League of the Scarlet Pimpernel

This is the Way the World Ends - Part III

Say what you will about the Ron Paul supporters the fact is those loyal souls that got into the trenches and went to the Republican Convention as delegates to cast their votes appear to have received the ultimate rebuff.

...20 Ron Paul buttons and a handful of other things, he was stopped by security which called on upon an apparent supervisor, who directed all the materials to be confiscated. She told him, "You can't bring that in here, this is McCain territory. (Federal Jack)

This is but one small account of the hundreds reported during the primaries. The point here is that the two-party system is not receptive to any sort of real challenge or change. I would be curious to see the results of a future historians analysis of the "Ron Paul Revolution". At a casual glance it seems odd to me that the man was able to raise so much money from ordinary people and yet garner less than, at best, 10% of the primary vote count.

Many claim there was widespread hanky-panky afoot, I am not inclined to accept conspiracy theories but with the proven pattern of corruption prevalent in all areas of politics I would not be at all surprised if something nefarious occurred. The web is full of alleged evil-doing committed against the Paul campaign. Of course the Nader folks claim the same thing. My point in highlighting Ron Paul above is to demonstrate a perception (perhaps reality) that the major parties will simply not tolerate a real maverick.

Outside of the "for us or against us", intellectually dishonest two-party system Americans have become accustomed to all sorts of other frauds and perceived fraud within our electoral process. We simply cannot have an election without the taint of scandal.

Here again, it does not particularly matter if these perceptions are based wholly or partly on reality. Ours is essentially a system built upon trust. We the People delegated certain enumerated powers to the government in exchange for an expectation of, if not good government, at least tolerable government. Within the scope of tolerable I believe most reasonable men would include trustworthy. Without trust all the government has to retain legitimacy is propaganda, special interest payouts and coercion. Without the trust of the people government ceases to be tolerable or legitimate.

Americans know that elections and elected officials are frauds, yet 54% of us still pick a team and cast a ballot as if it were American Idol or some such trivial nonsense. A percentage of that group still hopes that a few good men of character and principle might change things yet even that voter block realizes that most of our representatives are influenced primarily by monied interest and their own desire to keep getting elected. We know DC corrupts all but the incorruptible.

I would be guessing but I would put the percentage of voters that believe that real change might be brought about by Mr. Smith going to Washington at below 25%, my observation of the rest is that they are mere party people (i.e. team supporters) that see politics as a duality.

What of the 46% that do not vote? These people have given up, either by ignorance or painfully informed knowledge. They do not trust that a difference can be had, by extrapolation they do not trust the system and have opted out.

In one way or another this 46% has come to realize something that the rest of us have yet to learn. That is the system is broken so completely that no element of the system itself can be used to fix it. It is akin to having a virus on your computer that has corrupted you anti-virus software - you will not fix the system without something new and external to the present system.

The sad commentary on all of this is that the 46 percenters have opted out without a plan of action. They have accepted taxation without representation and government not of their consent. To a government that has lost trust these are the perfect sorts of serfs - perfectly willing to work the plantation without getting uppity.

Considering that another 25% or so (might be a low number) are perfectly willing to play the game and cheer one of the establishment teams along the small minority of us that really see a need for change and want to do something about it are inconsequential.

If on the off chance that one of ours might get more than 1-2% of the votes in say a primary it is too easy to marginalize these "radical views" and perhaps (as suggested in some of the links listed above) outright lie, cheat and steal to keep the system under control.

Voting will not save us from out eventual end -- a few candidates of principle rising up occasionally serve to keep the truth out there and prove the futility of voting but that is about it.

We will happily vote ourselves into our ultimate destruction...as have so many other people that lived under tyranny since the practical application of democracy.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul, tyranny

Stumble It!

I did not ignore all the email in my box on this subject - I was just negligent in bringing the issue up, a situation I will now correct.

December 9, 2008 – Over one hundred Southern men and women, from all walks of life and from fourteen States, gathered near Hendersonville, NC December 5 through December 7 to convene the First Southern National Congress (SNC). This historic meeting at the Kanuga Conference Center in the shadow of the Blue Ridge was the first all-South congress since 1861.

In the words of Dr. Thomas Moore:

The U.S. Government no longer represents the people’s interests; it represents the interests of the highest bidder, the big corporations and money power. We Southerners have been among the most loyal and patriotic Americans, but in sadness we must acknowledge that Washington, DC has forfeited its moral authority by its folly and its unlawful acts. Now the people of the South who still love liberty and justice have no choice but to withdraw their consent from this corrupt Regime.

As the little boy on the playgroud says, "those are fight'n words". I have stated often that many men of principle in the US have very legitimate grivances and a lot of justifiable anger.

In keeping with its mission to speak for Southern interests, the SNC debated and passed a number of resolutions called “Remonstrances and Petitions for the Redress of Grievances.” These resolutions petitioned the Federal Government to cease its abuses, usurpations, and unlawful acts in the following areas:

· Failure to secure the borders and promoting of mass immigration that threatens to overwhelm our communities;
· Just law, protection of liberty, and the threat of rogue government;
· Just war and lawful defense, including proper (Constitutional) declaration of war;
· Southern agriculture and the rights of smallholders vs. corporate agribusiness;
· Sound money, economic policy, and Government crimes against our livelihoods;
· States’ sovereignty over their natural resources, especially along the Gulf Coast;
· The individual citizen’s unalienable right of armed self-defense.

Of this event eminent historian and South Carolina Delegate (and my hero) Dr. Clyde Wilson said:

“The SNC will reclaim the political legacy of great Southerners like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and John C. Calhoun. That legacy is individual liberty and a small central government limited to its enumerated powers; and which is the creation, the servant, and the agent of the sovereign people acting through their respective States. But these principles enacted in the Constitution of 1789 have been violated. The Federal Government today is engaged in ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evincing a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism,’ to borrow the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.”

May God lead, guide and direct men of wisdom and principles in these dark days and darker days yet to come.

Labels: El Cid, politics, South

Stumble It!

David Limbaugh is troubled by Huckabee

That's why it troubles me when the ostensibly conservative Mike Huckabee tells Jay Leno he wants us to abandon "horizontal politics. Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, 'Let's take America up and not down.'"

It's perfectly fine for Mike Huckabee to make such pronouncements. I just hope conservatives understand that what takes America "up" are conservative principles – and that it will always be necessary to fight for those principles against those who don't fully understand them or who are committed to their defeat. read more

The idea that conservative principles do not apply to each and every decision we make in our public and private life is - well compromise of the sort we need no more of. It is simply incomprehensible that a true conservative would be willing to compromise on any matter of principle. Men and times change but principles never to paraphrase Stephens.

What does Huckabee mean by "going vertical" and what part of real conservative philosophy has ever taken America down? Huckabee continues to prove that the term Huckster is aptly applicable.

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

Campaign for Children and Families, a leading West Coast pro-family organization that researches and advocates for the natural family, is pleased to announce the Report Card on the Natural Family to inform voters where the leading Republican presidential candidates stand on protecting the basic family unit.

