American Soldier Kills 16 Afghan Civilians - Who's To Blame?

There has been much ado made in the media about an American soldier killing 16 Afghan civilians during a one man night assault on two Afghan villages. The Afghan people are rightfully outraged by this unwarranted and (apparently) unsanctioned attack. Unsurprisingly, there have been calls from al Quaida for all kinds of reprisals against the U.S. and allied military forces - specifically beheadings. My question is: "Whose head should roll?"

The soldier - on his fourth tour in the giant litter box of the middle-east - reportedly had "suffered traumatic head injuries" during a previous tour. I suggest that he is as much a "victim" of this ridiculously prolonged conflict as were the Afghanis he killed. Four tours in a combat zone is at least two too many, and most likely three too many. If a soldier survives one combat tour, he is both lucky and thankful. A second tour surely makes him/her a bit uncomfortable. Surviving a third tour is "pushing his/her luck", and returning alive from more than three tours borders upon the miraculous.

Would this middle-eastern conflict have been so protracted if members of Congress, or their well-protected children, had to serve with our combat units? Would it have been so lengthy if those 535 of our nation's elected "leadership" could find a single pair of cojones between them, and permitted our military leaders to fight this as a real "war"? If you answered "No" and "No" to those questions, you're absolutely right. (You may have noticed that within my masthead I cite Shakespeare's Antony's [of the play "Julius Caesar"] "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war". This does not mean that I am a "warmonger" [although I have participated in one, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend war as a suitable replacement for other human social interactions].) What I do recommend though, is that when armed confrontation is required of us - by whatever series of events - we respond with all the force that is available to us in order to shorten the conflict and minimize our own casualties. However, our politicians do not share that point of view (which may or may not be a "good thing"). I am enough of a realist to accept the fact that wars have been around since the beginning of time, and they will continue for so long as there are two people left on Earth - one of whom wants something the other has, but the other is not willing to surrender that commodity without what is percevied as unduly high compensation. How is it resolved? Physical (perhaps armed) confrontation - a "last man standing" scenario.

How can we expect our soldiers - who by law must follow both a "Code of Conduct" and "Rules of Engagement" - to act in a perfectly rational way, when the enemy wears no identifying uniform, hides among the civilian population, and has neither a Code or Rules required of them? The only rule for them is "KILL THE INFIDELS!" We must expect, and accept, that there will be "collateral damage" in such a situation. Taking the moral "high road" is extremely costly in terms of American lives. Our troops should take two flags into battle with them - the "Stars and Stripes" and the modified "Culpeper (Don't Tread on Me) Flag"...

Allowing politicians to determine military strategy and rules of engagement, rather than those who are recruited and trained specifically for that purpose, is utter foolishness and an unwarranted waste of American lives.

Who, if anybody, should be tried for "war crimes" regarding this mass shooting of civilians in Afghanistan? I submit that it should not be the soldier who actually did the shooting, but those people - who with full knowledge of his pre-existing head trauma - so foolishly chose to return him to combat duty! But, that's just the way I see things...

"UNITED WE STAND" - Is It Just A Motto, and Not A Creed?

I was out and about today when I noticed a bumper sticker... one that I have seen probably a thousand times in my life. It stated simply, "United We Stand", but, for some reason, it struck me as odd this time.

Odd that we have it as our national motto, odd that it appears on our money (in Latin, no less; "e pluribus unum" - which translates as "From the many, one"), and even more odd that some people actually choose to display that sentiment on a lowly bumper sticker. It may have applied during our War of Independence -also known as the Revolutionary War - when we had a population of approximately 497,000. But, this antiquated sentiment has little application in the 21st Century, and for reasons of pure selfishness. (How old is this sentiment? Its origins have been traced back to the Greek slave, Aesop, who lived in the 6th and 7th century B.C.)

The current administration is working diligently to undermine our laws by discounting Congress and usurping our Constitution - that document which (until recently) was the foundation of our country's management philosophy, and is the basis for all United States laws (English Common Law notwithstanding). This so-called "transparent" administration relies almost exclusively on smoke, mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and flat-out lies. Obama's attempts to destroy our culture and our economy, incorporates the core precepts of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (Google it if you have no idea how to destroy a country), and is divisive in its implementation.

