Archive for the ‘National Nonsense’ Category

Cheap Constitutional Cheat

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

George stomped his boots on the wooden porch to remove January’s snow and the traces of New Jersey mud he had picked up between the hitching post and the small pub.  The sixty-one year-old mountain of a man was dwarfed only by the legends of his accomplishment.  As he stepped inside, he was greeted with enthusiasm.

“Mr. President!” someone shouted.

“To the President!” shouted another.

“Here here!” echoed the reply as the men held their tankards upward in respect of the man who had done so much to free them from their European monarch.

“Thank you, all.”  George tipped his hat to them, revealing a full head of formerly red hair, which he believed, looked better powdered than the gray to which it had faded.  He hung his three-cornered hat on a post by the door and spoke to the bartender,  “Barbados Rum, if you have it.  And where is Governor Paterson?”

“Over here, Mr. President.  We’ve a good table reserved in the back room.  And don’t worry.  I made sure our fine pub had your favorite rum on hand.”  William Paterson was like most men of the day, shorter than his President.  He also shared the curse of the beginnings of gray hair showing through his once auburn coiffure.  It came with being 48 years old in 1793 as coloring products for men were still years away from being in style.  After exchanging greetings, the men retired to the back room with their drinks in hand.

“You said you had urgent business for me?”

“Yes, William,” George said as his mug thumped against the table.  “I’ll cut to the chase, I need you on the Supreme Court.”

“I’m confused.  Why now?  Why me?”

“The timing is really Thomas Johnson’s fault.  His health inspired him to resign on the sixteen.  I would have preferred him to share his frailties with me back in 1791 before he took the job in the first place, but that didn’t happen.  But it has happened now.  So that leaves our country a Justice short, so we need you.”  George took another sip of rum.  “That’s good stuff.”

“Sorry to hear Thomas’ health is poor.  But I’m afraid I can’t accept the position—I’m not qualified.”

“Ridiculous!  Your credentials are beyond reproach.  You were a patriot throughout the revolution.  You were Attorney General of New Jersey—the most prominent lawyer in the state.  You served at the Constitutional Convention—why you were the one who proposed the solution for equal representation for each state.  You just about wrote the Constitution!  As a Justice, you would make sure our country remains true to the principles in that blessed document.  What do you mean, you’re not qualified?”

“I already hold an office.”

“Being Governor of New Jersey does not disqualify you from accepting a nomination to the Supreme Court.  Of course, I understand if you’d rather remain Governor and forgo being a Justice.”

“Oh no, Mr. President.  I want to be a Supreme Court Justice more than anything.  I believe I’ve been called by God for that specific purpose.”

“William,” said George, who then paused to take another sip of rum.  He hardened his gaze and spoke sternly, “You’re talking in circles.  Explain to me why you can’t accept the position without the ambiguity—lest you try our friendship beyond its limits.”

“Yes, Mr. President.  I was previously elected as a Senator for New Jersey.  Article 1, Section 6 , Clause 2 is quite clear.  No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created …”

“But, William, you left that Senate position to take up service as the Governor of New Jersey.”

“That’s true.  But the Governorship is not a civil office subject to the authority of the United States.  The time I was elected to office of Senator doesn’t end until the third of March of this year, 1793.”

George’s expression softened, as he completely understood William’s objections.  “Oh, so that is a problem.  I did take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to the best of my ability.  All oaths are sacred and should never be broken.  But a President’s character should always be above reproach–it would open the door for future problems.  But, I’ve already nominated you to Congress.  What do I do now?”

“Oh dear, that is another problem.  Sir, you need to retract that nomination until after my Senate time has expired—after which, I’ll eagerly report for duty.”

“Yes, that is the only solution.  Certainly, I understand.  But I can’t help but to muse about that clause.  Was it really intended to prevent the most qualified man in the country from assuming his position as a Justice?”

“Not really.  But the godly men who assembled to craft our Constitution knew that we had to have checks and balances throughout the document to prevent future generations from copying the oppressive practices of the ‘royal’ lineages in Europe.  If left unchecked, we could find ourselves with professional public-servants …”

“That is ridiculous.   How could they attend to the businesses that support their families?”

“They could create a level of pay and privileges that would elevate their life styles using the power of taxes on the merchants and producers of the country.”

“Sounds more like a system for highway men than legislatures.”

“Yes, Mr. President.  A republic can be a fragile thing.  Of course, another solid check on such corruption is the second half of that same clause:  ‘or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time,’ thus restricting any Senator or Congressman from ever holding an office that has been created or given a salary or benefits, or even increasing the salary or benefits of an existing office.”

“I see.  I remember some of that discussion.  James Madison was very concerned about people using an elected office as a gateway to enrich their own life, with no regard to national service.  I still don’t completely understand how unethical people could ever manage to win the hearts and minds of the voting people.”

“Certainly not our in generation.  We’ve paid too much for the freedoms we enjoy today to toss them away.  But it is possible that future generations could be enticed by office seekers who might promise them something for nothing, only to loot the taxpayers in the process.”

“I pray you’re wrong.  A person who believes they can have something for nothing is either a criminal or a fool.  America is better than that.”


No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

             Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

As clear as the language is in our Constitution, some administrations have chosen to violate it.

In 1968 William Saxbe was elected to the U.S. Senate.  In 1973—before his time was complete—Richard Nixon appointed him U.S. Attorney General, after firing Elliot Richardson who disagreed with him over the Watergate Scandal.
Whatever motivation Richard Nixon had to have a more cooperative Attorney General in power is open to speculation.  Nixon convinced Congress to assist him in violating Article 6, Section 1, Clause 2 by reducing the salary to the Attorney General to the level it was before Saxbe’s term in the Senate had begun.  This cheap Constitutional cheat has been known ever since as the “Saxbe’s fix.”  President Nixon resigned from office in 1974 to avoid impeachment.

In 1980 Jimmy Carter coped the Saxbe’s fix to appoint then Senator Edmund Muskie as Secretary of State after Cyrus Vance resigned in protest of the failed mission to rescue the American hostages in Iran where eight US servicemen were lost.  Muskie appealed in vain to the UN to save the American hostages and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter just prior to ending his single term most noteworthy for a record misery index on the America people.

In 1993, Senator Lloyd Benson resigned from his office and became Bill Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury.  An interesting note on this “Saxbe’s fix” is that President George H.W. Bush was somehow convinced to sign the bill as one of his last acts in office—thus sharing partial blame for the Constitutional sin.  Talk about leaving office on a sour note.

Following the 2008 election the “Saxbe’s fix” has become standard procedure to fill Obama’s cabinet:

  1. New York Senator Clinton resigned to become the Secretary of State.
  2. Colorado Senator Salazar resigned to become Secretary of the Interior.
  3. California Representative Solis resigned to become Secretary of Labor.

What would George Washington and William Paterson have said about such activity?

And just how does that oath of office for the President go?  The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That should mean exactly what it says, shouldn’t it?

