Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Getting back to the subject of your “Unable to Cope” post, Troy, another thought it engendered was the problem of expecting others to think like we do. Remember when we got tangled up with that freethinker forum, where we first met? Expecting it to be a place where ideas were freely discussed, we were somewhat taken aback to find it dominated by ACLU type atheist activists, who were as rigidly dogmatic as the Christian fundamentalists about which they obsessed.
To your credit, you were the first to flee those stultifying groupthink environs in horror. Several more of us soon followed, and we created a new forum, which we called 'Reasonable Rationals' (as opposed to 'Atheist Activists'), where we thoroughly enjoyed daily kicking around interesting ideas for over a year.
As an exercise in comity, early on we explored David Keirsey's work on innate temperament differences, derived from Jungian personality types, identified by Meyers-Briggs type personality tests. He describes the four basic temperaments, out of the 16 possible Jungian combinations, which are not evenly distributed in the population. He briefly explains them here, and then elaborates a bit on each:
'SJ' Guardians 40 – 45%
'SP' Artisans 30 – 35%
'NF' Idealists 15 – 20%
'NT' Rationals 5 – 10%
From FOX News:
Paula Broadwell apologizes for Petraeus affair
The biographer whose extramarital affair with then-CIA director David Petraeus triggered his resignation says she regrets the relationship.
What is with all this apologizing? The Obamanation has apologized to almost everyone on Earth for America’s very existence. A steady stream of celebrities are constantly apologizing for DUI and abusive behavior (which most then go on to repeat over and over). Criminals apologize for heinous crimes as if that will make some difference to their victims. And so on until I could vomit.
Certainly there is a time and place for a sincere apology for certain acts. For instance, Petraeus and Broadwell may well owe some form of apology to their families or to others who were directly affected by whatever they did. However, whatever intimate relations they may have had with each other were not my business, did not involve me and, in a sane world, did not affect me one way or the other. So, how can I possibly be due an apology from either of them? I just don’t get it.
As for the celebrities, most of what they apologize for were criminal acts that would result in serious punishment if done by you or me. And, in most cases the obvious insincerity of the apologies make them more like insults.
Whether your average criminal’s apologies make any difference to the victims and their families, I simply do not know. I have no doubt that most of them are genuinely sorry but I suspect this sorrow is more from getting caught that from whatever illegal act they were caught at.
Then there is that repeated Obamanation world apology tour. Yes, we use a large percentage of the world’s energy resources. Yes, in the past we lived better than much of the world. We have also expended endless blood and treasure fighting on behalf of others and are almost always first on the scene with assistance when tragedy strikes other nations. We are what we are and most of us are proud of it. If the Obamanation is not, he should move to one of those third world crap pots he seems so enamored of. Or at least quit insulting the people who have bestowed the highest position in the world upon him (for reasons that escape me).
I feel so much better having said all this. If, in the process of venting, I have managed to offend any of you, rest assured that I offer you no apology whatever.
Troy L Robinson
I often write articles predicting the end of the United States of America. I realize that, taken in the wrong context, this sounds a bit extreme. Therefore this attempt to give the intended context.
First, if asked whether the physical entity the United States of America is going to disappear from our maps in the foreseeable future, my response would be no. Then, you may well ask, why all the predictions of doom and gloom? This requires a far more detailed explanation.
Read the rest of this entry »
The detailed investigation held post 9/11 clearly indicated that the information needed to prevent that attack was in hand. The problem, we were told, was that the appropriate government agencies “failed to connect the dots”.
Now, just a few days after the Boston Marathon bombing, initial investigations suggest that the information needed to prevent the bombing was in hand. The problem, we are again being told, was that the appropriate government agencies “failed to connect the dots”.
Indeed, reviewing want we think we know today, the only time the information “dots” seem to have been accurately “connected” was with those supposed “near misses” which, on deeper investigation, seem usually to have been orchestrated (and financed) by government agencies – particularly by the FBI.
