Thoughts Aloud

Archive for December, 2008

Joseph Farah’s New Year’s Message is one of the most optimistic I have seen:

Unlike many of you reading this column today, I am not fearful about the attacks on freedom that are surely coming this year and next, I see them as a necessary evil for a reawakening of the American public. Nothing short of what is coming could possibly get us back on track.

I’m not telling you to sit back and relax. I’m advising you to hunker down for battle. It’s not going to be easy. But there is an end in sight.

Here’s what I see coming in 2009:

• attacks on our most fundamental right to bear arms;
• attacks on our most fundamental right to free expression;
• attacks on our most fundamental property rights;
• attacks on our most fundamental system of free enterprise.

Socialism is coming to America – and it is coming like a speeding freight train.

But, if we play our cards right, none of the damage will be permanent – and it will soon be obvious to nearly all who was responsible for the misery it created.

We may be mourning for America for the next two years. But morning in America can be right around the corner.

As I have pointed out many times, we had to live through the Jimmy Carter years to get the Ronald Reagan years. There is no conceivable way Ronald Reagan gets elected president in 1980 without America experiencing the misery of the Carter years. It’s just that simple.

Likewise, the short-lived but memorable victory of Republicans in 1994 would not have been possible without the overreaching of Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1993 and 1994. The Republicans squandered that opportunity, but no one can deny the opportunity presented itself because of Clinton and the Democrats’ control of both houses of Congress.

He may be right; but that list of attacks on our “most fundamental…” is ominous and I think accurate. I’d say the tricky part of his optimism is the little qualifier, “…if we play our cards right…” That is a huge “if.” First, all available evidence suggests that once our government usurps a power that was not within it’s Constitutional purview, it is nigh on impossible to take it back. Time is not on our side, as the public schools are churning out more little socialists every year, and we capitalists are dying off at an equal rate.

Meanwhile, if we don’t somehow recapture the Republican Party from the twin altruistic forces of “neoconservative” Progressives on its Left, and Christian Fundamentalists on its Right, it is not going to be championing Reagan-like Individual Liberty when its turn in the sandbox comes again in 2012 or 2016. I don’t think Washingtonians are even capable of understanding why Sarah Palin was so popular. Left alone, they will just keep trying to pander to the domesticated minorities at their trough, and ignore the feral Patriots who increasingly won’t even bother to come out of the woods, to choose only between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. ◄Dave►

Here is a very interesting article, “Are Americans safe from U.S. mosques?” It describes a project by private citizens to map the level of Shariah Law adherence by the estimated 2,300 mosques in the US, as predictive of their threat to our security:

…The premise is that all streams and sects of Islam recognize a form of Shariah. His primary concern, for the purpose of assessing the threat to the U.S., is the mosque’s degree of adherence.

Of interest to most Americans, of course, is the threat of violent jihad. But Gaubatz notes there are two other forms of jihad at work in the U.S. to advance Islam, the pen and the tongue.

“We focus too much on why we haven’t had an attack since 2001 in the United States, because the pen and the tongue right now are winning here,” Gaubatz said. “Why would you go for number three, the physical jihad, if you’re already achieving goals one and two?

…Virtually all Islamic leaders in the U.S. have been particularly careful since the 9/11 attacks about what they say publicly, Gaubatz said. But many Shariah-compliant mosques and schools distribute materials supporting or calling for violent jihad. In a widely distributed DVD, for example, an Islamic scholar in the U.S., Ahmad Sakr, declares in a pre-2001 sermon, “Do not follow the laws of the U.S. Constitution, do not follow the congressmen and other U.S. leaders, they will all go to hell, follow Shariah law.”

After reading the whole article, it is amazing to me that Homeland Security is not doing this task themselves. Political Correctness is insidious, and will be one of the major factors responsible for hastening Jihadist Islam’s inevitable ultimate victory over Western Civilization.

If we are not permitted to name our enemy, and it is only polite to discourage their more violent tactics, what possible chance do we have for prevailing over their determination to subjugate us with their glorious dreams of a global Caliphate? We might as well go buy prayer rugs for our grandchildren. ◄Dave►

I have chaffed at the notion of “limited warfare” since Vietnam. I reckon that a people get the government they deserve, and I have no sympathy for the wives, children, and supporters of those who have declared war on me and mine. The current hand wringing over a few civilian casualties in Israel’s war with Hamas is nonsense. The Palestinians freely elected Hamas for their government, precisely because these terrorists vow to push Israel into the sea. Actions have consequences, and the sooner they learn of their foolishness, and are completely and utterly vanquished beyond all will to try it again, the sooner peace will become possible in Palestine.

