Thoughts Aloud

GOP presidential hopeful and former PA senator Rick Santorum recently upped the ante in the anti abortion discussion with the statement that he would urge his own daughter to carry to term, deliver and raise a child that resulted from her being raped. He said such a child should be considered “a gift from God”.

Please allow me to state Santorum’s position another way. He would urge his own daughter to carry to term, deliver and raise a child, half of whose DNA was that of a vicious animal who impregnated her during a vicious attack. Rather than live in fear that the child had inherited its father’s vicious tendencies, she should cherish the child as though it was the result of some manner of gift giving.

How could any rational being wish a continued state of hell on his own offspring? Most victims of violent rape never truly get over the experience. Would not the presence of the rapist’s spawn serve to intensify the victim’s ongoing agony? (Note that I use violent rape to differentiate from statutory rape which is often non-violent and consensual.)
Read the rest of this entry »

High technology is such a great thing. For instance, because we have an automated DVR attached to our DirecTV system, we can keep a backlog of recorded programs to watch when there in nothing worth watching in real time.

Last evening was just such a time – when the government used its regulating authority to intimidate all commercial broadcast TV networks to cover the so-called “State Of The Union” address.

I realize that our Constitution does task our President with reporting his/her view of the state of the nation to Congress each year. But, the Constitution says nothing about extorting commercial air time (obviously since such did not exist at the time the Constitution was written). Even more significant, it also says nothing about the report being delivered in person as part of a ceremony that has come to imitate an imperial progress.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson delivered his annual reports by letter, with no ill effects aside from a missed opportunity for self-aggrandizement.

Were I constitutionally tasked with delivering a “State Of The Union” report, I could do so in one sentence: Disastrous and deteriorating! But, I digress.
Read the rest of this entry »

This is yet another pass at a subject I have blogged on before. It is the misuse of the so-called “clauses” in our Constitution.

In a number of writings, including some of the Federalist Papers, James Madison made abundantly clear, the fact that the powers of the new Federal Government were limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

However, especially since the rise of the progressive movement in the late 1800′s, there has been a growing (and successful) attempt to interpret the various clauses of the Constitution as granting the Federal Government whatever powers it deems necessary to “fulfill” the duties spelled out in the clauses. This is particularly true of the so-called General Welfare and Commerce clauses. This has had the effect of making the enumerated powers beside the point while granting the Federal Government unlimited powers.

Does any sane individual truly believe that this is what our Founders intended? Of course not. Why then are the so-called clauses there to begin with? My simple (and obviously correct) response is that the clauses attempt to establish the duties and responsibilities of government while the enumerated powers are the powers granted to the government to carry out those duties and responsibilities.
Read the rest of this entry »

The GOP primary “debates” have become such a sham that I did not bother to watch the most recent S.C. “debate”. However, I was pleased to see re-runs of Newt tearing into that CNN moron who opened the questioning with something totally beside the point of the debate, something totally personal and (should be) private, and worse yet, something said by an angry ex-wife.

While I still prefer Ron Paul, I do sympathize with Newt. You see, I too have an angry ex-wife. And, while she is not really a bad person, any conversation with her regarding me would likely suggest that I am the devil incarnate.

The public knows nothing of the Gingrich’s private lives in the days before the affair (and the divorce it seemed to lead to) anymore than nobody but my ex and I really know what went on between us before a similar outcome. How then can any rational person believe that a public discussion of such a thing could have any meaning? In my own case, I am not sure even I understand for sure what transpired or why.

Even more important, how can an unfortunate end to a relationship between two private individuals have any bearing on one’s qualification to hold office? I know that many will use the excuse that it speaks to character. I retort that, lacking details that will not (and should not) be made public, one can make no conclusion other than the obvious fact of an unfortunate outcome.
Read the rest of this entry »

I watched most of the debate circus last evening – with steam coming out my ears over yet another attempt to deny Ron Paul his fair share of debate time. Anyway, the constant theme of this debate, this primary, and no doubt the constant theme of the general election will be Job Creation and the race is on to see who can claim to be the best job creator.

Then, I glance at my ever-present copy of our Constitution and find not one word about job creation in the duties spelled out for the president. Nada. None. Zip.

So, why this constant wailing about job creation and, better yet, why do WTS eat this crap up?