For sure, there is a secondary problem at work here and that is that the various government agencies refuse to cooperate and communicate effectively. This is true, and will always be true, of political agencies led by people whose first priority is to perpetuate their agency, its prerogatives, and, most especially, its funding.
From all of this, I have reached several (to me) obvious conclusions:
Read the rest of this entry »
You are right, of course, Troy; but I am not so sure a war on 'us' is such a bad idea. 'I' for one, am sick and tired of 'us' and all of the perpetual wars, real and phony, used to keep American sheeple bunched up in collective herds, bleating for wise and kindly shepherds to protect them from rumored wolves.
Without an external enemy, there would be no need of a Federal government. Without natural enemies, they have to create them to justify their existence. Without a Federal government, there would be very little use for competing State governments.
The only reason folks in Texas give a damn about how the folks in New York organize their lives, and visa versa, is our predisposition to consider each other fellow Americans. That, and the propensity of each, to desire the establishment of their own societal preferences, as universal for all Americans.
After a 45 minute wait in the security line at the Miami airport, I once again realized that the terrorists in the so-called “war on terror” have won this phoney war.
Our “leaders” seem to have no idea what terrorism is really all about. They act as though this is a traditional form of war with pitched battles and conquest of territory rather than a technique intended to cause the targeted society to lose faith in its institutions, in its culture, indeed, in every aspect of its existence.
Clearly, this has worked. Why else would a once free people willingly surrender a major part of its traditional and constitutional liberty in exchange for a phoney “security” system that treats them like a bunch of criminals who simply have not yet been caught in the act?
Or, could it be that our government has itself become the primary threat to our liberty rather than the so-called “terrorists”? Do you consider this an irresponsible or misleading question? Read the rest of this entry »
I just stumbled across an incredibly lucid post, by the ‘Administrator’ of a blog I had never heard of called, “The Burning Platform,” which I look forward to perusing further. It is simply entitled, “Available,” and I would implore anyone with the slightest interest in (and ability to handle) the stark truth, regarding the condition and future of our economy, to read it. Although lengthy and chock full of facts, figures, and charts, it is easy reading, and anything but boring. The author (I couldn’t find his name) uses some quotes that are keepers, starting the article with:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley
He then proceeds to offer them in abundance, during his sobering analysis. Along the way, he injects another keeper:
The mainstream corporate media that is dominated by six mega-corporations (Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Comcast, Viacom, and Bertelsmann), has one purpose as described by the master of propaganda – Edward Bernays:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
More hard cold facts and cogent analysis follow, leading to his closing quote, by one of my favorite sages:
According to recent news, the DHS (Department of Homeland Subjugation) is planning to extend ”trusted Traveler” status to Saudi Arabians.
No, I am not joking. Agents from an extremist nation that funds international Islamic terrorism, that supplied 15 of the 19 terrorists who planned and executed the massive attack on September 11, 2001, will soon be allowed to put their citizens on a “fast track” for entering the United States.
Per the cited report: ”Foreign nationals enrolled in the program can enter the country with almost no effort. When they arrive at an international airport, so long as they provide a passport and fingerprints, they can bypass customs entirely.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Much is made in conservative political discussions, of our inalienable natural rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. The right to Property is central to our conflict with the Politically Correct altruists on the Left, over their egalitarian ‘social justice’ agenda. They claim the moral authority to employ coercive government agents, to confiscate what they regard as ‘excessive’ earnings of producers, for redistribution among their celebrated victim class mooches. The right to Life, of course, underpins and defines the anti-abortion issue, central to the Piously Correct altruists on the Right. They regard the unborn as the more compelling class of victimhood, and claim the moral authority to employ coercive government agents, to compel a woman to give birth to an unwanted child.
Yet, in the strident Left/Right culture war raging across our land, one finds little discussion of our natural right to Liberty. Is this because few among these authoritarian-minded combatants understand what Liberty actually means, or because it so fundamentally conflicts with their political agendas? Either way, they effectively reject the premise that Liberty is an inalienable natural right, common sense and our Founders assertion notwithstanding. One cannot coherently, at the same time champion Liberty, and advocate employing the coercive powers of government, to regulate the wealth OR social mores of its individual citizens.
