Monthly Archives: November 2010

Abolish the Transportation Security Administration

Democrats’ favorite strategy is to blame George W. Bush for everything from high unemployment to Hurricane Katrina, so it should come as no surprise that some on the left are attempting to pin the abuses of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on the former president, despite the fact that the Obama administration—with the exception of Hillary Clinton, who has political reasons to distance herself from her boss—is fully supportive of pat-down procedures that would, as one protesting passenger correctly noted, constitute sexual assault if performed by anyone other than government employees.

Strangely, however, a majority of liberals (at least those in the media) have chosen not to assign blame at all, and are instead diligently pretending that groping innocent citizens is the niftiest thing since solar panels, patiently reminding the unwashed masses that it’s perfectly acceptable to trade liberty for security.

The TSA was created during Bush’s presidency, two months after the tragic 9/11 attacks, but it was Democrats who insisted that airport security be handled by federal employees, rather than private firms. And, of course, the screening procedures in question were implemented a few weeks ago with the approval of a federal government controlled entirely by Democrats. Republicans have committed their fair share of screw-ups, but can’t be blamed for this one.

Unfortunately, the media has focused on a handful of bizarre mishaps (like the rupturing of a Michigan bladder cancer survivor’s urostomy bag during a pat-down), which distracts from the fact that the procedures themselves are outrageous even when performed properly. Forcing “free” individuals to expose themselves to potentially harmful radiation, or submit to full-body pat-downs which include the feeling of genitalia, is simply unacceptable. Such unreasonable actions justify civil disobedience.

Some lawmakers are listening to passengers’ concerns, like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who introduced the American Traveler Dignity Act. It would revoke TSA screeners’ legal immunity, requiring them to obey the same sexual harassment laws that apply to the general public. Perhaps the new Republican majority in the House, which has reason to fear the withdrawal of Tea Party support if it does not govern as promised, will be more open to Paul’s proposals than past Republican majorities.

Everyone seems to have a different idea of what to do about the TSA. The left, because of its politically-motivated refusal to acknowledge any problems on Obama’s watch, pretends that there is no problem, and some of the faux conservatives on the center-right—the same who supported the unconstitutional Patriot Act several years ago—echo this view. Some argue that profiling (used successfully by the Israelis) is the way to go, which has sent liberal race-baiters into an arms-flailing tizzy. Others think that the x-ray scanners are just fine, and only the invasive pat-downs should be done away with. Or the reverse.

Regardless of the eventual outcome of the debate, an important first step must be taken before new procedures are established: The abolition of the TSA.

The agency was created nine years ago by an act of Congress, and now that it has proven itself to be incapable of providing security while respecting constitutional rights, it can be dismantled just as easily by another act of Congress. Acknowledge the mistake, issue an apology, and move forward. That is how good government works.

But it’s not how the current administration works. By continuing to subsidize security theater, and dismissing the valid complaints of concerned citizens, the Democrats in power are setting themselves up for a disaster in the next election. Did they learn nothing this year?

George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

I thought instead of sharing only my own heart this Thanksgiving, I would also share the heart of our nation’s beloved first president.

Something struck me right away, as I began to read this document – this document that someone had the presence of mind to preserve – no doubt lovingly. It struck me that both Houses of Congress requested that the President of this nation encourage his people to pray publicly to Almighty God. Not participate in a moment of silence, not hold hands and sing a chorus of Kum Ba Yah, but to acknowledge “with grateful hearts the many and signal favors” that our Beloved Father had afforded them. And what did the Lord provide them with? The “opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

♥For Their Safety And Happiness♥.

Are you thinking what I am thinking?  “Where did we go wrong?”

Our Government has become a warped and twisted version of what our founding fathers originally established. Our founding fathers were men of honor, love, and integrity.  They risked their lives to build the most amazing nation that ever existed. They were men that loved the people who elected them to make sound decisions on their behalf. To speak for them.

They were trusted men.

President Washington continues, thanking the Lord for the national constitution most recently “instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.”

How is it that our government has turned against these principles? Many leaders cry out “Separation of church and state!” using this phrase to impose restriction upon restriction on America’s citizens – to bind our hands, as it were, yet the results: our hearts are bound, our souls burdened.

We, the citizens of the country that both the first Houses of Congress and President encouraged to pray in a National Proclamation, are now told to go and pray in secret as if it is a thing to be ashamed of.

He then admonishes us to beseech the “great Lord and Ruler of Nations” to “pardon our national and other transgressions”.

If ever you could hear my heart’s cry, that would be it.

I am so glad that one so great as our first president stressed the importance of repentance before any of us were even born.

America is an amazing nation, truly blessed with prosperity and freedom for all, but our leaders have made many serious mistakes in their dealings with other nations around the world. We have abandoned people in need, we have ignored literal genocide in Rwanda and other nations, and as of January, 2009, the day after the anniversary of Roe v Wade, we began to finance abortion in other countries, thanks to President Obama’s lifting of the Mexico City Policy.

It isn’t enough, President Obama, that we murder our own unborn?

With one flick of your pen, you decided – for all of us – to reach across the miles and use American finances to fund the raping of women’s wombs in poorer countries than our own.

President George Washington, were he here today, would make this same proclomation to us all, after he rose from his own position on his knees, maybe even his face, while imploring the Lord to forgive us of this madness.

He further encourages that we would pray that our National Government would be a blessing to all people by its wisdom, and just laws; not only that, but that we would “guide all sovereigns and nations” (by example, I am sure) and even bless them with “peace and concord” in order to promote the practice of “true religion and virtue”.  Did you know that pure religion according to God’s Word is to care for the orphan and the widow?  It is also to keep yourself pure.

President Washington had big dreams for America.

He had dreams that we would reach out and bless those around us and he knew that the only way to do so was to seek the blessing of our beloved Father in Heaven for the ability before attempting the actions that would make those dreams come true.

As you read the words of our first honored President below, I make a humble request of my own. I beseech you, beloved brothers and sisters – sweet American brothers and sisters, Seek the Lord, while He may be found.  Seek him for the same things that President George Washington Himself sought on October 3rd, 1789.

Seek these things on Thanksgiving day and every day after, for truly it is the only hope for our nation’s survival and success.

~*~*~

General Thanksgiving

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

October 3rd, 1789

President George Washington’s Proclamation”Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd day of October, A.D. 1789″

Social Justice Sophisticates Assault Prosperity

Leaders that value self determination and independence are denigrated by those who idolize the memory of a former president who said “Ask not what your country can do for you”—and then lowered taxes. John F. Kennedy allowed people more freedom and control over their lives, which conflicts with grandiose notions of governmental entitlement. He certainly knew that helping those in need is a high moral endeavor, but “helping” men become dependent debases and destroys them. Sophisticates who adhere to modern social-justice belief systems (the social-justice sophisticates) strive to make whole populations succumb to such “help”, by whatever means necessary. Our current president declares the constitution to be fundamentally flawed because it does not dictate what the government must do for you. The insidious effect of such a culture of dependence includes suffering that spans generations. Look to your children; will you tolerate such “help” being forced upon them?

In a televised interview democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York observed that many of us believed that the socioeconomic system of the Soviet Union is the way of the future—right up to its fall. He had earlier been criticized from both major parties and academia for declaring Soviet decline and likely collapse. After Soviet collapse, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social justice acolytes) were in disarray. Years later it became increasingly clear that China would not follow suit, so it again became possible to proselytize social-justice belief systems in the US. While China retains a totalitarian government and its economy works, this successful version of China has more in common with fascism than western notions of social justice or communism. Young Chinese compete as they grow and a child who falls short becomes a child left behind. Such vigorous competition adds to the prosperity of China and all Chinese, but the Chinese are neither free nor social-justice acolytes. Senator Moynihan did not live to see the recent ascendency of social-justice belief systems, but as a sociologist and public official he ascribed Soviet failure to its economic and social systems and reminded everyone that he predicted collapse. Despite predictable failure, social-justice belief systems promote financial dependence of whole populations on governments. This must be recognized as a direct attack on prosperity as well as freedom.