The areas of division are many, including (but certainly not limited to) these few:

Class Divisions - the old "have-nots vs haves", the rich vs the significantly-less-than-rich

Employment Divisions - the labor unions vs supporters of the right to work, and workers vs the indolent

Religious Divisions - the atheists vs religious, Christianity vs Muslims, Muslims vs the World

Educational Divisions - the educated vs dropouts,

Sexual Preference Divisions - "gays" vs "straights"

Racial Divisions - the whites vs non-whites

and last, but certainly not least...

Political Divisions - Republicans and Democrats are obviously the two major political divisions, but there are several smaller - virtually impotent - political parties. These two parties control our legislative process, and both claim to want what's best for the country. However... their philosophies are diametrically opposed, so it follows that neither is 100% engaged in what is best for the United States. Each is so busy trying to undermine the plans of the other that, more often than not, each party is overlooking any good that the other may proffer! Who the hell is looking out for our Democratic Constitutional Republic?? If you chose "none of the above" as your answer, you're probably right.

The Obama administration is replete with left-wing, "redistribute the wealth", disarm the citizenry (except them), Socialist-Progressives and communists, as I reported in this blog on August 2, 2009. Let's look at the techniques they are implementing to facilitate the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

Pitting the "have-nots vs the haves" has probably been going on since the beginning of time. The most successful of the hunters and gatherers were undoubtedly envied and/or resented by those who either lacked the requisite skills/sufficient motivation to develop/improve those skills. But, without lifting a finger (with the possible exception of the middle one), they were allowed to gnaw the residual meat from the bones the hunters discarded, and eat the nuts and berries accidentally dropped by the gatherers. However, the insufficient felt that they too should be able to feast on the flesh of the animals and sit close to the fire. Unfortunately for them, this was the time during which the biggest, strongest and smartest made the law. When the do-nothings complained about their place in the Neanderthal society, the tribe either beat them into submission and forced them to work in some capacity, or banished them from the safety and security provided by the tribal lifestyle. Harsh treatment was necessary in order to insure the survival of the many in those harsh times... it was primarily a PoP (Produce or Perish) social structure. The term "entitlement" had not yet been accepted by society.

The employment divisions are equally clear, and is simply a variation of "haves vs have-nots". However, the right to work class struggle, strangely enough, is initiated by those who have. In order to protect themselves, members of labor unions believe that all skill marketing should be strictly controlled within the domain of the union. As tribes expanded into villages, and villages grew into towns, there became a need for job specialization within the community. Initially the specialization process was one of hit-and-miss. Successes were rewarded, failures were not. Trade "guilds" (first formed in the 14th century) were the forerunners of labor unions, and the concept was quite simple then. A youngster was "apprenticed" to a skilled artisan, where he/she would learn that trade from the ground up - first doing the most menial of tasks (many of which were probably not job-related), and eventually developing the skills of the trade. During this apprenticeship the "pay" was provided in the form of room and board. After a period of several years, the master craftsman would recommend his apprentice to the local guild, which body then decided if the apprentice was qualified to set out on his/her own. Today, union membership is about keeping jobs and pay raises for the less-than-qualified and the totally incompetent. The important thing is continuing the influx of union dues. My personal belief is that we have an inherent right to profit from our individual labors... not from those of our neighbors.

Religious divisions are slightly more difficult to identify, but just as easily provoked by those who wish to pit one belief system against another. Each belief system is certain that theirs in the only true belief. Quite simply then, if any one belief is true, then all others are - by default - false. This creates an ideal condition for fomenting inter-religious and, by extension, interpersonal discord! And, by way of comparison, the Judeo-Christian system(s) are primarily ones of tolerance and acceptance of variations in doctrine, whereas the Muslim/Islamic system is one of intolerance toward, and total rejection of, all other belief systems. Even within the Judeo-Christian system there are those who preach divisiveness for a myriad of reasons - most of which have no basis in fact or reality. Nonetheless, they seem to be at least minimally effective in creating those divisions. Everyone in this country has the right to believe - or not believe - as they so choose.