Liberty is essentially the antithesis of coercive government. To our arguably libertarian Founders, the primary purpose of our experiment with self-government, was to defend the natural rights of free sovereign individuals, from the threat of tyranny of any sort. They dismissed as incompatible with their thesis of individual sovereignty, any statist form of government lacking the consent of the governed. Not just despotic monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, et al, failed that test; they also specifically rejected the tyranny of what they called ‘mob rule’ democracy. Read the rest of this entry »
For the first time in months, I am encouraged by something that happened in our Capital. Whatever your opinion of the drone program, the filibuster is having the effect of making various politicians show their true colors. I was very heartened to see that other Senators and a few Congressmen openly supported Senator Paul, some going so far as to help with the filibuster. I am especially proud of our newest Texas Senator, Ted Cruz. Electing him was the best thing we have done in years.
On the other side, John McCain and Lindsay Graham in particular have shown us that they have been in the Senate far too long. Their net opinion seems to be that it is an outrage for anyone, especially an elected official, to stand in the way of increased government power and its concentration in the Executive branch. As prime examples of the GOP “establishment”, they have also shown us how rotten said establishment is – to its very core. The establishment’s only “cause” is its own continued power and position. Any service or benefit to the nation and its citizens is purely coincidental.
Predictably, most of the Lame-Stream Media are condemning Senator Paul and his helpers just as they condemn anyone who dares question the Obamanation and his quest to destroy the United States of. America. And, equally predictably, most of that condemnation comes in the form of ridicule and attempts to trivialize.
Read the rest of this entry »
Jim Geraghty, over at National Review, makes a powerful argument in a piece entitled, “The Demonization of the Iraq War Ensures No Syria Intervention,” which deserves international attention:
No, World, We’re Never Going to Militarily Intervene in Syria.
Everybody knows we’re not going to intervene in Syria, right?
Part of this is because we have Obama as president, part of this is because Americans consumed with our own domestic issues right now — a consistently floundering economy, immigration — but mostly it’s because of Iraq.
Dear world . . . do you remember how you greeted the invasion of Iraq?
The invasion of Iraq was treated as the greatest crime against humanity in the history of the world, denounced far more frequently and loudly than any act by Saddam Hussein, Bashir Assad, the Iranian regime, or North Korea.
Giant protests in lots of American cities. Giant protests in every foreign capital. The 2004 Guinness Book of Records described the anti-war movement around the globe as the largest mass protest movement in history — eclipsing any popular opposition to any act of the Soviet Union or any other totalitarian regime around the globe, ever. Among the elites in Paris, Berlin, and most corners of London, the Iraq War was the single-most important issue, and denouncing the evil of George W. Bush was the most important goal, not building a stable and peaceful Iraq. You recall Kofi Annan denouncing it, and the United Nations delegates scoffing when Hugo Chavez called our president the devil. Read the rest of this entry »
As I have made clear in several past articles, I have no doubt whatever that we are headed directly into a socialist dictatorship. Sadly, a majority of those of us who bother to vote do not seem very bothered by the prospect. In fact, many, including academia and the mainstream media seem to welcome it. As to how allegedly intelligent people could welcome such a thing, I haven’t a sure answer. My guess is that they suppose that THEY will be among the chosen elite who are allowed to make decisions for the rest of us. I further guess that the less intelligent see dictatorship as some manner of extended childhood where they are forever relieved from taking responsibility for anything other than the pursuit of pleasure.
I have also opined in those past articles that the declaration of martial law will be our signal that the dictatorship in firmly in place.
Lately, as a result of numerous conversations, articles and books read, etc., it occurs to me that many people think that the declaration of martial law will signal the beginning of the implementation of dictatorship rather than signaling its completion. Therefore, that the declaration of martial law will be their signal to start defensive actions.
