georgia at the siege of Vicksburg. And great-great grand uncle Frank stood shoulder to shoulder with the Palmetto Sharpshooters all the way from Williamsburg to Appomattox Courthouse, being wounded three times in the process. Unlike the treasonous Abraham Lincoln, who violated his oath of office by contravening Article 3, Section 3, of the Constitution, these men acted honorably by putting their lives in harm's way to defend their homes and families from an unjust aggressor. Rest in peace, boys.

All Hail the Heroes!

2011-11-08T14:51:00.000-08:00

Faithful reader Lonnie took issue with my view that the word "hero" has been watered down of late. Says Lonnie, "Well either you see the soldiers as heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice, or you see them as mercenary scum, part of the tools of the evil empire. There's really no point in arguing about their hero status."

Au contraire, mon ami! There definitely is a point to be argued, that point being, are all U.S. military personnel heroes in the traditional sense? Again, I raise the argument because of the pervasiveness of the adulation the military currently receives in this country. Everywhere one looks there are yellow ribbons and "Support the Troops" bumper stickers. Many restaurants will offer the troops free meals on Veterans Day, and the NFL has declared the entire month of November "Salute to Service Month".

First, let's look at some definitions of the word "hero". Dictionary.com defines hero as "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities." Merriam-Webster defines the term as "an illustrious warrior...a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities...one who shows great courage." And thefreedictionary.com defines the word as " person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life."

Now remember, all these "support the troops" campaigns label ALL U.S. military personnel as heroes -- don the uniform and presto! You're a hero.

But are ALL U.S. troops heroes? The question is absurd on the face of it. All I need to do is identify one exception to the hero mythos, and the point is disproven. Were the guards at Abu Ghraib heroes? Were the trigger happy GI's at Mai Lai heroes? The answer is an obvious NO, so not ALL U.S. troops are heroes.

Now, some folks (maybe a lot of them) will try to argue that those soldiers were exceptions and that the average army Joe is a hero, even if there is the occasional nut job. But, again, look at the definitions of hero. Does the average soldier display "great courage" and perform "brave deeds"? In the first place, the majority of soldiers are never even placed in harm's way. Even in times of combat, support troops greatly outnumber combat troops. And I would point out here, dear reader, that every single one of these troops, combat or no, is a volunteer. They weren't placed in their current circumstances by some cruel twist of fate -- they signed on of their own free will. And many, if not most of them, are in it for the money -- and the money is very, very good. GoArmy.com reports that the average enlisted man receives a compensation package worth $99,000 per year: generous pay, free housing, free medical care, health benefits for life, education benefits for life, and other bonuses.

Think about that. Is a U.S. soldier, who signs on because he needs work and winds up a desk jockey in some non-combat zone, then earns $99,000 in tax-payer funded salary and benefits, is that soldier displaying great courage? Is he performing brave deeds? Why should he get free meals on Veterans Day when the LVN who changes my infirmed mother's bedpan is given no such consideration? Whose deed is more noble? Is a U.S. army cook or clerk braver than an elementary school teacher stepping into a classroom of fifth graders for the first time? Then why is one an unconditional hero, but not the other?

Now, some guy who charges an enemy machine-gun nest, lobbing grenades with his dying breath and thus saving his entire platoon, that might be labeled as heroic in the dictionary sense. But be honest, the vast majority of men and women who wear the uniform don't perform brave deeds and display exceptional courage. What we are actually doing by fawning all over the troops is creating a privileged class -- a warrior class -- and such a thing is far more in keeping with the spirit of the Roman Empire or Imperial Japan than it is in the supposed land of liberty.

Quick Thoughts, Week of 11/6/11

2011-11-06T18:06:00.000-08:00

Quick thoughts:

1) Reply to a Facebook post (not my reply and not my post): "Any and ALL muslims that condone SHARIA law should be deported from our country of freedom. Sharia law does not allow freedom." Every time I see one of these self-contradictory statements, I wonder if people actually think about what they write.

2) Condoleeza Rice thinks we should take down Iran's government. Yeah -- how's that working out in Iraq and Afghanistan, Condi? I shudder to remember I once thought that woman should run for president.

3) The so-called "super committee" is being urged by certain lawmakers to make "deeper cuts" and find "additional revenue" to "carve into the deficit more effectively". I might point out that Ron Paul has already proposed to slash one trillion dollars from the budget in year one of his presidency, without raising taxes. And he didn't need a committee to do it.

4) Everywhere I turn, I hear about all the "heroes" in the U.S. armed forces. Everyone who dons the uniform is supposedly a hero. The word has been tossed around so much, it no longer has any significant meaning.

5) Speaking of all those heroes, I recently read that U.S. military personnel are 30 times more likely to commit suicide than any of us mere mortals. That ought to give anyone pause to reflect.

6) Syria, Iran, Central Africa. Matthew 24:6.

7) Niners, 7-1. Who would have thunk?

Enjoy Him While You Cain

2011-10-26T17:40:00.000-07:00

The Republican party, taken as a whole, is in very sad shape, as evidenced by this Faux News poll in which Hermain Cain leads Mitt Romney by four percentage points. The issue isn't that it's Cain who is leading -- the issue is, that the GOP has jumped at whatever non-Romney candidate has offered his or herself up. First it was Michelle Bachmann -- her poll numbers are currently in the tank, and her entire New Hampshire staff quit on her. Then along came Rick Perry, whom everyone loved until he opened up his mouth and demonstrated his shallow thinking to the nation. Now it is Herman Cain. People supposedly love him for his "9-9-9" tax plan and his "...upbeat, direct speaking style." But seriously, does the guy have any thing of substance to offer? His tax plan does not actually reduce taxes -- it merely changes how they are collected. He has no plan for actually cutting government spending or reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. He has little grasp of foreign affairs. He has flip-flopped on abortion and on auditing the Federal Reserve, sometimes within the same interview. The man has nothing to offer that is significantly different from any of the other Republican "front-runners", but he's not Mitt Romney, and that apparently suffices for most Republicans -- for now.

Bold prediction: Cain's popularity is peaking. As the spotlight shines brighter on Hermain Cain, his flaws will become increasingly apparent, the influx of campaign donations will slow to a trickle, and Republicans will begin desperately looking elsewhere for the next not-Romney.

More Quick Thoughts

2011-10-18T19:46:00.000-07:00

Quick Thought #1
Saw part of the CNN Republican debate tonight. Complete waste of time! These debates settle nothing -- the candidates spent gobs of time arguing and attacking each other over peripheral matters. Not to belittle the problem, but this country is not being done in by illegal immigration -- it is being slowly drowned in debt due to government spending run amok. Only Ron Paul has put forth a plan that will significantly cut spending in year one, not somewhere down the road.

Quick Thought #2
I saw the anti-bullying program Rachel's Challenge today, a program inspired by the life and tragic death of Rachel Joy Scott at Columbine High School in 1999. The goal of Rachel's Challenge, inspiring kids to show kindness, is laudable, but I left the auditorium disappointed. Rachel Scott made a difference because she had faith in Jesus Christ, a fact conspicuously omitted during the presentation. Without Christ, Rachel's Challenge becomes just another humanist attempt to change behavior without addressing its root causes, and ultimately all such attempts fail. I don't think that is what Rachel would have wanted.

Quick Thoughts

2011-10-14T14:40:00.000-07:00

Quick Thought #1
From the U.S. State Department comes a disturbing report that the last public church in Afghanistan closed. Is this what the Christian Right really wanted after ten years, almost a half-trillion in expenses, and nearly 2,700 coalition dead? Not only has our much-vaunted "global force for good" helped create conditions that have forced any Afghan believers underground, but the U.S. has also resurrected the Afghan heroin trade, controlled by Tajik and Uzbek warlords nominally allied with the U.S. Great work, people!

Quick Thought #2
Not content to be fighting only in Central Asia, President O-bomber has now dispatched U.S. troops to Central Africa as well. Supposedly there only in an advisory capacity (yeah, right), how long will it be before they find themselves in a shooting match? Remember, we started out in Viet Nam in an advisory capacity, too. Neocon do-gooders will no doubt applaud this as another bold humanitarian move, but savvy strict constructionists will lament another unconstitutional overreach of executive power. And besides, who's going to pay for all this, since we're broke?

Quick Thought #3
Want to see how the Republican presidential campaign saga will unfold? Follow the money! Romney has money. Perry has money (but not much else). Ron Paul has money. Cain, the current Tea Party darling, has a third as much money as Paul. Santorum, Huntsman, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Johnson essentially have no money -- at least not enough to mount a credible campaign threat. The race will boil down to Romney, Perry, and Paul -- two establishment shills against one man of principle. When that glorious day arrives when all the also-rans finally bow out, at last finally, hopefully we will have some genuine debate on the issues, and maybe just maybe the message of liberty will have a fighting chance.

Quick Thought #4
Representative Jesse Jackson has called on the government to spend an additional $804 billion to hire every out-of-work American. I can only wonder, who in their right mind elects such an economically challenged simpleton??

