The Greater of Two Evils: My Closing Argument

First of all, my prayers and thoughts go out to Barack Obama, his sister, and their families in sympathy over the loss of their grandmother, Madeline Dunham, who succumbed to cancer earlier today. Be assured that my thoughts and prayers are sincere, for the loss of a family member who meant so much to her family--one to whom Sen. Obama refers as "a hidden hero--" is a terrible loss and very hard to take, especially at a time when one has to focus elsewhere.

I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.

Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.

The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived

"I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body"

When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.

Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:

Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?

Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?

During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?

Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"

Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?

The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.

All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.

The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.

Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.

Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.

And that is the truth.

What about me?

I earn less than $8.000 a year, love the music of the Grateful Dead, strongly believe prohibition is a waste of time, lives, and money, believe the IRS should be disbanded, and that Income Tax laws should be repealed. I fear Big Brother/Big Government, socialism, thieves, and con artists. I believe in, and have personally experienced the charity of the community and find that a much better alternative to Federal bureaucracy. I believe the strength of America comes from the individual, and I strongly believe that the Federal Government should be limited to its Constitutional restraints. I know that the economy can run itself much better than the government can. I detest Communists and Fascists. The thought of a Socialist Executive branch supported by a filibuster-proof Socialist Legislative branch literally has me scared to a near catatonic state.

I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.

What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.

Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?

In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.

The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.

The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.

The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.

Real Change

It is not surprising, but it is appalling that it seems that many Americans want the government to make them change their behavior. They complain about the high price of gasoline, and its effect on the economy, but they will cruise around on Friday night until the government tells them they can't.

They don't seem to understand that the reason gas prices are high is because, in spite of the prices, they keep buying gasoline. The best way to lower the price of gasoline, and the cost of living, would be to stop buying it. To complain about the chokehold Big Oil has on the economy, and to continue to buy excessively from Big Oil seems hypocritical.

It is understandable if a vehicle is necessary in one's work, or is necessary transportation to get to work, the grocery store, or even a bit of entertainment, that one would need to buy gasoline. But beyond that, it doesn't seem necessary to wait in line at Starbuck's or McDonalds with the engine running for twenty minutes when it would be cheaper to park the car, turn off the engine, and go inside. It doesn't seem necessary to drive up and down the main drag for half an hour while deciding where to eat or what show to watch, when plans could be made ahead of time.

As a frequent pedestrian, we see this kind of behavior constantly. The kind of behavior that tells us the economy must not be so bad after all, because people seem willing to pay the price no matter how high it gets.

The government can't change at this point. The folks on Capitol Hill know that if they give with one hand they have to take with the other. For instance, they can't outlaw buy only investments in oil futures, because that would upset the union pension plans, and most of our congresspersons depend on union support to stay in office. They know they can't suddenly press ethynol on the economy, because corn is used for many more things than fuel, and if corn were to reach $100 a bushel it would have a much more devestating effect on the economy than $100 a barrel oil.

Change needs to come from the individual. It needs to come from taking responsibility for one's actions, rather than expecting the government to fix things. The best we can expect from Washington DC, no matter who the next president is, is the same dance, different song.