Educational divisions are relatively easy to pinpoint. Those with advanced education are generally in executive and management positions within an organization, and those with insufficient education are more likely to be found in the labor intensive jobs. This does not mean that one is superior to the other as insofar as their worth as human beings is concerned. It just means that one has taken greater advantage of their educational opportunities to prepare them for a work experience that provides them with a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the professors of academia are overflowing with left-wing liberal Socialist-"Progressives" who subscribe to the Marxist philosophy of "to each according to his needs, from according to his ability", and thus it is taught, provoking discord between liberals and conservatives. The proper philosophy for a Democratic Republic should be, "to each by his own means", reflecting that we may only prosper from our own labors.

The sexual preference division is a relatively new social partitioning, and has been accomplished via the granting of "special protections" which are above and beyond those provided to the general populace under the Constitution. These special protections put the minority "homosexual community" at odds with the majority heterosexual community. In essence, it places them on some type of "endangered species" list... which may be an accurate description, since they cannot reproduce strictly within their own community. The creation of "hate crime" laws was instrumental in creating this division, and it includes other minorities including but not limited to, racial, religious and ethnic minorities. Such laws are totally unnecessary, because any physically aggressive action is well-covered in previously existing laws. Laws against assault, battery, theft, maiming, manslaughter, homicide, etc., have been around for centuries, and provide for "equal protection under the law". "Hate crimes" cover the state of mind of a transgressor - or quite plainly put, how he/she felt about the group in which the victim is identified, and the reason they took criminal action against them. Reason makes no difference - a criminal act has taken place, and should be punished under the law based upon that fact alone!

Racial divisions are fairly obvious since identification is based upon stereotypical physical features such as skin color and facial features. According to our president (lower case "p" is intentional), apparently white people don't like anybody of color just because they are "of color". We especially don't like Blacks because of the high contrast, and illegal aliens because most of them are brown (certainly not because they violated our laws entering this country). But, as long as the government can benefit (somehow?) from portraying the majority (white Christians) as basically racist, they will continue to do so. The only possible "benefit" to the political party is at election time, when they capitalize on this strategy at the voting booth. This brings me to...

Political divisions. Political divisions are similar in one respect to religious divisions; we are greatly influenced in our choice of each by the authority figures in our life... mainly our parents. All parents want their children to be "more" than they are, so we intentionally try to pass along our traditional belief systems (which most of us inherited from our parents) to our children. This is not exactly fair of us, but it is "normal" human behavior. It diminishes, to some degree, the child's right to choose. But, to permit that total freedom of choice would imply that we were not strong in our own beliefs, so we indoctrinate our children.

I have a personal theory that we are each endowed by our creator (your choice here - intervention by a "Supreme Being" or the sperm donor's DNA) with a unique internal "blueprint" for our life. My theory goes on to postulate that this unique internal blueprint is socialized out of us, beginning almost at the moment of birth. This is the "Cookie Cutter Mentality" at work. (If you want to be a socially acceptable "cookie" you have to fit the same mold as all the other little cookies.) It has its good points, and a multitude of bad points. What would happen if we were allowed free reign, with the exception of say, physically aggressive behaviors? There would likely be little if any prejudice in the world, because prejudice is a learned behavior, and there is no innate dislike of the unlike.
Reducing learned prejudices from our repertoire of behaviors, would result in minimal racism and less "my belief system is better than your belief system". With little physical aggression, there would be fewer boundary disputes between neighbors, whether next door or across the national border. It's a nice theory, but given human nature, it is not practical to expect such radical changes. We humans are fallible creatures. On the whole, we are not solitary beings, and we do tend to "go along with the crowd" in order to insure and preserve our acceptance in the society into which we were born. And therein lies the rub - to get along, one must go along. But, I digress...

With so many divergent social paths available in a free society, is it any wonder that free societies can be torn asunder from within? Yet oppressive societies also suffer from a similar tearing apart, by the inherent yearning that all people have for certain freedoms, especially the freedom to choose.