Vanderleun has recycled a five-year-old memo he wrote for the Israelis to deliver to the Palestinians. Too bad they didn’t use it; but hopefully they are in the process of executing its intent, for they don’t seem to be paying the international community much heed:

We have, with your agreement and assurances of a better performance, given you time, money, professional help, medication and a more than reasonable offer of land for you to live in while you work out “your issues.” In the course of these meetings we feel we have been more than forthcoming in our attendance to your “special needs.”…

It has come to our attention, through a continuing rain of the body parts of our citizens onto our streets, that “your issues” do not seem to be resolvable through considered and mutually agreeable negotiations. The outcome of these ‘negotiations’ in the recent past seems to us to be one of we give and you take and then you kill us. We have decided that this is not a peace project that we wish to continue…

Bear in mind that we have not in recent memory over-reacted against your unremitting efforts to exterminate us. We have been patient and measured in our responses, cognizant of a watching world and not wanting to seem, even for a moment, to be as savage and violent as those who have been waging a coward’s war against us for decades. We have, at all points, been as honorable in war as possible — even when the wars in which we were engaged were not fought by honorable adversaries but by cowards and murderers…

Because we are weary of having our streets used as your martyr’s mausoleums, because we are extremely angered when we must place the shredded bodies of our children into body bags, because we would feel a lot better getting up in the morning if we knew we’d be coming home at night, we have decided we must, regretfully, engage in methods which will, finally, either get your attention or leave you without the capacity for attention in the first place…

Should you fail to do so and, as we stated above, even one more of our citizens should be killed by the cowardly methods you have perfected over the years, we will conclude that your entire society values martyrdom more than life and peace and will endeavor, to the utmost limits of our ability, to supply you with same.

Read the whole thing. It is masterful. ◄Dave►

I posted about Prof. Panarin’s prediction a month ago: “Russia Gets It!” Now there is a WSJ Article about it:

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario — for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

While the article makes it clear that a lot of people don’t take him seriously, his credentials and access to data are sobering. So is his map:

Divided States of America

I certainly don’t agree with his predicted territories, and I suspect Sarah Palin isn’t going to give up Alaska to Russia without a fight; but the notion of a breakup during the coming depression is sounding less nutty all the time. Another telling quote:

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia’s biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt “a pyramid scheme,” and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he wrote. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

A Ponzi scheme has never been saved by a miracle… ◄Dave►

Now, here is a thought provoking website: “Friends Of the Article V Convention” that I need to explore further.

Heretofore, I have gotten nervous every time I hear someone mention a Constitutional Convention, because I thought much mischief could be done to our basic rights by the Left, who would love to, for instance, abolish the Second Amendment.

These folks appear to be wishing to preserve and/or rekindle the original intent of the document, and reverse some of the perversions of it, which have put too much power in DC. I need to think more about this; but one blog entry is certainly provocative of such thought:

A Constitutional Convention should not be convened lightly, but these are not ordinary times thanks to the accumulating damage from a progression of power hungry presidents going back to Nixon. People are recognizing exactly this as a problem, and thus the volume of discussion on the desirability of “revolution”. Well, a Constitutional Convention can be revolutionary, and would represent revolution in its most peaceful and effective form.

If we want every luminary in the land involved in the discussion of where to take this nation (and, indeed, the world) from here, we need only structure our Convention in that manner. With this tool, our choices are infinite.

Nor should we fear it, because this is the ultimate in government of, by, and for the people. There is only a small segment of our population that is stupid enough to be worrisome during a process that would be the most closely watched of anything in our entire lives.

There is no higher body politic than “the people”. All else in government flows from that (the consent of the governed) and are mechanisms created solely for our convenience. Now, however, there is a consensus forming that the system, itself, is not functioning correctly. Is it malfunctioning because of a fault in the system, or because of something separate from the design of the system? Those are the kinds of issues that a wide ranging Constitutional Convention can hammer out. And we need fear no proposed changes because all proposals are subject to ratification.

Once, a very long time ago, the country invested the time, energy, money, and talent to hammer out a blueprint of a social contract, and created a glorious work product. Now, however, there are real questions about whether it still can and will take us where we want, as a nation, to go. Or is the question only that the journey has become vastly more complex, and we only need to try to reach another consensus on the destination that we want to strive for?

