Those Pesky Tribes

I recently attended a seminar put on by the Naval Postgraduate School on the subject of Iraq. Before I continue you must understand that while the majority of the presenters held PhD.s from Berkley the NPS is a "government" school. By that I mean its express purpose is to educate military and foreign service folks on hefty matters in line with the company story. Therefore, the presenters may have grown up in a liberal environment but they sing a neoconservative tune now.

At one juncture we were discussing the role of tribes in Iraq and the presenter made the comment that "so long as religion and tribalism play a key role in the lives of the Iraqi people democracy will not take hold".

I could not let that pass without a challenge. I asked the logical question, i.e. is the suggestion then that a secular society divorced from centuries old familial ties is the solution to achieving the desired end state of democracy (I abhor that word and concept).

After all it took a couple hundred years of "evolution" in the US for us to transform from a representative republic into what the masses believe now to be a democracy. And in the big scheme of things we are but youngsters on the world stage. Why should we expect the Iraqis to evolve to our sophisticated political level so quickly (tongue inserted in cheek).

Tribalism predates Islam in Iraq, it functions to serve many roles we take for granted in the West. A tribe is part union (they will get you a job), insurance company (no commercial firms exist, you run over someone and have to pay - they help you), small claims court (have a dispute with someone in another tribe, the elders will work it out and get you a remedy), mortgage firm (you need a house, only your tribe can help, no mortgage crisis in Iraq), dating service, divorce court and much, much more. Tribalism is family on a very large scale. How on earth could one possibly suggest that this centuries old institution is the problem, it is ingrained in the culture - there we go, that is the dirty word.

Culture seems to be the stumbling block to all the neoconic and liberal big-thinkers. That is to say some cultures are more equal than others. If we are talking about multiculturalism in the PC sense then sure that is a good thing - it in fact serves to break down and diminish other cultures that possibly stand in the way of "progress".

I am not advocating that traditional Iraqi culture is good or bad, only that it is their culture. Who are we to say that democracy is a better answer?

Later in the discussion I asked the question where the presenters thought that sovereignty for the current Iraqi government came from. Their answer was the elections in 2005 of course. I have not thought much on the sovereignty issue previously and had to pace my discourse accordingly. I challenged them and got them to agree that all sovereignty comes from the people. I asked again, how de jure sovereignty could have come from the people voting in an election for a government that was essentially already established. (I would also argue that Iraq has NEVER had a de jure government since the British imposed a monarch and boundary lines in 1920, so it seems high time the people spoke via the only real governments they know)

I did not and would not now make this the center of my argument but I believe that the only way in Iraq to establish a de jure government based upon the consent of the people was and is to allow the tribes to come together and establish said government. When Saddam fell and the country was without a government the tribes continued to rule their local areas. Many parts of Iraq did not see US troops for months after the fall and there was certainly no Iraqi forces in the area. Chaos did not reign. To an Iraqi the tribe has always been the center of authority in his life - Saddam tried to dislodge the tribes in the 80's and ended up with a rebellion - he changed his mind in 1992 and embraced the tribal system. The tribes are the voice of the people in Iraq in all but the most urban areas.

In any event, the point of this post was not to point out wrong thinking - we know our government thinks wrong on many subjects - but rather bad ideology. The ideology that says centuries old tribes and religion are bad for our policy in Iraq also threatens any and all of us that hold dear our family values, personal freedom and religion and do not buy into the idea that secular democracy, internationalism and all that are good things.

Stumble It!

Another Strike at Freedom

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 1955) passed through Congress in October without any MSM attention and very little real discussion on the blogshphere. However, this is yet another significant piece of legislation in terms of strengthening the government and stripping the freedom of the people.

Positive Universe summed up the danger within the text of this bill:

...it is important to read the actual bill because it is proposing to study thought not implement actions against persons, yet. The controversial aspects are 1) whether the government should study its citizens thoughts and beliefs as potential threats against itself; 2) the public and even the legislators themselves are not yet engaged in that debate; 3) a lack of clarity as to who wrote and wants the bill; and 4) what sets of actions might subsequently be implemented by such a study. The bill does use provocative terms, and it does make some dangerous assumptions, such as the finding that American citizens are susceptible and gullible to internet-based, terrorist propaganda.

The FBI has historically defined domestic terrorist by their criminal acts. Consider the circumstances surrounding the Aryan Republican Army. Sure these people had what could rightly be termed a radical ideology and they acted to in criminal ways to further that ideology. They key is they became criminals (bank robbers). They were thwarted based upon their criminal behavior - none of their efforts truly furthered their cause. The FBI's stance has been to treat such groups as criminals (when they break the law). They have never attacked the thought process of these groups, instead focusing on the criminal behavior itself.

As far as approach has gone it has worked. There have been no examples of domestic terrorist successfully acting out without a connection to criminal activity. Oh, but you say what about the Oklahoma City bombing. Well perhaps that was an anomaly of one or two ideologues. Then again there is strong evidence that can trace McVeigh to Elohim City.

In any event, just like almost every piece of legislation passed by our Federal masters, the cure is worse than the disease. Let us assume that the cost of true freedom is an occasional wacko in our midst, would we prefer to sacrifice that freedom for the hope of security? Surely we would gain neither in such a case. This bill is nothing more than an additional sacrifice of freedom at the alter of faith in the government - statism no less.

Consider the wording of the bill, read it. They intend to look at thought prior to action as a tool to stop the domestic terrorism that has yet to really materialize. That is enough, in and of itself, to make any freedom loving patriot cringe.

Here is another snippet of interest to anyone interested in States' Rights and the notion that our states can in fact at some point stand up to the Federal Government they created if that government goes too far in violating the compact and usurping too much power unto itself.:

The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Here we have it, an anti-secession bill in point of fact. The wording may be deceptive at first glance but consider the implications. This gives specific protection to the Federal government from any that would oppose it - that would include the duly elected members of a state government if there were ever to be a real disagreement over the precise meaning of the meaning of delegated and reserved powers.

If for instance Vermont of Hawaii were to actually secede (in Hawaii's case merely reestablish independence) and subsequently restrict the action of Federal agents within their borders the elected officials of the state and the agents of that state could be deemed terrorist.

Perhaps you say a nation should have the right to protect its own existence - but from its own people or from the states that gave it birth? We could look at the example of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the peril they faced for that act. That is a pretty sad example for the Federal Government to follow - Britain was an Empire jealously clinging to power despite the wishes of the people. Is that what our Republic has become - an empire fearful of the thoughts of its own people? Apparently so.

This bill is less interesting because of the freedoms it threatens (we have plenty of those to rail against). No this is significant because it truly represents an act of an empire in self-protection mode. This is what we have become, this is what drunken hubris has wrought.

Here is what some others have said of this bill (via Positive Universe)

OpEdNews, PA: Telling the Truth Is About To Be Criminalized 2007-12-01 If you are trying to change this messed-up world with your radical educational actions (even if they are pacifist in nature) you will be guilty of facilitating ideologically-based violence, for which you can be prosecuted. If you share your unapproved thoughts with other people and make them think like you do, then all of you are liable to be hauled-off for thought-crimes. Passage of this legislation to control the thoughts and communications of dissident Americans makes clear why our government needed to build all those FEMA camps.

GovExec.com, DC: Rights advocates target domestic terrorism bill in Senate Nov 29, 2007 The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers also issued a joint statement Tuesday, saying they strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.

Columbus Free Press, OH: S 1959 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? must be stopped 2007-12-01 If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. Bill S 1959 EVISCERATES FREE SPEECH, and empowers the govt. to declare ANYTHING they deem an extremist belief system, instantly makes you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge, even in the US Supreme Court.

Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog, WA: McCarthy would have loved SB 1959 2007-12-01 The bill would establish a commission similar to Joseph McCarthys House Un-American Activities Committee and could potentially make any sort of political dissent or controversial religious display illegal. Even thinking about such things could get you in trouble.

Stumble It!

Tyranny via Paranoia

I do not read the Huffington Post but I ran across a well written piece on the The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
. He nails all of the key points.

Harman's bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists." The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out. Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country. The ten commission members will be selected for their "expertise," though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them. Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

That nails it, a commission (remember Joe McCarthy?) to anticipate and root out bad thoughts among the American populace. I still have to ask - where and who is the threat that we are rooting out? When and where has this threat reared its ugly head?

It has not, else all of us regular and mundane citizens would know about it. After all it is impossible to live in a country rife with real sedition, rebellion and terrorism and not actually know about it. Perhaps folks that question the validity of conducting preemptive war (contrary to proper Constitutional controls) are the ones the supporters of this bill are afraid of. Perhaps it is those that actually believe that the Constitution means what it says. It could be anyone that seriously disagrees with the "truths" our masters feed us.

Giraldi continues...

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

Of course the focus will initially focus on the "usual suspects" but if you read the bill closely you see that the paychecks of the commission are tied directly to their findings. The longer they find bogey men to investigate the longer the commission exists and the longer the paychecks keep rolling in. It is thus with much that the government does - "results oriented" longevity is the thing that has kept many useless programs alive in our system. You can bet you bottom dollar that the targets of this commission's investigations will indeed turn toward many non-terrorist but righteously indignant groups.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities against terrorists and has every tool imaginable to investigate and make arrests. It has created a whole new bloated and dysfunctional branch of government in the Department of Homeland Security. What is not needed is groups of congressionally empowered vigilantes roaming the country at will looking for "homegrown terrorism."

The only thing that 9/11 really changed was the pace of evolution from Republic to Empire started by Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson etc. Bush is merely an heir to this bad ideology. Paranoia, blind faith in a defunct system, and general ignorance of basic civic responsibility and history among the population are the factors that have combined to make this all possible at this point in time. There is no reason for bills like this unless those in power actually realize that something is terribly wrong with the system and they truly fear that one day the mass of zombies occupying the land might just wake up and want to change things (with our without the consent of the rulers).

Stumble It!

