Bush calls for tax hike

George Bush is calling for an increase in fees on airline tickets. I guess he is now a full blown tax and spend liberal Democrat. I must say I prefer tax and spend to borrow and spend, though my favorite idea would be to simply spend less.

• A fee charged to airline travelers to help pay for airport security would more than double for one-way tickets under President George W. Bush's spending proposal for the Homeland Security Department.
  
  Bush's plan calls for boosting the security fee to $5.50 from $2.50 for a one-way airline ticket and from a maximum of $5 to $8 for multiple legs. The increases are expected to generate $1.5 billion.

The airline industry responded:

• The Regional Airline Association says the fee hike comes at a time when some carriers are fighting to survive. It also says the industry is highly taxed already.

George Bush is taking America down a one-way road to a full blown police state. There is absolutely no amount of money which can be spent to protect us 100%. Recently, a man killed 11 people when a train struck his SUV where he left it parked on a railroad track. Tom Ridge says another attack on the US homeland is "inevitable".

The ACLU absolutely refuses to permit the federal government from implementing policies that use overt racial profiling. Private citizens and security firms would not be subject to the same restrictions. Although the airline industry finds itself somewhere between private and public ownership, airlines supply passengers with a service on a voluntary basis.

Americans today are so unaware of the real price tag attached to freedom that many are willingly giving it up in exchange for an illusion of security. Searches and seizures are conducted every day at airports with no probable cause. Laws are being applied to airline passengers which are kept secret from the very people the laws are supposed to protect. Searches of homes and property are being done on a 'sneak and peak' basis, upon authorization by anonymous judges operating in secret courtrooms. Every single day our freedoms are being taken away, and replaced with hollow promises of government provided security.

Individual liberty and total security are mutually exclusive. Unless and until the American people demand to be involved in our own security, power hungry politicians will stand ready to offer their services in exchange for our civil rights and tax money.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Was the Soviet collapse good for America?

Surely the millions who have been freed from the stranglehold of Soviet communism are better today than they might be. Many who would have been slaughtered by the Soviet machine are alive and working to make Russia a capitalist society dedicated to civil rights and representative government.

However, I fear that many Americans wrongly believe the communists simply disappeared along with the Soviet Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. The communists are as strong as ever, only now they operate in the shadows, behind the facade of various other political movements.

No longer able to openly promote communism, these people advance their agenda under the guise of promiting animal rights, civil liberties, environmental protection, anti-war efforts, abortion rights, gay rights, and affirmative action.

I think Americans who favor individual rights and capitalism are still in great peril of losing our Constitutional republic because our foes are no longer easily identifiable. Our opponents make emotional arguments designed to fool uneducated voters. They are using our media, courts, and electoral process against us.

I don't believe that America can be defeated by an enemy from without, however we are being torn apart and crushed by the enemies within our own society and our own government. Communism is alive, and it is flourishing, and freedom lovers must recognize this fact and remain vigilant in exposing its ugliness to the light of day.

The United Nations is clearly anti Israel

According to this article in the Jewish World Review, the United Nations held a day of memorial tribute for the victims of the Auschwitz camp.

• U.N. member states delivered 41 speeches over the course of the day. Only five of those speeches mentioned Israel.
• Widening the lens, we notice that last month the U.N. adopted 22 resolutions condemning the state of Israel, and four country-specific resolutions criticizing the human-rights records of the other 190 U.N. member states.

Although I do not understand why the United States conducts foreign policy which often furthers Israel's agenda at the detriment of our own, it is becoming apparent that we are straddling a fence.

By remaining a member of the United Nations, America is single-handedly maintaining credibility of the body most responsible for perpetuating anti-Israel sentiment. How can this be?

The best thing we could do for Israel, and ourselves, would be to immediately withdraw from the United Nations. Were that to happen, the United Nations would become irrelevant and likely collapse entirely.

Both the United Statess and Israel would again be able to freely operate in their own best interests as independent and sovereign states. Each would provide for her own security and stability according to their own laws, according to the will of their own people.

Unfortunately, the forces moving the world towards world government are strong, and it is likely that President Bush and many in the U.S. government are willing participants in what some call the "New World Order".

One need only reference the bill voted on by the US Congress which authorized the Iraq war, specifically the repeated mentions of UN resolutions as justification of the Iraq invasion, to see that the US military is currently being used to enforce UN policy.

Our government tells us that establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq is more important to our national security than establishing secure borders between Mexico and the United States and enforcing existing U.S. laws regarding immigration.

The real face of today's Republican Party

George Bush and his nominee for Attorney General support renewing the "assault weapons ban".

• "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress," Gonzales said. "I, of course, support the president on this issue."
• Remember the third presidential debate last year? Bush was asked, "You said if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage Congress to extend it."

Sorry, but I do not trust any government which doesn't trust me to defend myself, my family, and my property as I see fit.

Not only that, but I happen to think that if Americans were indeed FREE to defend ourselves and our country, the illegal immigrant problem would be solved, as would gang crimes and muslim mayhem like the brutal murders in Jersey City recently.

Of course, George Bush tell us we are free, and he talks about the "neo-con" fantasy land propoganda such as furthering a global democracy (as if democracy is a good thing). Noble ideas and moral principles, repeated often enough by Bush and his mouthpieces on talk radio like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, are enough to convince the braindead listeners to goals and an agenda that are impossible, impractical, illegal, and self-destructive.

Sadly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the others like them are more worried about their own career and financial interests than the future of the country or the true ideals of Constitutional conservatism.

I just don't understand how so many Republicans can not see what is so clearly in front of them, namely the facts that the GOP is no longer the party of Barry Goldwater, and our Constitutional Republic is being attacked by both parties on a daily basis.

Coming home to roost

According to Zogby, as of yesterday:

• The poll, conducted before U.K. media revealed that the British government was arguing strenuously against military action in Iran, finds 76% of likely voters believe the U.S. should let Iran determine its own future and are opposed to the U.S. trying to bring about regime change in the Islamic state. Nearly seven-in-ten (68%) respondents favored using some form of diplomacy to resolve U.S. concerns about an Iranian nuclear weapons program—49% favor multi-party diplomatic talks while another one-in-five (19%) respondents favor direct diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran.

Chances are most of the respondents to this poll really don't have any idea what the threats are concerning Iran, what it may take to topple the regime, and what the implications are if we don't.

Yet, in our "democracy" as contemporary politicians tell us we have, the opinions of just such uneducated and uninformed citizens do in fact matter. It does not matter that our founding fathers warned us of just such a political structure.

The only chance our republic has to survive is to restrict voting to those who have a basic understanding of economics, history, politics, international relations, and who have demonstrated the personal discipline to support themselves and their families without relying on government handouts.

Otherwise we are destined to a tyranny by the majority who have no agenda other than personal comfort and individual benefits no matter the cost to their neighbors or their country.

Ron Paul and Ponzi schemes

Clearly, anybody not scared to call the truth as it is will admit that social security is and has always been an income redistribution scheme.

Here are the most important sentences from this week's column:

• In the 1930s, Social Security was presented to the American people as a social insurance program, with individuals paying a monthly “premium” in exchange for retirement benefits later. It was supposed to be a forced savings program, based on the assumption that some people would be unable or unwilling to save for their older years. Seven decades later, however, the ratio of younger working people to older retirees has changed dramatically, exposing the Ponzi-like congressional raid on the system itself. What has not changed, however, is our willingness to accept the notion that the government should force us to save for our older years.
  
  Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money will be there earning interest, right? If your money is put away in a trust fund account with your name on it, what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program?

Clearly, Congress could pay the SS obligations if it would just cut other spending programs. Also just as clear to me is the fact that no SS trust fund exists with any real funds in it. Rather, the money is spent as soon as it comes in, and every Congress for decades has been complicit in the coverup of one of the largest scams ever hoisted upon the American people by our government.

Democrat Agenda

Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have come out with a legislative agenda for the 109th Congress.

Not surprisingly, they have done little more than repackage their tired old ideas about raising minimum wage, expanding the [non-existent] "right" to vote, and more handouts via Medicare and prescription drugs.

