Purely Political

Ron Paul: The Last Founding Father, Part 1

2012-02-11T23:49:00.000-08:00

Some say he's crazy. Most say, "I like his views on domestic policy, but I don't like his foreign policy." Some dismiss him as irrelevant. The media designates him as "unelectable". A few think he's just too old. However, all these labels and designations that try to define Ron Paul are just distractions that just keep people from understanding who he really is.

Who is Ron Paul, then? You wouldn't call him crazy in 1776. His foreign policy is basically the same as (maybe you've heard of him) Thomas Jefferson's. He's growing more and more relevant every day. Even though they say that he's unelectable, his support has more than doubled in the past four years. And as for his age: he's probably healthier than most men his age and some of the other Republican presidential contenders.

Four years ago, I was in the same camp as most of the establishment "conservatives" in the country. I was championing Mitt Romney because he was a Ronald Reagan fan (who doesn't claim that these days?), and he was for a strong military and killing the terrorists. I thought Ron Paul was annoying and had no business in the Republican presidential debates. It's amazing to think of how much my opinions have changed in four years. I've come to realize that Ron Paul is the last great statesman. He's a man of integrity that believes everything he says and doesn't apologize for it. He's a diamond in the rough in Washington because he lives his convictions and never sells out. He really seems to be incorruptible. He's also America's last chance to right the ship before she sails into a perilous storm.

Over the years it's become pretty apparent that both parties (the Democrats and Republicans) are moving in the same direction, but just at different speeds. However, the Republicans all claim to be Reaganite ultra conservatives. How can this be true though if both parties are essentially the same? Well, just look at the record. Clinton ran deficits every year of his presidency, and he did things like bombing aspirin factories in Iraq. Bush Jr. ran on a platform of not being the world's police and cutting spending, but spending exploded like never before. His two terms were up no sooner than we found ourselves in two wars that had no end in sight. Now we have a true 60's radical Marxist in the White House that has spent more than every president combined and has essentially had the same foreign policy as Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.. Is something wrong with this picture? It appears that it doesn't matter who the president is; the policies will always stay the same.

One might wonder: who's running the show then? I don't have an answer to that, but there is one evil that is suspect. That evil is the Federal Reserve. Contrary to popular belief, and contrary to the implication of its name, the Federal Reserve is not an entity that is controlled by the Federal Government. It is, rather, a collection of private banks (both American and International) that print our money - you know, "Federal Reserve Notes". Way back in 1913, during the dark years of a Woodrow Wilson presidency, and on a sleepy December 23rd congressional gathering of only a few representatives, the Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress. Its passage was followed by it being signed into law by Wilson. Years later in his memoirs, Wilson remarked that he "unwittingly destroyed [his] country" by signing it into law. Since then, the Federal Reserve has done nothing but destroy the currency and cause the boom and bust business cycle. Congress abdicated its responsibility to print money and legalized the most massive counterfeiting operation in American history.

The reason that it is important to understand the Federal Reserve is because it is the cause of so many of our problems, including the size of government. Since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, the Fed has been able to just print money out of thin air to finance a perpetual deficit spending spree that has gone on for decades in Washington. There is nothing to back the dollar other than the fact that the world still recognizes it as THE currency. But essentially what happens when the Fed prints money to finance deficit spending is that the value of the dollar is decreased, and it becomes an effective flat-rate tax on the citizens of the country (and really the world). Prices go up, and everyone's savings account is worth less than it was the day before. If we had a hard currency, and if the government was not able to print more money to pay for big spending, then the government would be forced to only spend only what it has. There would be no big entitlements and there would be no money for the massive spending overseas in foreign aid and war.

Some of the Founders, including Thomas Jefferson, warned against a central bank. Jefferson said, "A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army...We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." Look at the last century. It has been a century of perpetual debt and perpetual war. Ron Paul would work to end the Federal Reserve as quickly as possible. Ending the Fed alone work wonders to decrease the size of government. Big government would starve, and the people would be freed from the shackles of debt and constant war.

To be continued...

Call Me Crazy

2011-01-27T00:05:00.000-08:00

The State of the Union: the event itself is a mockery to the Union. The very notion that we are a Union of sovereign states is lost to a majority of people of this generation. We are citizens of the United States, but we are aliens - or "residents" - to the States, and that statement, carefully read, should inspire some kind of meaningful thought in us all. It should compel us to ask who, or what, we are to this nation. President Obama reported the state of the Union yesternight, and I would ask to whom he is reporting? To the States? What are the States, for they have no citizens? To whom then? This may all seem like nonsense, but sense it makes, and nonsense is our president.

It is of foremost importance to look at the origin of this country, from what it was founded, and what it was intended to become at the time. 1776 marked the beginning of our independence, but not as the America that we know. We were 13 States, or countries, that made the decision to bind ourselves together, to become confederate with one another; hence the term "confederacy". We had not a constitution, but rather the Articles of Confederation. It basically said that the states were friends. We had a Continental Congress that met and passed laws, but the power of that Congress was very limited. For instance, they didn't have the power to tax the people of the States. The states were sovereign, and the last thing the people of the States wanted was for some far away central power to be levying taxes on them. King George had done enough of that.