The Oligarchy of the United States of America

Our country has trapped itself in a rut. For too long it has accepted a two party system as politics as usual, and politics as usual has achieved little but to create problems in the name of politics.
Politicians have a way of perceiving a problem and presenting it to the public, to make them believe there is a problem. They then explain how they would solve the problem they created, usually by throwing money at it. This creates the additional problem of how to obtain the money with which to throw at the problem. That means more taxes, fees, or laws which enable the government which these politicians control to confiscate property that it may sell for more revenue. No government at any level will ever have enough money to keep itself growing in power and influence.
This is politics as usual under the two party system. Both parties have one thing in common--the belief that government should be operated from the top down, and that the general public and those who conduct commerce, should be controlled by that government. Both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that the Federal Government exists for the good of the people, and that the government will decide what is good for the people.
This has created an oligarchy--a government of the many ruled by the few. This is a far cry from the intent of the Constitution, that set up a Republic in which individual rights were not to be governed by laws that were outside the constitutionally established rights of the government. The Rule of Law, as applied by the Constitution meant that the weak would be protected from the strong, and that the individual right to person and property would be protected from trespass by others. The role of the Federal Government was basically to solve disputes in commerce between the states, and to protect the sovereignty of the United States and of each individual state. State law had precedence over Federal law, as the smaller government of the state was more able to meet the needs of its people. This was because each state was divided into representative districts, representing communities or small groups of small communities, comprised of individuals who would elect the person they felt would best represent them in the state assembly or legislature.
Each state's assembly or legislature would elect two senators to the Senate House of Congress of the United States, while Representatives to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States--the number of which depend on the population of the state, determining the number of federal districts--were elected by the voters in each district.
The President was elected by the voters in each state. Electors, also numbered according to population, would cast the actual ballot for the winner of the election in each state. This was done to offset a popular national vote that would give no voice to the states smaller in population.
This was by no means a "democracy" where each person gets one vote in all matters. Democracy's tend to destroy themselves, because there is no rule of law to protect the minorities, or to provide the system of checks and balances of a republic.
That is the basic idea of what we have for a government in the United States, but the major parties, the Democratic and the Republican, have hijacked this system to the point where they decide who the candidates for the Senate, the House, and the Presidency should be. They decide what issues are important to the voter, and what issues their party will represent, which usually has little relationship to what the voter thinks is important.
As we have seen in the current Congress, the members of each party represent the beliefs of their party rather than the beliefs of the individuals who elected them. That is to say, even if a representative drafts a bill that would benefit those who elected that person to office, and the person is a member of one party, the members of the other party would automatically strive to block it because it is contrary to the position of their party.
If one party thinks that commerce is important to the strength of the Republic, and the well being of the people, the other party will automatically oppose commerce. A very good illustration of this could be seen in a recent Democratic party debate, where one presidential nomination candidate criticised another candidate for being associated with Wal-Mart, thus identifying her as being in league with the opposing Republican Party. Why is this a bad thing? Don't the Democratic Party politicians believe in helping the poor? Hasn't Wal-Mart given hundreds of thousands of jobs to people who lived where there were no jobs for them? Hasn't Wal-Mart made goods available to people who could normally not afford those goods?
But that is wrong, according to the Democrats, because it is an individual corporation that is helping the poor, and the Democratic candidates should be against individual corporations because the Republicans support individual corporations. The Democratic candidates believe that helping the poor is a role that the Federal Government should be involved in.
The major parties have created two large voting blocks in which there is no gray area, only black and white. They strive to represent us by controlling how we behave in everything from what we eat to who we sleep with. Each block has it's own ideas of how and where to exert this control, but the bottom line is that they represent those ideas. We are being ruled by a few elitists who call themselves politicians, but they represent the political party to which they belong, not the views of those who elected them. If the voter doesn't agree with those views, they will tell the voter what they think he or she needs to know. The political parties can't control what we do unless they control what we think, so they make sure they tell us what to think. Whatever happened to the Republic?
It has been replaced by the Oligarchy,

Random rants about random Presidential candidates

I have an extreme distaste for trial lawyers. It was trial lawyers who robbed me of a very good career in electronics and the retirement benefits that went with it, for something that happened sixty years ago at the bequest of the government, and for which nobody who worked for that company, or administered it at the time I worked there, had any blame or responsibility. Trial lawyers are all about greed, and personal gain, often taking up to 60% of the jury awards for themselves. They have no conscious when it comes to taking jobs away from people and causing them to suffer as much as their clients.
John Edwards is one of these trial lawyers, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the victims of his lawsuits. He has made it clear that, if he would become President, he would continue to rob people of his jobs by attacking "Corporate America" with more taxes and regulations. He has made a personal precedent to put corporations out of business, and to help make the middle class as dependent on the Federal government as are many of the poor.
As a Libertarian, I think it is laudable that Ron Paul has exposed the public to Libertarian answers to social and economic issues, and has received an overwhelming positive reaction to such. However as far as foreign policy is concerned, Dr.Paul is either naive or totally ignorant. For one thing, he has said that it is "ridiculous that America would be attacked because we are too rich or too free." I agree with that statement, such a thought isn't only ridiculous, but is outright propaganda promulgated by the extreme left to make their "hate America first" point. What Paul is missing, when he addresses the war on terror this way, is that the fanatics who would attack America are not attacking us because we are too rich or too free, but because the majority of Americans and Europeans worship God on Saturdays and Sundays. These religious fanatics, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Ladin, have convinced their followers that in order for the Seventh Imam, the Islamic Messiah, to come to earth, that the earth must be cleansed of infidels, that is those who do not follow Sharia Law the way it is interpreted by the Wahadi school of thought. Ignoring this threat, or pulling out of the Middle East, as Dr. Paul suggests we do, will allow these extremists to gain power, possibly taking control of an entire nation in which they can expand their resources. Isolationism, Ron Paul's foreign policy, will not make them or their jihad go away.
A question I would like to ask Dr. Paul, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, is based on the following scenario, which is a legitimate projection considering the situation in the Middle East:
If the United States leaves a weakened government in Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign powers will find it in their interest to support and step up insurgency in that country. Eventually, Iran will invade Iraq with Iraq's oil resources as its goal, and Saudi Arabia will join in battle against Iran. The Straits of Hormuz will undoubtably be closed, and there will be no Middle Eastern oil exported anywhere. To the above mentioned candidates, I ask:
"With practical energy alternatives twenty or thirty years down the road, with restrictions on domestic oil exploration and drilling, how do you propose to get groceries on the shelves of the markets with the severe oil shortage caused by the inevitable world war in the Middle East, and how will you respond to the wrath of the rest of the world putting the blame on America for creating the situation."
I will bet that they would not even be able to answer the question.