Corporatism = Socialism

AnarchoCatholic reminds us that "[a] potentially undying legal entity which separates ownership from control, is created by, sustained by, and subject to the state, and removes liability from human beings conducting affairs which affect all of society doesn't seem to jive with anything resembling a free market"─Corporations Aren't Capitalism. (via Western Confucian)

Of course I would add that Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism + Militarism = Fascism

Stumble It!

Trade in the Americas: The Conspiratorial Urban Legend of the Evil NAFTA Superhighway

Harvesting the Enemies of America Series

*** DISINFORMATION HIT PIECE *** from: World Trade Magazine

[snippet]
Trade in the Americas: The Conspiratorial Urban Legend of the Evil NAFTA Superhighway, by Clay Risen The questions surprised even a presidential candidate as poised as Mitt Romney. A bespectacled, matronly woman at the back of the audience in Story City, Iowa, had heard news about an enormous highway being built between across the Midwest, linking Mexico and Canada.“You can find it on the Internet, a Security and Prosperity Partnership that’s been working for a while to join the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and part of it is a NAFTA superhighway,” she explained.She rejected Romney’s dismissal that the story was make-believe. “I don’t think they’re talking about it,” she retorted. Rather than argue, he offered a vague promise—“if they are building it, I’ll stop it”—and quickly took another question.The “superhighway question” recurred often on the GOP campaign trail. Rudy Giuliani got it in Concord, New Hampshire.

In Cedar Falls, Iowa, John McCain was asked what he knew about secret plans for a highway “to unite the three nations together.” According to libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, a conservative Republican Congressman from Texas running for president (and a firm opponent of the superhighway), the plans to link Mexico, the United States and Canada by a monster highway will be the sleeper issue of the 2008 election. The Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) agrees: “The road comes up at town meetings second only to immigration policy.”Reality is there’s no such highway in the works. “The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway,” reads a Commerce Department web page. “The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Superhighway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority.”But that inconvenient fact hasn’t quelled populist unrest.Riding well below the mainstream media’s radar, the highway is just one of the many real and imagined cross-border programs—the Security and Prosperity Partnership (real), the North American Union (imagined), the “amero” currency (also imagined)—to draw the attention of conspiracy-theory mongers over the past year. It is all over the right-wing blogosphere. And, it is the reigning issue in newsletters put out by fringe groups like the John Birch Society. Asserted CNN host Lou Dobbs last year, “The Bush White House, supported by corporate America and special interests, [is] building a
superhighway dividing this country, a superhighway that will run between Mexico and Canada.”Politicians are stoking the flames. In January, Virginia GOP Rep. Virgil Goode introduced a bill—which quickly gained 27 co-sponsors—“expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”

Nor is this a partisan issue: In July the House approved, by an overwhelming 362-63 vote, a ban on funding for a “NAFTA superhighway.” Most recently, Goode joined 21 fellow representatives in a letter to President George W. Bush warning of “serious and growing concern in the U.S. Congress about the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership.”Bush, speaking at a meeting with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts, laughed it off. “I’m amused by the difference between what
actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place,” he said. “It’s quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about.”Such talk would be comical—superstates, evil corporations, a continental currency—if it weren’t also a potential threat to trade and economic growth. Tri-national trade has reached $700 billion annually, with the value of goods moving through the Laredo, Texas border crossing alone exceeding that of all goods coming from Great Britain. Economists predict those numbers will increase dramatically as U.S.-bound shipping moves from overburdened American ports to new and upgraded destinations along the Mexican and Canadian Pacific coasts. Indeed, tri-national trade has tripled since the signing of NAFTA, but cross-border infrastructure spending has been nearly flat. “The entire U.S. economy is going to be more and more dependent on the strength of its multimodal system,” says Frank Conde, spokesman for the North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), an infrastructure advocacy group. That means more efficient border crossings, regulatory harmonization, and bigger and better infrastructure projects, which will take significant political and fiscal commitment at all levels of government.So while it’s one thing for blogs and newsletters to hype the latest conspiracy theory, it’s a serious concern when politicians start listening, and advocate legislation to block needed government investments. “Everything they say about an NAU, the SPP, and a NAFTA superhighway are falsehoods,” says Conde. “The confusion caused by organizations like that harms our ability to improve trade links.” At the precise moment when we need to be moving forward as quickly as possible on international infrastructure, the conspiracy theorists are threatening to push us backward.

This latest surge in conspiracy theorizing draws on a long-running thread in American culture.“Historically, there has always been a feeling among some in the United States that we could be more secure and prosperous if we separated ourselves from the world,” notes Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. Conspiracy theory mongering around NAFTA has been churning since President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993, with the John Birch Society and other far-right groups declaring it a threat to American sovereignty and jobs. But a variety of trends have combined to both ramp up the volume and spread it closer to the mainstream.The most obvious factor is a general turning away from free trade on both the right and the left. Populist politicians in both parties have lashed out at international trade deals as the product of undemocratic plutocrats and their allies in the federal government. After her anti-superhighway bill passed in July, Ohio’s Mary Kaptur declared “a victory for openness in trade negotiations, highway safety, good wages, and fair trade policies. The grip of global corporations was loosened last night.”As conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly wrote in a recent syndicated column, “Now that the game plan is laid out, we can connect the dots: the North American Free Trade Agreement; the admission of Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways; the contract to build the TransTexas Corridor and the plans to extend it into a NAFTA Superhighway; making Kansas City an international ‘port’; the ‘totalization’ of illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system; and the recently defeated Senate amnesty bill.”Ironically, many free trade advocates say that when you look at the actual state of cross-border cooperation, the problem is not that we’re doing too much. It’s that we’re not doing enough. Take the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an ongoing dialogue begun in 2005 and designed to coordinate cross-border regulatory and security policies. While conspiracy theorists depict the SPP as a way to weaken American laws, in fact it has no authority to make any changes one way or another to the regulatory regime. “The SPP conforms with existing laws,” says David Bohigan, assistant secretary of commerce for market access and compliance. Instead, he says, the goal is to harmonize existing laws and regulations between countries. Think of it as a matter of translation: Far from forcing everyone to learn Spanish, the SPP is like a Spanish-to-English dictionary, allowing English speakers to understand their neighbors without ditching their own language. A typical initiative under the framework calls for the three nations to “develop a common approach to standardize the regulatory measures taken in response to Phakopsora pachyrizi (soybean rust).”

If this is a conspiracy theory, it’s hardly the stuff of aliens and x-files. The SPP actually has a number of critics on the other side, people who say it does not go far enough in establishing a framework for discussion. “If there is anything wrong with the SPP, it is not secrecy, but the fact that it is a mishmash of disconnected and mostly trivial initiatives, lacking any organizing vision or direction,” wrote Roland Paris, a former Canadian foreign policy adviser, in the Toronto Globe and Mail.“The SPP is an important initiative,” says Pastor. “My fear is that it is too timid and too fearful of criticism from the right.”Wholly separate from the SPP are efforts to expand the transportation infrastructure that carries goods into and around the country. Rather than links in a conspiratorial plot, in fact they are uncoordinated, unrealized, and in most cases unlikely to be built. First, there is North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition, a Dallas-based nonprofit. Despite its imposing name, NASCO is nothing more than an advocacy group for better use of current trade corridors, in particular the routes running from Mexico to Canada. “What we’re trying to do is push both the private sector and the public sector to maximize the efficiency and security of the existing transportation infrastructure,” says NASCO’s Conde.Even NASCO admits that improving the efficiency of existing corridors is hardly a solution for the long term. Between now and 2025, Texas alone will see a 132 percent increase in traffic, with 260,465 trucks using its highways every day. In response, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been pushing for what comes closest to an actual NAFTA superhighway: a new, 1,200-foot-wide toll road running from the Mexican border to Oklahoma, the centerpiece in a collection of projects known as the TransTexas Corridor (TTC).

Because the highway, estimated to take $180 billion and 50 years to build, would cut through numerous Texas communities and displace up to one million residents, the plan has drawn a fusillade of public criticism, particularly from farmers who stand to lose valuable land to the project.Handing over infrastructure management to the foreign private sector is nothing new—French firms run numerous American water districts, and an Australian-Spanish joint venture manages the Chicago Skyway. Nevertheless, the possible role of foreign business in the TTC’s construction and operation has given an added twist to fears of a NAFTA superhighway. Such opposition has already throttled Perry’s momentum toward approving the TTC, and observers say it looks increasingly unlikely that the project will get built. The controversy over the “superhighway,” the SPP, the TTC and other efforts exposes a harsh truth about the future of the American economy. While free trade agreements and World Trade Organization negotiations are vital, the means by which trade actually occurs—or, increasingly, is impeded—are the everyday pieces of the continental transportation infrastructure: highways, rails, port terminals, and regulations. And, while the United States has maintained a global leadership on writing and expanding trade deals, it has done a poor job of expanding its infrastructure to meet the demands of the resulting increases in cross-border trade.All of which means that the more the conspiracy theorists on the Internet, in the media, and in government frame the issue on their terms, the less the country will be able to make the sorts of investments necessary to assure its long-term growth—and therefore the long-term prosperity of the continent, and the world. [end snippet]

Stumble It!

Fascist Pigs

I hate to fly; I enjoyed traveling years ago. I enjoyed the whole process of packing up all the things I might need and feeling really prepared. Not so anymore - almost anything and everything I might want to place in my backpack are now forboden. A decent person cannot even carry a bottle of water - although everyone knows that proper hydration is key to avoiding "jet lag".

Every time I fly within the United States I get - well pissed off. Foreign carriers with destinations in other lands are not so offensive. I remember one time, way back in 1997, when I was flying from Kuwait to Germany and I purchased a sword in the duty free area of the Kuwait City airport - I had no choice but to take it on the plane with me. Nobody questioned me, nobody thought twice about it. Air travel back then was fun and adventurous. I amused myself that if I were ever to become a character on a show like "Lost" I would be prepared with the things I carried in my pockets. I still try to live the Boy Scout creed of being prepared. (the show did not exist back then but you get what I mean).