Following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the delegates of the Continental Congress made the decision that something more was in order. Difficulties had arisen during the war that illustrated the idea that it was in the best interest of the United States to form a more powerful government that had the ability to protect and secure liberty for all the States. The new government was to form "a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." The States, or the people, would be the ones to approve this new government and to give it power - NOT the other way around. The Constitution would clearly outline the powers given to the Federal Government, and it would also clearly define what it was not to do. Can we fathom this today? Can we really understand that the States held the power, and they, in order to secure the things stated in the preamble to the Constitution, sacrificed some of their power. And when we say the States, we mean the People. This must be understood: People, or each person, was king.

Most of us are no longer People; we are corporations. The Fourteenth Amendment created a new Federal Citizenship status in order to give freed slaves rights. As Federal Citizens, we are to be taxed and we are to obey the dictates of Congress, whatever they may be. That is the contract that we are bound to. Most of us were too young to understand what was happening at the time we entered into this contract, but when you and I signed up for social security, we renounced our birth-given State citizenship and became citizens of the Federal Government. We agreed that we would obey acts of Congress if we were to reap the benefits of our new federal citizenship. What are those benefits? Here are a few: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Insurance, the use of Federal Currency, receiving mail in your State of residence, having your money in the bank backed by the Federal Government. The question that must be asked is, is the contract beneficial to the individual? Remember, the States are the People; if you're not a citizen of a State of the union, then you are arguably not a Person. And if you're not a person, then what rights has God given you as it concerns the Federal Government?

There are curses as well... Those first three require you to pay money, whether you use the benefit or not. Along with losing your identity as a Person, you also lost your absolute right to property as defined in Black's dictionary, considered to be the standard in law. And I quote, "The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all a person's acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only be the laws of the land" (A Law Dictionary, by Henry Campbell Black, M.A.). Do you have despotic rights to your property, or are you required to pay taxes in order to use it, to keep it, and to pass it on to your next of kin? John Adams said that the rights of property should be as sacred as the laws of God. I think you'd have to be crazy to think that the Federal Government reverences your property in such a way. And one more thing, as Federal Citizens, our rights come from Congress, and not from God.

What is the state of the Union? It is dissolved, for the most part. We argue politics in this country; we focus on the niggly little things and how to lower taxes or reform this agency or that. But do we ever focus on the real problem? If we all returned to our original status of State Citizens, then the Constitution would protect us unconditionally, for we would again be considered People to the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve; the IRS; huge government programs; the Federal Government overreaching it's given powers: these are the real problems. Lowering taxes will not remedy the fact that income tax was never meant to be constitutional. Deciding to print less money will not get rid of the Federal Reserve. And lessening the oppression dealt by Washington will not strip them of the power that they were never meant to have. You don't use a chisel when a jackhammer is necessary. You don't simply commit a sin less frequently, you need to stop it altogether because it is inherently wrong. Somehow, politicians have come to believe that less of an evil makes that evil good. Not so.

What I see in the State of the Union Address is a President who has a vision for America that is not American. He is not inspiring. He has done nothing but burden the country with massive spending in order to destroy it. From the rubble he would raise up a Marxist utopia in which we would all be "safe" and all follow the rules. We would ever learn, but we would never come to a knowledge of the truth. The individual would vanish. That precious blessing for which countless souls have fought, Liberty, would be a thing of the past. How many times must history repeat before mankind will understand the truth? There are only two options: liberty and death. Anything else is a transient state that will lead to one or the other. Can we not choose Liberty this time? Without it we die - often by the hand to which we surrendered our power.

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?" -Patrick Henry

The Fourth of July

2010-07-04T20:13:00.001-07:00

Since it's Independence Day, I think it's appropriate to say a little something, even though nobody is likely to read this. The significance of today caused me to reflect a bit on why today is important.

The first thing that comes to mind is a little detail about the Declaration of Independence. The official color ink for British documents was blue, but the Declaration was written in black. America wasn't going to conform to the European status quo. But look at what a difference it has made for the world.

If there is any doubt as to the excellence of this country, then look at it's immigrants. I was recently told of a Colombian woman who waited roughly a decade or more to become a citizen. When she went to the make it official, there were 1300 other people there to do just the same thing. She observed another woman waving a little American flag and weeping. These type of accounts are the ones that help me remember to appreciate my country. People flee to this land and not away from it.

In any age, the real conflict that man faces is that of liberty versus bondage. Generations pass away having given a gift of freedom to their next of kin, but men do easily forget that what they have has come with a cost. Consequently, the same battle is fought again and again to win the same prize. It's true what they say, that it's easier to preserve and protect than to repair and repent.