[Is the Democrat party now in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry as they've accused the Republicans for years?]

What is a "culture of life"?

In President Bush's phone call to the "March for Life" participants, he said:

• I appreciate so very much your work toward building a culture of life-- (applause) -- a culture that will protect the most innocent among us and the voiceless. We are working to promote a culture of life, to promote compassion for women and their unborn babies.

Apparently Bush thinks nominating a man for Attorney General who considers Roe v Wade to be settled law and the reelection of Arlen Specter to be critical in his efforts at building the "culture of life".

Rush is completely out of touch

In discussing this story, Rush criticized the idea of forcing customers to pay for bags at the grocery store asking 'how else can people get their groceries out of the store?'

He clearly meant to suggest that the only alternative to the standard grocery store bags is to carry the items in your arms or pockets.

Since Rush totally dismisses environmental protection and/or consciousness as "kook left" ideas, it is not surprising to me that he is unaware of the idea of consumers buying reusable grocery bags of their own.

Is George Bush "pro-life"?

The following is an email forwarded to me, originally written by someone I've never heard of named Joe Giganti [he is commenting on the Inaugural address given last Thursday]:

Those who thought Bush would mention...even tokenisticly...the pro-life movement, rightly should be disappointed. Those who believed he would once again shortchange the pro-life movement appear to be correct. Of course, some will probably argue that one of the two following entries were intended to be pro-life, but I think that is a generous pass being given to Bush.

Bush: "Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism..."

Bush: "From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time."

If these statements are read in their full context, their anemic nature becomes even more clear. At best -- and I'm stretching far past a mile to offer this--these statements started off wandering down the road of pro-life, but, much like everything else done by this Administration in the past week, it quickly takes a Left turn, never to be heard from again. More accurately, the second comment is actually part of the speech's overall theme and intention, which appeared to be the justification to invade other countries.

The fact is, President Bush never once used the phrase, "sanctity of human life;" the word "abortion" is never used, in any context; and he does not even mention our unalienable "right to life," even when speaking of and quoting from our Declaration. This on the heels of the "covert" Sanctity of Life Sunday and the new pro-abort RNC Co-chair, Joann Davidson of Ohio.

If the pro-life movement is willing to accept this kind of treatment, then we should all dig in and expect to be "fighting" for an end to abortion sometime AFTER the next 35 years. It is not by mistake or oversight that the very constituency that is responsible for his second term is now being swindled by Bush. Unfortunately though, pro-lifers appear willing to cling to the belief that these snubs are actually part of some grand plan to sneak a pro-life effort into his agenda.

Unfortunately, too many Republican sheep are falling prey to the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity spin machines. Sadly, many keep waiting for Bush to "turn right" after his first term of moderate-left governance. Conservatives were willing to go along with the leftist Bush policies of the first term so that he could be reelected and then begin implementing an agenda which more closely matches that of the Republican base.

No such turn to the "right" is happening, nor does one look anymore imminent than was the threat of WMD proliferation by Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

The Logan Act

The "Logan Act" reads:

• "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

John Kerry said the following in his interview of Condoleeza Rice at her confirmation hearing:

• "Every Arab leader I asked, do you want Iraq to fail, says no. Do you think you will be served if there's a civil war? They say no. Do you believe that failure is a threat to the region and to the stability of the world? Yes; same with the European leaders. But each of them feel that they have offered more assistance, more effort to be involved, want to be part of a playing field that's more cooperative, and yet they feel rebuffed."

Did John Kerry have any "authority" to conduct these discussions with the foreign leaders?

Why isn't he being prosecuted for this obvious infraction of United States law?

Why doesn't the GOP-led US Senate hold a vote to purge this America hater from its ranks, according to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the US Constitution?

Answer: The Senate is a self-serving club designed to protect its own which considers its members above the law. These people consider only their servants (i.e. constituents) to be subject to the rule of law.

Neo-cons and Karl Marx

The economic model put forth by Karl Marx can never become reality, despite the utopian view it offers in which there is no suffering, greed, inequality or "middle" class. Human nature stands in direct opposition to the core concepts of wealth redistribution.

Some men are more willing to work than others, some more capable, some more intillegent. Thus, there can never be "equality" of wealth unless the producers who are more capable than others are punished for their achievement while those less capable are rewarded more then they are able to earn on their own.

Similarly, the "neo-con" model of spreading freedom and democracy around the world is also a fantasy which will never be achieved. Human nature being what it is, there will always be strong people trying to take advantage of weak people. One after another, as sure as the sun will rise, men will rise in search of domination over other people.

Are we to believe that this inherent human tendency can be overcome by the installation of democratic governments who believe in the participation of the governed via the voting booth?

Am I to accept the notion that we can reach a point where every nation on earth will be simultaneously run by men who peacefully coexist with everyone else?

I say it is impossible, given the fact that our nation was the first to attempt such a system, and even that effort never really succeeded. Do not be fooled, America is not governed with the consent of the governed, our elections are not free and fair, the people we elect do not operate according to the Constitution and the will of the People.

Inevitably, even in these great United States, the powerful seek power over the weak, the poor, the defenseless, and those unable to have their voices heard. WACO, Ruby Ridge, Social Security, government charity for tsunami relief, the income tax, eminent domain abuses, gun ownership restrictions, and the PATRIOT Act are just a few examples how governments inevitably and predictably abuse their people.

It is absolute hypocrisy to suggest that the United States government will ever be able to achieve world wide "peace", especially given the fact that America is at a point of division greater than any point in our history, and that freedom and liberty have failed here. Surely what cannot be achieved on a permanent basis within this country is utterly unattainable on a global scale.

Not surprisingly to me, Rush is claiming the goal of the United Nations is supposed to be to promote global freedom and to advance the cause of democracy to all people and governments. Of course, I understand that the UN has devolved into nothing more than an agent designed to weaken the US and to transfer our wealth to their bureaucrats and leaders of 3rd world governments.

So let me get this straight, according to Rush's statement. Anyone who believes in Bush's goal of "worldwide democracy" should support the United Nations and should work to revive its original goals?

What a fraud

George Bush gave his 2nd inaugural address today, and I didn't believe one word of it.

Our elections are fraudulent, our borders remain almost totally insecure, our people die in foreign lands to give freedom to others, our IRS enslaves us via taxes on personal income, our Congress wastes our money on useless programs and foreign charity, and our civil rights are disappearing every day.

America is run by oligarchs who neither listen to nor work for the average People. They use law and government to enrich themselves at the expense of the common man and the security and well being of the country.

They have bastardized the concept of capitalism in exchange for vote buying socialistic schemes in which government at all levels transfers wealth from some to others, while the bureaucrats take a healthy bite along the way.

The concept of individual liberty of Iraqis and Afghanis seems more important to Bush and Cheney than that of my neighbor and I.

Everywhere I turn around, some bureaucrat is waiting to inform me of some obscure regulation, some excessive tax, some Unconstitutional forced participation in a government program, or some arbitrary penalty for noncompliance.

I am angry, and I am not alone.

Conressional Immigration Reform Caucus

Texas-8/32
California-6/53
Arizona-2/8
New Mexico-0/3

Here are the members of the caucus, and the above are the numbers from each southern border state, and the total number of Representatives from that State in the 109th Congress.

A total disgrace

Barbara Boxer gets totally outclassed and embarassed by Condoleeza Rice yesterday at the Senate confirmation hearing.

Boxer's most egregious statement was the following:

• You should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Of course, for the people on the left who still cling to this utterly false and intellectually dishonest idea, go here and search for H.J. Res 114 from the 107th Congress.

Clearly a woman so incompetent is not fit to serve in the United States Senate, and immediate action should be undertaken to remove her from her office.

A look back

I stumbled across this column written just days after the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The author makes several points, which cross many ideologies, and it gives a very honest and fair analysis of the situation, both then and now.