The above is not meant to be a "lesson", but rather to provoke thought and perhaps stimulate social discourse. Most sentient beings find it enjoyable to simply think, and consider it good fortune to have someone to share their thoughts with. Try thinking outside the box... you may like it! And remember, "United we stand, divided we fall"... it must be more of a creed than an empty motto, or we shall surely perish!

Government Control Is Not Needed Where Obama Wants It!!

Your government wants to stick it's bureaucratic nose into everything that affects average, working-class people. Everything except those areas it should be investigating and regulating more strictly! For example...

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. reported quarterly earnings Thursday that easily beat analysts' expectations on higher crude prices.

The world's largest public energy company reported net income of $7.56 billion, or $1.60 a share, in the second quarter, up 91% from $3.95 billion, or 81 cents a share, in the same period in 2009.

Earnings for the first half of 2010, excluding special items, were $13.9 billion, up 60% over the first half of 2009." (Emphases added)

Yes, my friends, that is Billion with a capital "B". The concept of a million of anything is difficult for most of us to envision, and the term billion just boggles the mind. Maybe this will help get it into perspective - a billion minutes ago, Christ was alive. Here's a picture showing the relationship between one thousand, one million and one billion -

There is a 6" difference between the million point and the billion point on this line. (A trillion [a figure our government loves to throw at us] would be marked 500 feet to the right of the billion mark.) Now, think of that number in terms of dollars - the dollars you spend at the gas pump, the dollars you spend for groceries, the dollars you spend for clothing... and your tax dollars!

Diesel fuel, the least refined and least expensive to produce, currently hovers at around $4 per gallon. More than premium gasoline! Do you still wonder why the cost of "goods and services" is skyrocketing upward? Understand that goods do not magically appear in Wal-Mart at the beginning of each business day, nor do groceries breed on the shelves of your local Kroger or Safeway grocery stores when the lights go out. These items are transported to every retail store in our country by diesel-fueled delivery vehicles, whether they be 18-wheelers, railroad trains, or a combination. The oil companies have taken our nation hostage! And your government has not done - or even said - a thing about it. It's areas like this that we need government mandated price caps! The workers of this nation need gasoline to get to and from their place of employment in order to earn a living so they can afford to buy those goods and services. Gasoline now costs between $3.25 and $3.65 per gallon and the price is increasing almost daily! The excuses used by big oil are "There's unrest in Saudi Arabia", "The middle east crisis is driving our costs up", and "It's the Yemeni problem". What's wrong with this picture? The problem is Big Oil's corporate GREED! Individually, or even collectively, We The People can do next to nothing about it directly. Government intervention mandating price caps is the only solution.

How do we get that done? Write, email, or telephone your elected Congressional Representatives - including Senators - and tell them that We The People need relief from the price gouging oil corporations economy-crushing GREED!

(Because our national economy is "in the dumper", China is campaigning at the U.N. to have the U.S. dollar replaced by the Chinese yuan as the "reserve currency". For those of you who may not know exactly what the "reserve currency" is, it is the global currency of international trade. If China is successful in their bid, it will further diminish the U.S. in the eyes of "the global community".)

I'm Gil, and I approved this blog!

Are We As DUMB As Our Elected Representatives THINK We Are?

Hav yu goten thee impreshun that hour politishuns thenk We the People ar stoopid? We seem to provide genuine proof of that opinion by our voting records. We repeatedly put the same worthless people back into office, even after they have shown their disdain for what the people who put them into office really want.