History, I think, is the key to preserving things that are most precious. Joseph Plumb Martin was a soldier for all eight years of the American Revolution. In his later years he wrote of his experiences as a soldier. Years ago, I read his book, and I was quite impressed with the suffering that was endured by those who secured our independence. During the war, the national government was basically a confederacy. All the states agreed to be friends, but any sort of obligation beyond that was somewhat weak. The Continental Congress had no power to levy taxes on the States, which didn't make it easy to fund the war. Soldiers of the Continental Army were often nearly naked, starving, short on ammunition and general supplies, and deprived of sleep. Martin told of times when they would have to forage for food. He once ate a piece of refuse cow flesh from a farmer's field out of desperation, but immediately threw it up because of it's rottenness. He just wept after that. Other conditions have become well known. Martin assures in his writing that stories of bloody footprints in the snow were true. To make things worse, the soldiers were often met by an indifferent or even hostile by their fellow Americans.

There are countless other hardships that I could relate if I could remember them, but I think the point is clear. It was never easy for our ancestors to give us the blessings we enjoy today. Now we still fight, but now to preserve what was given us. Today we're faced with enemies within and without. There are those that would have our nation blown to bits. But it's effectively the same if we destroy ourselves within. What is within? It is the idea that we should give more of our liberty to the government. It's the idea that our freedoms are granted by men in power. It's forgetting that God is the Strength of Israel, and the arm that defends us. We owe it to our forefathers to learn the past, of current affairs, and to be a repentant people. If we do not do these things, we cannot long endure. As I said during the previous presidential election, on the grave of William Bradford is written, "qua patres difficillime adepti sunt nolite turpiter relinquere", which is translated as, “What our forefathers with so much difficulty secured, do not basely relinquish.”

Benjamin Franklin exited the constitutional convention, a woman asked, "Well Doctor, what kind of government have you given us?" Franklin responded, "A republic if you can keep it". The same charge is placed before us today. It's a blessing to live in this country. Let's not forget the precious gifts that have been given us. Happy Independence Day.

The Multi-pronged Approach to Bondage

2010-02-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

The "state of the union" address was unarguably a joke. One would be hard-pressed to find any element of truth in what the president said that night. The speech that he read from his teleprompter consisted of lies, hypocrisy, and a whole lot of "blame Bush" rhetoric.

It was quite "audacious" of the president to blame George Bush for the massive deficit and mounting debt of the Federal Government. As one republican leader put it, the monthly budget in this administration seems to be the same as the annual budget under the previous administration. Obama dismissed this assertion as "factually untrue", but a little research would show that it quite accurate. I guess Obama knows that the public will be unlikely to actually research the subject and will probably only hear his sound-bite on the evening news.

De Profundus

2009-06-13T19:53:00.000-07:00

Here I am emerging from the depths of... well, I guess it's the depths of indifference that the inauguration of Barack Obama thrust me down into. Yes, I stopped following the political stream for a while. What was there to know? He's a calculating marxist that will do anything to push his agenda. The news coming through the grapevine could only be bad, so what was there to listen for through the grapevine? It's all to the same end, and end to which I am sure that Obama will drag us.

But I said that I'm emerging, which means that I started to pay attention as of late. A few days ago, I tuned into one of those presidential town hall meetings. You know - the ones where the president just gives lenghty answers to make himself sound informed and lies straight through his teeth and oh-so-handsome grin of his. Well, I wanted to throw a shoe through the television screen and hit him with it.

The subject was healthcare. From the way he was speaking, healthcare for all is more important than things like, oh, killing terrorists or castrating North Korea. It seems to me that health care does little good during a nuclear blast. But that's just me.

The Obomunist plan, from what I couuld gather, is as follows. Everyone will be "free" to choose whatever health care plan they want, whether it be a private or public plan. But there will be a little catch. Obama says that his plan will force the private health care insurance providers to compete and give better service. What his plan will really do is put them out of business. Does anybody really think that the government - an entity that operates unprofitably and inefficiently, and has no problem with that method of operation - will be at a "competative" price when compared (or should I say "contrasted") with the private industry. It's a guarantee that it will be cheaper. If it weren't cheaper, there would be no purpose to the plan in the eyes of the Left. Or would there be?...

To make a long story short, the private health care insurance companies will die, and there will be only one provider: Big Brother. He won't have to compete with anyone. He will do as he pleases. But the whole notion of "insurance" will disappear. Monthly payments will be replaced with higher taxes. And you will only get as much service and care as Big Brother deems necessary. You'll be denied coverage for poor lifestyle choices - even though you'll be paying into the system your whole life. Socialized medicine is the end to which this all heads. Liberals never want you to support what they really want; that would be to extreme for you to stomach. They simply have us support a bill that looks okay on the surface, but that will inevitably lead to the end they desire. They're simply too evil to tell you what they really want. They just lie instead.

Stimulus to boost confidence? HOW?!!

2009-02-14T22:28:00.000-08:00

I posted the following in response to this blog entry in "The Thinker".