Imagine your worst nightmare for a moment – I have been nominated by the Libertarian Party as its presidential candidate. By some even greater miracle, I have been invited to participate in a national debate, along with Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. It comes my turn to field a question and that question is: “Mr. Robinson, how do you propose to create more jobs?”.
Read the rest of this entry »

I heard on the radio today that several of the GOP presidential candidates are running on “values platforms” in South Carolina in a race to see which one can pound his bible the loudest. For reasons I cannot fully explain, this puzzles me. Allow me to attempt to explain…

Gingrich, Perry and Santorum all three have long worn their Christianity on their sleeves, on billboards, indeed, anywhere and in any way they can advertise their holiness. OK, if that is what they really believe and what they really stand for, fine with me. After all, it is still an almost free country. So, why am I puzzled? Simple. I expect people who are that holy to be above reproach. Yet, all this public display of near sainthood seems to have no affect on their actual conduct. I refer particularly to two recent Romney pile-ons that were both taken so far out of context that the result could only be called dishonesty (lying if you like your accusations straight up.)

The first was when Romney said he liked being able to fire service providers who were not providing adequate service. Clearly, what he meant is that the likes the choices available in a free market. Yet, the pseudo-saints were the first to “spin” this statement to make it sound like Romney simply enjoys making people lose their jobs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Commenting elsewhere in a discussion among typical conservative culture warriors, lamenting the state of our culture regarding the abortion and gay marriage issues, I offered the following, which is probably worth memorializing here:

If I may be permitted to comment on these issues from a political perspective, I would like to point out three intertwined faulty premises, underlying all of these morality controversies in our national body politic.

• The first is collectivism – the faulty premise that the needs and wellbeing of this amorphous thing we call ‘society,’ trumps those of its individual members.
• The second is altruism – the faulty premise that looking out for oneself is bad, and sacrificing oneself for others is good.
• The third is democracy – the faulty premise that a majority has the moral right to impose their will upon a minority.

Mixed together, this is one toxic brew, which has been used to poison the minds of most sheeple in America, whichever side of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly they find themselves on. One cannot assert the primacy of the collective, without trammeling the rights of its individual constituents. Then, if the model for governing that collective, is either the Robin Hood of the Left or the Good Samaritan of the Right, the individual citizen is regarded as merely a vassal.
Read the rest of this entry »

There is increasing chatter in the media RE the long-talked-about, never-going-to-happen balanced budget amendment.

I have long been against all this noise because I think it is nothing but a distraction and a cheap attempt by congress to act like something it is not. Besides, until we actually return to running our government per the terms of our Constitution, what possible point could there be in amending it further?

Having said all that, what if we really did insist on a balanced budget amendment along with an even greater insistence that our Constitution be obeyed? How might such an amendment be constructed such that it would actually have meaning? Most of the proposals I read are little more than nonsense proposals with holes so large that congress would not be the least hampered in its continued fiscal insanity.

However, as you should expect for one as opinionated as myself, I have a partial solution. The problem with the “standard” proposals which are based on the “standard” budgeting process is that they are all forward looking, hence subject to the most outrageous estimates of the future (such as economic growth causing increased tax revenues). My simple proposal is a backward looking process. Rather than grossly overestimate future revenues then plan our spending based on that nonsense, we look at each year’s ACTUAL revenues then base the next year’s spending on that. I suggest that the amendment simply state that any year’s spending is absolutely limited to 90% of the previous year’s actual revenue. Sharper minds than mine can figure out how to obtain a reasonably accurate, tamper-proof figure for the previous-year revenue.

Of course, we would still be stuck with the problem that no rule is any better than the integrity of the enforcers. A problem made worse by the fact that most of WTS do not understand that WE are the only effective enforcers.

It is so very frustrating to see all that might be done, if only the citizens of this failing nation would take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

I find myself with little comment to offer as we all watch the worldwide political circus, waiting for shoes to start dropping, yet compelled to say something.

The center ring of our circus is the GOP race for the presidential nomination, eventually to be replaced by the general election which promises even more all-star performances.

In ring 1 we have the European Union, desperately trying to find a way to avoid the inevitable collapse of socialism,

While in ring 3 we have Iran… well, being Iran.

Once again, I will try to gather my fading analytical skills and prognosticate.

→ In the United States, the selection of a GOP candidate is beside the point because Obama is going to stay in power. A sitting president, especially one who is half way toward being a dictator, simply has too many options for manipulating world events to favor his continuation in office. For sure, Jimmy Carter blew his big chance for manipulation with the Iran hostage crisis – but, while Carter was an incompetent, he was not essentially evil. That is not the case in the current situation.

→ In the European Union, they will “kick the can” down the road as long as possible. Yet, this is not an endless road. At the end of this road, the only option seems to be a wiping clean of the financial slate, an action usually accomplished by a general war.
Read the rest of this entry »

I hereby move that the entire nation heed the demands of the “establishment” and proclaim Mitt Robamaney the GOP nominee by acclimation. I make this move on the grounds that there is no good reason to destroy any more members of the human race who may once have had the audacity to think the American people should choose the nominee.