You know the drill now, just try to exercise your God given right to travel freely within your own country - you find yourself subjected to the most ridiculous sorts of nonsense. It always seems to take me 20 minutes to get through the screening. I am almost always singled out for "random" questioning. I was even pulled aside and questioned on my last return flight from Iraq. The little imp informed me that I had set off their explosives detector - "well of course you moron", I am sure that there was residue from a lot of nasty things lingering in my clothes and equipment. That did not matter to them - they don't look at people and apply common sense - they use a big fly swatter and in the process offend the rights of a lot of good people.

Two days ago I sat in the international terminal at Inchon, South Korea - waiting to board a Korean Airlines flight to Hawaii. Over the loud speaker a friendly voice informed us that "per a request from the Transportation Security Agency we would have to undergo a second security screening". This was for everyone on the flight, we had all passed though an initial screening - the full Monty in fact - prior to entering the international concourse. I had undergone one previous to that before boarding a domestic flight within Korea enroute to Inchon.

I thought to myself, as I prepared to subject myself to another unnecessary intrusion into my personal space - "what nerve". Why would the Korean government subvert its own sovereignty to the "requests" of the TSA? Why would they allow their own citizens as well as guest in their country to be subjected to the paranoid delusions of a two bit bunch of wanna be tyrants? I don't know the answer to this - I have theories but those are not important.

It seems that America truly is leading the world - into fear, overreaction and bad judgment. You may say that these little "inconveniences" are necessary; I say that they are just part of conditioning people to accept that the government has the "right" to stick its hands in our pockets whenever and wherever it pleases. This is a dangerous precedent to allow to stand and a tragic course for a "free people" to follow.

I don't think terming the people that think these things up as "fascist pigs" is too harsh or hyperbole - I think it is a description that hits the nail right on the head.

I am done venting and plan to enjoy the rest of my vacation in Hawaii - today was grand, we went snorkeling, I got back on a board for the first time in years and I enjoyed cuisine I have been deprived of for two years.

Stumble It!

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Pat sums up Rudy about as well as it can be said:

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one’s soul.

We could dissect Rudy's stance on issues and all that but it seems a trivial pursuit - he is the antithesis of conservative principles. There is no point in discussing him, no real conservative would or will support him.

Stumble It!

So Long Joe

There is, of course, nothing romantic or enviable about war. It is something that brings out the very worst and the very best in people - a man's true character is exposed for all to see. I know that war has always been and always will be part of the human condition. In a world without war, considering all human frailty, we would be left with benevolent (or malevelent) tyranny. History has proven, over and over again, that somethimes war is neccesary, sometime it is just and occasionally it is the only option.

There is nothing wrong with children playing at war, so long as someone within the family explains that war is not simply a game. Playing with heroes and villians is an important part of a child developing into a man - so long, as I said they eventually come to see that the world is not so simple as all that.

So we have the venerable GI Joe, a man that I came to know and love as a child. He was a Marine but more than that. In his career after the Corps he performed every sort of exciting, adventurous job imaginable. I recall that he was a smoke jumper, an "Indiana Jones" sort of adventurer and a dozen other things (in the 1970's Hasbrio downplayed his Marine past and released several personifications of Joe performing these other adventurous but non-military functions).

To me these "politics" did not matter, Joe was always a Marine, no matter what other function he might perform. Perhaps I did not understand the technicalities but it was simple to me, Joe could always put on the uniform, no matter what image Hasbrio tried to sell. I owned the original (I guess) version of Joe from the early 1960's - he was a heck of a hero to me in my young childhood.

Now it seems that Joe is just not international enough, he is too American. Paramount would fashion Joe as not a man, but rather some international group of co-ed commando's fighting for world peace and harmony. Stripping Joe of his true historical connection and his identity.

Consider the story of the real Joe, the man GI Joe was fashioned to look like, the man that inspired the true action hero. (from Review Journal)

On Nov. 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, Calif., southeast of Palm Springs. He was a combat veteran of World War II. His name was Mitchell Paige.

It's hard today to envision -- or, for the dwindling few, to remember -- what the world looked like on Oct. 25, 1942 -- 65 years ago.

The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand lonely American Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal and high-tailed it out of there.

On Guadalcanal, the Marines struggled to complete an airfield that could threaten the Japanese route to Australia. Admiral Yamamoto knew how dangerous that was. Before long, relentless Japanese counterattacks had driven the supporting U.S. Navy from inshore waters. The Marines were on their own.

As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Brownings on that hillside, 65 years ago this week -- manning their section of the thin khaki line that was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of Oct. 25, 1942 -- it's unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 armed and motivated attackers?

But by the time the night was over, "The 29th (Japanese) Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men," historian Lippman reports. "The 16th (Japanese) Regiment's losses are uncounted, but the 164th's burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. ... The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low."

You've already figured out where the Japanese focused their attack, haven't you? Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige's platoon. Every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.

The citation for Paige's Medal of Honor picks up the tale: "When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machine gun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire."

In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.

Coming up at dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was the first to discover how many able-bodied United States Marines it takes to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened infantrymen who have never known defeat.

On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his 30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.

The hill had held, because on the hill remained the minimum number of able-bodied United States Marines necessary to hold the position.

And that's where the unstoppable wave of Japanese conquest finally crested, broke, and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one ever heard of, called Guadalcanal.

When the Hasbro Toy Co. called some years back, asking permission to put the retired colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren't. That's his mug, on the little Marine they call "G.I. Joe." At least, it has been up till now.

Mitchell Paige's only condition? That G.I. Joe must always remain a United States Marine.

It took just one tough 'sumbeach' on that hill to hold, that was the minimal number of able-bodied Marines required. I am not a warmonger, but wars happen and a free people - if they are to remain free, occasionally need heroes. Mitchell Paige was just such a hero, among thousands but because of his own character and the cruel combination of fate that placed him on that hill he showed that he was just such a hero- he through the image of GI Joe has represented the sort of hero free people require at times.

Now it seems that is just not good enough....

Stumble It!

We Don't Need No Stinking Debate Here

The post on Redstate, “Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair),” begins, “Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.” (via Politico)

I gave up on RedState a long time ago, I have never seen one fresh, innovative, logical or conservative idea posited there. I had no idea that honest discussion was such a threat to "conservatism" until Daniel pointed this out in a recent post. He sums it up pretty nicely:

Unfortunately, this latest is just a symptom of the broader conformism on the “mainstream” right, particularly on matters of foreign policy, and represents the mentality of a movement that has been losing its ability to maintain and grow its political coalition. Paul’s campaign has thrived on the message that conservatism and Republicanism can and should still mean respect for the Constitution, liberty and a sane foreign policy–the very kind of rejuvenating and reforming message that the GOP needs if it is to retain the loyalty of millions of disaffected small-government conservatives and libertarians–and where Paul is making converts the folks at RedState, to adapt a phrase, are interested in finding heretics. It is a great irony this year that it is the purists who are actually swelling Republican ranks, while the pragmatists and big-tent folks are doing their best to empty that tent. Republicans will object that new Paul supporters will not support the GOP once Paul’s campaign is finished, and they may be right. RedState has just given Paul supporters one more reason to stay home or vote third party.

Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters gets it wrong in his assessment of all of this:

Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

This has nothing to do with a two-bit GOP shill site and its inability to effectively support and defend the unconstitutionality of almost every GOP policy - this has to with the indefensibility of the ideology behind GOP "conservatism". The entire field opposing Paul is comprised of clowns and crooks.

In one very important way it is crucial that freedom-loving Americans are rallying around a man that stands on principles and believes in the rule of law. Ultimately we need these sorts of things, we need to see that the system will not allow the sort of honest discussion Ron Paul wants to have, we need to see first hand the great lengths phony conservatives will go to in order to avoid honest debate. We need to see, in the final analysis, that the system is broken and it will take more resolve and more work than just an election to fix it.

Stumble It!

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really" (The Independent)

It is dangerous, probably, to blog about this. After all, the mere mention of an issue like this is likely to result in someone calling you a racist. However, there are a couple of important issues here worthy of discussion.

I read The Bell Curve back when everyone made such a fuss over the book. I also recall Jimmy "The Greek" being fired from CBS sports for commenting that Blacks were more successful at sports because of selective breeding during slavery.

The Bell Curve was of course much criticized even though the bulk of the book did not deal at all with racial differences in intelligence. It was an amazing and eye-opening experience to one have read the book and two talk to people that had not but were certain it was a racist tome. I carried a copy on a flight and a colleague berated me for even considering that as reading material. However, the book did make numerous valid points supported by data.

Jimmy "The Greek" was another issue entirely. He had only anecdotal evidence, just his own observations and an opinion based upon those observations. However, a logical examination of his theory essentially stands up. Africans and African-Americans certainly are vastly different physically. I am not certain this is all a matter of environment and nutrition. There are many well nourished Africans that compete and win long distance running events, very few African- Americans compete in these events. It also has to be more than the geographical separation. Four hundred years is not enough time to manifest the physical differences that are so apparent in these two groups. Jimmy must have been correct, it has to have something to do with the experience of slavery.

So back to James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner associated with mapping human DNA (not that a Nobel Prize means a lot, a la Gore). Here is a scientist with accomplishments and expert knowledge in the area he is speaking about. For sure he is positing a theory that cannot be backed up with hard evidence, after all there is still much we do not know about genetics. The history of science is filled with experts positing theories that are later proven to be true.

Alas, this is no ordinary theory. Those see the world through certain glasses never want such a theory explored. What if Watson's theory was proven true? What would that mean to egalitarians around the world? I certainly believe that all men are created equal in the eyes of God but we all know that we do not each have the exact same skills and abilities. Why is it so preposterous to examine the possibility that thousands of years of geographic separation produced more differences than just skin color? Perhaps honest scientific evaluation will answer these questions for us - but then again probably not.

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

There you have it. This is the European Union at its finest. If academics are not allowed freedom to pursue their own ideas, subjected to honest peer-review, then the world of ideas and real learning will fall into the shadows. Watson may be all wrong, but we may never really know if victims are able to use political correctness to silence his thoughts and punish him for actually having thoughts they dislike.

Stumble It!

America is being shocked into fascism

"But you're talking about our government and corporations as if they're two different things," quips Maher. "Now, we all know that communism is when the government takes over private business. But, when corporations take over the government, that is what has been defined as fascism."

read more | digg story

Shocked and misled to say the least.....

