The Bailout Bust, Marriage Madness, and Pirates?!?

It's another great day in this greatest nation on God's green Earth, and while it has been awhile since I've blogged, I suppose the best way to start off this much delayed post is to address a few lingering house keeping concerns. I haven't updated in awhile due to the fact that I've moved once again. During the course of this past year, I've gone from Riverside, to Walnut, and now Long Beach. Quite the change, literally from desert to shoreline, and certainly the changes that went along with each move were almost as drastic and disparate as the environs are different. To put it simply, I'm now living with my brother Phillip, his beautiful wife Carmen, (he certainly married above his station) and my soon to be 4 month old nephew Bryant (he's quite the looker, much like his Uncle). It's as comfortable a situation as I've had in a long while, and I shall be sorry to leave it when the time comes and we part ways. Don't worry, this blog will not turn into the blog of a doting uncle, and baby pictures will not start popping up all over the place, but I reserve the right to sneak one or two in, as I see fit. Maybe a few of you would welcome the change, seeing as how I know this blog can be a bit of a dry read.

In a follow up to my last post, I have a great Global Warming update for you, my beloved reader. Dr James Hansen who heads up NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and happens to be one of Al Gore's chief allies on the global warming crisis, announced that this past October, was the hottest October on record. This was shocking news, mostly because his claim was totally and demonstrably false. HotAir.com did a great summation of a UK Telegraph article that completely blasted Al Gore, Dr. James Hansen, GISS and the IPCC, funny how this story didn't get any attention at all from the media. Here's a few choice snippets for your viewing pleasure or distress, depending on the circumstances.

"GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."

"The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year."

"A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others."

"Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s."

"Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped."

So lets recap here ladies and gents, GISS's numbers were wrong about Russia being 10 degrees hotter than normal because the numbers were not accurately being reported; indeed they were simply carried over from the last month, for TWO months. When the error was found GISS tried to deflect the criticism by saying they found a new hot spot in the Arctic even though there was already evidence that said that Arctic sea-ice had been forming so fast and so extensively that it was 30% more extensive than last year. Doesn't sound like good evidence of a hot spot to me. Not that it matters because apparently GISS doesn't even do it's own numbers according to their own spokeswoman, despite the fact that they are one of the 4 data sets that the UN's IPCC uses to further their global warming policy plans. Oh yeah GISS's numbers are also the most quoted. It's a good thing they have some sort of quality control system in place to guarantee their numbers.. oh wait, they don't. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dr. James Hansen who heads GISS was found to be demonstrably and irrefutably lying about global warming and the same can be said for his partner in crime, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Yet these are the people that 20/20 and 60 minutes will have on their shows to tell you that "the Earth has a cold," or something similarly foolish. The next time someone begins hyperventilating and/or foaming at the mouth about environmentalism, and the dangers of global warming, kindly direct them to this blog, and invite them to read, learn and perhaps use the intelligence that God gave them to do a little bit of reasoning for themselves. In any event, we've got a lot of ground to cover today, even without going back to previous topics/posts.. and a 1, 2, 3.. HAJIME!

Bailout Bust:
Is it finally kosher to say that the so-called "bailout" has been a complete and unmitigated failure? If not, please just tell me when it's okay, and I promise to be right there to to say, "I told you so" when reality can no longer be obfuscated to the point of absurdity. Lets take a look at the current situation with the bailout as pertains to the automobile industry. It seems that the most recent proposal to take 25 billion dollars from the 700 billion dollar "rescue" plan has been dropped by Senate Democrats. Finally, some good news! But just so that we don't get confused, the Big 3 auto-makers already have 25 billion dollars coming in the pipeline that the White House and Congress have already signed off on. What they were asking for now, is an additional 25 billion from the socialist bailout plan administered by Bush's Treasury Secretary none other than Democrat Henry Paulson. Bet you didn't know that the purportedly harshly partisan President Bush had and continues to have many Democrats on his cabinet and staff.. yet another example of selective reporting by the media. Anyway, the word from the White House is basically this, allow the auto-makers to use the original 25 billion to cover day to day expenses and remove any mandates for re-tooling for making "green" cars. The original 25 billion was given under those restrictions and the Democrat Congress now rejects any attempt to change the allocation of the funds, because obviously they know how to run a business better than Auto Executives do, and it's not like it was government regulation that led to the downfall of American Manufacturing.. yup that sounds about right. So basically we have members of Congress who have never run a business in their life, now designing the business model for American auto-makers. The Wall Street Journal has a great article on the debacle that unfolds daily in Washington, here's a quick excerpt that I think is particularly relevant.

"Once Congress starts investing in its green visions for Detroit, it isn't likely to give up easily or stop at $50 billion. If the Environmental Motor Company's cars don't sell well enough to earn a profit, then something else would have to be done to vindicate the investments. Taxpayer loans and other subsidies would have to float the companies until Americans wise up or Congress forces consumers to buy them. Taxpayers should get ready to own a piece of Detroit for a very long time."

I'm going to go with Mitt Romney on this one, I am of the mind that the only solution to this current crisis is bankruptcy for the Big 3 just like any other company. It'll let one or more of them merge, hopefully come out of bankruptcy leaner and meaner, re-do union contracts, etc. Essentially it's the only way they can really re-organize, a bailout of any kind is really just delaying the inevitable.

The past 2 days have amounted to another huge drop on Wall Street, just about 800 points down, which is about 9-10% off the Dow. Anybody care to guess why? I've said it before, and I stick by it, the market is responding to the upcoming Obama administration and what he says hes going to do to the economy, most of which has shareholders running for the hills. To be fair though, let's take a look at what Bush's Democrat Treasury Secretary already HAS done with the help of Democrats in Congress, such as, panicking during economic hard times, bailing out one company and not the other, not allowing the market to find it's natural bottom, no transparency etc. All of that coupled with what Democrat's are planning to do going forward is turning what was once a relatively small recession into what looks to be a full fledged depression by ushering in what they call "The New, New Deal." Remember how I often lament about how no one really knows their history anymore? Well here's another great example of why history is important and how it is being demonstrably re-written to the point that it turns reality on it's head. FDR's New Deal policies DID NOT get the US out of the Great Depression. Let's take a look at some real facts about that time period; unemployment was nose diving to 20% by 1938 after 7 years of The New Deal. It was a complete failure; WWII got people working again, but it didn't get the economy going again. We didn't recover from the crash of 29' until the late 40's early 50's really, and that had nothing to do with the new deal. In 2004 a study out of UCLA came to a similar conclusion and offered this timely piece of wisdom.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