It just makes sense.

Who’s Your Ruler?

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett said, “Obama is prepared to take power and rule on day one.”

Did you hear that?  It could have been a slip of the lip.  It could have been confusion on the part of the speaker.  It could have been, but probably wasn’t.  Let’s suppose it wasn’t.  What’s wrong with the statement?

Who is America’s ruler?

Is “President” just a another word Americas say to mean king, emperor or dictator?

No, of course not.  We know who the supreme law of the land is, don’t we?  Come on, who says “the President” has any power at all?  No!  It’s not the military.  It’s not the police.  It’s not the courts.  You know who’s supreme.

It’s the Constitution.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  It defines the limited power of all offices of the United States.  For instance, Article II covers everything about the office of the President.  Did you know that before a person can be the President, he has to take an oath to the Constitution?

“Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

While the Constitution explains the limits of the President’s powers, even a casual observer of the oath should be able to understand that the President is required to obey the Constitution.  The Constitution rules the President.

Article VI explains how powerful the Constitution is:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

So who’s your ruler?
If you said, “The Constitution,” you can give yourself full credit.  But if you quoted the first three words of the Constitution you get an extra 10 points.  It is there that you find the author and true sovereign of America.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A win is a win.  Elections have results, as they should.  But don’t let anyone tell you that you have a new ruler.

I will pray for the new President as I have for the previous ones, maybe more.  But the President has never been our ruler.  He’s not our king, emperor, or dictator.  He’s not above the law.  His limited authority is granted to him for a limited time by the Constitution.  He works for us.

It just makes sense.

General Georges Sada Shares Saddam’s Secrets

Saturday, November 15th, 2008

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)? If so, what happened to them?

Was Saddam Hussein ever planning to attack his neighbors?

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

I know it’s difficult for most of us to believe, but since some time has passed, more than a few Americans have forgotten who Saddam Hussein was and what he did. They probably only vaguely remember the leftist mantra, “Bush lied, people died.” So a quick history lesson is in order.

Here’s an extract from the CIA country study on Iraq:

In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait’s liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years led to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime.

Yes, I know.

They spelled Saddam’s last name wrong. I don’t know if the spelling was changed when the page was updated on 6 November 2008 or some time earlier. After a little research I discovered that there are multiple acceptable spellings since it is merely a transliteration of the Arabic language. I don’t think it was intended to disassociate the dead dictator’s last name from the middle name of our President-elect.

Did I say dead dictator?

Yes I did.

Iraq’s High Tribunal found Saddam Hussein/Husayn guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang in 2006. The trial wasn’t about WMD or any intent to invade his neighbors, instead it was about some of his murders in 1982. To have tried him for all his crimes, would have taken many years–maybe decades. As it was, it only took one conviction and one hanging to put an end to him.

But we’re stuck with those lingering questions. Was it all a sham? How will we ever really know?

Come to think of it, how do you know anything? Think about it.

There’s only two ways to know anything. You either have to experience the event or believe somebody else’s account of what happened. Most of the stuff you know, you know because you’ve taken someone else’s word for it. The challenge is to decide who to believe.

In legal proceedings and in historic research, the closer the witness is to actually experiencing the event, the more reliable they are as a source. For instance, the personal testimony of an eye-witness is considered more reliable that the testimony of a person who read about the event in a newspaper or saw it on an edited television news cast. Even somebody who talked with an eye-witness of an event is more creditable than someone who formed an opinion based on a collection of news reports and documentaries. And when the testimony is supported by circumstantial evidence, greater credence can be given to the witness.

So what about the Iraqi WMD?

Many blogs and news reports declare that there weren’t any. But how could they know? And who has disagreed with them?

Bill Clinton did in 1998 and still did as late as 2003. Maybe he was wrong. Do you think? Several other people disagreed also, such people as Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. Maybe they were wrong too. Certainly they weren’t all liars. No, they had to believe what they were saying, which had to be based on some reliable source they had access to. So much of that high-level stuff remains unavailable to the average American due to classification levels.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could talk to an eye-witness about what was going in Iraq. Or at least be able to read a book written by a witness. Maybe then we could have some certainly about whether there were WMD in Iraq.

Well, now there is.

A retired Iraqi Air Force Vice Air-Marshall (a.k.a. General) Georges Sada has written his testimony called Saddam’s Secrets. It answers the questions I asked at the beginning of this column. If you’d prefer to read the book and find the answers yourself, you need to stop reading now. Otherwise, here goes:

Did Saddam Hussein’s Iraq have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?

Yes (page 71).

Then what happened to them?

Some of them were found by occupying forces, but most of them were transported to Syria in the summer of 2002. Pretending to provide humanitarian support in response to a collapsed dam in Zeyzoun, fifty-six flights on modified commercial 747s and 727s transported hundreds of tons of WMD (pages 260-261). I found an article referencing an Agence France-Presse (AFP) story about 20 plane-loads of aid from Iraq to Syria on 9 June 2002. There are some people who say they know where the WMD in Syria are today.

Was Saddam Hussein planning to attack his neighbors?

Yes. As most people know he initiated an eight-year war with Iran and then in 1990 he invaded Kuwait. However, he also planned to attack Israel with a air-armada of 98 aircraft all using chemical WMD (pages 128-129, 135, 140). And he intended to attack Saudi Arabia with twelve combat divisions (pages 171, 172). The primary reason he canceled the attacks against Israel and Saudi Arabia is because of the US-led attack which neutered his military power (page 173).

Was Saddam Hussein really a bad guy, or was he just misunderstood?

He was about as bad as a human can be. See pages 299 and 300 for a summary, but multiple accounts are scattered throughout the 315-page book.

Who is this General Sada and why should we care about him?

He graduated from Iraq’s Air Academy in 1959, received training in Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, trained many Iraqi pilots, and was the second ranking officer in Saddam Hussein’s air force. He was forced into retirement in 1986 because he was a member of the Baathist party, but was recalled during the First Gulf War to interrogate coalition pilots. He placed his life on the line by refusing to execute the coalition pilots as Qusay (the son of Saddam) ordered him to do (pages 181-187).

Without General Sada’s actions, no coalition pilots POWs would have survived to tell their tales.

When was this book, Saddam’s Secrets, published?

2006. 2006! Why haven’t I heard about this book before now?

He was briefly interviewed on Fox News’ Hannity and Combs, and then again on the comedic Daily Show. He has talked to a few churches around the country. But otherwise, he’s mostly ignored. I suggest there are at least six reasons why Saddam’s Secrets hasn’t been given much press coverage.

First of all, it is filled with little stories about Georges Sada’s life. For the reader who is searching for information about WMD, these stories can be annoying. Initially, I found them to be so, but the more of them I read, the more I grew to like the author. His account of his first flight in the MiG-21 on pages 54 to 62 was the turning point for me. As an Air Force pilot I understood what he went through as a 28-year-old aviator trying to do a mission without being fully trained for it. From there on, he was a friend telling me about his life. A life which had a connection to an evil dictator.