“While all of the leading Republican candidates claim to embrace family values, let the record show that they’re marching to different drummers on marriage rights, adoption, schoolchildren, and the destructive ‘LGBT’ agenda,” said CCF President Randy Thomasson. “Many pro-family voters will be surprised with the results of this carefully-researched report card. But as always, what a candidate does means much more than what they say. Facts are stubborn things.” see the report

Paul and Huckabee scored 7, McCain 4, Thompson 3, Giulliani 1 and Romny 0. Family is the most important aspect of conservative philosophy. Who says that Ron Paul's brand of political philosophy is not truly conservative? He is the only real conservative in the race.

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

As I sat and listened to Barack Obama's speech after winning the Iowa caucus I thought to myself (half-seriously actually) "this guy sounds exactly how I think the antichrist will sound when he shows up." Ok out of curiosity I googled 'Barack Obama antichrist' and good grief was I shocked. Apparently a lot of people have had this thought before; some have extensive websites with proof of their suspicions.

Well who knows, I seldom speculate on points of Biblical prophecy and I am very wary of those that do - particularly that make such a thing their trade. However, I suppose if I were going to write down a list of attributes Obama has the "silver tongue" required skill-set down pat.

I fear that despite the ideological holes in almost everything he stands for; granted it is hard to pin the man down on positions from his speeches but one can certainly get a picture of his ideological basis from his dancing words; the American polity will eat up what he is serving.

Nothing any of the GOP front-runners are saying will sell at all with anyone other than the lock-step GOP faithful in a general election. People are sick and tired - rightfully so - of the same old GOP story line related to a failed foreign policy. Continuing the course is not an option for the ordinary American - the Democrats are preaching "change" and the American public is ready to say 'amen".

The GOP had a chance to stop the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 (or at least run a candidate that really stood for what the American people really wanted and really needed). Patrick Buchanan (like him or not) stood firm for the change that America needed. The GOP faithful failed to see that and instead decided to try something old again. Bush the Elder represented everything that has always been wrong with the GOP - he was out of touch with conservatism, he represented not the people but special interest. His world view was akin to some profane merger of Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln. His economic policy was abysmal. George was the GOP's man - Pat's warnings were ignored.

We ended up with eight years of the Clinton dark years - forget the sexual exploits, - Clinton was a horrible president. You simply must recall Janet Reno and her gestapo troops in Waco, Ruby Ridge, down in Florida with the Gonzalez family. You must remember the North American Free Trade Agreement (not really free trade at all), Operation Desert Fox (the precedent for regime change in Iraq), the ridiculous war against Serbia, the Brady Bill, the Iraq Liberation Bill, and the silly 'Don't Ask Don't Tell".

We know now, if we are honest we should know, that America was indeed in the midst of a cultural war in 1992. Sixteen year later we see the results of unchecked illegal immigration, in the coming years we will see more and more the follow-on effects of the erosion of culture that this will have on our society. Ask yourself this, is America a more or less moral place today than it was in 1992. The answer to that, if honest, clearly shows that we have been involved in a war we are losing. In Pat's words:

But the cultural war is broader than two battlegrounds.
We see it in the altered calendar of holidays we are invited - nay, instructed - to celebrate. Washington's Birthday disappears into Presidents Day. States, like Arizona, that balk at declaring Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday face political censure and convention boycotts. Easter is displaced by Earth Day, Christmas becomes Winter break, Columbus day is now a day to reflect on the cultural imperialism and genocidal racism of the "dead white males" who raped this continent while exterminating its noblest inhabitants.

Secularism's Holy Days of Obligation were not demanded by us; they were imposed on us. And while Gov. Cuomo may plausibly plead ignorance of the culture war, the Hard Left has always understood its criticality. Give me the child for six years, Lenin reportedly said, quoting the Jesuits, and he will be a Marxist forever. J.V. Stalin, who was partial to Chicago gangster films, thought that if only he had control of Hollywood, he could control the world.

Too many conservatives, writes art critic James Cooper, "never read Mao Tse-tung on waging cultural war against the West. [Mao's] essays were prescribed reading for the Herbert Marcuse-generation of the 1960's, who now run our cultural institutions... Conservatives were oblivious to the fact that ... modern art - long ago
separated from the idealism of Monet, Degas, Cezanne, and Rodin - had become the purveyor of a destructive, degenerate, ugly, pornographic, Marxist, anti-American ideology." While we were off aiding the Contras, a Fifth Column inside our own country was capturing the culture.

The battle is lost and the few Republicans that still believe it can or should be fought at the national level are simply confused. Mike Huckabee is a glimmer of hope for these confused people - they believe supporting a man that claims evangelical Christian beliefs can right all that has occurred. Wrong - perhaps in 1992 there was a slim chance, no chance what-s0-ever exists for this possibility now at the national level.

The American people are ready for a change but what they are really interested in is change that benefits them personally. The only option at all to correct what is wrong is to attack the very core of the belief system that says it is ok to use the Federal government for "good". As we have seen power in the hands of the Federal government is never used for real good.

The only real counter-argument to the noxious touchy feel-good ideas spread by Obama, Edwards and Clinton is the dish Ron Paul is serving up. Everything every other GOP candidate is preaching is defeatism, the same oldism status quo that has failed so miserably thus far.

The only hope for America is to restore the republic, return all of these critical "hot-button" issues that Federal Government has no Constitutional power to act on back to the states. Let us salve the complicated social issues at the local level and keep the Federal Government out of the business of "doing good".

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I respect the fact that the man stands up for what he claims as his religious beliefs. I myself am a Christian of the Baptist persuasion (Southern Baptist to be exact). However - there is something significantly dangerous about some of the ideology that many evangelical politicians and "leaders" hold dear.

I know enough about how ordinary Christian folks think and vote to understand why good folks in Iowa placed their voted for Huckabee. I also know enough about the ideology that Huckabee represents and how dangerous it really is.

I will tell you this much, without the probably required data to support my position - Mike Huckabee is a dangerous man, dangerous in the way George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Romney, McCain and Guilliani are dangerous. It is simple enough to rip apart Huckabee from his ideological core - I think between my colleagues here we have done that more or less over time. (see CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE, The Huckster and Education , Totalitarians Among Us, Sound and Fury, Debate Round-Up to read some of the things we have said about the man).

I am not sure that Iowa means a lot - other than it is refreshing and encouraging that Paul seems to be set to place ahead of Gulliani, Thompson seems to be out of funds and momentum, McCain will self-destruct and Romney and Huckabee will invariably keep beating each other about.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that can run a successful campaign against the Democrats - mark it down and put my name beside it!

Labels: 2008 election, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

In case you missed it, Friday’s Wall Street Journal ran an article on "Dr. No’ on it’s front page. No, it was not about Ron Paul. The article was written by Sarah Lueck.

It was about Senator Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma, and how he has caused gridlock in the Senate this year. I expected at the very least a mention of Ron Paul the Presidential candidate who is better known as "Dr No" from the House of Representatives. No mention at all.