Future Pundit?

With over 9 million hits, I know just about everybody has seen this, but here it is again:

Please click here, if you can't view the video.

A couple of days ago, there was a pundit on one of the news channels, either FNC or CNN--I apologize for not remembering his name--who was discussing Michael Vick's guilty plea. He tried desparately to tie Vick's problems to the policies of the Bush Administration, saying, "Bad apples are falling from the trees, and that wouldn't be happening if our freedoms weren't so restricted by the (Iraq) war and the Patriot Act."
Huh?
I'm sure if the gentleman had had more air time, he would have attempted to blame Bush for Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears as well.
Yet this type of illogic seems to be very common nowadays, with people jumping to conclusions that no rational mind could reach.
The Democratic Party is probably planning, at this moment, to run Miss Teen South Carolina for Congress in 2010. If she doesn't get elected, she will be in high demand as a political "expert." It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Censorship advocates go too far

This has been going around for a few days, and every time I read or hear about it, it arouses my ire. There is a subculture in government, and among those who influence the government, that believes that the general populace cannot control its lust. So you have people, perverts really, who have nothing better to do than spend their time finding reason to restrict what we can watch or hear on television or radio. In other words, in the name of censorship, they dig deep to find "offensive material," and find such material that no "normal" person would notice. They then complain about it to the authorities, the sponsors, the public, and the broadcasters, in hopes of creating more restrictions of what is available to the public in the form of arts and entertainment.
AP Photo
Prince presented an outstanding performance for the Super Bowl half time show, fitting more music into eight minutes than any other musician has in that venue. The aforementioned perverts made a big deal of the silhouette projected during the show, claiming that it displayed a phallic symbol. In my view, all I saw was the shadow of a guy playing guitar, but so what if it was meant to be sexual symbolism? Rock 'n' Roll is all about sexual symbolism. Does that mean that it should be banned from television?
We are human beings who claim to be the highest intelligence on Earth, and that intelligence is enough to allow us to choose what we see and hear. If we don't like it, we don't have to watch or listen to it. We can always change the channel. For instance, I choose not to watch porno movies. Does that mean I think nobody should watch porno? Of course not--it is a matter of personal choice, not public debate. We don't need anybody telling us what we should and what we should not watch, and there is no reasonable argument for censorship.
To those who think otherwise, I say censor your own damn self, and we’ll censor our own damn selves when necessary.

I Can't Respect Them, Because....

It's really rather funny, but the laugh is on us. It must be true that politicians think we're stupid, and they are making it pretty clear. The Congressional candidates who stood for surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan did not get elected. Ned Lamont, the Democratic Senatorial candidate from Connecticutt, ran on the platform that the US should withdraw its troops immediately. He was defeated by Senator Joseph Leiberman, who believes that the US should not leave until the Iraqi government is capable of providing security for its own country.
Patricia Mckinney, the Georgia Congresswoman who ran not only on the platform of surrender, but on impeachment of the President, didn't even make it past the primaries. Congressman Murtha, who has made his pro-surrender stance clear, ran for House Majority Leader, and was voted down by his Congressional peers in favor of Congressman Hoyer, who is against immediate withdrawal.
Now Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House elect, along with New York Congressman Charles Rangel, seem to be in denial that Abu Ayyou al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has recently claimed to have 16,000 armed troops in that country. They keep speaking of insurgents, without mentioning that there is a sworn enemy of the non-Muslim world with an active fighting force in Iraq. Pelosi, Rangel and others must be hoping that either we didn't hear or that we forgot about al-Masri's statements. They think we're stupid.
Nobody is saying "stay the course," in the sense that we keep doing what we have been doing. We all know that a change in tactics is necessary in Iraq in order for us to be able to withdraw from that country without surrendering to al Qaeda. Most Americans, over seventy percent in some national polls, know what a disaster it would be to leave an unstable Iraq behind. We know that another country in which al Qaeda could gain strength and develop weapons would lead to an even more dangerous war upon our own shores. We know that a failed government in Iraq would leave that country as a deadly battlefield for other countries in the Middle East. We know that anything we do that looks like surrender to the enemy will only strengthen the propaganda value and the incentive of that enemy. The leadership-elect of the new Congressional majority sees the last election as a mandate to withdraw immediately from Iraq--they are either ignoring the information that most of us know, or they think we're stupid.
General Abezaid, the commander of US forces in Iraq has called for more troops, but not to try to fight the insurgents and terrorist forces in that country, but to step up the training of the Iraqi forces. This is a good idea, if we provide the Iraqi security forces with more equipment and better weapons as well, and would hasten our departure from Iraq, without surrender. But there doesn't seem to be any dialogue along these lines among those who will constitute the new leadership in Congress. Their elitist attitude leads them to believe that they know more about military operations than the officers who are conducting the operations do. They think we're stupid.

