Tuesday, December 29, 2015

So Block Me!!! Ya Big Baby!

A number of months ago I decided to delve as deeply into the world of Twitter as I possibly could. The reasons for me deciding to do this are many and not really germane to the subject matter of this post. Thus far it has been generally successful. For reasons of my own I’ve decided to build a conservative following and to that end I’m gaining a lot of followers. I generally lean—well, way, way, way over to the right—being mostly Libertarian/conservative. So it comes natural to me to be able to collect a lot of those types of people. I can genuinely and sincerely speak the proper lingo and express the requisite beliefs to be accepted by the crowd on the right.

Now, no small part of the reason that I prefer the right is that they are more generally accepting of ideas and conversation than the left. They are most generally more tolerant than their leftist counterparts who would shout you down and/or block you at the first sign that you are not going to walk in perfect lock step with them.

While I’m kind of new at Twitter I’ve become very adept at surviving political discussions on Facebook. Ahhh, the many hours I’ve spent just trying to piss liberals off and get them to block me. When I find the really rabid ones I like to see how quickly I can get it to happen. I’m not certain what my record is exactly because it happened much quicker than I thought it would. I do know that it was less than twelve seconds.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

What's Wrong with Collectivism?

For those who know me, and for those who don't, I just love a good Facebook conversation. Yes, because of a broken marriage I'm going through the typical financial situation as a result and I must admit to being somewhat stressed about it. Not to make an issue of my own personal issues, I reached the point where I went off on one of my friend's friends. She accused me of being selfish and childish because I, as a self-published author, am against taxes for libraries. She accused me of not caring about education or society. She accused me of having a temper tantrum. Here is my response:

"I AM having a tempter tantrum!

"In spite of the fact that I have been living my life as an honest man, all that I have ever worked for is gone except for three guitars, some clothes, some computers, books, and a broken down 1995 Chevy.

"I have never asked for anything from anybody that I haven't provided a fair and willing product or service in exchange for. Now I'm so surrounded by collectivist bloodsucking leeches who have no concept or consideration of individual human rights that I can't afford to live.

"Regarding libraries and authors, think it through. It's the worst possible business solution. Authors get, more or less, three dollars per copy. The library buys one. If five thousand people read it over the next several years that's three dollars for the author. The library has one book.

"However, if five thousand people each buy a book for themselves the author gets fifteen thousand dollars. And some of them, let's say a hundred, hypothetically, of the five thousand, might be persuaded to donate their copies to the library for the kids to read. They might even donate them to every school's library in the district.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

The First Amendment

Sometime, way back in the early nineteen eighties, on a date and for reasons not really worth mentioning at this time, I took an oath that if need be I would fight and die to defend this country, its Constitution, and the principles of freedom that make it worth fighting for. Frequently it is said among veterans—at least those of us who have some pride in our service along with sincerity in our oath—those sworn words never expire. I hold this to be a self-evident truth.

I have not yet come upon a time that would threaten my life in exchange for the safety of my country but I do feel it is time to fire a warning shot across the bow.

The problem is I keep seeing things like this in circulation on the internet. 

Now I want it to be very, very clear. I am not here to tell anybody that Islam is good or bad. I am not going to defend Islam nor condemn it. It is not my place to tell other people what their concepts of God should or should not be. Call it civil humility if you like.


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You got that? It does not matter if you agree with that religion or not. It does not matter if your version of scripture casts any particular other religion as the ultimate evil on the planet.

I logged onto Twitter yesterday and found someone saying that Islam is a cult and not covered under constitutional rights. Listen, you want religious wars unending and forever? You want America and all of its people destroyed because of them? Accept the premise that your religion is the only one that could be right and all of the rest of them are cults undeserving of protection. You can make that argument. So can any religion. It then becomes a situation where the churches of the world are controlled by whoever has the most of the biggest guns. And we all know that that’s what God really wants; isn’t it?

Saturday, December 5, 2015

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 6, The Incompetence of Liberalism

Note: I originally wrote this article after the mass shooting/terrorist attack in San Bernardino. While this artile is somewhat dated the underlying principle, that liberalism is incompetent and tends to defeat itself, is still true. 