I am at a loss here. I simply am furious at both the Federal Government and my own State Government (CA) right now. The feds want to pump a trillion dollars into the system, and my state wants to raise taxes on just about everything. The way I see all this is that my savings account will be devalued by the increase in money supply, and what I have left will have more of it murdered by taxes. Nothing anybody is doing is boosting my confidence at all. It just makes me want to buy gold and tuck my money away where it’s safe. Our government is on a downward spiral. The people won’t tolerate the absolute disregard for the sacred right of property that is happening right now. John Adams, I believe, said that the right of property should be considered as sacred as the laws of God. It cannot go on forever like this. If we have socialism, if somehow through the census our representation is made corrupted, if our voices are silenced through the fairness doctrine, if the constitution is trampled on by the swine in Washington, and if the government keeps stealing from the people with the defacto tax of inflation that will surely come, then there will be depression and revolution. Dust off your muskets and grab your tricorn.

Money Must Grow on Trees

2008-11-24T11:43:00.000-08:00

One of today's headlines reads, "U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit ." Where the bloody heck did "Trillion" come from? I thought that the Feds were only going to spend $750 billion. Well I guess not. I guess they are going to spend TEN TIMES that!

I guess this shouldn't be a surprise, though. Supposedly, the magic $750 billion number was arbitrarily chosen in the first place as a "really big" number. Nobody had any idea how much the bailout was going to cost. Nobody really knew what it was going to be spent on, either. King Paulsen can do whatever he wants with it.

But $7.7 Trillion!!?? That's $7,700,000,000,000. That's half of our GDP, according to the article. Isn't that like everybody working 6 months just to pay it off? Take half of everything produced in the country, and just give it to the Feds. Makes you feel good, don't it?

All this bailout business is nonsense. Think about it. The biggest debtor in the nation (the Government) is giving money to collapsing lending institutions. Borrowers become debtors to debtors. But wait. There's more. Who pays for it? The taxpayer does. Banks will be lending money to the people that are paying for the loan. And do we really think that our generation is the only one to be effected? The government is financing their spending with our children's money. Our children will be born into debt, which is bondage, all so we can "rescue" the financial system and keep buying stuff. It is immoral and cruel to our next of kin.

Can we have a little sanity in Washington? As far as I'm concerned, Washington should be fired for their job performance. Cut their responsibilities to Defense and Justice. If they behave, then we'll see if we can trust them to be competent at anything else.

Source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5PxZ0NcDI4o

Nobama... please nobama.

2008-11-03T20:57:00.000-08:00

On the grave of William Bradford is written, "qua patres difficillime adepti sunt nolite turpiter relinquere," which means, “What our forefathers with so much difficulty secured, do not basely relinquish.”

I hope that this election day, we can think deeply about the meaning of that statement. We have come into an age when deep thought seems to be less frequent than it ought to be. We are bombarded with messages from the radio, television, and the Internet, and there are enough messages there to keep us busy for the duration of each day. But I hope that we can internalize the information given to us and then come to a logical conclusion as to who the best president would be.

I must conclude, and I must proclaim - since this is my blog - that John McCain is the least of the evils in this election. The person who would be the best president isn't running, but were we to elect Barack Hussein Obama, then we would descend into a dark and miserable state, from which only God could deliver us. Obama's destruction of the country would come in many forms.

Just within the last few days, Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry have surfaced. He says that his Cap and Trade policies would be so "robust" that builders of a coal fired power plant would go bankrupt. I also recall Obama saying that he would seek a world ban on the production of fissile materials. Well, presently, coal supplies something like 49% of America's energy and employs countless numbers of people in the process, and it is complete lunacy to eliminate half of our energy without a viable alternative. But what alternative is possible? If no coal, then maybe nuclear? Nope. Obama would ban the production of materials used for such a means of producing power. Wind? Yeah right! You'd have to cover the country with windmills. Besides, environmentalists don't like those either because they chop the birds to pieces. What about geothermal? There aren't enough thin spots in the earth's crust. Hydroelectric? Well that "kills the fish" and "ruins the natural landscape". Ahh, but solar?! That's the ticket, right? Wrong. It is presently the most expensive form of energy. What adds to the cost is that solar panels only last long enough to pay themselves off (20 years, if you're lucky), then you have to buy new ones. So the answer is that Obama has no answer. He will destroy this country with his energy policy because his policy is to prevent America from using its natural resources. Prices would "skyrocketed", in his own words, and we'd be thrust back into the stone age. Energy is like blood. There is no life or activity without it. It is like faith: a driving force that propels things into action. We cannot afford to do without. If no heater this Christmas is one of the "sacrifices" that Obama keeps talking about, then I think I'll pass.

While we're on the subject of sacrifice, Obama will sacrifice the Constitution, too. Well, he'll at least not feel very obligated to enforce or uphold it. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Obama would "spread the wealth around". Spreading the wealth contradicts the opinion of the man that basically wrote the Constitution. In Obama's memoirs, he describes the constitution as "fundamentally flawed", and speaks of it as something to be overcome, rather than something to protect the people from the government.

Obama is a thug. If you don't believe me, just look at the company he keeps: William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezco, just to name a few. He has a long history of associations with Communists and radicals. In fact, his own father was a communist. Obama also said that he chose his friends "carefully" in college gravitating toward radicals and Marxist professors. In addition to his friends, there are anonymous people from foreign countries that have contributed considerable amounts of money to his campaign. One of his fund raisers also raised money for Hamas at one time. I can't recall all the associations he's had with radicals and Marxists, but the picture of the whole is very revealing. Obama would have us think that he doesn't believe in the views of all his friends, but that is hard to swallow, since so many of his friends are nuts. Most of us would never be in the same room with Obama's associations because we wouldn't tolerate their views. We tend to associate with people of similar beliefs, and Obama is no exception.