By promotion of governmental dependence and other means our American prosperity is under attack, and our freedom hangs in the balance. Even though many consider prosperity unimportant or even inherently undesirable, on our present course we will accept tyranny and suffering in hopes of regaining it. Growing numbers of Americans seek to forestall this suffering by removing those who threaten prosperity and freedom from positions of power and influence in all areas of society, which is increasingly seen as the only means by which to halt progressive use of the state to impose destructive beliefs on us all. These state belief systems directly assault prosperity and promote the deterioration of our system of rules, decimating it and ultimately destroying it. Threats to American security and freedom demand universal attention to prosperity; with our eye on the prosperity imperative we can neutralize missionaries of state belief systems found in our schools and other public venues, especially the social-justice sophisticates. At the ballet box and on juries, we must demand rational promotion of the public welfare, including a willingness to create and apply rules without notions of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism that make those rules ineffective or worse. We may avoid the experience of many millions in diverse societies, including the sad experience of facing our own children as they plead to understand how we could have had so much and left them so little. If we strive to remove social-justice sophisticates and other sophisticates from positions of power and influence, we may meet this challenge, and America may remain a prosperous land of the free.

The desirability of prosperity was formerly unquestioned, but today prosperity is openly condemned together with free markets and capitalism, which are collectively credited with ills both real and imagined. Open attacks occur in numerous forums including our public schools, and are obvious because they are direct. Proxy targets like global warming are taken up in determined but less direct attacks; these antagonists of prosperity find it merely inconvenient that considerable carbon science is a mirage. Fraudulent though they may be, proxy target attacks unavoidably inspire true believers who introduce unintended economic and political consequences; for example, nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions and thus interest those who honestly believe the carbon “science”, but solutions that might actually produce energy economically and promote prosperity run counter to the anti-prosperity crowd who created the proxy targets.

However convoluted, cloaked, or supported by political power the assaults on prosperity may be, in theory they ultimately must fail and so are destined for well populated trash heaps.  Markets and economies press forward organically by independent actions of individuals. After the Soviet political collapse, Chinese and later Russian prevailing wisdom embraced key market tenants; notably, only market societies reliably compete with market societies. China emerged after many generations of economic obscurity with a functioning market.  In contrast, the West’s reaction to the Soviet collapse includes notions of a new world order where competitive and market-based societies are not an issue because they are simply not allowed. So while China has evolved to embrace market competition, considerable intellectual energy of the formerly prosperous and competitive West is engaged in denying those principles. Social-Justice belief systems are central to such deteriorating thought.

Ongoing economic leveling between EU nations encourages and manifests western visions of equal outcomes and unequal opportunity, for it is impossible to provide equal outcomes without holding many individuals and the society collectively back. Entire nations demand equalization in the EU as necessary to meet some loosely defined requirement for fairness or social justice. Support exists for forced leveling at granularities of nations, races, regions, individuals, and every other conceivable division. Promoters promise leveling to all possible divisions, so adherents are expected to simultaneously deliver on all of them. According to the theory, lower rungs are raised to the benefit of all, but outcomes fall short of the vision. The Chinese may view the rise of these notions in the West as curiosities or problems; but from experience they know that the problems are mainly ours, just as their former unsuccessful principles and plans for markets were mainly theirs. While Chinese were starving by the millions, Americans lived in a competitive, vibrant society—the situation is reversing.

In social-justice economic systems someone else pays—another country, class, race, region, etc.—but ever and always someone else. When there is no one else who can be made to pay or who can pay, then desperation and despair typically lead through generations of suffering to eventual rejection of social-justice belief systems and a renewed reach for prosperity. According to the old theory, an economy based on social-justice belief systems will increase productivity as a natural consequence of removing unfairness, and greater prosperity for all inevitably follows. Thus formerly, the adherents to social-justice belief systems could have been said to honestly differ with non-believers about how to achieve the greatest prosperity.

Though not always sophisticates, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social-justice acolytes) sacrifice prosperity imperatives in favor of political nirvana (i.e., a blissful oblivion that results from government-enforced “social justice”) that has no possibility of prosperity as we have known it. According to this new belief system, the fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable because countries like the United States at the time of the fall are simply not allowed. When social-justice acolytes say that they want prosperity, they mean that they want it in the same form as the Soviet Union, and not as we have known it. The past prosperity of America is undesirable and to be actively prevented. Unlike its predecessor, this new belief system avoids honest exposure of its intentions regarding prosperity.  A major means of subterfuge is to masquerade as its predecessor unaltered. Many social-justice acolytes thus do not recognize that increased prosperity has been thrown under the bus.

But those sufficiently aware and honest with themselves have been forced by collective human experience to reexamine such beliefs; the social-justice belief systems and adherent states have resulted in untold millions of deaths from starvation, and millions more from mass killings of non-believers. A social-justice belief system spreads using any “necessary” means, and non-believers are assimilated or eradicated; this is the only way that adherents can bring about their nirvana. Nevertheless, honest assessment of the data demands rejecting expectations of higher prosperity in a social-justice belief system. In contrast to other belief systems, the new and old social-justice belief systems demand nirvana here and now. In order to retain their notions of political nirvana, remaining adherents to social-justice belief systems have overtly or covertly, wittingly or unwittingly, dropped prosperity imperatives. They demand that others to do the same. Many are more than willing to impose their social-justice belief system on the masses with full knowledge and expectation of its destructive effects on prosperity.

This contradiction between the true and purported goals dampens efforts to find and interest new adherents. However, the ability of belief systems to engender contradictions in the minds of men is historically unbounded. Fuzzy philosophical notions like situational ethics, moral relativism, and “relative truth” have rescued social-justice believers from considerations of absolute truth and overwhelming evidence against the workability of social-justice belief systems; so many have dumped the notion that absolute truth exists. These fuzzy ideas had already come a long way when President Clinton’s widely followed legal defense managed to redefine the most common two-letter verb (“is”). Adherents to these ideas form a creed that denies its own existence and eschews labels. We call adherents to this creed the sophisticates since they self-declare their personal sophistication and that of their ideas. Many of those who are today members of the so-called “ruling class” are sophisticates.

Evolution of social-justice belief systems from ones promoting prosperity to ones that renounce truth is not too surprising; from long human experience we know that sane notions of truth are often sacrificed to retain otherwise unsupportable beliefs. Many social-justice acolytes became adherents to the largest sophisticate sect today, the Social-Justice Sophisticates, who are now at the core of a pervasive and aggressive state-promoted belief system. This sect avoids “separation of church and state” issues by shunning something as basic as a name while at the same time existing within state organs. It seeks to in fact control the state and in some important ways it becomes the state. Its meeting houses are the state organs and necessary societal institutions, which includes universities, media organizations, primary and secondary schools, state and national governmental bodies, and both political parties. Heresy against this state belief system is punished relentlessly; there are no heathens—only heretics.

The social-justice sophisticates have become self-absorbed and drunk with power. Not only do they use state property to promote their belief system, they use state power directly and openly to suppress non-believers. They have proposed that government operatives secretly infiltrate and influence groups who do not share their belief system. Incredibly, one of their assigned tasks is to pose as group members and put forth notions that the social-justice sophisticates are not engaged in conspiracies! Success of that activity incongruously requires convincing the populace that the infiltration activity itself does not exist.

Societies can be unaware that they hamper or destroy prosperity. There were no prosperity haters to welcome the Great Depression, yet through ignorance prosperity was lost and the depression perpetuated. Only global war restored it.  While individuals who strive are found in all times and cultures, conditions necessary for general prosperity are often absent. However prosperity is achieved, it requires societal stability in which governments play an important role. Some believe that America’s past prosperity is a consequence of self-governance and rule of law, but whether or not self-governance and the rule of law are present, prosperity is hampered without general responsibility and reliable accountability based on rational rules. Unfortunately, rules ensure neither economic freedom nor prosperity; at times they are no more than window dressing over seething corruption.  Direct and proxy attacks in concert with the acts of elected social-justice acolytes have considerable negative effects on prosperity, but until recently these effects have paled when compared with effects of a continuing breakdown in rational rule-based accountability. Direct attacks on prosperity, including the social-justice attacks, are easier to recognize than those that proceed from the spread of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism, which contributes to making our rules ineffective and thereby profoundly decimates prosperity. The rules have become so ineffective that it has even become necessary to justify notions that rules are central to prosperity.