At a time on a day when most other authors in the blogosphere are hard at work on the most recent of the public mass shootings—San Bernardino being the one on the top of the news at the moment—I find myself just too much in the mood to think of other things. Any other things. Not that the shooting is unimportant because certainly it is. Sometimes these things happen and you can just tell that the ramifications will be broad and long lasting.

Yes, I suppose if I had better survival instincts as an aspiring author I’d be out there talking about Radical Islam and the potential connections to Farooq Saeed. Or I could talk about how the death obsessed Liberal leftists freak shows think the only thing to do is ban guns; because that’s always so successful, in spite of the fact that California has really strict gun laws. I could talk about my own theory involving how so many of these mass shootings are done by people cranked up on powerful psychiatric drugs.

But as important as all of that is; you know what? I’m just not feeling it today. So instead, just to get us started on what I do want to write about, let us ponder the words of a great American soldier and hero.

“Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.” — General George S. Patton

If you are into military strategy this is pretty simple in concept. For those who aren’t I will take some time to explain before we get into my favorite topic of defeating that rabid disease infecting the governments of earth known as Liberals. Indeed the above quote by the estimable general was inspired because, in part, of the defeat of the Liberal known as Adolf Hitler.

According to Wikipedia — “The Atlantic Wall was an extensive system of coastal defense and fortifications built by Nazi Germany between 1942 and 1944 along the coast of continental Europe and Scandinavia as a defense against an anticipated Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe from Great Britain during World War II. Hitler ordered the construction of the fortifications in 1942. Almost a million French workers were drafted to build it ... The fortifications included colossal coastal guns, batteries, mortars, and artillery, and thousands of German troops were stationed in its defenses.”

Sunday, November 22, 2015

The Quran vs. ISIS

This is the article I wish I didn’t have to write. But such are the circumstances of the world that I feel compelled to believe it is absolutely necessary. There will be some who disagree with me. There will be some who may write me off as an idiot and never read anything I write again. There are some who won’t bother to understand what I’m really saying here and some who won’t like it. So be it. My integrity to myself is far more important than followers and readers.

Honest and personal evaluation is needed in this case. No other opinion will do.

I have asked many people many times to provide me with irrefutable proof that the Quran is a book of violence. I have received in return many arguments, none based on the actual text of the Quran. I have received links to several sites that supposedly exposed violent passages from the Quran. All of those supposed references were either terribly mistranslated when compared to the actual texts, cross referenced with eight different translations, or they were taken terribly out of context.

It needs to be understood that I am ONLY comparing ISIS to the Quran. My current study is very limited and very specific. I am not saying that Islam is a great religion or a bad one. I’m not comparing the Quran, except where absolutely necessary, to the Bible. That ISIS is a bunch of psychopathic and rabid animals who cannot share the dignity of being called human needs no further endorsement from me than an observation of their own actions of any who care to look at them.

For the sake of definitions of terms and axioms there are many definitions of what insanity is. There is one that stands in my mind as the quickest and most comprehensive index as to what is considered to be insane. Insanity is the ability to distinguish differences.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 5

Criminals always accuse others of their own crimes. Always.

In my article “The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 2” I wrote the following: “Do you think Rosie O’Donnell wants gun control laws to keep you from owning a gun? Maybe, but I think deep down she knows she’s a raving lunatic who is out of control of her own behavior, just enough to sense that it is her who shouldn’t have a gun. Think about this; it’s an irrational fear that someone is going to kill someone with a gun which they use as a reason to ban them. If it’s in Rosie’s head enough for her to say it, it must somehow also apply to her because she is the one saying people use guns to kill people. Whether this pattern of human nature is actually true or not, or even if you believe it or not, this is a line of logic that seems to work and so liberals have some serious trouble with it.”

In this article I’m going to develop that idea just a little bit further.

Let’s say you’re having a conversation about welfare with a liberal. You say something to the effect that you don’t think welfare should be increased. Now is the time to pay close attention to what they say next! Liberals don’t think. They are too full of unmitigated rage for that. They react emotionally to ideas they’ve got stuck in their own heads. By far the usual response will be something along the lines of, “You just want to starve children!”