If you Google "Ron Paul" and "Dr. No", there are over 23,000 pages found. Google "Tom Coburn" and "Dr. No", and you will find 620 pages.

[...]

In the middle of a primary season, the WSJ runs an article on a politician who is not running for reelection, who upon a casual glance, appears like another candidate who is running for president? Is this a coincidence? No. No to the highest degree. It's difficult to comprehend how the editorial board of the WSJ justified front page space for a politician not even seeking the attention, while the most important race in our nation starts January 3, 2008. (from Speak Up Now)

This is really not a surprise but all the same it is disappointing. A significant portion of the American polity has already spoken with their money, time and dedication in regard to Dr. Ron Paul. How can the MSM still ignore him, or in this case make an obvious case to do him a disservice? Perhaps there is not organized conspiracy to corrupt our political system but there certainly is a lot of collusion.

It becomes more apparent all the time that the only solution to repairing our system and restoring the republic is something beyond an election.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Several of my friends supported Tancredo a year ago when he put out feelers in consideration for a presidential run. It seems they were wrong on all counts considering that Tancredo today backed out of the race (a good thing) and endorsed Romney (a monumentally stupid thing).

Labels: El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

Here we have one of the more insane things said in the debate the other night; spoken by the unhinged John McCain.

I have already addressed the fact that it was Wilsonian intervention that led to WWII, not post war isolationism - the die was alread cast Mr. McCain.

I would add also, as an active duty military officer - I gave Dr. Paul another donation today. You do not speak for us John McCain.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I will comment on just a few items from the CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

McCain's claim that isolationism was the direct cause of WWII was ludicrous. It was Wilsonian interventionism that allowed the punitive outcome of WWI that caused WWII. Get your facts straight.

Huckabee's praise of his program to give scholarships to children of illegals was interesting - in an decidedly wrong sort of way.

The idiotic conspiracy question directed at Ron Paul was trivial and low. Paul handled it as well as it could be fielded in 90 seconds.

McCain with the near tear in his eye as he described illegal aliens as "God's Children" in need of our help. I thought that is what our generous foreign policy was all about - to help all of God's children in their lands - not when they come to ours and break our laws.

Romney proved at almost every point that he is not a man I would vote for to hold the office of dog catcher. Guilliani was what we should expect - a wolf attempting to wear sheep's clothing. It was slightly interesting to see Romney and Guiliani beat each other up but ultimately that just wasted air time that could have been better utilized allowing someone with real conservative ideas to speak.

Huckabee talked a good game for the most part but his comments about spending what was necessary on the space program demonstrate that he does not grasp the predicament we are in.

Thompson looked cadaverous but did not say anything really offensive that I can recall. I thought it a bit inane of him to waste his 30 seconds for a commercial about him and his position attacking two of the other idiots.

Seven of the men seem to believe that radical Islam is really a threat - a bigger threat than say the Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us for half a century. It is amazing that we faced that demon down without war but seven of the eight are all for globe-trotting adventures aimed at routing out a few thousand radicals that cannot even successfully rule backward nations such as Afghanistan or Somalia. They think these people are actually a threat to us. Let them build their caliphate, build an army and a navy and a economic system to support it and then threaten us and I will personally call for the crusade. As it stands they do not have a chance to do anything more than cause trouble here and there on a relatively small scale.

Only one candidate had the chance to talk about the pending DC Gun ban case going before the Supreme Court and that was Gulliani. He had the nerve to state that he believed the 2nd Amendment was intended as an individual right but with restrictions. Talk about speaking to both sides of an issue. We found out that Romney, Gulliani and McCain do not actually own firearms. (but Gulliani does own matching stiletto heels for his black dress that could count as a weapon you know).

Finally, I am not sure why CNN decided to include the question about the Confederate Battle Flag - perhaps to try and place someone in what would seem to be an untenable position. After all the status of the flag is not the purview of the president or the federal government. However, they included the flag question any way. Romney bit off on it and stated something to the effect "that flag should not be shown, it is divisive". Perhaps he needs a history lesson - maybe he should read Lieutenant Colonel Frematle's (of Her Majesty's Royal Dragoons) account of the Army of Northern Virginia's march into Maryland and Pennsylvania. As Clyde Wilson once wrote (and I paraphrase) "It would be wonderful if black Americans viewed their heritage as a diverse experience rather than merely that of slavery and oppression". If "That" flag is divisive it is because folks do not know of the sacrifice that blacks and whites in the South made under that banner. The question had no place in the debate but it was there and Romney proved himself a moron in his answer. Thompson handled it fairly well but I presume and assume that Ron Paul would have said something to the effect "That flag is part of the history of many of our states and their people and the place the flag holds in those states is up to the states and the people to determine, not the federal government or the president."

John McCain proved himself to be wholly unqualified for further service in elected office - I recall during the campaign of 2000 in a debate in SC where Alan Keyes mopped the floor with McCain on simple constitutional issues - so much so that McCain actually lost his composure.

It is a shame that there are so many candidates at this point - so many that those on the left and right of the stage are not heard enough. Tancredo has it right on immigration but wrong on much else, notably the war; leave him off the invite list. Duncan Hunter - thanks for building the wall but don't show up any more please. I can see why some of my friends are misled about Thompson, I think we need to leave him in future dialogues to unravel what is wrong with him for them. The three front runners you have to leave obviously (not counting McCain as per above). I would love to see three hours of just those men and Ron Paul hosted by Lou Dobbs, Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan with questions from ME and a few select friends. I would love to see everyone explain how their ideas are 1) conservative 2) constitutional 3) really good for America.

Labels: El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

Labels: conservative, constitution, El Cid, paleoconservative, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Just yesterday, Wolf Blitzer, I think, asked RP what he meant when he referred to "Washington". Well, any dummy knows except Blitzer the reindeer, that Washington is the central core of our ills. I don't recall Ron Paul's response, but I'm sure it must have been an abstraction to the power that the anointed have over the rest of us.

But, it got me to thinking about a discussion I had with a DC bureaucrat while visiting friends in Maryland this past July enroute to the deep North.

I found him to be a pragmatist and realist beyond any I'd met before. He didn't seem to have any ideology nailed down for himself, but was extremely well-informed on most of the issues. I'd say he was in his mid-fifties. He promised to watch the Russo DVD I gave him anyway, and I'm sure he did.

But, here's the thing about "Washington" that I gleaned from this politically savvy man. The primary concern of a federal worker, and thus the culture in Maryland and DC, is their JOB. In each election their deep concern is will they keep their job. I don't know the % of voters in the federal workforce, but I bet it's significantly higher than the average. They, if to believe my friend's neighbor, will cast their votes for the candidate who offers a better, or job retention program. These bureaucratic dependents are ideological voided. They have no philosophical anchors, but yet they know the size of the fedgov has greatly exceeded its lawful limit. You want them to vote the commie line? Not a problem. Vote for a Republican? Why not? I think the urban New England centers have pretty much adopted this same "believe-in-nothing but yourself" culture. My chatting friend says they have an ongoing fear what the rest of the country might do. Which is another way expressing a fear that "the people" may determine that "Washington" has been voting themselves a living for way too long. And worse, take action to change it.