To add to the above argument, Dick Morris, a former Clinton Advisor, has stated that Obama would never be able to work for the FBI simply because of his radical and violent associates. It's a wonder that he could ever be President.

And I doubt Obama will keep his radical views to himself. He has proposed the recruitment of "an army of new teachers" (who will they be? Will they fire the old ones?) for our schools that will receive higher salaries. And there will be "more accountability" under his plan. It sounds like he's getting ready to form a giant re-education system. I thought the States hire their teachers... I also thought the States are to run the schools... I don't think the Founding Fathers would be too keen on letting the Feds be in charge of the public school system. Educational tyranny, I say! Believe me! Where will the higher salaries (I like teachers, and they are underpaid) come from? The Federal government, of course. And if a school receives more federal money, then it will likely have to do some things just how the Feds want them to do them. Hence, the potential for tyranny through education. If they can indoctrinate the children, then they possess a generation.

The recent state of crisis in our financial system and the whole of the economy would be driven into depression by an Obama presidency. He wants to raise capital gains tax, corporate tax, tax on the "rich" (which seems to be an ever growing group of people), and some other taxes, I'm sure. He's going to have to raise all sorts of taxes to pay for the spending that he promises - spending that economists say simply cannot come to pass - take socialized medicine, for instance. Raising taxes is absolutely BAD right now. Just about every economist that has not sold his soul to the Left would agree. A rise on capital gains tax would discourage investment and curb growth. I thought we're trying to keep money in the financial system... A hike in capital gains tax would take it out of the system.

Corporate taxes are really taxes on the poor and the middle class. When a corporation's taxes a raised, then they just pass the extra cost to the price of their goods or, in other words, to the consumer. They effectively are commissioned to collect taxes for the government.

Finally, the taxes on the "rich". The latest number I heard through the grapevine was $97,000 as being considered rich. Nobody is safe. Obama's high tax, redistribution of wealth policies, implemented in a consumer based economy such as ours, would be the death of productivity. Obama will punish success, and drag the wealthy down so as to make everyone poor.

Inseparable from socialism is the global warming hoax. While it's true that both Hussein and McCain spew talk of climate change, I prefer to think that while Obama would use global warming scare to promote socialism, McCain would only use it to pander to moderates and liberals. I've become so weary of the words "climate change" and "global warming". I've written comments, posted on blogs, and spoken out. Quite frankly, I hope that the world realizes soon that the earth has been cooling for seven to ten years. It's fake. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. IT IS SIMPLY AN EXCUSE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL YOUR LIFE AND YOUR BUSINESS. IT IS AN EXCUSE TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. It is the reason behind Cap and Trade. Since it is a lie, then all resources and money spent to prevent it is a complete waste. I hope that will suffice.

More of the innocent will die under a Barack Obama presidency. He is pro abortion, pro partial birth abortion, and pro infanticide. Yes. It is true. He repeatedly blocked a vote in the Illinois Senate that would have required doctors to give medical attention to survivors of botched abortions. The spinners of the Left would say that he was protecting Roe v. Wade. Obama said that there was already a law in the books to protect the babies. However, as soon as the Obamanation left Illinois the law passed with a near unanimous vote. If that was the case, then why did both parties vote for the new law?

Finally, Obama has been wrong on everything national security. The war in Iraq is a prime example. He said that the surge would never work, but it has. If he would have had his way, the troops would have left in defeat, and Iraq would probably be a bowl of chaos. He's also a fool when it comes to diplomacy. He would meet with any leader without preconditions. That's just stupid. He was also spineless when he had the opportunity to take a stance on Russia's aggression against Georgia. He said that "both sides should exercise restraint." He's a rookie, and the world will walk all over him.

So here we are. What we have to decide is whether we want the lights of this city on a hill to dim, or to shine resplendent across the oceans to the whole world. Will we be the last, best hope for freedom, or will we diminish behind a veil of fog? George Washington, in an address to the Continental Army preceding the Battle of Long Island spoke thus:

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die."

Will we accept those two options, only? Can we simply ignore the duty of our generation to preserve the America which God inspired, and for which countless lives have been given in life or death? I think not! When I think of a victory for Barack Hussein Obama, I envision slavery under the bondage of socialism, businesses pillaged and destroyed by heavy taxation, economic depression, and a state of wretchedness from which only the hand of God can deliver. Resistance is the only solution. No matter what the circumstance, I hope that we can always have the will to act in accordance with our conscience. Let us not "basely relinquish" what our forefathers have secured with much difficulty. Let's not throw away our votes for the empty promises of hope and change. Our liberty and heritage are at stake. Will we preserve them, or will we vote ourselves into bondage. As said Patrick Henry, "give me Liberty or give me Death." Life without Liberty is not really living, after all. It is not simply our own lives that are at stake, either. What sort of country will our children be raised in? Truly the "fate of unborn millions" depends on the courage and conduct of this present generation.