As America proceeds in its decline into debt and corruption, which no sane nation should want to duplicate, Americans persist in lecturing China and others on how to prosper through the rule of law. Yet we assault prosperity through disdain for our rules and so hasten our decline, precisely as the theory we externally tout predicts.

When we enforce rules it is generally untimely; few ascribe the old dictionary meaning of “justice” to what now happens in our law enforcement and court systems. As a society we have become progressively uninterested in effective rules and accountability. Lack of interest notwithstanding, the speed, integrity, and surety of accountability can either encourage or discourage rule breaking. Today, at all levels, rule breaking is tolerated and insidiously encouraged, which correlates with breakdowns in our societal drive toward prosperity. Breakdown of the rules will ultimately lead to tyranny, which may be momentarily necessary to restore a semblance of order and productivity. While tyranny has its own negative effects on prosperity, it does not always destroy prosperity immediately, which is one reason we will accept it. However, if we accept tyranny from the social-justice acolytes, then we will have ruthless application of rules and neither freedom nor prosperity. By long experience the human race knows that such tyranny and suffering can last for generations.

Societal rules are subject to sophisticate thinking in courtrooms, classrooms, and street-corner discussions. To support sophisticate views, sophisticate guardians of the rules may break them by improperly launching investigations, audits, or writing improper indictments and rulings; they may also improperly fail to do those things. Action is all to the good if it promotes a sophisticate sect. Many sophisticates feel that ordinary honest folk ought to fail—after all they believe naïve, self-defeating, and unsophisticated things. Sophisticate acts are rarely presented with their honest motivations—that would be unsophisticated. Instead they may make straightforward assertions that proper procedures were followed, thereby justifying injustice. At such times sophisticates typically promote illusions that they defend process or tradition, and that they have merely applied procedural rules with worshipful rigidity, which is precisely opposite to what they actually do. When necessary they write sophisticate derivations built upon earlier sophisticate derivations, with no ultimate foundation, which might amuse if the effects did not wound the common wellbeing so grievously. They appear unaware of the naïveté that their audience sees in them when they point to America as they advise a country like China on prosperity by rule of law.

Our increasing disregard for rules forced its way into the public consciousness during the Bush era, when rule breaking and its consequences bruised America’s self-image.  We see in our American president a reflection of our own condition, but with Bush II it was more; he is widely quoted and alleged to have said that the constitution “is only a piece of paper”.  America hoped that change at the head of the fish might begin a new era, so President Obama was elected. We had been disappointed before, but this time we had a new president unsullied by compromise with evil forces. Our euphoria supported collective visions of glorious transformation. Mere anticipation of withering rot and corruption was for those too cautiously optimistic.  The planet itself was in rapture and the human race barely noticed when appointees to high office were tax-cheats and participants in public failure. Then, not to be outdone by the previous administration’s disdain for the constitution, our new guardians assert that reading and reciting the constitution presents a danger to the republic.

Sophisticate candidates are not obliged to inform—the citizenry showers votes in exchange for inaccurate and accurate campaign promises alike. While making promises is important, keeping them is not so important because voters are intellectually inferior and incompetent—i.e. not sophisticates. Accordingly, Bush I raised taxes; his promises to the contrary are only of concern to the foolish. Bush II created “no child left behind”, a ridiculous program without resemblance to campaign promises, and scattered the public coffers like rain over even less worthy notions. The Bush family presidents know that campaign promises matter—during the campaign. President Obama in turn promised many contradictory things. Within weeks of the election almost no one publicly risked sophisticate ridicule by recalling them. While it would have seemed impossible, Obama appears less accurately described by his campaign promises than the Bush presidents. How can an electorate express their will if they cannot know what the candidates honestly intend to do? To sophisticates this is precisely the point, the electorate is not supposed to express its will; it is more than enough that they vote.

Each dawn brings new awareness that the Bush era hastened our decline most by unfortunate effects on our choice of its replacement. The newly elected or appointed may be more disinterested, cynical, incompetent, or corrupt than their predecessors. Rot at the head of the fish is increasingly perceived, and erosion of support steeper than anyone remembers.

Political and economic wisdom are not the only casualties; the creed with no name has spread to science. When evidence of corruption and general rule-breaking by carbon science researchers in England was made public, the messenger was scorned while sophisticate scientists were justified by peer, politician, and reporter alike. The non-event status that the media assigned to such rule-breaking belies impressions that it was unexpected. Instead, bringers of truth are made to fear—an unbreakable rule of the unnamed creed is that their own rule breaking is not to be exposed. Participation in rule-breaking is demanded of scientists, who generally depend on sophisticate-controlled government support. While non-participation in the sophisticate creed may be naïve, some scientists surely are nostalgic for former notions of scientific truth. They may long for a colleague with stature who risks everything to expose this corruption, perhaps a modern Galileo. But they know that he would be and perhaps already has been silenced by sophisticates. Social-justice sophisticates are more thorough and wide ranging suppressors of truth than the Pope of Galileo’s time could have imagined. Scientific integrity is now a public illusion, truth relative, and ethically situational; scientists have become masters of long-standing sophisticate staples: disappearing evidence and “I don’t recall”. To observers of this scientific farce, it has become conceivable that truth-speaking will not be protected in America, not even officially, for scientists or anyone else.

Overt Acorn-style rule-breaking is also expected by the media. These elected, appointed, and self-appointed guardians of the public welfare are more likely to persecute a messenger than demand accountability.  In this sophisticate situational ethic, evidence of repeated conspiracy to finance importation of underage Latina girls for sexual exploitation warrants no prosecution and only passing scrutiny. In the sophisticate creed, this rule-breaking also is justified as part of the broad promotion of a “greater good”. Nevertheless, public exposure offends sophisticate sensibilities, and that is what must be discouraged in the most unambiguous manner.

Attacks on prosperity introduced earlier were categorized as direct, proxy, social-justice, and sophisticate.  There are many in positions of power and influence that engage vigorously in all four; i.e. it is common for social-justice sophisticates to engage in direct and proxy attacks as well. Such persons often hold professorial positions at universities, positions as judges, and other positions as elected or appointed officials. Seemingly single-issue promoters such as Al Gore actually engage in all four categories of attack. The most subtle of these forms of attack, and the most damaging in the U.S. (at least until fairly recently), are the sophisticate attacks that undermine our system of rules.

Sophisticate speeches, lectures, and publications laud the dependency of prosperity on a system of rules. Making more rules is a fundamental tenant of the sophisticate creed, which means that existing rules must be defective and violated. Thus sophisticates become hypocrites, making rules ineffective, then lauding and taking credit for new rules as they are made. They propose ever more rules, often to remedy defects seen only by sophisticates and expounded in esoteric theories. The sophisticate more-rules imperative entails perpetual exercises in inadequacy of rules; in this way sophisticates insist that there are no viable solutions, just ever and always more rules. Indecipherable piles of rules have proven inadequate to satisfy sophisticate imperatives. Those who make rules now propose individual rules described in thousands of pages, and reading just one rule is unwanted and perhaps unrealistic. Even the sophisticate rule makers do not read them. It is no coincidence that elected officials declare citizens who read or recite the constitution to be clear and present dangers to the republic.

So instead of reading and understanding rules, citizens are expected to leave complicated matters like rules, including the constitution itself, to sophisticates. But understanding rules, as the public understands the meaning of “understanding”, is not what sophisticates do. It is not even intended that there should be substantial understanding—it is subject to relativism and changes from one sophisticate theory to the next. The public may indeed be collectively incapable of a sophisticate grasp of reality—after all they generally aren’t sophisticated enough to realize that attempts to fathom the rules are naïve. Such sophistication may be a delusion created by intelligent but nevertheless unsound minds, and shared with others similarly limited. Thus there may be nothing overtly difficult about sophisticate thought that actually requires understanding. It is nevertheless important to understand the direct cost of ever increasing numbers of sophisticate attendants required by ever increasing piles of indecipherable rules.