Whiners

2011-10-12T13:23:00.000-07:00

It seems our Masters in Mordor have their righteous shorts in a bunch again over allegations that Iran plotted to bump off a few undesirables. Because, of course, Mordor never, EVER stoops to such a low tactic as assassination.

Uh-huh.

Clueless-in-Chief

2011-10-06T13:17:00.000-07:00

President Obama continues his quest to be the 21st century's Robin Hood by proposing that millionaires pony up another 5% of their wealth to fund another government boondoggle disguised as a "jobs bill". How exactly this "jobs bill" is supposed to be any more successful than TARP or quantitative easing is anybody's guess.

Meanwhile, Obama says, with regards to Solyndra, the solar energy black hole that sucked away $530 million in government loans before going belly up, "There were going to be some companies that did not work out. Solyndra was one of them. The Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgment." Of course, in a true market economy, which Obama knows nothing of, people put their own money at risk, and sometimes they lose their own money. Obama thinks it's just dandy to put someone else's money at risk and oh, well if the government loses it.

"We the people are coming." But what will be left when they arrive?

2011-10-05T13:06:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I received this disturbing email (I omitted a few of the less relevant photos). My responses follow.
************************************************************

Sure wish we would continue passing this one around until "someone" gets the message!!

Now this is customer service!

GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a Christian nation, land of the free and home of the brave.

How may I help you?

Press '1' for English.
Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English

And remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ

And the American Soldier.

One died for your soul,

The other for your freedom.

If you agree. Keep it going

2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

I'M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!!

Let’s Take a stand!!!

Borders: Closed...

Language: English only...

Culture: Constitution and the Bill of Rights!!!

Drug Free: Make a drug screen mandatory for anyone on welfare and/or food stamps!

NO freebies to Non-Citizens!

We the People are coming

Only 86% will send this on.

“Should be a 100%”. What will you do?

************************************************************

And now, my response.

1) There is no biblical basis for the concept of a 'Christian nation'. At best, one might argue that U.S. law was originally built upon the Judeo-Christian ethic inherited from our Western European progenitors. Not only is the modern nation-state (such as America) a fairly recent political entity unknown in New Testament times, but the notion that America is 'Christian' flies in the face of cool objectivity. Consider that America is the largest consumer of illegal hard drugs, the largest producer of pornography, a land of unrestricted abortion, the largest arms exporter, and the world's most ardent adherent of aggressive foreign policy. Are these the marks of a 'Christian' nation? Hardly!

2) The U.S. may have been 'free' in 1788 upon the ratification of the Constitution, but our freedoms have been under constant attack since then. Since 1865, we no longer have the freedom, claimed in the Declaration of Independence, to form a government of our own choosing. Since 1913, the federal government can take a percentage of your personal income against your will and imprison you if you resist. The USA-PATRIOT Act allows the federal government to spy on you without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sobriety checkpoints violate your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. And as of Friday, September 30th, 2011, the federal government can have American citizens assassinated without due process. At this point, 'land of the free' is just an empty slogan.

3) The comparison of Jesus Christ to American soldiers, if not outright blasphemous, is very close to being so. First of all, the freedom that Christ died to provide is freedom from the curse of sin. No American soldier, not one, can provide that kind of freedom. The freedom that Christ gives is far and away above the temporal 'freedoms' supposedly defended by soldiers. Moreover, 'defending freedom' is a dubious and ambiguous term as easily appropriated by our enemies as by us. After all, the Taliban see themselves as defenders of freedom, and we also once called them 'freedom fighters' back when their actions served our political purposes. And to this it must be added that there have been many undeniable and brutal incidents of atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers, running the gamut from rape to torture to murder -- including genocide. And, as previously mentioned, the 'freedoms' our soldiers are supposedly defending are rapidly disappearing. Why aren't our brave men and women obeying their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution?

4) God bless America? What about blessing those that curse you, praying for those who mistreat you, and loving our enemies (Luke 6:28, Matt. 5:44)?

5) "A nation of sheep" is one that keeps electing statists from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum, expecting one or the other to make a difference in spite of all overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "A nation of sheep" is one that clings to the myth of American exceptionalism and applauds its export abroad at the point of a bayonet that is costing taxpayers $1.3 trillion per year.

6) "Only 86% will pass this on." I am one of the 14% that will not pass it on, and I pray that the eyes of the 86% will be opened to the folly of pretending that flag-waving, jingo-regurgitating nationalism is somehow compatible with New Testament discipleship

U.S. Foreign Policy: Keeping You Safe by Making You less Safe

2011-10-01T15:54:00.000-07:00

Screams the Faux News headline: "U.S. Warns of Possible Retaliation".

Feds Warn of Possible Revenge Attacks After American Cleric’s Death

And the neocon pundits scoff when Ron Paul speaks of blow-back -- go figure!

Mob Rule

2011-09-30T08:40:00.000-07:00

There's rejoicing in Mordor on the Potomac today -- al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki died in a Predator drone strike in Yemen. Regardless of one's personal feelings about al-Qaeda in general and al-Awlaki in particular, this episode raises several very disturbing issues.

Foremost among these issues is the fact that al-Awlaki was an American citizen -- he was born in New Mexico. And because he was a citizen, the Constitution guaranteed him certain rights ("guaranteed" -- past tense, since these protections are apparently no longer inviolable), one of which is the right to a trial by jury. Even acts of treason (which includes by definition waging war against the U.S., which al-Awlaki certainly did) do not negate this right. al-Awlaki was never tried. Instead, he was placed on a "kill or capture" list by the U.S. government. Such a list ought to make every American uncomfortable, for it is tantamount to a hit list. And while most of us may little concern ourselves with such a list, populated as it is with "terrorists", what will we do in the days and years ahead as the list is gradually expanded, as it most assuredly will be? How will Americans react when Predator drones rub out a "suspected militant" not in far-off Yemen, but somewhere within our own borders? Do you think it couldn't happen here? Or do you just believe it couldn't happen here?

Speaking of "suspected militants", that is the second disturbing issue raised by the article. The operative word in "suspected militant" is "suspected". A suspected militant is not a convicted militant, therefore killing a "suspected militant" is nothing more than an extra-judicial murder. The term "suspected militant" is a weasel word. It is a CYA word the CIA and other government agencies use to give a veneer of respectability to their death-dealing. We might be uneasy if we knew the government was running around killing unidentified Yemenis, but "suspected militants" are icky, like cockroaches.

Most Americans are still blissfully ignorant of the concept of blow-back -- they snigger when Ron Paul explains the unforeseen repercussions of U.S. foreign policy. But rest assured, there will be blow-back from these CIA drone operations in Yemen. The Yemeni government, already widely unpopular and the focus of the on-going Yemeni uprising, is not endearing itself to the masses by cooperating with the U.S. Will Yemen join the growing list of former U.S. allies being overturned by revolution? If the parliamentary government of Yemen is overthrown, will Yemen travel down the road to Islamic fundamentalism? The answers to these questions are not likely to be pleasant (see Iran, Egypt, Libya).

Astute observers may notice that the death of al-Awlaki will abate the War on Terror not one whit. After all, look at how many so-called "al Qaeda number two's" have been offed over the years, and yet here we are, still sending young men and women off to be killed and maimed to "defend our freedom". It won't be long before Mordor identifies the next big al-Qaeda threat and sends the drones off looking for him. In a month, or six months, or a year, we'll read about some dangerous al-Qaeda leader dying in a rain of Hellfire missiles. His value will be loudly trumpeted -- a "dangerous" and "difficult to replace" key figure linked to numerous thwarted attacks. But like Oceania in Orwell's 1984, we will never run out of enemies, despite all these successful hits. Mordor needs bogeymen to keep the sheeple distracted.

The New Republican Front-Runner is Romney. No, Wait -- It's Bachmann. Uh, I Mean, Perry. Or Is It Cain?

2011-09-28T21:15:00.000-07:00

The lunacy of the current race to be the Republican nominee for president is evident in this Faux News article claiming that Herman Cain is now a "top tier" candidate. Truth is, the average Republican does not know what he wants. First he wanted Romney, but Bachmann, Perry, and now Cain have each had their turn in the front-runner spotlight. Ironically, the Faux News poll also claims that Republicans are "satisfied" with the current slate of candidates, even at a time when most of them were fervently hoping that New Jersey governor Chris Christie would enter the race (he says he won't).

The average Republican is also incredibly gullible, a fact amply demonstrated by poll respondents thinking there is actually any significant difference between any of the so-called front-runners. Regardless of whom they might choose from among Romney, Perry, Bachmann, and Cain, they will get a candidate who supports the status quo. The only candidate who offers any meaningful, significant change, based on a consistent 30-year voting record and considerable body of written work (real books, not the lightweight bios offered up by Johnny-come-lately's like Perry, Bachmann, and Romney), is Ron Paul. Those who think that Cain is somehow any different from the rest of the Republican pack might want to ask themselves, 1) Why did Cain support TARP?; 2) What is Cain's position on interventionism? (He supports it.); 3) Why did Cain say, prior to the onset of the recent recession, that the U.S. economy was in good shape?; 4) How does Cain intend to reduce the national debt? (Hint: His "9-9-9 Plan" is "revenue neutral".); and 5) Why did Cain serve four years as the chairman of a U.S Federal Reserve bank?