Saddam’s Secrets in not complimentary of the United Nations (UN). From high-level leadership down to the lowly blue-helmeted UN peace-keeper, they are all portrayed as bride-seeking individuals supporting nothing that relates to peace or justice. Some people might think it could bolster the traditional anti-UN sentiment of many Americans, whose tax-dollars pay 22% of the UN operating costs.

Georges Sada also talks about a Chinese connection in a deal to supply nuclear weapons to Iraq. Saddam offered them $100 million, but the deal was squashed when coalition-efforts prevented the transfer of funds. This information might set back the progress of elected officials working to convince Americans to accept China as a strategic partner and friend.

Probably the second worst offense in the book is that he warns us about a cultural invasion by the followers of Islam. Ever since shortly after 9/11, President Bush has repeatedly insisted that Islam is a religion of peace. Sada’s discussion on pages 285 to 291 suggests America and Europe are under going an assimilation that if ignored will soon transform our customs, history, and languages. This type of talk is not popular in an age where tolerance is culturally demanded, even written into our laws.

He criticizes the American handling of Iraq after the defeat of Saddam’s military. Not only were their major mistakes made after the 1991 war it was worse after the 2003 war. Disbanding the military the way it was, depleted the resources that could have been used to expedite stability and even worse encourage thousands of former officers to join the violent opposition. Shortly after the war, General Sada offered to establish security for Baghdad if he could have 40,000 UNARMED former Iraqi air force personnel assigned as police to him. The plan was rejected by the Americans in charge.

But Georges Sada’s greatest offense to the popular media might be that he is an Assyrian Christian. As an Assyrian, his ancestral claims to live where he does predate those of Arabs. It’s like a 2000-year trump card on the “evil-Crusading-invaders” argument used by many non-Christians. Greater than being Assyrian, the “Christian” descriptor is an obvious offense to non-Christians in the 21st century.

General Sada does more than just say he’s a Christian, throughout his book, he often gives thanks to Jesus for things that went right in his life. He also suggests that others should seek the truth of Christianity in several places throughout his book. He even has a small lecture for young people concerning their dress and sexual behavior–how dare he.

Personal testimonies of Christians often make non-Christians feel uncomfortable. I discovered through other sources that while Georges Sada was raised in the “old-style Christianity” of the middle-east, he actually became a born-again Christian in 1989. That was after an American preacher from California visited his church and taught about the individual relationship a person can have with Jesus. That explains a lot to those who understand what it means.

So Georges Sada has at least six reasons for people not to promote his book. Nevertheless the book is published and you might want to read it. If you don’t have a friend to lend one to you, it might be in your local library, or you can order a copy on-line at for about $17, it retails for about $25.

Another subplot in the book dealt with Saddam’s leadership style. Specifically, he placed very incompetent people below him in positions of great authority. While this tactic resulted in national leaders who were terrible at their jobs, they were totally loyal to Saddam. Without the power of Saddam to support and protect them, they would never be followed by the people they supervised. Thus revolution was impossible.

Doesn’t that make you wonder?

If you ever worked for an incompetent boss, did you ever wonder how he got there? Was it just a fluke, or was it a parallel of the Saddam principle of leadership?

Kinda makes you think about what your boss’s boss is thinking.

It just makes sense.

Misery Index

Saturday, November 8th, 2008

The “misery index” was coined by the economist Arthur Okun. It is calculated by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. Jimmy Carter often referenced it when he was campaigning for the Presidency in 1976. Carter declared that since America was stuck with a misery index of 13.5, President Ford had no right to ask for re-election.

Was he right?

After Jimmy Carter was elected, the misery index continued to rise until his administration was vanquished in a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan. The chart below shows the progress of the misery index using October of each year from 1968 to 2008 as a data point.
Misery Index 1968-2008 Presidents

Be careful before you draw any conclusions.

Here’s a color-coded version of the same chart. It uses the modern media’s assignment of red to the Republicans and blue to the Democrats. Trying to make sense out of why the misery index goes up or down based solely on the party of the President in office comes up with some mixed results.

Presidents misery Index color

For instance, during Richard Nixon’s Republican administration the misery index continued to climb until Gerald Ford, also a Republican, took office. Ironically, President Ford’s misery index was trending lower the entire time he was in office and even as candidate Jimmy Carter made an issue of snap-shots of the index to oust Ford.

The misery index increased so much during Jimmy Carter’s administration that the American people embraced Republican Presidents for the next 12 years.

Misery is not easily forgotten.  But sometimes, like old soldiers, it just fades away. Listen to the old folks if you ever have the time.

As much as some people would like to tag all Democrat Presidents with the misery heaped on Americans during Carter’s administration, it doesn’t prove true when you look at the historic trend on the charts I’ve provided.

Bill Clinton presided over the lowest misery index since the early 1960’s and 1950’s. And we can’t blame the most recent after-burner climb of the misery index on a Democratic Party president since we’re nearing the end of eight years of a Republican administration.

So how can this be?

It is clear that which party the President belongs too is not the sole determiner of how miserable Americans will be. In addition, one of the most repeated lessons in history is to never put your faith in mortal kings. They’ll eventually let you down. The President alone does not control the misery index.

Is there another branch of government that has some control over the economy?

Yes, there is. It’s called the legislative branch, and it’s comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They do the grunt work on budgets and taxes. The President has an influence, and sometimes he can force them to do his will–but not always.

What was going on in the legislative branch while that misery index was rising and diving?

Here’s the same chart of the 1968-2008 misery index showing which political party and which Speaker of the House was maybe culpable for American misery. It’s easy to see that Speakers of the House Albert and O’Neill and their fellow Democrats were in control during the most miserable times, but it doesn’t seem consistent.

Misery Index 1968-2008 Speakes

Notice how in 1980 the misery index plummets even with O’Neill as the Speaker of the House. Using this data, it is clear to see that the Speaker of the House alone does not control the misery index.

So what was happening with the Senate from 1968-2008?

Take a look at the chart below.  The Senate is often called the “upper house” so I’ve placed Democratic Party and Republican icons at the top of the chart along with the names of the Senate Leaders at the time. Notice how the misery index drops rapidly with the beginning of Senate Leader Baker’s control. It levels off when power switches to Senator Byrd, climbs again when Senator Mitchell comes to power but then defies the logic of blame by decreasing in the middle of his term of leadership.

Misery Index 1968-2008 Senate Leaders
While the chart appears to show that when Democrats control the Senate the misery index goes up, it is not consistently true. Thus, it is clear to see that the Senate Leader alone does not control the misery index.

What happens when we combine all three of these charts?

Misery Index 1968-2008 combined
When the misery index chart shows the President in office along with which party controls the House of Representatives and Senate, it becomes more clear that certain combinations result in more misery for Americans.