It is difficult to imagine a greater danger to rule-of-law notions than the sophisticates, and the evidence is almost everywhere; we have discussed their general disdain for the rules, and there is a seemingly endless parade of egregious examples. They include:

  • As part of the recent “financial reform” and financial “transparency” act, the SEC is no longer subject to public disclosure requirements, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act.
  • California grossly miscalculated pollution levels by 340 percent in a “scientific” analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards. When caught, the Air Resources Board blamed the difference on the economic slump!
  • Fraudulent carbon science is being used as the basis of innumerable rules and regulations.
  • The New Black Panther party, its leader, and two of its members were successfully accused of voter intimidation, a charge that they did not even attempt to defend, but the DoJ dropped the case before sentencing. Naturally, the attorneys who found the intimidation criminal have been attacked as biased.
  • The Acorn conspiracies and subsequent non-enforcement of rules became an issue because they generated bad public relations, never mind that what was done is wrong.

These examples amongst many illustrate just how far we have come in this sophisticate-led disconnect from reality. Considerable damage is done when rules specifically meant to promote prosperity go unenforced, and so are made ineffective or worse. Some rules promote the general economic welfare by limiting economic behavior detrimental to prosperity. These rules have become largely ineffective by sophisticate design.

Rules protecting intellectual property, suppressing monopolistic practices, and enforcing contracts are intended to promote prosperity directly. These rules promote the economy in part by encouraging and protecting innovation-driven progress, a key component of American prosperity. Monopolies by nature tend to suppress innovation; they typically ignore intellectual property rights and intimidate parties to contracts that they do not and may never have intended to keep. Innovators with a “new thing” are routinely asked by investors how their business will survive market attacks by an interested monopoly, and the attack is presumed to use the full power of the monopoly—rules notwithstanding. Innovations whose inventors have no ready answer may not come to market. Innovations that never occurred go entirely unknown. Their potential markets lie in that part of the economy subject to the monopoly’s control, i.e. in the monopoly’s kill-zone where their economic nukes work. A monopoly’s kill-zone is studiously avoided by many investors and hence innovators. A monopoly’s nukes may include intellectual property acquisition-by-infringement, redesigning their products to make others’ innovations unusable, intimidation of those who might do business with targeted innovators, combinations of the above, and similar business practices. Monopolies can and do economically nuke what annoys them in their kill-zone, even though such practices are nominally against the rules.

Monopolies often need not innovate. Their inside talent is frequently competent to copy, but even copying is often unnecessary unless a would-be competitor has the temerity to put himself in the kill-zone. The desired effect is often achieved for a particular innovation without overtly improper acts—having nuked others with impunity may be enough to intimidate and achieve cheap acquisition of intellectual assets. For a monopoly, knowing when and how to nuke depends on accurate understanding of market dynamics and a target’s resources, especially its revenue sources. They must also recognize the boundaries of their kill-zones, the areas within which their nukes will work. While a monopoly may misjudge such things, it has the power of its monopoly to extract excessive prices from the public and with those resources attack competitors again and again.

This leads us to a major example of rule ineffectiveness—the endlessly farcical Microsoft antitrust case. It ought to be a cause célèbre of social-justice acolytes; but those in power are also sophisticates—who apparently see neither personal nor sophisticate sect gains from factual pursuits of justice. The US Attorney General and his lieutenants know the Microsoft case well; they created it during the Clinton administration. But now it has done its work: sophisticates have made millions in fees and salaries and now it becomes just another case of failed rules, and perhaps evidence that we need new rules. Microsoft lost the case, yet their operating profit margins have increased, their revenues have more than doubled, and their overall profit margins have remained the same since 2003. While Apple now has revenue almost equal to Microsoft, Microsoft’s profits are almost equal to those of Apple and Google combined.

Nevertheless, the court sanctioned judgment in the case has almost run its course, and a central question before the court is whether Microsoft has complied—as they agreed to do several years ago. A naïve observer might assume that the court records would answer that question, but the court records instead contain nebulous weaseling statements that surround the phrase “substantially complete”, and redefine it as meaningless. There is also an agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that the oversight will shut down if Microsoft deals with some known bugs in its documents. To help them in that effort, the DoJ, the New York/Maryland group, and the California group of states have agreed that the oversight committee will conveniently stop adding bugs to the statistics on January 1, 2011. Who does not instinctively understand that the poorest products have the largest numbers of bugs? Given the absurdity of a bugs-fixed measure, why the DoJ doesn’t just cook nice statistics for the court is an obvious question—but then again perhaps they have done so.

Whatever the mechanism is for generating irrelevant but pretty bug statistics for the court, Microsoft has these many years missed golden marketing opportunities. If a federal judge will buy the fixed-bugs story, then Microsoft could honestly have advertised that they fixed more bugs in Vista than any would-be competitor had imagined, and doubled their market share by sucking in the judicial system. Less sophisticated consumers are purportedly even more susceptible to technical gobbledygook than Federal Judges. Microsoft may have infected the plaintiffs and the Court with the idea that they are done because it is time to be done; i.e. they outlasted the government. The plaintiffs may be tired of fighting Microsoft over their documents, since the executive and judicial branches of government together are apparently incapable of actually enforcing much against so powerful a corporation.  Instead they create the kind of scenario that the judge requires to finally end this unseemly display of governmental impotence and farcical enforcement.

Easily snookered though the court may be, the sitting administration ought to have desired social-justice at least insofar as the facts and the rules support it; instead, its sophisticate imperatives trump any need for facts and rules based outcomes, even where a final judgment is already in place and where social-justice sits on the balance. If in-power social-justice acolytes cannot factually pursue a healthy capitalist monopoly that already lost its case, then who can rationally depend on them for anything?

This case raises the question of whether the present administration actually comprises social-justice acolytes. Perhaps, despite ubiquitous and continuous press to the contrary, they are mainly sophisticate opportunists seeking only increased power and control over our lives—like any other kind of sophisticate might do. Whatever labels accurately apply to the administration, the various sophisticate sects have destroyed notions that the electorate has reasonable expectations of their representatives. With sophisticates everywhere, no candidate of any stripe can be relied upon to apply the rules as written based on the facts. Notions of rule-of-law require that some of us factually apply the rules; who does that now?

The Clinton administration pursued the Microsoft monopoly, and the antitrust chief first appointed in the Obama administration stated that the new administration would aggressively pursue antitrust cases. But that did not happen. Application of antitrust law is now effectively suppressed regardless of the party in power. Sophisticates per-se have no interest in actual rule-of-law, which may explain the lack of interest during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, in hindsight we now know that the Obama administration is less likely than its predecessor to adhere to rule-of-law, including anti-trust law. Something changed between the Clinton administration and the Obama administration. The idea of incrementally transforming the United States to a social-justice economy appears to have been dropped. Incremental movement requires that things work along-the-way with some consistency. Today, the idea of future catastrophic failure and a single transforming event appears more in keeping with the Obama view of things. Actually fixing something with existing rules, i.e. making things work, does not fit with that idea.

Because there were only sophisticates running for office, including a social-justice sophisticate, it turns out that there was no one to vote for who would have taken a rule-of-law approach to the presidency. In his most recent book; Newt Gingrich declares that democrats are more likely to be in bed with anticompetitive corporate interests than are republicans—perhaps he is spot-on. On the other hand, perhaps Microsoft and corporate monopolies in general are merely off the hook for now while the social-justice sophisticates wait for their big opportunity in an expected economic collapse—hopefully a long wait. Multiple unworthy motivations are possible so the question arises; precisely how is it that the New York/Maryland and California groups of states have gone along with the DoJ in the Microsoft case? This should be asked of their Attorneys General.