• War is a terrible thing, but not the worst thing. Yes, civilians will die in the war, but the war will end. Civilians are guaranteed to continue dying if the Ba’th regime remains in power.
• Many of you are wary of the Bush administration’s motives because of its utter failure to make the case for war. Indeed, the legitimacy of war is impugned when nations fight over objects and not humans. When the administration decided to go to the UN and use weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for war, the debate lost sight of the human consequences of war.
• The real reason for this war is that Sept. 11 revealed an utter failure in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. U.S. policies were, in fact, the root cause of Sept. 11.

All this from one column? I wish more people were able take off their political blinders and see the world and specifically the middle east for what it is.

I've long rejected the argument about "we installed Saddam to power", the Rumsfeld/Saddam photos, etc... The logical person will realize that we did in fact bring this man to power, and he abused his position, therefore it is absolutely incumbent upon us to reign him in. Since he has been given 17 second chances since 1991, the time for his removal from power has come and gone.

Good riddance.

The new cold war?

Is China attempting to do to the United States what we once did to the Soviet Union?

If China is arming the Iranians, that seems to mirror what we did for bin Laden trying to help him repel the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Instead of conducting an arms race, they are using slave labor and complete ignorance of intellectual property rights to close down American manufacturing and replace them with Walmart import distribution centers.

Just a thought...

Michelle, meet Alberto

Michelle Malkin doesn't seem to support the nomination for AG by George Bush of Alberto Gonzalez.

Let's see, how can the left spin this? I doubt she's getting paid by Bush, like Armstrong Williams, to bash his appointment , she's a minority herself so she's not a minority basher, and Gonzalez is latino so she's not anti-Hispanic.

More on the consent of the governed

I heard a great example on today's Neal Boortz show in a discussion of homelessness and forced government charity. I went as follows.

Since we live (supposedly) in a country whose government operates on the consent of the governed, the government is supposed to operate according to 2 principles. One, it has the specific powers granted it through the Constitution. Two, being "of the People, for the People, and by the People", it may only do things that every individual citizen has the same ability or opportunity to do.

For the purposes of my commentary, I assume that the Constitution does not contain language giving the federal government the power to redistribute wealth or property, nor may it legislate "equality" in terms of wealth or property. I could present extensive documentation from our founding fathers to support the claim, but I will reserve that for another time.

Now, let's say you and I are walking down the street, and we come upon a homeless man. You have an absolute right to reach into your pocket and give that man some money, food, or anything else that is your legal property. As do I have the same right.

Does that mean I have a right to reach into your pocket and give the homeless man your property? Of course not, as do you not have the right to give him my property. This seems to be a simple concept upon which most people would agree.

However, many on the left and some on the right have developed a notion that if I hire an agent, i.e. the government, to reach into your pocket and take your property, it somehow becomes legitimate and acceptable. How is it that the government, which is supposed to operate on my behalf and in my interest, has a greater power over your property than do I individually while operating on my own behalf?

A similar example would be the possessions you have in your home. If you have 2 televisions, and have none, I am legally prohibited from entering your home and taking one of your televisions so that we have "equal" amounts. How, then, does it become permissible for the government to send an agent to your home whose intent it is do the very same thing which I may not do myself?

Sovereignty is the issue

Read this Ron Paul column for his view on the subject. I'll phrase a similar point in my own words.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, a major point of contention between the colonists and the British King that he highlighted was the concept that legitimate government can only exist when it operates by the consent of the governed. Anything more is tyranny by definition.

Today's Democrat party often proclaims the message declaring the importance of "democracy", though I'm sure most of them understand we are not truly a government of that variety. George Bush has based his foreign policy on "spreading democracy and freedom" around the globe in an effort to stabilize the many unsteady governments which exist today.

Yet, many members of these parties seem to defer authority to the United Nations and insist its edicts are binding upon Americans and other sovereign nations. How can this be? Is the assumption that the UN enjoys a majority of consent from the people in Syria, Sudan, Brazil, Poland, the United States and all the other "member states"? I hardly think so, as I surely do not consent to governance by the UN, and in light of the oil-for-food scandals, as well as the "stingy" commentary by Jan Egeland, the time for to get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US is right now.

Otherwise, another of Thomas Jefferson's prophetic and supremely wise statements of principle may materialize in the near future.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Mexican official pleads for US welfare for illegals

In an AP story, the interior secretary of Mexico, Santiago Creel, is quoted as saying the following:

• "It's [the Arizona ballot initiative passed recently which restricts government services for illegals] incompatible with human rights and does a disservice to both countries, the United States as much as Mexico,"

Restricts human rights? How about the rights of Arizonans and Americans to provide for their own families instead of illegals?

A disservice to the United States? Because the lazy American welfare bums might have to take the restaurant jobs or pick lettuce?

I can fully understand the desire of the Mexican government to ship the sick and unskilled Mexican people here, but what I cannot understand is the Republicans who are willing to go along with the scam. Doubtlessly, some of the GOP Congress people think their "base" will vote for them no matter what, but they are wrong.

Americans are getting more tired all the time of funding the education, health care, and welfare checks of illegals. I'm tired of funding those programs for everyone.

"Torture" and scapegoats

Recently Charles Graner, Jr. was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "assaulting and humiliating male detainees", according to this account. Sadly, I think this young man has been thrown to the wolves as a scapegoat. The intent is to innoculate Rumsfeld and Bush from the criticism of the NY Times and leftist Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer.

Related are stories and accusations of "abuse" against prisoners in Gitmo.

To believe the prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo are peace loving, innocent victims caught in the wrong place at the wrong time is foolish. Without debating the specifics of the two situations, consider this.

When we capture bin Laden, should he be tortured to gain information about pending attacks?
When we capture Zarqawi, should he be tortured to gain information?
Should torture be used against Saddam Hussein to gain information about his WMD programs, as well as information about the enemies in Iraq we face now?

If you say no, you are a fool. Therefore, the question of torture is not whether it has legitimate value, but rather when to apply it, and to what degree.

Get off your high horse, and understand that America faces a radical element of islamo-fascists who have sawed the heads off of living human beings for no reason. We do not have the luxury of obeying international standards such as the Geneva Convention, especially since it doesn't even apply to these ununiformed murderers who follow no rules whatsoever as they terrorize people around the globe daily.

Radical muslims are here. Already.

According to the NY Post:

• The father of a murdered New Jersey family was threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online — and the gruesome quadruple slaying may have been the hateful retaliation, sources told The Post yesterday.

  Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.

  Armanious, an Egyptian Christian, was well known for expressing his Coptic beliefs and engaging in fiery back-and-forth with Muslims on the Web site paltalk.com.

  He "had the reputation for being one of the most outspoken Egyptian Christians," said the source, who had close ties to the family.

Still think there's "no threat" from radical islam inside this country?

Martin Luther King day

According to the United States Code, George Washington's birthday is an officially recognized federal holiday. So, stop the complaining about how "MLK day is the only individually named holiday", because it's just not true.

Now, one could argue that without the actions of Abraham Lincoln, Dr. King would not have been able to do what he did, and therefore Lincoln also deserves a day of his own.

However, one can also argue that the actions Lincoln took to start the Civil War were totally Unconstitutional and illegal, and that the U.S. government has been illegitimate ever since.

Email to Neal Boortz

Neal,
According to this site, you've been sent a copy of a video called "The 861 Evidence". Have you ever discussed it on your show? What is your reaction to the evidence presented therein?

Barring a well thought out legal rejection on your part of the theory and evidence contained in that video, I have to conclude that you are a fraud.

Perhaps you are one who loves wealth more than freedom, as Samuel Adams spoke about many years ago, and you are just capitalizing on an untapped sector of the talk radio market.

Since you advocate the Fair Tax so strongly, it appears as though you believe the current federal Income Tax applies to most Americans, and the statutes are being correctly applied. Otherwise, would you not simply state that most Americans are indeed under no legal obligation to pay the tax?

Sincerely,
XXX

That time again

W-2 forms are required to be mailed out by 31 January, and soon after Americans will begin the long and complicated process of completing lengthy IRS forms. I hold that a tax on labor, i.e. a direct income tax, amounts to nothing less than slavery, and therefore is prohibited by the 13th amendment.