I only wish that someone had payed some attention to them before we hit a point where we are faced with the option of a "10-15 year economic slump" because of "ill-conceived economic stimulus policies." Indeed everything that has caused this problem so far is a result of what happened in the first part of this century with government intervention. The Federal Reserve being created allowing the government to create fiat money, Fanny Mae was a creation of The New Deal, compulsory unionism and the UAW born in 1935, demanding inflexible work rules for the Big 3 which is now catching up to them, this idea that everyone should own a house and sub prime lending, Social Security and Medicare, Social Security is going to go bankrupt by 2017 when they have to cash in treasury IOU's that nobody knows where the government will get the money, Medicare is already bankrupt, taking money out of the general fund, not from payroll taxes, these are all creations of what? The New Deal. Granted, New Dealism, that last bunch would fall under "The Great Society" which came about in the mid 60's but that was just a reincarnation of The New Deal. If you want to know the reason why we are stuck in an economic malaise right now, it can be summed up in three words. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. Do we really need to go into another depression before I'm proven right, or can we just save ourselves a lot of grief and just do what needs to be done now, which is to let the market correct? Only time will tell..

Prop 8 and Marriage:
The topic of Gay Marriage has been making headlines since Prop 8 passed in my home state of California on November 4, amending the Constitution of California to legally define marriage in California as between a man and a woman. To be honest I really don't know what the surprise was or why people were so outraged, seeing as how similar measures had passed before easily, it seems like such a non issue to me. I am not a lawyer, that's my brother and sister in law's profession but here's my layman's take on it. A lot of people liken gay activists struggle to that of the civil rights movement in the 60's, interracial mingling and integration. That analogy is wrong on a number of levels. First off, since the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified everyone was protected under the equal protection clause and almost no one these days thinks that it should be otherwise, and if they do they are in violation of the US Constitution. Why is that important? Well it sets the stage for a fundamental distinction, that of condition vs. behavior. You can't legislate based on the condition of race or gender as those are inherent conditions of a human being. The only thing that you can legislate on is behavior, and whether or not those behaviors are inherent in a persons condition is not important if their actions or behaviors are the only way they are manifest. For the purposes of this example lets take polygamy as an example. A person may claim to have an inherent condition that predisposes him or her to engage in polygamy and a government can not legislate against that condition, but as soon that individual takes action in that regard then it becomes an illegal act. Gay Marriage really does represent a slippery slope, because it is based on the unprecedented premise of allowing a behavior to be treated like a condition inherent in a person, which should certainly not be the case.

To be honest, I look at this issue almost the same as I do abortion. I'm strongly morally and politically against it, but at the end of the day, I'm more worried about bears. (my brother often says this phrase, to denote that getting eaten by a bear is a more pressing matter in his life than whatever we happen to be talking about that is threatening or worrisome) I'm more than willing to leave both issues to the state legislatures and let democracy and federalism do their thing. The thing that is troubling though is the fact that people can not abide by the results of a vote without rioting in the streets. I thought the liberals among us were the enlightened ones, the people who were more tolerant and accepting of things than me. I find it personally amusing that I survived Obama becoming President Elect without rioting in the streets and liberals and gay activists want to live by minority rule. The fact is that we live in a filtered democracy where it comes down to a majority rule. We had minority rule once before, it was called a monarchy, we fought a war over it so we could live by the laws that we choose. We should not trade the minority rule of a King for that of a few judges, the people voted and the Constitution has been amended. Of course there is always a worry about abuse of power but that is why there are checks and balances and ultimately the best form of redress is the ballot box. The marches, protests, vandalism and violence do not speak very eloquently for the proponents of Gay Marriage, because the best way to tell the character of an activist is to observe how they set about attaining their goals. Here's some interesting statistics for you. Over 90% of the black vote went to Obama in California, no surprise right? Here's the shocker, 70% of the black vote went in favor of Prop 8. Now those same blacks who are lauded for bringing Obama to power are being targeted by Rosanne Barr who said, those black voters "showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white Christian counterparts." Not quite the love fest that one would expect after the liberals big win on Nov. 4th huh? One of my favorite talk show hosts Michael Medved wrote an interesting blog on the subject of gay marriage and I wanted to highlight this excerpt.

"The “previously legal same sex ceremonies” (authorized by four justices of the state supreme court in a divided decision a mere five months ago) have not been “outlawed.” Contrary to the tenor of the report, no jack-booted state troopers will come crashing down doors to bust-up the tender and loving commitment ceremonies of same sex couples. Even before the court decision, civil unions were available with identical rights to marriage, and those civil unions are still available after Proposition 8. The voters cast their ballots to eliminate confusion in the Constitution (confusion introduced by meddling jurists), not to interfere with private behavior of any kind. It’s absurd and dishonest to suggest that the proposition “outlawed” anyone’s relationship or expressions of love."

I couldn't agree more. The point is that marriage is a civil institution that has always been between one man and one woman. The fact that gay and lesbian activists want to change thousands of years of tradition for a title, when in California at least they already have the same rights as married couples in Civil Unions borders on baiting of the worst kind. It's a really sad day when I have to quote Sir Elton John, but here we go.

“David and I have a civil partnership in England. We have complete rights between the two of us, we’re protected completely. I think the word ‘marriage’ puts a lot of people off in this country. If they got over the word ‘marriage,’ I think it would be a lot easier for gay people to get together.”

Here's something that you won't here me say every day, Elton John has a point. If rights are all that the gay community are after, then seek them through legislation and leave the institution of marriage alone. If that's not enough, then you aren't really seeking "civil rights" it's more of a vendetta against a society that does not look at your lifestyle as a social norm and that's a whole different animal altogether. In the final analysis, gay rights activists aren't looking for equal rights, they are looking for EXTRA rights. Everyone, gay or straight, above the age of consent, has a right to enter into a marriage contract between one man and one woman. Similarly everyone has a right to enter into a civil union between two consenting adults. What some gay rights activists want is an extra right for two people of the same sex, above the age of consent, to enter into a marriage contract, something that has never happened until the past few decades. Marriage is one of the foundations of our society, and is something worth fighting for in this era of moral relativism, I hope that at least on this one issue we can keep traditional definitions rather than dishing out new politically correct terms to everything that can be done or described under the Sun.