Forget for the moment the complete lack of civil discourse here. Yes, it’s a bit shocking and completely untrue. Yes, you will be extremely tempted to react. But remember, the liberal is the one who doesn’t think. Don’t react! One helpful idea I keep in my mind for just such occasions is, “Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I endorse whatever delusion you think is the opposite.” You can say this to them if you like, and it’s great for creating those long pauses and stammering, but the best thing you can do is listen and think about what has just been said to you.

“You just want to starve children!”

Friday, November 6, 2015

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 4

A number of days ago I had one of those agonizing conversations with a liberal about the government funding for Planned Parenthood. It was instructive to the person who would study ways to defeat the liberal arguments. This particular liberal claimed to be very Pro-Life yet he was completely for the government funding of Planned Parenthood based on the other services they provide.

I have stated rather openly in my article “The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3” that the driving force behind all liberal policy is to kill people while pretending to help. Here you have just one more piece of evidence to support that supposition but it is still necessary to look a little deeper into why this is so; and more importantly how to defeat the argument. To that end we must first take a look into the issues of morals.

The subject of morals can be frustrating and complicated in and of itself. There are a lot of different points to consider between the various secular and non-secular arguments but I think for the most part, the vast majority of people, regardless of their religion, understand at some instinctive level what they are without actually putting the words to it. But that is not to say there aren’t adequate words to convey the basic idea succinctly, so that the broad masses of people could easily and unambiguously understand what is being discussed. When Thomas Jefferson wrote these words; “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,” he hit the nail right on the head.

In spite of his invocation of their Creator in this statement, the words, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” gives us a simple basis for understanding what morals are in relation to government, quite independent of any complicating religious factors. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of his life. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of his liberty. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of their ability to pursue their happiness. For a government to do any of these things is like a solid punch in the gut to any decent human being.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3

I’m going to say something in this post that will seem outrageous and extreme. It will sound like something a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist would say. There will be people who will disagree with me about it. There will be people who will insult me and call me names because of it but I’m going to say it anyway, because it needs to be said.

As with all of my writings about the evils of liberalism I want it to be known that I’m not talking about the rank-and-file MSNBC watching type of liberal who is full of media created data that could not possibly be true. Those people, misinformed as they are, are victims of true liberalism. The ones I’m talking about are rabid ones who are the driving force behind all liberal policy.

I found this meme on Twitter a couple of days ago. It’s pretty good and pretty close to the truth. I wish I knew where it came from so I could credit them for it. But there is just one thing wrong with it, in that it does not go far enough. It’s not about control; although control is a necessary part of it, control is just a means to another end.

Sun Tzu wrote in “The Art of War” that, “All warfare is based on deception.” It’s not about greed. It’s not about helping anybody or being kind to them. It’s not about saving the children or charity or anything of that nature. It’s not about our personal safety or dignity or prosperity. Above all it is not about anybody’s human rights; in spite of their statements to the contrary.

Friday, October 23, 2015

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 2

I’ve got some questions for all of the people on the conservative side of the political aisle. Are you tired yet of being called racists? Are you tired of being told you’re part of some kind of war on women? Are you tired of being told you are a homophobe? Are you tired of the same old discourteous and rude attitudes and insults being directed at you by liberals who just can’t stand the fact that someone might view something a little bit differently than them?

Well I’m very sorry to say that it is never going to go away until liberalism is completely and totally defeated. I know, I know. That leading paragraph made it sound like I had some special way to just get rid of the problem but let’s face it; there are plenty of liberals around and quite frankly sometimes they are not very friendly people. That’s why they can’t restrain themselves from jumping to the kinds of insulting behavior they seem to take towards people who oppose them. And while I have no magic secret to make them go away so that the rest of us, the sane people, can just peacefully get on with our lives, I have to say “the hell with it!” if they are here and they are obnoxious, why not have some fun messing with them?

Now, there is something that has to be understood. For the purpose of this discussion there are two major kinds of liberals. There are the rank-and-file liberals and the rabid liberals.

The rank-and-file liberals are what some would call, “low information voters,” and things of that sort. For the most part they aren’t bad people. But for one reason or another—usually related to things like MSNBC—they’ve fallen into the leftist propaganda tricks. I know several people who used to belong to this category but after having certain things pointed out to them they changed their minds and started to view politics with some kind of rational sense. I, as a matter of fact, used to be one of those kinds of liberals. Rational people rather resent being lied to and as long as someone has the ability to think they can be brought to see the light.

