Huntsman Daughters’ Distasteful Activities

This will easily be my shortest post yet since The End Run has done some brilliant investigative reporting.  Apparently, a distasteful video that has received considerable attention as being attributed to Ron Paul supporters is likely to have been created by the oldest daughters of Jon Huntsman.  After reviewing the evidence it’s difficult to come to any other conclusion and is a disgusting turn of events in this race.  The following link will take you to the report:

http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-complicit-in-false-flag-style-dirty-trick-against-paul

Paul and Huntsman trump Trump

Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul have officially refused to participate in the Donald Trump moderated circus that will be one of the last Republican debates before the Iowa primaries (a critical opportunity for exposure under normal circumstances). Ron Paul’s camp eloquently and bitingly provide justification for their decision. The GOP is going down in flames and so far only these two Republican presidential candidates stand firmly above the mess as true statesmen.

 

 

The Racist Anti-Semite: Ron Paul?

I have noted and leveraged the fact in my writings that there is apparently no controversy associated with Ron Paul.  Despite the media’s persistent resistance of his platform and proven record of flat-out ignoring him, nothing has been used to actually discredit him in this election cycle…yet.

That got me thinking: can a politician with unassailable integrity actually exist?  How sad is it for American politics that this must be a question, but this is universally the nature of politics and the very heart of why our founders distrusted government.

I have recently gained a strong interest in Ron Paul’s vision for the United States.  Though there are issues over which I disagree with him (even strongly) his intense and consistent constitutional foundation all but ensures that he will allow his ideas to be accepted or rejected on a national level as intended by our founders.  This is why our government was set up as a democratic republic- so that even the president himself can’t impose his will without the will of The People.  Ron Paul has always demonstrated a firm respect for this philosophy.

As a political student, I would be remiss to not seek to challenge Ron Paul’s character.  After all, I believe a true American patriot takes it upon himself to know both the good and bad of what he believes to be for the greater good of the nation.  Everything has positive and negative consequences.  What we should seek is the prevalence of a certain fidelity in the face of opposition.  An idea that can’t stand to a solid challenge is not worth supporting.  Thus, I challenge Ron Paul’s integrity as a candidate for President of the United States in 2012.

My action plan was simple and fairly fool-proof in today’s internet linked society.  I performed an internet search of “Ron Paul scandal” with the intent to follow any lead within a source that could provide unique information on different “scandals”.

The list is short: very short.  Ron Paul may be a racist.

There is nothing else on him except interpretations and analysis of the potential consequences of his strong Libertarian political approach- this is hardly scandalous being as the very core of libertarianism is an adherence to constitutional principles.  The idea that a candidate is racist is certainly disturbing, but this notion as it pertains to Dr. Paul is frustrating to make any comment on because I have not found a single source that actually provides original documents or copies of entire statements rather than just the apparent racist extracts.  I have followed many links to supposedly legitimate sources and found nothing.  This makes for an uncompelling argument for even a loosely objective researcher.

According to multiple sources (here and here for examples) Ron Paul supposedly wrote racist comments in two separate releases of his newsletter and maybe speeches as recently as 1992 (yeah, twenty years ago), but without legitimate sources cited it’s impossible to say what goes to what.  I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this because of the unavoidably speculative nature of my comments.  So, let’s take just a few and see what we can make of them.

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” – Ron Paul, 1992

I’m really not sure what’s wrong with this.  This quote is clearly mocking the justice system in Washington D.C. and using the “inefficiencies” of the system to extrapolate a statistic that is skewed to make a point.  What was the point?  Nobody knows without reading the entire text from which this quote was taken.

“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” – Ron Paul, 1992

This appears to be trying to point out that certain crimes are largely specific to certain cultures.  While it is naïve to think that certain crimes are not committed more by certain groups I struggle to believe that Ron Paul would ever have said that 100 percent of anything is done by any specific group, but maybe he was using statistics from a Department of Justice report that looks specifically at the correlation of race with embezzlement among other crimes.  Only paper copies of the report can be ordered so again the point is impossible to glean without citations to at least the entire statement itself.

“I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.” -When asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

So what???  This is not a racist remark- it distinctly acknowledges the flaws of the Jim Crow laws.  The worst this quote is was an unwillingness to answer the question directly with a “No” in an effort to circumvent the inevitable and baseless racist association.  Either way he is superficially labeled as racist so what difference does it make?  He has consistently argued that the Civil Rights Act was an overreaction to racial tensions that has encouraged racism to endure and felt that there were better alternatives.  All the quotes associated with the Civil Rights movement mean absolutely nothing without knowing his entire argument.

The only thing that indicates many of these quotes are at least accurately extracted is that Ron Paul has acknowledged them, but refused to explain them.  He has denounced some and even dismissed some as written by a staff member without his knowledge (again, without specific sources it’s impossible to say what he has directly addressed).  He has openly accepted responsibility for all the content of his newsletters and attempted to leave it at that even for the comments he has denounced.  This is a questionable political strategy with the hope that it will be sufficient to put the matter behind him, but is in no way evidence of racism.  He’s damned no matter what he does.

For comparison, here is an actual racist quote with the argument that whites are performing the best in schools because they are intellectually superior to Latinos and blacks:

“And while only one in twelve white seventeen-year-olds has the ability to pick up the newspaper and understand the science section, for Hispanics the number jumps to one in fifty; for African Americans it’s one in one hundred.”

As you can see, the distinction between what are quotes taken out of context and a quote such as this is striking.