Pirates?! Arr!?:
Okay, by now I'm sure that everyone has heard about the pirates attacking ships off the Somali coast. On Saturday those pirates captured a Saudi Arabian super tanker carrying about 100,000,000 dollars in crude oil and in the following days a number of smaller ships have also been taken. Finally an Indian Navy warship sunk a Somali pirate mothership in the Gulf of Aden. The fascinating part about this is it's connection to American Politics. Am I stretching a connection a bit far here? Perhaps not. Has anyone ever heard phrase, "shores of Tripoli?" President Jefferson dispatched the Marines in the early 1800's to stop the pirates off the Barbary Coast, does that ring any bells? In any event that's how that phrase ended up in the Marines' anthem. We've had problems with pirates going back since day one, in fact pirating is one of only 3 crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. By the way, when President Jefferson dispatched the Marines to get the pirates, he did not consult with Congress, nor did he get a UN resolution, (nevermind that the UN was not in existance at the time) he acted as Commander in Chief and he decided to make war, even if Congress was going to declare war. It's called energy in the executive. But wait, I'm just about to get to the best part. What are we supposed to do with the pirates once we get them? Do we charge them with a crime? Well we can't charge them with a crime if the military captures them because under international law you can't send out the military to enforce a criminal code for all practical means and purposes. Are they members of a naval or an opposing military force? Well no, they don't wear a uniform, they don't have insignia, you really can't distinguish them from civilians. One of the reasons why the military wear uniforms is to distinguish themselves from civilians so that when they are shooting people they know they are shooting soldiers and not civlians, because the military is not supposed to target civilians. Well the pirates don't abide by those rules. They don't wear a uniform, they don't target only military members, they are not abiding by the rules of war or international law, so they are not PoW's covered by the Geneva accord, and of course they are not criminal defendants (common criminals can not be apprehended by the military). Is any of this starting to sound familiar yet?! So what should we do with these pirates if and when we get them? How about we try them as unlawful enemy combatants in a military tribunal? But wait, we've had a great debate about that, and the Democrats and liberals all say that the military tribunals that we've used since the founding of the nation are illegal. So now Obama says he wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay and bring those unlawful enemy combatants within the borders of the United States to stand trial in a criminal court. What's more, classified information won't be protected in a criminal trial. But that's neither here nor there. On the subject of the pirates, wouldn't Guantanamo Bay be a great place to detain those pirates and try them in a military tribunal? Too bad Obama and the rest of them want to shut it down as soon as he gets into office. The irony of the parallels were way too delicious to pass up. Figured I'd give you some food for thought, if we get off the politically charged subject of terrorism, can common sense and logic win out where "compassion" and ignorance have largely taken over? I certainly hope so.

An Ending of Sorts:
I know I covered a lot of topics today and probably got more than just a little bit long winded, but perhaps you can draw some comfort in the fact that as long as it takes you to read my posts, it takes me at least 50x as long to write them. That being said I thank you, the reader, for taking the time to struggle through my somewhat random and unfocused writing style to gain what kernels of knowledge that I have to share. If you disagree with any of the points that I post in any of my blogs, feel free to start up a discussion with me. I do not hide from debate, as long as the arguments are well reasoned then to my mind, it would be well worth the time spent. In any event there are a lot of myths and misconceptions to deal with and I hope to eventually address them all through this blog, in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

My brother sent me this video clip earlier in this week, and while it is really funny I have to say that I understood his story and his plight a little more than I'd care to admit. We all deal with our demons in our own way, and I wish Mr. Ferguson the best of luck in continuing along the path that he has chosen for himself. That aside, it's the funniest, yet most depressing story I've yet to see.


As you know, I'm a huge fan of live performances, and this man happens to do some of the best in the business. Take the time to watch and enjoy. Don't blame me if you watch it again, and end up buying tickets when he next rolls through your town.. in fact you should probably thank me, it's well worth the investment.

Random Thoughts:
Beautiful days are long gone,
I can't seem to breathe,
Feels like it hasn't been that long,
Since you walked away from me..

Now I can try to act real strong,
But you and I both know,
I still think of you that way,
And you should know, that,

The beautiful lights, the star filled nights,
They don't mean a thing..
'Cause you were my star,
So it don't seem right,
Without you here with me..

Now I can try to act real strong,
But you and I both know,
It's hard for me to say,
You were my soul..

Now I could say that I don't love you no more..
And I could say that I've closed the door, for our love..
And I could tell you I feel it's time for us to go our separate ways..
But baby I just wouldn't be the same..
'Cause girl your love is still on my brain..

Quote of the Entry: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
- Barry Goldwater, American Politician and Senator (1909-1998)

The Global Warming Myth and Business as Usual..

Well.. now that the election has been decided, and I took some time out to blow off some steam.. I suppose this is as good as any to get back to the normal, more topical format of this blog. I've been meaning to get around to this issue for a long time, and admittedly I won't be able to cover everything in one post; but I hope to provide a reasonable foundation upon which to later build more substantial arguments in the future. In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe that the current "facts" about man made global warming are false, and that those that seek to further that agenda are either ignorant, corrupt or both. But perhaps I am not, in my relative youth and inexperience, able to be concise enough, so lets hear what Czech President Vaclav Klaus, has to say on the matter:

“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

I'd say that about sums it up. Though to add in my own commentary, I contend that the last refuge of socialism is in fact environmentalism. Socialism, once the truth about it is known, is never a preferable way to live, but on the other hand you have environmentalism, which people equate to "saving the planet," a false cause/premise which people are willing to give up both their property and freedom to fight for. That being said, in this post I hope to shed a little light on the hypocrisy, misinformation, distortion, and flat out lies told by Al Gore and other people like him, because at this point it's not just simply profiteering off of a false/manufactured problem, but it's also killing millions of people world wide.

Global Warming is Anti-Western?:
Believe it or not, the idea that global warming is an anti-western movement, is actually not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. Whether or not that is indeed it's true intention, the results seem to be undeniable. Global warming and environmental alarmists all support proposals (like Kyoto) that would have the net effect of closing down our economy from within. As more of these policies get passed into law, western nations are loosing their blue collar jobs to places like China and India where the governments in those two countries have said that they are not going to cut their emissions of CO2, because their goal is to be just as prosperous as the US and western Europe. All that happens when we close down our jobs due to well intentioned, but scientifically groundless, environmental regulations is that those jobs, carbon emissions and pollution then move to those countries instead. I think I can say with some certainty that environmental regulations in either of those countries don't quite make the grade when compared to the US or the UK. So if you are actually seriously concerned about environmental pollution, both real and imagined, then business should be encouraged in the western world, not demonized. Unilateral disarmament is not an option here, just as in the Cold War. There is no benefit for the western nations to disarm their economy for purpose of saving the environment if other countries will simply pick up the pieces and put them together again in a way that is potentially more harmful to the environment in both the short and long term.