Then there are the liberals who are the real driving force behind liberalism. They are the leaders. They are usually surrounded by rabid supporters who couldn’t generate a rational argument if their lives depended on it. They are all about emotions and force and never about thought. For many reasons I will not go into here, I consider them to be typically insane. Unfortunately they are also the people who are currently in power in Washington. The entire Democrat party and about half of the Republicans (establishment types) fall into this category, to a greater or lesser degree.

Saturday, October 17, 2015

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 1

This series of articles is for those who want to understand Liberalism at its "best" and techniques I've found helpful in fighting it.

Let’s take a step back from the immediate political crisis of the moment, put the wide angle lens on the camera, and take a look at why people buy into things.

The following is a list of some fairly famous government programs and speeches. Some of which most people have heard of. Some are kind of obscure.

Staring at number one on the list is a little thing that is called, “The Great Leap Forward.” Honestly, by the name alone who in their right mind wouldn’t want to take a great leap forward with their country? It sounds so hopeful, so optimistic. If you just sit and think about those words alone right now you would notice yourself beginning to feel an emotion which would be expressed as, “Wow, I want some of that! Sign me up.” And people who are against something like that? Lunatics.

How about, “The Cultural Revolution”? Man that sounds great to some people! You know the people living in the impoverished inner cities would really think this is a great thing. With broken down buildings falling apart all over the place, high crime rates, rampant drug abuse, violence, poverty, starvation, etc., who could deny that a little—or a lot—of revolution would be the proper order of the day; especially if it involves getting a little—or a lot—of culture spreading about the place? Again, this is an utterly fantastic idea!

Let’s throw in a leader who gives an inspiring speech with the appropriate title, “A New Beginning.” Oh my God! What could be better? We look around us and with all that is going on in the news of the world kind of tend to think that a new beginning is just what we need! Who in this life has never wished for a redo? So this New Beginning guy; that’s my man! A little bit of positive and inspirational talk in a leader never hurt anybody so I’m gonna vote for him!

As great as the so far listed programs and speeches are concerned, none of them compare to, “The Wellspring of Life.” This one just makes people kind of sit back in their chair and go, “oooooohhhhhaaa!” I know I just did. It’s almost, but not quite, orgasmic. Think about that. A government program called, “The Wellspring of Life.” That ought to be worth quite a bit of tax money to fund considering the value of life to some people. Life springs as if from a well, from the government! I can see people in line just to sign up for it. 

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Why Socialism will Never Work, EVER!

Bernie Sanders annoys me. If you know me, that’s to be expected. The thing that annoys me more than Bernie Sanders is when people support him, thinking that somehow he would be a good president. That as well, is to be expected. What is unexpected is the number of seemingly intelligent people who support him.

It’s easy to see how this could be. I mean hell; he wants to give everybody everything they want. You want more pay, ask Bernie. You want more benefits, ask Bernie. You want more money to go to the support of veterans, ask Bernie. You want equality with the wealthy; Bernie is the man to go to. He’s like Santa Claus on steroids; without the red suit, reindeer, flying sleigh, and most importantly, a work shop full of magic elves at the North Pole to provide everything everybody wants for free.

As fundamentally flawed as the little drawback of, “just where the hell does the money come from to pay for all of these omnipotent and omnipresent programs of a cradle to grave federal government,” and how annoying it is to try and get that through a liberal mind, the impossibility of Socialism from the fiscal standpoint is not what I want to write about. Yes, yes, yes, it is impossible to pay for. History has demonstrated it over and over again. It always looks good to start with because the People are only looking at what they are being promised. They think there are plenty of filthy rich people to pay for it. But in the end the rich don’t have enough money to pay for everybody so rationing begins, the system collapses, everybody riots, the revolution comes, people die, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Why Term Limits Won’t Work and What We Should be Doing Instead: Part 2

In my last blog post (Why Term Limits Won't Work and What We Should be Doing Instead) I pointed out the rather obvious fact that, “If a tiger’s fangs chewing on your throat is bothering you it does no good to replace them with another set of fangs. It’s still a tiger chewing on your throat.” In this post I will get to what I think we should do about it.