Uh, What? Oh, It's the SSPRC!

Let's take a trip to The Soviet Socialist People's Republic of California, and take a look at what's on the ballot there. Hmmmm. Proposition 87. Its proponents say that by charging energy companies to drill for oil in that state, the state gets money to give to alternative energy research. It will, they say, help Americans wean themselves from foreign oil. They claim that the issue, if passed by the proletariat and elected by legislature, would prevent Big Oil from passing the added costs of drilling in California to the consumer.
Let's ask some theoretical and rhetorical questions here. If, suddenly, there was absolutely no oil or petroleum fuel available, would we be prepared to have ways to transport goods and services, to get to the market, our jobs, and schools? The intent of the proposition 87 is sincere in that it would encourage the use of alternative energy, but is enough available to immediately replace the use of fossil fuels? Can we all afford to ride bicycles to work, drive solar powered, hybrid, or hydrogen cell automobiles, and are enough of these available to everybody? Are engine components that can withstand the high temperatures and non-lubricating characteristics of ethanol thoroughly tested and readily available to the general public?
My reason for posing these questions is simply that proposition 87 has the potential to stop oil production in California. It is a thinly veiled attack on the perceived enemy of the proletariat, Big Oil. Oil companies earn an average of nine cents to every consumer dollar, far less than the profit margin of dairy companies or coffee producers. There is no point in running a business unless a profit can be made. It is a fact of life.
Proposition 87 would make oil production unprofitable in California, and would result in loss of jobs, and diminish the cash flow in the economy. It is, in reality, a punitive tax, which would result in drastically higher fuel costs throughout the United States, bringing about drastically higher inflation rates. But, no matter, we can just blame all that on Bush and the Republicans, no matter what the cause, right?
To be sure, reduced reliance on foreign oil is a very worthy goal to work toward, as is speeding up research on alternative fuels and alternative energy sources. But, as those resources are not immediately available, proposition 87 would actually increase the demand for foreign oil. That means more money for Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I suppose the proletariat would blame that on Bush, as well.
In truth, what Prop 89 proposes is that billions of dollars be taken out of the economy, used to hire bureaucrats--read those who contributed to certain legislative and administrative campaigns--to "administer" the taxpayers' contribution to alternative energy research, then return the twenty- or thirty-thousand dollars that is left over back to the economy, to be used for such research. That is the way Big Government works.
In consensus reality--as opposed to California reality--funds from the private sector and free trade commerce more efficiently provide energy research companies with more capital that can be used for actual research.
Why not, instead, offer tax incentives to the energy companies to spend more research money on alternative resources? That is where the money is going to be in what is, ideally, the near future. The oil companies will eventually have to switch to producing alternative energy, anyway, so why not give them incentive to begin research now? That is, after all, what the executives get the big bucks for anyway, isn't it?
Libertarian philosophy does not tolerate government meddling in the affairs of private enterprise, but, as long as Big Government is going to hold your hand while you cross the street, why not charge Starbucks a fee for opening drive up windows? Why not use revenues from public parking and toll roads for energy research, and development of alternative energy resources? Why can't we figure out ways to reduce the demand for gasoline and fossil fuels? This makes more sense than destroying the economy in the name of conservation.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and Proposition 87 will be defeated in the polls, but then, common sense and California aren't exactly best of friends, are they?

Correction--Note to Self: The name of the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon is Nasrallah, not Rasmallah. Writing from memory is not always the best way to check facts. Apologies to my readers.