If our politicians were half as smart as they think they are, they would be serving their constituency rather than "servicing" them. Obama just finished his "Health Care Summit", loaded of course, to his advantage - 20 Democraps and 17 mostly RINOs (Republican In Name Only). There was no discussion... simply a lecture by The Chosen One, laying the blame for his failure to move Obamacare through the House and Senate at the feet of the Republican party. That's politics for you! The Republicans are reflecting the true desires of the majority of Americans - we do not want or need a socialist takeover of health care by the Government. It is not cost effective, it will increase taxes. It will result in longer waits for treatment and, in some cases, the wait will be too long. It will cover those who are not citizens of this country, most of whom - if working at all - are working for "cash under the table", and are therefore not paying into the system. It will overtax our existing medical workforce, resulting in qualified medical personnel leaving the field, placing an increasing burden on those who remain, resulting in even longer waits for medical treatment.
Many doctors have said they would give up the practice of medicine should Obamacare become law. More government interference is not the answer to our health care issues. Tort reform is a partial answer. Severe reductions in the cost of medical training is another partial answer. Reasonable (40% - standard retail markup) profit margins on medical supplies and equipment would reduce expenses, which should reduce patient costs. Allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines would increase competition, and should therefore reduce premium costs. Including small businesses in large "Group Plans" thereby reducing premium costs. Insurance companies should be responsible for covering preventive care - which may cost them only a small fraction of what corrective treatment would cost.

I am a recipient of Medicare now, having paid into it almost all my working life, and continuing to do so in retirement. My personal physician recently put a letter out to all his patients the general thrust of which was: Doctors lose money on every Medicare patient they treat. This is true throughout the state OMA, and the national AMA. If national health care becomes a requirement I will have to cease treating Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I may be carrying that statement to the wrong conclusion, but it appears to me that although we will have Medicare coverage, we seniors will be unable to get treatment under it. What is the practical difference between that and being uninsured??
Then we will have millions more without usable medical coverage - which we will probably continue to be charged for via Social Security deduction. Where is the gain in that?

EXACTLY WHAT IS A POLITICAL "CONSERVATIVE"?

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.

Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.

Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.

Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.

Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.

Conservatives support energy conservation - and, by and large, we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...

"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.

Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.

Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.

Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!

Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!

That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOMENTING REVOLUTION?

Intentionally or unintentionally it appears that the current administration is doing everything it can to incite the American people toward revolution. Is it possible that Obama is unaware that his policies, appointments and decisions thus far have made mainstream America very nervous... or is it that he just doesn't care? Since his apotheosis, Obama must be absolutely certain that he is smarter than his worshipers - which really does "track" if you think about it. After all, how smart could those who have deified Obama be?

His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.

Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...

Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.

Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.

Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.

Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).

Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.

There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!

The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.

About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:

1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?

2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.

3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.

4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.

5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!

These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.

For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?

Sarah Palin "Stand Up For Our Nation" - The Third Political Party

It has been my contention for years that what we need in this country is a viable third political party. Yes, we do have several alternative political parties, but none that is really viable. There is the Green Party of the United States, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party. Then there are the lesser-known "fringe parties", such as the American Party, the American Independent Party (I'm still trying to figure that one out, since the word independent means non-aligned), the America's Independent Party (not related to the preceding AIP), the American Nazi Party (there's one we can all be proud of, right?), the American Reform Party, the Communist Party USA (another anathema to the Democratic Republic, as is the Nazi Party), and the Freedom/Socialist Party... plus about two dozen other - virtually unknown outside their miniscule membership - political parties.

This creates a lot of simply wasted votes in any election. When we get to the fringe parties, there is not one of them that is the least bit viable, yet there is a substantial number of people who will consistently vote for a non-starter. (These are undoubtedly the same folks who would bet on a 3-legged horse to win the Preakness.) Let's look at the three main alternatives, which - combined - have never drawn 5% of the vote:

1. The Green Party: The informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement. Their "champions" tend to draw votes away from Democratic candidates, and their platform noticeably less than all-encompassing.

2. The Constitution Party: If nothing else, I love the name! On the other hand, I believe that every party should be focused on supporting the tenets of our Constitution, since that is the document which allowed this country to achieve world-class greatness in less than 200 years. The party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control,anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. Personally, I find little in that with which I disagree, so long as school prayer was voluntary, allowing those who did not wish to participate to leave the classroom for the 60 seconds it might take, and it was anti-gay special rights.

3. The Libertarian Party: The Libertarians are neither left nor right. They believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of businesses, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). I see little to argue with here either. However, I believe that some government regulation of interstate commerce is necessary, as it also is in the pharmaceutical industry. Public safety first!