The idea of term limits is a good hearted attempt to fix things in Washington. Many, many people who I hold in the highest esteem and honor are for term limits. I understand the intent but I can’t find any place where term limits have ever fixed anything. The real organizations that hold the power are still there no matter who they appoint to wield it. And as long as the electorate remains ignorant of the true functions of the federal government there is no chance of redemption.

There are dozens of examples I could name where term limits have given us a worse president than we had—like the loss of Reagan to term limits—but those arguments tend to rely on hypothetical alternate realities rather than verifiable facts. Since I can’t verify that in some alternate reality Spock has a beard, I choose to set the arguments based on alternate realities aside. For verifiable facts there are plenty of places we could go to do our research. Many states have term limits for governors and their own legislators. Many cities have term limits on their mayors and city councils. Detroit has term limits. How’s that working? Every several years they vote for a new Democrat to replace the old one and every several years they sink further into the mud. We have term limits on the president and there can be no denying that the country is also sinking into the mud. After all, it may be fact that we have Obama because his predecessor was term limited out of office.

The American people, in this highly colorful analogy, have a very powerful tiger chewing at their throats. The Founding Fathers very emphatically did not intend to create a tiger who wields the power of big government. So how do we turn the tiger back into the government that was designed for us?

As I previously mentioned, “The Constitution was amended to give undue power to the federal government that the Founders never intended them to have.” To set up my support of this supposition I quote Thomas Jefferson, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.” Now I ask the reader, does that last part sound at all familiar to you?

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Why Term Limits Won’t Work and What We Should be Doing Instead: Part 1

The subject of term limits as a topic is not new. It was debated at the Constitutional Convention and rejected by the Founding Fathers for what I personally consider, after a careful evaluation, to be good reasons. But to shorten the research for other people so they don’t have to go through the agony I did in getting to where I am, I’m going to put the end of my reasoning here. This topic is also found in the Federalist Papers and various other writings of the Founding Fathers. Some of them were for term limits, no doubt, but in the end they were, I think, correctly rejected.

There comes a time when in the observation of human nature, particularly when it is in the raw area of politics, that you can spot when people are having a knee-jerk reaction. I don’t like Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran, Charles Grassley, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi or pretty much most of the chuckle heads that get into Congress and seem to stay there forever. Having the Libertarian leanings that I do I would, in fact, say that my political dislike for them far, far exceeds that of most of the people.

I completely understand the frustration of the People with the government but intending no offense to anybody, I think that would be a knee-jerk reaction. “I don’t like something so I’m going to have the government make a law to limit it,” is not exactly a good argument for smaller and more limited government. In fact, what it is is a restriction on the rights of voters to elect who they want to have serve them.

I’m going to draw an appropriate analogy here. People catch colds. Their nose gets stuffy, which causes discomfort, so they blow it. The act of blowing one’s nose is not a cure for the disease of having a cold. It is just a crude treatment of the symptoms. In order to cure the cold you have to destroy the virus that drives it then the symptoms go away of their own accord. There can be no doubt that the symptom of a runny and stuffed up nose is what bothers the sufferer of a cold. There can also be no doubt that blowing one’s nose makes him feel better for a little bit until the symptoms return. So, having a cold and getting it to go away requires a handling that addresses the cause. Crank up the intake of vitamin C. Get some rest. Eat some chicken soup. Stay warm. Build up your body’s immunity system so it can do its thing and fight the virus.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Liberals, Insanity and Gun Control

I can’t help but noticing that there is a lot more attention being paid to the issues of mental health after mass shootings than there used to be. I think it is time to start laying the ground for the next level of argument.

To the leftists in the world conservatives are just plain mean. That is the single starting point of their logic.

Now when we say we’d rather start looking at the mental health of the shooters involved and start naming them as mentally ill, as they clearly are, the left is going to respond by saying conservatives just hate the mentally ill. They won’t respond in a rational way by applying what we are saying only to the shooters on a case by case basis. They will respond by saying we are claiming all mentally ill people to be mass shooters rather than all mass shooters are mentally ill.

There is a difference. It would be like saying all Fords are cars but not all cars are Fords.

Their propaganda machines will deliberately get it wrong every single time to try and invalidate our point and take the current level of attention to the mental illness aspects of the cases and put it back on gun control and how hateful and unsympathetic conservatives are to the insane.