But, when you give this perverted view of our system further thought you realize that this distortion is not really different from the corporate socialism that plagues the country at a higher decision making level. Politicians now have assumed the authority to reward financial contributors with contracts, appointments, etc. Even money. Whomever offers the greater expansion of "Washington" gets the funding.

So, don't be discouraged when you don't see much help coming from the national or state-level GOP. These ideological voided hacks want to continue the fire sale of America's institutions, jobs, sovereignty, and general welfare of American citizens.

We just have to work harder. It's Honor, Principle, Virtue, and an appreciation for the individual that's made America great. Not treason to those qualities. We should all remember that as Ron Paul supporters we reflect his views, and how and in what informed manner we do, will determine whether we as a people become "Washington's" nightmare come true.

Think about it. With more of the fedgov's assumed powers returned to the states and their people - - maybe having a state or local job's the place to be!!

I'm seeing the Hope become Reality. What about you?

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Not to be shocked or surprised that christian right evangelist Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. I guess he had to abstain from making his selection until he saw which way the big money (Wall Street) was going. Oh, were you aware that "reverend" Robertson was given $14 million "faith-based" grant from the federal government? Yeah, baby, there's a lot more money to be made than just passing a plate once a week! It's good to get the counterfeit christian charlatans like Robertson out of the closet now. It'll line up the enemies of freedom even clearer in our sights for firing off our Truth Pellets.
Pat Robertson Backs Giuliani's Bid

Now, even better is this site Faith-based Watch, Media Transparency CBN (700 Club) raked in a whopping $462,563,151 in revenue for 2004! Take that in the face you Ron Paul Christians!



When you realize the significance of distributing over $19 million to selected religious organizations you can begin to construct the mosaic of control Robertson's subversive christianity has over local churches and their pastors. Bona fide Christians best look within their own places of worship. Start your own Know Your Church program!

Robertson was even invited to address the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on January 26, 1987. His subject matter? How the UN could be reformed!

Robertson has long craved national prominence. After losing his own bid for the presidency he threw his support to George-the-Elder.


So what's to know?

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, religion

Stumble It!

With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so. By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, religion

Stumble It!

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.

Labels: bad ideology, El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

There is some excessive language but I thought this was hilarious.

Labels: IKANTSPEL, politics

Stumble It!

John Edwards, aspiring dictator-in-chief, is so compassionate he is going to create universal healthcare, housing vouchers, universal pre-K and college, universal this and that, and so forth.

If you are so compassionate, why don't you donate your own fortune to the poor and needy? But alas, he wants to demonstrate his compassion by forcing everyone else to pay for all of this crap. It's no wonder the middle class can't afford anything. After all, government at all levels steals about half of what your average person makes in taxes so it's no wonder that people can't afford healthcare and education as it is right now (I agree that the healthcare issue is a bit more complex than this but this is certainly a major contributor). Moreover, I am sure that many of these things will most likely become compulsory judging from the fact that he thinks everyone should go to the doctor at gunpoint. So not only does he want me to pay for everyone else's education and housing, he thinks that my children and myself are his own private property to teach, medicate, and store away as he pleases. My family and I are not your personal property, asshole.

By the way, I like the way he says there is "no free meal." What is this supposed to mean? If I work hard for my fraudulent federal reserve notes and you STEAL it from me to redistribute it to somebody else, are you saying that I am not entitled to complain because everyone else is equally being molested by the all intrusive state? Indeed, it seems as if there is "no free meal" insofar as keeping the fruits of ones own labor is concerned. And don't give me this nonsense about the good of society. If you want to talk about morality, let's begin the the ABCs. It is wrong to steal.

If you are so concerned about the good of society (whatever that actually means), why bother spending millions and millions of dollars running in an election when you could devote your time to help the poor with your own assets. He tries so hard to make it seem as if he is compassionate but he is really a thieving snake who just wants to exercise power and micromanage everyones life. So take your socialism and phony compassionate whateverism and SHOVE IT!

Labels: IKANTSPEL, politics

Stumble It!

We are told by those that say they know that Romney has the most "grassroots" support among all GOP contenders (I guess that would make Ron Paul supporters Salt of the Earth or some such thing). What does he stand for, is it really a conservative agenda and is it the best course?

Let's look at his own agenda-


Affordable Health Care For All Americans

Sounds grand and noble - wait let me check my copy of The Federal Constitution. I do not see any reference to the Federal Government having any business concerning itself with affordable healthcare. The fact that Romney places this as his first point in his agenda is therefore troubling. His plan reads well, it talks about instilling conservative priciples of free market and deregulation but still - within the fine print - we see things like "and helping the low-income uninsured afford the private coverage of their choice."

Consider this:

Governor Romney will end subsidized care for "free riders" by redirecting these existing federal and state resources to help the low-income uninsured purchase their own private health insurance.

Wrong, wrong wrong - you o not redirect my tax dollars from "free care" to subsidized insurance and call it conservatism, free market or smaller government; you get the government out of the healthcare business all together.



A Pro-Growth Tax Agenda

This is of course the catch-all issue of all conservative rhetoric but unless you are really willing to slash spending tax cuts or reductions in marginal rates across the board will just not work - and as part of his agenda he specifically wants to reduce the corporate tax rate. If you are going to start cutting taxes you have to begin with the individual first. Tax cuts without deep spending cuts are not sustainable (see above, even his healthcare plan does not slash spending, it merely moves it around).


Defeating the Jihadist

Oh good grief - Jihad means a holy struggle or striving by a Muslim for a moral or spiritual or political goal - defeating all jihadist could take a very long time and could include bombing the fellow at the 7-11 that has resolved for his own personal jihad to not miss prayer, a student that has decided to veil herself even though she lives in the West and yes followers of Wahbi ideology that wish to restore the caliphate. I am amused at the choice of words for this point, because words are important. If you are going to lead us, you must understand the words you use (we have too many recent examples of a leader muddling important words).

It is hard for Americans to accept, because most have not read deeply enough, but we would never have been attacked in 2001 if our policies were different. Those Muslims that have decided to make their personal jihad that of restoring the caliphate picked the US as a target, the far enemy, because we support their near enemies. Their real goal is to re-order the nature of the governments in their own lands - they saw and see us as a significant supporter of those governments.

You may say "damn right" we don't want them taking over their governments over there - they will then attack us. Doubtful this would really play out - look at their success in running a government in Afghanistan. They took over a backwards and primitive country and after years of work they succeeded in moving it closer to the stone age. If, on the off chance, these radicals did succeed in taking power, reestablishing the caliphate, keeping power and building their new empire into a peer-competitor then perhaps we should be concerned. There are many "if's" in that scenario. It seems pretty foolish to declare war on a bunch of folks that probably could not succeed in all of that just based upon an assumption. If you are not convinced, read about how the wahbi movement started, how their strategy changed over time and their own reasons for attacking the US.