In any event, a Constitutional Convention provides the framework within which such an important and wide ranging national discussion can be held. We know what happens when we break into groups that talk past each other. A Constitutional Convention constitutes a forum where everyone in the country would listen to every idea and viewpoint because the publicity would tell them that this is the single most important thing that has happened in our nation since the last time that we all made the effort to talk and listen to each other.

It occurs to me that if I have already given up on there being any future for America; that our only recourse will soon be another revolution; or that it is time for secessionist movements to break it apart; then how much harm would be done by trying an Article V convention? Any thoughts? ◄Dave►

OK, I have been poking and tweaking the back end of this thing today. I have enabled gravatars now, so those with a global gravatar at WordPress.com or Gravatar.com et al ,should have it show up here on your comments. If you do not have one uploaded there, it generates a pattern that is unique for you. If you look at one of my comments, it will be obvious that I created my own gravatar and uploaded it as a picture file to the WordPress site.

I also enabled a spam checking plug-in that is supposed to catch most of the robotic spam. I made a test comment and it was just as fast as usual, so I hope it doesn’t slow down the commenting process appreciably. I will be more dilligent at looking in the moderation cue to make sure it didn’t trap a legitimate comment. ◄Dave►

In the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago was a sobering article entitled, “And now for a world government.”:

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

Susan Rice; John Podesta; Strobe Talbott; any of those names sound familiar? Elections have consequences, and those celebrating the coming era of “Hopenchange” have no earthly idea what they have wrought. ◄Dave►

The following is slightly adapted from a comment I made at the Secular Right blog today:

I find myself reluctantly reevaluating the value to me of participating here. It held such promise; yet I suppose I expected more political discourse, and a whole lot less theological debate. I really appreciate the quality of minds and discourse found here, both from the posters and the majority of commenters. This obviously speaks well of the moderators ability to consign moonbats’ comments to the bit bucket.

I enjoy the philosophical and psychological discussions; but not the theological wrangling that so many threads devolve into. I perceive an existential need for those of us pining for maximum individual Liberty, and the minimal government necessary to secure it as envisioned by our Founders, to free ourselves from the dogmatic battle between the Politically Correct forces on the Left, and the Piously Correct forces on the Right.

If our republic is truly meant to be secular, their competing moral codes have no relevance to good government. We make a huge mistake by allowing these two factions to frame the debate in elections for our representatives, with their litmus tests for conformance to their PC dogma. Their struggle is pointless to individuals with more enlightened moral codes of their own, which they have no desire to impose on others.

We need a Secular Party that rejects the imposition of any particular moral code on individuals. Since the game is rigged against third parties, it seems more practical to hijack one of the two major ones. The Democrat Party is currently held hostage by the Marxists, who invented labor strife, socialism, environmentalism, and Political Correctness. The Republican Party is currently held hostage by the fundamentalist Christians; but at least it prefers capitalism for an economic model, even if corporatism seems to be gaining the upper hand over liassez faire.

It thus seems more practical to target the Republican Party and throw its “faith based” religious leaders under the bus, so that all the true secularists on the Left, who are not PC Marxists or environmental wackos, could also feel at home among us. I posit that today we are the silent majority, and could get this country back on track if we just stopped legitimizing the moralists’ PC issues.

I suspect that most individual Christians would be happy to let go of their need to bring their Piously Correct morality into the public square of political debate, if they were assured that the Politically Correct camp couldn’t impose theirs on us all either. The opposite may also be true, although I am less convinced of it. In any case, I would like to see more practical discussions regarding how to reverse the trend toward statism evinced by the last couple of elections.

In the meantime, I will just have to learn to discipline myself not to waste time reading the likes of the comments above, and the rebuttals they attract. I am sure she is a nice lady, and she writes of her beliefs well; but I moved past the slightest interest in what Jesus or the bible says forty years ago, and I just don’t see their relevance to practical discussions among the Secular Right.

It may not be pleasant telling such people that their faith has no standing in our quest for good government, and I take no pleasure in offending them by doing so; but sooner or later we are going to have to, if we have any hope of saving our country from the trend toward a Marxist tyranny. The effectiveness of the messianic personality cult underlying Obama’s campaign was particularly disturbing. The faithful have become a decided hindrance to the cause of Liberty, even if they think they are trying to help. ◄Dave►

Then, in rebuttal to a reply from a member of the Religious Right, I said:

You cannot recover or sustain liberty without us.

I didn’t intend to. I made the point that most Christians would accept a secular government in DC, if they could get the ACLU off their backs in Peoria. The question is, what would it take to get the abortion or gay issue off the table? These morality issues are losers, for here the Religious Right is decidedly outnumbered. By forcing Republican candidates to take a public stand on them to get the nomination, other secularists are driven into the camp of the Progressives as perhaps their lesser of two evils.