When the House and the Senate are controlled by the Democratic Party, regardless of which party the President belongs to, the misery index trends upwards. This is evident on the chart from 1968-1980, 1986-1993, and in our current time. But in contrast, when a Republican Senate is combined with either a Republican President or Republican House, the misery index trends downward.

The extraordinary drop in misery during President Reagan’s administration, according to the chart, appears to have been possible because of help from Baker’s and Dole’s Senate leadership. Notice how the misery index rose when the Democrats retook the Senate in 1986. The next big drop in the misery index occurred in 1995.  Interestingly, the Republicans control both the House the Senate while the Democrats control the Presidency.

So what does all of this mean?

By examining past results we can make some predictions about the future with some confidence of accuracy. We can deduce that the President can neither increase nor decease the misery of Americans by himself.

What a remarkable system we’ve inherited via the Constitution. As Veterans’ Day approaches, maybe we can understand a little better why America’s military pledges an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  No American takes an oath to a Party, ruler, or place.

Based off of what we see in the trend chart below, the misery index of the Carter administration was not completely Jimmy Carter’s fault. He was enabled by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate. The result was the greatest misery index since statistics have been kept.

Misery Index 1968-2008 combined with arrows
You probably couldn’t help but to notice the sudden upswing in the misery index over the last two years.  Did you also notice how it seems to parallel the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s? That can be attributed to the Party that controls both the House and the Senate. And I’m sure you’ve notice that America just elected a Democratic Party member to be the next President of the United States.

If the trends of the last 40-years of Party-induced misery stays true to past performance, America will experience another big rise in misery beginning shortly after power is transferred. Just like during the Jimmy Carter years, when the Executive branch and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democrat Party, nothing can dissuade their economic policies from pushing misery upwards.

So misery seems certain to come.  Here’s the solution to prevent a new record in American misery.

If the misery index keeps rising over the next two years, America should realized that the only way to stop it is to balance the power through the 2010 election. We have already seen a Republican Senate and House combine to lower misery in 1996–some may argue it even made Clinton successful enough to be re-elected.  While that can neither be proved nor disproved, we do know that it worked to lower misery.  The chart above clearly shows that.  The chart suggest that it will probably work again in 2010.

Looking backwards, that would have been the solution in 1976–but alas, it wasn’t tried. Some people said we got what we deserved for keeping one-party control back then. But saying that didn’t make life any better. Anybody old enough to remember 17% house loans, 22% car loans, and Staff-Sergeants standing in line for food stamps?

I am.  It was miserable.

When the misery index rises–and it will–and if the American people fail to balance the power by voting a Republican majority into both houses of Congress in 2010, some people might say we’ll get what we deserve.

Talk is cheap. Misery is expensive.

It just makes sense.

I’ve posted this on my political commentary site with charts that are easier to read–you don’t have to click on them to view them.  It’ll stay there until I get another vision.


Marxist Is As Marxist Does

Friday, October 31st, 2008

Barbara West, WFTV news anchor, interviewed Senator Joe Biden and caused quite a stir with her question, “You may recognize this famous quote, ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ That’s from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?”

What followed was an attempt to stir up national outrage. Biden denied Obama had any plans to spread the wealth around, the campaign put WFTV on a restricted list, and a small army of minions countered the suggestion on various news networks. Some people have suggested “Marxism” is just another code word for racists. The apparent goal is for anyone who makes the comparison to appear to be racist, ignorant, or an idiot.

A lot of energy was invested into attacking the questioner, as it was when Joe the Plumber asked Obama if he would pay more taxes under Obama’s plan.

But those on the left do nothing to explain how Obama’s ideals are not Marxist. To make the connection, we need to know something about Marxism and where it came from.

So what is Marxism? Who was Karl Marx? What came of Marxism? So what?

Karl Heinrich Marx was born in Prussia (modern day Germany) in 1818 to a family with a reputation for producing rabbis. Breaking with that tradition, his mother and father had embraced Christianity. Hirschel Marx, his father, was a wealthy businessman and provided for young Karl Marx’s needs. Hirschel was distrubed after Karl went to the University of Bonn and grew arrogant, contemptuous, and selfish.

Can you relate with that? Your kid goes to college and becomes someone you don’t know.

Karl Marx goes to college and rejects everything his parents have tried to teach him. His early writings (Han Events, Vol. XVI, No. 43, Article Section II) expressed a hatred for Jewish people with words unacceptable for repetition in 21st century America media. One of young Karl’s mentors was the atheist Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, a professional academic who used his intellectual talents to craft convincing arguments to the spiritual weak that humanism was the secret to happiness. Karl Marx sucked it up with a straw.

Karl’s mind raced away with Feuerbach’s principles. After he left college, he married and failed at an attempt to make a living as a journalist in Paris and Brussels. They moved to London in 1849. Eventually forlorn Jenny von Westphalen-Marx longed for death as an escape her miserable existence with Karl. Marx cared nothing about the feelings of others, he was immersed into developing his economic and political theories.

Marx spoke of class struggles as a state of being. To solve the problem he was against everything behind classes to include all churches and all existing governments. Everything needed to be brushed away and replaced with something else–a new Order. Propagating class-hatred to achieve a vague concept of perfection, he denied the foundation for inherent rights. To eliminate class struggles all individual rights had to be cut away.

Ironically the governments that were established under Marxism ideology were nothing more than a dictatorship cloaked in the facade of a “people’s government.” Twenty-first century examples that remain are Cuba and North Korea. Are you ready to move to those utopias? Have a nice trip.

Communism, the brand of socialism espoused by Marx, had limited success in the second half of the twentieth century. The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic aspired to conquer the entire world through a series of peoples revolutions and direct invasions, but were opposed by a policy of containment by the west. That struggle of containment was called the “Cold War” and ended on December 25, 1991. The USSR’s hammer-and-sickle adorned banner was lowered from over the Kremlin and never went back up. Even though a arsenal of Armageddon-potential had been readied, it was never used–because it was readied. But that’s another discussion.

So, what happens in Marxism?

Change. Marx called for lots of change, he wanted everything destroyed and replaced with something else. A lot of people believed him and modeled governments that resulted in misery for the people. Be careful when the only thing you want is change. Look through the annals of history and you’ll see that all populist leaders came to power on that mantra. Change is great word in theory, but the details of that change in practice can be disappointing.

Humans have no inherent rights. Not even the first amendment? Is the ban on WFTV just the tip of the iceberg of how an Obama-led government will deal with hard questions?

Central government controls everything. Is it really patriotic to pay more taxes as Joe Biden says?

Class warfare. Identified by Marx as a constant. Exploited by Marxists everywhere. Used by dictators to keep the people at odds with each other while they continue to build their own power. All the while, the Marxist goal is to strip all rights from all people.

Is it any wonder that any politician would deny any suggestion of a resemblance with Marxism. But is denial enough?

We face a lot of problems in America today. We need solutions. But more government is not always the best solution.