Romney offers us more interventionism, more conflict and more needless war - all based upon a failed understanding of the world.


Competing With Asia - he gets it right

We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term.

Stopping Runaway Spending

I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs.

Again, Romney is consulting the old playbook of rhetoric, not The Constitution. You don't reform entitlements, you eliminate them.

Getting Immigration Right

We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants -- for citizens -- and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.

"I want to see more immigration in our country" - this is not the 1800's with the entire west to settle. Our culture has absorbed too much for now, we need time to acculturate the people that have already come over and have yet to act, think, speak or believe like Americans. We certainly do not need more immigration, a controlled flow of qualified legal immigrants will do just fine thank you. He sounds to me like he is talking to all sides on this issue, he does not address those that are in our country as criminals right now and how he would act to expel them.


Achieving Energy Independence - I do not see anything objectionable here

We're using too much oil," Romney said. "We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.

America's Culture and Values - I like his nod to States' Rights

I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Raising the Education Bar

He talks about the importance of education - I agree - and the importance of powering down to schools and communities but he does not mention eliminating the un-Constitutional Department of Education. If you can't get it right by The Constitution your plan is not conservative.


Lastly, it cannot be overlooked that Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christianity - it is a cult, read their books. This may be alright for Bob Jones and other evangelicals - after all they routinely support men that profess Christianity but obviously do not live it. It is not ok for me. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a decent person, but they follow a false God and that is simply a fact in my mind. If you are really a Christian and a member of The People - Romney cannot be your choice any more than Hillary or Obama can be.

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I am a man that has seen the ugliest face of mankind, I have fought, killed, and seen killing all in the name of "making the world better" - yet I have not seen my service or that of my brothers make anything any better. We have all experienced the growing tyranny of a government filled with hubris and callousness. Who will put an end to this? Who will stand on principles?

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Ok, so you may (or may not) ask - why do I support Dr. Ron Paul for President.

Weyrich claims in a recent article that Paul has "strange ideas" but never really clarifies this.

It is too bad some of the ideas he advocates are strange because many of the things he says makes sense.

Strange enough some people confuse Weyrich with an actual paleoconservative. - I think not.

What of these strange ideas?

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

This is true and something found on a campaign site- a rare occurance. You do not need to listen to Paul's speeches or read his words to really know where he stands - look at the man's voting record in Congress over the last 20 years. You will know that he really means what he says - find another politician out there that really can say that.

I know, I have said it before, one man and one election cannot restore the republic. However, enough people fully supporting a man that stands on the right principles (whether he wins or loses) is the absolute right step.

Ron Paul has stood firm on a strict interpretation of the Constitution the entire time he has worked in Congress - that is the number one reason I support him.

Surely that is not the strange idea mentioned above. What of his stance on the other hot-button issues.

American Sovereignty - 100% right, no NAU, NAFTA, UN or other foreign entanglements

"We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


Border Security and Immigration - 100% spot on target

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines; Enforce visa rules; No welfare for illegal aliens; End birthright citizenship; Pass true immigration reform"


Taxes and Debt - Amen

"Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."


Health Freedom - he is the doctor

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Home Schooling - my children are home schooled thank you very much

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation."

Privacy and Personal Liberty - who but a tyrant could disagree?

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives."


Property Rights - again only a tyrant could disagree

"Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."


Social Security - fixing FDR's socialist nightmare

"It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

The Second Amendment - praise the lord and pass the ammunition

"I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment."


War and Foreign Policy - 100% correct

"Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America... We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution....Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

Labels: Border Control, constitution, El Cid, gun rights, immigration, International, paleoconservative, politics, Ron Paul, taxes

Stumble It!

Hold your horses cowboy - don't close that browser just yet. If you are like me, and for the sake of your wife and loved ones I hope you are not, you grew up believing that Ronald Reagan was "The Man" and Margaret Thatcher was the "Iron Lady". I joined the military with the words of Reagan echoing in my head about the need to stand on a wall and face down the bear of communism. Thatcher and Reagan were an inseparable team it seemed in the opposition to the Soviet Union.

There is another side of Margaret Thatcher that most Americans do not know about - but more on that later.

In 1913 Great Britain was prepared to consider and probably "grant" home rule to Scotland. I say "grant" because the notion that sovereignty could be withheld from a nation that preexisted Britain, a nation that only lost its independence after centuries of invasion, coercion and deceit is absurd. Britain could no more "grant" to the Scots that which was rightfully theirs than I can create gold via sheer will. That is not the point however, in 1913 a home rule bill passed the first reading of the British Parliament and everything seemed set. World War I ended the progress of the bill and in the fever-pitch following "The Great War" to grant self-determination to peoples across the world, the Scots were forgotten.

Fast forward to the 1980's, the voting patterns of Scotland and England clearly began to show a shift in what Scots thought was important versus the rest of Britain. Very young conservatives like me in America may have loved Thatcher for her foreign policy but Scots disdained her domestic policies and her paternalistic attitude toward their desires to do things their own way.

A commenter on a Guardian story sums it up:

Despite my very close English connections, I've never been comfortable being British after growing up under Thatcher and seeing how differently England and Scotland voted during those years. It left a great impression that fundamentally England and Scotland are very different - one more "me" oriented and one more socially aware. Several years living in England later on didn't change that view.

Most observers of the movement toward devolution and nationalism in Scotland point directly at Thatcher as the catalyst to reignite centuries old embers. Speaking of a Thatcher visit to Glasgow in 1997 SNP leader Alex Salmond suggested that her visit was "the best advertisement for Scottish self-government possible". A recent History Channel documentary I viewed "Essential Scottish History" spoke to this fact and her influence in galvanizing Scottish nationalism.

For nearly 300 years the Scots had tried it the Unionist way, for nearly 300 years they had seen the downside of representative democracy in action . As a minority, a suppressed nation, they came to know exactly what union meant. It took several attempts to elect the "right" people, pass the right bills etc. before they collectively woke up to this fact in sufficient numbers to push for a return of their own parliament but they did wake up, thanks in large part to Margaret Thatcher.

Perhaps you already see why I placed Hillary Clinton in the title line with Margaret Thatcher - perhaps I do not need to write the rest of this, I think you already get my point.

Small minorities all across these united states are disenfranchised with the way things are, for their own reasons - some to the right others to the left. Most within these minorities still see the hope within one man - "if we can just get him/her elected all will be well." Of course the majority is either apathetic or still delusioned by the non-competition provided by the two non-opposing national parties (but those unwashed masses are not our concern).

On the right many of us support Tancredo or Dr. Paul (a minority if the MSM is to be believed) and within this group of supporters most actually believe. Heck, I want to believe - but I don't. I believe that despite our support Dr. Paul, for instance, simply will not win. The GOP has already established it has no intention of letting it happen - they want one of their men. What does that leave? A third party option that will ensure Hillary the win or sitting home, not voting for the scoundrel, false conservative the GOP trots out - which of course also ensures Hillary wins. Either way, Hillary wins.