Corporatism + Militarism + Nationalism = Fascism

Sometimes people use the term fascist in a knee-jerk reaction but this is not a far-cry from where we are indeed headed - perhaps a kindler, gentler sort of fascism (for now, for most people) but fascism for sure.

From the Chattanooga Declaration

2. The privileges, monopolies, and powers that private corporations have won from government threaten everyone’s health, prosperity, and liberty, and have already killed American self-government by the people.

3. The power of corporations endangers liberty as much as government power, especially when they are combined as in the American Empire.

See also: Socialist Democrats and Fascist Republicans

Stumble It!

America's First Terrorist

I should point out that John Brown is an ancestor of mine having the common Mayflower ancestry of Peter Browne. Fortunately, I have more significant others to more than compensate for this Brown's atrocities and crimes. Although not mentioned in the article below, John Brown was captured by Robert E. Lee, tried for treason and hung by the Commonwealth of Virginia. You see, back then states were sovereign unto themselves. Our opinion-molders have always given us a choice between 'good' evil and 'bad' evil. In 1859, John Brown was a 'good' terrorist just as the Red Chinese are 'good' communists while Chavez, along with growing resentment of Putin are bad' communists. Cuba's Battista was a 'bad' dictator, but Castro is a 'good' one. Nicaragua's Somoza was a "bad" dictator, but the Communist Ortega is a 'good' one. Nelson Mandela is another example of a terrorist becoming a 'good' communist. Not too far removed from Brown's terrorism is the state terrorism we inflict upon other nations today. It's 'good' evil because we know what's better for them and offer them our form of democracy in our caring for their common good. The American people are only offered policies of "relativity", 'the lesser of two evils' theory, and we lose every time. We should be grateful we only have 40 million illegals, and not 100 million?

Another not forgotten historical example of state 'good' terrorism was the abolitionists-inspired invasion of the American South and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans for the common 'good' as determined by these same New Englanders. The South has had nearly 145 years of "reconstruction", and still Yankees are resented. How long do you think it'll take the Middle East and the world to Love us again?

For more on the Unitarian subversion, see my: http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/unitwhig.htm

I further recommend Otto Scott's The Secret Six for more on the supporters and financiers of Brown's activities

by Philocrites

Okay Unitarian-Universalist and American literary history buffs, be sure to read Adam Gopnik's essay about the brilliant, violent abolitionist John Brown. I'd like to call your attention especially to the way the Transcendentalists — our most famous Unitarians — embraced Brown after he and four of his sons slaughtered five pro-slavery men in Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas. That's right, after. Reviewing David S. Reynolds's new biography, Gopnik writes:

"Brown was never arrested or tried for the Kansas killings, and when he came back East he found himself a hero—though not with the members of Garrison’s abolitionist “establishment,” who were firmly pacifist and consumed by their own sectarian squabbling. Instead, it was the high Transcendentalists, Thoreau and Emerson and Alcott first among them, who became Brown’s fervent admirers and propagandists. Some of Reynolds’s most illuminating pages are devoted to Brown’s relationship to the Transcendentalists. The historical cliché has been that the Transcendentalists had their heads too far up in the clouds to see what was happening on the bloody earth below. Reynolds, however, following Stauffer, establishes that they were Brown’s most important intellectual allies..."

Stumble It!

Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln

Caution: May be offensive & not recommended viewing by neo-cons, GOP Party hacks, government teachers, intolerants, rent-seekers, or numb-numbs of any persuasion.

Fence sitters welcome.

---

Enemies of Liberty Love Lincoln
Thomas DiLorenzo explains why (video).

Stumble It!

Hillary Exposed

This one is truly an indictment of the raw, ruthless power of the Clintons. It's not even funny, and should shame every decent American:

Video

Stumble It!

Fw: Universal Health Care in Canada - Something to think about

From: Dean <>

Hey Guys; I seen on the news up here in Canada where Hillary Clinton introduced her new health care plan. Something similar to what we have in Canada. I also heard that Michael Moore was raving about the health care up here in Canada in his latest movie. As your friend and someone who lives with the Canada health care plan I thought I would give you some facts about this great medical plan that we have in Canada.

I send this out not looking for sympathy but as the election looms in the states you will be hearing more and more about universal health care down there and the advocates will be pointing to Canada. I just want to make sure that you hear the truth about health care up here and have some food for thought and informed questions to ask when broached with this subject.


First of all:


1) The health care plan in Canada is not free. We pay a premium every month of $96. for Shirley and I to be covered. Sounds great eh. What they don't tell you is how much we pay in taxes to keep the health care system afloat. I am personally in the 55% tax bracket. Yes 55% of my earnings go to taxes. A large portion of that and I am not sure of the exact amount goes directly to health care our #1 expense.

2) I would not classify what we have as health care plan, it is more like a health diagnosis system. You can get into to see a doctor quick enough so he can tell you "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but now the challenge becomes getting treated or operated on. We have waiting lists out the ying yang some as much as 2 years down the road.

3) Rather than fix what is wrong with you the usual tactic in Canada is to prescribe drugs. Have a pain, here is a drug to take - not what is causing the pain and why. No time for checking you out because it is more important to move as many patients thru as possible each hour for Government re-imbursement

4) Many Canadians do not have a family Doctor.

5) Don't require emergency treatment as you may wait for hours in the emergency room waiting for treatment.

6) Shirley's dad cut his hand on a power saw a few weeks back and it required that his hand be put in a splint - to our surprise we had to pay $125. for a splint because it is not covered under health care plus we have to pay $60. for each visit for him to check it out each week.

7) Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage. Put on a waiting list . He died before he could get treatment.

8) Government allots so many operations per year. When that is done no more operations, unless you go to your local newspaper and plead your case and embarrass the government then money suddenly appears.

9) The Government takes great pride in telling us how much more they are increasing the funding for health care but waiting lists never get shorter. Government just keeps throwing money at the problem but it never goes away. But they are good at finding new ways to tax us, but they don't call it a tax anymore it is now a user fee.

10) My mother needs an operation for a blockage in her leg but because she is a smoker they will not do it. Despite her and my father paying into the health care system all these years. My Mom is 80 years of age. Now there is talk that maybe we should not treat fat and obese people either because they are a drain on the health care system. Let me see now, what we want in
Canada is a health care system for healthy people only. That should reduce our health care costs.

11) Forget getting a second opinion, what you see is what you get.

12) I can spend what money I have left after taxes on booze, cigarettes, junk food and anything else that could kill me but I am not allowed by law to spend my money on getting an operation I need because that would be jumping the queue. I must wait my turn except if I am a hockey player or athlete then I can get looked at right away. Go figure. Where else in the world can you spend money to kill yourself but not allowed to spend money to get healthy.

13) Oh, did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer expense having never contributed a dollar to the system and pay no premiums.

14) Oh yeah, we now give free needles to drug users to try and keep them healthy. Wouldn't want a sickly druggie breaking into your house and stealing your things. But people with diabetes who pay into the health care system have to pay for their needles because it is not covered by the health care system.


Step wisely and don't make the same mistakes we have.

Dean

Stumble It!

On Lincoln Again

Daniel Larison has a few true things to say about Lincoln

A modern conservative appropriation of Lincoln seems mistaken to me since, obviously, I think Lincoln’s politics are the antithesis of the decentralist, distributist-cum-populist tradition that properly makes up what best approximates a native conservative tradition in America. If judged according to Burkean hostility to Jacobinism and “armed doctrines” generally, Lincoln would have to be classified as an enemy of the permanent things....Lincoln represents the tendency to uproot, level or destroy pretty much everything that a great many traditional conservatives believe that we should be conserving.

This is of course a nice way of saying what most of us already know - Lincoln was a murderous, lying, tyrant; he was certainly not a conservative however the neocon's probably find him and his actions as something to be admired. That of course is more a commentary on their own flaws than anything remarkable about Lincoln himself.

Stumble It!

Democide by Government

We must now construct a scorecard for the Neo-Conservatives' record of imposing "democracies" with pre-emptive undeclared warring in the interest of "national security" and "common good". A good place to start is with the works of RJ Rummel. A page of democide images from his site is here. The only presidential candidate who would end these unlawful wars is Ron Paul.

(I don't see Stalin's victims mentioned here, i.e.,

Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania)

murder of German POWs by Allied soldiers

---

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF

CV

Stumble It!

Totalitarians Among Us & The Myth of a Christian Nation

Read this...

Totalitarians Among Us
Thomas DiLorenzo on neocons, Fredheads, Christojihadists, and other enemies of freedom.

then...

watch this 3-part YouTube presentation by clicking on the image below...

Huckabee Hacks should seize this opportunity to learn what being a Christian is all about.

Are we really a nation that is deserving of Ron Paul?

CV

Stumble It!

Forgive Us Our Trespasses

Later this month, on June 28, the Serbian Orthodox Church will be observing the feast day of Saint Lazar. The feast day is held on the anniversary of Lazar's martyrdom at the Battle of Kosovo, an epic fight waged between the forces of Christian Serbia and the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1389. It was Lazar, a Serbian prince, who led the Christian forces against the Muslims in the infamous battle. The Serbian force, outnumbered more than two-to-one, consisted of nearly every knight and prince of Serbia. Legend has it that the night before the battle, an angel came to Prince Lazar in a dream, offering him a choice between two kingdoms: one on Earth, and one in Heaven. Prince Lazar, knowing that the choice of an Earthly kingdom would result in victory over the Ottomans the next day, and that the choice of a Heavenly kingdom would spell defeat, declared: "Perishable is the earthly kingdom, but forever and ever is the Kingdom of Heaven!" The words he offered his soldiers before joining the Ottomans in battle the next day were simply: "We die with Christ to live forever!"