Marxist is as Marxist does.

It just makes sense.

Give Me a Number

Friday, October 24th, 2008

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, according to the Declaration of Independence, are some of your inalienable rights.

So here’s an easy question for you: Do you agree?

If you do, then you also agree with the early Americans who declared that some rights are given to people by an authority higher than the local, state, or federal governments. Inalienable rights are endowed to people by God and are not legally subject to infringement by a government. The Declaration insists that people have the right to alter or abolish a government that attempts to do such things. Such insistence was proven by the blood of patriots. So now it is a fact and not just a belief.

Thus some arguments since then have not been whether people have inalienable rights. Rather it has been about who is really a person. Sounds ludicrous at the surface, but when you dig deeper selfish motives can be uncovered.

In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision on the Dred Scott case that Africans residing in America, whether free or slave, could not become citizens. In other words, they were not people. From a 21st century viewpoint, the decision is not only wrong it is criminal. Just a few years after that landmark law-of-the-land ruling, America was thrust into the most violent and costly war of its history.

Following the Civil War, a series of Constitutional Amendments and legislative action worked together to culminate with the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, which was a 5-4 decision that is generally recognized as the over-turning of Dred Scott.

Five to four? After sixteen years of blood shed, destruction of property, violence, debate, rebuilding and three Amendments–it was still that close! It is apparent that the folks who get on the Supreme Court can influence the nation for a long time. We need to be careful who we hire to select our future judges. As important as freedom is, we still want to be considered a human by our nation’s highest court.

Take another landmark case, Roe v Wade, when the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in 1973 that an unborn human is not a person. Thus the right to life, liberty, and property and due process of law does not apply to the unborn.

Since then, 35 years later, somewhere around 50 million unborn Americans have had their births aborted. That’s a lot of people. If they really were people. If they really were human. How can we know? Is it a faith question or fact question?

Bible believers know that life begins at conception. (see Psalm 139:13, 16) Not everyone believes the Bible. Some people think it is just something that simple people cling to when they’re confused or threaten. Those people might believe in science.

So what does science tell us?

In 2003, science actually mapped the genome of the human species. While mannequins, statues, wax figures, cartoon characters, and even some animals might look something like a human, science knows that it is our DNA that makes us human. Certain chromosomes and genes and chemical pairs all work together to make a human. That combination is in all of our cells. Even the one made at the moment of conception.

Wow. Science proves Psalm 139:13. What goes around comes around. It’s not just a belief, it’s a scientific fact.

That means 50 million humans have been killed in America because they were too weak to defend themselves from a cultural bias against them. Just because it has been legal doesn’t make it right. Just like the Dred Scott Decision, it seems more than wrong, it seems criminal.

What have we done to ourselves? What are we still doing?

Who is so gifted with clairvoyance to declare with certainty that most of those aborted 50 million humans would be in our prisons or on our welfare roles if they had lived? Such a statement is the most vile form of stereotyping.

Not everyone who starts with meager means or limited parents are doomed to a parasitic existence. Nearly half of those people would now be adults in the workforce. They’d be buying houses, cars, and investing in the stock market. They’d have children of their own. They’d be paying taxes. They’d be good Americans making the best of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So what do we do now? What can we do?

We can’t start where we were, only where we are. If we can’t stop killing unborn Americans now, how about if we just set a limit on it? How do we do that? To start with, it takes a combination of audacity and luck.

If fate should offer you a Joe-the-Plumber moment, here’s a simple but tough question for your candidate of opportunity:

Since science has already proven that the genome is what determines if someone is a human and since 1973 we’ve already prematurely ended about 50 million American lives with our abortion industry, how many more human lives should be ended before we stop? Is it 75 million? Would 100 million be enough or too many? We really need a number.

If you can’t get a number from them, maybe they think we’ve already exceeded our quota. Ask them that too, if you haven’t been shouted down by the culture that doesn’t believe everyone is created equal. This problem isn’t just going to go away by itself.

It just makes sense.

Just Words

Friday, July 25th, 2008

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts”

From William Shakespeare’s “As You Like it” Act II: Scene VII. As spoken by the character Jaques.*

Famous words. The character Jaques goes on to identify the seven stages of a man’s life in this oft-quoted Shakespeare passage.

But did you see what I did?

I gave credit to the source of those words. I did that because they’re not really mine.

Even though I could have just used them–the copyright limitations expired long ago–there is probably a lot of people who would read them and get the impression that I’m quite the bard. But if I resorted to such deceitful tactics, eventually someone, such as yourself, would read the words only to get the impression that I’m a liar, a cheat, and a thief. But I didn’t do it, so stay with me and I’ll explain where I’m going with this.

When I was merely a teen, I saw the movie Patton starring George C. Scott in the post theater at Fort Lee Virginia. The famous speech to his troops is legendary. It’s been copied and mocked ever since.

America was struggling for good leadership in those days. I remember believing, in my still-growing mind, that George C. Scott was the man we needed to lead our Army. Yes, that sounds silly now. Being young, dumb and whatever else–I was fooled.

That’s not a bad thing for an actor to do to the audience.

The best actors are the ones who are gifted enough to make you actually believe they are the character they are playing. George C. Scott was a brilliant and gifted actor. But he was not like the real George S. Patton. I didn’t learn that until I watched another movie that starred Scott, which was made three-years earlier. It was called the Flim-Flam Man.

Scott played the character Mordecia Jones, who was a con-artist whose motto was “you can’t cheat an honest man.” He was a master of lying, cheating, and stealing–everything that Patton was not. Mordeica Jones was a parasite. I was nearly mortified until I felt my brain grow.

Once again Scott had proved himself to be such a great actor that he touched my soul. Scott’s performance helped me to understand the difference between a man who reads scripts well and looks good on camera from great Americans who have led our nation in times of crisis.

Like everyone, I remember 9-11 well. I was working with in an Air Force command center as the attack on our homeland began. As the event progressed, I was concerned not only about the attack but also because my generals lacked answers. They stopped being generals. They had never been trained for this. Nothing was scripted. In military contingencies they practice checklist procedures over and over–with tutoring as required–until they appear to be as smart and in-control as we’d expect them to be.

But 9-11 was different. Nothing was scripted.

Seeing my senior leaders appear as confused as everyone else was initially disheartening. But it helped me to understand that there is a difference between leaders and great leaders.

Later on that infamous day, Air Force One came to our base. President Bush made an impromptu speech to the nation via our facilities.

Before he left to lead our nation’s reaction to the unprovoked attack, he talked with my generals. I wasn’t in the room, but they came out quickened. Confusion was lifted. They were not afraid. They held their heads high. They looked like generals again. They were generals again.

We are bombarded with propaganda almost daily suggesting our President is a fake, but I know better. My generals know better. George Bush is a great leader.

Now, I told you those stories so I could tell you this.