Of course, this diatribe is prompted by the recent revelation that Dr. Ron Paul is a hate-mongering anti-Semitic racist, continuing a pattern that began with the lynching of Herman Cain over his alleged womanizing and the attempted destruction of Newt Gingrich over past infidelity, being a “bad boss”, having new ideas and every other sort of “crime” one may imagine.

There is a more than clear pattern here. No matter how old or obscure one’s past foibles, real or imagined, they really matter only when one begins to challenge the anointed Mitt.

Truth is, I have no idea what Ron Paul espoused in the late 80′s to early 90′s because I was not watching and it seemed to not be newsworthy at the time. Ditto with Herman Cain and whatever clumsiness he may or may not have had in dealing with members of the opposite sex. As for Newt, the allegations are no doubt true and even more so are beside the point (even though I personally do not favor his candidacy).
Read the rest of this entry »

Effective communication, to exchange ideas and discuss points of view, requires that we share the meanings of the terms we use. That is a challenge in this modern Orwellian world, where key words are being redefined every few years, to connote the near opposite of their previous meaning. It is particularly difficult, when a perfectly useful term becomes so loaded with emotional baggage, that minds snap shut at its very mention.
 
The term ‘atheist’ simply means ‘godless,’ which itself is a somewhat loaded term, only meaning ‘without a god.’ It is not a ‘belief’ as some would have it; but rather a disbelief in the existence of deities. To move the negative’s position, by saying, “An atheist believes God does not exist,” has no more profound effect than saying, “Joey believes there is no such thing as a Tooth Fairy.”
 
That in no way, makes Joey’s skepticism regarding the existence of fairies, into a ‘belief system.’ Nor does it put the onus on him to prove there isn’t, even if 3/4 of his acquaintances still believe there is, and really wish he would not display such disrespect for their cherished beliefs, by publicly challenging them. After all, they have personally experienced money magically materializing under their pillow; so they ‘know for a fact’ that it is real, and this gives them great comfort.
  Read the rest of this entry »

Roe v. Wade is bad law, which should be overturned on Tenth Amendment grounds. Those most vocal in both the defense and condemnation of it however, frequently seem not to understand the implications of their goals. A case can be made that achieving those goals, by either side, would produce unintended consequences the opposite of what they seek.
 
As a retired sterile hermit, the incessant abortion controversy ought to be utterly irrelevant to me. It mercifully would be, except the insufferable PC moralists insist on inserting it into national political debate, where it has no business whatever being an issue. Politically Correct and Piously Correct activists alike, muck up our electoral process, by forcing candidates to publicly pronounce their personal moral position, on the question of a woman’s right to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
 
My natural right to dismiss this issue, as inconsequential here in my hermitage, is under constant assault by these busybodies. Years ago, I analyzed all the shopworn arguments from both sides, and carefully thought through my own position on the matter. None of the constant bickering since, has changed it one iota, nor is it ever likely to. I suspect that a majority of Americans, who are not dogmatic ideologues and are equipped to think for themselves, would generally agree with me.
  Read the rest of this entry »

My more ideological correspondents, conservative and libertarian alike, are frequently confounded by my attachment to reality, which purists tend to misconstrue as pragmatism. It is difficult to pin an ideological label on me, other than perhaps laissez faire capitalist. Since I desire nothing of government, but to be left alone, to live my life as I choose to live it, as a peaceful neighbor trading with others on a value for value basis, unmolested by altruistic busybodies, I don’t fit the mold of most ideologues. Individual Liberty being my highest ideal, were government not a necessary evil, I would be an anarchist. I must admit that the notion of a life devoid of politicians and politics is rather appealing; but since individual Liberty is actually enhanced, by a minimal level of law and order in my community, I can’t abide anarchism,. 

The first step down into the real world, out of the cannabis cloud inhabited by the typical purist anarchist, lands one among the libertarians. These are the folks, typified by most of our Founding Fathers, who view government as a necessary evil, which must be kept to an absolute minimum, consistent with maintaining peace, law and order, and unimpeded free trade among freemen. Our Constitution, as originally written, is the epitome of a libertarian manifesto. As designed, it contains not one word regarding what a citizen must or must not do; but is entirely a constraint on what we will or will not permit government to do. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Just a mini-rant this time… As I write this, my life partner, Saint J9, is watching an argument between Mitt Robamaney and some war veteran on the subject of gay marriage.