Now underway for half as long as the Exxon Valdez case, the Microsoft antitrust case joins a menagerie of other “endlessly interesting” and “important” examples of our rules in action. By causing “important” cases to become “endlessly interesting” sophisticates make rules ineffective and promote the “need” for more rules. Twenty three years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill many victims are deceased; the remainder still await relief for damage to their lives and livelihoods. American imperatives for personal justice make this outcome unconscionable and people who justify it loathsome. Proposals for more rules do not always wait for “endless” characteristics to set in. A “crisis” allows sophisticates to short-circuit the slower process; for example, they immediately began proposing new rules after the BP oil leak. Enforcement of existing rules is never the answer to sophisticates, it is ever and always more rules that are needed. Nevertheless, mistakes are made; they seemed surreal and even comical when filing lawsuits appeared to be our national plan for plugging the Gulf oil leak. Louisiana and other states needed effective action by accomplished people who are grounded in truth and reality. Preventing the leak in the first place may have been achieved by honest application of myriad existing rules. But sophisticates need not apply rules, whether to Acorn, oil companies, Microsoft, Black Panthers, or anywhere. To them it just isn’t necessary or even desirable. Disconnected from reality,  sophisticates whose primary skills are holding meetings, speaking in sound bites for the evening’s news, making rules “endlessly interesting” but otherwise ineffective, and generating proposals for ever more taxes, rules, and lawsuits are unqualified for office.

When against all odds an existing rule promotes prosperity and general welfare, and even the sophisticates find it difficult to relegate that rule to the “endlessly interesting” and “important” category, then they arrange to undo it. With congressional complicity, George Bush I effectively signed away the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act of 1985 and 1987, which had provided executive power over federal deficits. It was that power specifically that many expected him to wield—but instead he signed it away and turned Gramm-Rudman into yet another failed rule. George Bush II wouldn’t have used that power willingly; he spent money like water. Obama wouldn’t have used it willingly; he is showing us just how green water can be. Bill Clinton wouldn’t have used it willingly; he wanted health care reform then as now, but having lost his first mid-term elections there was then no pressing need for Gramm-Rudman. All of these presidents claim to abhor deficit spending, but would not have wanted the power to stop deficits that George Bush I conveniently removed from consideration before the others took office. The last president to serve approximately as advertised was Ronald Reagan, who signed Gramm-Rudman into law, only to watch his successor and one-time VP drop the core concept. We have now had two presidents each from the two major parties since Ronald Reagan, who was the last non-sophisticate among them.

While sophisticates generally do not embrace freedom, democracy, and rule-of-law, prosperity at levels formerly enjoyed depends on economic and political freedom as well as rule-of-law and predictability of rule application. We may yet keep our freedom and prosperity, but the sophisticates must go.

We must halt the election, appointment, and promotion of sophisticates at all levels, or regardless of party we will have only sophisticates to choose from at the ballot box. With our children’s future and prosperity itself in the balance, we must remove sophisticates and especially social-justice sophisticates from elected and appointed positions across society. Nevertheless, by long experience we know that replacing one sophisticate with another accomplishes little. We must focus on the core of the problem and replace sophisticates with non-sophisticates—in whatever party and wherever they are found.

An American Gives Thanks

Perhaps this is just one of those “obligatory” be thankful posts as we near Thanksgiving.  I’ve not written one before and if I get flamed to heck for this one, may not write another.  Being thankful for our families, our health and food on the table is expected.  I am certainly thankful for those things and so much more.

It’s easy to look at a table full of turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce and yams and be grateful that it is so.  Looking around the table at family we don’t see often enough adds to the sentiment.  Those are the obvious things for which we should all be thankful, but are we still ungrateful?

Americans are different.  America is different.  It is, as Alexis de Toqueville said, “The great American experiment”.  A gift from our founding fathers and God himself.  The chance to finally let each individual human make his or her own path through life.  That is what we should be thankful for.  We are individuals and require individual rights, afforded us by God himself, protected with the lives of truly grateful patriots (past and present) and that should be limited by no man – none.

Before progressives started re-directing the great experiment in the ways of its failed socialistic predecessors, we did not have the government telling us what we could not eat, what toys we may or may not have in our kids happy meals, what we could or could not smoke, what poor is, or much of anything else.  Now, many Americans think it’s perfectly fine to let the government make those calls because the government provides healthcare, retirement benefits and money for the unemployed.  We have given up some of our freedoms for that security – as Benjamin Franklin put it in his letter to Jane Mecom, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety“.

Being thankful is not as simple as saying grace before a meal or writing a thank you note.  To show gratitude for the liberties so many have fought and died to give us, we have to decide that they are worth at least that sacrifice on our part.  If we are truly grateful for such a wonderful gift, should we not be willing to give everything to keep it?  If we are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to restore our liberties, only then will we be able to offer that same gift to our children and theirs.

We must be thankful for are those things that make us unique: the opportunity given to us as Americans.  It is something that no other human on the face of the Earth can hope to have save immigration.  It is something that many try to obtain illegally because it is the greatest gift anyone can hope to hold.  Freedom – or as Ben Franklin once replied, “..  a republic if you can keep it”.

~Where the Earth Was Free From Sorrow~

The War of 1812 ~ The Battle at the River Raisin

While traveling through Monroe, MI we drove by an old Battlefield and pulled over.  We decided to have lunch there and began to read the historical markers.

The River Raisin Battlefield was the site of one of the largest engagements during the War of eighteen-twelve. The battle on January twenty-second, and the massacre on January twenty-third, in the year eighteen-thirteen, was fought in Monroe, Michigan (formerly Frenchtown, Michigan) on the northern shore of the River Raisin. Of the nine-hundred thirty-four Americans who fought here, only thirty-three escaped death or capture.

The massacre of wounded soldiers shocked and enraged Americans throughout the Old Northwest Territory and “Remember The Raisin” became the battle cry for the War of Eighteen-twelve.

Interestingly enough, I was born in a city wherein Americans lost a major battle. Over there they cry -“Remember the Alamo”. Fifteen-hundred Mexican soldiers against approximately two hundred Texians. Survivors – two. Each man who surrendered – (less than ten altogether) – was killed.

From their website: “People worldwide continue to remember the Alamo as a heroic struggle against impossible odds — a place where men made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. For this reason, the Alamo remains hallowed ground and the Shrine of Texas Liberty.”

When I went to the Alamo – they let my tour group into a room, where the women and children were hidden during the battle. I could almost hear the weeping echoing off of the stone walls. I could almost feel the fear vibrating in the atmosphere. They allowed us to walk through the areas where men gave their lives – and I could feel the holy hush reverberate through my senses.

When we went to the River Raisin Battlefield that day, tears welled up in my eyes. I swallowed them down and looked at the grounds where men lay dying – I came very close to cancelling the picnic and leaving, but the children were so excited….So I took them to an area where I could only hope the earth was free from sorrow. There is just something in the air when you go to a place like that.

Why do we forget these things? Men died for our freedom’s preservation. Men died to make a place in this world for their young ones. Men and women are dying now for freedom.

So much is at stake right now in our country. Everything men and women sacrificed for is now forgotten – International law is becoming more and more acceptable here – and it has no place here. America is DIFFERENT. That is why thousands flock to this place yearly.

Freedom is costly, my precious American brothers and sisters. Do you really think you can live your life with your focus on your workday, your movie-night schedule, and your love-life, and that Liberty – sweet beloved Liberty – is going to continue while you ignore it? It won’t. There are forces of evil trying to take it every day of your life – laws and bills are being passed that are removing your rights one at a time…

It does not matter how old you are.
If you are ignorant in this era of free information, it is willful and it is shameful.

We must look up and away from ourselves.
If we don’t, our self-centeredness will be our ruin.

Texas' independence purchased with blood.

As Dark Forces Influence Our Leadership, Perhaps Light is the Answer

A praying soldierWe find ourselves in the greatest battle of our lifetime. The Battle for the preservation of our nation and her liberties.

In an American Thinker article, Ed Lasky points out how George Soros advises Obama to use forceful measures to override the will of the people.

The Center now is providing a blueprint of ways Barack Obama can do an end run around the people’s will by resorting to methods that will strike many of us as being improper-to say the least. Relying on executive orders, interpretation of regulations, rule -making and the like they are collectively a recipe for even more power being assumed by President Obama..