I am not a defeatist, Dr. Ron Paul is the right man for the job, Tancredo (or better yet Alan Keyes) might make a decent VP but it will not happen. If it did happen and Paul stuck by his past voting record we would see a presidency with the most vetoes and the most vetoes overridden in the history of this republic. Not that this would be a bad thing, but the fact is what it is. (in it own way a Paul win would highlight just how wrong things are at the core)

Dr. Paul deserves our support, our earnest support. Above anyone else in government he has stood firm on a strict interpretation of The Constitution. Supporting him, despite the odds, is simply the right thing to do - a trigger point must come and it cannot come unless decent, feed-up people continue to dream and continue to see their dream shattered by the current system.

The election is Hillary's to win unless she herself losses it in the coming months - ours is but to stand firm on principles and support that which is right, not what is pragmatic. There is too much pragmatism in politics.

I would have thought that after 7 years of neoconic folly the body of conservatives would rise from the autopsy table and demand a man like Dr. Paul - we see this is not the case in the vast majority, why on Earth would any real conservative support Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson? I don't know - I am without an explanation. After the lies, deceit and downright trampling of the Constitution under Bush I would expect a real conservative revolution but it has occurred only on the fringes.

I would like to think that after 4 years of Hillary real conservatives would wake up and say "enough", I would like to think that they would look at the GOP as an organization infested with false conservatives and bad ideology and demand a change. I would like to think that a combination of tyranny and lies under Bush and socialism and idiocy under Clinton II would wake my own people up and have them screaming in streets for freedom and independence from this republic gone astray - realizing that a vote does not equal a voice in a system this large.

I would like to see that and maybe we will, right now I am confused as to why more of my own people are not in the streets demanding that Ron Paul occupy the White House at the earliest opportunity.

The Scots woke up (partially) will we?

Labels: constitution, El Cid, Neoconservatism, political philosophy, politics, Ron Paul, secession

Stumble It!

DailyPaul
America's Brave Heart
Catholics for Ron Paul
Citizens for Ron Paul
Conservative Times
The Crossed Pond
Disinter
For Sound Money
Granny Warriors
The Knight Shift
LDS 4 Ron Paul
Libertarians For Ron Paul
MindBody Politic
New Liberty
Online Rally
Ozarks Voter
Paul for Ron Paul
Primarily Paul
Protect Ron Paul
Red State Eclectic
Republican Renaissance
Retro Republican
Ron Paul Fan
Ron Paul KC
Ron Paul 2008 NYC
Ron Paul HQ
Ron Paul Nation
Ron Paul New England
RonPaulforPresident2008
Ron Paul Press Hub
Ron Paul Registry
Ron Paul Rescue Us
RonPaul Wisconsin
RonPaul.Typepad
Students for Ron Paul
Seniors for Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul

International Blogs:
Asia for Ron Paul
Bavaria for Ron Paul
Belgians for Ron Paul
Brits for Ron Paul
Brazilians for Ron Paul
Canadians for Ron Paul
Chile for Ron Paul
French for Ron Paul
Europe 4 Ron Paul
Holland 4 Ron Paul
Hungary for Ron Paul
Ron Paul Spanish
Indian & Pakistani Friends of Ron Paul
Poland for Ron Paul
Romania for Ron Paul
Venezuela for Ron Paul

Official Ron Paul Site

Military and Veterans For Ron Paul

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, immigration, politics

Stumble It!

Have you seen their new anti-Ron Paul T-Shirt? Well, apparently they took it down because I cannot find it anywhere but the caption on the shirt read "Puck Ron Faul." It apparently was not up for long (in fact, the post I linked to has a comment mentioning that even though the commenter dislikes Ron Paul, their shirt makes Red State look bad).

Labels: IKANTSPEL, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

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.

Labels: bad ideology, constitution, El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, China, International, politics

Stumble It!

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: El Cid, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

I couldn't agree more - it was a circus and the whole point was to make it look like Ron Paul had absolutely no support. I believe that this is an adequate summary of the debate.

Labels: IKANTSPEL, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics

Stumble It!

Labels: Border Control, Charleston Voice, politics, South Carolina

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, religion, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

After crying wolf multiple times, I have decided to resume blogging more regularly (school has been keeping me away).

Those who know me know that I am unequivocally opposed to public education and any kind of state control of education and children. With that being said, I would like to discuss implications pertaining to the 2008 election, particularly with regard to the alleged candidate chosen by God Himself, Mike Huckabee.

A few months ago, I discovered that the evangelical based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has made an early endorsement of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. I am not entirely surprised at this move as they have become more of an organ of the religious right, especially since the conception of their PAC in 2003. Despite the connection to the religious right, I nonetheless believe that the HSLDA is a beneficial resource for homeschoolers, especially Christian homeschoolers. They provide valuable legal help/resources and information pertaining to homeschooling that the mainstream press often conveniently ignores.

I think that it is reasonably obvious why the religious right lends support to Huckabee on numerous other issues (i.e. he is a statist and a warmonger who believes that Israel is really the 51st state). What fueled my curiosity is why the HSLDA and other religious conservatives might support Huckabee based solely on his education platform.

Here is a portion of what the HSLDA PAC endorsement reads:

Mike Huckabee, as governor, was the first to appoint a homeschooler to the Arkansas State Board of Education, and to our knowledge the first to do so in any state. He is adamantly opposed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and is committed to stopping the erosion of parental rights.

I'm sure that to many parents, these words might offer a bit of encouragement especially to those who have been harassed by the pesky state. When Mike Huckabee launched an exploratory committee, I visited his website and had a look at his education platform. Here is the very first item that appeared (notice the tense of the verb) on a pithy enumerated list when I made my visit many months ago:

I believe that every child in America has the right to a quality public education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy.

As soon as I read this, I forthwith became skeptical about his entire education platform. To the Huckster's credit, he does mention homeschooling but I was nevertheless mystified concerning the way in which the he might reconcile his position on homeschooling with a seemingly obvious declaration or allusion to a universal right to public education (for those who do not see why there is room for concern, I am currently blogging on this issue at my personal blog). My skepticism has since then multiplied when I recently took a proverbial stroll back to the holy one's campaign site to find the following, in place of what was written previously:

I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a quality education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy.

Why, one might reasonably inquire, did he mollify his original statement by changing his use of language? Some folks might believe that this is just an honest revision and perhaps it really is. But I am slightly more skeptical. Firstly, the remainder of the text in his platform appears to be relatively unaltered from the original. Secondly, he did not make the changes due to grammatical or otherwise syntactical ambiguities. He only changed and removed a few key words. If one considers the changes that were made, it seems reasonable for one to deduce that he is trying to keep himself from sounding too much like a socialist or a Democrat.

There are those who might be apt to believe that I am extrapolating too much from all of this and making a nuisance of myself. Yet in response, I am forced to again inquire how one may genuinely be interested in protecting parental rights while at the same time deliver multiple promises, as Huckabee does, to remedy the very same system that facilitates their violation.

To elaborate, lets consider some of the more fine points on the Huckster's platform.

Firstly, he seems to suggest that all children have a universal right to education and I see no further need to comment on that (actually, I am copiously commenting on this in general on my blog).