Further research into the subject has lead me to several sources of information, none more interesting than the US Code itself, specifically Chapter 26. Don't try to read the whole thing, but read this explanation which walks you throught the portions of the code which apply to income taxation, specifically the definitions of "gross income" and "taxable income", as well as their "sources". Also, check out this video which is available for free download.

As you'll find, most Americans voluntarily pay taxes on their income because they apply defintions to legal terms incorrectly. In other words, the term "gross income" doesn't mean whatever YOU think it means, it only means what the Code defines it to mean. Trust me, the defintions are very different.

***Notice: I am not a lawyer, I am not offering advice, nor am I advocating any particular action on the part of the reader. This is presented as informational only, and carries with it no assumption of liability, implied or otherwise.

Were there tsunami warnings?

Since there have been numerous reports suggesting that few, if any, animals perished in the Asian tsunami, I conclude that there were warnings. Now, the warnings didn't come from fancy satellites or intricate oceanic monitoring equipment, but they were likely there.

In his column entitled "Tsunami Warning", Paul deParrie says:

• As I looked at the map of the affected area of this tsunami, it was clear to me that there were two characteristics of the worst-hit locations: 1) they were areas where there is severe persecution against Christians by fanatical Moslems (mostly) and fanatical Hindus and Buddhists, and 2) there were many luxury, sex-tourist resort areas included. Phuket, where many of the media talking heads wound up, is supposed to be the child-sex industry capitol in Southeast Asia.

Was this an act of God, designed to punish non-believers and sinners?

Why is the US government helping to rebuild the lives and infrastructure of people who otherwise hate us, many of whom are likely involved in the SE Asian "terror networks"?

We need racial profiling now

Apparently, as with Jose Padilla, we are in a state of suspended Habeas Corpus. Although I'm not sure when the Congress voted to suspend it [we are still living in a Constitutional Republic, right?], we need to apply the standard, or lack thereof, across the board.

In short, we must begin implementing "racial profiling" at our airports, seaports, and everywhere in between. This means arabs in the United States, and it means mass deportation and/or internment camps. After all, the left's hero FDR got away with it in the 1940's.

Selwyn Duke agrees in this column, as he explains how profiling is essential to good law enforcement.

DUI checkpoints closed in Oakland, too many illegals caught

I stumbled across this while looking at the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus' website:

• Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.
  
  The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet.
  
  "These checkpoints make people's [read: illegal aliens'] lives miserable, not make them safer," said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations.
  

H.R. 64

On 4 January 2005, a bill was proposed to the Congress by Christopher Cox of California "to repeal the Federal death tax, including the estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers."

Any tax cut sounds like a good idea to me, this being no exception. However, as eager as this President and Congress have been to cut taxes, they have showed little zeal on the spending side of the equation.

Check here to see how big of a "porker" your Congressman is.

The One World Family

On the "We Are Family Foundation" website, an event called the National "We are Family" day is being advertised.

On the page where they encourage site viewers to fill out their form letter for submission to a Congressperson, the following appears [emphasis mine]:

• Thanks to Senator Bob Dole's belief in our project, Senator Orrin Hatch has offered to spearhead the passage of a resolution in Congress to recognize a National We Are Family Day. We have designated March 11th as the appropriate day as it is the six-month anniversary of the September 11th event. We Are Family Day will be a time to celebrate our common humanity.

Of course I'll be branded as "homophobic" for drawing attention to this project and for opposing their efforts, but as John Kerry says, principle without action is meaningless. [Has anyone ever been branded "heterophobic"?]

These types of groups, be they environmental protection, gay rights, worker protection or anti-war, are usually communist front groups designed to perpetuate the idea that we are living in a "global community" which seeks "common unity" and "equal" rights for all people.

What is a libertarian society?

From "The Invisible Hand Is a Gentle Hand" By Sharon Harris:

• To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title, nor knowledge, nor virtue. To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, endorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected.

Is this what the Republicans and Democrats try to tell us we should accept as "freedom"?

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus, Roman historian

The persecution of Christians

Here's a great article from "The Price of Liberty" pointing out the defeaning silence on the part of George Bush, the supposed Christian, as his supposed brothers are jailed for freely exercising the supposed Faith he professes to follow.

Lew Rockwell and World Net Daily weigh in on the "Philadelphia 11", while the Australia Family Association talks about the end of Christianity in Australia in response to 2 preachers being imprisoned for "villifying Muslims" by reading from the Koran.

Soldier refuses redeployment to Iraq

According to CNN.com:

• A mechanic with nine years in the Army, including a role in the assault on Baghdad, has refused to return to Iraq, claiming "you just don't know how bad it is."

Social security crisis?

From National Review:

According to the latest annual report of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds, the surplus in 2004 was $64.4 billion dollars. It will be higher this year — at $87.7 billion. The surplus will keep getting bigger and bigger through 2008, when it will reach $108 billion. Each year, that’s more and more money that the federal government won’t have to raise from the world capital markets. It’s a captive audience of bond buyers — and a growing one.

Most observers point to 2018 as the earliest year for the Social Security crisis to begin. But that’s only the year the crisis will pass an especially attention-grabbing milestone. That’s the year, according to the trustees, that the Social Security surplus will disappear entirely and become a deficit. In other words, for the first time tax revenues will be less than the benefits paid out that year. From the standpoint of public finance, though, it will just be another painful year in which the federal government had to raise more money from capital markets — or raise taxes more or trim more spending — than it did the year before. By 2018, the Treasury will have already received $359 billion less cash each year, cumulatively, than it received in the peak year of 2008.

On the other hand...

Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of our nation – a retirement safety net for millions of Americans. Yet, the Bush Administration is making privatizing Social Security a top legislative priority next Congress, claiming that the program is in “crisis.”

That is not true – Social Security is not in crisis. Please read today’s column from Paul Krugman (“Inventing a Crisis,” 12/7/04, New York Times). - Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

There they go again. Once again this Administration is deliberately misleading the public by creating a false crisis. The Administration's campaign to convince the American public of a 'crisis' in Social Security is a mirror image of their phony campaign to convince the American public of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. - Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) called on Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart today to stop playing political messages to callers placed on hold in the Social Security's telephone system. As President Bush begins to sell his Social Security privatization plan with claims of a looming Social Security "crisis," the Social Security Administration is forcing callers to their 800 number to listen to inaccurate propaganda with a "crisis" spin... - Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Forget all the scare talk. There is no crisis in Social Security, except for political threat to its survival from Republicans who have been gunning for it since the 1930s. - International Labor Communications Association

The debate over George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security seems to be heating up, and some media outlets are beginning to notice the flaws in the White House's argument that there is an imminent "crisis" in the decades-old government program. On the January 11 NBC Nightly News broadcast, anchor Brian Williams seemed to be addressing that issue, introducing a segment by noting that "critics say he's exaggerating the problem to sell his plan, while not yet talking about big cuts in future retiree benefits." - Fairness in Accuracy & Reporting

Homeschooling outlawed in Germany

I'm sure that plenty among the American left would prefer just such a law to be passed by the US government. They've already tried to have strict requirements on who can teach homeschoolers, what books they can use, assessment testing, etc...

Without public schools to teach children the greatness and wonders of govenrment, and how essential big government is to American livelihood, the Democrat party mantra would quickly unravel.

As more Americas seek education outside the confines and regulation of government, the chance of restoring some of our original republican ideals increases. Truth is the weapon of choice in the silent revolution sweeping across America today, one house at a time, one mind at a time.

Liberty and truth shall win, for in the end they always do.

Inauguration 2005

Is it correct to hold such an outwardly lavish festival celebrating "democracy" when US men are dying in the middle east? I think not, and Daily Kos actually got this one right.

Of course, Rush is issuing all sorts of excuses, such as the donations are private or that the implications are that Bush and Co. aren't spending anything on the military.

Well, in light of the recent Rumsfeld escapade and the shortages in armed vehicles, I'd emphatically say that no, the government is NOT spending ENOUGH on the military.

We are supposed to be a nation at war, and the soldiers are fighting on behalf of us. This amounts to nothing more than a giant snub and an insult to every serviceman and servicewoman in the military. "Look at us, we get to have parties while you suffer and die providing us the necessary security".