If you read this article posted above, you will understand why I will forever say, that the fight for the preservation of the integrity and freedoms of this nation must be waged on our knees.

Were you aware that there are systems set in place that the President can abuse to force his “Vision for America” to come into being? He doesn’t need Congress.

“The Center for American Progress today is releasing a report, “Power of the President,” proposing thirty executive actions that the President can take to advance progressive change in the areas of energy, the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, and national security.

“The following authorities can be used to ensure progress on key issues facing the country today: Executive orders, Rulemaking, Agency management, Convening and creating public-private partnerships , Commanding the armed forces, Diplomacy…”

Thirty?!?

It seems that the President has plenty of people to help him remember each and every one of them, lest he forget and miss an opportunity to force his will into becoming reality.

There are two years ahead of us.

Two Years.

At the risk of sounding a bit doom and gloom, I have to say that there is a lot of damage that can be done in that time. We have no idea what plans the leader of our nation and his advisors may have.

Something that alarmed me greatly was said by President Obama on the The Daily Show on October 27th, 2010. Do you remember when he was called “Dude” by John Stewart? That hit the media like lightning, and it should have.  It also destracted from this statement that the President made:

“We have done things that some folks don’t even know about.”

Watch the video below – it is at five minutes and 20 seconds.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Barack Obama Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

There you have it friends and lovers of liberty.

Our President has made it publicly known that there are things they have done that we don’t even know about.  Um, Who are “They”? If this doesn’t send a chill down your spine……

{On a side note, I also found it ‘refreshing’ that the second thing the President said happened to be a slam against the Republican Caucus. Cheap shot, sir, On a show known for having a liberal audience…Way to go for the easy laugh.  Curiously, you didn’t mind smearing the men and women that represent more than half of your citizens on national television. Sadly, instead of making the Republicans look bad for not giving you a standing ovation every time you walk into a room, you made yourself look bad for wanting one.}

Without sounding ominous, I must stress that if we aren’t on our knees, sending our heart’s cry to the Lord of Heaven, there will be no victory even while our representatives do their best to make decisions that will reinforce the framework of this nation.

They have their own battle to wage and we must support them.
While our representatives are busy trying stop a runaway train, they are – no doubt – going to be approached by special interest groups.  There will be attempts to bribe them – yes – bribe them.  Not only that, but there will be political peer pressure applied to them.  Seasoned Congressmen will attempt to talk them into giving up a tiny battle to win the war. This is seductive reasoning that many have fallen prey to in the past.

We need to be in prayer that these freshmen in Washington will be able to stand in integrity and resist the voice of temptation.

Our Heavenly Father – He sees what we cannot.

We must rely on the One who does not slumber or sleep.

The God of Heaven and Earth.
The One who gives and takes away as He sees fit.

That includes the power to rule a nation.

Yes, we have power as Americans.
Yes, we can vote.
Yes, we can read and monitor the bills that are being written.

We can be a voice on the phone and a signature at the bottom of a letter or petition, but that is where it ends.

I stated above that we must wage battle on our knees.

There is no victory without spiritual victory.

There is no spiritual victory without a heart of repentance and supplication.

If you are having a hard time thinking of what to ask forgiveness for while praying for your nation, start with abortion, then move to child pornography, sexual abuse and abduction, then you can move on to the physical abuse of children and spouses, I am sure that the sins of our nation will begin to come to the forefront of your mind the more you pray, and as your heart breaks for your country, you will love her more and more.

We are waging a battle to preserve the best freedom the world has never known.

We are waging a battle for the future of our children.

We are waging a battle against Socialism, Communisim and Terrorism.

We are trying to get our government under control – one that thinks it knows what is best for us, and that makes decisions forus instead of listening to us.

May God in Heaven grant us grace, mercy, and strength to fight a good fight.

May His will be done on earth exactly as it is in Heaven. No one says no to righteousness in Heaven.  There are no abortions there, no crime, no lies, no manipulative forces at play.

I also pray that He would benevolently grant us the victory only He can give, for we find ourselves in the greatest battle of our lifetime.
The Battle to Preserve True Liberty.

The Battle to Save America.

Dems’ Gas Tax Hike Would Fuel Tea Party Anger

The average price of a gallon of gasoline is $2.87, a number which will continue to climb as the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” scheme lowers the value of the dollar. That’s a 50% increase from only two years ago; in the weeks following the presidential election, the average price was about a dollar lower. But according to some Democrats, today’s price isn’t high enough.

Senator Thomas “Tom” Carper (D-DE) wants to raise the federal gasoline tax by twenty-five cents over a period of two years, increasing the current rate—18.4 cents per gallon—by 136% to 43.4 cents per gallon. The last time the tax went up, in 1993, it was increased by a mere 4.3 cents.

Has Carper filled up recently? Does he drive? Or are his vehicles powered by pixie dust and wishes?

The senator travels to Washington, D.C., by train regularly, so perhaps he can be forgiven for apparently forgetting that most Americans are already feeling pain at the pump, and will continue to struggle to afford fuel even without a mind-blowing 136% tax increase.

Then again, he might not be forgiven. With the exceptions of Wilmington, Dover, and a handful of overdeveloped beach towns, Delaware is a rural state. It’s not uncommon for residents to drive twenty miles to work, and in many cases “work” consists of serving summer visitors, as tourism is vital to the First State’s economy. One could almost believe that Carper is intentionally trying to anger his constituents, who will have an opportunity to reelect or fire him in less than two years.

Democrats defend the proposed increase by arguing that revenue must be generated somehow, somewhere, so why not at the tens of thousands of gas stations across the United States?

Their feeble argument reflects their thorough disconnection from the people they pretend to serve. The T-E-A in Tea Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already,” and the results of the recent election can only be interpreted as an unsubtle backlash against big government and tax-and-spend policies, yet still Democrats (and, curiously, some Republicans) insist on raising revenue to fund a predetermined budget. While working families scrounge and cut back, the government spends their hard-earned wealth freely—which is one of several reasons that the country entered a recession in the first place.

The federal government does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. In the real world, a household earns a certain amount, and bases its budget on that income. Why should Congress be above such a common-sense approach to handling finances?

The Democrats’ gas tax hike is not only utterly unnecessary; it will harm a vast majority of Americans, stifle the recovery and growth of businesses big and small, and possibly derail efforts to rejuvenate the economy.

Americans expect to see unfeigned efforts to cut spending, eliminate unnecessary agencies and programs, and reduce the seemingly infinite reach of the federal government, and while only an imbecile would believe that this can happen overnight, the average voter is not so naïve as to be fooled by half-hearted attempts to alter minor details of the progressive agenda, like rearranging the deck furniture on a sinking ship. Fundamental, far-reaching reform is craved, which is why a proposal to do the opposite—to raise taxes for no reason—seems more like a poorly-timed joke than a serious suggestion.

Obama said that electing Democrats would be like putting a car in “D,” to drive forward. He just neglected to mention how expensive driving would be with his party behind the wheel.

Knowing Who You Are

There are many articles that keep us informed of current events, what the Obamanation is up to and what everyone thinks we should .. well, think.  That stuff is important.  I want to know what’s going on, but at no point does anything on TV, in-print or on the radio change what I feel.

The left would have the masses believe that the Conservative movement has come about because of the Tea Party.  No.  The Tea Party arose because America is a Conservative, freedom loving nation and organization is necessary to protect her from another threat.  There were patriots that did it prior to 1776 and there are those of us now that will do it again – at any cost.

Sure, this time it is not an English King.  I understand that we are not being oppressed by a God-appointed monarch.  We now know there is no such thing as divine right.  No, we are now fighting against the elitist, power-hungry know-nothings in Washington D.C. that think that one-world government – the largest possible form of government – is the answer.

I have seen Maddow, Mathews, Stewart et al try to play this American enlightenment off as nothing more than right-wing extremists being led around by Glenn Beck and Dick Armey.  Uh, no.  It just illustrates their ignorance.