Next, there are only two occurrences of the word “homeschooling” on the Huckster's education platform. The first occurs on his bulleted list at the top of his platform on education (nothing has been altered here from it's original appearance like the previous statement was):

I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.

The next occurrence appears to be the point that was summarized at the top:

As Governor, I fought hard for more charter schools, with their strong parental involvement and their unique ability to serve as laboratories for education reform, and for the rights of parents to home school their children. I am a strong supporter of public school choice. I am proud that my three children attended public schools from K through twelve, as did my wife and I.

Thus, while Huckabee does mention homeschooling, he couples it with either public school choice or charter schools. He says nothing about genuine private solutions and nothing about the issue of homeschool regulation. The overall emphasis of his platform is focused on what the state can do to supposedly improve education. To put two and two together seems to reveal a paradox. How does homeschooling fit within his idea that all children ought to receive a public education (or all children should receive an education, as the revision goes)? If one is to receive a "quality" education there must be some way of making such a judgment. Incidentally, I am amused at the way he puts the purpose of charter schools: laboratories for education reform. Are children these days nothing more than little lab rats to be experimented on by a plethora of self-righteous educrats?

Furthermore, would he compel parents to send their children to public schools if all of the problems he perceives to exist have been resolved? That is, does Huckabee believe that homeschooling is merely a temporary solution justified by what he perceives to be problems with the public schools or is it something more?

He goes on to note that:

In addition, I want to provide our children what I call the "Weapons of Mass Instruction" - art and music - the secret, effective weapons that will help us to be competitive and creative. It is crucial that children flex both the left and right sides of the brain. We all know the cliché of thinking outside the box: I want our children to be so creative that they think outside the cardboard factory. Art and music are as important as math and science because the dreamers and visionaries among us take the rough straw of an idea and spin it into the gold of new businesses and jobs. It is as important to identify and encourage children with artistic talent as it is those with athletic ability. Our future economy depends on a creative generation.

I again find his use of language rather interesting: he wants our children to be creative. It's important to him that our children can do this or that or that our children can play the hurdy gurdy better than the Islamo-Fascists. I also like the way he thinks it's his duty to inoculate our children with his WMI's. If you want creative solutions, then here is a suggestion: I dare you to get on camera and discuss a workable plan to eventually abolish all government involvement in education. But alas, I surmise that only certain kinds of creative solutions are permissible. Also, I think that his allusion to WMD's is rather morbid. Perhaps we can simultaneously drop them on children who live in the countries we invade and occupy (I wouldn't put it past this guy).

He continues by enumerating the usual list of actions with which we may occupy ourselves to 'improve' the government schools. Each U.S. State ought to set benchmarks, he writes. We need to hire competent teachers, he writes. We need to expose children to more art and music, he writes. We need to hold teachers and administrators accountable, he writes. Blah blah blah, I passed this law and did that, blah blah blah, pay teachers more, focus on real education, set benchmarks, blah blah blah. The same rhetoric that politicians have been using for decades concerning education is therein mentioned but decades of spewing lofty goals has not managed to ameliorate poor academic performance. Yet why should this be surprising? I would contend that the schools are operating within the parameters under which they were conceived.

Most importantly, in the midst all of this discussion about education policy, it seems that we have failed to consider the fact that the Federal Constitution has little to say on this matter (i.e. efforts to abolish compulsory education should be directed at the states). While Huckabee does mention states' rights, he does so very superficially. However, this will be of little consequence if the Democrats get their way (I wonder if this amendment would be illegally ratified like the many that will precede it if so).

Finally, here is a video of the Huckster himself speaking at the NEA Annual Convention this past summer. Anyone who knows anything about the NEA knows that they are most certainly not friendly to those who homeschool nor to anyone desiring educational freedom (they essentially view everyone's children as job insurance for their members).

Labels: education, IKANTSPEL, politics

Stumble It!

Who the heck needs these Establishment rigged TV debates anyway? Watch this and see what happens afterwards! Just show up Ron, that's all America asks.

After the Michigan debate, Ron Paul speaks to a rally of over 200 people!

CNBC might have snubbed him during the debate, but the crowd waiting to see Ron after the debate was huge and very happy to see him. The campaign estimated between 2000 and 2500 people were waiting for Ron to deliver the message of Freedom.

Video is courtesy of justin.tv/ronpaul

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Labels: bad ideology, Charleston Voice, politics

Stumble It!

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

Here is a registry for Ron Paul Supporters to show the real support he has nationwide.
Please sign and pass it on.
http://ronpaulregistry.com/index.php

CV

Labels: Charleston Voice, politics, Ron Paul

Stumble It!

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.

Labels: bad ideology, International, Interventionism, Johnny Anonymus, politics, religion

Stumble It!

This is a man that will likely have but a footnote if looked at from a long view of history. I think we can say one thing about him without equivocation. He could be rightly considered a model for other men that wish to become president. He was unimposing, did not meddle, forced no massive social or economic schemes on the American people, did not invade other nations without just cause and basically did his job meekly and quietly.

Pat Buchanan has a wonderful first-hand account.

Mark also makes a reasonable observation.

Labels: El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

1st Muslim congressman thrills crowd in Dearborn

"You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.

Many in the crowd replied "Allahu akbar" -- God is great.

I'm still not too sure what to make of this. I have no other reason to concern myself with the type of person that the people of Minnesota choose to represent themselves, other than the fact that federalism is broken in the US and now this guy will join the choir of bureaucrats who don't know me but feel like they need to tell me what's best for me. There have been some knee-jerk reactions to his election, not unlike the reaction to John F. Kennedy's election. The Vatican still hasn't completed its conquest of the US.

At one point I bought into the hype like most everyone else in the US who knows next to nothing about Muslims - convinced that they're all orcs who won't stop until the rest of us are dead. After I spent a year living amongst them in their own land, however, I've let that bit of hysteria go. But they are different than run-of-the-mill citizens of the US, so what happens if our government is eventually packed full of them?

I don't suspect it will be any worse than it is now. Our current crop of "leaders" tend to be post-modern socialists devoid of any coherent philosophy. They don't have the slightest bit of respect for the principles that our Revolution was fought for, and I don't like any of them. At least Ellison has religion, though. Something tangible to guide him through life, other than an unbridled lust for power like all the other politicians. Sure he had his crazy college days, like a drunken frat boy or a Girl Gone Wild, in which he dabbled with the Nation of Islam, espousing outrageously racist views that -- if reversed -- would murder the career of a White guy. But he seems to have settled down.

All in all, Keith Ellison is just your average Minnesota Marxist, and he'll try to steal all your hard-earned money as soon as he gets a chance. I reckon it could be worse, though. At least he's not a Republican -- who'll rob you blind while masquerading as a "conservative" -- and knows just what he's about.

Labels: culture, Johnny Anonymus, politics

Stumble It!