The goose and the gander

Apparently it's okay for muslims in Indonesia to resist what they see as attempts by Christians to convert their children.

• The Virginia-based missionary group WorldHelp has dropped its plans to place 300 Muslim "tsunami orphans" in a Christian children's home, the group's president, the Rev. Vernon Brewer, told news agencies Thursday.
• The group's plan to raise children from Muslim families in a Christian home struck a sensitive nerve in Indonesia, which had regulations in place even before the tsunami requiring orphans to be raised by people of their own religion. This rule was adopted in large part to ensure that Muslim children were not converted.
  

However similar behavior in America to resist the islamization of our kids amounts to islamophobia, intolerance, bigotry, and fascism.

The separation of Democrats and reality

I'm offended by atheism.

The symbol of atheism is nothing.

Everywhere I see no religous symbol, someone is trying to force atheism down my throat.

In order to make up for this, some religous symbol should be placed everywhere so that I can be free from atheism and its establishment, via absence of symbols, especially on public property.

Alberto Gonzales is not pro-life

From the Senate hearing in which AG nominee Gonzales was questioned, consider the following exchange:

• Sen. Durbin: The last question is a brief one, and it may have been touched on earlier. But when Senator Ashcroft in your position aspired to this Cabinet-level appointment, he was asked about Roe versus Wade, which he disagreed with on a political basis, and his argument was he would enforce, in his words, "settled law," and Roe versus Wade was "settled law" in America. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you articulate in a few words your position about the enforcement of Roe versus Wade or any other court decision that you personally or politically disagree with?

• Judge Gonzales: Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a -- they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained. My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity -- ample opportunities -- to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.

President Cleveland and charity

According to the Daily Objectivist,

• In vetoing a bill in 1887 that would have appropriated a mere $10,000 in aid for drought-stricken Texas farmers, Cleveland noted that "though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people." For relief of citizens in misfortune, the president felt it was important to rely upon "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen."
• That veto was one of many. In fact, Cleveland in his first term refused to sign twice as many bills as did all previous 21 presidents combined. Most of those bills were nothing more than cynical attempts by somebody to get something from somebody else by the force of the government's gun.

Sadly, our federal government has degenerated from the ideas of men like this, Davey Crockett, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison to George Bush who vetoed no bills in 4 years and who has not met a spending bill he couldn't justify or expand.

Dr. Allawi's Pledge

Similar to the campaign promises of US congresspeople, Iyad Allawi, in his bid to win the "election" coming up in Iraq has promised 5 things. One of them is:

• I will reduce unemployment by creating 1 million new jobs with the release of 5 million dinars from the Reconstruction Fund.

So, each new worker gets a salary of 5 dinars?

Dean camp bought advertisements too

In the wake of the Armstrong Williams situation, it now seems that Howard Dean was involved in a similar operation. According to the WSJ,

• Howard Dean's presidential campaign hired two Internet political "bloggers" as consultants so that they would say positive things about the former governor's campaign in their online journals, according to a former high-profile Dean aide.

I have no doubt that the left media that went looking for blood over the Williams/NCLB connection will be eager to share the details of Howard Dean's seemingly similar marketing strategy.

Why do I care about Texas?

I don't, but I do care about the illegals who will be able to ride from the Mexican border to Oklahoma on a new mega-highway being considered known as the "Trans-Texas Corridor". Hopefully there are more reasons behind this than facilitating illegal immigration and making it easier for Mexican goods to be distributed throughout the United States under the guise of NAFTA.

Thanks to Blogs of War.

Pulling out of Iraq is not a loss

The reason for the Iraq invasion was never really about successfully installing a democratic government in Iraq. It was about removing a threat, and demonstrating to the next generation of islamists that we are willing to preemptively invade and occupy to prevent strikes against our homeland.

Reason magazine, Stratfor, and Andrew Sullivan seem to accept the notion that our goal, however noble it may have been, of orchestrating a western style democracy in Iraq has failed. We should hold the elections, pull the troops to the outskirts of Iraq while the inevitable civil war takes place, and figure out the next move in the global battle against the islamo-fascists.

Ted Kennedy strikes again

In his recent speech, Ted Kennedy repeated the Democrat mantra for the 1,546,239th time about Iraq being a "diversion" from the real War on Terror, and that by invading Iraq we abandoned our hunt for OBL.

Since we've been distracted from our hunt for bin Laden, and our attention "diverted" for nearly 2 years now, why haven't we suffered another attack against our homeland?

Do abortion victims feel pain?

According to the compilation of research found here, babies as young as 8 weeks demonstrate clear and obvious reactions during their assassination.

May God bless these innocent victims, and may their brutal killers find the strength to repent their sins.

States' rights

I suggest that anyone who thinks that Federal courts are the absolute and final authority of the Constitution read this column and the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson.

Isn't that scenario known as "kangaroo court"?

Wouldn't it be the same as signing a contract in which one side decides whether or not to hold an arbitration hearing, and if one is to be held, the same party establishes the very fora in which the proceedings take place?

The federal school system

According to ABC news,

• The president also wants to give states $250 million to require that the 12th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress be administered in every state in reading and math every two years, just as it is in those subjects in grades four and eight. That would produce the first-ever state results for high school seniors on this national test, helping policy-makers evaluate their school standards.

I thought the federal government only possesses those powers and responsibilities specifically given it by the People, via the Constitution, specifically meant to be those that cannot be performed by individuals or by the States.

Elephant in a china shop

The abortion racket is cracking up at the seams. The self-named "pro-choice" crowd (most of whom also oppose school vouchers, gun ownership and the Fair Tax plan) is losing ground everywhere they look, yet they are unwilling to moderate their extreme views such as requiring parental notification when a minor is seeking an abortion or restricting the procedure commonly known as "partial birth abortion".

I would love to hear an explanation by the infanticide crowd of precisely what crime has been committed by this young man in Michigan who helped his teen-aged girlfriend "terminate" their "fetus".

The leftists who excuse abortion often refer to an unborn baby as a "mass of cells", citing similarities to hair, fingernails, or tumors. Okay, then if this young man is guilty of a crime, are barbers also guilty of the same crime?

14 points of fascism

Thanks to Redsock, and his links to these two articles which outline a definition of fascism and characteristics of fascist leaders.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.

I'm not sure if we are living under fascism, democratic militarism, or just inept greed and wide spread corruption, but I am sure that today's America is not what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had in mind.

Always give credit where it's due

The lefties over at We MoveTo Canada shared a column from the Lew Rockwell site written on 26 November 2004 called "What Became of Conservatives?"

I have to admit, being a young man, I had an inherent faith in George Bush when the Iraq war began, after all he is the President of the United States. Even when the WMD turned out to be anything but a "slam dunk", I still supported his effort in Iraq because it seemed likely that other countries in the area gave aid and sanctuary for Saddam's contraband.

Sadly, it now seems all to clear that the Bush ideologues like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Barnes and the "neo-con" ilk have gotten it all wrong. Unwilling to blame Bush, or the strategy itself of "Middle East democratization" at the barrel of a gun, Bill Kristol even went so far as to hang Secretary Rumsfeld out to dry with an op-ed piece calling for his firing.

America's finest are paying with their lives, and all we are told is that "we will stay the course" while the neo-cons play a finger pointing game, alternating between such targets as Dan Rather, the Washington Post, and Michael Moore. In case those topics get old, tried and true Bush backers will trot out some stories about the ACLU, or simply point to the failures of past Presidents in an apparent attempt to minimize the extent of this President's failure.

Mr. President, everyone can see that the bridge is out ahead of us. There is no honor in riding the train over the cliff. Surely you must see what we all can see, how long do you expect us to pretend to deny what is becoming painfully obvious? Or worse yet, how long do you think we can pretend to support that which we know is not right?

The right to protect oneself

All human beings enjoy a "right" to life, I believe the right descends from God almighty, others believe the right to life in inherent in human beings simply by virtue of existence. It matters not in the proof I will lay out for the second amendment being just what it says and nothing less.