At this point, barring a Ron Paul presidency, it matters little who occupies the White House after January of 2013. I believe the nation is already far, far down the road to economic ruin, and no one among the candidates, except Paul, saw this coming, nor knows anything about its causes and cures. Tweaking the tax code here and looking for a little fraud and waste there will have not the least effect on the coming train wreck. Frankly, at this late hour even the good doctor may not be able to avert the disaster.

But at least he would try, which is far more than can be said of any of the "front-runners".

Faux News -- Where "Fair and Balanced" is Synonymous with "Painfully Obvious Bias"

2011-09-21T09:25:00.001-07:00

Surprise! Another shockingly bad piece of "jornalism" from the pathetic statists at Faux News. The article describes each of the Republican candidates' chances in a head-to0-head contest against Obama, except -- whoops! -- the only candidates discussed are the 'front-runners' Perry, Romney, and Bachmann. As if to further underscore Faux's obvious bias against Congressman Ron Paul, no mention was made of the recent polls that have Dr. Paul in a statistical dead heat with Obama. And as if that omission wasn't enough, Faux went out of their way to damage their credibility even further by stating that Dr. Paul "...is considered offbeat on foreign policy". Offbeat by whom, Faux News? Since Dr. Paul's foreign policy views are based on the ideals of constitutionally limited government, I guess that means that the framers of that once-relevant document were also "offbeat". Truth is, Dr. Paul's foreign policy views are only considered "offbeat" by the warmongering statists within both the major political parties, as well as their media shills, like Faux.

Shame on you, Faux News! While Hannity and O'Reilly throw hissy-fits over the supposed evils of the liberal media, Faux pursues its own equally deceptive agenda, seeking to steer the ill-informed neocon masses toward safe candidates like Perry and Romney. Meanwhile, the title of the article, "Debate Offers Chance for Breakout in 2012 GOP Field", is equally deceptive. Once again, there will be too many voices and too little time. I can virtually guarantee that Faux will attempt to marginalize everyone except the three anointed 'front-runners', and I expect that they will save their worst for Dr. Paul. Tune in and watch the true colors of Faux put on nauseating display.

Tea Party R.I.P. : Thoughts on the 'Debate'

2011-09-12T21:03:00.000-07:00

As I stated in my previous post, this was hardly a 'debate' in any meaningful sense of the word. At best, it was a forum for seeing who could get off the most memorable one-liner, and who could the lame-stream media best bully and/or marginalize.

This is going to be a long post, so bear with me.

Once again, random thoughts, in no particular order:

1.) Many candidates spoke of 'reducing' some department or the other (Cain mentioned a "regulatory reduction commission" for the job -- uh-huh, sure), but only one candidate (Ron Paul, who else?) actually said he would eliminate a department (specifically, the Department of Education). Of course, Paul is also on record as favoring abolition of the Federal Reserve, something none of the other candidates would do, demonstrating that Paul alone understands the role of the Fed in creating the various 'bubbles' and destroying the value of the dollar. Incredibly, when the candidates were asked about their positions vis a vis the Fed and its chairman, Ben Bernanke, Paul was skipped completely, which is stupefying considering that this has been Paul's particular area of expertise for over thirty years.

2.) I have a gut feeling that Perry will flame out soon. He has too many skeletons in his closet, and he is not smooth under pressure. He could possibly survive either of these flaws taken individually, but together, I see them as a candidacy killer.

3.) Cain's so-called '9-9-9 plan' is frightening. Does anyone truly want the federal government taking 9% of your earnings every year and taxing you 9% on every purchase you make?

4.) Once again, the debate 'moderator' (in this case, Wolf Blitzer) was a disgrace. In addition to attempting to cut Congressman Paul off during one response, Blitzer persisted in badgering Dr. Paul on a hypothetical health care issue. The question was an idiotic attempt to once again smear Dr. Paul as lacking compassion. The attempt fell flat on its face when Dr. Paul correctly turned the question into one of personal responsibility. These thinly veiled attempts by the media to determine the outcome of the political discussion in this country is reprehensible.

5.) Once again, media favorite Perry received a lot of face time. Was it any coincidence that Romney (the original 'front runner'), Bachmann (the first 'Tea Party' darling), and Perry (the second 'Tea Party' darling) shared center stage next to each other? Not only did Perry field a lot of questions, but he was also given ample rebuttal time. I don't think it helped much, though.

6.) Huntsman is probably done. Several of his responses sounded like the last-chance pronouncements of a desperate man. Responding to a statement by Perry that Texas cannot "secure its border" (which is true, by the way -- just ask the former East Germany), Huntsman labeled such a statement as "almost treasonous". Huntsman's grasp of Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution is obviously tenuous. In addition to flinging several other barbs, Huntsman revealed his statist colors when he said we needed a "fixed Department of Homeland Security".

7.) Rick Santorum actually had the audacity to say he believes in "American exceptionalism" -- he actually used the term! I was stunned! Santorum is a fool. He has no grasp of history, neither the past nor the present, and should he become president, he would repeat the failed foreign policy disasters of his predecessors. He is an unabashed warmonger, and would no doubt drive the country into financial ruin with his crusade to spread the American ideal abroad -- poverty and despair at home, but at least it would be draped in Old Glory. With the exception of Paul, none of the other candidates promises any hope on this issue, either. Gingrich said the country is approaching a "national security crisis", and Perry said we need a "continued presence" in Afghanistan even beyond the cessation of combat operations.

8.) The 'Tea Party' audience showed just how co-opted and corrupted the Tea Party has become when they booed Dr. Paul as he quoted our enemies' own stated reasons for attacking us instead of parroting the official, state-sanctioned myths. I predicted exactly such a corruption back in 2008. The original Tea Party movement, born out of the Paul 2008 campaign, was built on the twin themes of fiscal responsibility and non-interventionism; the neocons latched on to the former and slowly extinguished the latter, to the point that the Tea Party, as it is currently constituted, is indistinguishable from the neocon rabble of prior campaigns. The Tea Party was birthed in hope -- it has now joined the Republican majority at the altar of hubris.

Watching these debates has, for me, become somewhat of a depressing proposition. When I hear the neocon drivel being spewed by the 'front runners', combined with the patently obvious attempts of the media to defame, ridicule, and marginalize the only candidate offering any chance at real, substantive change (Paul - a man with a thirty-year track record of voting for constitutionally-limited government)), combined with watching audiences lap up and applaud the deception, I am inclined to lose hope. Honestly, I do not see this ending well. On the other hand, I rejoice when I remember that my first (and actually only) allegiance is to the King of Kings and his coming kingdom, whose capital is a city "whose architect and builder is God". Ultimately, all human political systems will fail; it looks, though, as if ours will fail much sooner than most people think.

Useless Debates, Pt. Whatever -- I Lost Count

2011-09-12T17:53:00.000-07:00

Watching the CNN/'Tea Party' debate. Again, too many participants, too many voices, too little time. There is very little to be learned about any of the candidates during these dog & pony shows. Study the positions, people, study the positions.

Stupid vs. Frickin' Stupid

2011-09-12T16:46:00.000-07:00

Throwing a fourth-quarter interception, with the game on the line, when the only guy open is an opposing defender, is stupid. Can ya hear me, Tony Romo?

But the federal No Child Left Behind Act is frickin' stupid. As in wholesale, top-to-bottom, inexcusably, totally, horribly, unabashedly, unfathomably stupid. I mean, STUUUUUUUU-PID!!

Today I received irrefutable proof in the mail of NCLB's stupidity. I have three school-age children in my household. One of them attends a school with an Academic Performance Index (API) score of 835; the other two attend a school whose score is 760. The state target score for all schools is 800. Now, in this state, 760 is a very good score for a school, and 835 is an awesome score -- the mark of an elite school.

But our 835 school is in year two of 'program improvement', meaning the state is threatening to take some drastic measures if our school doesn't get even better than its current awesomeness. Why? Because our school failed to meet its 'adequate yearly progress' (AYP) targets. If you don't know what AYP is, let me give you an analogy. Our school is like George Brett hitting .390; the state says next year we better be like Ted Williams hitting .406 -- or else!

To demonstrate the mind-numbing stupidity of NCLB, the law requires that 'under-performing' schools notify parents of their right to have their child transferred to another school within the district. Thus, I received three such notifications today, of three pages each. Mind you, all this photocopying and mailing is required of a school district horribly strapped for cash.

And the funny part? Our district has only one other school that my kids could transfer to.

And its API scores are lower than those of the schools my children attend.

FAR lower.

So, the federal government says I must be notified of my right to transfer my children to a worse school.

Brilliant.

No -- make that, frickin' stupid.

What IS that vile stench???