My friends, I wish there were adequate words to express to you have tragic a mistake such thinking is. The signal to start defensive actions has long since come. Indeed, at this point in the process, it may well be far too late to do anything effective to prevent total dictatorship.
Read the rest of this entry »
There is no doubt that the recent spate of irrational shootings has scared many Americans. Some of them to the point where they are willing to forfeit their Second Amendment rights to an administration dedicated to the disarming (and subjugation) of our citizens.
I have written other articles in support of the Second Amendment, why the Founders included it in our Constitution (as a safeguard against a government that turns on its citizens) and why gun ownership, in and of itself, is not the cause of the irrational conduct we see around us. All I said then is still true.
However, there is another dimension to all this that needs also to be discussed. That is “how safe can we really be?”
At one level we all realize that all life carries with it an inevitable death sentence (whether or not we want to think about it). Naturally, most of us want to delay the inevitable as long as possible. Equally naturally, none of us wishes to be injured or disabled. That said, I ask again, how safe can we really be? It does not take much thinking to realize that life is actually quite precarious. Indeed, it amazes me that I have lived as long as I have, considering the way I have conducted my life – and, I will guess that many of you feel much the same.
It is also only natural that we wish to live in a circumstance where we can go about the daily activities of our lives without constantly looking over our shoulders – with a feeling of relative safety and security. And, for most of of the time, that is true. The odds that any one of us (or our families) will be the victims of violence are actually quite small, are slowly growing smaller, and, for the most part, have nothing whatsoever to do with firearms misuse. Indeed, if you are killed or maimed in an act of violence in America, the odds are much greater that the weapon used was an automobile rather than a firearm.
Read the rest of this entry »
With a single-party political system, there are no meaningful challenges, even to the most insane or inane legislation. Yet, that is what we now have in the United States.
It is long past time for us to get past the LIE that we have a two-party system – a LIE the duopoly party maintains as part of its plan to keep itself in perpetual power. How do I know so sure that we do not have a two-party system like our phoney “legislators” suggest? Simple. In a two-party system, there is meaningful opposition between the parties. And, the debates spurred by that opposition help inform the people as to what their legislators are really up to (or down to as the case may be).
We are just coming off what our “legislators” assure us was a major threat to our economy – the so-called “fiscal cliff”. I counter that this so-called major threat was in fact more of a threat to the “legislators” than to the economy in that it would have thrown a large wrench into their spending plans. A “crisis” in which there was NO meaningful opposition.
Read the rest of this entry »
President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013. “I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it,” said Obama in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”
More at: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274881-obama-hopes-to-enact-new-gun-control-measures-in-2013
So – the move toward total dictatorship is about to begin, just as we knew it would if the Obamanation got re-elected.
Of course, the proposed actions have nothing whatever to do with Sandy Hook. Instead, it is about voiding the 2nd amendment, the only real barrier between the progressives and the one-world dictatorship they have lusted after for so long.
If you can put aside the tragic parts, some of what would happen under the dictatorship would actually be amusing. For instance, do the traitors in academia and in the main-stream-media really think their new masters will reward them for their “service”? Not a chance. All prior history tells us that the traitors will be the first to go. After all, if they sold out their own nation and their own people, how could they possibly be trusted by the new regime? Yet, traitors, being actually idiots disguised as ideologues, never seem to figure that part out.
Back to the coming push for gun control. Might it be wise to stock up on the totally legal, easily accessible parts for constructing IEDs then (seemingly) willingly give up all of our registered/traceable guns when the goon squads drop by? I figure a realistic resistance would be far more effective if focused on the crippling of infrastructure rather than shooting a few goons, goons being far easier to replace than infrastructure. Besides, infrastructure does not usually shoot back.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
I have long been convinced that the founding of America was a sort of miracle. Not in the sense of magic or some manner of mystical intervention, but in the sense of what had to happen to allow and cause that founding.
Now that the Republic that was founded is likely coming to an end, it seems only proper to reflect on the why and the how of both the beginning and of the end.