And on June 28, 1389, at Kosovo Field, the Christian armies of Serbia were wiped out, along with the Serbian political elite - including Prince Lazar. But the Ottoman victory came with a heavy price. Before the battle, the Ottomans were in a position to expand even further into Europe, conquering and converting as they went. At Kosovo, however, the Serbs had inflicted such losses upon the Ottomans -- including the death of Sultan Murad I -- that they had no other choice but to retreat back to home turf. Over the next few hundred years, the Holy Ground of Kosovo -- where the Christian West was saved from the Islamic Caliphate -- would be overrun by Albanians, a conquered people who were forced to convert to Islam by their Ottoman overlords 500 years ago, and have remained a Muslim nation ever since.

On June 10, 2007, it was reported that United States President George Bush received a "hero's welcome" in Albania.

"Sooner rather than later you've got to say 'Enough's enough - Kosovo is independent,'" Bush said, telling Albanians what they wanted to hear. He said independence was a certainty.

Independence for Kosovo is, of course, absolutely none of President Bush's business. Unfortunately the issue was thrust upon all citizens of the United States by President Bill Clinton in the late 1990's, when Yugoslavian (Serbian) forces began to crackdown on Albanian separatists in Kosovo. The dispute was an internal matter of a sovereign state, and atrocities were alleged on both sides, but when the international community -- led, of course, by the United States -- finally inserted itself into the matter, it erred on the side of the Muslim Albanian separatists. A brutal air war was waged on the people and infrastructure of Yugoslavia by the United States under the guise of NATO, and on June 11, 1999, Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic backed down. The Albanians returned to Kosovo, Yugoslavian forces retreated, and the region has been ruled by the United Nations ever since.

Contrast this episode with the situation in the Middle East. As Kosovo has always been a sacred part of the Serbian Nation, Palestine is historically recognized as the fatherland of the Jews. Roughly 100 years ago, the Zionist movement began to pick up steam. An attempt to reverse the ancient Jewish diaspora was made and by 1948, the State of Israel was recognized across the world. Most Christians in the United States believe that the establishment of the modern Israel was ordained by God in some way; this is reflected by the unconditional diplomatic and military support given to Israel by the United States' government. Of course, the reclaiming of Israel could not have been achieved without an ethnic cleansing of Muslim Arabs, and the efforts of those that we would easily label murderers and terrorists - if they hadn't happened to have been Jews.

The circumstances between the Muslim Arab conquest of Palestine and subsequent reclamation by the Jews early last century, and the Muslim Albanian conquest of Kosovo and attempted reclamation by the Christian Serbs later last century, are virtually the same. Yet, for whatever reason, the United States backed Israel, and threw the Christian Serbs to the dogs. Imagine a few years from now when the demographics have lined up, that the Mexican populations of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas vote for independence from the United States. Then the Russian, Chinese, and European heads-of-state fly into Mexico City to pledge their support for the Mexicans in the US Southwest. That's pretty much what just happened with President Bush in Albania (save for the fact that -- unlike the US Southwest -- Kosovo is regarded a holy ground by an ancient people that -- unlike the US -- actually have fought a war of survival against the spread of Islam).

Despite the circumstances leading up to the 1999 NATO campaign, and the consequences it will forever hold for Christian Serbia, millions of US citizens are still wildly deluded into believing that their country is some sort of "Christian Nation". The brutal fact of reality is that the Kosovo War was just one more episode in the United States' long, rich tradition of destroying Christians. The staunchly devout Southerners were overrun and "reconstructed" when they peacefully and democratically left the US in the 1860's, with tens of thousands of civilians killed in the process. Forty years later, more than 200,000 (mostly Christian) Filipino civilians were murdered by US forces in a pointless bid to conquer the Philippines. After World War One, the Protestant and Catholic Kaisers of Germany and Austria-Hungary were forced to abdicate, and the Allies' constant demand on the Tsar to keep his nation in the war led directly to the demise of Orthodox Russia. Without these ancient, Christian monarchs in power, the US and its allies had delivered Europe and Russia to Fascism, Nazism and Communism. The idiotic Treaty of Versailles that made this possible was championed fiercely by the United States. It led directly to the Second World War -- which wasn't allowed to end until the United States' military had finished its science project in "the oldest and most influential Christian community in Japan" -- and subsequent struggle with international Communism in which tens of millions of innocent civilians would be murdered by their godless governments. The bloodiest century in the history of the universe was made possible by the unwarranted meddling of the United States' government, which for some reason prints "In God we trust" on its currency and forces its youngsters to pledge allegiance to its flag, which is touted as the symbol of a nation "under God". This same "nation" went on to kick off the Twenty-First century with a quixotic bid to erect a Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of Mesopotamia, an ancient region with absolutely no heritage of liberal government whatsoever. Typically, the debacle in Iraq is poised to accomplish that which no other empire ever could - the complete and total annihilation of some of the most ancient Christian communities in the world.

As our president mingles amid throngs of happy Albanians, let us remember the historic events of June, and never forget the hypocrisy exhibited by our leaders and the atrocities perpetrated by our government on Christians all around the world.

Stumble It!

The Results and Future of The War on Terror

I believe I am now prepared to concretely state my position on "The War on Terrorism". Not that I have not stated it before in bits and pieces but this is, I think, an overarching analysis of how we at least ought to look at these last few years. I wonder now what my time in Afghanistan and Iraq was really for other than to take care of the people that went with me.

To state my position, I must first establish a few truths. First, take a look at the history of the Middle East. Diverse ethnic, religious and cultural groups have always lived side-by-side but there has never been the kind of violent events that sort these things out. The Ottoman Empire kept everyone together, as much as it could, by allowing diversity - each culture kept its own religion, culture and even language. Before that there were other empires but never the sort of nation-building along historical, cultural and ethnic lines we saw in Europe. In Europe warfare sorted out the differences long ago and allowed for more or less herterogeneous nations (excepting the Balkans of course). I contend that this sort of violence is an important part of human history - peace can never truly be achieved until people groups sort things out. Various empires in the Middle East kept things together for a time, but without their power and influence things fell apart.

Enter the British and the French at the end of WWI. Each of these "empires" (true still at the time) established zones of control over particular geographic areas, establishing mandates under the League of Nations. These essentially artificially drawn lines on a map delineating what would eventually become nation-states in the region is the basis for the current political organization of the area. Neither thought nor concern was given to the various cultural, religious or ethnic make up of the soon-to-be nations. In fact what the British and the French drew on a map were not nations at all in the traditional sense of the word - they defined arbitrary political boundaries - they gerrymandered the Middle East. When these "nations" became independent they remained cohesive only through strong and repressive central governments - dictators or kings.

Fast forward to the fall of the Soviet Union - the West no longer saw the need to court dictators and in fact all of a sudden was struck by a sense of morality in relation to their former friends. Fast forward again to 2003 and our leaders now think the answer to all of the problems in the Middle East is to eliminate the dictators that kept false nations together and to replace them with democracies.

Lets' back up to 1990 - Osama Bin Laden and the MAK had just assisted in the defeat of one of the world's remaining empires- the Soviets. Bin Laden - a product of a long evolutionary ideological chain of development beginning with Sayyed Qutb, progressing to the Muslim Brotherhood and then the Egyptian Islamic Jihad to Azzam and Zarwhari - had long railed against the secular slant of the Saudi monarchy. When US and coalition troops occupied the Kingdom, home of Islam's two holiest cities, Bin Laden began to see the "far enemy" as the one that must be defeated first.

In 1996 al Qaeda stated its intent to wage war against the United States and allies. In 1998 the group and its allies in the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders essentially declared war.

Let's stop there and examine what was occurring on our side of the water at the same time. In 1993 and again in 1996 Samuel Huntington wrote what must be considered the cornerstone theory of US engagement in the Middle East in Clash of Civilizations. The major flaw of Huntington's work is that he lumps the world into seven major groups and assumes that these groups are heterogeneous enough to coalesce around common ideals and concepts - enough so to make conflict between these various civilizations inevitable. Notwithstanding the fact that Huntington was wrong on this point it is more important to realize than many people in power believe his theories - aka neocons and their various supporters.

Back in the Middle East Bin Laden and al Qaeda would agree with Huntington in his theory. This group looked across Muslim lands and believed that two reasons existed for strife. First, foreign influence, specifically Western influence. Second, a perversion of Islam over the centuries from the perfect form that existed during the time of the prophet. Bin Laden saw the solution to all of this as the reestablishment of the caliphate, expulsion of Western influence and an elimination of corruption within Islam. In one sense this puts Huntington, Bush, Rice and Bin Laden in agreement - they all see a clash of civilizations as inevitable and are willing to actually cause it.

Of course we all know, because we were told repeatedly, that al Qaeda carried out attacks on US embassies in Africa, attacked the U.S.S. Cole, planned and executed 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks. What does not get as much attention is the fact that in 2004, al Qaeda offered a truce to Europe if they would withdraw from the Middle East and in October of that year, just before the election, appealed to the American population to change the course.

All of the above is historical fact but what does it mean? Why has our government told us repeatedly that another terrorist strike is inevitable, yet none have occurred in the US since 2001. The 7/7 2005 attacks could be seen as a direct response to Britain's refusal of the 2004 offer of truce. If al Qaeda is as we have been told, a massive global network of terrorist bent on destroying the US why have their attacks against the US stopped? More importantly what does this mean for the supposed "War on Terror"?

Here is my theory and it is simple. Bin Laden was impressed by his experience in Afghanistan. A group of Jihadist warriors were able to stop and defeat one of the world's great powers on their own terms in their own land. Bin Laden always favored replacing secular regimes in the Middle East, just as the Islamic Jihad before him, but the reality is that this is a difficult proposition in repressive countries. The Egyptian experience clearly taught that, and in Saudi Arabia it was even more difficult. Al Qaeda needed a war with the west on their own terms, in Muslim lands. The attacks in the late 1990's and in 2001 were merely an attempt to force that circumstance.

I am not suggesting that Bin Laden knew full-well that the US would actually put ground troops into Afghanistan nor did he know for certain that the US would invade Iraq. I suspect the latter was merely a double bonus for their plan, a success beyond their wildest imaginations. It is likely that al Qaeda expected the usual response to 9/11, missile strikes and covert teams of assassins. It is also likely that their plans included more attacks like 9/11 until one of two things occurred. 1) the West abandoned Muslim lands, leaving Jihadist and Islamist free to topple secular regimes; or 2) the West committed to battle in terms favorable to the Islamist.