I officially and unequivocally endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barrack Hussein Obama for president/vice president in 2008. I think that ticket would do as much for the United States as the Lincoln presidency did in 1861. As the Rebellion blog states:

Yes, the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barrack Hussein Obama ticket would be unbeatable—as a shot in the arm for the Southern Movement. I remember the Clinton years as a fertile time for the Cause. Conservatives of all stripes despised the Clintons, and the League’s message that Slick Willie’s administration was not a fluke, but the epitome of what the Federal government had become struck a chord. Membership grew with every fresh scandal, and new League chapters popped up all over the South.

Bill Clinton was indeed no fluke - he was a shining example of socialism come home to roost. Much like George Bush representing all that is real about the fascist aspects of republican ideology, Clinton/Obama would hold out for all to see the real agenda of socialism (national healthcare, cradle to grave government intrusion and paternalism).

The side of right lost the battle in 1861 - probably deservingly so, for we were incapable of solving a social ill. A significant portion of what was good about our system of government died in that conflict. As Jefferson Davis said after that war (and I paraphrase) - the issues for which the conflict were fought have not died, they will rise again, in another time. The time is now if ever.

Perhaps for my people a Clinton/Obama presidency would refocus our identity and highlight that the Federal Government and the false two party system has left us. The Bush presidency certainly opened the eyes of folks in Vermont and elsewhere to the fascist tendencies of the GOP - I think we Southrons need a dose of Hillary. I am all for it. Send me my bumper sticker please.

Labels: El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

(NY Times) Fifty or so other Republican candidates have also been made targets in a sophisticated “Google bombing” campaign intended to game the search engine’s ranking algorithms. By flooding the Web with references to the candidates and repeatedly cross-linking to specific articles and sites on the Web, it is possible to take advantage of Google’s formula and force those articles to the top of the list of search results.

I wrote recently about my reservations about the great new offering by Google to provide an authoritative election guide. The information in this guide is of course based upon the Google index, an item that folks have proven can be externally manipulated.

Google has such great confidence in the robustness of their database that they are unwilling to take steps to correct obvious manipulations.

We don't condone the practice of googlebombing, or any other action that seeks to affect the integrity of our search results, but we're also reluctant to alter our results by hand in order to prevent such items from showing up.

Chris Bowers, the man behind this latest effort, justifies his Googlebombing plan, “I think Internet users are very smart and most are aware of what a Google bomb is,” he said, “and they will be aware that results can be massaged a bit.”

Of course his assumption that the public is generally smart enough to see through such deceptions is flawed, as is Google's assumption that it is ok to allow such deceptions to stand without correction.

There is another way to view this - these sort of deceptions are what they are, just an extension of dirty politics into the digital world. We could ask for Google to police their index but in doing so we are asking for editorial leeway. Clearly this is not the way we really want things to go.

The Internet opens up a window into the darkest side of "democracy", if deceptions and tricks like this work -and they do - it proves that the mob is not really qualified to make decisions.

Michelle Malkin offers a list of other left-wing Googlebombing attempts.

Other stupid, left-wing Google bomb campaigns:

Google bombing "The Path to 9/11"

Google bombing Bush and "miserable failure"

Google bombing Rick Santorum

Google bombing me!

Labels: El Cid, politics

Stumble It!

Second, there are links to news, web and photo searches for candidates for the U.S. House and Senate races on November 7. Now, I think a squirrel could figure out which way to go on our presidential candidates and political parties. But an educated vote does require some Google searching, especially when candidates try so hard to blur the differences.

Google has integrated campaign and candidate information into Google Earth. Now contrary to the fellow that wrote the piece above (Rock the Vote Director) I am not all for easy online voter registration, online voting and "authoritative" voting guides. I am opposed to these ideas because the American populace has demonstrated manifest apathy in figuring out what "right" look like (by right I mean moral, ethical and philosophical right).

However, considering that things are what they are, we live in the era of sound bites and slick political marketing campaigns I suppose I am all for Google's effort to catalog, index and present in a easily accessible way all information available on candidates and their positions.

My fear is that this index will become authoritative - "my Google search says this guy is a _____ (insert whatever)" and that becomes fact. Campaigns will move their smear campaigns to the Internet (they already have) and use spam and googlebombing techniques to push their agendas - sometimes to the exclusion of the truth. This new Google service, if abused like so many other services, may hurt rather than help our democratic republic.

There is great convenience to all of this but also great danger - apathetic voters can now in a few clicks register to vote, go to an authority site and figure out who to vote for and probably soon actually vote - all without really giving the process thought or deliberation.

Labels: El Cid, politics, technology

Stumble It!

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.

Labels: bad ideology, El Cid, politics, religion

Stumble It!

I will not pretend to have a firm grasp on the ins-and-outs of Thai politics, but the story unfolding in the Kingdom seems very interesting to me.

The army commander who seized Thailand's government in a quick, bloodless coup pledged Wednesday to hold elections by October 2007, and received a ringing endorsement from the country's revered king.

This coup could easily turn ugly, but for the sake of the Thai people, lets hope it remains "quick" and "bloodless".

What's interesting -- to me -- about this event is that it underscores the positive aspects of monarchy. Allow me to enter a caveat with that statement: the type of government our Founding Fathers created was extremely minarchist in its nature. It was founded on the notion that men should have no ruler, but a limited, night watchman state was necessary to secure our natural rights.

Minarchy is a sub-genre of anarchy. Unfortunately, that term has been hijacked by people who don't see it as a political philosophy, and so most people now assume that it's synonymous with "chaos". It's not. It simply means "no ruler", and I personally prefer to be ruled by no one. I see nothing wrong with two or more people willfully entering into a contract without having a politician standing by in order to arbitrarily yea-or-nay said contract.

So there's anarchy...what's the next best thing?

For some reason, most people think it's democracy. But democracy is simply "mob rule". It's an idea our Founding Fathers abhorred. That's probably because most people are idiots.

Think of it in terms of Pop Music. Pop, of course, is simply "what's popular" at the moment. So what's popular right now? Total crap. I guarantee you that the "music" on more than half of the top 10 songs of the Billboard "Hot 100" was neither written nor performed by the "artists" it's attributed to. And the music on the ones that were -- as boring and unimaginative as they are -- will not stand the test of time. In a year they'll be forgotten. People will make fun of each other for remembering them.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy. It's any poorly-conceived idea that happens to appeal to the masses at any random point in time. And it's just not for me. I'll take an Appice, Bruce, or Iommi; you can have Timberlake.

To sum it all up, I just can't understand why anyone would go from one extreme to the next. If the best thing is to be ruled by no one, why would the next best thing be the rule of millions? As Bill Bonner recently put it:

What gives people the right to rule one over another...merely because at that particular moment, in those particular circumstances, there are more lumps on one side than the other?

No thank you, dear reader. We are not democrats. Instead, give us a good king. Put him on the throne and tell him to mind his business. And if he taxes too heavily, spends too much, or dares to drag the country into war or absurdity – off with his head!

Thailand, Anarchy, Monarchy, Democracy, Carmine Appice, Jack Bruce, Tony Iommi

Labels: Johnny Anonymus, politics

Stumble It!