2011-09-12T09:43:00.000-07:00

Today's front page at Faux News is a rich, rich milieu of headlines shouting the rottenness of Mordor-on-the-Potomac to the heavens.

a) Pawlenty endorses Romney. Did you really think there is any significant difference between Pawlenty and Romney, or Pawlenty and any other Republican candidate (except Ron Paul), or, for that matter, ANY Republican candidate and ANY OTHER Republican candidate (except Ron Paul)? Only one candidate - Ron Paul - will state on the record that he cannot, because of his political differences with them, endorse the other candidates. You doubt that? Paul was the only Republican to not jump on the McCain 2008 bandwagon (which ultimately morphed into a train wreck).

b) Obama's 'jobs plan'. What do you do if several rounds of multi-billion-dollar stimulus packages fail to stimulate the economy? Why, try another stimulus package, of course! Truly insane. BTW, for all you Perry fans out there, the governor likes them.

c) U.S. troops in Libya. You didn't think we'd seriously stay out, did you? Another day, another war. Obama has as much blood on his hands as any Republican. A pox on both their houses!

More Useless Debates

2011-09-07T18:52:00.000-07:00

I missed most of tonight's MSNBC debate at the Reagan Library, but what little I saw did nothing to change my opinion about either the debates or the candidates. As usual, the debate format was a fiasco, a mish-mash of poorly thought out and/or poorly worded questions, some of which were thinly veiled attempts at tripping the candidates up. Again, as usual, the media-anointed "front-runners" (Romney, Perry) got most of the face time, with a few tidbits tossed out to the others. It was interesting to see each candidate try to identify themselves with the Tea Party, a movement born out of the Paul 2008 campaign, and it was likewise interesting to watch the candidates vying to see who would fire Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke the fastest and audit the Fed, an idea also born out of the Paul 2008 campaign. Rick Perry seemed uncomfortable fielding questions on the fly, and tomorrow's poll numbers could be of interest. The person who made the biggest impact on me was Rick Santorum. It wasn't a positive impact, though -- I was slightly surprised to see just how low Santorum would stoop in his boot-licking worship of military might as a global force for spreading "America's vision" around the world. Thank goodness Mr. Warmonger Extraordinaire has no real chance of getting nominated! I will be pleased when the pretenders Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum, and Cain drop out of the race -- none of them has either the poll numbers or the cash on hand to mount a serious challenge. Once they are gone, and there are fewer voices clamoring to be heard, perhaps the debates can get down to some real, substantive discussions (though I kind of doubt they will).

A Test for a 'Christian Nation'

2011-09-06T16:56:00.001-07:00

I get really tired of hearing or reading comments to the effect that the United States is a 'Christian' nation. Without taking the time now to go into a detailed discussion of why I believe there can be no such thing as a 'Christian nation', I will suggest that there is a simple test for determining whether a nation is, in fact, anything at all like 'Christian'.

Here is the test: when a nation is afflicted, is its response

a) "...he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." (Isaiah 53:7)

or

b) "I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me." (Genesis 4:23)

Pretty straightforward test, I think.

Patriot Day

2011-09-06T16:05:00.000-07:00

Who comes up with the names of these things anyway? I see on my refrigerator calendar that September 11th is labeled as 'Patriot Day'. I like Lew Rockwell's name for that auspicious day better: State Failure Day. Let us enumerate a few of the ways in which the State failed us before, on , and after 9/11:

1. The State failed to properly identify Osama bin Laden as a threat to any and all non-Islamist theocracies. In fact, the State generously funded and supported bin Laden when he was viewed as one of the good guys during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

2. The State failed to act on credible information that the 9/11 attacks were in the works.

3. The State failed to use all means at it disposal, notably the Constitutional tactic of Letters of Marque & Reprisal, to apprehend bin Laden after al Qaeda operations prior to 9/11.

4. The State failed to allow airline employees, such as pilots and aircrew, to be prepared to counter hostile actions. Airline crew members were required to be unarmed, and the conventional wisdom was that crew members should not actively resist hijack attempts.

5. The State failed to locate bin Laden in Afghanistan, and when that entire operation failed the State quickly changed the mission to one of ousting the Taliban and installing a pro-western government.

6. Once the objectives of the original Afghanistan mission were not met, the State failed to withdraw, and it has since embarked on a ten-year-long crusade with no end in sight.

7. Building on the post-9/11 hysteria, the State fomented another war with Iraq, claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The subsequent invasion failed to locate any such weapons.

8. Having failed its original mission in Iraq, the State again changed the mission to one of establishing a pro-western democracy. That mission has also failed.

9. After claiming that the 9/11 attacks were an attack on our "freedoms", the State then proceeded to do more damage to those freedoms than al Qaeda ever did. The State failed to protect our liberty (its only justifiable function); instead, the State dramatically decreased our liberty with the imposition of unconstitutional laws (USAPATRIOT Act) and unconstitutional bureaucracies (TSA).

10. Thanks in large part to its heavy-handed reaction to 9/11, the State, by spending enormous amounts of money on its foreign empire and ratcheting up the national debt at a record pace, failed to protect the value of the nation's currency, which is nothing more than an unconscionable attack on the wealth of the nation's citizens.

11. The State has failed to be a peacemaker. Around the globe, the armed forces of the State continue to bring death and misery to occupied lands.

12. The State has failed to present the people with the truth; instead, the State continues to trumpet the same old tired lies about why we are at war. Instead of an honest assessment of its own actions, the State continues to worship at the altar of American Exceptionalism.

13. The State has failed to give its citizens any credible options with regard to its current post-9/11 policies. Instead, the State offers two flavors of the same brand of mercantilism. The State works in harmony with its media mouthpieces to ensure that this remains the case.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I like the fact that it has thirteen points -- one for each of the original thirteen colonies. Looking over that list, I think it's fair to say that Mr. Rockwell's name for 9/11 -- State Failure Day -- is a much more reasonable name that the misnomer 'Patriot Day'.

"Interfaith" Silliness

2011-09-06T15:56:00.000-07:00

It seems some evangelicals have their shorts in a bunch over not being invited to participate in a 9/11 observance at the National Cathedral. Considering that the program includes the Episcopalian Bishop of Mordor -- oops! -- Washington, D.C., a rabbi, a Buddhist nun, a lama, a Hindu priest, and two Muslims, my only question is, Why exactly do these evangelicals want to participate??

I Hate Fruit Flies

2011-09-05T16:21:00.000-07:00

I do. I despise them. Insidious little monsters. Too small and fast to easily track down with the swatter. Landing on oneself over and over, then darting away. Aargh!!

Those Crazy Republicans!

2011-09-01T22:09:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul is a 12-term congressman who has never voted for a piece of legislation not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. He has been a champion of individual liberty, reduced government, balanced budgets, sound money, free markets, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He is a family man, faithful husband, father and grandfather. As an obstetrician, he delivered over 4,000 babies, many to mothers who had neither enough cash or insurance for the procedure -- for them, he delivered their babies for free. Dr. Paul is also a devout Christian and outspoken advocate for the sanctity of human life.

And despite all this, 14% of Republican voters think he is "too extreme".

Wow.

Who Are 'My People'?

2011-09-01T19:17:00.000-07:00

I'm quite sure I came across a completely inappropriate use of 2 Chronicles 7:14 in a comment posted at Facebook. For those of you unfamiliar with the verse, it reads:

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

This verse was used in the context of a discussion on marijuana usage. Although it wasn't explicitly stated, I believe the commenter meant to suggest that if the people of the U.S. would repent, then God would heal the U.S of evils like illegal drug use. Regardless if that was the intended thought, it is one that is commonly held in evangelical circles.

Before I go further, I must first say that I do not condone the use of marijuana or other psychotropic drugs. I have never used them myself, and I believe a fairly sound case against their use can be built from scripture. But I don't think the kind of repentance envisioned by the commenter can "...heal (this) land".

And here's why. First, we must examine the verse in 2 Chronicles. To whom is it addressed? The speaker is clearly God, and the addressee is "my people, who are called by my name". In the Septuagint, the word "people" is the Greek word laos, meaning the common people. The form of this word will be important later in the discussion. God's chosen people in the Old Testament are the Israelites (Genesis 12:1-3) -- the name "Israel" means "struggles with God", thus the Israelites literally are called by God's name, el. The Israelites are God's laos. So the original intent of the verse is plain enough. God is speaking to Israel -- if Israel humbles themselves, if Israel prays, if Israel seeks God's face, if Israel turns from their wicked ways, then God will heal their (Israel's) land.