I know this is true because it just happened to me. By specifically saying the most recent shooter was insane I am unmercifully and unfairly labeling all people, with all mental illnesses, of all types, everywhere, and as it was just put to me, “giving them a bad rap.” We are obviously doing it because of hatred for everybody who isn't like us.

So I’m guessing that not too far around the bend there are going to be all kinds of liberal “defend the mentally ill from evil and mean conservatives” groups popping up all over the place.

Sanity is the ability to distinguish differences. For example, if a person couldn’t distinguish the difference between a car and a tomato, and tried to drive a tomato to work, you would think him insane. Right?

Well, what if a group of people couldn’t tell the difference between a group of people and an individual? Then because of that assigned the actions of an entire group of people with the actions of only one of them? That would be insane wouldn’t it?

That is going to be the next insane argument from liberals about gun control. It’s already started. And here's an early instance of this insanity at work ...

What it is Like to be Liberal

I think that just a little bit of humor at the expense of liberals is in order this morning. Not that this morning is any different than any other morning because generally speaking liberals are very funny people...genocidal tendencies notwithstanding of course.

Did you ever wonder what it's like to be a liberal? I've given this some serious (really, very serious) thought. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. When I see the news of the day come across my computer I can't help but to notice that the liberal news agencies keep doing the same thing over and over. It's all alarmist. We are all going to die for some reason or another. And the same things are pushed over and over and over again, always as if nobody has ever heard of such a thing before.

I get the idea that if they could learn from experience and apply enough attention span to the issues they wouldn't keep getting caught up in these little loops. On the part of the Main Stream Media it's just the rules of propaganda at work. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

But can you imagine what must go on inside the heads of the rank and file audience who buys into everything they say? I can. And I think it's rather funny.

"One time I was on the beach in North Carolina and all of a sudden there was this water rushing up the beach at me. “OH MY GOD! AT THIS RATE THE EARTH WILL BE COVERED IN WATER IN JUST A MATTER OF WEEKS! HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!!!” Fortunately it stopped. But then all of a sudden the water all at once started rushing out to sea. OH MY GOD! AT THIS RATE THE WATER WILL SOON ALL BE GONE AND THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE A DESERT! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! And then all of a sudden there was this water rushing up the beach at me. “OH MY GOD! AT THIS RATE THE EARTH WILL BE COVERED IN WATER IN JUST A MATTER OF WEEKS! HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!!!” Fortunately it stopped. But then all of a sudden the water all at once started rushing out to sea. OH MY GOD! AT THIS RATE THE WATER WILL SOON ALL BE GONE AND THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE A DESERT! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! And then all of a sudden..."

Monday, October 5, 2015

The Budget, the National Debt and my Radical Wife

I see there is another round of budget debates going on in DC and can't help thinking that it kind of reminds me of some events going on in my life that are a little bit closer to home.

My wife and I have been having a bit of financial trouble lately and she seems rather pissed off that I’ve been spending 40% more than we make. We’ve racked up so much debt the credit agencies are going to downgrade our credit ratings. But we negotiated a deal between us that will certainly fix everything. Instead of me spending 40% more than we take in I’m going to spend 39.999975% more than we take in over the rest of this year and over the next ten years I’ll work that number all the way down to 38.6% more than we take in. I'm sure it will work and make us look good with the credit agencies because of our serious efforts to reduce our deficit.

Now what she wanted was to do some irresponsible and radical thing like balance our budget so that I would be spending less than we take in and actually use the difference to pay down our huge debt. But that was just too radical and besides, it's for the children!

Now I'd like to write more about it but I'm far to busy filling out the applications for these new credit cards that I need to use to pay our bills.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address: A Masterpiece of Political Shysterism

First to set the table a bit. My commentary will be red. Sometimes I write as if I'm talking directly to Lincoln. Sometimes not. I've tried to limit out of my comments things that happen after the point in time where he gave this speech. So issues like Fort Sumter, for example, don't get mentioned. I'm trying to view it as I would have viewed it then, as if it were just happening. The general purpose behind this analysis is that I'm writing a book which deals with political issues and politicians who are masters of spin. This one seems to me to be a prime example. History has recorded well enough what he actually did. Please keep in mind that these are only my notes and are not intended to be a formally written commentary.

