''We seek him here, we seek him there, Those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? —Is he in hell? That demmed, elusive Pimpernel.''
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Ron Paul in Columbia
I am going to attend the Ron Paul rally here in downtown Columbia, South Carolina on Friday. Lord willing, I'll have some photos of the event.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Amerika 2007
Ahhh, freedom. This crosses the line between not only educational freedom but issues related to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
By the way, I believe that social workers in general are really agents of Satan himself. Combine this busybody social worker (who apparently has nothing better to do than to "strip search" children) with the police (who think there is no end to their power) and one has a recipe for disaster.
By the way, I believe that social workers in general are really agents of Satan himself. Combine this busybody social worker (who apparently has nothing better to do than to "strip search" children) with the police (who think there is no end to their power) and one has a recipe for disaster.
Monday, October 29, 2007
CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE
With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so. By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Gold Cash Price Goes Over $800!
An expert said on CNBC this morning that he didn't anticipate the American public to rush to gold until it hits $1,500. We concur. There is absolutely no awareness by the people in my world of what's going on. A new precious metals asset class is being born.
Additionally, and most gratifying is the gold equities are now running contra trend to the Dow -Gold UP, Dow DOWN. This was the occurrence in the 1970s/80s, and so it shall be again.
Remember, the only regret you'll have at $2,000 gold is that you didn't buy more
Additionally, and most gratifying is the gold equities are now running contra trend to the Dow -Gold UP, Dow DOWN. This was the occurrence in the 1970s/80s, and so it shall be again.
Remember, the only regret you'll have at $2,000 gold is that you didn't buy more
Columbia, SC: Un-Safe for Americanism!
South Carolina GOP Scalawags have brought the federal fascist police state to SC. To be sure, there are some patriots in our legislature,but Senate President Glenn McConnell is not one of them.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." ~ Winston Churchill
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." ~ Winston Churchill
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy
Pat sums up Rudy about as well as it can be said:
A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.We could dissect Rudy's stance on issues and all that but it seems a trivial pursuit - he is the antithesis of conservative principles. There is no point in discussing him, no real conservative would or will support him.Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one’s soul.
So Long Joe
There is, of course, nothing romantic or enviable about war. It is something that brings out the very worst and the very best in people - a man's true character is exposed for all to see. I know that war has always been and always will be part of the human condition. In a world without war, considering all human frailty, we would be left with benevolent (or malevelent) tyranny. History has proven, over and over again, that somethimes war is neccesary, sometime it is just and occasionally it is the only option.
There is nothing wrong with children playing at war, so long as someone within the family explains that war is not simply a game. Playing with heroes and villians is an important part of a child developing into a man - so long, as I said they eventually come to see that the world is not so simple as all that.
So we have the venerable GI Joe, a man that I came to know and love as a child. He was a Marine but more than that. In his career after the Corps he performed every sort of exciting, adventurous job imaginable. I recall that he was a smoke jumper, an "Indiana Jones" sort of adventurer and a dozen other things (in the 1970's Hasbrio downplayed his Marine past and released several personifications of Joe performing these other adventurous but non-military functions).
To me these "politics" did not matter, Joe was always a Marine, no matter what other function he might perform. Perhaps I did not understand the technicalities but it was simple to me, Joe could always put on the uniform, no matter what image Hasbrio tried to sell. I owned the original (I guess) version of Joe from the early 1960's - he was a heck of a hero to me in my young childhood.
Now it seems that Joe is just not international enough, he is too American. Paramount would fashion Joe as not a man, but rather some international group of co-ed commando's fighting for world peace and harmony. Stripping Joe of his true historical connection and his identity.
Consider the story of the real Joe, the man GI Joe was fashioned to look like, the man that inspired the true action hero. (from Review Journal)
Now it seems that is just not good enough....
There is nothing wrong with children playing at war, so long as someone within the family explains that war is not simply a game. Playing with heroes and villians is an important part of a child developing into a man - so long, as I said they eventually come to see that the world is not so simple as all that.
So we have the venerable GI Joe, a man that I came to know and love as a child. He was a Marine but more than that. In his career after the Corps he performed every sort of exciting, adventurous job imaginable. I recall that he was a smoke jumper, an "Indiana Jones" sort of adventurer and a dozen other things (in the 1970's Hasbrio downplayed his Marine past and released several personifications of Joe performing these other adventurous but non-military functions).
To me these "politics" did not matter, Joe was always a Marine, no matter what other function he might perform. Perhaps I did not understand the technicalities but it was simple to me, Joe could always put on the uniform, no matter what image Hasbrio tried to sell. I owned the original (I guess) version of Joe from the early 1960's - he was a heck of a hero to me in my young childhood.
Now it seems that Joe is just not international enough, he is too American. Paramount would fashion Joe as not a man, but rather some international group of co-ed commando's fighting for world peace and harmony. Stripping Joe of his true historical connection and his identity.
Consider the story of the real Joe, the man GI Joe was fashioned to look like, the man that inspired the true action hero. (from Review Journal)
It took just one tough 'sumbeach' on that hill to hold, that was the minimal number of able-bodied Marines required. I am not a warmonger, but wars happen and a free people - if they are to remain free, occasionally need heroes. Mitchell Paige was just such a hero, among thousands but because of his own character and the cruel combination of fate that placed him on that hill he showed that he was just such a hero- he through the image of GI Joe has represented the sort of hero free people require at times.On Nov. 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, Calif., southeast of Palm Springs. He was a combat veteran of World War II. His name was Mitchell Paige.
It's hard today to envision -- or, for the dwindling few, to remember -- what the world looked like on Oct. 25, 1942 -- 65 years ago.
The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand lonely American Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal and high-tailed it out of there.
On Guadalcanal, the Marines struggled to complete an airfield that could threaten the Japanese route to Australia. Admiral Yamamoto knew how dangerous that was. Before long, relentless Japanese counterattacks had driven the supporting U.S. Navy from inshore waters. The Marines were on their own.
As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Brownings on that hillside, 65 years ago this week -- manning their section of the thin khaki line that was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of Oct. 25, 1942 -- it's unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 armed and motivated attackers?
But by the time the night was over, "The 29th (Japanese) Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men," historian Lippman reports. "The 16th (Japanese) Regiment's losses are uncounted, but the 164th's burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. ... The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low."
You've already figured out where the Japanese focused their attack, haven't you? Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige's platoon. Every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.
The citation for Paige's Medal of Honor picks up the tale: "When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machine gun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire."
In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.
Coming up at dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was the first to discover how many able-bodied United States Marines it takes to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened infantrymen who have never known defeat.
On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his 30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.
The hill had held, because on the hill remained the minimum number of able-bodied United States Marines necessary to hold the position.
And that's where the unstoppable wave of Japanese conquest finally crested, broke, and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one ever heard of, called Guadalcanal.
When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.
But they weren't. That's his mug, on the little Marine they call "G.I. Joe." At least, it has been up till now.
Mitchell Paige's only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.
Now it seems that is just not good enough....
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Compassionate Edwards
John Edwards, aspiring dictator-in-chief, is so compassionate he is going to create universal healthcare, housing vouchers, universal pre-K and college, universal this and that, and so forth.
If you are so compassionate, why don't you donate your own fortune to the poor and needy? But alas, he wants to demonstrate his compassion by forcing everyone else to pay for all of this crap. It's no wonder the middle class can't afford anything. After all, government at all levels steals about half of what your average person makes in taxes so it's no wonder that people can't afford healthcare and education as it is right now (I agree that the healthcare issue is a bit more complex than this but this is certainly a major contributor). Moreover, I am sure that many of these things will most likely become compulsory judging from the fact that he thinks everyone should go to the doctor at gunpoint. So not only does he want me to pay for everyone else's education and housing, he thinks that my children and myself are his own private property to teach, medicate, and store away as he pleases. My family and I are not your personal property, asshole.
By the way, I like the way he says there is "no free meal." What is this supposed to mean? If I work hard for my fraudulent federal reserve notes and you STEAL it from me to redistribute it to somebody else, are you saying that I am not entitled to complain because everyone else is equally being molested by the all intrusive state? Indeed, it seems as if there is "no free meal" insofar as keeping the fruits of ones own labor is concerned. And don't give me this nonsense about the good of society. If you want to talk about morality, let's begin the the ABCs. It is wrong to steal.
If you are so concerned about the good of society (whatever that actually means), why bother spending millions and millions of dollars running in an election when you could devote your time to help the poor with your own assets. He tries so hard to make it seem as if he is compassionate but he is really a thieving snake who just wants to exercise power and micromanage everyones life. So take your socialism and phony compassionate whateverism and SHOVE IT!