Global Warming is Happening Now?:
There is no scientific basis for Global Warming. Why am I confident in saying such an obviously controversial statement, especially since I am neither a climatologist or a scientist? Well, it's because I actually take the time to read scientific studies and not just listen to the propaganda on the television every night. Despite what Al Gore seems to think, (I still can't believe he won the Nobel Prize) global warming is not happening now, and hasn't been happening for the past 10 years. In fact, during the past 7 years world temperatures have been dropping. Take this Daily Tech article for instance:

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

I think those findings from all FOUR global temperature outlets should speak for themselves, but apparently they are not loud enough to get through Al Gore's ego, or to the mainstream media either for that matter. Indeed Al Gore continues to say that we'll all be doomed in 10 years if we don't do something about global warming. I think it's time for a little fact/reality check. In 1989 the UN said that in 10 years entire countries/cities would be wiped off the map if we didn't do something about global warming. We haven't done anything substantive, Kyoto has been a failure, by anyone's definition, and nothing catastrophic has happened. Bangladesh, one of the places mentioned to be at risk of being wiped out by the "rising oceans" has recently been found to have more land area than in 1989.

Global Warming Hysteria = Murder?:
Again, I start with another controversial, salacious statement, that is none the less true. The rise in biofuels, in the never ending quest to "save the planet," over the past 3 years has also led to a horrific and equally large rise in starvation and poverty across the world. The UK Telegraph did some great articles on poverty, and starvation; unfortunately they seem to have gone unnoticed on the international stage where they could have done some good, and saved some lives. Government mandates in the US and in Europe requiring gasoline to have a certain percentage of biofuel content not only raises the price for food in the world but doesn't even help correct the problem they are trying to address, namely, climate change. Lets see what the UK's Oxfam has to say on the matter.

"Oxfam says so-called green policies in developed countries are contributing to the world's soaring food prices, which hit the poor hardest.
The group also says biofuels will do nothing to combat climate change."

Sounds hauntingly familiar huh? To take it one step further, Oxfam's biofuels policy advisor Rob Bailey is quoted as saying:

"Rich countries... are making climate change worse, not better, they are stealing crops and land away from food production, and they are destroying millions of livelihoods in the process."

Sadly destroying livelihoods is the least of the evils that extremist environmentalism has let loose upon the people of the world and you don't have to just take my word for it either. The World Bank and other international organizations have been looking at the effects of current biofuel policy and have similarly been shocked by the results.

"According to the World Bank's top economist, Don Mitchell, biofuels had been responsible for three-quarters of the 140 per cent rise in world food prices between 2002 and 2008. It was this that last October prompted Jean Ziegler, the UN's "special rapporteur on the right to food", to comment that biofuels could only bring "more hunger to the poor people of the world" and were a 'crime against humanity'."

"Most alarming of all to the global warming lobby, however, was a succession of studies showing that, far from helping to cut global CO2 emissions, biofuel production can often give off much more CO2 than it saves – not least by disturbing huge quantities of carbon dioxide locked in the soil which, according to the University of Minnesota, could release '17 to 420 times more CO2' than is saved by the fuels themselves."

So lets get this straight. Biofuels, which are held up as a way to stop the disastrous and looming threat of global warming, are 3/4 responsible for the 140% rise in food costs over the past 6 years. Not only that, but these so called Earth saving policies release 17 to 420 times more CO2, the horrible byproduct of human respiration that is supposedly suffocating the planet, than is saved by switching from petroleum based fuels to biofuels. This debacle reminds me of what happened when DDT was banned and 50 million people died due to trumped up environmental concerns. So when I say global warming hysteria is directly responsible for murder, just read these articles and you tell me if you think there can be any justification for people not being able to afford FOOD because Al Gore wants to make millions and get a Nobel Prize.

Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley:
Thankfully there is a shining light of truth in all this darkness and deceit, and his name is Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. He was formerly an adviser to Margret Thatcher, and is now an international business consultant. His studies in both mathematics and climatology has been both enlightening and controversial. His most recent paper published by the American Physical Society, in July of this year; caused quite a stir in the international community because he had the audacity of hope, one might say, to believe that good science could win out over bad political ideology. In the end though, I think he was vindicated, let's take a look at the conclusion of his paper, which was at once, both well written and well reasoned almost to a fault.

"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO₂ occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossible the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful."

"In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."

Wow. I was honestly speechless after reading that for the first time. Needless to say his paper received strong condemnation from all around, even the American Physical Society itself. An account of the troubles Lord Monckton had can be found at the American Thinker. As a bit of a side note, Lord Monckton has repeatedly sought to debate Al Gore on his theories about global warming and climate change; thus far, Mr. Gore has refused. Apparently these days, "consensus" is enough to be categorized as fact, and you don't need to debate your ideas in order to be ensured of their veracity. But then again intellectual cowardice and moral bankruptcy are things to be expected from someone who is successfully peddling a lie, at the expense of other peoples health, wealth and lives.

Conclusion:
Trying to look at this as an objective person, I'd have to say that man made global warming, is at the very least, a false, manufactured crises. There is no basis for the claims of the environmental left, indeed even the climate models that they use to predict them are found to be flawed almost as soon as they are produced. I'm no scientist, but I do know that the best way to test a model of any kind is to match it up to the observed data. Thus far, if you match up the two, for any amount of time in either the past or the future, they simply don't match. It has been a point of fact for over 50 years now that climate models don't work because you need to know so much detailed information about the environment that it's impossible to accurately forecast anything beyond what the weather may be like for the next 5 days. The crux of the problem is that the supposed effects of CO2 or any other green house gasses are input into these climate models, not output. That is to say that the value or effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is data input by the researcher, you don't get the effects as a result of the climate models. So naturally a person who set out to prove Al Gore's theory correct would have a large amount of CO2 equivalent to deleterious effects to the environment, since the numbers and values in the model are all made up to begin with. The fact is that global warming, or cooling as the case may be has much more to do with natural causes like the absence of sunspot activity for the past three years, or the fact that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has switched from warm to cold (as it tends to do every 10 to 15 years) which also happens to be coupled with a cooling La Nina effect. I strongly encourage you to look through Lord Monckton's work and the rest of the links provided throughout this blog for yourself and use the logic and reasoning God gave you to see the truth behind lies that are popularized in the media today. There is a lot to fear in this uncertain world, extremist Islamo-fascism, economic instability, the ressurection of Soviet Russia, but global warming is not and should not be one of them; for the world or for this greatest nation on God's green (and still pleasantly warm) Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

This is a video of Michael Crichton discussing an aspect of the environmental movement that I didn't get around to discussing. I may elaborate further on this in the future, but Michael Crichton does it so well here, so I'll leave it to him for now.