Obama et al is permitted to claim to be a Christian and pro-choice/gay at the same time. Except in the North East, Republicans are not. The devout may take comfort in a President claiming to get on his knees and pray for guidance from his god; but there are a whole lot of folks that are made extremely nervous by such a notion.

They would prefer a President who took responsibility for his own actions and mistakes, rather than smugly resting assured that he was following his god’s will, and the noisy vox populi be damned. The Progressive Public School factories are churning out these Politically Correct voters, much faster than the churches are creating Piously Correct voters. Fundamentalists are losing the demographics game, and increasingly are just playing the role of spoilers.

I reckon that if there was only a Secular Party and a Progressive Party, most considering themselves among the Religious Right, would vote for the PC-neutral Secular candidate anyway. Perhaps as only the lesser of two evils; but the Secularists would get their votes by default, without any need to pander to them, which is what is inexorably killing the Republican Party.

There is plenty of common ground to be found in our shared wish to restore constitutional (limited) government and free enterprise.

Agreed. Help us devise a strategy for getting the PC morality debate off the table, and I will happily vote for you as Sarah Palin’s VP in ‘12. ◄Dave►

Bloggers are starting to post their life’s job history, and some of them are interesting. I first encountered it at American Digest, and traced the meme back to one called Stageleft:

The most interesting things about blogging is the bloggers. I’ve only ever met four of you out there in the real world, but in some ways I think of many of you as friends.

But I don’t know very much about anyone. And it’s been a long time since we had a new meme. So here’s one.

It’s simple. Just list all the jobs you’ve had in your life, in order. Don’t bust your brain: no durations or details are necessary, and feel free to omit anything that you feel might tend to incriminate you. I’m just curious. And when you’re done, tag another five bloggers you’re curious about.

Serendipitously, I mentioned in a comment just a couple of days ago that I have had a lot of interesting life experiences; but still hadn’t decided what I am going to be when I grow up. I’ll play. So far, I have tried:

• Lawn Mower
• Fishing Worm Breeder/Wholesaler
• Snow Shoveler
• Paper Boy
• Pig Farmer
• Pine Cone Gatherer
• Chicken Farmer
• Car Wash Attendant
• Farm Laborer
• Fruit Picker
• Almond Knocker (hardest job ever)
• Grease Monkey
• Grocery Box Boy
• Busboy
• Ice Cream Dipper (Thrifty Drugstore)
• Sales Clerk
• Radio/TV Repair
• Grocery Clerk
• U.S. Army Soldier
• Microwave Radio Repair
• Morse Code/RTTY Operator
• Waiter
• Bartender
• Bouncer
• Policeman
• Electronic Test Equipment Repair /Calibration
• Satellite Tracking Station Telemetry Technician
• Computer Engineer
• Computer Programmer
• Computer Designer
• Electrical Contractor
• Burglar Alarm Business (Seychelles Islands)
• Farm Manager (Rhodesia)
• 2-Way Radio Repair (Rhodesia)
• Quasi-mercenary (Rhodesia)
• Solar Energy Contractor
• Solar Collector Manufacturer
• Solar Collector Traveling Salesman
• Charter Boat Deckhand
• Commercial Fisherman (California)
• Newspaper Columnist
• Yacht Captain (Mexico)
• Tuna Boat Captain (Hawaii)
• Marine Electronics Business
• Fishing Magazine Columnist
• 2-Way Radio Business
• Cell Phone/Fax Machine Retailer
• PC Clone Manufacturer
• Computer Consultant
• FM Radio Station Engineer
• Cattle Rancher
• Retirement Care Facility for the Elderly
• Montessori Preschool
• Business Consultant
• Webmaster
• Ghost Writer

Many were entrepreneurial pursuits rather than jobs, so I just listed all the different ways in which I have earned money. I have lived in eight countries and sixteen States, so home is where my bunk is at any particular time. Several were repeated in new locales; but the list was already long enough, so I didn’t repeat the duplicates. I suspect I may have left a few out.

I tag all the other few bloggers who happen to read this. You know who you are, and I would be interested in reading your background. ◄Dave►

When I look at her aging face, it is scary that I remember when Caroline Kennedy was born. Now, after no other qualifications than having picked those famous parents, she thinks she she deserves to be a Senator. Much has been written about this, but none as well as Victor Davis Hansen’s take. It is a must read, and the E3Gazzette sets it up masterfully in “Send In The Clowns…” ◄Dave►