By now, some of my readers (all three of you!) may be thinking, "So what? Americans can still claim the promise." Well, that's where it gets a bit sticky, for several reasons, enumerated below:

1). The use of laos in the original makes it very problematic to apply the promise to the modern-day United States. Laos is a singular noun -- the Israelites are one "people". All of the Israelites (with a few notable exceptions, such as Rahab and Ruth) are descended from one man, Abraham, through his son, Isaac. The Israelites are essentially one large family, related by blood. The same was true for other groups in the Old Testament -- all those Hittites, Jebusites, Hivites, Perezites, and all the other "-ites" mentioned in scripture. Each group descended from a certain individual, and all the members of the group were related. Thus, the 'nations' of the OT are not the equivalent of the modern nation-states we know today. Today's nations are defined by territorial borders, and 'Americans', 'Russians', 'Zambians', and all the other "-ans" out there are heterogeneous mixtures of more than one laos. The fact that the translators of the LXX used the singular laos instead of the plural laoi makes it clear that God was speaking to one people, Israel; if God had intended the promise to be extended to groups other than the Israelites, the proper Hebrew equivalent for laoi would have been used. An example of this can be found in Revelation 21:3 where it says "they will be his people" -- the word "people" in that verse is laoi (plural), i.e. all of the families of the Earth, not just the Israelites.

2). It must be asked, did the commenter who quoted 2 Chronicles intend "my people" to mean only Christians in the U.S., or all U.S. citizens? Because, as we have seen, Christians in this country, coming as they do from many different peoples in the Old Testament sense, do not constitute a laos. Moreover, the people addressed in Chronicles are "my people" (emphasis mine). They are God's people. Does anyone seriously consider all Americans to be God's people? Bible-believing, evangelical Christians -- those who have received God's free offer of salvation in Christ and who are committed to being his disciples -- are an obvious minority in this country. Since most Americans do not have any meaningful allegiance to God, and many are outright hostile to him, how can they in any way be "(his) people"? Some might take the words "my people" to mean that the country is founded on Christian principles, but this would be a gross distortion of the plain meaning of the text.

3). The original if/then promise in Chronicles is in the form of a conditional covenant, i.e. if Israel does certain things (humble, pray, seek, turn) then God will do certain things (hear, forgive, heal). If Israel does not fulfill their end of the bargain, God is not beholden to his end. It is a performance-based contract. This is the Old Testament way of doing things. In the New Testament, God hears, forgives, and heals without us meeting any conditions whatever -- it's not about our performance, it's about God's grace. The forgiveness offered to sinners by Jesus dying on the cross and rising from the dead three days later was offered "while we were yet sinners" (Romans 5:8).

4). When the commenter drops the 2 Chronicles 7:14 covenant on us, what she really means is that she believes American Christians aren't devout enough, because, to her way of thinking, if we were devout enough, God would be healing our land, and righteousness would be breaking out all over, and everyone would be living in peace and joy. The fact that that isn't happening is proof to this person that we aren't humble enough, don't pray enough, and don't turn from our wicked ways enough. This premise is flawed. It may well be that American Christians aren't devout enough, but that certainly isn't true of the persecuted church in places like China, North Korea, or any Muslim country one cares to name. The church in these countries very definitely is humble enough, prays enough, and turns enough -- but God hasn't healed their lands. Far from it! Some of these places are among the most oppressive regimes on the planet. The fact that God hasn't healed these countries ought to make people stop and think for a moment. Does God keep his promises? I believe he definitely does. If he keeps his promises, and 2 Chronicles 7:14 is surely a promise, then not keeping the promise means either the promise was false, or our understanding of the promise is false. I believe the fault is plainly with Christians misunderstanding, and thus misapplying, the promise.

Does this mean that Christians shouldn't humble themselves and pray for their nation? Of course not! All I'm suggesting is that Christians are sometimes a little careless when it comes to proof-texting. When a verse is lifted out of context and applied to some other, inappropriate context, we run the risk of holding God to promises he didn't make. That neither edifies us nor glorifies God.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on Biblical languages, so it's quite possible I'm overlooking something. Got a different take on this? I'd enjoy reading your comments.

What's In a Name?

2011-08-31T09:52:00.001-07:00

Every once in a while, I just need to rant about something other than politics. Today's rant is about names. Being a teacher, every year I get a new crop of students whose names I have to memorize. This is getting harder every year, because I am getting older and entering that phase of life where short-term memory loss crops up.

My students aren't helping in this matter.

Actually, it is their parents who aren't helping. This year, I have twenty-six students whose names have variant spellings. You know what those are -- they're names like "Courtney", except they are spelled "Courtny", "Kortni", or some other awful variant. To illustrate that this is a problem, when I type in "Kortni" in this window, the word appears underlined in red. blogger.com's spell-checker is trying to tell me I spelled "Courtney" incorrectly. I don't get the red underline when I type in "Courtney". C-O-U-R-T-N-E-Y is how "Courtney" is supposed to be spelled. Why don't parents get this?

I don't know for sure why parents do this, but I think it is because of some ill-advised desire to give their children something unique, to make them feel individual and special. Instead, all they are really doing is dooming their child to a lifetime of having to spell their name to everyone they meet. Every time someone filling in a form says, "First name, please", Kortni will have to answer, "Kortni -- that's K-O-R-T-N-I." Afterwards, Kortni will have to bear some inane comment like, "Oh, that's an unusual spelling." Yes, it is. It is the moronic spelling offered up by parents who didn't think through the consequences of their lame attempt to flag their child as different from everyone else.

Same goes for hyphenated surnames. Usually I get, at most, one or two of these per year. This year, it's five. What's up with that? Whether its the parents aren't married and both want their name on the kid, or the mom doesn't want to follow conventional naming protocols by taking her husband's name, now the kid is saddled with some usually horrendously long last name. It doesn't fit in the spaces provided on forms. It doesn't fit on the jersey. It doesn't fit on the computer-generated class roster. And, since surnames often need to be spelled out to a listener, the child has twice as much spelling out to do.

You know, it makes me think the days when every other person was 'John Smith' weren't so bad.

Another Blog to Follow

2011-08-30T14:21:00.000-07:00

I added another blog to the list I am following. Thomas Woods is an excellent scholar and author on issues dear to lovers of liberty. His blog is definitely worth reading. Hope you enjoy it!

Rick Perry -- Latest Tea Party Idol

2011-08-26T19:59:00.000-07:00

According to this news item at Faux News, 35% of respondents in a recent poll, who identified themselves as Tea Party supporters, chose Rick Perry as their preferred candidate for president.

Those respondents obviously didn't read my previous blog post. You know, the one that says each candidate has the option of a) cutting defense, b) continue piling up debt, or c) raising revenue by 60%.

Perry has chosen option 'b', because he is an outspoken supporter of a massive U.S. military footprint, as evidenced by this quote: "I see an America that has the strongest defense in the world, by an insurmountable order of magnitude. I see defense technology that is miles beyond our allies or adversaries, and servicemen and women who are better trained and equipped than anyone. I see a functional missile defense system protecting us and our allies, and I see modernized fleets of ships and aircraft that are unsurpassed in their ability to overwhelm the enemy. I see a world where America promotes peace through the strength of her forces, which continue to be used to protect freedom rather than in conquest." (from Fed Up!, by Rick Perry, p.173). And, as I previously argued, you can't cut spending and reduce the deficit (supposedly what 'Tea Party' is all about) if you want to continue having a bloated military.

Sorry people, but Rick Perry is just another wolf in sheep's clothing. The evangelical right, in particular, is just ga-ga over him, just as they were over Huckabee and Bachmann. For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many Christians are so easily fooled; if a candidate is nominally Christian (Huckabee is a Baptist, Bachmann is Lutheran, and Perry is Methodist), attends a few prayer breakfasts, claims to want to lower taxes, and utters the proper pro-life shibboleth, these same 'pro-lifers' won't wonder at all about their candidate's apparent lust to be the next in line to send in the Predator drones and Hellfire missiles. By the way, that's kind of ironic, isn't it? All these 'Christian' leaders being on the sending end of a never-ending rain of 'Hellfire' missiles?

Only one candidate for president both claims Jesus as his savior and abides by our Lord's commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:31). Ron Paul talks the talk and walks the walk. The fact that the neocon warmongers have so much of the church in their hip pocket is contemptible.

The Real Decision

2011-08-17T16:35:00.000-07:00

Many Republicans suppose that the decision they have to make during the current election cycle is, which Republican candidate has the best chance of unseating Obama in 2012?

Wrong.

As I point out in my previous post, Republicans should take little comfort in the prospect of any Republican administration making inroads into the growth of the federal government. In reality, there is a much more serious decision to be made this time around.

But first, some cold, hard, incontrovertible facts. In 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government spent $3.456 trillion. Wish I had that kind of money! Turns out the federal government doesn't have that kind of money any more than I do -- they only took in $2.162 trillion in receipts (taxes!). That means the government spent $1.294 trillion more than it took in (Treasury Department figures put that amount at $1.7 trillion). All that red ink is piling up at an alarming rate: as of August, 2011, the national debt is over $14.3 trillion. That debt is bad, bad news, as the recent flap in congress over the debt ceiling hints, coupled with the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Simply put, the national debt cannot rise indefinitely. Sooner or later, as has happened in every (EVERY) other similar historical occurrence, the whole house of cards will collapse. In the case of the U.S., such a collapse would have dire consequences, because the U.S. is the world's dominant economy, and the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency. Thus, a U.S. collapse will trigger a domino effect of staggering proportions.