The "right" to life exists without government, meaning even in an anarchy situation, human beings would still have a fundamental "right" to their own existence. Many in America feel that the government exists to provide rights, but this cannot be the case in a free society. In a free society, it is the people who give power to the government, whereas in a closed society it is the reverse.

Therefore, whether living under a government, or living under no government, a man has the right to protect his own life from those who would otherwise attempt to take his life or to threaten his life and thereby cast him into slavery.

Optional in the least and imperative in the most, the father of a house must have at his avail some means by which to protect his flock. Should he decide that his best method for defending not only his own life, but that of his wife and children may best be achieved by the ownership of firearms, he must be free to acquire such weaponry.

Any government said to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people" must never labor to disarm any man seeking only to defend his right to life and property. Just as the criminal chooses an unarmed target to victimize, so too does a government. An unarmed man is nothing more than a man reliant on another for his own defense, and one at the will of another who wishes to enslave him in exchange for providing his "protection".

In short, those among us who wish to disarm the citizenry seek nothing more than a dependent mass of people who they can enslave by trading protection for taxation. Not coincidentally, those who object to the taxation will have been left no recourse by which to "alter or abolish" the government which has become destructive to itself and its people.

Federal taxation

For more than a century, the federal government operated without an individual income tax being levied against Americans. Somehow it was able to survive and fund itself. We have now reached a point where the tax code is thousands and thousands of pages long.

This country has reached a point so distant from the foundation of our government that many accept the power of the Federal government to place a direct tax on the labor of individuals. I believe that this amounts to slavery. I am not free to earn a living by trading my job skills for a paycheck from a private employer without the intrusion of government into my wallet, deciding how much of my income I shall retain for myself.

This could all change, as the National Retail Sales Tax or "Fair Tax" plan is gaining momentum all the time. I see the NRST as a tremendout improvement for two reasons.

One, the people will have the freedom to save or spend money as they see fit, and those of us like myself who prefer to live simply can save or invest the 30-50% of our income which is currently being confiscated from us before it reaches our hand.

Two, our current system punishes citizens for government inefficiency. If the government mismanages our money or wishes to appropriate more than it takes in via taxation, it simply raises the rate of taxation which stifles economic development.

On the other hand, under a National Sales Tax plan, in order for government to increase its revenues, and therefore increase its base of appropriations, it must create favorable economic conditions where people are spending more money. This means that consumers must be optimistic about the job market, employers have capital available for expansion and pay increases, etc.

I ask simply: which system is better? One where government funds itself by taking bread from the hands of the producers, or one which entices the consumer to pay more taxes by creating favorable market conditions?

Clinton's Abu Ghraib?

If George Bush is to be let off the hook for what happened at Abu Ghraib, is it fair to conclude that Bill Clinton should be given a pass for the events at WACO?

Reading List 7 January 2005

The Tsunami We Need

The United States oligarchy

Let's review some recent history.

George HW Bush served for 8 years as Vice-President and then was elected President over Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Having spent years orchestrating events that came to be known as the "Iran-contra" scandal, US forces were sent into the Middle East to lead a UN operation to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking over Kuwait. His Republican Army was quickly pushed back into Baghdad, but President Bush chose not to overthrow Saddam at the time. Many in the media suggest that Bush preferred to maintain a status quo instead of committing US troops to a lengthy occupation effort.

In the 1992 reelection campaign, Bush was defeated because of the candidacy of Ross Perot, and the "read my lips, no new taxes" debacle. George HW Bush was out of the US government for the first time in decades, having been in the CIA for years before running with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Enter Bill Clinton, exit large numbers of United States military personnel. The 1990's were marked by scandals, criminal activity, questionable campaign financing from Chinese sources, extreme tax hikes, repeated attacks agains the US by muslim killers, North Korean nuclear acquisition, WACO, Vince Foster, travelgate Whitewater, Ken Starr, etc...

The Democrat party has won very few elections of any notoreity since 1992, likely in large part to the negative impact and influence of the Clinton regime.

The 2000 election was litigated and ultimately George Bush prevailed. Having secured reelection [almost] officially as of today, the next step in the New World Order agenda is to select the correct UN Secretary general to replace the scandal stricken Kofi Annan.

In the time since the 9/11 attacks against America, President Bush has exhibited some strange behavior for somebody who campaigned on the promise of securing US sovereignty.

• He has committed US troops to serve in UN operations
• He has repeatedly attempted to get more UN involvement in the Iraqi reconstruction efforts
• After initially trying to establish a coalition to aid in the tsunami relief effort which was independent of the UN, President Bush ultimately capitulated and turned over even more US taxpayer funds to UN officials, despite their complete failure to run the "Oil-for-Food" program in Iraq

Is there any possibility that the Iraq invasion had anything to do with Saddam's recent decision to cease selling his oil for US dollars, in favor of the Euro? Is Iran considering the same policy, and is that why there were included in the "axis of evil"?

The powers that run the US gov't must have known that Clinton could never ascend to the head position in the UN with a Democrat President because the Republicans would have fought tooth and nail against it, just as they fought Clinton's legislative initiatives during the 90's while going along with the same agenda under George Bush.

Would Clinton have taken heat for such obvious amnesty plans as the ones Bush has been laying out for years?

Was the GOP Congress responsible for the balanced budgets of the 1990's but somehow the same body is NOT responsible in any way for the current deficits?
For that matter, is George Bush responsible for the deficits?
Is anybody responsible for the financial recklessness of the past 4 years?

Was Clinton able to pass any addition to Medicare as large as the "Prescription Drug benefit"?

Was Clinton able to double the Department of Education budget and tremendously centralize the curriculum of the public schools similar to "No Child Left Behind"?

Therefore, if the grand plan has been to get Bill Clinton into the UN Secretary General chair, Al Gore had to lose the election to George W Bush. What a coincidence that the key State was the one governed by his brother.

I believe that President Clinton was picked out many years ago to be the next great American globalist, and that when he is nominated and confirmed by the US and the UN in the next year or two, America's sovereignty will be in even more grave danger than it already is.

Ohio electoral votes challenged

Democrats are taking to the stage and actually telling the truth. They are questioning the legitimacy of elections all over the country. Had John Kerry won, they would not be making these arguments. Republicans would be making them.

The Democrats are arguing that US forces are fighting and dying so that Iraqis and Afghan people can have free and fair elections, while the very nation they are supposedly protecting cannot manage the same standard in our own electoral processes.

To me, this is more proof that we are living in an oligarchy. Predictably, Rush is offering up excuse after excuse for the Republicans as he feeds the mindless talk radio worshipers their talking points.

Oh yea, one more note to Democrats: nobody has the right to vote for President except people known as "electors".

Reading List 6 January 2005

Jobs Americans Won't Do - Do we need more immigrants to do work, or do they stifle technological advances?

Mohammar Qadhafi claims that Iran has no nuclear weapons? This comes on the heels of the Saudi foreign ambassador being pulled out of Libya over suspicions of a Libyan assassination plot centering around Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi against Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. What's really going on in Libya right now?

Here is World Net Daily's take on al-Amoudi.

• As leader of the American Muslim Council, he frequently met with senior Clinton and Bush administration officials, including a 2001 meeting with Karl Rove to discuss the White House's faith-based initiative.

Front Page mag offers this:

• While it is only in the last few weeks that Abdul Rahman Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council (AMC) has been arrested on federal terror charges, his dubious preferences have been public for long. In tune with his known sentiments, he had thundered at an October 28, 2000 anti-Israel rally in Washington that ‘I wish they added I am a supporter of Hizbollah.’

And then there's this:

• The current President Bush catapulted al-Amoudi's credibility sky high by casting him as a moderate Muslim leader at a highly publicized 'national prayer day' on September 14, 2001 (three days after 911).

Which is corroborated here by the Fox News Channel:

• One of the leaders invited to appear with Bush was Abdurahaman Alamoudi, the president of the American Muslim Council. Three days after the hijackings, Alamoudi joined Bush at a prayer service dedicated to the victims of the attack.

Is there a "War on Terror"??