People who know me and have read other posts of mine about Lincoln know that I really don't like him. I have a uniform standard for rating presidents based on if the follow the Constitution or not. Based on that, and taking all excuses off the table, I think he's the worst president we've ever had and the country is still suffering from what he did.

While this will not be viewed by most as being directly related to current issues it is a fine example of the deceptive techniques still used in modern times. Obama could have given this speech.

As of 1860, two thirds of the federal revenue came from taxes taken from the South through protectionist tariffs, which benefited the North's internal improvements programs, while doing little for the South. Other resources back this opinion and I leave it to the honest researcher to do his own homework. I'd advise the reader to seek the opinions of economists on this point rather than historians. Lincoln, by his own frequently expressed testimony and history, was for high protectionist tariffs and internal improvements (modernly known as corporate welfare) programs. He made his own personal fortune through being the legal representation for big railroad companies who benefited from such policies. While the term "lobbyist" hadn't been coined yet, for all intents and purposes that's what he was for the railroad companies of the day.

A magician, same as a crafty politician, has a principle of operation he uses in creating his magic. While continuously drawing the audience's attention to his right hand he works behind the scenes to create his illusions with his left hand which he very carefully doesn't call your attention to. This tactic is also use quite frequently in politics. In this address Lincoln mentioned slavery 16 times in various forms and discussed it at some length. Taxes (as duties and imposts) were only mentioned briefly once. State's Rights (modernly called Social Issues) were mentioned twice. It becomes obvious, given the principle that the best policy is to attack where the enemy is weak, where Lincoln wanted the public's attention to be as well as where he didn't want it to be. I'll call this the "look over here" principle.

It is also a well known propaganda tactic that if you tell a lie surrounded by truths, that through twisted logic related to the truths, the lie will be accepted as if it were true. Then by repeating that lie over and over again it tends to be viewed as if it were the truth of its own accord. Then by framing other lies surrounded by the first as if it were true, other lies can be accepted based on the first. Gradually an entire framework can be built and believed, based on lies. The public, not being aware of the lies as such, acts on them as if true. This method of political discourse is as old as time.

With the above points explained and assumed we then proceed to Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

Saturday, June 27, 2015

"Confederate Battle Flag"

You know—in general there are a lot of things I really don't like about southern culture. I just can't stand country music. I hate Lynyrd Skynyrd's music. The southern accent is sometimes like an ice pick in my ear. But what is even worse than the grossly extended and repetitive guitar solo at the end of Free Bird is the Yankee consideration that the federal government of the United States has the right and purpose to dictate to us every aspect of our personal and individual rights.

And when that extends to a point where you can't even properly define the Battle Flag without being shouted down as a person who supports rape, beatings, slavery and the oppression of black people, (yes, this happened to me yesterday) at the expense of not even being able to speak freely about it or buy one, which really oppresses us all, well—things seem pretty bad from that perspective. I even had a person, whom I generally respect in spite of disagreements, try to convince me that the average rebel soldier was willing to put his life on the line to support slavery merely to keep themselves off of the bottom rung of the social hierarchy, in spite of the fact that she knew of nobody who would do such a thing and wouldn't think do anything of the sort herself.

There is one thing embodied in the culture of the South where they are truly superlative. That is in their understanding of freedom. Yes. I know that a hundred and fifty years ago some of them (5.13% according to the 1860 census) HAD slaves. But I also know that Jefferson Davis said that whether the CSA won or lost the war slavery was going to come to an end. To people who point the finger of blame at the South and call their cultural icons racist symbols I have to say, "get over it."

The cause of the war was not slavery but in regards to that abominable practice the issue for most of the people of the South, right up to Davis, was never if slavery should be ended or not. It was a matter of how to do it. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. For example, genocide would have been a way to end slavery. That would be the wrong way. Just kill a bunch of people and destroy personal liberty through the expansion of power of the federal government. Well, 625,000 people died in that war. And the federal government was expanded at the expense of the liberty of the rest of those who weren't slaves. When compared to most other countries who ended slavery without a single shot being fired the way the United States did it was pretty damned wrong.

That is the real reason for the "Rebel Flag" in modern times. It is with the discovery of these very well documented facts that I decided to by one from one of the few available sources left.

Incidentally, I'm a "Yankee" from northwest Ohio.