The only solution to this problem is an immediate and substantial stoppage of federal spending. However, the options for doing this are limited. When mandatory spending, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and interest on the debt, is subtracted from total revenues, only $55 billion is left over for discretionary spending. That's "billion" with a "b", not trillion. $55 billion in discretionary funds is not much to play with. In 2010, the federal government spent $1.349 trillion in discretionary funds; $689 billion of that went for defense.

And there's where the conundrum is for Republicans. Most Republicans are big on defense. Some Republicans think the U.S. needs to have the world's largest military capability, and that doesn't come cheap. But the savings have to come from somewhere. Let us suppose that the government cuts all non-military discretionary spending. That would be a savings of $660 billion. But that's not enough to balance the budget (much less have anything leftover to pay down the debt) -- another $634 billion in cuts must be found. And the only thing left to cut would be defense. And in order to make ends meet, the government would need to cut defense by 92%. Ouch!

Thus, the conundrum. Cut defense and balance the budget, or keep forking out for defense and tank the economy. Or come up with an extra $1.3 trillion in tax revenue.

Pretty sucky, isn't it?

So, next time you're listening to the candidates, listen carefully. Are they going to a) cut defense, b) continue to pile up debt, or c) raise taxes by 60% to close the funding gap. Those are the options -- that is the real decision.

I am not optimistic.

Any Republican Is Better Than Any Democrat

2011-08-17T15:38:00.000-07:00

At least, that's what some of my Republican acquaintances believe. I won't pretend to speak for all Republicans, but I assume that most of them, in wanting just about anybody (where the word "anybody" means any flag-draped, God-fearing, mom-loving Republican) other than Barack Obama as president, are looking for less government. I mean, isn't that the drum that Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry (the newly-anointed "top-tier" candidates) have been beating -- less government, less taxes? I'm pretty sure that's what the red staters expect they'll get from a Bachmann/Perry/Romney administration.

But will they?

In order to answer that question, let us look to history and ask, did previous Republican administrations deliver less government?

Let's start with George W. Bush. During the Bush years, from 2000-2007, according to statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, government spending (adjusted for inflation) increased by 29%. With two foreign wars started during the Bush years, of course the biggest increase was for defense, but domestic spending increased as well -- by 32% in constant dollars. During that same period, the GDP grew by only 17%, meaning that the cost of government took a much bigger chunk of the nation's wealth in 2007 than it did in 2000. In fact, federal expenditures as a percent of GDP grew by 11% during the Bush II administration. As a result of this government largesse, the national debt doubled during the Bush years.

Well, maybe the administration of George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) did better. Hardly. During the administration of Bush the First, federal spending increased by 8%, and the national debt grew 33%.

Same story for Reagan (or maybe he should be called Saint Reagan, based on how many times his name is invoked by the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls). Under Reagan, federal spending grew 23%, and the national debt increased by 110%.

In fact, one must go all the way back to the first term of Richard Nixon to find a Republican president who actually reduced federal spending as a percent of GDP, and even then the government still operated in the red. To find a president who actually made a dent in the national debt over an entire administration, one must go all the way back to the idyllic days of Harry S. Truman, who, it must be pointed out, was a Democrat.

That's six consecutive Republican presidents who have held office and failed to rein in the growth of the federal government. I have recently been called "stupid" for refusing to play along with the Republican charade, but history, at least, suggests that my lack of faith in Republican government is justified.

Bachmannia

2011-08-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll today. One headline called it a "thumping victory", although I'm at a loss to explain why having 3% more votes than second-place finisher Ron Paul qualifies as "thumping". Speaking of my man Ron, the media made sure once again to marginalize his accomplishment. Faux News and Politico.com each devoted two small paragraphs to Dr. Paul, but made sure that everyone knew that Bachmann is now a "top-tier" candidate.

As for Bachmann, she told her supporters, "We just sent a message that Obama will be a one-term president." Actually, the real message is that 28% of the straw poll voters are confused. No doubt many of them were attracted to Bachmann because of her supposed fiscal conservatism (she's 'Tea Party", after all). However, I don't know how Bachmann expects to reign in the debt while simultaneously promising she will do "everything" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power (she hasn't even ruled out a nuclear strike -- which would sort of make Iran's desire for a nuclear deterrent capability understandable, wouldn't it?). As Bush and Obama have demonstrated, these foreign wars can be pretty darn expensive these days, and as everyone now knows (maybe), there isn't any cash left in the country's kitty, and our credit cards are way beyond maxed out.

Speaking of the whole economics thing, I'd LOVE to see a one-on-one debate (a real debate, not one of these Faux News farces) between Ms. "Tip of the Spear" and my man, Dr. No. Anyone care to bet who would be on the wrong end of that thumping?

What About Rick Perry?

2011-08-13T19:08:00.001-07:00

Some of my evangelical friends are no doubt having fits of ecstasy now that Texas governor Rick Perry is officially in the 2012 race for the White House.

I only need to know two things about Perry to know he isn't The Man: 1) he endorsed war hawk Rudy Giuliani in 2008, and 2)when Giuliani quickly faded, he then endorsed war hawk John McCain.

As governor, Perry hasn't had to say much on foreign policy, but mark my words -- now that he is running for national office, it won't be long before he comes down on the side of foreign intervention, militarism, and empire. Just you wait and see!

The Great Debate

2011-08-12T10:52:00.001-07:00

Well, it wasn't actually a debate in the sense that each participant got to present a position on a topic and have the opportunity to rebut the position of the other participants. Faux News' Iowa Republican presidential candidates' debate was really a glorified Q & A session, and the format leaves much to be desired.

I'll get to the assessment of the individual participants in a moment, but first -- some impressions about the debate itself. In no particular order:

1) More reasons to hate Faux News. Is there any more blatant evidence of bias than when the host tells a participant (Romney), "You are the front-runner"?
2) Speaking of Romney, I am more convinced than ever that he is coached on his debate responses. He is totally packaged for TV -- suave looks, glib responses, immaculate hair. His whole person fairly reeks of slick politician -- ugh!
3) I love it when the host tells the participants to avoid talking points -- and then the very first participant response (Bachmann) does exactly that. Of course, there were plenty of others as well.
4) As I said, I hate the format. Eight candidates, two hours of air time, means each candidate had about ten minutes of face time, give or take. That's not nearly enough time to get a real feel for a candidate. Unfortunately, most of the sloths that vote in this country will not take the time to research each candidate's writings, speeches, and voting records to see where they really stand. Sad.
5) I assumed ahead of time that the media favorites, Romney and Bachmann, would get the most face time, but a post-debate tally shows that the speaking opportunities were not unfairly distributed, or at least not grossly so. Bachmann had thirteen opportunities to answer questions or rebut, and no candidate had fewer than eight such opportunities.

And now, on to the candidate report cards! However, I will not rate each candidate with a letter grade or on a numerical scale. I am only interested in one thing: does the candidate promote liberty? The preamble to the Constitution says, in part, that it was written to "secure the blessings of liberty". Wikipedia defines liberty as a "...condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions." Dictionary.com defines it as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control." So, when listening to each candidate, I listen for indications that the candidate will secure liberty. The opposite of liberty is varying degrees of government meddling; I listen for evidence of that as well. With that in mind, my evaluation of each candidate will consist of one simple verdict: defender of liberty, or meddler?

1. Mitt Romney

Romney used the words "trade policy" right off the bat. The term "trade policy" means that the government will have some sort of plan for influencing the marketplace. That's meddling. Romney said that he and Herman Cain are "...the two men on the stage who have worked in the real economy," which of course is patently false, since Dr. Paul ran a private medical practice, and Jon Huntsman is also a business owner. Romney supports the war in Afghanistan and is in favor of a protracted draw-down period. Romney also side-stepped a couple of questions and took several clearly rehearsed shots at Obama. Like I said, the man is simply too slick.

Verdict: Meddler.

2. Michelle Bachmann

Bachmann is currently the favorite of Tea Party types and evangelicals. Apparently she is a favorite of Faux News as well, since she received the most face time. Bachmann kept beating the drum of leadership, saying "people are looking for a champion" and "I was the tip of the spear". Based on her less-than-impressive track record as a representative, I would be leery of just how lethal her spear is. I suspect Bachmann is also less than totally forthright, based on her misleading response to a question about wives submitting to husbands (she equated biblical "submission" with "respect", which it isn't, meaning she is either dishonest or just a bad New Testament scholar). The biggest red flags for me, though, are her foreign policy statements. She TOTALLY supports the War on Terror, the war in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc., and said she would "...do everything to ensure Iran does not become a nuclear power." Everything?? Scary!

Verdict: Meddler.

3. Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty spent much of his time arguing with Bachmann about which of them was better leadership material. On the economy, Pawlenty used the term "growth targets" -- language that, as in the case with Romney, indicates Pawlenty believes government should have a plan for tweaking the economy -- kinda like a Five Year Plan, although hopefully without the gulags. Pawlenty also said Syrian president Bashar Assad "must go" and that he would pursue "every plausible action" to deny Iran nuclear weapons.