If you are so compassionate, why don't you donate your own fortune to the poor and needy? But alas, he wants to demonstrate his compassion by forcing everyone else to pay for all of this crap. It's no wonder the middle class can't afford anything. After all, government at all levels steals about half of what your average person makes in taxes so it's no wonder that people can't afford healthcare and education as it is right now (I agree that the healthcare issue is a bit more complex than this but this is certainly a major contributor). Moreover, I am sure that many of these things will most likely become compulsory judging from the fact that he thinks everyone should go to the doctor at gunpoint. So not only does he want me to pay for everyone else's education and housing, he thinks that my children and myself are his own private property to teach, medicate, and store away as he pleases. My family and I are not your personal property, asshole.
By the way, I like the way he says there is "no free meal." What is this supposed to mean? If I work hard for my fraudulent federal reserve notes and you STEAL it from me to redistribute it to somebody else, are you saying that I am not entitled to complain because everyone else is equally being molested by the all intrusive state? Indeed, it seems as if there is "no free meal" insofar as keeping the fruits of ones own labor is concerned. And don't give me this nonsense about the good of society. If you want to talk about morality, let's begin the the ABCs. It is wrong to steal.
If you are so concerned about the good of society (whatever that actually means), why bother spending millions and millions of dollars running in an election when you could devote your time to help the poor with your own assets. He tries so hard to make it seem as if he is compassionate but he is really a thieving snake who just wants to exercise power and micromanage everyones life. So take your socialism and phony compassionate whateverism and SHOVE IT!
Saturday, October 27, 2007
FEMA's Softball Team
WASHINGTON — No one had any hard questions for the deputy administrator of FEMA, an agency deeply tarnished by its delayed action after Hurricane Katrina, when he held a news conference Tuesday to talk about the California wildfires.
"Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" someone asked.
Indeed, the deputy administrator was. "I am very happy with FEMA's response so far," responded Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson Jr.
The news conference looked like a success in the Bush administration's effort this week to demonstrate it could respond competently to a disaster.
On Friday, however, the agency admitted that the softball questions were posed by FEMA employees, not reporters.
My goodness talk about propaganda and dishonesty. Surely these bureaucrats knew that there was something morally wrong with conducting a news conference, answering questions and such sans real reporters. Then again probably not - they thought this a good way to "get out their message" tot he American people - who needs anyone asking hard questions? This idiots just don't understand how hard it is to squander millions of taxpayers dollars. "We are the government and we are here to help."
Mitt Romney - The People's Choice?
We are told by those that say they know that Romney has the most "grassroots" support among all GOP contenders (I guess that would make Ron Paul supporters Salt of the Earth or some such thing). What does he stand for, is it really a conservative agenda and is it the best course?
Let's look at his own agenda-
Affordable Health Care For All Americans
Sounds grand and noble - wait let me check my copy of The Federal Constitution. I do not see any reference to the Federal Government having any business concerning itself with affordable healthcare. The fact that Romney places this as his first point in his agenda is therefore troubling. His plan reads well, it talks about instilling conservative priciples of free market and deregulation but still - within the fine print - we see things like "and helping the low-income uninsured afford the private coverage of their choice."
Consider this:
A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda
This is of course the catch-all issue of all conservative rhetoric but unless you are really willing to slash spending tax cuts or reductions in marginal rates across the board will just not work - and as part of his agenda he specifically wants to reduce the corporate tax rate. If you are going to start cutting taxes you have to begin with the individual first. Tax cuts without deep spending cuts are not sustainable (see above, even his healthcare plan does not slash spending, it merely moves it around).
Defeating the Jihadist
Oh good grief - Jihad means a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal - defeating all jihadist could take a very long time and could include bombing the fellow at the 7-11 that has resolved for his own personal jihad to not miss prayer, a student that has decided to veil herself even though she lives in the West and yes followers of Wahbi ideology that wish to restore the caliphate. I am amused at the choice of words for this point, because words are important. If you are going to lead us, you must understand the words you use (we have too many recent examples of a leader muddling important words).
It is hard for Americans to accept, because most have not read deeply enough, but we would never have been attacked in 2001 if our policies were different. Those Muslims that have decided to make their personal jihad that of restoring the caliphate picked the US as a target, the far enemy, because we support their near enemies. Their real goal is to re-order the nature of the governments in their own lands - they saw and see us as a significant supporter of those governments.
You may say "damn right" we don't want them taking over their governments over there - they will then attack us. Doubtful this would really play out - look at their success in running a government in Afghanistan. They took over a backwards and primitive country and after years of work they succeeded in moving it closer to the stone age. If, on the off chance, these radicals did succeed in taking power, reestablishing the caliphate, keeping power and building their new empire into a peer-competitor then perhaps we should be concerned. There are many "if's" in that scenario. It seems pretty foolish to declare war on a bunch of folks that probably could not succeed in all of that just based upon an assumption. If you are not convinced, read about how the wahbi movement started, how their strategy changed over time and their own reasons for attacking the US.
Romney offers us more interventionism, more conflict and more needless war - all based upon a failed understanding of the world.
Competing With Asia - he gets it right
Getting Immigration Right
Achieving Energy Independence - I do not see anything objectionable here
America's Culture and Values - I like his nod to States' Rights
He talks about the importance of education - I agree - and the importance of powering down to schools and communities but he does not mention eliminating the un-Constitutional Department of Education. If you can't get it right by The Constitution your plan is not conservative.
Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christianity - it is a cult, read their books. This may be alright for Bob Jones and other evangelicals - after all they routinely support men that profess Christianity but obviously do not live it. It is not ok for me. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person, but they follow a false God and that is simply a fact in my mind. If you are really a Christian and a member of The People - Romney cannot be your choice any more than Hillary or Obama can be.
Let's look at his own agenda-
Affordable Health Care For All Americans
Sounds grand and noble - wait let me check my copy of The Federal Constitution. I do not see any reference to the Federal Government having any business concerning itself with affordable healthcare. The fact that Romney places this as his first point in his agenda is therefore troubling. His plan reads well, it talks about instilling conservative priciples of free market and deregulation but still - within the fine print - we see things like "and helping the low-income uninsured afford the private coverage of their choice."
Consider this:
Governor Romney will end subsidized care for "free riders" by redirecting these existing federal and state resources to help the low-income uninsured purchase their own private health insurance.Wrong, wrong wrong - you o not redirect my tax dollars from "free care" to subsidized insurance and call it conservatism, free market or smaller government; you get the government out of the healthcare business all together.
A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda
This is of course the catch-all issue of all conservative rhetoric but unless you are really willing to slash spending tax cuts or reductions in marginal rates across the board will just not work - and as part of his agenda he specifically wants to reduce the corporate tax rate. If you are going to start cutting taxes you have to begin with the individual first. Tax cuts without deep spending cuts are not sustainable (see above, even his healthcare plan does not slash spending, it merely moves it around).
Defeating the Jihadist
Oh good grief - Jihad means a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal - defeating all jihadist could take a very long time and could include bombing the fellow at the 7-11 that has resolved for his own personal jihad to not miss prayer, a student that has decided to veil herself even though she lives in the West and yes followers of Wahbi ideology that wish to restore the caliphate. I am amused at the choice of words for this point, because words are important. If you are going to lead us, you must understand the words you use (we have too many recent examples of a leader muddling important words).
It is hard for Americans to accept, because most have not read deeply enough, but we would never have been attacked in 2001 if our policies were different. Those Muslims that have decided to make their personal jihad that of restoring the caliphate picked the US as a target, the far enemy, because we support their near enemies. Their real goal is to re-order the nature of the governments in their own lands - they saw and see us as a significant supporter of those governments.
You may say "damn right" we don't want them taking over their governments over there - they will then attack us. Doubtful this would really play out - look at their success in running a government in Afghanistan. They took over a backwards and primitive country and after years of work they succeeded in moving it closer to the stone age. If, on the off chance, these radicals did succeed in taking power, reestablishing the caliphate, keeping power and building their new empire into a peer-competitor then perhaps we should be concerned. There are many "if's" in that scenario. It seems pretty foolish to declare war on a bunch of folks that probably could not succeed in all of that just based upon an assumption. If you are not convinced, read about how the wahbi movement started, how their strategy changed over time and their own reasons for attacking the US.
Romney offers us more interventionism, more conflict and more needless war - all based upon a failed understanding of the world.
Competing With Asia - he gets it right
We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.Stopping Runaway Spending
I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.Again, Romney is consulting the old playbook of rhetoric, not The Constitution. You don't reform entitlements, you eliminate them.