Let's get back to the "viable 3rd party" idea, though. What has been lacking in all of these alternative parties - thusfar - is not just a nationally recognized name... but a national name with positive recognition. We don't need social radicals, whether they be tree huggers, dope lovers, or preachers. We also don't need to be represented by those who would sell out the people of this country to the interests of big business or foreign governments. What we do need is radical Americans in our government! We need those who believe that our Constitution is the basis for all that is good and right with the USA, and that our laws, as they are currently written, provide for "equal treatment under the law". We need to be represented ONLY by those people whose concerns are first and foremost for our country and its citizens.

Sarah Palin is obviously one of those people. Why else would the left spend so much time, energy and money demonizing her? Why is Sarah David Letterman's favorite punching bag? Why do Adriana Huffington - and her cadré of communist co-conspirators - show such disdain for Sarah Palin?

BECAUSE SHE SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THEM!

She is seen as the single most likely American to burst their temporary, socialist bubble in 2012. Team her with a successful businessman - and experienced state's Chief Executive - like Mitt Romney, and the Democrats will suffer immediate bladder control problems. Sarah Palin WILL "Stand Up For Our Nation". God bless Sarah, and God bless America!

Expectations And Disappointments

For those of you visiting my blog for the first time, and for those of you who may not have figured it out yet, I offer the following caveats:

1. I do not create the news of the world. I do, however, live in the world.
2. I try not to repeat unsubstantiated rumors I may have stumbled upon.
3. As a sentient being, I do observe and analyze many of those things that happen in the world which I inhabit.
4. Through this blog, I do offer my analysis and opinions freely, and without reservation or apology.
5. As a rule, I try to present what I see as both sides of a given situation... whenever I can see a reasonably believable second side. And when I can't see one, I'll probably tell you why also.
6. Unfortunately, probably 95% of our mass media is slanted to present the publishers' political views ("You work for me, and you'll report what I tell you to report and how I want it reported."), and that's where our news comes from.
7. I do tend to be conservative, because I'm a product of a conservative culture... which was the USA of 60+ years ago.
8. I do not rewrite history - that which was, was. I accept history as mostly factual.
9. If you find my observations interesting and/or thought provoking, please leave a comment. If you don't find them interesting, remember this - nobody forced you to come here. Have a chuckle at what you may see as my naiveté (or even blind stupidity) as you leave.

I hope you enjoy your visit!

Sarah Palin - Perhaps No Pro, But No Con Either

Sarah Palin is now a household name, yet prior to her selection as the John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate she was virtually unknown outside the state of Alaska. Sarah, as she prefers to be called, may not be a professional politician - which to my way of thinking is a good thing - but she doesn't try to con the American people, either. She presents herself in a WYSIWYG manner, without the typical political smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. Sarah is guilty ... of being an American in the first degree!

This typical American daughter/mother/wife moved up the political ladder more because of her plain-spoken believability than in spite of it. Sarah is easy to look at, and appears to be at ease in her surroundings, whether they be a coffee shop in Wasilla, Alaska or the floor of the Republican National Convention. Unlike most professional politicians, Sarah Palin rings true.

Her background is not that different from most Americans. She comes from a working-class family, attended public schools, graduated from Wasilla High and the University of Idaho fer cryin' out loud! Sarah's background - prior to her election to the internationally powerful Wasilla City Council - is neither a politcal one nor a monied one. She didn't attend Harvard, Yale, or Brown Universities ... she went to a university that would probably even accept me! Sara Palin is one of us.

And that is precisely why the elitist media snobs chose to make light of her exhibited qualifications. Sarah isn't one of them, and that scares the hell out of the liberal left. She doesn't think, talk or shoot fancy - just straight from the hip. Sarah has more executive-level experience than our incoming President, brought new energy and excitement to McCain's hobbling campaign, and created hope amongst the leadership of the RNC that they might actually be able to salvage the country from the grip of left-wing socialists. Almost overnight, she rejuvenated the conservative body of America. Unfortunately, conservative America - once again - turned out to be the too silent majority. Conservative complacency, and an increased number of liberal judges legislating from the bench, will be the downfall of these United States.