Verdict: Meddler.

4. Rick Santorum

Santorum spent some of his face time engaging in personal attacks on Ron Paul, which is understandable, I suppose, since Paul is kicking Santorum's backside in the polls. Still, Santorum went way out of his way to demonstrate that he is Not a Very Nice Guy and thus not very loveable. Santorum talked about "growing" the economy (there's that government tweaking, again) and said "Iran...must be confronted." It's pretty plain where he stands.

Verdict: Meddler.

5. Herman Cain

Cain seems like a nice guy, but according to his own admissions he is still catching up on matters that other candidates (*cough cough* Paul *cough cough*) already have a clear grasp of. Do we really want a president who is learning on the job? Cain had an unusual take on the Middle East, suggesting that energy independence is the key. "Energy independence", coming from the mouth of a political hopeful, is another one of those red flag terms. It suggests that he, the candidate, has a plan for that independence, and a government "plan" is meddling. Cain also said that the No Child Left Behind law "has faults", but did not suggest he would do away with the law entirely.

Verdict: Meddler.

6. Jon Huntsman

Is Huntsman even a candidate in this election? Well, supposing he is, what did he actually say? Huntsman didn't have many opportunities to express opinions that might indicate he is meddlesome, but there were a few warning signs. Huntsman said he would welcome additional candidates into the race if it "...expands discussion on job creation". Again, job creation isn't a legitimate function of government, but Huntsman wasn't real clear on whether his "job creation" would be anything more than tinkering with tax and regulatory codes. How much tinkering? is the question we should be asking. Huntsman also talked tough on border control and confronting China on cyber-espionage -- not exactly hallmarks of libertarian leanings.

Verdict: Probable Meddler.

7. Newt Gingrich

When Gingrich wasn't evoking the Sacred Name of Ronald Reagan (three times -- remember that strategy from the last election cycle?), he frequently sparred with the hosts over "gotcha" questions. Gingrich's red flag statements included saying, "Iran is on the offensive", expressing support for covert actions in foreign countries (e.g. Libya), and supporting "loyalty tests" for everyone in the federal government (what does a "loyalty test" look like? what does "loyalty" mean? who administers the test? etc., etc.). Gingrich also supports central banking -- a key component of government intervention in the free market. Bad sign!

Verdict: Meddler.

8. Ron Paul

Ron Paul's debate performances are notable for what he doesn't do. He doesn't engage in personal attacks on other candidates. He doesn't drop obvious sound bites. He doesn't give glib, rehearsed answers. He doesn't side-step questions. He doesn't spend significant chunks of his face time expounding on his own accomplishments. (He also doesn't come across very well on TV, but that only emphasizes the difference between him and prepackaged pablum like Romney.) He does, though, take every opportunity to educate and inform his listeners, such as when he gave a mini-lesson on economics in his first response, or when he totally showed up Santorum's lack of knowledge on the history of the Iran conflict. More pertinent to the discussion at hand, though, is the question, did Dr. Paul say anything during the debate to suggest that he is a meddler? The answer is an emphatic NO. In fact, Paul's statements last night demonstrate that he is clearly against government intervention of all kinds (economic, foreign, social, and monetary) and favors local control over federal control as far as possible. Dr. Paul is an obvious breed apart from the other pretenders on the stage, and one of the keenest remarks he made was when he was asked about the prospect of Texas governor Rick Perry entering the race. Dr. Paul said he welcomes Perry as the "status quo", and that Perry would "divide up everybody else's votes". So true, so true.

Verdict: Defender of Liberty

So, once again, we have had an opportunity to see and contrast the honest, knowledgeable, freedom-loving, and gracious Dr. Paul against the run-of-the-mill, interventionist, statist Republican clones. The choice is very clear: liberty, or more of the same?

C'mon, people! Choose liberty!

Some Questions to Ponder

2011-08-10T15:35:00.000-07:00

Some questions for my flag-waving, anthem-singing, "U-S-A"-chanting friends out there. Try to be honest with your answers!

1) Suppose some prominent Democrat, say Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, attempted to force all Americans to take an oath of loyalty to the United States. Would you?

2) Suppose local law enforcement targeted your next-door neighbor in a predawn drug raid, except they hit your house by mistake and killed your spouse and children during the raid. Would you calmly write that off as acceptable collateral damage in the War on Drugs, or would you be incensed?

3) Suppose your neighbor robbed you at gunpoint, took all your cash, and then gave it away to the other residents of the neighborhood. Would you be OK with that?

4) Suppose the TSA set up one of their new x-ray screening machines at your church and required everyone to pass through, or else be subjected to a pat-down search, before entering. Would that be alright with you?

5) Suppose you went to a sporting event, and everyone was required to stand while someone sang Deutschland Ueber Alles. How would you react?

Again, don't try to overly analyze these questions -- just go with whatever your first inclination is.

I may do some more questions later -- or not. You never know!

Mars Rising

2011-08-06T14:20:00.000-07:00

In the ancient Roman empire, a Roman soldier could shanghai any passing peon and force him to carry the soldier's gear for one mile.

We are rapidly forging a similar privileged warrior caste in this country.

Some people still naively cling to the myth of the U.S. "citizen soldier", but in this country, soldiers get perks that are denied to civilians -- and more perks may be on the way. Veterans have long benefited from the G.I. Bill, a government program that pays for college training, on-the-job training, and apprenticeships. Veterans receive preferential hiring for some federal jobs. And now, Obama wants to push through legislation that would give business owners tax credits for hiring veterans.

Military personnel are fawned over at just about every turn. Stories circulate on the Internet of uniformed service personnel being applauded in public places, like commercial airline flights. Professional sports organizations have special appreciation nights for military personnel; TV cameras then pan around the stadium showing soldiers and sailors while the announcers laud their "service". Military flyovers are practically de rigueur at major events like the Super Bowl.

The military branches themselves promote this sense of the superiority of the serviceman compared to the average joe. The Marine Corps recruiting
tagline runs, "The few, the proud, the marines." The Army says, "There's strong, and then there's Army strong." The Navy touts, "Navy -- a global force for good." None of these slogans needs much in the way of in-depth analysis -- each is, on the face of it, a slogan intended to convey that a marine, soldier, or sailor is a cut above everyone else, as if no one else can be proud, strong, or good without donning a uniform.

This point about adulating service personnel was brought home to me today when I checked into my Facebook account and saw that several of my friends had posted on their walls about the Seal Team 6 members killed today in Afghanistan. This, they assert, is a tragedy, and prayers should be said for the families of the dead soldiers (I don't disagree with this -- any loss of life is a tragedy). What these people completely fail to recognize, though, is the bitter irony of the situation. These U.S. soldiers (all volunteers, as I continue to point out) were killed by Taliban "insurgents" and "militants" using hand-held rocket launchers against low-flying coalition aircraft (a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in this case). In the mid-1980's, these very same Afghan resistance fighters were known as the mujahideen and were financed by the CIA (Osama bin Laden was one of the key organizers of the resistance). They used hand-held rocket launchers against low-flying Soviet aircraft -- and we cheered and applauded them every time they struck a blow at the Evil Empire. But now they are striking against the Empire of Global Force for Good, and that cannot be countenanced.

See the irony?

An even more bitter irony is that in the same Faux news article -- near the bottom, where few are likely to read it -- it was reported that NATO forces "inadvertently" attacked a house and killed eight people, including women and children. Eight more non-combatants killed in this pointless, needless, ruthless, interminable, insane war. Eight more people, made in the image of God, who needed to hear the gospel of peace with God through Jesus Christ -- but instead, we sent our few, proud, strong, good soldiers and killed them.

And no one on Facebook posted on their wall asking for prayers for the families of the innocents.

Shame on us.

"Too Big to Fail"

2011-08-01T17:00:00.000-07:00

Remember that phrase? It's the one we all heard back when the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP) deal went down. In other words, all those Big Banks just had to have government money thrown at them, otherwise they might fail -- followed by financial panic, global chaos, the apocalypse, and real men thinking Justin Bieber is cool.

I happen to have a credit card, with a small outstanding balance owed on it, issued by Chase. Lately, I have been annoyed by a series of radio commercials in which Chase touts its ever increasing number of bank branches. One cheerful-sounding woman says, "Wow! You guys are popping up all over."

Yeah, about that...

Chase, more properly known as J P Morgan Chase (as in John Pierpont Morgan, big-shot millionaire banker), is the largest bank in the United States and has over $2 trillion in assets. According to the website Propublica, Chase received $25 billion in TARP funds, which is OK, I guess, because at least Chase is BIG. I still find it annoying, though, to hear their jingle singing "Oh, we just keep on keepin' on..." when I know they're only "keepin' on" because they got a big, fat handout. I mighta liked to get some help like that from the feds on my underwater mortgages, but I guess I'm not big enough.

Or am I?