Getting Immigration Right
We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration."I want to see more immigration in our country" - this is not the 1800's with the entire west to settle. Our culture has absorbed too much for now, we need time to acculturate the people that have already come over and have yet to act, think, speak or believe like Americans. We certainly do not need more immigration, a controlled flow of qualified legal immigrants will do just fine thank you. He sounds to me like he is talking to all sides on this issue, he does not address those that are in our country as criminals right now and how he would act to expel them.
Achieving Energy Independence - I do not see anything objectionable here
We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.
America's Culture and Values - I like his nod to States' Rights
I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.Raising the Education Bar
He talks about the importance of education - I agree - and the importance of powering down to schools and communities but he does not mention eliminating the un-Constitutional Department of Education. If you can't get it right by The Constitution your plan is not conservative.
Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christianity - it is a cult, read their books. This may be alright for Bob Jones and other evangelicals - after all they routinely support men that profess Christianity but obviously do not live it. It is not ok for me. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person, but they follow a false God and that is simply a fact in my mind. If you are really a Christian and a member of The People - Romney cannot be your choice any more than Hillary or Obama can be.
Ron Paul: A New Hope
I am a man that has seen the ugliest face of mankind, I have fought, killed, and seen killing all in the name of "making the world better" - yet I have not seen my service or that of my brothers make anything any better. We have all experienced the growing tyranny of a government filled with hubris and callousness. Who will put an end to this? Who will stand on principles?
Ron Paul's Position
Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.
Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.
What of these strange ideas?
This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.
I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.
Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.
Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.
American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements
"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target
"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"
Taxes and Debt - Amen
"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."
Health Freedom - he is the doctor
Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much
"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.
Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?
Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree
"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."
Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare
"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition
"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."
War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct
"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."
Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.
It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.
What of these strange ideas?
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.
I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.
Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.
Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.
American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements
"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target
"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"
Taxes and Debt - Amen
"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."
Health Freedom - he is the doctor
"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements
I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."
Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much
"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.
I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).
Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."
Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?
"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree
"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."
Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare
"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."
The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition
"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."
War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct
"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."
Setting The Record Straight
In case you come across comments I have left on other site or if you read my article about Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton and think I am deluded about the "politics" of the Scottish National Party - I am not. I know that the very reason nationalism resurfaced in Scotland, i.e. disdain for Thatcher's policies, has resulted in a Scotland that supports greater separation from Britain but closer ties with a unified Europe.
Personally I find this to be idiotic, to replace a tyrant a few hundred miles away with a larger tyranny just a few more miles distant makes no sense. Thomas Fleming has argued recently that secession is not such a good idea in many places that it is currently considered, in part because places like Scotland would simply replace the nation-state with multinational unions.
I disdain what Scotland has become - they simply took the enlightenment way to far. I will not abandon the idea of self-determination because some people would use self-determination to "determine" themselves out of liberty and freedom. I can at once support the notion of self-determination and oppose the idiotic ideas that may arise from it - separately and apart from one another.
Personally I find this to be idiotic, to replace a tyrant a few hundred miles away with a larger tyranny just a few more miles distant makes no sense. Thomas Fleming has argued recently that secession is not such a good idea in many places that it is currently considered, in part because places like Scotland would simply replace the nation-state with multinational unions.
I disdain what Scotland has become - they simply took the enlightenment way to far. I will not abandon the idea of self-determination because some people would use self-determination to "determine" themselves out of liberty and freedom. I can at once support the notion of self-determination and oppose the idiotic ideas that may arise from it - separately and apart from one another.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Dollar Plunges Anew, Gold close to $780, Silver back over $14
Dollar plumbs to new all-time low of 77.03; Gold hits new recovery high of $778.30; Silver hits $14.13; Church tithings to drop; Ron Paul opens SC Hdqtrs in Spartanburg.....are you ready for the Big KA-POW?
Re: A Simple Plea for Federalism
Nick Gillespie over at Reason comments on a story worth reading and considering.
From Ron Hart
However, laying that aside, The Constitution certainly is, at present, our best hope. If we could turn back the clock so to speak, to a time when the States had Rights and the Federal Government had limits and politicians always asked the question "is this constitutional" before proposing some new grand scheme things would indeed be much better. More than a supporter of secession I am first and foremost a supporter of a limited Federal Government, a strict interpretation of the Federal Constitution and freedom of the States and The People to do each and every thing they please that was never delegated to the Union. Citizenship belongs back with the states, as it was when the Union was formed.
Secession is not unworkable, it is just not necessary right now. That is not to say that it is not important to talk about it, to keep it in the public mind and to continually proclaim it as a legitimate right of our States. We simply cannot abandon our fate to one that forever ties our prosperity and freedom to the notion of Union. If we abandon the notion of secession, we thereby abandon all hope of restoring the Republic. Without the right to secede, all other rights become provisional and the 10th Amendment means nothing - it becomes something that is defined by the Federal Government itself - that is tyranny, benevolent or otherwise it is tyranny.
As I wrote in my last post, Ron Paul certainly is a wonderful breath of fresh air into the otherwise corrupt and perverse political landscape. Millions of us should get out and support him, we should support Constitutional Party candidates in local and state elections. We must lay aside the failed notions of pragmatism and "we simply must win". That has accomplished nothing, if you are a conservative like me you see this failure clearly within the GOP and the candidates they routinely roll out for our perusal. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans support any degree of restoration of the Republic - meaning a proper interpretation of the nature and role of the central government. We should not honor them with our treasure or concern - even if it means our votes will not be counted.
The solution to almost everything that ails The United States can be found within the simple notion of devolving back to what our government was intended to be - no other ideology, political party position or single-scope issue approach will save us.
Don't lose heart, don't take my words as defeatism - stand firm for those that believe and support the right things, no matter how many temporary defeats we may suffer. Heck, get involved!
From Ron Hart
In this Hart has it just right, I would like nothing more than to remain united with other Americans in their states for the common good. If we take the Federalist Papers as the real intent of the Federalist and not some attempt to answer away criticism and get The Constitution accepted at all cost then we find within those documents good words. The Antifederalist certainly did not buy into the hype, their warnings have become reality.My solution to the unworkable yet appealing idea of secession is to devolve more powers to the states and fewer to Washington. It is what our Founding Fathers intended. And if you read the Federalist Papers, you will realize that they never intended our central government in Washington to be this expansive and overbearing.
If you want an abortion, then move to a state that allows it. If you want to smoke weed, then go to California. If you think that we should pay for everything a lazy welfare person demands, then go to a state that gives them flat-screen TVs and, instead of government cheese, offers an assortment of French cheeses that are both delicious and presented in a pleasing manner.The basic reason that we fought for our independence is to do what we damn well please as long as it does not harm others. Yet at every turn, the federal government seems to want to make us do as they think we should, even if it comes down to using windmills, driving a Toyota Prius, or now, being forced to join the Hillary Health Care Plan....
Our free-spending federal government thinks it is doing things well, and is filled with enough hubris to believe that it should tell other countries what to do - it calls it foreign policy. The real answer is that less money and power need to be vested with them and more at the state level.
However, laying that aside, The Constitution certainly is, at present, our best hope. If we could turn back the clock so to speak, to a time when the States had Rights and the Federal Government had limits and politicians always asked the question "is this constitutional" before proposing some new grand scheme things would indeed be much better. More than a supporter of secession I am first and foremost a supporter of a limited Federal Government, a strict interpretation of the Federal Constitution and freedom of the States and The People to do each and every thing they please that was never delegated to the Union. Citizenship belongs back with the states, as it was when the Union was formed.
Secession is not unworkable, it is just not necessary right now. That is not to say that it is not important to talk about it, to keep it in the public mind and to continually proclaim it as a legitimate right of our States. We simply cannot abandon our fate to one that forever ties our prosperity and freedom to the notion of Union. If we abandon the notion of secession, we thereby abandon all hope of restoring the Republic. Without the right to secede, all other rights become provisional and the 10th Amendment means nothing - it becomes something that is defined by the Federal Government itself - that is tyranny, benevolent or otherwise it is tyranny.
As I wrote in my last post, Ron Paul certainly is a wonderful breath of fresh air into the otherwise corrupt and perverse political landscape. Millions of us should get out and support him, we should support Constitutional Party candidates in local and state elections. We must lay aside the failed notions of pragmatism and "we simply must win". That has accomplished nothing, if you are a conservative like me you see this failure clearly within the GOP and the candidates they routinely roll out for our perusal. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans support any degree of restoration of the Republic - meaning a proper interpretation of the nature and role of the central government. We should not honor them with our treasure or concern - even if it means our votes will not be counted.