For those that don't know, Babyface is my favorite artist of all time. Admittedly he's not the most talented, or even have the most timeless songs, but damn, I can get down on his music. This is one of his best ones, and it's a live performance too, off the Grown & Sexy album. Watch, learn, and cry. I did the first two, not the last one.. yeah..

Random Thoughts:
We've been together for a while now,
We're growing stronger everyday now,
It feels so good and there's no doubt,
I will stay with you as each morning brings sunrise,
And the flowers bloom in springtime,
All my love you can rely..
And I'll stay with you..

Oh I'll stay with you through the ups and the downs,
Oh I'll stay with you when no one else is around,
And when the dark clouds arrive..
I will stay by your side,
I know we'll be alright..
I will stay with you..

Quote of the Entry: "Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
-Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom 1962, American Economist, Novelist and Nobel Prize Recipiant (1919-2006)

The Age of Obama

I write to you today at the end of a crazy week both in politics and the economy. We now have President-Elect Obama who has managed to already have a huge effect on both the economy and policy both domestic and foreign. At home, he's already found a way to grow government with his new website, change.gov. There's plenty of stuff to go through there, but for the most part its a website dedicated to Obama's planned policy papers and positions as a bit of a preview before his term actually begins. One of the websites I follow, sweetness-light.com has done some digging through the site and has written some fairly revealing articles on Obama's position on Education, Amnesty and Civil Rights. I think if you take the time to read the articles and look through his site you'll be just as dispirited as I am currently. As for the economy, well hows this for a statistic, as of election day the market is down more than 7%; which just so happens to be the largest post election drop the market has taken, ever. It sure is a good thing that none of this happened right after Obama was elected so it can't have anything to do with him.. oh wait, it did.. and it does. I think we all have to remember that the markets work on a 6-9 month futures basis and apparently the markets aren't too sanguine about an Obama presidency. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that he wants to up the corporate tax rate, (the US already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world) or the fact that he wants to impose so called "windfall" profits taxes or any of the other naive and impractical ideas that he has that has the net effect of being bad for business which ends up killing jobs.

On the international front, I'm sure everyone has heard about the goodwill coming from all around the world, but I think a few of the following stories must have just missed the news coverage, probably because they aren't important.. or something. Our old buddy Valdimir Putin seems to want to make a come back tour as President of Russia, or at least so reports Reuters. It seems that current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will propose extending Presidential terms of office and then resign allowing Putin to return to power with the benefit of the longer term. And then of course there are new reports out today about how the EU is "worried" about Russian plans to have missiles stationed near Poland's border. This new boldness wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that a young inexperienced US President is going to be coming to office that has openly voiced that he prefers talking and negotiating over decisively using military force. As if that wasn't enough, Israel who is of course very concerned with their continued existence is warning President-Elect Obama about how to go about foreign policy in the region especially relating to Iran.

"We live in a neighbourhood in which dialogue - in a situation where you have brought sanctions and you then shift to dialogue - is liable to be interpreted as weakness,' said Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni."

I've taken a slightly different tack with my blog today, mostly because I felt it was necessary in order to demonstrate a number of points. First off, I wanted to demonstrate that my thoughts and opinions don't just come from my own limited world view. I do a lot of reading and research so that I can get up on my soap box here and foam at the mouth, while still having a reasonably good grasp of the issues at hand. As a distant secondary goal, I wanted to just release some steam because lately it seems like the entire country has gone mad. History, logic, indeed reality itself doesn't seem to be as important as the perception of "fairness," which I somewhat addressed in my previous entry. Am I happy that we have elected a black President? In a way yes, I am. Am I happy that it was THIS particular black President? Not at all. Give me a Clarence Thomas, or a Thomas Sowell any day of the week and I'd be first in the voter line for either of them. For that matter, put a Margret Thatcher on the ticket and I'd be proud to have her as my President. At some point reality is going to have to set in. Racism or bigotry has nothing to do with my dislike of Barack Obama, only his policy and political ideology affect my perception of him. When the American people wake up one day and they find they elected an empty suit, I'm just going to shake my head and ask, how could you have not noticed this sooner? Fortunately we can look back into history to see how this situation is going to resolve itself.. we had 4 years of (misery index) Carter, and as a direct result we got President Ronald Reagan who ushered in a wave of prosperity that was felt all the way until Sept. 11, 2001. I can only hope that the turn around is even half as successful as that of President Reagan, certainly it is something to look forward to, for this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

Well I found the video of Congressman Jim Moran's comments that I brought to you last entry. I don't think I need to say too much about this, as I think it should be fairly self explanatory. It's easy to want a hand out.. it's much harder to stand up on your own.. I think we Americans need a refresher course on self reliance.


I thought that I'd put this video in because this is the man that I wanted to be President. Unfortunately Americans today seem to be more enamored in image rather than substance. If Fred Thompson had become the standard bearer, well.. let's not get to crazy with the "what ifs." In any event, it's a good video and well worth the time spent watching it.


Okay, so this one is a bit disconnected from the rest of my post.. but what can I say? I needed something to help with my blood pressure. Alicia Keys may not help with my heart, but I'll be damned if she doesn't have some pipes. She sings this song as well as anyone.. and it's a good thing too, because it's one of my favorites!

Random Thoughts:
If I had no more time,
No more time left to be here,
Would you cherish what we had?
Was it everything that you were looking for?
If I couldn't feel your touch,
And no longer were you with me,
I'd be wishing you were here,
To be everything that I'd be looking for,
I don't wanna forget the present is a gift,
And I don't wanna take for granted the time you may have here with me,
'Cause Lord only knows another day is not really guaranteed..

So every time you hold me,
Hold me like this is the last time..
Every time you kiss me,
Kiss me like you'll never see me again..
Every time you touch me,
Touch me like this is the last time..
Promise that you'll love me,
Love me like you'll never see me again..

Quote of the Entry: Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.
-Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, 1993 (1930 - )

Election Day 2008!!