For sure, the establishment of our Constitution seems a sort of miracle in itself and I revere the document and all it stands for. Yet, that Constitution is actually a result of the true miracle and not the miracle itself.
So, what then is this “true” miracle that I refer to? It is simply that fact that a particular group of people occurred at the same place, at the same time, and with a common goal that they were willing to risk everything for. I refer, of course, to the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, George Washington and a host of supporting players. Truly, what are the odds that such a group would coalesce just when and were they were needed? How seldom has such a thing happened in the known history of mankind (if ever)? And, please note that we-the-people did not chose our Founders. They simply occurred, hence the “miracle”.
We Americans are prone to say that we are “a nation of laws, not of men”. While I admire the sentiment intended by this, it is not now and was never actually true. The “laws” in question were the work of men (men meaning humans). They are obeyed (or not), are enforced (or not) by men. And, they have been slowly but surely destroyed by men – through a process of neglect combined with intent.
Read the rest of this entry »
…for Re-founding the Original American Republic
Incumbrepublocrats: n. The sham duopoly of incumbent ruling elites, tricking complaisant sheeple into believing they need frequent sheering for the welfare of the herd, and have a choice of shepherds promising, yet never quite providing, eternally green pastures in wolf-free zones. See: Incumbrepublocrats
Those of us who are political junkies, and/or passionate about an issue or ideology, tend to lament so-called voter apathy and how uninterested so many of our neighbors seem to be, about political matters we regard as critically important to the future of our country. These sheeple are content to blithely follow any glib demagoging bellwether, and foolishly trust their shepherds to keep them in clover. While we spend an inordinate amount of time and effort attempting to awaken them from their indifference, they cavort blissfully through much simpler lives, oblivious to any good reason to allow political squabbling to complicate them.
Perhaps we should be noticing what so many of them do, which enables them to tune out obsessive political debate. It seems to matter not how actively engaged we become; our prodigious efforts rarely make much difference in the end. The inexorable slide into the pits of tyranny is continuously advanced by ambitious oligarchs, in both wings of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. For the most part, after a busy year of selecting, campaigning hard for, and even electing worthy candidates promising reform, little actually changes in Sodom by the Potomac. Alas, power corrupts… rather quickly, and nearly always.
Whomever we might vote for, the entrenched bureaucracy effectively wins every election. Perhaps we should rethink the Civil Service system, which was supposed to be an improvement over the ‘Spoils System,’ of patronage jobs for government servants. At least before, we could throw ALL the rascals out with a change election. Now, this unelected, under-worked, and grossly overpaid cabal of bureaucratic busybodies merrily carries on, growing their budget and micromanaging our daily lives. Once again, they bemusedly watch our freshly elected reformers being schooled by the old Pro’s, in the art of maintaining incumbency – job one for a career-minded Incumbrepublocrat.
I haven't thought this through nearly enough, as it only just popped into my head while reading a comment to a post about reforming the Federal Income Tax, so I decided to blog it so we can kick the idea around a bit. It just might be an elegant solution to funding a properly limited Federal government. A basic truth is that taxes are often more about control than revenue. To encourage behavior, governments subsidize it; to discourage something, they tax it. Punitively taxing income and savings is counterproductive to a free market economy; if anything we should be taxing consumption. This is why I have long been an advocate of the Fair Tax; but even that is convoluted and messy in its implementation.
I would like to do away with the IRS, or at least its interface with individual citizens in any way. How much income we have, how we earn it, and how we choose to spend it, is none of the Federal government's business. What if we were to fund it entirely with excise taxes instead of income taxes? What if banks and all other financial institutions that provided banking services, were charged a small excise fee as a percentage of every transaction on the debit side of their ledger, and permit them to pass that cost on to their customers as a transaction fee? That way, depositing earnings and other income from whatever source would not be taxed. Only the act of withdrawing funds, one way or another, to spend them for whatever purpose, would be effectively taxed. No exceptions or deductions would be necessary or desired.