The solution to almost everything that ails The United States can be found within the simple notion of devolving back to what our government was intended to be - no other ideology, political party position or single-scope issue approach will save us.
Don't lose heart, don't take my words as defeatism - stand firm for those that believe and support the right things, no matter how many temporary defeats we may suffer. Heck, get involved!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton?
Hold your horses cowboy - don't close that browser just yet. If you are like me, and for the sake of your wife and loved ones I hope you are not, you grew up believing that Ronald Reagan was "The Man" and Margaret Thatcher was the "Iron Lady". I joined the military with the words of Reagan echoing in my head about the need to stand on a wall and face down the bear of communism. Thatcher and Reagan were an inseparable team it seemed in the opposition to the Soviet Union.
There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.
In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.
Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.
A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:
Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.
For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.
Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.
Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).
On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.
I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)
Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.
The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.
I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.
I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.
I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.
The Scots woke up (partially) will we?
There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.
In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.
Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.
A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:
Despite my very close English connections, I've never been comfortable being British after growing up under Thatcher and seeing how differently England and Scotland voted during those years. It left a great impression that fundamentally England and Scotland are very different - one more "me" oriented and one more socially aware. Several years living in England later on didn't change that view.
Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.
For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.
Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.
Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).
On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.
I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)
Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.
The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.
I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.
I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.
I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.
The Scots woke up (partially) will we?
Minor Changes
I have made a few changes to the sidebar, notably the addition of profile pages for each of our contributors and an archive of each contributor's posts. You can read Johnny's posts here, Ikantspel's here, Charleston Voice's here and my own meager additions here. That way, if you have a particular favorite among us you do not have to trouble yourself with too much "noise". It will take some time to go back and properly tag all the previous 400 posts so the archive for each contributor will be incomplete for a bit, please be patient. I ask my fellow contributors, moving forward , to tag posts with their archive label.
Profiles
I also want to thank you, our readers. October has already been our biggest readership month in a year (according to SiteMeter). If you keep reading we will keep posting.
Profiles
I also want to thank you, our readers. October has already been our biggest readership month in a year (according to SiteMeter). If you keep reading we will keep posting.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Homeschooling, Pluralism, and Germany
I have recently read a speech given to a German home educators group on pluralism and the homeschooling situation in Germany. In case you are unaware, Germany seems to be completely determined to eradicate homeschooling completely.
I want to critique a few points of this speech because I believe that many points made therein articulate beliefs or partial beliefs of some who belong to the HSLDA. The author of the essay/speech is attempting to demonstrate that homeschooling is consistent with democratic pluralism. The goal, I believe, is to mitigate the German state by arguing that homeschoolers really are not trying to create "parallel societies" and that homeschooling is consistent with the pluralism that German education ministers are so eager to bring up. I tend to disagree with both points.
The author essentially defines pluralism within the context of a democratic republic as a group of individuals co-existing in what he calls a common society. A common society, then, is nothing more than a society formed by common belief and implemented democratically through the apparatus of the state. The author believes that this is good and articulates that the benefits of a pluralistic society in abstract notions about working together for the "common good" to protect "human rights" under the auspice of "equality."
Geez, this guy almost sounds like a leftist (the sad part is that he probably considers himself conservative indicating that the conservative movement is impotent). The problem is that a common society can only be sustained democratically by mob rule. One group of people may have their beliefs seriously compromised if that said group is a small minority. The majority, then, has the ability to impose foreign cultural beliefs on a minority population by using the state to enforce it's edicts. This is precisely the same reason why empires, for example, extinguish culture - because they conquer and impose a foreign culture on the native population. Moreover, I surmise that even the notions of "common good" and "human rights" are to be determined by the majority.
Moving on, the author then contrasts this idea of "pluralism" with the idea of "parallel societies." He notes:
I agree that this is what the German officials desire to prevent but the author's use of language seems to imply that this is bad. Alas, I predicted this even before reading the next few paragraphs:
The question here is dangerous to whom? More often than not, parallel societies are dangerous to the state itself. Many groups of people simply desire to be left alone to govern themselves but he speaks of this almost as if it is a heinous crime. Of course, the reasoning here is couched in protecting "human rights" but remember that in a democratic society, such things can be arbitrarily determined by a majority. And what of "repression?" Law itself might be unjust and immoral. In fact, this is the problem that homeschoolers in Germany face but he doesn't see it.
Ludwig von Mises believed that in order to prevent international wars, genocide, and physical oppression of one group against another, democracy had to be voluntary. It seems to me that the author glorifies what he calls "order." But even this idea itself can also be subjective in the context of democratic government.
He then inquires whether or not homeschoolers seek to create "parallel societies" and then unequivocally answers NO. Perhaps some homeschoolers are not trying to do this but the point I am trying to make is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. I am a believer in homeschooling not because I believe that the public schools simply do not teach what I desire them to teach. I am a believer in homeschooling because I find the mere existence of public schools repulsive and I believe that education is a lifelong process that begins at home, not in some impersonal institution. Indeed if one is honest, one will admit that homeschooling is a separate institution from public schools so this argument cannot even survive the most mild criticism from the German officials.
To give a more specific example, why do you think that Hedge Schools came about in colonial Ireland? The elders were trying to teach their children things which were inconsistent with the current ruling body because these cultural things were being extinguished. Would the author here oppose Hedge Schools? The author might argue that this is different because at the time, monarchical government was common. But would it really matter if the Irish were a minority in a democratic government? Of course not.
The author then notes
He gets one thing right: parallel societies are the enemy of a democratic state but I believe that his argument about "dogmatic and coerced uniformity" is wrong. Why? Well, it might be true in theory but it cannot be true in practice because I don't believe that pluralistic societies can genuinely exist in nature. That is, they don't naturally exist without the presence of an artificial entity like the state to sustain them and force various groups to remain united to it. So, pluralistic societies do exist within the confines of compulsory democratic states but are unnatural because they are sustained by gunpoint and not by free association. Therein lies the hypocrisy of remaining committed to "democratic pluralism" while seeking to eradicate "parallel societies."
Moreover, the virtue of the modern democratic state is that is is ok to plunder and coerce your neighbor so long as one appeals to the democratic process. More often than not, the reason that one group oppresses another is because the latter group is forced to endure such oppression by the nature of the democratic process. Besides this, one must accept the proposition that forcing group A to remain united with group B when group A does not want to be united with group B does not ameliorate the situation. If group A ever becomes a majority, then they now have the ability to oppress group B.
Because all "civilized" nations profess commitment to democracy and pluralism, I would suggest that all "civilized" nations are actually barbaric. Has it occurred to the speaker that moral decay is rampant in all "civilized nations" (seethis)? The nature of the democratic state itself breeds and sustains the whole idea of what he calls "moral relativism." To the author's credit, he admits that "human rights must rest on an objective standard." Yet, this can never be guaranteed within a democratic state. And whose standard should be applied? I believe that a Christian standard should be applied but a Muslim or an atheist would beg to differ. Naturally, if the atheist standard was applied, there would exist conflict from the Christian and possibly some Muslim communities. Hence the situation in Germany.
The author continues:
This argument is self-defeating and am forced to ask him "why not?" To the speaker, educational freedom is a human right but to Germany, the EU, and the U.N. forced compulsory education is a human right. Pragmatically, the latter is true simply because the state has all of the guns and the power of coercion at it's disposal.
I don't want to go through every point made by the author because he articulates similar ideas and thoughts. He does claim that "the democratic state should not exist to form or mold or shape society" but this is a statement that I believe is always fundamentally false. The problem with democracy is that it sounds good unless you fall within the minority.
I want to critique a few points of this speech because I believe that many points made therein articulate beliefs or partial beliefs of some who belong to the HSLDA. The author of the essay/speech is attempting to demonstrate that homeschooling is consistent with democratic pluralism. The goal, I believe, is to mitigate the German state by arguing that homeschoolers really are not trying to create "parallel societies" and that homeschooling is consistent with the pluralism that German education ministers are so eager to bring up. I tend to disagree with both points.
The author essentially defines pluralism within the context of a democratic republic as a group of individuals co-existing in what he calls a common society. A common society, then, is nothing more than a society formed by common belief and implemented democratically through the apparatus of the state. The author believes that this is good and articulates that the benefits of a pluralistic society in abstract notions about working together for the "common good" to protect "human rights" under the auspice of "equality."