In retrospect and with more complete information available to us now, related to the evolutionary process in which al Qaeda’s ideology developed and a more complete understanding of their strategy, clearly shows us one thing. Al Qaeda’s overall strategy was masterful. Bin Laden can claim the moral high ground in much of the Muslim world by demonstrating that he is conducting a just war – al Qaeda declared war in 1996 and did so clearly in 1998. The group can claim, and be believed by some, that the attacks in the late 1990’s and in 2001 were a direct response to earlier warnings. Al Qaeda played the role of the statesman in 2004, offering a truce and appealing to end the war. These offers did not go unnoticed by many Muslims. Finally, al Qaeda has continually claimed that the West’s actions are that of crusaders – the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq add credence to that claim. They have invited the world’s powers to battle on their own turf, on their own terms. Taken in total this was all part of a brilliant grand strategy (compare that to the best we can come up with; “stay the course” and “surge”). Say what you will about the motivations and ideology of these people, they are certainly no slackers in terms of strategic thought. Clearly Bin Laden understands 4GW at the tactical and strategic level.

Current US stratagy cannot succeed in the Middle East (Afghanistan or Iraq) in terms that nation-states historically understand. In the end our policy will invariably turn to something more understandable, supporting a regime that can exercise power - democracy and all those touchy-feel-good notions be damned. We will declare victory and believe this conflict to be ended.

The reality will be quite different. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan created thousands of ideologically pure Jihadist warriors. It created families all over the world with brothers, cousins and sons that were heroes. Our invasion of that country and Iraq has provided the opportunity for thousands more to answer the call of Sayyed Qutb's version of the lesser Jihad.

When we declare victory, after having spent billions from the treasury and spilt our own blood, the ideological foundations of al Qaeda will remain. Their justifications and motivations will remain. Finally they will still have a valid model for engaging the West at their disposal - poke the pit bull with sticks until it comes into your yard.

The US has given legitimacy and authority to the cause of al Qaeda where none would have existed otherwise. In our own land we have created an entire new layer of bureaucracy -DHS- and enacted laws that restrict our own freedom. Our government "leaders" speak of al Qaeda as if they were a peer-competitor nation with the capability of actually destroying us. We invaded a Muslim nation based upon false information and set about establishing a Western style government - adding credence to al Qaeda's claim that we are crusaders.

Essentially our government has acted with as much ideological zeal as al Qaeda- borne from an equally misplaced ideology, only we have been more inept in our actions. We have played directly into the traps and strategies al Qaeda set for us.

We will someday declare a victory in Iraq and withdraw most of our troops - effectively ending Operation Provide Targets. The government we leave will not be truly democratic - for democracies simply cannot work where the gulf between the minority and majority is so great. We will leave a government no so much less tyrannical than the one toppled - and it will be viewed as a Western creation.

What will have changed? We will have spent billions of dollars, created enemies and potential enemies among the millions that have suffered as a result of these wars. Al Qaeda or some follow-on group will still exist, the ideology with its motivations, aims and objectives will still live. Undoubtedly as US troops begin to come home plots will be made and plans put in place to carry the war back to our shores- this will no doubt continue until we allow the people of Middle East to solve their own problems, stop supporting false nations and their regimes and essentially mind our own business - or until some future fool invades another Muslim country trying to root out an ideology. Al Qaeda could care less if we are immoral, greedy or any other term one might apply. They are concerned that we are there. Nothing we can do except untangle ourselves from this foreign mess and attend to important matters such as closing down the borders back home to illegals and making it harder for would-be terrorist to get in can in any way change any of this.

Stumble It!

It's About Morality and Culture, Stupid

Daniel Larison sucessfully rips into one of the main pillars of neoconic ideology related to - the notion that Muslim Islamist disdain our freedom.

The “they hate us for our freedoms” line is pure garbage. I don’t know how else to put it. Sayyid Qutb didn’t like how Coloradoans danced in 1949, but he didn’t make it his life’s goal to attack Americans or to urge others to attack Americans and drive us out of the Near East…because we weren’t in the Near East and Muslims around the world had no reason to feel any particular animus towards America.

I discussed Sayyid Qutb in a recent post. It is clear from reading his perspective of the world that his first impression with western freedom was not revulsion at freedom but disgust at the moral state of the west. One must remember his impression was that of 1949-50 America.

Larison states...it was the export of American pop culture to the world in the decades that followed that lit the fuse. In many respects, the export of that culture has triumphed over local resistance (I have strong doubts that this is a desirable thing), but it has generated hostility to the general experience of globalisation and rapid cultural change and those processes are unavoidably associated with the United States because so many of the largest multinationals are associated in the minds of people around the world with this country.

In fact if one really looks at the motivation and goals of Osama Bin Laden (an heir to the thoughts of Sayyid) three things become clear. One, ultimately pan-Islamist wish to reestablish the caliphate. Second, to accomplish the first goal secular and amoral regimes within historic Islamic territory must be replaced. Third, to accomplish this western armies as well as overt and covert Weatern support of secular regimes in the Islamic world must be removed.

It is important to understand motivation. Failure to understand leads to the the acceptance of stupid notions such as the idea that there are people in other parts of the world that want to actually take away our freedom. Perhaps there is a degree of truth to this - they do wish to undermine our freedom to shape the world in our own image, to support regimes of our own choosing in their lands and to deploy our troops to Islamic lands as we please. Perhaps that much is true - but the idea they they actually wish to abridge our own freedom in our own homelands is just false. For right or wrong, these people have a pretty good and solid argument against the stationing of non-Muslim troops in the land of their two holiest sites.

Don't take me wrong, I am not saying that the ideology, based upon a perversion of Islam, held by Bin Laden and crew is correct. I have read the Koran, I do not purport to be an expert on Islamic theology, but none of the Muslims I know support the interpretation of verses and passages toward evil actions used by these people. In that sense they are just as morally degraded as their enemies.

So long as men remain immoral and separated from the rule of natural law these sorts of conflicts will continue. Immorality, faith in human reason above historic understanding are the at the root of evil- I suppose the neocons, communist, socialist, Islamist and secularist of the world will just never really understand that.

Stumble It!

From Philosophy to Ideology

I am reading a couple books about Sayyid Qutb, I was particularly interested in his view of the moral state of America in 1948-50. He was a an anti-communist and there is a particularly telling passage that compares a statement by Billy Graham to one Qutb made a year prior denouncing communism as replacing one god for another. (This in and of it self means nothing, it is but an interesting comparison.)

Reading Sayyid's thoughts in his early days of transformation (he was 42 but this was his first adventure outside of Egypt) I cannot help but believe that the man was a paleoconservative in the truest sense. Of course he later developed into an ideologue and essentially developed his own dangerous ideology, Qutbism, but that was not the man in 1950.

I did a little Internet search and discovered that Joshua previously wrote about this man:

CORPUS MEUM today links to an article about Sayyid Qutb's stay in 1950s America: A Lesson In Hate. The Egyptian thinker was, of course, in grace error, but this did not prevent him from making a valid point or two along the way, like this one:

Qutb rejected the idea that “new” was also “improved.” The Enlightenment, the Industrial Age—modernity itself—were not progress. “The true value of every civilization...lies not in the tools man has invented or in how much power he wields,” Qutb wrote. “The value of civilizations lay in what universal truths and worldviews they have attained.” The modern obsession with science and invention was a moral regression to the primitive condition of the first toolmakers.

Such ideas seem to me not so much in keeping with Islamism but with the Traditionalist School of René Guénon.

Joshua may not have called the man a paleoconservative (in 1950 as I stated above) but he was on the right trail. I hate it when I think I have an original idea and then find someone else has beat me to it.

I am about to re-read Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. There is much I agree with in that book, although I believe he does not go far enough in sub-dividing potential cultures and potential clashes.

I am however stumped in my apparent agreement with Huntington in portions of his work and my understanding of Muslims. Huntington asserts that future conflict will not be primarily ideological or economic but based upon culture. I do not see non-ideological Muslims, living mostly in their lands as a threat.

Cultures can co-exist in the community of nations, it is ideology that poisons the mind of man. I could, for instance, have been friends with Sayyid Qutb in 1950, our views would have been the same (had I been alive). This is despite the fact that we come from different cultures and religious beliefs.

I would have been his enemy some years later after his philosophical views turned ideological. I have likely fought and killed people influenced by his ideas in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Stumble It!

Hillary Will Save Us

All shareholders please report to the killing fields on the double.

Stumble It!

We Lost the Cultural War

One theme runs pretty constant through many of the blogs, sites and magazines I read. That being centered essentially around the cultural war. Major campaigns in this war include items such as the illegal immigration invasion from the south and the Muslim foothold in our Congress. Of course another major campaign that many folks I read or converse with deals with moral degradation and yet another topic of discussion and concern is of course governmental and corporate encroachment into our everyday lives. Many folks realize that all of these events are directly related to each other, some go so far as to claim that there is a conspiracy afoot responsible for all of this.

Well, there may or may not be such a conspiracy. After all a conspiracy is really nothing more than a group with a plan. I am relatively certain that some group, some where, that desires more centralized government, has realized that breaking down the family, destroying the church, and eliminating cultural ties is pretty necessary to the ultimate achievement of their goals. In that sense, I am certain discussions on these matters have and do take place. It is not such a mysterious thing, it is pragmatic and reasonable. Men like Robert Pastor are reasonable and pragmatic as were all the men of his ilk that came before. Conspiracy theorist probably go to far in filling in the blanks but they are right on in their presumption that something is afoot.

I read with great interest the cries and wails of many good intentioned individuals clamoring against this and that as it specifically relates to the various ongoing battles in the cultural war. Here though I give you all the plain and unvarnished truth - THE WAR IS LOST. Call me a defeatist if you will, but I speak only the truth.

We cannot rightly fear a Muslim in Congress and also be outraged because he wishes to swear in using the Koran - how can we possibly claim such an event in anyway violates our traditions. What traditions? Do we still presume to claim that the United States is a Christian nation?