Reading List 5 January 2005

Snap out of It!
"The rest of the world has known for some time that it is pointless to oppose this Empire either militarily or electorally. They haven't the resources for the former and are legally barred from the latter. I think it's time the American people adopted the same philosophy."


Coming Clean! Building a Wonderful World from the Inside Out
"We are often asked why we are happy and optimistic about our future. We are far from oblivious to the risks and pain in our environment. Yet, we believe that we can have a wonderful world, and that the path to our collective well being begins with each of us transforming from the inside out – coming clean. With prayers, positive intentions, actions and transactions, we have the power to shift energy away from those who misuse their power and do harm in the world, and move it to ourselves and to those who are worthy stewards of our planet's wealth and our children's future."

PATRIOT Act expanded?

I thought the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act, H.R. 3162-107th Congress) was written and rushed through Congress to provided needed legislation against "terrorists".

From the final text of the bill itself, it is supposed to be an act:

• "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."

Here are President Bush's comments from 26 October 2001 regarding the bill and its importance.

• Today, we take an essential step in defeating terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans. With my signature, this law will give intelligence and law enforcement officials important new tools to fight a present danger.

Now, fast forward to today and the recent incidents of laser beams being shone into the cockpits of various aircraft on approach to airports around the country. Apparently an arrest has been made, according to The Associated Press:

• Federal authorities on Tuesday used the Patriot Act to charge David Banach, 38, with interfering with the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and making false statements to the FBI. He is the first person arrested after a recent rash of reports around the nation of lasers being beamed at airplanes.

  If convicted, Banach could be sentenced to 25 years in prison and fined $500,000.

  The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism but called Banach's actions "foolhardy and negligent."

So, this guy was prosecuted under the Patriot Act, which was designed to combat terrorist threats, even though the FBI says he's not a terrorist?

Bill Clinton to replace Kofi?

Apparently that is what Bill O'Reilly is calling for, suggesting that Annan is incompetent and corrupt but that Bill Clinton would restore credibility and end the perception that the UN is an impotent debating society which lacks the ability and the backbone to enforce its resolutions and policies.

Aside from the obvious fact that Clinton would undoubtedly bring a new brand of corruption, scandal, and criminal behavior to the UN, I see one other major problem with the notion.

Should the next Secretary General of the United Nations come from America, it would be almost assured that the US government would neither revoke membership nor assert sovereignty as aggressively as we would otherwise, should an Asian be chosen to replace Kofi Annan whenever his regime of corruption and scandal comes to an end.

For that matter, suppose some scandal similar to the Oil for Food operation did occur under a Clinton-led UN. Would the Democrats in the US Congress stonewall an investigation, much the way Jamie Gorelick was hoisted upon us via the 9-11 commission?

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Fourth Plank: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.

Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252

Here are some comments offered by Justice Burger, with my comments bracketed:

Because the payment of the taxes or receipt of benefits violates Amish religious beliefs, compulsory participation in the social security system interferes with their free exercise rights.

• [Sounds simple enough...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...]

The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.

To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good.

• [You mean it's not as simple as the First Amendment says...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...?]

The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

• [Unless we moved to the FairTax plan, where only those who choose to purchase goods would be contributing their money to the tax coffers.]
• [Not to mention, Justice Burger confuses tax revenues with government spending. It sounds simple enough to me, any individuals who choose not to pay in also have made the decision to declare themselves ineligible for any benefits.]
  

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

• [So how does a man of faith feed his family if he can't "enter into commercial activity" while simultaneously declining to contribute revenue for government programs contrary to his faith?]

Jemaah Islamiah

Tsunami devastation could breed terrorism: expert

• If you look at the groups in the region of course the most radical group is Jemaah Islamiah and they recruit people through a very small number of religious schools in Indonesia. I don't think their situation will change much. I don't think people will become more religious necessarily as a result of what has happened or be perhaps driven to join that group.

Cambodia resumes trial of Jemaah Islamiah suspects

• The trial of an Egyptian, two Thai Muslims and a Cambodian Muslim charged with links to Jemaah Islamiah, believed to be the Southeast Asian branch of Al Qaeda, resumed on Tuesday in Phnom Penh.

  Egyptian Esam Mohamid Khidr Ali, Thais Chiming Abdul Azi and Muhammadyalludin Mading and Cambodian Sman Esma El, are accused of colluding with Hambali, the suspected mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings which killed 202 people.

  "I have never met Hambali. I worked for a legitimate organisation to serve the interest of poor people, not to commit crimes," said Ali, director of an Islamic school in Cambodia.

[When are we going to catch on to these islamic "schools" in the United States, and the use by muslims of our own public schools to push islam? How long can we afford to keep our heads in the sand about the tactics and techniques being used by the jihadis?]

Where is the jihad against the tsunamis?

• Al-Qaeda allies [Jemaah Islamiah] have carried out several attacks in Indonesia that killed both Indonesians and foreigners. They set off a blast in September outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta that killed 10 Indonesians. They bombed the Marriott hotel in Jakarta in 2003 killing 12 people. They staged bombings on the island of Bali in 2002 that killed 202 people. During their trial, the men who were accused of attacking the Marriott hotel said the bombing was inspired by Osama Bin Laden. Will Osama inspire anyone to rebuild instead of destroy in Indonesia?
• Imagine if Osama and the sheikhs of jihad encouraged young Muslim men to go and rebuild villages in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Imagine if they encouraged them to do this for the simple reason of helping fellow human beings, not for recruiting future militants. After volunteering to rebuild a village, what kind of young man would return home? What lessons during his volunteer mission would he take home with him? Instead of being eager for more violence, wouldn’t such a young man be eager to help his own people by rebuilding and reconstructing in his own country?

US warns of attacks in Indonesia

• Jemaah Islamiah has been blamed for three terror attacks in Indonesia in the past two years, including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings in which 202 people were killed, including 88 Australians and seven Americans.

Thailand, Neighbors Squabble Over Ongoing Muslim Violence

• A diplomatic row is simmering in Southeast Asia over allegations that terrorists involved in violence in southern Thailand were being inspired by extremist elements in Indonesia and receiving armed training in the jungles of Malaysia.
  
  The dispute comes towards the end of a year when a decades-old separatist Muslim insurgency in Thailand's southern provinces re-surfaced after years of relative calm, after Muslim extremists torched 21 schools and raided an armory, killing four soldiers and stealing almost 400 rifles.

Southeast Asia and the Brotherhood of Terrorism

• Throughout Asia there are terrorist organizations, insurgencies, and revolutionaries of all kinds. However, what sets terrorist groups operating in Southeast Asia apart is the intimate nature of cooperation among groups. Although insurgent groups in Southeast Asia's terrorist brotherhood do not share the same goals, their cooperation across national boundaries creates an economy of scale for logistics, training, and safe havens.

Socialism in a vacuum

Thanks to Neal Boortz' show this morning, my outrage was focused on this article.

These socialists want to spread the idea that the "rich" people (who got that way through economic liberty and profit seeking) should now give money to help the world's hungry, sick, and poor populations.

Of course, if the socialists ever stopped to read Atlas Shrugged or any economist who disagrees with Karl Marx, they might quickly realize that the only reason people like Bill Gates or Sandra Bullock are in position to help the tsunami victims, AIDS infected in Africa, or starving Mongolians is because they took advantage of free market capitalism.

Without people operating in free markets to make a profit, there is no "extra" wealth to "distribute" to other people and countries. But, rest assured, the bureaucrats at the top like Kofi Annan and Jan Egeland will not be asked to sacrifice their private jets or ski vacations. They'll keep asking the Christians (who they bash and belittle in every other circumstance) to sacrifice and pay for their world view of global wealth distribution.

When will the good Christians in America stand up and recognize that we are committing the sin of suicide by permitting our representatives to fund these criminals and to allow them influence or authority over our sovereignty and national well-being?

Iraq update

While our focus is being shifted to the tsunami, Iraq is moving closer and closer to "elections".

Zarqawi may have been captured, though the military should deny that for a few weeks while they "chat" with him.