Geez, this guy almost sounds like a leftist (the sad part is that he probably considers himself conservative indicating that the conservative movement is impotent). The problem is that a common society can only be sustained democratically by mob rule. One group of people may have their beliefs seriously compromised if that said group is a small minority. The majority, then, has the ability to impose foreign cultural beliefs on a minority population by using the state to enforce it's edicts. This is precisely the same reason why empires, for example, extinguish culture - because they conquer and impose a foreign culture on the native population. Moreover, I surmise that even the notions of "common good" and "human rights" are to be determined by the majority.
Moving on, the author then contrasts this idea of "pluralism" with the idea of "parallel societies." He notes:
[P]arallel societ[ies] ... [consist of] a group of people who live inside or within another society but do not share in these minimum common characteristics [characteristics needed to sustain common society for pluralism to survive (this is the author's view)]. These societies within a society seek not to interact but to remain isolated. Such a "parallel society" limits its contact with the larger society and seeks to operate its own civic institutions, legal functions, and would likely reject learning a common language.
I agree that this is what the German officials desire to prevent but the author's use of language seems to imply that this is bad. Alas, I predicted this even before reading the next few paragraphs:
If we accept the idea that government exists to maintain order by establishing a rule of law that applies equally to all within its jurisdiction—then indeed parallel societies are dangerous.
In such parallel societies the rights that should be protected and enjoyed by all citizens of the society could be repressed in the name of some other philosophy, legal system or religion, perhaps. If this were true, it would mean that that not all citizens would be receiving equal protection under the law. Because it is the duty of the state to protect the rights and equal application of the law to all people living within its jurisdiction—this cannot be allowed.
The question here is dangerous to whom? More often than not, parallel societies are dangerous to the state itself. Many groups of people simply desire to be left alone to govern themselves but he speaks of this almost as if it is a heinous crime. Of course, the reasoning here is couched in protecting "human rights" but remember that in a democratic society, such things can be arbitrarily determined by a majority. And what of "repression?" Law itself might be unjust and immoral. In fact, this is the problem that homeschoolers in Germany face but he doesn't see it.
Ludwig von Mises believed that in order to prevent international wars, genocide, and physical oppression of one group against another, democracy had to be voluntary. It seems to me that the author glorifies what he calls "order." But even this idea itself can also be subjective in the context of democratic government.
He then inquires whether or not homeschoolers seek to create "parallel societies" and then unequivocally answers NO. Perhaps some homeschoolers are not trying to do this but the point I am trying to make is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. I am a believer in homeschooling not because I believe that the public schools simply do not teach what I desire them to teach. I am a believer in homeschooling because I find the mere existence of public schools repulsive and I believe that education is a lifelong process that begins at home, not in some impersonal institution. Indeed if one is honest, one will admit that homeschooling is a separate institution from public schools so this argument cannot even survive the most mild criticism from the German officials.
To give a more specific example, why do you think that Hedge Schools came about in colonial Ireland? The elders were trying to teach their children things which were inconsistent with the current ruling body because these cultural things were being extinguished. Would the author here oppose Hedge Schools? The author might argue that this is different because at the time, monarchical government was common. But would it really matter if the Irish were a minority in a democratic government? Of course not.
The author then notes
Parallel societies may indeed be the enemy of a democratic state. But dogmatic and coerced uniformity is the enemy of a pluralistic society.
The question is not whether a free society can or must be either democratic or pluralistic—it can and should be both. All civilized nations profess a commitment to both democracy and pluralism. I would suggest that no responsible homeschool leader or homeschooler would advocate for the creation of what I have defined as parallel societies.
He gets one thing right: parallel societies are the enemy of a democratic state but I believe that his argument about "dogmatic and coerced uniformity" is wrong. Why? Well, it might be true in theory but it cannot be true in practice because I don't believe that pluralistic societies can genuinely exist in nature. That is, they don't naturally exist without the presence of an artificial entity like the state to sustain them and force various groups to remain united to it. So, pluralistic societies do exist within the confines of compulsory democratic states but are unnatural because they are sustained by gunpoint and not by free association. Therein lies the hypocrisy of remaining committed to "democratic pluralism" while seeking to eradicate "parallel societies."
Moreover, the virtue of the modern democratic state is that is is ok to plunder and coerce your neighbor so long as one appeals to the democratic process. More often than not, the reason that one group oppresses another is because the latter group is forced to endure such oppression by the nature of the democratic process. Besides this, one must accept the proposition that forcing group A to remain united with group B when group A does not want to be united with group B does not ameliorate the situation. If group A ever becomes a majority, then they now have the ability to oppress group B.
Because all "civilized" nations profess commitment to democracy and pluralism, I would suggest that all "civilized" nations are actually barbaric. Has it occurred to the speaker that moral decay is rampant in all "civilized nations" (seethis)? The nature of the democratic state itself breeds and sustains the whole idea of what he calls "moral relativism." To the author's credit, he admits that "human rights must rest on an objective standard." Yet, this can never be guaranteed within a democratic state. And whose standard should be applied? I believe that a Christian standard should be applied but a Muslim or an atheist would beg to differ. Naturally, if the atheist standard was applied, there would exist conflict from the Christian and possibly some Muslim communities. Hence the situation in Germany.
The author continues:
[I]n seeking this goal or protecting the rights of all, Germany may not use this argument to justify repression of educational freedom and the right of parents to determine the best form of education for their children. The undisputed empirical reality is that homeschooling by itself does not create parallel societies—and if German authority structures and those who influence them (such as the media and academics) would care to look beyond its own borders, this would be obvious.
This argument is self-defeating and am forced to ask him "why not?" To the speaker, educational freedom is a human right but to Germany, the EU, and the U.N. forced compulsory education is a human right. Pragmatically, the latter is true simply because the state has all of the guns and the power of coercion at it's disposal.
I don't want to go through every point made by the author because he articulates similar ideas and thoughts. He does claim that "the democratic state should not exist to form or mold or shape society" but this is a statement that I believe is always fundamentally false. The problem with democracy is that it sounds good unless you fall within the minority.
Delarey Song
About This VideoThe popular and controversial song about the Anglo-Boer War, that has caused a public outcry in South Africa.
As the British tried to do a hundred years ago, the black majority government is now trying to suppress the Afrikaner nation's culture - and in fact all traces of their history.
Public funding is being withdrawn from Afrikaner monuments, even though Afrikaners contribute more than their share to tax income. Millions are being spent on changing the names of towns, streets etc. while little is done to maintain infrastructure.
The new generation of Afrikaners had nothing to do with Apartheid, yet they are faced with a bleak future, suffering under racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action.
Although this excludes them from jobs and promotion beyond a certain level, it also stimulates entrepreneurship and innovative thinking.
The Afrikaner nation will rise again to take its place in the country their forefathers helped to build and develop.
Amazing and inspiring - a testament to the work of Empires and the destruction they leave in their wake.
Incomplete List of Ron Paul Blogs
DailyPaul
America's Brave Heart
Catholics for Ron Paul
Citizens for Ron Paul
Conservative Times
The Crossed Pond
Disinter
For Sound Money
Granny Warriors
The Knight Shift
LDS 4 Ron Paul
Libertarians For Ron Paul
MindBody Politic
New Liberty
Online Rally
Ozarks Voter
Paul for Ron Paul
Primarily Paul
Protect Ron Paul
Red State Eclectic
Republican Renaissance
Retro Republican
Ron Paul Fan
Ron Paul KC
Ron Paul 2008 NYC
Ron Paul HQ
Ron Paul Nation
Ron Paul New England
RonPaulforPresident2008
Ron Paul Press Hub
Ron Paul Registry
Ron Paul Rescue Us
RonPaul Wisconsin
RonPaul.Typepad
Students for Ron Paul
Seniors for Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul
America's Brave Heart
Catholics for Ron Paul
Citizens for Ron Paul
Conservative Times
The Crossed Pond
Disinter
For Sound Money
Granny Warriors
The Knight Shift
LDS 4 Ron Paul
Libertarians For Ron Paul
MindBody Politic
New Liberty
Online Rally
Ozarks Voter
Paul for Ron Paul
Primarily Paul
Protect Ron Paul
Red State Eclectic
Republican Renaissance
Retro Republican
Ron Paul Fan
Ron Paul KC
Ron Paul 2008 NYC
Ron Paul HQ
Ron Paul Nation
Ron Paul New England
RonPaulforPresident2008
Ron Paul Press Hub
Ron Paul Registry
Ron Paul Rescue Us
RonPaul Wisconsin
RonPaul.Typepad
Students for Ron Paul
Seniors for Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul
International Blogs:
Asia for Ron Paul
Bavaria for Ron Paul
Belgians for Ron Paul
Brits for Ron Paul
Brazilians for Ron Paul
Canadians for Ron Paul
Chile for Ron Paul
French for Ron Paul
Europe 4 Ron Paul
Holland 4 Ron Paul
Hungary for Ron Paul
Ron Paul Spanish
Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul
Poland for Ron Paul
Romania for Ron Paul
Venezuela for Ron Paul
Fred Thompson's & John McCain: Two Verifiable Voting Records of Illegal Immigration Signal Failure
scroll down to red links for individual records.