Alright boys and girls, this one is for all the marbles.. Election Day 2008 is finally here! This election cycle has seemed to go on forever without limit, but thankfully all the electioneering and politicking will end, for better or worse, today. It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this blog that I voted for the Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin ticket, and did not support Senator Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden in their bid for the White House. That being said, I will be profoundly saddened should Senator Obama become President; but by no means will I be rioting in the streets. Local and state elections are often eclipsed in Presidential election cycles and as always I have a firm belief that the closer the government is to the electorate, the more responsive it is. Similarly, I have phenomenal confidence in both the Democrat Congress and Senator Obama, should he become President, indeed the entire federal government to some degree.. I have confidence in their ineptitude and propensity to move at a snails pace and to my way of thinking, the slower the better. In any event, I had originally wanted to do a compare and contrast of political speeches, but have now decided against it. But since I had already done the research on that subject, anyone care to take a guess at who said this one?

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

Give up yet? That beauty was taken from JFK's inaugural address given on January 20, 1961. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not overly fond of President Kennedy, but he or someone of similar belief or ideology would be infinitely preferable to Senator Obama. The interesting thing about JFK's presidency and indeed his legacy, is that the Democrat party has moved so far to the left from where he used to stand, that he in all likelihood would not be able to get his party's nomination if he were a candidate today. As if to punctuate that fact the then Senator Kennedy spent a lot of time talking like he did in his address to the DNC on July 2o, 1960:

But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises--it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook--it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

His policies of challenging the American people to work harder and achieve more coupled with high military spending and lower taxes are an anathema to today's democrats; and yet they hold him out as a shining standard bearer for their party. That situation reminds me of a quote by President Reagan, "I did not leave the Democrat party; it left me." In any event, we have a lot to cover today and it's going to be something of a grab bag of issues that I want to cover in a bit of stream of consciousness kind of fashion.. so lets get it started!

"Fairness" in Taxes:
It's become a part of the national lexicon in the political arena, "fairness" seems to be the key word of the day, though oddly enough no one seems to be fully exploring all the implications and repercussions that go along with that word. What exactly is "fair?" It's funny because most people don't even know their own tax rates let alone those of others. Is it fair that those that make over $250,000 a year have a tax rate of 35% in JUST federal income taxes? That doesn't take into account state taxes, and other expenditures that I term "cost of living" taxes, like sales, SS, etc. Do I make $250,000 a year? No where even close! But I one day hope to, and if I am able to achieve that success, I'd like to know that I won't have to give up over 50% of my earnings yearly (total taxes) to the government. The thing about high taxes on the rich and redistributing the wealth to the poor is that it negatively affects both classes in society, in some unexpected ways. It should be fairly obvious that whatever government taxes, you have less production of that product. In this case, the more the government taxes success in the private sector the less of it you will have. That means slowing growth, lower creation of jobs, and all around economic stagnation. For the people that would ordinarily hold those jobs, since they are no longer employed they go on the government dole and live relatively comfortable lives when compared to their counterparts world wide. So in effect you have a lack of incentive and productivity on both ends of the spectrum which as we found during the years with President Carter, is disastrous. But just for the sake of argument lets look at the facts and you tell me if THIS is fair.

The Truth About Taxes:

• 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.
• The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes.
• The top 1% of income earners pay 39% of the income tax burden.

Don't take my word for it, I think the Wall Street Journal did a great piece on this one awhile back and it's still relevant today. There should be no question as to whether the "rich" are paying enough in America because it is apparent in the numbers provided by the IRS itself. The real question should be, "Is government better equipped to know how to spend your money or are you?" The answer should be obvious, the person that creates wealth first off should be able to keep it and beyond that, knows how best to spend it. But going back to those figures I just gave you, if the top 50% of all income earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes, wouldn't that then mean that the bottom 50% pay little to none of the federal income tax burden? That certainly seems to be a legitimate train of thought to me. Now lets extrapolate that even further, to Senator Obama's tax plan. Senator Obama claims that through his plan he will "cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples." How can that be if 50% of workers do not pay federal income taxes? Is it right for the government to give MORE money to people that don't even pay into the system? It is in essentially just giving them a government check for being poor. The irony is that the money would be welcomed by the people who would then thank the government, not the "evil" rich people that the government had to take the money from to begin with; because we all know that the government can not CREATE wealth, it can only TAKE it through taxation.

It's funny because even the New York Times, not exactly known as a bastion of conservatism, got the story exactly right though in kind of a backward fashion.

"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."

So lets get this clear.. Tax rates went down, tax revenues went up and everyone should be happy right?! WRONG. If you read further on in the article it starts talking about how Democrats want to "increase revenues," which means raising taxes, to fund more domestic programs. I wonder if anyone will ever stop to think about this question. Do you honestly think government will ever say it has "enough" of YOUR tax money? I think not. There is always some government program that needs funding because people obviously can not provide for themselves either through their own merit, or through the help of friends and family members. This is the crux of the election today, and indeed the crux of American politics in general; we have a problem of ignoring the reality of situations and the consequences, good and bad, that go along with those realities.

Finally, I want to leave you with these pearls of wisdom from Congressman Jim Moran who represents the 8th Congressional District of Virgina, "We have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have antipathy towards means to redistribute wealth." I submit to you that Congressman Jim Moran is right. We have been deceived for all these years.. capitalism is wrong, indeed no man should exist under the illusion that he has the right to keep what they produce or earn! Oh wait, I'm sorry, I'm not in Soviet Russia or Communist China, I'm in America, and last I checked that kind of ideology just doesn't fly here. In truth we need to distance ourselves from the far left people in this country who have fundamentally anti-American views. Yes, I said it. Anti-American views, things that directly go against the spirit, words and actions upon which this nation was founded. I know that issue has been in the news a lot also, but to be quite honest, it should be a non-issue. Some things are simply not American and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. But in the final analysis there is a clear and distinct difference between the world that some politicians live in and the reality that we all exist in. In the future, we will have to elect people that can actually recognize that fact and act on economic reality instead of Rockwellian Utopian hopes for the future. We can do better than Senator Obama and Congressman Moran, indeed we must do better than them to ensure a prosperous future for our children yet to come in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

I'm not even really sure what to say about this video except that it's disturbing at the very least. The guy on the phone to the side, was calling CNN and wondering why they weren't covering this type of stuff. While i don't know what their answer was, I can offer my own thoughts on that, they are probably busy covering the construction of Obama's Victory Party and can't be bothered to do any real reporting.