5 Americans have been killed in Iraq today, as well as the Governor of Baghdad. It's true that most of the Iraqi provinces are much more prepared for the elections than the ones around Baghdad, elections and laws only work when people are willing to live within their constraints and there are forces willing and able to apply them.

At this point, it looks like the US military will be the only force applying law and order in Iraq for the very foreseeable future. How many more Marines have to die before we leave and let the virtually inevitable civil war occur?

Can Christian soldiers achieve peace between Sunni muslims and Shia muslims at the barrel of a gun by giving them "elections" whose results are basically a foregone conclusion?

George Bush and Christianity

Despite the fact that George Bush never misses an opportunity to invoke religious references in his speeches and other public appearances, I am beginning to have some very serious doubts about the strength and depth of his faith, and I have some differences of opinion with the way in which he applies his faith to public policy.

For example, could a man who believes in the private property rights of American citizens continue to sign budgets loaded with pork? I would think it incumbent upon President Bush to demand accountability from the Congress and strong arm the legislators into fiscal responsibility. I could have sworn that one of the Commandments written by Moses a few years back said something about not stealing. President Bush probably was involved with some back room deals in which he was promised various return favors down the road for going along with the egregious spending bills. Politics over principle.

Why is it that Americans are constantly told how generous our people are, but when it came time to answer the call for international aid to the tsunami victims, the government couldn't trust us to pony up the private charity money, and instead had to spend the People's tax money on our behalf? Then, as if that weren't enough, why have former Presidents Clinton and Bush begun asking us for MORE cash as if nobody could manage to choose for ourselves whether or not to reach out to the Asians afflicted by the recent disaster?

Bill Clinton has been given a stage from which to speak, and a sense of implied credibility that comes from appearing on camera with the current President. At the unveiling of former President Clinton's portrait in the White House, as well as at the dedication of former President Clinton's Presidential library, George Bush showed tremendous compassion by speaking highly of Bill Clinton. Yet to hold an unrepentent liar, adulterer, rapist, thief and a corrupt America hater up for the world to see is downright insulting. Politics over principle.

When Judge Roy Moore came under fire in late 2002 for his open and deliberate inclusion of Christian Biblical symbolism inside the Supreme Courthouse of the State of Alabama, what did George Bush do? Did the President stand up for the powers of the State of Alabama, or sit idly by while the federal judge's order to centralize power and erase Christianity from the public square went unchallenged? As far as I'm concerned, this was the biggest failure of the "Christian" President, willfully allowing the clear abuse of power being hoisted upon the People of Alabama and the good Christians of America. I suppose that Mr. Bush figured he'd win Alabama's electoral votes in 2004 so there was no need to ruffle any feathers in other "swing" States. Politics over principle.

Recently, President Bush has nominated Alberto Gonzales for the Attorney General post to replace John Ashcroft, who had been the most openly practicing and committed Christian member of Bush's first cabinet by many accounts. Alberto Gonzales seems to be a man who doesn't not have a tremendous respect for individual civil rights, and it is very troubling to me that he has had such close ties to 'La Raza' in his past, having served on the Board of Directors of a major affiliate organization. I'm not sure why Mr. Gonzales is the favorite, other than perhaps to further perpetuate the racially diverse Bush cabinet regardless of qualification. Politics over principle?

I happen to believe that abortion = murder, and that permitting murder to against innocent victims should be prevented to the best of our ability. President Bush was unwilling to come out during the debates before the 2004 Presidential election and state this position clearly. He went so far as to indicate that his judicial appointments wouldn't even necessarily hold the same view, saying his nominees would not be subject to the Roe "litmus test". They won't? Does he mean to suggest that he might nominate more federal judges who do NOT believe in protecting the right to life of unborn children? Clearly the President was afraid to say what he really believed fearing that John Kerry might steal some moderate votes. Winning was more important than substance and truth. Politics over principle.

Or President Bush doesn't really believe in the pro-life position, because he went out of his way to campaign for Arlen Specter in his campaign for reelection to the United States Senate representing Pennsylvania. Specter's opponent in the primary was Pat Toomey, a much stronger conservative and an outspoken Christian, just the sort of Senator that President Bush should have been looking for. Sadly, President Bush chose to campaign for the incumbent despite the fact that the very moderate and pro-choice voting Sen. Specter seems to contradict Christian doctrine and certainly some major planks of the Republican platform. Politics over principle.

The Homeland Security Department, specifically the TSA, as well as the PATRIOT Act seem to hold the individual freedoms from intrusive search and seizure that Americans had previously enjoyed for more than 200 years in extremely low regard. I understand that Mr. Bush's motivation is supposedly to keep the American people safe, but why then did he say he would sign a renewal of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban"? Does he not trust us to protect ourselves, or has he been lying for 10 years about his "pro-gun" stance?

Through all the rhetoric, I think President Bush holds many views consistent with basic Christian principles, but if he were half the man I'd like to see in the White House, he would not be so hesitant to be up front and honest about the application of his faith to the responsibilities which have been entrusted to him. He'd come out and say in no uncertain terms what he really felt, instead of worrying about the reaction of the voters.

In my limited understanding and brief studies of the Bible, I've concluded that the truth shall be spoken and the results theretofore shall be left up to God the Father. It seems that Bush was more inclined to lie to the American people about the conviction of his faith than to stand up for it and to be judged.

Time will tell if I am wrong, as the second term is about to begin. George Bush will never again face an electorate, so he has the absolute freeom to conduct himself and execute the Presidency as he sees fit without fear of personal electoral failure. I bet there's at least one Democrat named Clinton who is hoping (praying?) that President Bush continues to alienate Christians from the Republican party.

Classic conservatism

I believe that the term "conservative" has lost its meaning since it was applied to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. In short, I think the term refers to someone who applies the Constitution to contemporary issues according to the intent of our founding fathers.

The premise behind the Constitution is two-fold. First, the framers meant to create a nation ruled by laws which were to be written, enforced, and interpreted by moral and spiritual men. Secondly, the men who formed this great nation held the belief that only individuals can have "rights", and that the only just government is one which "derives its power from the consent of the governed". As per the 9th and 10th amendments, only those powers specifically articulated in the language of the Constitution shall be the jurisdiction of the US government. Only the funds necessary to execute those specific obligations shall be taken from the People.

The current crop of Republicans seem to believe in global expansionism of the American empire through the guise of establishing democratic governments in countries and regions around the globe. They seem to believe in expanding the size of the federal government via budget deficits and foreign lenders instead of raising taxes like the Democrats. Today's current GOP leaders believe that the right-wing is firmly committed to the Republican party and that the party can move as far to the center as it wishes without the risk of losing the confidence of the classic, fundamentalist conservative voting bloc.

Well, they've moved too far for me. I voted for George Bush in the election of 2004, with the hope that he would make a dramatic shift back to the right in the aftermath. I was hopeful after seeing him announce his intent to spend the political capital that he had earned by beating John Kerry by roughly 3,000,000 votes.

I accept the fact that I am on the fringe of America politics. I accept that most label me and my ideas as "antiquated" or otherwise unsuited for the world we live in today. I accept that my ideas are not going to be easy or even possible to implement.

But my allegiance is to God, not some political party who expects me to follow blindly as a sheep because their candidate is the "lesser of two evils". I will not violate my principles, my values, my responsibilities, or my integrity by voting for any man who does not see our political future in much the way I do.

With history as my guide, I fully reject the implied notion that America is and will continue to be the "super power" no matter what policies we implement. Surely, men in Rome, London, Beijing, and Moscow have used that argument countless numbers of times. In each case, their respective empires crashed and gave rise to the next in a sequence of "super powers". How can today's "neo-cons" be so arrogant as to assume that America will not go the same way as those which came before? Do they think that if we just don't call ourselves an empire that we aren't one and therefore we can avoid the inevitable downfall which has ended the reign of every single super power before the United States?

I believe that Joseph McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond and others produced a generation of Republicans afraid to stand up for their principles. The Communist Goals of 1963 have been advanced tremendously well since the time they were entered in the Congressional record, and today's politicians seem more interested in going along with the far-left than with standing up to them and opposing their views.