Re: We Don't Need No Stinking Debate Here
Have you seen their new anti-Ron Paul T-Shirt? Well, apparently they took it down because I cannot find it anywhere but the caption on the shirt read "Puck Ron Faul." It apparently was not up for long (in fact, the post I linked to has a comment mentioning that even though the commenter dislikes Ron Paul, their shirt makes Red State look bad).
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
We Don't Need No Stinking Debate Here
The post on Redstate, “Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair),” begins, “Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.” (via Politico)
I gave up on RedState a long time ago, I have never seen one fresh, innovative, logical or conservative idea posited there. I had no idea that honest discussion was such a threat to "conservatism" until Daniel pointed this out in a recent post. He sums it up pretty nicely:
Unfortunately, this latest is just a symptom of the broader conformism on the “mainstream” right, particularly on matters of foreign policy, and represents the mentality of a movement that has been losing its ability to maintain and grow its political coalition. Paul’s campaign has thrived on the message that conservatism and Republicanism can and should still mean respect for the Constitution, liberty and a sane foreign policy–the very kind of rejuvenating and reforming message that the GOP needs if it is to retain the loyalty of millions of disaffected small-government conservatives and libertarians–and where Paul is making converts the folks at RedState, to adapt a phrase, are interested in finding heretics. It is a great irony this year that it is the purists who are actually swelling Republican ranks, while the pragmatists and big-tent folks are doing their best to empty that tent. Republicans will object that new Paul supporters will not support the GOP once Paul’s campaign is finished, and they may be right. RedState has just given Paul supporters one more reason to stay home or vote third party.Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters gets it wrong in his assessment of all of this:
Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.This has nothing to do with a two-bit GOP shill site and its inability to effectively support and defend the unconstitutionality of almost every GOP policy - this has to with the indefensibility of the ideology behind GOP "conservatism". The entire field opposing Paul is comprised of clowns and crooks.
In one very important way it is crucial that freedom-loving Americans are rallying around a man that stands on principles and believes in the rule of law. Ultimately we need these sorts of things, we need to see that the system will not allow the sort of honest discussion Ron Paul wants to have, we need to see first hand the great lengths phony conservatives will go to in order to avoid honest debate. We need to see, in the final analysis, that the system is broken and it will take more resolve and more work than just an election to fix it.
Sen. Schumer's Conflict of Interest
Sen. Schumer who's been the leading loudmouth on foreign governments investing or buying into US corporations is not surprisingly quite calm about the Red Chinese buying into Bear Stearns:
"Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who expressed concern last month over a minority stake of 19.9 percent in the Nasdaq Stock Market by a Dubai state-controlled investment firm, said yesterday that the Chinese investment "helps keep Bear Stearns independent," which he said was "good for New York and America."
When you see that he was given over $126,000 by Bear Stearns, Schumer can see even bigger $$ signs coming his way as greases the skids for subversion of our institutions, culture and currency. An "independent" Bear Stearns? Come'on Chuck, you're a crook and the public knows it. Clearly, you are a living example of how countries are betrayed from within before they fall to those from without.
Where it all began
Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself. (emphasis mine)
This is an except from The Declaration of Arbroath (1320), the first example in the western world of the sovereignty of the people and a clear articulation of the value of freedom. My family left Scotland in 1705, two years before the sad day of Union. The Scottish people have influenced the world vastly out of proportion to their meager population. The entire culture and heritage of the Southron people owes more to the Scots than any other influence.
May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves.These pleadings to the pope went unheard but the truth that this document speaks still rings true today with only the names of the perpetrators changed to identify the guilty. England build an empire upon the bones of the Scots much as the Federal Government has always been able to rely on the service of young southerners to fight its wars.
It has been 142 years since my homeland was occupied and I and many of my brothers are still angry - I wonder how long it will take the Iraqis to love the neocons for liberating and occupying them?
Declaration of Southern Cultural Independence
Monday, October 22, 2007
Thomas Fleming on Secession
What could be done, ideally, with the Kurds? Many of my Southern friends answer, almost automatically: Guarantee the Kurds the right of secession, and all will be well. As I recently explained, in a speech that antagonized a group of secessionists meeting in Chattanooga, there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. . (Thomas Flemming, HT Daniel)
A lot of folks that support the notion of self-determination and ultimately secession are aghast at Dr. Fleming's remarks at the Second Annual Secession Convention. Fleming further articulated his view point in a recent Chronicles article that honestly, I believe, closes the loop on the issue and puts us all back at the same table - more of less, minus his errors regarding the Kurds.
He does, however in my observed opinion, get a few things wrong.
It is a terrible charge to make against any nation, but the Kurds are the Albanians of the Mideast
By this he is implying that the Kurds would commit atrocities greater than Persians, Sunnis, Shiites, Turks etc that variously occupy portions of Kurdistan. My experience with the Kurds taught me that these are probably some of the best people in the Middle-East. I lived with them and fought with them for the better part of a year. I have lived around Turks, Arabs, Zionist, and Sunnis at various points during my "travels"(not as extensively as my time with Kurds) but I cannot help but recall fondly my memories of each and every Kurd I befriended. Saladin was a Kurd for goodness sakes, he taught the West what it meant to fight honorably and nobly long before we developed a sense of chivalry and real nobility. Kurds are not religiously fanatical, they do not as a group subscribe to the extreme versions of Islam - that would be the Arabs, and Persians. I just have to disagree that because Kurdish independence would mean potential violence we should not support it - in a moral sense, not with boots on the ground. This is the largest ethnic population on Earth yet they do not have a country.
His arguments relating to Kurdish complicity in PPK activities are not particularly noteworthy. The activities of the Persians in Iran, the Turks in Turkey and Arabs in Iraq carried out against the Kurds are no less tyrannical than the 4GW tactics utilized by the PPK against their oppressors. I too might be a "insert whatever label you like" if I had no other options for freedom.
Laying the Kurdish question aside Dr. Fleming does get it right in terms of describing secession and self-determination in general. People everywhere, at anytime do not have "natural right" to abolish government at will. His is a very paleoconservative viewpoint in that regard. Important things are best guaranteed by an overarching order. As Flemming describes:
...there is no such thing as a universal political system or principle that applies to all peoples in all situations. For some peoples, monarchy or autocracy may be the best system; for others an oligarchy based on wealth; while for some small-scale societies something like popular government may work, though the history of such experiments is not encouraging.I could not agree more - it is foolish to think that democracy or any other ideology is universally applicable to all people in all places at all times. However, Dr. Clyde Wilson disagrees with Flemings take on self-determination and I think the truth ultimately lies closer to Wilson's viewpoint.
In various conversations with folks about the subject of secession I often run into those of a libertarian bent that disregard the notion that secession should take place using existing governmental structures, i.e. states with pre-esisting sovereignty. I believe their view that people can simply form together to secede is flawed. What they are talking about is a revolution not secession. Revolutions are justified under certain circumstances but it is incorrect to confuse legitimate secession from revolutionary thoughts. Secession is not revolution. Of the various theories of secession, I myself really only believe that the State-Federal Contract and the Partial Right Variant of Remedial Right theories hold much water.
I don't think Dr. Fleming's remarks at The Chattanooga Convention nor his recent post marks him as a non-supporter of secession. He is correct, self-determination is not something we ought to support for everybody everywhere all the time. However, we should also not be too judgmental of those that want their own freedom lest others might also judge us and ultimately end up lending support to tyrants.
Confederate Inflation Then - Southern Ignorance Today
We all know of our country's early experience with the "continental dollar". Some have even claimed we've "learned" something everlasting from it. I don't think so. My evidence is the southern people share no common memories of even their own currency becoming worthless, again the Yankee has them in bondage to a new paper money of their creation. It's apparent that g-granddaddies did not weave stories of horrific loss of their wealth to their descendants. If they did, my observations are that those stories never stuck as there's an equal amount of ignorance - even more - in the South about commodity money than in the North. In a community the size of Charleston, easily over 250,000, there is NOT ONE retail coin dealer. While southerners may spin their yarns of Yankee Reconstruction plunder and other atrocities, few have made preparation for the next occasion when the dollars they hold will impoverish them just as their ancestors discovered. Yes, history is to be repeated and southerners are condemned to repeat it. You know their ancestors given another chance would know better, and grab up every double eagle & silver dollar they could find. So, when you run around shouting "Freedom!" realize full well that with freedom comes individual responsibility, and that means caring for yourself and not looking to a nanny state as your agent to steal the savings of others more responsible than you.