We have a presidential candidate who often uses other people’s words as his own. Here’s one example. Here’s another. In each of these Obama uses the exact words Deval Patrick used years earlier. Seeing and listening to the recordings next to each other clearly suggest something is wrong. But not everyone agrees it is wrong.

In Obama’s defense, he has said he didn’t steal these words because he was given them by Deval Patrick. They are friends and often swap words, or something like that.

But do you see anything wrong with it?

Maybe. Because it gives the impression when he is speaking that they are his words. He didn’t just put the concept in his own words, he recited the words exactly. If there’s nothing wrong with it, then its more like acting. No, it is acting. Merely reciting a script. Just words. Written by someone else. Practiced. Polished. Until they can fool most of the audience.

When Joe Biden said that Obama was “articulate” it created quite a stir in some circles. The complaint went something like since Obama was a senator–of course he was articulate. In addition, some people considered the comment to be racist. They said that Biden was suggesting Obama was somehow not expected to be able to speak well because he was black. Most Americans know by now that Obama’s father is African and his mother is not. Nevertheless, that word “articulate” is often used to describe Obama’s speech presentations both by conservatives and those who are not.

But how is he under pressure? What happens if his tele-prompter or the mic in is ear malfunctions? Here’s an example. Obama gets lost, unable to complete his presentation when his audio feed is disrupted.

The Bristol Virginia gaffe is not an isolated event. It seems there are more and more of them, but you just don’t see them on the news very often. You don’t hear much about them unless you scan YouTube or listen to talk radio. And if you do, you’d know there has been some discussion that Obama’s speech writers may have borrowed heavily from popular music lyrics for his Berlin performance. Just words.

I think actors are important. What would we do in our spare time without them?

Some folks have argued that Ronald Reagan was an actor, somehow believing the fact meant he should not have been President.  They leave out the fact that he did other things also.  Things like being Governor of California for twelve years.  That trumps the actor experience.  No one in their right mind could believe actors, even ones who pretended to be Presidents on TV or movies, are qualified to be a real president.  It would be like believing Tom Cruise is qualified to be a fighter pilot because he played Maverick in “Top Gun.”  As a more personal example, would you want Alan Alda (a.k.a. Hawkeye Pierce from M.A.S.H) performing emergency surgery on you?

Don’t be misled by practiced words that flow sweetly from the lips of pretenders. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between a flim-flam man and a great leader. But much depends on your ability to do so.

If you fail in that task, the last part any of us play may be that of the disenfranchised citizen; sans money, sans property, sans freedom.

It just makes sense.

*The entire passage is:

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”

— (Act II, Scene VII, lines 139-166)

Party Pooper

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Five Hundred and Fifty metric tons of yellowcake. That’s a lot.

A metric ton is equal to a little over 2204 pounds. So 550 of them is just on the shy side of 1 1/4 million pounds. Needless to say, over a million pounds of anything is a huge amount. Thus, 550 metric tons of yellowcake is a huge amount of yellowcake.

No joke.

The Canadians bought the huge amount of yellowcake from the Iraqi government. The US military saw to its safe shipment via aircraft then by ship. Canada will process the yellowcake into energy-producing nuclear fuel. Yellowcake even in its raw form is a radioactive hazard. Now this potentially hazardous material is going to be used for good and not for the evil it was intended.

Certainly the former leftist ruler of Iraq, Hussein was his name, never intended for any good to come of his WMD seed. Even with his body digested by worms, the remnants of his nuclear weapons development program still was a threat to civilized people.

Imagine suicide terrorists padding their underwear-bombs with a few pounds of radioactive yellowcake as they went about their dastardly deeds. Now don’t imagine it, because America and its allies have prevented that from happening.

At least that time. At least in that place. America had the leadership with the determination to do what they believed to be the right thing to do. Since Americans were unable to deter Hussein from plotting, preparing, and performing evil, the next best thing was to invade, dispatch his fielded forces, and force a regime change. The criminal had to be stopped.

To have allowed Hussein’s fascist forces to fully develop nuclear weapons for employment against the civilized world would have been criminal on America’s part. Even though the powerful press in America continued to insist there were no WMD in Iraq, even though influential left-bent politician in America continued to call for the impeachment of President Bush, even though evil still stands strong in some rogue nations, America went the distance.

And it worked.

The terrorists invaders have nearly been completely pushed out of Iraq in a war of attrition. The strategic sponsors of the terrorist fielded forces have been mostly untouched, except for the former regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were annihilated. Because the people of Iraq recognized Operation Iraqi Freedom as a liberation campaign within the Global War on Terror (GWOT), they joined forces with the civilized nations of the world. Soon Iraq will be cleansed of any large scale terrorist forces. But the GWOT will continue. It’s not over.

If the majority of the well-financed, left-leaning Americans would stop for a moment and realize that the terrorists are not their buddies, not their ideological soul-mates, they are their want-to-be executioners–then the war could end soon. Before that can happen, those same folks will have to understand that Hussein had a huge amount of yellowcake in his basement. He was planning a surprise death day party for a huge amount of people.

George W. Bush was Hussein’s party-pooper. Thank God for George W. Bush.

It just makes sense.

Have Your Rights Been Violated Lately?

Sunday, June 29th, 2008

Very bad stuff. When your rights are violated by the local or state elected officials, appointed officials, or the police. When that happens without interference by a higher legal authority, the only thing left is something akin to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It’s basically what all those riots in the 1960s were all about. Nearly 50 years later, it’s a blur to most of us. Maybe that is because we’ve been lectured that it was about racial issues. Without a doubt race was involved, but the ultimate issue was whether Americans had rights that could not be legally infringed by local, state, or even federal governments. It took the federal government’s might to intervene in state and city laws to stop and prevent unlawful rights-violations on some of its citizens.

It’s not about democracy. It’s about a constitutional republic, where all citizens are guaranteed certain rights by the law of the land. The law of our land is the Constitution of the United States. It affirms many God-given rights.

Rights like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, the right to legal counsel, the right to keep and bear arms . . .

Did you see that one coming? Either way, here’s the rub.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that the simple language in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution means what it says.

The part where it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” — it took the highest court in the land to decide that it means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Infringe means to break, limit, or undermine, or to encroach on. This recent ruling means the Second Amendment really applies to the American people. No city, county, parish, borough, district, or state has the legal authority to infringe or deny you the ability to exercise those rights.

Well, it almost means that. The actual ruling was limited to the District of Columbia. So you could say, the Second Amendment is only a right of the people in Washington D.C. — how does that make you feel in San Francisco, Seattle, Shreveport, or South Carolina? I’d guess it might make you a little irritated with this selective ruling stuff.

Imagine if the 1968 Civil Rights Act only applied within the city limits of where demonstrations were held? How silly would that be? If so, discrimination would be legal in most places. But it is not. Because that is not the way we do things in America. Except for with the Second Amendment, it seems.