While I have caught a few of Glenn’s shows, I live on the East coast .. he’s on when I’m driving home from work (yeah, we don’t collect welfare checks Rachel).  As far as the House speaker from a decade ago .. strike two libs .. try again – he’s not directing Americans .. he’s just doing whatever it is that previous politicians do.  The real American people .. not concerned about it.

I have known how I have felt about debt, killing babies, defending my country, chivalry, charity and work ethic long before Glenn Beck took his first drink.  I am who I am and it is who I have been for a very long time.  I voluntarily entered the armed forces immediately after the invasion of Kuwait.  Yes, I know you progressives will say I was stupid for doing it .. but that’s only because you are struggling with the concept of honor, truth and the American way.  Venezuela is waiting for you and I can’t wait for you to leave.

Glenn, Rush or whomever else you would like to paint me with was not in my life when I got baptized, got my first .22, skinned my first squirrel, had my first communion, shot my first pheasant, shot my first dear, got shot at in  a foreign country, started my first business, met my wife, had my kids, or started my second and third businesses.  None of those people have changed my life – they have just added information into it that the liberal media won’t offer.

I was pissed-off at progressives long before I knew who Obama, Reid and Pelosi were.  I was the only kid in my elementary school class to carry a Ford sign when, for whatever reason, we had to have a political parade at that age – and by the way, my Mom was voting for Carter .. a rebel at 8, who knew?  I was in the military under Clinton and he was the main reason  I decided not to re-enlist.  I have principles.  I will gladly give my life in the defense of the true Republic, but would do no harm to her .. ever.

Don’t let someone define you by who’s on the television or radio.  Weren’t you that same person before you found those channels?  Be who you are, who you have always been.  Let them be ashamed for a change.  They live life by the pamphlet and have no clue who they really are – and they never will.

When Corn Prices Rise Our Government .. Regulates Food

Corn shortage causes prices to riseWelcome to Bazaaro-world – otherwise known as the United States with a liberal Congress.

A November 18th Bloomberg article illustrates what’s happening:

China’s State Council said on its website yesterday that price caps will be used on “important daily necessities” and production materials, if necessary. U.S. soybean inventories before next year’s harvest will be 30 percent less than forecast in October, and corn reserves may drop to the lowest since 1996, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said last week.

The Chinese are worried that we aren’t producing enough Soybeans and Corn to sustain their requirements.  Surprise, we aren’t producing enough to satisfy ours either.

Some believe that China, the world’s second largest corn producer behind the U.S. is a net exporter – no longer.  The Bloomberg report continues:

China became a net importer of corn this past year for the first time in 14 years, USDA data show. The nation will buy 57 million metric tons of soybeans in the marketing year that began Oct. 1, up 13 percent from the previous year, the USDA said Nov. 9.

China no longer produces enough corn to feed its own people.  There is no fall back position. How long until we can’t feed Americans any more?  We won’t have anyone to import from, so then what?  In Obama’s words costs, “..would necessarily skyrocket”.

By itself the huge climb in corn prices is alarming.  Many grocery items that we all rely on require corn or its derivatives -corn syrup, corn flour, corn meal, etc.  But that’s not the only thing that should have your alarm bells ringing.  Just as corn, soy and cotton prices have started to climb, our government has decided to act – to regulate food.

Senate bill 510 (S. 510) is the “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act”.  This bill seeks to update the “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act”.  If passed, it would certainly update existing law, but the changes are disconcerting.

When first read, the bill appears harmless.  It’s only when read again, with the context of the global food crisis that things stick out.  Let’s take the wording of the very first two titles (emphasis mine):

TITLE I–IMPROVING CAPACITY TO PREVENT FOOD SAFETY PROBLEMS

TITLE II–IMPROVING CAPACITY TO DETECT AND RESPOND TO FOOD SAFETY PROBLEMS

Granted, the “capacity” statements seem to be around building larger government agencies and capabilities.  The question is why?  Are we expecting a sudden threat to our food supply or perhaps such a shortage that we will have to try to get corn, soy and other food stuffs from someplace else.

These first two sections certainly illustrate a known concern about our ability to produce enough food, the third .. nails it:

TITLE III–IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED FOOD

Digging into S. 510, the details are not comforting.  Title one contains registration section.  It forces even the smallest food producers to register with the government.  Why?  Why does the government care about someones cucumber and tomato garden if there are already plenty of cucumbers on the market.  Then again, what happens when there are no longer enough cucumbers?

There is no way to know if this is coincidence or happenstance.   Corn and Soy prices skyrocket and suddenly the Senate takes a cloture vote on legislation that is more than a year old.  This bill was introduced in March of 2009 and just sat there for 18 months.  Then food prices rise, the Chinese signal a shortage and the Senate thinks this bill needs attention.  Always the question – why?


Even With Recent Losses, Congressional Democrats Double-Down

Democrat-led Congress gambles America's moneyAh, the ever famous black-jack bet.  Good or bad, not knowing what the outcome might be the gambler doubles his bet.  Damn the consequences.

Granted, in Vegas they supply alcohol to dull the decision-making and soften the blow, but in Congress, alcohol is replaced with the all-devouring drug:  power.

With less than three weeks of Congressional time left, the Democrat-controlled Congress is likely to keep pushing the progressive agenda by forcing yet another left-wing extremist law down our throats – the “DREAM” act.

The country has no budget, the largest tax hike in history is on the horizon (the Obama tax hike) and we are all about to be hit with AMT all because Democrats chose to kick their real work down the road like an election-winning tin can.  The only problem?  They didn’t win the election so now .. they just have a tin can.

If the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress doesn’t do the work Americans elected them to do, the new Republican-led House of Representatives will be left with the largest Congressional mess in recent history.  They will have to reverse all of the Obama tax hikes to take us back to at least 2010 levels.  They will have to put together a budget that reverses the last 6 years of Congressional over-spending.  They will have to do .. what the people want.

Nancy won’t, Harry has no choice and the slim number of remaining reasonable (aka Blue Dog) Democrats will probably do whatever their district’s or state’s polls tell them to.

At this point in the Congressional calendar, why is everyone worried about ear marks?  Wait until February..   For now, we need a budget, we don’t want our taxes to go through the roof (can you handle ~$300/ month more coming out of your paycheck?), and AMT is not for the middle class (wait until we have to pay taxes like “the rich” – it won’t be as rosy as the libdergardners make it).

Shouldn’t Congress be doing the the business of the people?  Not Nancy’s business, not Obama’s business, not Harry’s business – OUR business.  If not, Congress may feel the people do their business.

Clothing is about to shoot through the roof:

Some companies will try to move clothing production to a cheaper venue to offset higher material costs, according to the New York Times. Others will try to shave the bottom line by switching to synthetics, but that strategy is proving dicey. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that polyester is also growing more expensive, up by as much as 25%, again due to demand of the same manufacturers looking for an alternative to cotton, as well as fluctuations in oil prices

A realistic price survey shows that everything else is going to hell:

..new pricing survey of products sold at the world’s largest retailer (Wal-Mart) showed a 0.6 percent price increase in just the last two months, according to MKM Partners. At that rate, prices would be close to four percent higher a year from now, double the Fed’s mandate

And we’ve all started to feel the rising price of gasoline:

Take a look for example at the stats on gasoline. Gas prices soared, rising from a national average $2.694 the week of the Fed meeting when they signaled QE2 to a staggering $2.865 which is an increase of $.17 a gallon. That already seems to have impacted demand as the MasterCard SpendingPulse reported that gasoline demand hit a 6 week low and has fallen for 4 weeks in a row. MasterCard said that gas demand has fallen to an average of 8.99 million barrels a day..

Will the government concentrate on our pocketbooks or theirs?  Sure, Charlie Rangel is a recognized veteran – of the military and Congress, but he’s old guard.  Most of the remaining Democrats are starting to realize that they also are relics of a time long past and that without modification, may become history like those that fell victim to the tsunami of 2010.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed May Not Face Trial

In a startling affront to the American sense of justice, the Obama administration’s inability to make a decision will more-than-likely delay Khlaid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial past the 2012 election and possibly longer.  FoxNews reported Sunday morning that the administration is now signalling that it will not try Khalid until at least after the 2012 election and perhaps not at all.  The New York Post seems to confirm this report:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is likely to stay in military detention for an undetermined time – possibly until after the 2012 elections, the Washington Post reports.