The Confederate Inflation
Figure 4 plots the Grayback price of a gold dollar during the Civil War. Large movements in Grayback money prices are labeled and associated with important military, fiscal, and political events to determine events important to contemporaries of the Civil War. Grayback prices depreciated following battle defeats at Antietam and Gettysburg/Vicksburg. The gold premium also rose following the passage of the US Conscription/Finance Bill that increased the North's ability to finance the war and draft soldiers. A final breakpoint occurred in late spring 1864 when the Confederate government repudiated one-third of the money supply with a currency reform act. The monetary legislation's positive effect on currency prices was short-lived, however, as the Confederacy cranked up the printing press again in the fall of 1864. Graybacks renewed their depreciation and continued to actively trade until early February 1864. At this point, many Richmond bankers and gold traders packed their wagons and left the besieged capital (Weidenmier, 2002a).
Lerner (1954, 1955, 1956) used the quantity theory of money to analyze the Confederate inflation. The quantity theory of money can be described by the following equation:
M = K*(P*Y), (1)
where P is the price level, Y is real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) output, and M is money. Equation (1) assumes that people hold some fraction, K, of their nominal income, P*Y, in the form of money. For example, if your income was $10,000 per year and K=1/5, then you would hold $2,000 in the form of money. To study inflation, it is useful to express equation (1) in growth rates, using equation (2):
p = m - y - k (2)
Lerner decomposed the influence of changes in money, velocity -- the number of times a dollar bill turns over in a year (mathematically velocity is the inverse of k) -- and real output on the inflation rate -- the rate at which prices rise. Lerner showed that the Confederate money supply increased 11.5 times between January 1861 and October 1864 while commodity prices increased 28 times in the same period (also see Godfrey, 1978). Rising velocity contributed to the runaway price level as people reduced their holdings of money balances and purchased commodities and non-monetary assets. Lerner also inferred from periodic Treasury reports that the South experienced a forty percent fall in real output during the war.
Re: Fox Has Seeded the Debate Audience with pro-Establishment Candidate Cheerleaders
I couldn't agree more - it was a circus and the whole point was to make it look like Ron Paul had absolutely no support. I believe that this is an adequate summary of the debate.
The Way Things Should Be - Home
Joshua's post regarding peak oil spurred my thoughts in a dozen directions. The simple fact is we face problems so enormous as to demand solutions which our politicians in our current system simply cannot conceptualize, much less implement.
As you may well know, I am a paleoconservative. As such every thing of importance to me revolves around just a few things, my religion, my family, my culture and my home. Essentially everything else I think or believe is driven by those priorities. I see the solution to all problems relating directly to the lessons that traditions that respect those four priorities teach us. There really is nothing new under the sun, just new ways of applying old lessons and new ways of thinking tempered with what came before.
I look at the world and I see the same problems as everyone else; with the economy, with a bloated and distant government, politicians that serve only themselves or those that fund them, corporations that are greedy and corrupt, lazy people that will not do for themselves, a culture that consumes too much. The solutions that I see for these ills are where I, and all paleoconservatives, diverge on a separate path in the woods. It is that separate path, I believe, that can make all the difference.
I hold out no hope that man can build a perfect society or cure all societal ills. I am no utopian. However, I believe it is clear that the path we now travel will lead us to a bad end. I see a dystopic future filled with shortages, overpopulation, an angry crowded and dissatisfied population and a heavily centralized government that is essentially forced to act tyrannically simply because it is the only way to maintain control of an untenable situation. Our greed, selfishness, aloofness and lack of foresight will ensure that this is the future our children or their children inherit.
All of the signs are there, over the last 140 years our own government has transformed itself into an entity that no longer serves the people but rules them. Over the last 50 years our landscape has transformed from vast areas of rolling countryside into urban sprawl and the blight of suburbia. We have degenerated from a self-reliant people that could so for themselves into nothing more than the tail-end of a long supply-train of consumer goods. We no longer read important works, think important thoughts or appreciate important things. We have all become consumers, commuters, victims, whiners and gluttons for mindless pop culture.
Why? We have lost our love for permanent things.
I am no lover of government, it is nothing more than a necessary evil at best and a brutal tyrant at worst. However, when things have gone so astray, when the people themselves are clueless as to what is actually wrong what other option but government do we have to turn to for a solution?
No, I did not fall off my rocker, I do not believe that the Federal Government is qualified to create a solution. Our state governments are no better. All of our elected officials, with very rare exceptions, are bought and paid for by the very entities that want to see the status quo remain. So please, don't take me wrong - when I say that government could help restore us to the right path I am not actually giving any credit to the government that currently rules over this impending train wreck. In a later installment of this line of thought I will discuss good government - the sort we need to implement real solutions.
Having lived in Korea for the last two years I have come to appreciate a few things about this place. Koreans do not have subdivisions. City folks live in high rises, people that grow things live outside the city. If you wear a tie to work you live in the city - it is just that simple. What an amazing concept, one we have royally screwed up in the states. Why on Earth should a stock broker, insurance salesman or any other business person, factory worker, etc. live in the "country" and drive to work in an urban area?
Just consider the waste. These people occupy anywhere from .5 to 2 acres of land each and grow nothing more than grass and a few flowers. They get in their automobiles everyday and drive, using gasoline, polluting the air and wasting time that they could spend on more productive pursuits (like spending time with their kids). Along their drive businesses thrive to serve them, restaurants, gas stations etc., taking up more space and employing people to do nothing more than serve people that are destroying the environment and wasting time. What a stupid way to live and what an idiotic way for a society to function.
I love land, I believe land is tied directly to home, hearth, kirk and kin. Land should mean something, it is the sort of thing a family should identify with, love and cherish. The hundreds of thousands of acres occupied by suburbs and the ancillary strip malls and wal-marts that service them mean nothing. These places will be sold when the current owners die - these are not family treasures they are "investments".
People should be free to choose their own destiny and become whatever they want. I do not dislike people that want to work in jobs that are urban in nature. I do not believe a society and culture can long sustain our current lifestyle. These people are not free to destroy in their pusuit of happiness.
My solution to this particular point of our current trouble is simple in concept (obviously hard but not impossible in implementation - with a good and noble government)
Would life be wonderful and rosy in the cities? No, but what is the alternative? Someday change will come whether we plan for it or not. Someday the option of commuting to work will be cost prohibitive simply because the resources are too scarce. The urban areas will continue to expand into the country, not in a planned and logical way but willy-nilly as we see now. Some people enjoy city life, they are naturally disposed to it. There is a way to fashion a city in a palatable and sustainable way that would be for more appealing than the bleak post peak-oil cities I envision.
What we are doing now just will not work and to continue to do it would be foolish.
As you may well know, I am a paleoconservative. As such every thing of importance to me revolves around just a few things, my religion, my family, my culture and my home. Essentially everything else I think or believe is driven by those priorities. I see the solution to all problems relating directly to the lessons that traditions that respect those four priorities teach us. There really is nothing new under the sun, just new ways of applying old lessons and new ways of thinking tempered with what came before.
I look at the world and I see the same problems as everyone else; with the economy, with a bloated and distant government, politicians that serve only themselves or those that fund them, corporations that are greedy and corrupt, lazy people that will not do for themselves, a culture that consumes too much. The solutions that I see for these ills are where I, and all paleoconservatives, diverge on a separate path in the woods. It is that separate path, I believe, that can make all the difference.
I hold out no hope that man can build a perfect society or cure all societal ills. I am no utopian. However, I believe it is clear that the path we now travel will lead us to a bad end. I see a dystopic future filled with shortages, overpopulation, an angry crowded and dissatisfied population and a heavily centralized government that is essentially forced to act tyrannically simply because it is the only way to maintain control of an untenable situation. Our greed, selfishness, aloofness and lack of foresight will ensure that this is the future our children or their children inherit.
All of the signs are there, over the last 140 years our own government has transformed itself into an entity that no longer serves the people but rules them. Over the last 50 years our landscape has transformed from vast areas of rolling countryside into urban sprawl and the blight of suburbia. We have degenerated from a self-reliant people that could so for themselves into nothing more than the tail-end of a long supply-train of consumer goods. We no longer read important works, think important thoughts or appreciate important things. We have all become consumers, commuters, victims, whiners and gluttons for mindless pop culture.