After the primaries I vowed to never vote McCain, but he needs to win, just to keep Obama away. Still, in a perfect world, Joe the Plumber '08!

Socialism...Fascism

2008-10-21T10:51:00.000-07:00

During the latest and final presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama, I had a startling realization. Obama is a socialist - or something like it. Up until the debate, I always knew that Obama was a socialist, but I guess it never really hit home. But Obama said something that sent a chill up my spine - but nothing like the magical tingle up Chris Matthew's leg. And I quote, "When I talked about the automakers, they are obviously getting hammered right now. They were already having a tough time because of high gas prices. And now with the financial crisis, car dealerships are closing and people can't get car loans. That's why I think it's important for us to get loan guarantees to the automakers, but we do have to hold them responsible as well to start producing the highly fuel-efficient cars of the future." That was our potential Fuhror speaking. I don't say that lightly.

You see, "hold[ing] them responsible" really means heavy government regulations. It means emmisions standards, impossible mpg standards, etc.. What that all amounts to is more expensive cars. I have an idea! Let the market decide! If people really care enought about the global warming fraud and fuel efficiency, then they will demand a supply of appropriate cars. It is all very rediculous. Also, if the feds bail out the automakers, then the automakers will have to do everything the way Washington wants them to do things. It would be reminiscent of the FDR approach: you can have government contracts if you do things this, this, this, and this way. Politicians seem to have no reservations these days when it comes to taking over the private sector. They tried to control the banks by forcing them to give out subprime loans. They effectively ruined our financial system. As usual, the politicians ruin business. Yet somehow, we let them run the government. Sigh.

But the heart of the issue is socialism. No, it's fascism. The Library of Economics and Liberty explains fascism in the following manner, "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer." Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" but constantly talks about hard-working Americans and opportunity. He wants massive tax increases, and goverment regulation. He's a supporter of ACORN and one of the proponents of subprime lending, which led to the current crisis. The Library further adds, "Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it." The Democrat Party has become the party of cloak and dagger Socialism. They call it "liberalism", and I wish they would just say what they really believe. Why? Because then they'd lose elections.

This post has been a draft for too long, so I'm just going to post it. My fervor has subsided since I began writing, and I apologize for the substandard quality of this post.

Sources:

Final Presidential Debate

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Fascism

Let's Talk About Offensive

2008-10-15T14:41:00.000-07:00

Oh do I get fired up when I see stories like this in the News: Atheists Sue President Over National Prayer Day! What a load of complete nonsense! The argument behind the lawsuit is that calling for a national prayer day "violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion." Oh really... Is it referring to the first amendment, in which is stated "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" That's strange; I didn't think the President was making National Prayer Day a law. Nobody's forcing anyone to pray! Does anyone remember when prayer was considered a good thing? I guess it's not anymore. We just have to accommodate everyone, and make them feel comfortable. Michael Savage said it best in the Savage Nation, "People have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

First off, there are no grounds for a lawsuit. The constitution only states that the federal government, in this case, the Congress - they make the laws, after all - cannot establish an official religion in the United States. That means we can't have a tax-funded official religion, which National Prayer Day is not. President Bush is not the first president to declare such a day; Lincoln did it, too. He called for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. Nobody called Lincoln out on it, much less sued him.

This backlash from these particular atheists is all part of a larger effort to abolish religion from the public view. Any reference to God is somehow infringing on their personal liberty. I would ask how their lives are injured by the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a verbal prayer in public. It is little to endure, considering the godlessness that believers have to endure. While we dare not introduce God in the public sector, we have to tolerate every manner of sin and filthiness imaginable. There are gay pride parades drenched in immorality, Mardi gras down south, pornography almost everywhere, vulgarity at every turn, and a former president who cheated on his wife with an intern. Clinton's defenders demonstrated what is wrong with the world in saying, "It's only sex." Only?! Well, if it's only sex, then it's "only" prayer. Deal with it. If they get freedom from religion, then shouldn't the religious get freedom from Sodom and Gomorrah?

Sources:

Atheists Sue President Over National Prayer Day

Protect Marriage

2008-10-11T14:27:00.001-07:00

Some time ago – perhaps years ago – I was watching the news when I came across something interesting. It was several congressmen debating about gay marriage. This was when there was more discussion than there is now concerning a Federal constitutional amendment to define marriage. One legislator said something to this effect: “We’re in the middle a war, and we’re here arguing about gay marriage!” I was struck with the depravity of the state to which we’d come. It occurred to me that victory in a war is inconsequential if we are disintegrating within. I asked myself: what are we fighting for?

There is much talk lately concerning Proposition 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. It has nothing to do with discrimination against gay or lesbian couples, and everything to do with protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 8 say that it would discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. This argument is unfounded. In California law, the Family Code, Section 297.5 states, “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits…as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” In other words domestic partnerships have all the same rights as married couples; the only difference is that they are not “married”. Homosexual individuals are free to live how they will, but they needn’t call their relationships “marriage” in order to have equal protection under the law.