Well, historically the United States never was a Christian nation - to be certain all of the original states were Christian nations, as clearly evidenced by their constitutions, but each abandoned that righteous position long ago. That aside, if we are merely talking about The People constituting a Christian nation we cannot make that claim either. We may have been in the past but we lost that, we are no more a Christian nation than Hollywood is a Christian town. Even among the millions that claim to be Christians I see little fruit to bear witness to the claim. We are a nation that claims religion but are far from being Christian.

Many claim that illegal immigration is destroying our culture. I say that is just so much bunk. Tell me what culture is being destroyed that we ourselves have not already killed and buried. Do a few hundred Spanish-speaking day-laborors in a town do more harm to culture than say - greedy parents that abandon their children just so they can afford more stuff? Our own greed, avarice and callousness destroyed our culture long ago. A few million Mexicans cannot do more than we have already done.

The first time a school board gave into political correctness and multiculturalism we began to lose the cultural war. This did not occur under GW's watch or during Clinton's time in office. This began in my childhood and maybe before. Why were these malcontents not run out of small towns on pikes? We were too weak to defend our culture when it counted.

As soon as we began latching onto flawed notions spewed by the likes of B.F. Skinner, we began to lose the cultural war.

In actuality it began long before the 1960's/70's. When men began to look to the government to fix their problems, no matter how great those problems might have been, the die was cast for us to lose our culture. Roosevelt's New Deal was more than an economic program, it was a social revolution - a revolution that fundamentally changed the nature of things.

Many of us talk about the foul perversion generated by Hollywood; but we still have televisions. We bemoan the loss of small town America as we shop at Wal-Mart. We are hypocrites.

The things that good Americans love about America are remnants of what was good, it is not the sum and total of what America has become. Looking across our land we see bright spots and hope that these are sign-posts to salvation. These are mere artifacts. If you really want to know what America is take a look at the culture we export. That is America, that is what we have become - the small glimmer of decent folk notwithstanding.

Don't be discouraged, the fight is still a noble cause - it is however lost in this generation. We should at least admit that so that our efforts might be geared toward what is winnable in the long-term. History and legacy do not conform to election cycles nor to the ebbing and waning of empires. Principles do not die like ideologies and dogma - they live on in the hearts of good men. Fight the good fight now and raise good men for the next generation to follow. The monsters our adversaries have built and are building cannot last long - in the historical sense.

Stumble It!

Proxies

A chaplain friend of mine that spent time in Ethiopia as a missionary before entering the Army relates to me that the Christian Church in Ethiopia is exceptionally devout and uncompressed by bad theology. Perhaps all this Islamic Courts versus Ethiopia stuff may serve to make reality the notion held by some that a real crusade exists.

But then again maybe not. Evangelical Christians are not terribly concerned with the Christian plight and exodus from Iraq as a result of our war there. They for the most part are not terribly concerned with the plight of Lebanese Christians nor the exodus of Christians from Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

None of that matters in the distorted world view of neoconservatism nor the wrong-headed theological view of the manmade nation of Israel as being the Biblical people of Israel.

To the neocons the Ethiopians are merely proxies doing what they wish they could do.

It is all none of our business, just like Johnny said.

Stumble It!

What a Deal

A new front in the War on Turr just opened; instead of blowing up everyone in line at the police and military recruiting stations, the turrists can now target those at the WPA.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a "New Deal" that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

Just as the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and the Global War on Terrorism has made terrorism much, much worse, we can fully expect President Bush's brilliant new strategy to blow up in his face just as all the others have done.

Stumble It!

The Republican Water Boy Speaks

So now we have it; the traditional in-fighting our two "great" political parties experience each time they experience a defeat. Here is what the "Republican Bob"- Rush Limbaugh - had to say about his part in supporting true conservative "ideology":

"I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why," Rush said. "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, 'Well, why have you been doing it?' Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does."

What a cowardly turn-coat; what a confused, delusional, disingenuous wind-bag. There is more -

Rush explained that it has not been easy for him to endorse some of the things backed by Republicans in Congress. "There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs ...

Beyond the fact that real conservatism is not at all ideological and Rush Limbaugh is certainly not a real conservative, the statements above tell a lot about the man. He admits supporting things he says he either disagreed with then, or conveniently now - either way his words prove him to be a liar, then or now.

Larison rips apart this hypocrisy:

...we cannot assume such good-faith naivete with Limbaugh. If these people stood for nothing in 2006, they stood for pretty much the same thing in 2004 when they won (and I don’t remember Limbaugh ever mentioning how it was the political party and not his idea of conservatism–which isn’t conservatism–that was implicated in that election). Limbaugh’s “ideology” gets most of the credit when the GOP wins and none of the blame in defeat? That seems peculiarly convenient. Nothing about the GOP changed in those two years, and certainly nothing improved, yet Limbaugh’s attitude remained virtually unchanged from one cycle to the next.

Stumble It!

Neoconservative Blame Game

From Vanity Fair -

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

This was not unexpected but it is sad. The three men mentioned above are supposed to be highly intelligent, yet they seem completely incapable at this juncture of stepping back and reviewing their worldview. One would assume at this point the thing to do is ask the tough question related to the ideology that took us to Iraq instead of blaming the entire failure on mere incompetence. (Not that incompetence in the execution of this matter is insignificant)

Stumble It!

Voting Is Stupid

"Double-digit unemployment, TVA be shutting soon,
while over there in Huntsville, they're puttin' people on the moon." - The Drive-By Truckers

Government, by nature, is a wild animal that is passionately obsessed with its own growth. It is simply not concerned with our well-being. Sure, it will give us lip service; by either telling us that it's safeguarding our freedom, or by handing us the redistributed wealth of hard-working people. This generally works to keep us at bay.

Good citizens of the United States are conditioned from the very beginning to consider nothing more sacred than voting. We're told that people died to secure us this great right, and that it's our duty to exercise it. Unfortunately, voting solves no problems. It does one thing, and one thing only: it grants legitimacy to the government. As long as we continue to feed the beast with our ballots, it will continue to grow, and it will do so at the expense of our liberty.

I didn't used to think this way. I registered to vote as soon as I could, and even used to fly home from wherever I was stationed just so I could vote in my hometown. This was before I realized there was no difference between the two parties, and that even if there was a real difference, it wouldn't matter anyway. Before I arrived at that conclusion, I even managed to go through the "lesser of two evils" phase, which holds that it's better to vote for limited-evil than to not vote at all. But evil is evil, and "voting" is not a magic goose that only lays golden eggs.

The Democrats and Republicans are not opposed on one single important issue - in principle. They're both for unchecked government growth and power. They're both for quixotic, foreign wars of aggression. They're both rabidly socialist. Of course, the Republicans will say they're not, but let's remember that President Bush's big plan for Social Security wasn't to abolish it - he wanted to streamline it.

The system is broke and it will not fix itself. The People would have to fix it, but we'd never do that. Most of us are too happy with the status quo, or just don't care. We can tell each other to vote for a third party, but the system doesn't allow this to be a truly viable option. We can tell each other that if we don't vote, we have no right to complain, but the exact opposite is true. If you vote, you give your personal blessing to the system. You agree to its terms - mob rule. Even if you back the wrong horse, you still backed the system. There's no room for you to complain. Meanwhile, if you don't agree with the system or with its rules and outcomes and therefore don't participate, you have every right to complain about each and every consequence of the election, each and every illegitimate mandate imposed upon you by a system that you don't acknowledge in the first place. Especially when the tax collector points a gun to your head and confiscates a big chunk of your paycheck each month.

As we draw closer to November, folks are getting nervous about the prospect of the Democrats taking Congress back. Just remember that in the long run, the outcome of this election is meaningless. Independent of either party, government will still be here. Growing, stealing, and consuming all that it can, just because it can.

Stumble It!

Dr. Clyde Wilson on Neocons and Nazis

Dr. Clyde N. Wilson takes the naysayers that refuse to acknowledge a similarity between the neoconservatives and Nazis to task.

The likenesses between Neocons and Nazis: the same worship of force and equation of force with morality; the same disdain for other people’s ideas and interests and presumption of special and superior vision; the same contempt for law, tradition, and the opinion of the civilized world; the same forced redefinition of history according to a European ideology; the same racialist disdain for the inferior breeds—in this case Muslims; the same manipulation of the public with exaggerated and misplaced fears; the same reliance on propaganda slogans and disregard of truth; the same preference for the Leader over democratic process; the same boastful launching of illegal wars of aggression; the same blundering in military action and occupation.

Hard to disagree there. Wilson is particularly correct in his illumination of racialist disdain. I have served in Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq. I have gone to professional schools with folks from several Islamic countries. I can say with certainty that Islam is not fascism - our enemies are not Islamofascist (we have covered all of that before).

The entire Islamic world has provided a ready target for the neoconservatives in their crusade to "democratize" the middle east - that is absolutely the last place I would like to see democracy take hold. Not because the people are evil but precisely because Islam as an ideology and theology is potentially just as divisive and explosive as Christianity. No people with a passionate religion can long tolerate the burden of democracy. (of course no people regardless of religion should be burdened by the tyranny of democracy).

Of course one of the primary straw-man arguments against the obvious conclusion that there are striking similarities between neoconservative and Nazi tenancies goes something like this. "Well if the neoconservatives are really Nazis":

• why are you not in one of those KBR prison camps (not commenting on the conspiracy theory that such camps may or may not exist)
• why not just go ahead and do away with the illusion of rights and a constitution
• why risk losing an election if these folks are really Nazis

Well like any straw-man these points do not focus on the issue. Dr. Wilson and others claim there is a likeness, not a carbon copy. The situations are different. The US did not lose a major war 15 years ago, we did not suffer humiliation and sanctions or loss of territory, we have not been in the midst of a depression. Americans are not fully ready to accept a Hitler.

Americans are prepared to surrender rights, support an illegal war with no foreseeable end, to allow our executive to rule by executive order, and permit our own government to spy on us - we still draw the line at uniform wearing, goose-stepping leaders (for now).