Even with the limited scope of the ruling, there was much leftist ranting about militia-only applicability, state-rights (hang the 14th amendment), and even questioning if “arms” really meant handguns were protected by the Second Amendment. Their arguments were soulless and without merit. Some even impugned the intelligence of law-makers and citizens who agree with the simple wording in the Constitution. They were grasping at anything that might negate the ruling or the Second Amendment.

It almost could make a fellow wonder what do these people really want? What are they not telling you? Why does the pistol in the nightstand next to where your grandpa sleeps bother the gun-control addicts? What do they want to do once all lawful citizens surrender their means to protect themselves?

What do they really want to do?

I don’t want to find out.

No more than I want the federal, state, or local government deciding what I can write on this website, or deciding which church I may attend on Sunday, or telling me I can’t go to church on Saturday or even a Tuesday if I decide to. And neither do you.

Even if you’re a low-hanging fruit of a leftist, you’ve got to realize that governments are comprised of people. The more power individual people in certain positions in government have, the more likely it is that self-serving power-addicts will seek to obtain those positions only to enrich themselves. You see, it’s not really the Second Amendment those treasure-hunters want to infringe. It’s the Constitution itself.

It just makes sense.

Socialism is Anti-Americanism

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

Maxine Waters (D-CA) used a very thin veil to cover her threat to socialize all the American oil companies. Even though she balked at the public use of the s-word, she couldn’t help but finishing her statement once it was started. At least she was honest about saying what she believes in. We should all thank her for that. There’s few things worse than a socialist who lies about being a socialist. What was the public reaction to her statement?

Except for a little coverage on Fox News and some attention by radio talk-show icon Rush Limbaugh it was allowed to fade away in the background of other news.

Not that they’re trying, but it might be wiser for the Democrats just to forget about defending Waters and just to distance her opinions from the Democrat Party. After all, Democrats are Americans and America has fought against socialism from the very beginning. Right?

What is socialism?

Socialism is a political process where the people who control the central government control the production, distribution, and exchange of property. Advocates of socialism like to argue that it is the community as a whole that is in control, but that would only be in theory. In practice, every time it has been tried, a select group of government officials have the control and the loser has always been the people.

Socialism comes in many flavors, but it always leaves the same bitter after taste.

Some of the flavors sound more appetizing than others, but they all drain away the people’s freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to some degree or another. In 2003, the pan-Arab socialist, Baathists Party lost an advocate when Hussein’s regime was vanquished. With the 1991 fall of the Union of the Soviet SOCIALIST Republic, Marxist-flavored socialism lost its most powerful advocate. The 1945 destruction of National-SOCIALIST (Nazi) Germany, another flavor was removed from the menu.

It is interesting how modern socialist-theory advocates have deceived Americans into thinking of the Nazis along with their fascist partners of Mussolini’s Italy and totalitarian Japan of the 1930s-1940s as “right-wing,” when those governments have always opposed democracy. Many socialist-regimes use the facade of a ballot to fool the masses, but no one who gives it much thought can really be fooled by such a prevarication. Socialist-regimes always take freedom away from the people. Pol Pot’s socialist-regime might have sounded good to him and his fellow freedom-takers, but the average person’s life suffered greatly.

Despite the appeal of a regal King of 18th century England, George was little more than an oppressive, socialist dictator demanding total control to the average cobblers, merchants, and farmers of early America. Since none of us were alive then, we have to imagine for a moment how bad it must have been for the average men of the day, to put down their tools used to provide food and shelter for their families and pick-up their squirrel guns to go do battle against the most powerful army on Earth.

That first generation of real Americans pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to give us the foundation of the freedoms we enjoy today.

One of those freedoms is the right to say what you believe. So it is okay for people who believe in socialist-theory to express their opinions. We don’t want socialist-minded people to think they have to lie about their beliefs.

Waters’ statement is not the problem, it is merely a symptom. The problem is history-ignorant people believing that a socialist government is the answer to all our problems, then those people voting for people who believe the same. Then the rest of us are affected by those people being in office. Yes, they have the right to believe the way they want to, but they don’t have the right to take the freedoms given to us by God and affirmed in our Constitution.

Just yesterday, a group of House Democrats are so bold as to be calling to nationalize (that means socialize) America’s oil refineries.

Can you believe the same type of socialist-minded politicians who oppose the harvesting of American oil reserves also want to seize control of American refineries? You might remember how they tried to socialize the American health-care facilities and professions back in the 1990s, but they were delayed by a group of energetic Americans who saw the danger in that. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be tried again.

Using socialist-minded logic, why stop with the refineries? Why not go ahead and take the oil companies too? Some people might argue that it would reflect poorly on Wall Street. After all, people might pull their money out of the market resulting in economic collapse. But an even bolder socialist solution to that problem would be to seize or at least freeze the entire market. Wouldn’t that do wonders for your 401K? What would this generation of Americans do if that happened? It’s really not that far-fetched.

Those socialist-minded resource-grabbers need to take a history lesson from old King George. Don’t make the same mistake he did before trying to deny too many freedoms to the average American. Not that they haven’t been trying, but they’d better collect our squirrel-guns first.

It just makes sense.

Beware of the “Global Poverty Act”

Sunday, May 4th, 2008

On the sixty-sixth anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Barack Obama introduced S.2433. It is a Senate Bill with a couple of other names. One is the “Global Poverty Act,” which sounds nice and caring. Who would dare oppose a bill designed to reduce global poverty? The other name is the “Obama Bill,” which sounds friendly enough. Who would dare to oppose the handsome, baritone Senator from Illinois? The answer to both of those question is, only those Americans who would rather maintain our sovereignty than to become a puppet state under the rule of the United Nations.

I know this sounds like a stretch. In fact, it sounds nearly insane. So I’ve included a few supporting documents for you to reference if you’d like to read them for yourself. Here’s the bill that was introduced and here’s the updated version from April 24 that added names to the supporting list. You’ll notice that this is not just a Democratic Party member backed event, but Republican Party members are on record and sponsors of this attempted raid on American coffers and liberties.

Ready for the sticker shock? The bill’s backers refer to it as .7 percent of the nation’s GDP. However, over a 13-year period it adds up to $845,000,000,000. That’s 845 billion US dollars to fund the United Nations’ program. Of course that is in addition to the $300 billion we already plan to invest in global aid. And it doesn’t count the tremendous amount of foreign aid that comes from American churches and private organizations. That’s a lot of money.

Obama’s Global Poverty Act is not a source document. It is built from, and is designed to advance the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (General Assembly Resolution 55/2). Back in the year 2000, The UN came up with the plan to not only fix global poverty, but a lot of other things too–all for only .7 percent of the productive world’s GDP.

As I read it, the UN will basically become the controlling legal authority on Earth. The International Criminal Court will trump our Supreme Court, private ownership of small arms and light weapons will be banned, the Kyoto Protocol will become law, they will control the use of fresh water and all types of forests, and they’re going to end war.

End war? Now, how are they going to do that?