If gay marriage is allowed in California, schools may be forced to teach children that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage. In fact, section 51890 of the Education Code states that, “Pupils [kindergarten and grades 1 to 12] will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health,” which includes, “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” I’m not sure why any of that is the responsibility of the school to teach in the first place, but it is clear that the concept of same-sex marriage could easily become part of the curriculum. But it is not just a theory; there are instances of same-sex marriage being taught in schools in Massachusetts, a state that recognizes gay marriage. The moral upbringing of children is the responsibility and the right of parents, not of the State.

The ramifications of legalized gay marriage are not limited to schools, though. Churches will face discrimination lawsuits, costing them large sums of money. Religious adoption agencies will face the loss of funds for refusing to place orphans with homosexual couples. Churches may also face the loss of a tax exempt status for refusing to marry people of the same-sex. Who is losing rights in such situations? It is certainly not same-sex couples.

We the people of California already voted on this issue years ago with Proposition 22. 61% of the people (nearly two-thirds) were in favor of traditional marriage. Recently, the California Supreme Court overturned the people’s decision, which is why an amendment to the California Constitution is necessary. An amendment will prevent activist judges from overturning the will of the people on the subject.

While gay and lesbian individuals should be able to determine their lifestyle, and should be free from discrimination, they should not be able to infringe on the liberty of others. We live in a time when the supposed rights of the few too often trample the liberty of the many. In this case, same-sex couples would essentially be determining the meaning of marriage for the rest of the state.

I ask again, “What are we fighting for?” If we’re not careful we’ll eventually have nothing left. It is essential that we protect marriage as it has been traditionally accepted: between a man and a woman. Marriage and family are the foundation upon which rests our society. They must be protected, lest we forget who we are and, as a result, fall for anything because we stand for nothing.

On the Bailout

2008-10-06T20:04:00.000-07:00

I guess there could be two meanings to the word "bailout". One possibility is that it means someone is coming to the rescue. But the other meaning - the one that comes to my mind - is when people jump out of a plane because it's about to plow into the side of a mountain. But I guess the real meaning, according to my favorite etymological dictionary, comes from the Middle Latin "bajula", which literally means "porter of water". That way, you could think of a leaky ship and a bucket brigade. The only problem with that analogy, is that dumping water off a ship doesn't fix the leak.

Now, in terms of the economic "bailout" bill that recently passed, I'm not sure I would want any of those definitions to apply but the first. The only problem is that the government has this nasty habit of making things worse by rescuing them... There's also the fact that Democrats caused the whole housing bubble; now they are the ones doing the rescuing? That doesn't make much sense. Those who are responsible should be thrown out of office.

Not that any of the bailout seems to be taking effect as of today. President Bush said that it would take time for the money to start flowing. If that's the case, then why was it so urgent to get the bill passed on Friday...then Wednesday...then Friday again? Now it seems like we're still going down, and the only real bailout is the stockholders yelling "sell!" Some are bailing out of life, such as the man who, just today, shot his mother-in-law, wife, three kids, and himself over financial "despondency". Including the investment banker who jumped in front of a hundred mile per hour train, that makes seven direct casualties of this economic mess we're in. But none of it had to happen. Liberalism killed them, and liberalism needn't, and shouldn't happen.

Yes, liberalism. Simply put, the Democrats and groups like ACORN decided that everybody should be able to buy a house, whether they could pay for it or not. Interest rates were so low that money was practically free. The government forced lenders to lend or face penalties. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (set up by the Federal Government) bought up the loans, thus eliminating the risk to lenders. Then interest rates went up. People couldn't pay their mortgages. Home prices plummeted. All those assets that Fannie and Freddie bought were rendered worthless. Along with that, banks couldn't get their money from borrowers. That means nobody had money. Without money, there is no lending. No lending, no borrowing. Now the plane is crashing.

This is what we get when the government thinks it can improve something. This is what they call "fair" housing policy. But when you force companies to make unwise business decisions - such as loaning money to people that will likely not pay it back - then you force that company to act against it's own self-interest. You set it up for failure. Now we see the very people that set up this failure blaming the Republicans. They try to say that there wasn't enough regulation, when it was too much regulation and government meddling that was the problem. Most angering of all, the ones responsible for this mess are being placed in charge. The government is now in the midst of taking yet more power from the private sector. Some say that it is probably the largest transfer of power from the private sector to the Federal Government in all of history.

So Liberalism killed those people. It killed their "hope" in life. Now, if we elect Barack Obama, we'll have some big "change". Sounds great if you're not a fan of liberty. I can't believe that Obama actually has the audacity, the nerve, to run for President. He helped cause the whole financial mess!! He's got ties to ACORN, and is the 2nd or 3rd largest recipient of political money from Fannie Mae. Obama's a Chicago thug with racist and America-hating friends - a 60's style radical street activist. He should never be president. He should be disqualified merely by the company he keeps. Don't tell me he can get top-secret clearance when he is friends with William Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon...