Why? We have lost our love for permanent things.
I am no lover of government, it is nothing more than a necessary evil at best and a brutal tyrant at worst. However, when things have gone so astray, when the people themselves are clueless as to what is actually wrong what other option but government do we have to turn to for a solution?
No, I did not fall off my rocker, I do not believe that the Federal Government is qualified to create a solution. Our state governments are no better. All of our elected officials, with very rare exceptions, are bought and paid for by the very entities that want to see the status quo remain. So please, don't take me wrong - when I say that government could help restore us to the right path I am not actually giving any credit to the government that currently rules over this impending train wreck. In a later installment of this line of thought I will discuss good government - the sort we need to implement real solutions.
Having lived in Korea for the last two years I have come to appreciate a few things about this place. Koreans do not have subdivisions. City folks live in high rises, people that grow things live outside the city. If you wear a tie to work you live in the city - it is just that simple. What an amazing concept, one we have royally screwed up in the states. Why on Earth should a stock broker, insurance salesman or any other business person, factory worker, etc. live in the "country" and drive to work in an urban area?
Just consider the waste. These people occupy anywhere from .5 to 2 acres of land each and grow nothing more than grass and a few flowers. They get in their automobiles everyday and drive, using gasoline, polluting the air and wasting time that they could spend on more productive pursuits (like spending time with their kids). Along their drive businesses thrive to serve them, restaurants, gas stations etc., taking up more space and employing people to do nothing more than serve people that are destroying the environment and wasting time. What a stupid way to live and what an idiotic way for a society to function.
I love land, I believe land is tied directly to home, hearth, kirk and kin. Land should mean something, it is the sort of thing a family should identify with, love and cherish. The hundreds of thousands of acres occupied by suburbs and the ancillary strip malls and wal-marts that service them mean nothing. These places will be sold when the current owners die - these are not family treasures they are "investments".
People should be free to choose their own destiny and become whatever they want. I do not dislike people that want to work in jobs that are urban in nature. I do not believe a society and culture can long sustain our current lifestyle. These people are not free to destroy in their pusuit of happiness.
My solution to this particular point of our current trouble is simple in concept (obviously hard but not impossible in implementation - with a good and noble government)
- Land is for those that produce and those that support those that produce. Thus subdivisions, strip mall, interstate mega-fueling stations on every exit all must go.
- If you really want to own land and have another job - you must at the least produce enough for your family and forget about daily commutes - leverage technology. This means you have to own more than half an acre obviously.
- Urban planning is almost nonexistent in the US, it happens after the fact and is corrupted by greed and commercial interest. To do this right urban areas need to consolidate (i.e. absorb the influx from the former suburbs) and plan to expand over time in a logical and controlled manner. Some cities I have visited in the Persian Gulf region have successfully planned this sort of current and future growth.
- Small towns, in the country are acceptable and required but an overall plan would prevent these areas from becoming urban areas - if you want to build a high rise move to the metro.
- Urban areas just do not need a lot of cars running around - why on Earth do you need that? There are simply too many other economical and environmentally friendly options for the city dwellers.
Would life be wonderful and rosy in the cities? No, but what is the alternative? Someday change will come whether we plan for it or not. Someday the option of commuting to work will be cost prohibitive simply because the resources are too scarce. The urban areas will continue to expand into the country, not in a planned and logical way but willy-nilly as we see now. Some people enjoy city life, they are naturally disposed to it. There is a way to fashion a city in a palatable and sustainable way that would be for more appealing than the bleak post peak-oil cities I envision.
What we are doing now just will not work and to continue to do it would be foolish.
Ordinance of Secession
God bless my fellow sandlappers at SLM News from the glorious Palmetto State for the wonderful videos they produce.
Fox Has Seeded the Debate Audience with pro-Establishment Candidate Cheerleaders
It should have been obvious to anyone who's watched any of the previous debates that Fox not only wore out their select pro-war neocon favorites, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson, but contained the other candidates in time and importance.
Most obvious were the boos when the others could speak - this jeering had never been apparent before, and was consistent & unrelenting.
But, alas, the enemies have freedom can't figure out a way around the internet short of being dishonest and slimy. The boots we are putting on the ground are unpaid freedom warriors which only reward they seek is to get the federal government bound once again by the chains of a Constitution.
The Dollar: How Low Can It Go?
We believe the Fed is engineering this dollar drop to be confluent with the implementation of the NAU and its currency, the Amero. We see their plan as being timed so as not to upset the general election next November, but instead to be an "exciting new launching" for our elected incumbents by "restoring American competitiveness" in the globalist economic world of "free trade". If the recent past is any prelude, then Americans will be grateful for this colorful new straitjacket, and appreciative of their loss of national sovereignty. Multi-nationals, central banks, and selected other privileged entities will be sheltered from any currency losses with the new Amero.
LONDON (ResourceInvestor.com) -- Last week the dollar touched a new low, and with economic news from the U.S. not making for entirely comfortable reading, there is likely more pain to come.
The Federal Reserve is due to meet again later this month, and it would surprise no one if the outcome of that meeting were to be another rate cut – perhaps by a quarter point following last month’s drastic half point cut.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
A Bit More about That B-52
If the "mistake" was deliberate, it means that somehow the normal chain of command was bypassed. I've heard two theories about how this might have happened.
The first- the Chinese supplied key components of the computer systems that control our military command structure, and built in a "back door" route, by which they can override any orders in the system. They tricked the people at Minot and Barksdale with false orders, in order to demonstrate to the US military that orders cannot be trusted. This paralyzes the chain of command. They wanted to demonstrate their ability to do it in a peaceful way, so as to forestall an attack on Iran.
The other, more sinister theory is that Dick Cheney, who Bush put in charge of such things early on, has a separate override system which was in effect that day, and that all participants are sworn to secrecy. The cluster of violent deaths of young airmen and one woman from Minot and Barksdale AFB's from June-September- 6-7 young people in good health, and not in combat zones, makes one wonder.
If it's part of a Bush/Cheney plot, what's the plot? Normally, nuclear weapons are not loaded onto airplanes at all, and flown across the country, for fear that a crash would spread radiation around. These weapons were on top of cruise missiles, armed, under a wing of the plane, in firing position. (OpEd.News)
Warning: break out your tin-foil coated Armadillo helmet, we are entering deeply into the cavern of conspiracy and speculation.
That is the point, however, is it not? Government lies beget conspiracy theories - when the people (or at least enough of the people) know that the government routinely lies we are left with speculation when events that simply do not make sense occur.
I have read a little about the first possibility presented above - it is not that it is not plausible in some very remote way, that is not why I do not accept it. I reject it because it is based upon a set of assumptions that do not hold water in my view. To be certain we rely heavily on computer systems to accomplish everything. However, people still have a role in events like this. The degree of infiltration required to achieve a coup like this using only computer systems would be tremendous, and it would involve more than just hacking the system itself. It would involve a lot of real time human intelligence, as well as human agents within the system working to pull the plan off. I could go on and on about why this Chinese scenario is implausible but suffice it to say I just do not buy it.
The second scenario - i.e. this was part of an administration approved mission gone awry - is infinitely more plausible than the accident story or theories about Chinese involvement. Of course this scenario brings up its on list of questions:
- To what end, what purpose, did this weapons serve?
- If it was in fact part of a plan to attack Iranian nuclear facilities with some degree of "plausible deniability" that is ludicrous logic. The world would blame a) the US or b) Israel and no matter who the blame ultimately fell upon the result would not be good.
- The Air Force I know does not routinely produce officers capable of thinking outside the rules - if this was part of a secret mission I still find it difficult to accept that anyone in the Air Force would have resisted ( an important assumption that one must accept if we are to tear down the accident story).
- Are these deaths at Minot AFB related to this? We will never know and that is the problem with conspiracy theories and government lies.
Perhaps there was authorization to load the missiles at Minot, perhaps this all occurred a little outside of the normal chain of procedures but that is not unusual in a "special and very classified mission". After all if you really have to do something secretly the less people that know the better. Perhaps only when the plane arrived at Barksdale did those involved really begin to understand the nature of the mission and maybe that is when people began asking questions. Once people began talking the secrecy of the mission was spoiled and an explanation of what had occurred was necessary. Thus exist the need for a fall guy and a cover story.
The fact of the matter is we will just never know. I think a lot of people realize something is wrong and incidents like this only highlight the degree of mistrust. The saddest part of this all is that we are forced to even ponder items such as conspiracies and government lies. This is the paradigm in which we live, the system we have in place. Things should change but unless more people ask tough questions and refuse to accept the status quo this is the government and the system we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)