This next video is in completely different league than the last. This is Ronald Reagan speaking at the Republican National Convention in 1964 and I have to say it was probably one of his best speeches ever, and that puts it in rarefied air considering what he told Mr. Gorbachev to do with that wall he had over in East Germany.. In any event watch it if you have time, it runs about 30 minutes, listen to it and appreciate that many of the things hes talking about are still very relevant to today; and if we had consistent policies based on his propositions.. well we wouldn't have the specter of an Obama Presidency looming over the country for one thing.

Random Thoughts:
When we go to work,
How the day seems so long..
The only thing I think about,
Can't wait 'til we get home..
'Cause we got a way of talking,
And it's better than words,
It's the strangest kind of relationship,
Oh, but with us it always works..

And no one does it like me,
And no one but you,
Has that kind of whip appeal on me..

Whatever you want,
It's alright with me,
'Cause you've got that whip appeal,
So work it on me,
It's better than love..
Sweet as can be,
You've got that whip appeal,
So whip it on me..

Quote of the Entry: Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other.

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged US (Russian-born) novelist (1905 - 1982)

Back to Basics:

For the most part, this blog is my somewhat futile attempt to teach and expound on the founding principals of the United States. I think this "Back to Basics" approach is necessary because of the almost complete ignorance on matters as simple as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism or why the founders declared their independence from the most powerful empire in the world and in little more than 200 years eclipsed that same empire as the premiere power in the world. It is not mere coincidence that a young upstart nation of dubious origins assumed easily outpaced and outclassed other nations with thousands of years of history to back them up. The principal reason for America's success is Freedom. Freedom in all it's forms is central to the America's prosperity, economic, social, political, religious, they combine together to form the pallet upon which the American masterpiece has been painted. Ignorance of this fact is the most expensive thing we pay for in this country, because one can not know right from wrong if he has no knowledge or experience from which to compare it to. That is exactly why I continue to pound away at the need for more education on history and civics.. unfortunately both myself and people like me are often ignored, thus necessitating this blog and editorial pages across the nation. It's a big giant circle.. fun huh? Without much further ado.. let's get the show on the road!

Capitalism vs. Socialism:
At it's core, the battle between capitalism and socialism is the battle between those that wish to achieve much by their own merit, and those that wish to achieve much at the expense of others. The founders of this nation intended for America to be a "Meritocracy," where those that had both the drive and talent can succeed and rise to the top tiers of society; a sharp contrast to the nobility and aristocracy they left behind in England. It has been said that capitalism's inherent flaw is the unequal distribution of blessings and socialism's inherent flaw is the equal distribution of misery. I think Churchill said that beauty, but since I'm lazy, I'll just leave that one as it is. Freedom is a difficult concept to understand, but at it's core, to my mind, freedom is an economic concept. If you are not free to keep the fruit of your labor, or to own private property then you are not free. If the founders were willing to start a revolution because of perceived unfair taxes, or for abuses of private property rights, the idea of communism or it's transitional cousin, socialism should be out of the question for anyone living in America that has any grasp of history.

Let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson thought about "redistribution of wealth."

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson, again: "Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." They argued, the Founders argued over this whole inclusion of promote the general welfare, what are people going to think that means? There is evidence galore that they did not ever intend that to be interpreted as redistribution. "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another ... shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

It doesn't sound to me like he was very much in favor of socialism, or anything even remotely resembling it. I could put dozens of quotes up here that would lay clear the stark differences between American rugged individualism and European socialism but despite their eloquence I think their influence wanes with the passage of time. Nonetheless, should you wish to read something truly inspiring; I submit to you President Washington's First Inaugural Address. I can safely say that no one in modern day politics would have the strength of their convictions to deliver such an address, and that perhaps is the most lamentable critique one can offer about the state of America's politics as usual.

It was said that the founders had an inherent distrust and disdain for pure democracy. They called it "mob rule." The reason being, is that if you can get enough people to covet something enough, then you could have the government forcibly take wealth, property, or freedoms from a person or group. That is why America was founded as a democratic republic where representatives were elected by their peers to promote their interests in the government. I bring this up, because a striking parallel can be drawn between socialism and mob rule. In a socialist society, should one person happen to amass any amount of wealth above the rest, it would have be taken away and redistributed amongst the masses. Ultimately it ends right back at the beginning. Capitalism promotes growth, which creates wealth, which is the inspiration for people to come from all around the world to come to America to make their fortune. Socialism promotes mediocrity, which creates economic malaise, which is the reason why no socialist/communist state has ever prospered or succeeded in the history of the world. In the final analysis, we give government a monopoly on force, not to forcibly redistribute the wealth we as private citizens create, but to protect it from just such an action; in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

This is audio of an interview that Senator Obama did in 2001 on Chicago Public Radio. Remember this is way before he was in the public eye or in line to be the Democrat nominee to be President of the United States. There is honestly enough material in this clip to write a whole blog on, and I may yet do so further along in the week. This is something of a rare moment for a politician, a moment of truth.. though in today's America, is it bad to want the government to forcefully take from one group of people and give it to another? We'll see on Nov. 4th.



I wonder if Senator Obama would recognize this quote, "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." For those that don't know, it's the Presidential Oath of Office. For a man that wants the courts to "break free of the constraints of the Constitution;" I don't think he could honestly take this oath.

Random Thoughts:
This may never start,
We could fall apart,
And I'd be your memory..
Lost your sense of fear,
Feelings insincere,
Can I be your memory?

So get back, back, back to where we lasted,
Just like I imagined,
I could never feel this way..
So get back, back, back to the disaster,
My heart's beating faster,
Holding on to feel the same..

Quote of the Entry: "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-Thomas Sowell (June 30, 1930– ) is an American Economist and Political Commentator

Senator Biden and American Weakness:

I've not posted much about foreign policy matters much because to be completely honest, that isn't exactly my area of expertise. But as always there are events that come up that provide the exception to the rule. Senator Joe Biden, the VP candidate for the Democrat party, had something of an odd moment on Sunday; he actually told the truth about his running mate at the top of the ticket, Senator Obama.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy...."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right."