Be wary this November. If we're not, we could lose our liberty. I don't think many people know who Barack Obama really is. Neither do they know the potential for liberalism to destroy lives. As for the bailout, whether we're in a plane or boat, simply jumping out or forming a bucket brigade doesn't fix the ship. It'll still crash or leak unless it steers clear of the mountain or is repaired. The solution is conservatism and free market. Free market doesn't force itself to make stupid decisions. Don't forget it!

Sources:
Man shoots his family and self
Burning Down the House - how democrats caused the mess
Shocking Video
Sellers "bailout"
Renew America: Democrats caused...

A Climate of Socialism

2008-10-06T10:23:00.000-07:00

Welcome to this new blog. I have started it to separate my political expression from my moral ponderings on Luminiferous Brilliantism. I cannot maintain the tone of that blog if I insert politics into it. This, therefore, is the blog of necessity.

Recently, I made a comment on a news article about the decline in solar wind. I discussed the political aspect of the global warming hysteria. It was never posted for reasons unknown to me. I tried repeatedly to post it, but the moderators rejected it. I will not be silenced. Here it is:

If I recall correctly, even the Useless Nations have recently said that there has been no warming in the past 7 years or so. Also, it is correct that Al Gore's CO2 graph shows an 800 year lag in the rise of co2 when compared with the temperature rise. Which means that CO2 increase is a result of higher temperature, and not the other way around.

If you want to blame something for climate variation, then look at the big hot ball of fire in the sky, without which there would be little or no heat on this planet. Recent science is finding a close correlation between sunspots and global temperature. The Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has supported this theory. Also, see The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's funny that the initial conclusion was that we, the people of the earth, caused the climate to change. It makes much more sense that the sun, on which the life of the earth depends, is the cause.

I've recently seen a commercial on television that says co2 is a "major greenhouse gas", which is false. Things like methane and - above all - water vapor are much more powerful greenhouse gasses. The correlation between greenhouse gas quantities and the greenhouse effect is not linear, as the environMentals would have you think. If the atmosphere reflects 90 some odd percent of the solar energy back to the earth already, then adding a comparatively small amount of a minor greenhouse gas like co2 will have little effect. For example, doubling the reflectivity of the atmosphere will not double the intensity of the greenhouse effect! In other words, you can't simply double 90% to make 180%.

What is really stupid is that we are worried about global warming at all. there are plenty of people in this world that would love it to be a little warmer! They want more farmland! Historically, warm climate has led to an abundance of food and prosperity. Cold climate (such as in the mini ice age) causes failed crops, malnutrition and starvation, and disease. The Black Death was magnified by a cool climate. The failed crops caused malnutrition, which made people's immune systems weak. The rats fled into buildings to keep warm and brought plague-infested fleas to the population. Once it took hold, the people were ripe for destruction. Cool weather kills, not global warming.

If the whole global warming issue is about science, then why is it split right down party lines (disregarding anomalies like John McCain)? The Left has some sort of guilt complex that not only says that human beings are responsible for every bad thing in the world and universe, but that it is the United States, in particular, that is to blame. Global warming is a religion. It arrogates to man the status of godhood by claiming that he is responsible for the movings and groanings of the earth. It gives purpose to those without direction or meaning in life. After all, "...TRYING TO SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!" (as Nancy Pelosi said) is a really noble thing to do... if only man could.

But I've not mentioned the real problem with it all. It is socialism. Top ranking global warming officials likely do not believe in it themselves. The whole premise of "the earth has a fever" is merely a vehicle to implement socialist policies. A socialist party presidential candidate in the twenties, Norman Thomas, said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." I contend that the strategy of the Left is to get us there with the global warming lie. We will vote for every socialist policy under the guise of SAVING THE PLANET!!!!! Before we know it, we can't use an incandescent light bulb, burn a log in our own hearth, or drive the vehicle we want to drive. With all the taxes, fees, and regulations to stifle the rich and big corporations, the so-called "equity" of our economy will be greater. The government will have it's tentacles in everything. We're talking huge government. Bye bye liberty. And as for the idea that green jobs will be wonderful: green jobs don't do anything! They don't make anything! Or, at least, more labor will be required to produce the same amount of product or energy, which is effectively the redistribution of wealth.

It's all such a fraud, and I could go on for days if everybody wasn't already asleep in front of the screen. It is infuriating to think that so many lives are being affected, so much money wasted, and so many regulations and laws are being heaped on the backs of the people - all over something that is not proven, and has basically been disproved. Why do they want to believe?! We need to stop global warmists before they cause an ice age with all their sequestering and other stupid ideas. Some fools in Europe are trying to make millions of tiny lenses to send out into space in order to block out 2 percent of the sun's rays that hit the earth. The way I see it is that they have NO RIGHT to be messing with the entire planet like that. Those idiots are going to turn Earth to a ball of ice - especially considering the news coming from the sun these days. The funny thing is that the media will be screaming "ice age" eventually. Just give it some time and the mass hysteria will shift the other way.

Testing

2008-10-01T23:20:00.001-07:00

This is only a test. This site is under construction... Trying to figure out the template. There are too many choices!