Wilson concludes that while there is a likeness between the neocons and the Nazis perhaps a better comparison is between Bush and Lincoln.

their presidencies do bear a strong family resemblance: launching of an unnecessary war of aggression, a war largely fueled by greed, government-worship, and the blasphemous equation of God and America; repeated miscalculations in the conduct of the war; disregard for the lives and property of civilians; evasion and misrepresentation of constitutional limitations and abuse of civil liberties; a giant step toward transforming the republican United States into an empire.

Stumble It!

Neoconservatives and Evangelicals

I have always been of the opinion that the alliance between the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians was essentially a one-sided affair, at least for the run-of-the-mill average Christian. I will not deny that access to power is seductive to evangelical leaders but for the millions of otherwise good folks that comprise the army of voters, supplying the neocon power base, there is no benefit. In reality there is a moral cost for their votes that they simply do not realize that they owe.

David Kuo has just released a book entitled Tempting Faith in which he alleges that several senior White House staff members routinely openly ridiculed evangelicals. Kuo was the No. 2 man in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives from 2001 to 2003. I suppose he was in a position to know what he is talking about. (Articles here, here and here)

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo wrote. Top political officials in the office of White House aide Karl Rove referred to the leaders as “the nuts,” he added. (Baptist Standard)

The neoconservative agenda is appealing to evangelical Christians on many levels. Key in the appeal is unquestioned support for Israel (yes the place with a current president as bad as a Clinton/Nixon morph - here, here and here )

The fact that the fascination with the manmade Nation of Israel - as opposed to the Biblical people of Israel - is flawed. This is a point that transcends mere politics, folks that accept Israel - the Nation formed by men in 1949 - as the fulfillment of endtimes prophecies will not easily be dissuaded from such a notion. This issue becomes political only when a group like the neoconservatives use this item to garner support for their candidates and agendas. There is a difference in Zionism and the people of Israel - but this is a topic of another post. (a pretty good essay on the topic can be found here)

I am a Christian, I am a conservative. I see nothing conservative or Christian in the neoconservative worldview.

Blogged at Blog From the Capital

This story promises to continue casting a dim light on the faith-based program, and confirming the worst fears of those of us who have been opposed to this kind of faith-based funding: it folds otherwise genuine religious folks into the cynical world of politics, both compromising and ridiculing religion while also improperly associating whole branches of government with particular religious beliefs.

Stumble It!

Socialist Democrats and Fascist Republicans

Whenever some well-meaning conservative Christian takes issue with one of my columns chronicling the abysmal governing record of Republicans, he or she almost always exclaims, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge." The fact is, however, there has been no redemption in having the GOP in charge of the entire federal government.

The argument of voting for the lesser of two evils, meaning Republicans, loses its credence when one examines the record. And the record is clear: the GOP has developed a philosophy tantamount to fascism. Consider the following recent developments. Read the rest of this article by Chuck Baldwin

I have no illusion that anything I write will make friends with folks that proclaim loyalty to the GOP. Many of those people probably believe that people like me are the real problem. "if folk like me could only just compromise, support the right team - then we could finally put those dhimmis in their place".

Well gosh, Chuck Baldwin has it exactly right, what real choice do either of the two major parties offer? We have socialist Democrats (with fascist tendencies) and fascist Republicans (with socialist tendencies). Think for a moment that this is not true? Then please point me to real facts or articulate in the comments below how the GOP has stood true to the limited scope intended for the Federal Government.

I am a states' rights advocate but in reality the whole notion of states' rights is ludicrous in our current environment. When we are facing issues like the USA Patriot Act, domestic spying, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the virtual death of habeas corpus who has time to worry about the rights of our various states?

(well maybe states' rights is the answer, if we had legislatures in our various states that were willing to defend the original compact and stand up against Federal encroachments AND if the citizenry really cared about their liberty...but alas neither of these requirements are present)

So I attack the flawed policies of the GOP, which includes almost every one of their policies. Their position on social, economic, legal, constitutional and foreign policy fails to meet the criteria of a true paleoconservative agenda in every case.

Fear not GOP followers, if the Democrats were in power (I should say, when they take power this fall and again in two years) I will speak out against their moonbat social programs and mamby-pamby foreign policy. To me there is no difference in the two parties, other than where they want to spend my money and what sector of the Federal government they wish to expand.

Here is a pretty good (but far from complete) articulation of how stupid party loyalty (GOP or DEM) really is and how absurd their infighting is - they are first cousins for crying out loud.

Stumble It!

Re: Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism = Fascism

El Cid's post on what Fascism is has reminded me of a recent FrontPageMag article which attempts to one-up the notion of "Islamofascism" by going so far as to imply that Al Qaeda is also Leninist. The author, a "counterterrorism strategist" named Jim Guirard, bases this theory on the facts that Fascism is similar to Communism, and that the religion of Osama Bin Laden promises divine rewards for participation. I will not beat a dead horse by explaining why Al Qaeda is not Fascist, but allow me to comment on this new addition to the Big Lie.

First of all, it's ironic to note that it was in the mountains of Afghanistan, fighting Communists, where Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth. Although Guirard clearly didn't stew over his analogy nearly as hard as he should've, such consideration isn't necessary when playing this written sleight-of-hand.

In fact, the less the reader knows about any of the subject matter, the better. Not only can Guirard insist that Osama Bin Laden is Hitler (and that Bush = Roosevelt, Blair = Churchill, the War on Terrorism = World War Two, etc), he can now invoke Lenin's name in order to place imagery into the mind of the reader which would suggest that winning the "War on Terrorism" is as crucial as winning the Cold War (and that President Bush embodies all the virtue of our Cold War presidents, Bin Laden represents the evil of Lenin/Stalin, etc).

This is, of course, absurd.

As I noted previously, Al Qaeda was formed in order to aide an organic resistance movement in Afghanistan. They have since gone on to support other organic resistance movements throughout the world, the extent of which is largely unknown. In fact, nowadays you will rarely hear news of a terrorist attack (outside of Israel) without the talking heads automatically suspecting that it was Al Qaeda. Most insurgencies -- Sri Lanka and Chechnya, for example -- have "possible links" with the group. The underlying theme of it all is that Al Queda embodies resistance. Resistance to foreign rule and foreign ways of life.

That the mujahideen of Afghanistan were fighting Communist expansion isn't nearly as important as what Communist expansion represented - Western Imperialism. The locals simply had no use for it. Like Communism, Fascism and Nazism are both products of Western Civilization; ideas with which the "terrorists" whom the US fight have expressed no fascination. They have stated their goals. They are opposed to foreign rule, brutal puppet regimes imposed on them by the West, and the presence of Western military in their lands. To label them Communist, Nazi, or Fascist is to entirely miss the point. And as long as we keep ignoring the problem, and telling each other that the "terrorists" have suddenly come out of nowhere and simply want to kill us all, we'll never be able to fix the situation. The Soviets failed in Afghanistan. The Brits failed in Iraq. We're failing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As with World War Two and the Cold War, the moral disease spreading across the Earth today is a Western "ism" - but it's not Nazism, Fascism or Communism. Like Stalin's "People's Paradise" and Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich", this one also promises Heaven-on-Earth in return for devotion to its cause. And years from now, when the dust has settled and the names have been all but forgotten, the world will reflect on the Neoconservatism of the Bush Administration, and remember its agents as pitiful hangdogs who tried to change the world, and failed.

(End Notes: I realize that the Liberal-Internationalism of previous years is more at fault for stirring up hatred of the US than the relatively newer Neoconservatism. But unlike Liberal-Internationalism -- which holds that although the world must unite to solve "problems", the US is still its leader -- Neoconservatism comes right out and declares that if the world does not conform, it will be destroyed...and Neoconservatism is the ideology of the day. I have been told that I sound as though I support Al Qaeda, which is hard to imagine for a whiskey-guzzling Southern boy such as myself. I think I simply understand them [don't make me quote Sun Tzu]. If one merely puts themselves in the shoes of another, it's easier to grasp their angle on life. If a "coalition of the willing" arbitrarily decided that the US required "regime change", is it plausible that the citizens of the US would accept it? Yes "the terrorists" do bad, evil things to innocent civilians. But so do we. The moral of the story is that until we stop trying to conquer and control, they will not stop murdering us where they find us.

And if you're truly worried about the emergence of a global Caliphate, then you seriously need to get a grip.)

Stumble It!

Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism = Fascism

American Chronicle:

As a result, it is the Constitution of the United States which is under attack. In the past five years every aspect of the constitution has been challenged. From individual rights to states rights to the balance of power between branches of government and the separation of church and state, not one area has been unscathed. All of this has been done with such brilliance that the nation has been complicit in its own demise.

Guy T. Sturino makes a case that in the last five years our constitution has been attacked as never before. This is not to say the demise of our system of government did not occur prior to 9/11, only that the pace has certainly quickened.

I have always been of the opinion and tried as best I might to show that our demise began literately with the birth of the constitution in 1789 (Federalist Papers' lies and deceit), was solidified in the 1860's (Lincoln's tyranny), advanced beyond belief in the 1930's (FDR's New Deal), advanced again in the 1960's (more socialism in the Great Society). The pace of progressive socialism is less definable since the 1960's. Corporatism has grown and the goals and objectives of megacorporations essentially go hand in hand with a more socialist based society. Free people with individual rights, and strong states with inherent rights are not good consumers. A social collective with a strong central government is a friend to corporatism.

Of course socialism plus corporatism are two key elements in fascism. Yes I said fascism, that is not just a term for Nazis, our "progress" over the last 227 years had led us straight from free and independent states comprised of citizens with individual liberties to a state that very closely resembles an embryonic socialist entity. Corporations have more power and influence than any citizen or group of citizens might ever hope to wield.

Read what Gene Callahan has to say on the subject of a Fascist America.

I for one have no desire to live in Leviathan.

Blogged at:
South Puget Sound Libertarian
Library Crunch
View From the Mountain
J-Walk Blog
Bruno and the Professor


Technorati tags: nationalism, corporatism, socialism, fascism
del.icio.us tags: fascism, tyranny, leviathan, constitution

Stumble It!