The White House has suspended plans to try Mohammed in federal court because elected officials in New York strongly protested the idea, the paper says, citing senior White House officials who asked to remain anonymous.

Obama has been struggling with the 9-11 mastermind’s legal disposition ever since he chose to vacate Khalid’s guilty plea simply because it was given in a military tribunal.  A fair trial that gave Khalid more chance of a defense than the thousands of innocent workers he killed on 9-11.

Obama’s plight is purely political, much like him.  He is trying to appease his extreme left-wing progressive supporters by holding a civilian trial in New York City, but is facing criticism from the moderate majority in the Democrat party.  He can give the progressives what they want and experience Tsunami: part II in 2012 or he can give the moderates and Conservatives what they desire – a quick military tribunal for an act of war – and he will likely lose the progressive and socialist factions in his party that most match his politics.

It appears that the families of the victims of Khalid’s attack will not see justice until President Obama and Democrats lose control of the White House and Congress.

Chivalry Is Not Abuse

I was trolling the internet and tripped across something that has nothing to with politics, politicians, elections, public policy or much else that I typically write about.  But I had to write about this.

In a post at Corkin.com Sanford Kahn makes a weak attempt to explain that you can out a male control freak by seeing how he reacts if the woman want to pay for the meal while dating.

On the next date, why don’t you suggest taking him out to dinner and see how he reacts? It doesn’t have to be an expensive restaurant. What is important is his reaction.

If he reacts in the negative and makes a fuss about how that is not important, it could be an early indication that he likes to be in charge and in control..

Not every woman desires a traditional man.  Perhaps this test could have been better positioned as a filter for those women to prevent them from dating a gentleman for far too long.

I was raised by a very traditional and conservative family.  My Grandfather would have rolled in his grave if I had ever not paid for a meal on  date or failed to open a door for a lady.  I don’t see these actions as my exerting my manly authority over a building entrance, car door or restaurant tab – it’s taking care of my partner.

After 13 years of marriage, my wife and I make the decisions on different things.  Certain topics we go with what she wants, on others my decision may stand.  It’s not because we are both control freaks, but that we know each others strengths and weaknesses.  Why would I make a call on something where she is clearly better informed?

As far as restaurant bills, to this day, my wife has never paid the bill when we went out together.  The money all comes from the same account and we tend to carry the same amount around.  The action of signing the bill or leaving the money is the same today as it was 15 years ago when we dated – its my way of saying that I will take care of my partner and that I take my responsibility to the family seriously.  Yes, it’s symbolic – but so is a hug, a kiss, holding hands.

If Sanford wanted to offer advice on how to find out if your date is a control freak, there are far better signs.  Can you pick the restaurant?  Does he try to pick your food for you?  Or a billion other signals that should be easy to pick up on.

Being a gentleman means taking care of a lady.  If you prefer living in a world where chivalry is dead, this test is indeed for you.  I am not sure how long you will enjoy your relationship with someone that does not think he needs to do much at all for you – least of all something so simple as paying for a meal.

P.C. Police Attack Glenn Beck for Show on Soros

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), otherwise known as the Politically-Correct Police, have decided that Glenn Beck must be condemned and *SURPRISE* the HuffingtonPost agrees.

Glenn Beck devoted significant time this last week to exposing George Soros, the left-wing extremist (otherwise known as “liberal”) billionaire for what he is – a destructive force against the free people of the world.

In some ways, I agree with the ADL.  The information on Soros was “horrific” – where I disagree was that Beck was untruthful.

Soros has, by his own admission been the behind-the-scenes financier and strategist in more than one national coup.  What’s seriously flawed in the post’s reporting is that they say that Beck played Soros for a Nazi sympathizer.  That’s not what Beck did.  Instead, Soros was portrayed as an agnostic.  He just hasn’t done anything to protect Judaism or Israel.  Even in the quote that the author used he failed to make it anything other than what Beck said:

..when he had to go over and take the lands from the people…who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can’t imagine what that would do to a teenager, anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, ‘no.’ He also said, ‘I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence, but I don’t want to be a part of it.

At what point does Beck say that he’s a Nazi?  This article just continues to show the radical left-wing media for what it is – biased and untrustworthy.  Arianna has giant hate groups like ADL to help spread her unfair, horrific and offensive messages which makes it much more difficult to get the truth out.  Heck, here’s the Media Matters video the author tried to use to make his false point:

The important point here is that Arianna Huffington, the Huffington Post and the ADL are all protecting an evil man – George Soros.  A man that has promised to give his own life if it would take down America.

While a naive progressive uses Beck’s words in an attempt to prove him a P.C. Offender, the author’s own quotes and vidieo show Soros to be the maniac that he is.

The ADL has positioned itself as being against anti-semitism, but protects Soros.  Their motives are clear, but not clearly stated.

The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.”

How is the defense of a monster like Soros “fair treatment” or protection of the Jewish people.  Many would argue that Glenn Beck, Fox News, and Conservatives have done far more to protect Israel and her Jewish people than Obama and the far-left extremists.

Of Course, Arianna’s rag attacks anyone that isn’t out to destroy America.  In an unrelated article, the Huffington Post goes after Megyn Kelly for .. laughing – nevermind that Megyn just announced that she’s pregnant – hormones perhaps? The real story is about a medical procedure to cool heart attack victims using special techniques.  Kelly gets giggly when she posits that perhaps throwing a spouse in the freezer isn’t the answer. You’d think Arianna would understand, having daughters of her own, but she’s just go-for-the-throat progressive, just like the ADL.

Truth is unimportant.

North Carolina City To Accept Mexican IDs

Mexican Identification - Matricular CardAccording to WTVD-11, Durham, NC’s city council is considering accepting Mexican-issued I.D.s for the purpose of identification and financial transactions.

If approved, Durham would be the first city in the country to accept the Matricula Consular. It’s an identification card issued by the Government of Mexico through its consulate offices to Mexican citizens residing outside of Mexico regardless of their emigration status.

According to an opinion from the Durham City Attorney, “the official purpose of the card is to demonstrate that the holder is a Mexican citizen living outside of Mexico. It includes an official Government of Mexico issued ID number and bears a photograph and address of the Mexican National to whom it is issued.”

If Durham approves the resolution, city officials and police officers would accept it as a legal form of ID and banks could also accept it for financial transactions.

As CDN reported in June, these Matricula Consular are loosely controlled and open the door for identity fraud.

The FBI has even stated that the Mexican government does not manage the I.D.s well which leads to forgery and duplication.  I wonder if any foreign terrorists might also like a Matricular ID so that they can get money to/from their organizations with no track back to their true identity.

As the city is considering the use of these Matricular cards for the opening of bank accounts and transfers, the movement of money to international banks could be done with no link to the actual ID of the person performing the transaction.

Durham is opening it’s doors the possibly becoming a terrorist gateway into the country and for American financial assets to get to terrorist entities abroad.

Nancy Pelosi Finds Entire Debt Commission Proposal ‘Unacceptable’

Nancy Pelosi rejects all effots to reduce the debt

Nancy Pelosi has decided that compromise is unimportant.  The hard left-wing progressive agenda must move forward damn the consequences to our country.

In a statement today, the democrat-hopeful for minority leader let everyone know that she thinks the commission had nothing good to report in its draft proposal:

Our nation is facing two challenges: the need to create jobs and address our budget deficit. Any viable proposal from the President’s Fiscal Commission must strengthen our economy, but it must do so in a fair way, focusing on how we can effectively promote economic growth.

This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren’s economic security as well as for our nation’s fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America’s middle class families–under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.

Americans may be left to wonder who the “party of no” is now.  This is her President’s bipartisan panel.  The group produced some responsible reforms to keep Americans from living a debt-laden nightmare and could avoid having that catastrophe passed on to future generations.  Her statement makes it absolutely clear that Nancy Pelosi and the left-wing extremist Democrats have no ideas on how to reduce the debt.  None.