Why is it so hard for the social conservatives and other bible-thumpers to understand that marriage is a bifurcated state in modern America? On the one hand, there is marriage as an institution sanctioned by the various religious organizations. Given our tradition of freedom of religion, each of these organizations should be free to sanction gay marriage – or not, in accordance with their standards and beliefs. On the other hand, marriage is a legal state, recognized by various levels of government that conveys certain legal privileges. Under our tradition of equality before the law, it should be legal for any combination of people who wish to declare themselves legally married to do exactly that. This is a point of contention that lacks any rational foundation.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

This is insanity. The global economy is about to crash into a deep depression over all the phony liquidity held by financial institutions, and gold is dropping? There must be a lot of traders selling their gold to make margin calls. This is a golden opportunity for anyone who is still holding paper assets of any sort, to cash out of them and buy physical gold or silver. Take the hit on your 401Ks even, get out of paper – NOW! ◄Dave► 

I have heavily edited and rearranged my 2008 “Incumbrepublocrats” essay, and thought I ought to throw it up front here for critique:

Incumbrepublocrats: n. A cabal of incumbent ruling elites, organized into a duopoly called Republicans and Democrats, to fool complaisant sheeple into believing they have a choice, of shearers and shepherds. (aka: iRats)

As an independent swing voter and militant moderate, I am becoming increasingly disgusted with both caucuses of the Incumbrepublocrat Party. We used to laugh at the notion that the Soviet Union only had one political party, and their citizens were only allowed to choose from a slate of competing Communist Party members. Their candidates might differ over how best to achieve the Party’s goals, but Communism itself was not permitted to be questioned. Our two-party system was touted as infinitely better. Really?

At this point, I truly fail to see the difference. Communists and Incumbrepublocrats are both monolithic cabals of ruling elites, organized into a duopoly of nominal Left/Progressive and Right/Conservative caucuses. The only real differences between the caucuses, is the speed with which they move toward implementing a totalitarian, centrally controlled, Marxist nanny state, and minor disagreements over how much of our money to confiscate, and where best to spend it to buy votes.

Read the rest of this entry »

We are just back from a road trip to the East Coast (sans RV). Being the type that never met a stranger, I am prone to strike up conversations with any and all who will tolerate me. I never cease to marvel over how much insight one can gain simply by talking to folks.

Among other things I learned this trip is that many people are convinced the world will end on December 21, 2012. Now I grant you, this is an auspicious day – because, it will (would?) be my 70th birthday. But, while I have never doubted my significance, I really never expected this spectacular a sendoff.

It seems that the day in question is also the end of THE (A?) Mayan calendar. It seems that the Mayans knew all there was to know about calendars and dates so there must be something to this. (Hmmm – weren’t these the same people whose kings held ceremonies where, among other bizarre activities, they poked sharp things through their genitalia to promote blood letting? Weren’t these the same people who sacrificed (as in KILLED) members of the losing teams in their ball tournaments? Certainly a civilization of virtual Einsteins!)

At any rate, if this is true, I can’t say I am actually looking forward to it, birthday or not.
Read the rest of this entry »

In a number of past articles, I have been known to rail against the so-called “establishment” in a way that rather assumes that you readers automatically interpret the term exactly as I mean it. Of course, this may not be the case. So, I ask your further indulgence as I try to elaborate on the term, as I see it.

To begin with, I see a hierarchy of political influences that drive the thoughts and actions of the powerful, particularly, those we have given control of our government and its money machine. These are (most influential to least influential):

→ Position within the “establishment”,

→ Political party affiliation (Democrat, Republican, Other),

→ Economic philosophy (laissez-faire, socialist, etc.),

→ Sociopolitical philosophy (democracy, republic, monarchy, dictatorship, etc.).

In this context, I use the term “establishment” to mean that conglomeration of people and groups who are principally responsible for a governmental/economic system that operates the way it does for that simple reason that they directly benefit from it operating that way.

Historically, and for obvious reasons, an establishment will do whatever it can to maintain its power and position and will seek to destroy any person or thing that might threaten or even challenge that position.
Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been thinking… How many watched the one-on-one TEA Party debate, between Newt and Cain? To me, their good-natured discussion was a very enjoyable experience; and it struck me at the time that they would make a great ticket. It was cool the way they teased that very idea. When introduced, they posed for the cameras in the classic embrace, each with their free arm in the air, and Newt commented that someone had said they could be the ticket, they just hadn’t decided yet who was to be at the top. Then, at the end, Cain had the best line of the night, when he asked Newt what he would wish to tackle as his first project, if offered the VP position. Great theater. 

It occurs to me that they could take that show on the road immediately, and knock Romney out of the race early. What would happen if they announced a winner-take-all agreement, whereby they were offering themselves as a ticket, each agreeing ahead of time, to accept the VP nomination, if the other won the Primary. Then, they could campaign together as a team, by holding lots of similar Lincoln/Douglas debates that were more or less choreographed. The ostensible purpose being, to help the Primary voters to choose which one they wanted on the top of the ticket. I suspect the good-natured camaraderie between them on the Primary stumps, would be a real crowd pleaser.
 

Thoughts? Would such a move make you more or less likely to vote for either one of them? Would it put you off to the point where you would vote for Romney or Paul to stop them? Which one would you prefer on top? Why?  ◄Dave►