The Propublica site lists 930 TARP recipients, some with household names like Yadkin Valley Bank, Butte Federal Credit Union, and East End Baptist Tabernacle Federal Credit Union. Some of these institutions received as little as $7,000 in TARP funds.

Ummm...I thought TARP recipients were BIG institutions who needed BIG help? I guess Uncle Sam defines "big" a little differently than I do.

Smells like a BIG something rotten in Denmark to me.

Debt Ceiling Wheeling & Dealing

2011-08-01T16:38:00.000-07:00

So, the House passed a new debt deal. What does this change?

Absolutely nothing.

Ask yourself:

1) Does the deal eliminate any of the bloated, unnecessary, and unconstitutional federal departments or programs? (Answer: NO.)

2) Does the deal make any cuts to the single largest discretionary budget item, e.g. defense? (Answer: NO.)

3) Does the deal actually balance this year's budget or any succeeding budget? (Answer: NO.)

4) Although the deal speaks of a vote on a balanced budget amendment, does it actually require said vote? (Answer: NO.)

5) Does the deal make any dent in the national debt? (Answer: NO.)

Not only does the "deal" not do any of the things listed above, it will actually increase the national debt over the next year, thus increasing the country's financial obligations, leading inevitably to the next debt ceiling increase. On top of that, it spreads its "reductions" over ten years, which is as good as doing nothing at all, because a simple majority vote in any succeeding Congress can simply overturn the provision of the deal. And, as the final laughable attempt at fiscal restraint, the deal establishes a bipartisan committee to search for additional reductions. Yes, you read that right -- a bipartisan committee. Which, of course, is exactly what Congress is -- a large, bipartisan committee. And look how successful it has been at reducing expenditures!

This whole process is becoming farcical.

På Jakt Etter Terrorister

2011-07-24T16:47:00.000-07:00

In the hours following the recent attacks in Norway, western journalism outlets were quick to trot out the usual suspects, i.e. al Qaeda and/or other Muslim groups. Now that the prime suspect turns out to be not a shadowy jihadist fiend but a xenophobic Norwegian aryan, I fully expect Obama to send the U.S. military juggernaut into Norway to root out this threat to our freedoms posed by blond-haired, blue-eyed crusaders.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Attention, Brain-Dead Faux News Pollees!

2011-07-21T17:07:00.000-07:00

____________________________________________________
Attention, Faux News pollees! I have an announcement for you. I will say it slowly and use small words, so you might possibly be able to grasp what I am saying:

You...are...idiots.

There is no way to put this gently. You are uninformed ignoramuses.
____________________________________________________

OK -- that's what I was going to write, but I changed my mind. I don't want to alienate my readers (all three of them).

What roused my dander, you may ask? Why, Faux News (tagline: Fair...balanced. No, really!) ran a poll, and the top three Republican candidates for president were (drum roll!): Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann.

Now, this is a "free country" (debatable, as I have previously pointed out), and people can choose whomever they want to be president -- as long as they are willing to live with the consequences. And in this case, the consequences will be very dire indeed.

And here's why. As I have demonstrated in previous posts, the federal budget cannot -- repeat: CANNOT -- be balanced without making deep, deep cuts to either a) Medicaid and Social Security, or b) military spending. Only military spending is paid for with discretionary funds, so there is really only one choice -- the Empire must go!

This MUST be the new litmus test for any potential candidate. Continued astronomic military spending is drowning the country in red ink, which will eventually lead to economic collapse. This is the fate of all debt-financed empires. So if a candidate shows no inclination to get the military's snout out of the public trough, that candidate is a de facto supporter of economic collapse, simple as that.

So the question is, very simply, where do Romney, Perry, and Bachmann stand on military spending? All other political stances are moot.

1) Romney is an interventionist who has suggested that the number of Guantanamo Bay detainees should be doubled. After dropping from the race in 2008, he endorsed war monger extraordinaire John McCain.

2) Rick Perry likewise endorsed McCain in 2008.

3) While in Congress in 2007, Bachmann supported Bush's Iraq troop surge.

These three candidates (notwithstanding that Perry hasn't officially declared yet) are bad, bad news. Military interventionism is destroying this nation's financial underpinnings, and Romney, Perry, and Bachmann have given no inclination whatsoever that they would do anything to rein in the Pentagon beast. If you really want to elect one of these FCINO's (fiscal conservative in name only -- I know it doesn't roll off the tongue), you do so at your own peril.

2011-07-20T12:52:00.000-07:00

I about threw up my lunch when I read this headline:

Gang of Six Plan Brings Hope Washington Could Still Rescue America

Douglas Schoen, the brain-dead government love-slave who authored the article, wrote, "It is hard not to be excited by the news of the Gang of Six's resurrection. Their $3.7 trillion plan to reduce the budget deficit over 10 years coupled with lowering tax rates, eliminating loopholes, and ultimately raising $1 trillion in new revenue meets the broad outlines of the Bowles-Simpson Plan that was unveiled last December, and addresses most, if not all, the central concerns of centrist Democrats like myself."

I wonder, exactly which part of the Gang of Six "plan" gets Mr. Schoen so excited? Is it the fact that the plan, which deceptively uses the word "cuts", actually allows the government to continue to accrue debt to the tune of over $1 trillion per annum? Is it the fact that "new revenues" (i.e. taxes) will allow the government to take even more than the 16% of all U.S. wealth it currently takes per year? Is it the fact that the plan shows the Republicans to be the gutless, spineless, unprincipled, compromising, statists they truly are? Is it the fact that the plan does absolutely nothing to get the country off the road to hyperinflation and economic implosion? Maybe it's all of the above.

This poor loser thinks that Washington can fix our problems. Folks, Washington IS the problem.

Bias & Betrayal

2011-07-19T22:08:00.000-07:00

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the so-called "Cut, Cap, & Balance" bill (H.R. 2560), so there are at least three things we know the bill will not accomplish:

1) It will not cut spending -- at least not in any meaningful way.

2) It will not cap anything -- since one Congress cannot tie the hands of any succeeding Congress by legislative fiat.

3) There will not be any balanced budget amendment -- at least for another five to ten years, the time it would take to pass such an amendment and get it ratified, by which the time the national debt will increase by at least $7 trillion.

The very name "Cut, Cap, & Balance" is laughable. The Library of Congress' summary of the bill says it will "increases the public debt from $14.294 trillion to $16.7 trillion..." That doesn't sound like cutting anything to me.

Faux News pointed out that nine Republicans voted against the bill, but only named one of the nine. Any guess who it was? That's right -- media darling Michele Bachmann. Ron Paul, who has a 20-plus-years record of voting against such meaningless legislative schtick, also voted against the measure, but got no love from Faux. Why am I not surprised?

To my Republican friends out there: Is this the best your pathetic suits in Mordor can come up with? If so, then we're doomed.

More Bold Predictions

2011-07-15T15:16:00.000-07:00

Back in November, 2010, I made five bold predictions in the aftermath of the Republican midterm victories in the House of Representatives. To briefly summarize those five bold (actually not so bold, if you know anything about Republican politics) predictions, they were 1) no reduction in national debt, 2) no elimination of cabinet-level departments, 3) no end to the empire, 4) more tampering with the economy, and 5) more erosion of civil liberties.

I remind you, dear readers, of these predictions in light of this article at Faux News, an article which confirms several of my predictions.

The first two paragraphs of this article speak thus:

"House Republican lawmakers are strategizing how to get a debt deal done in short order and avoid any potential loss in the U.S. credit rating, saying Friday they will vote on legislation next Tuesday to "cap, cut and balance" the budget.

The legislation -- an extension of a pledge introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and signed by dozens of GOP lawmakers this week -- aims to reduce federal spending, impose spending caps over the next decade and require the eventual passage of a balanced-budget amendment to raise the debt ceiling."

Let's review that little snippet, shall we? The Republicans say they "...aim to reduce federal spending." Notice it doesn't say they intend to eliminate deficit spending altogether -- just reduce spending. I don't know how that fits with the $19 billion increase in military spending they passed last week. Well, actually I do. The increase was actually less than what Obama wanted for his wars, and in government minds, spending less than you want to counts as a cut. Nice how that works, eh?

The Republicans also intend to impose "spending caps". That would be great, except for the little problem of future Congresses not being beholden to such dictates from prior Congresses. Oops.

And finally, Republicans say they want to "...require the eventual passage of a balanced-budget amendment to raise the debt ceiling." That's nice. Did you notice the little part about "raising the debt ceiling"? Uh-huh. Does anyone harbor any illusions about how that will play out in the halls of Congress? 'Cause I'm pretty sure it will go something like this:

Republicans: "We'll agree to raise the debt ceiling if you agree to a balanced budget amendment."

Democrats: "OK."

(Ginormous budget is passed with new debt ceiling of a gazillion dollars.)

Republicans: "Great! Now, When can we expect a vote on that balanced budget amendment?"

Democrats: "When hell freezes over."

Believe it or not, both sides will be happy with that scenario, because the Dems will have their money, and the Republicans can pretend they tried to do something about spending.

Isn't politics wonderful?