Well, they’ll use the billions of dollars coughed up by American taxpayer to establish a standing UN Army, and they will eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Don’t you feel safer already?

Imagine a squad of goose-stepping, blue beret wearing, international-socialist storm-troopers kicking in your front door and demanding you surrender your illegal small arms. While they’re there they’ll make sure you’re Kyoto compliant. And after they have your guns and your money, I guess they’ll be able to do just about anything else they’d like to do. If you have a complaint, take it up with the World Court.

Imagine that. With the humanitarian goal of ending global poverty, we’ll surrender first our money, then our sovereignty, and finally our liberty.

Back in 1776, a resilient breed of Americans, who loved liberty above life, put everything they had on the line so you and your children could have the liberty you enjoy today. Now 232 years later, we’ve freely elected enough “representatives” who believe in the hollow promises of international socialism that they are willing to give it away.

What founding father ever said Americans should surrender their hard-earned money to support the rest of the world? What American today believes we can add 1.5 billion people to our welfare roles without destroying ourselves? After decades of UN failures, which includes exposed corruption with fraud, waste, and abuse of the resources they have controlled, is there any American taxpayer who really believes the UN will be a good steward of the money?

Once we surrender all, what will it take to get it back? You don’t want to know.

You might want to know how to contact your Senator. You might want to send them a message about how you feel about the “Global Poverty Act.” You might want to tell them that you could never vote for the re-election of a Senator who votes for S.2433.

Do you want to know how to contact your Congressman? Not much sense in doing so. It was already rushed through the House and passed with a “unanimous” voice vote under the title of H.R. 1302. The backers of the bill did a great job of getting the sheep to vote for a bill they hadn’t researched or even heard about. I guess most of us would have fallen for the same trick. However … most of us aren’t Congressmen.

If this bill is passed in the Senate, then every American will have one last chance to let our President know how you feel about him signing it in to law. He shouldn’t have the chance to veto the bill, if we can just stop the Senate from passing S.2433.

If you lived in Lexington back on 14 April 1775, a knock would have sounded on your door. Then a neighbor would have told you to collect your musket and to assemble on the village green. All the men, and some of the boys, in the small village answered the call. Later that afternoon, a few of them died at the hands of foreign soldiers, but it started a movement that led to a free America.

That same America fought itself to end slavery, defeated the National Socialists of Germany and the fascist regimes of Italy and Japan, contained Soviet Socialism until it imploded, and now stands as the primary obstacle to global terrorism. But international socialism lurks in the darkest, waiting for it turn to control the world.

Today, you might get an email or read this column. All you need to do is click here, find your Senators’ names and then send a respectful message saying you will not tolerate them voting for S.2433, the Global Poverty Act.

We shouldn’t surrender freely what our founders gave their lives for us to have.

It just, makes sense.

The Food Standard

Sunday, April 27th, 2008

As Americans have carried the lion’s share of the war against the global terrorists, we seem to have come under assault from all directions:

  1. A former US senator and vice-president leads a world-wide publicity stunt to destroy our economy backed by millionaire Hollywood singers, dancers, and pretenders. He is given an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize along with an an opulent lifestyle for his prevaricating power-point presentation.
  2. Our trade policies have fueled an ever threatening Asian giant with tens of billions of dollars, which they are using to transform themselves into a military superpower.
  3. Our once solid dollar is losing value against almost every other currency in the world.
  4. A nuclear North Korea seems intent on exporting that technology to nations that back global terrorists.
  5. Iran is openly defiant about not only developing their nuclear capabilities, but also about continuing to promise to “wipe Israel off the map” as soon as they can.
  6. And even our allies in OPEC cooperate with the malevolent voices that call for greater efforts to pump up crude oil prices, even though they have risen over 94% in the last year, nearly 380% in the last five.

OPEC does not completely control the price of oil. They influence part of the supply, but academics will tell you that the total supply and demand for oil drive the price.

Other countries also produce oil, thus affecting the supply. The environmentalist movement in the United States, and the members of Congress that agree with it, have prevented drilling for the known American reserves, which would have helped to keep down prices by increasing supply. Meanwhile, the oil-thirsty, rapidly growing economy of China and other nations help to prop up prices by increasing demand.

At least the Chinese are doing what they can to increase oil supplies. Among other things, they are drilling between Cuba and Florida. A place where our government’s environmental policies prohibits US companies from drilling.

The US has been pursuing other ways to affect supplies. From investing in the development of various emerging technologies to converting corn into biofuels.

All this has generated some unintended consequences for everyone.

Food supplies have dwindled, which has pushed the price up. The record harsh winters of the last couple of years, despite Hollywood’s global warming, along with the biofuel movement have reduced the world’s food supply. Additionally, the parasitic price of oil has driven up the costs to produce food and to deliver it to where it needs to go. Food prices are soaring, and the world can’t do without food.

Unlike the oil-crop of OPEC nations, food-crops require more than simply harvesting it and sending it to processing. Farmers work their magic the world over, but especially in America.

American farmers have some advantages. They are blessed with great crop lands and an abundant supply of fresh water, something lacking in most countries–especially OPEC nations. If food-exporting nations wanted to extract a payback for the inflated oil prices it wouldn’t take long to recoup the looting of past years. Even without an organized effort, that may happen anyway.

If oil exporters continue their artificial pumping up of oil prices, it will be met with market-driven price increases in food products. When their cost of food imports exceed their return on oil exports, it will be too late for them to make smart corrections in oil production to save themselves.

When their economies finally collapse, so will the price-bubble of oil. It will take a couple of growing seasons after that for food prices to drop accordingly, but they will just have to be patient and tighten their belts, while the food-producing nations of the world save them again. First from a life of goat herding, then from their home-grown global terrorists, and then finally from starvation.

Our problem with China’s growing militarism may also be solved with rising food prices. Over the last several years the Chinese standard of living has increased, but it still lags behind what we enjoy in America. The average American spends 10% or less of their income on food, but in China it is different–it is nearly 50%.

America produces much more food than it consumes. If our supplies dwindled, we’ll take it out of our exports, but we’ll still have food. And if food-prices double, Americans will just spend less on Hollywood movies and maybe eat at home more often. But we still eat and many of us will still be fat. But if food-prices double for the Chinese . . .

The Chinese government will be forced to curtail their massive offensive weapons build-up and then to subsidize food for their people. Those billions of dollars they’ve collected in trade imbalances with America and the rest of the world will be their solution to impending starvation and unrest. When that happens, the Chinese will be the first to wish the US dollar was worth more.

The Chinese people are smart and hard-working. They are aware of the world around them–they have more internet users than we have in America. They will not sheepishly permit themselves to starve as the people of North Korea have. They know a starving people do not a great nation make. And they want to be great.

While this may not be exactly “beating swords into plowshares” as prophesied in Isaiah 2:2-4, it might be an interesting start to a better state of peace.

In the long run it all boils down to the food standard.

It just makes sense.