There are a million things I'd love to comment on about these statements, and I may yet do so further along in this post; but chief among my concerns is the fact that Senator Biden and Senator Obama are in effect advocating a weak American Presidential response to such a "test" and that it would be the correct response, though it would not initially be thought as such. (A President that champions an unpopular policy because he knows it's right, even if it isn't initially apparent.. President Bush anyone?) I may not know as much about foreign affairs/politics as either Senator, but I do know this much, American military and economic power has kept stability and relative peace in the world since the end of WWII. The world that exists today has a fragile world economic outlook and is full of dictators on the verge of war that are looking for any sign of weakness in American resolve to give them the green light to go about their murderous business. All these things I know to be true, and strangely enough, as a statement of fact, I can't disagree with Senator Biden's statements, I just wish more people would heed them.

Compare and Contrast - Strong President vs. Weak President:
Let's do a little exercise in comparison of Presidential responses to Terrorism. The only two comparable President's in this respect are Clinton and Bush, both were two term Presidents and both had to deal with the relatively new phenomenon of terrorism on a global scale. The results are staggering, and should be the best argument for a strong executive bar none.

* February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured

* June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured

* August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured

* October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured

* September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.

All of these attacks were either planned or executed under the Clinton Presidency and what was his response? NOT killing Osama Bin Laden when they had the chance, and even more egregious than that is the fact that he didn't even take him in 1996 when the Sudanese government offered to remand him to American custody and jurisprudence. Generally I found President Clinton to be a good President, but his severe weakness on national security issues can not be ignored. Indeed it was not ignored by Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and because President Clinton refused to retaliate meaningfully they continued their deadly attacks on Americans both at home and abroad, ultimately culminating in the 9/11 attacks. In Senator Bidens' terms, Bin Laden "tested" the strength and resolve of the American President, and he was found wanting; or to put it simply, if the attacks were a test, President Clinton failed.

President Bush for all his failings, both imagined and real, passed the test of his resolve. I do not think any reasonable objective observer can come to any other conclusion. Americans tend to have a short memory about thing's that don't involve a video game, movie, or celebrity so if I put out the USS Cole incident in Yemen, I'd guess 9 out of 10 people would look at me blankly. Indeed, time tends to have the effect of "rose colored glasses" on the memory, where it seems as if everything was better 10 years ago and we conveniently forget all the hardships that went along with those supposed "good times." The point is, that most people don't remember all the acts of terrorism that happened during the Clinton years and so can not draw what would ordinarily be a clear and straight line to continued attacks and to 9/11. In any event, where Clinton failed, the Bush Presidency succeeded in spectacular and unexpected fashion. The wide ranging reforms on security on the domestic front and an active aggressive policy abroad has had at least one clear result, no more attacks on American soil. President Bush may be regarded as a reckless cowboy or a dimwit Texas yokel, but the adjective that one must add to that is STRONG, and because of that standing; I have no doubt that foreign leaders irregardless of their standing with the US approach President Bush differently than President Clinton, namely with more respect. The next President will have to have a strong position on all fronts, the world economy, domestic policy, foreign affairs and most of all have the fortitude to see these policies through to the end; these qualities are among the things that Senator Obama does not posses.

World Status - Analysis:
Okay, let's take a quick look around the world to see what hot spot's are out there to see where these potential "international crises" could come from as referenced by Senator Biden's predictions.

Israel vs. Iran - Iran continues on it's quest to gain nuclear weapons and Israel and the rest of the world knows it. Israel depends on the implicit support of the US to maintain a balance of power in the region and to keep the Jewish state from literally being wiped off he map. Israel also knows that Senator Obama has not positioned himself to be a strong friend of Israel and any actions that Iran makes in the future would not illicit an immediate response from their "allies" in the US as would have been the case during the Bush Presidency or in a McCain Presidency. This puts Israel in a tough position, making a preemptive strike more necessary depending on the outcome of the election in November. Israel may act unilaterally to disable Iranian nuclear facilities to ensure US backing while a friendly administration remains in office till the beginning of next year, thereby obligating the new president to continue military and financial aid depending on the amount of blow back that Israel would receive from Iran and other countries in the region would create.

Russia vs. Former USSR Satellites - While Putin is no longer the official leader of the Russian state, he is in fact the de facto leader and shows every indication of stretching his muscles now in the waning days of the Bush Presidency, in preparation of a young inexperienced President that might await him in the new year. Russia once again seems to be putting together it's empire and chief among the prizes up for grabs seems to be the Ukraine. Any number of former Soviet satellite states are also ripe for the taking. NATO refuses to allow some of them membership into the organization and the UN is little more than an international circus where little gets done in the way of actual solutions and much gets accomplished in the form of resolutions that are often ignored the following day. Should Russia make moves against surrounding countries, and Senator Obama is president, I wonder what solution he would offer? Would it be the same one he offered during the Georgia crisis? Should we bring the issue to the UN security council for possible censure of Russia if they don't stop military actions? Okay, sounds good. I'm glad we have a plan! Only one problem.. Russia is a permanent member of the the Security Council and has Veto Power. Oh darn, looks like that one won't work.. anyone else got any ideas? I thought so.

Video Clip(s) of the Entry:

Here's the audio, unedited of Senator Biden's comments.. am I the only one that gets worried hearing things like this coming from a man that could be Vice President of the United States?


I've hardly ever agreed with Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and I suppose this would be again the exception to the rule. I'd be interested to hear the rest of her soundbite, but I suspect that she's going to obfuscate a rather succinct and prescient point with some sort of cover for Senator Biden.. and well I'd rather not have to deal with that. Thankfully whoever made this clip cut out the fat and just left the red meat.

Ultimately, I agree with Senator Biden and with Madeleine Albright, it is simply a point of fact that terrorists and indeed the world is going to test whomever becomes the next President of the United States. To determine who would pass these tests, you need only look into a man's past and character. The choice is simple, a man who spent half of his life in military service and the other half in legislative service to his country in both aspects showing determination and transparency of both action and ethics. Or, a man who has numerous ties to domestic terrorists, ties to America hating Preachers, and legislatively shown no backbone by voting "present" over 100 times while in the Illinois state senate. Again, I'll have to deffer to Senator Biden on this, "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training." I couldn't agree more, in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
It's been the longest winter without you,
I didnt know where to turn to..
See somehow I cant forget you,
After all that we've been through..

go in, come in,
thought i heard a knock,
who's there? no one,
thinking that i deserved it..
now i realize that i really didn't know,
you didn't notice, you mean everything..
quickly I'm learning, to love again,
all i know is, imma be ok..

thought i couldn't live without you,
its gonna hurt when it heals to..
it'll all get better in time..
eventhough i really love you,
I'm gonna smile cause i deserve to..
it'll all get better in time..

Quote of the Entry: The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
-Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) 16th president of US