So ... what's not to like about Sarah Palin? All of her positive qualities ... if you're a left-wing bleeding heart liberal! I believe we've just seen beginning of Sarah Palin at the national level. If nothing else, her short VP nominee gig did one thing for her. Of the potential Republican Presidential candidates for 2012, Sarah Palin now has the most recognized name in the Republican Party!

I could be wrong about his ... but I'm NOT!

Monsanto Chemical: Buys Government, Scares Press, and Sells Out Public!

Where is the hue and cry from all the government agencies that "protect" us, or from the so-called independent press, that supposedly is "looking out" for us.  Monsanto (previously Monsanto Chemical) - the folks that brought us the unforgettable Agent Orange, among others - like the relatively innocuous Roundup weed killer.  However, what happens when you start manipulating the market to eliminate the competition?  How do they do that?

First you start by genetically modifying produce - like corn, soybeans, or wheat - to make them resistant to Roundup and similar products.  Next you back-engineer one of your other products - like fertilizer - to include Roundup in it.  Something like Monsanto's "Asgrow Roundup Ready" or "Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  From the Monsanto website: "This is a new proprietary seed treatment from Monsanto which will be commercialized in conjunction with the launch of Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  Monsanto offers "Simple, flexible and dependable weed control you expect from the Roundup Ready system.", and "Powerful genetic trait combinations created through our advanced breeding process deliver higher yield potential than other brands."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what we're talking about is Frankenfood!  And it's not just soybeans ... Monsanto has genetically modified corn, wheat, and God only knows what else to resist Roundup.  Can you see where this is going?  Modify the seeds to resist a weed poison, then include the poison in either the pod or the fertilizer, to kill those pesky weeds.  So far, so good!

But, there's an unanswered question here too - How does the Roundup not get absorbed into the produce it's protecting from weeds?  It doesn't!  We are unknowingly and trustingly ingesting toxic materials with almost every item we are being sold as food!  Have you eaten a nice steak, or enjoyed a good hamburger recently?  If so, then you should familiarize yourself with the acronym BGH - Bovine Growth Hormone.  Have you wondered why your 10 year old daughter is sprouting breasts already?  There's your answer - BGH!  Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.  BST can be produced synthetically, using recombinant DNA technology. The resulting product is called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. It is administered to the cow by injection and used to increase milk production. Currently Monsanto is the only company that markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the trade name Posilac.  According to Monsanto, approximately one-third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with Posilac; approximately 8,000 dairy producers use the product. It is now the top-selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S.  Use of the recombinant supplement has been controversial. While it is used in the United States (though not without reaction), it is banned in Canada, parts of the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.  Is there a reason for this ban?  Are they perhaps more concerned with the welfare of their citizens, than our government is for OUR personal well-being?

Monsanto's lawyers scared Fox television affiliate, WTVT/Fox-13 in Tampa, Florida so badly, the station manager fired two staff members who had done an investigative reporting piece after they refused to modify the story to appease Monsanto.

Monsanto is running roughshod over our citizenry in their (thus-far successful) attempt to bribe, intimidate, threaten and otherwise leverage those who would question the negative human health factors of Monsanto-produced  Frankenfoods.  Our complacency as a nation will be our undoing.  I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

AND WHERE'S THE SURPRISE IN THIS?

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), is in hot water over attempting to sell President-elect Barack Hussein Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Is this really a surprise to anybody? Blagojevich is a product of the same corrupt political machine as Obama.

The most straightforward way to measure corruption is to check the number of convicted local officials. Between 1995 and 2004, 469 politicians from the federal district of Northern Illinois were found guilty of corruption. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan received a sentence of six and a half years in prison, after being convicted on charges of racketeering, mail fraud, filing false tax returns, and lying to investigators. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that in the last three decades, at least 79 local elected officials have been convicted of a crime, including three governors, one mayor, and a whopping 27 aldermen from the Windy City.

Illinois political corruption of of a magnitude not seen since the days of New York City's Tammany Hall. For those of you unfamiliar with Tammany Hall, an offshoot of the Tammany Society, in 1830 Tammany Hall became the city affiliate of the Democratic Party, controlling most of the New York City elections afterward. From about 1830-1834 the Loco-Focos comprised a democratic, anti-monopoly faction that appealed to workingmen. Throughout the 1830s and 1840s the Society expanded its political control even further by earning the loyalty of the city's ever-expanding immigrant community, which functioned as a base of political capital. The Tammany Hall "ward boss" served as the local vote gatherer and provider of patronage. New York City used the designation "ward" for its smallest political units from 1686–1938. Tammany is forever linked with the rise of the Irish in American politics.

Beginning in late 1845, millions of Irish Catholics began arriving in New York. Equipped with a knowledge of English, very tight loyalties, a proclivity for politics, and what critics said was a propensity to use violence to control the polls, the Irish quickly dominated Tammany. In exchange for votes, they were provided with money and food.

By 1854, Tammany's lineage and support from immigrants had made it a powerful force in New York politics. Tammany controlled businesses, politics and sometimes law enforcement. Businesses would give gifts to their workers and, in exchange, tell the workers to vote for the politicians that were supported by Tammany (usually a straight Democratic ticket). In 1854, the Society elected its first New York City mayor. Tammany's "bosses" (called the "Grand Sachem") and their supporters enriched themselves by illegal means. The most infamous boss of all was William M. "Boss" Tweed, whose control over the Tammany Hall machine allowed him to win election to the New York State Senate. His political career ended when he was sent to prison along with his partner Francis I.A. Boole, after his ousting at the hands of a reform movement led by New York's Democratic governor Samuel J. Tilden in 1872. From 1872 onward, Tammany had an Irish "boss." They played an increasingly important role in state politics, supporting one candidate and feuding with another. The greatest success came in 1928 when a Tammany hero, New York Governor Al Smith, won the Democratic presidential nomination.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt helped Republican Fiorello La Guardia become mayor on a Fusion ticket, thus removing even more patronage from Tammany's control. La Guardia was elected in 1933 and re-elected in 1937 and 1941. He was the first anti-Tammany Mayor to be re-elected and his extended tenure weakened Tammany in a way that previous "reform" Mayors had not. Tammany depended for its power on government contracts, jobs, patronage, corruption, and ultimately the ability of its leaders to swing the popular vote. The last element weakened after 1940 with the decline of relief programs like WPA and CCC that Tammany used to gain and hold supporters.

Although lacking the public notoriety of Tammany Hall, the relatively low-key Illinois political machine is equally corrupt. How do such things happen in a supposedly free democratic republic? People are easily misinformed through the use of political "smoke and mirrors", and misdirected by political sleight of hand. Who is to blame? Those people who are impressed by empty words, awestruck by political theatrics, and foolish enough to believe what they see and hear in our equally corrupt print and broadcast media.

I could be wrong ........................ but, I'm NOT!

Is Being "Commander-in-Chief" Easier Than Performing Brain surgery?

Putting Barack NObama in the White House, as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, makes about as much sense as letting the person who grooms your pets perform brain surgery on your child! If you were in the military, would you want all the life and death decisions being made for you and your comrades to be made by a person with NO military experience ... none at all? Not even Jr. ROTC training! But, even more than that, the President of the United States makes life and death decisions about the entire COUNTRY! WAKE UP AMERICA! Shake off the bonds of that hypnotic trance you seem to be in, and PAY ATTENTION to what the man has done, has said, and what he has proven he stands for (if you can quantify 'nothing').

Gil

Obama Will Dismantle Our Military - Goodbye USA

The Democrat who desires to be our next President, Barak HUSSEIN Obama, has promised to reduce our military defense capability, to something roughly equivalent to that of Jamaica. The only thing he hasn't said is to whom he plans to surrender our country.
For details click -->> http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/

How unbelievably stupid are we Americans, that this man could ever even be considered for our country's highest office, much less nominated, by one of the two larger political parties?? Does the phrase "sleeper cell" not come to mind? Would the last one to leave please close the doors and turn off the lights ...