Perhaps you are on to my ploy already.  The last quote was from President Barack Obama who was trying to address specific struggles in education goals.  Obviously I took it out of context.  Just because something is said to be so does not make it so.

Anyway, I could go on and on with speculation on what all the alleged quotes could mean.  If this is the worst anyone can dig up on Ron Paul then there is no case against him- especially since not a single quote can be said to have been written by him.  Look up any other candidate and “scandal” and there are far more substantive cases.  That is except for Jon Huntsman.  Huntsman’s character is squeaky clean according to what I can turn up, which is pretty impressive considering he is not exactly a newbie to the political arena, but that’s for another blog entry.

As for Ron Paul and anti-Semitism, the matter is the same so I won’t waste much time with it.  Basically, because Ron Paul authored a proposal that would end foreign aid to Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Pakistan (3 of four of these countries are Muslim and involved in actions against Israel) while saving $6 billion dollars he is anti-Semitic.  Also, because of another supposed quote attributed to him stating that he is critical of Israeli lobby groups who extract $3 billion a year from us and because he wouldn’t aid preemptive military actions by Israel (or anyone for that matter- even us) against Iran he is anti-Semite.  This is so ludicrous I won’t legitimize it with any manner of response.

What I will say is that this sort of poisonous association of withdrawing federal money and aid from endless programs as being “against” the individuals or groups associated with the program simply does not apply to Ron Paul because he is so universally resistant to federal intervention.  This does not lend him to any criticism that he favors or dislikes any particular group.  He does not dislike groups.  He dislikes federal meddling.

My conclusion is that Ron Paul’s character is sound.  No proof exists that he is racist or anti-Semitic, as if there’s a difference.  There is certainly reason to keep a close eye on him as with any politician, but the fact of the matter is that there is no measurable dirt on the guy.  Disagree with him all you like, he is nearly the perfect candidate for president if integrity is of any importance to the Presidency.

Occupy a Communist Revolution

There is an awful lot of media frenzy over the Occupy Wall Street protests going on throughout the country.  However, we are entering the 27th day of these protests and there is still not a clear idea of what exactly OWS is protesting or what the protesters want.  This is not just a casual observation by me.  Their website offers nothing directly of substance and there are more than a few bloggers such as this Washington Times post and my buddy at Extreme Middle who had the fortune and initiative to visit a protest in Denver.  The Washington Times post is interesting because it attempts to identify the demands of OWS with an original list that was actually just a post on the OWS website by a supporter.  The article then tries to update with yet another list that it tries to associate with OWS, but the “OWS” link it provides is actually to Coup Media Group and written by “anonymous” who opens with an admission that OWS has no official demands.  There is no measurable amount of cohesion to this so-called movement.

You might wonder where the official news outlet stories are on this conspicuous absence of substance to the OWS protests.  Well, I do to.  I looked on every major news website and found nothing in the form of a formal article trying to investigate the demands of OWS.  CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC are all practically cheerleaders (such as this trash from MSNBC) and Fox News has reduced its stories to petty partisan jabs.  Only bloggers are actually doing any inquiry.  Glenn Beck sent a film maker into the fray for his GBTV broadcast.  I was somewhat skeptical about the result, but it is echoed in many personal accounts of objective people and my own research.

So,basically, it is reasonable to conclude that the OWS protesters are mad.  They are so chock full of rage that they even dedicate a link to US Day of Rage, which doesn’t seem to be any particular day- at least not soon…which doesn’t seem to be particularly rageful.  To be honest, I rather support USDR’s 3 demands.  However, according to their stated principles, they “will never endorse, finance, or lend our name to any other group, association, candidate or party”, which means I can’t associate their demands with OWS.  Hmm.  Anyway, OWS is mad at corporations and corrupt government according to their “about” page.  That’s it.  They’re just honest to goodness mad folk who want…what?

Truth be told, they don’t know, which makes their “movement” more like an obnoxious fart.  It’s annoying, but doesn’t really do anything.  It might be followed by a movement, but you would really rather it happen somewhere else.

I mean this very sincerely so as to avoid being vulgar because what they are collectively and indirectly advocating is nothing more.  The protesters are tools to the Democrat scoundrels in Washington who now claim to support OWS and relish in the lack of a platform.  It means Washington Democrats commit to nothing by supporting OWS, but they get the wonderful benefit of having public attention diverted from their own failings and significant contributions to the current financial mess (including corporate welfare) so that they may have a second term for their Democrat president for more of the same.  It’s a strategically smart move that they can disassociate from under the guise of “Who knew” the moment OWS develops a platform that may be objectionable.

It doesn’t end with just Democrats, though.  There is a much more dangerous, insidious, silent, and powerful (remember the bad fart and what might come afterward) association with communist thought in our society that is ever prevalent in our politics (see Bernie Sanders).  The supporters of this thought are seizing the opportunity to shape the OWS agenda.  Even speakers such as Slavoj Zizek, a Marxist/Leninist philosophy professor from Slovenia, are openly welcomed and their thinly veiled calls for communism are being hailed as representatives of OWS thought.  Among the latest calls for action by OWS is a “global” event to “…usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.  We must change, we must evolve.”  The very concepts of economic and social justice are Marxist, which led to the bloody Lenin revolution and eventual economic ruin of the USSR.  Contemporary applications of these concepts are being pushed through organizations like the Center for Economic and Social Justice, which claims to attempt to refine Marxist principles through the application of the kelso-adler theory of economic justice.  Make sense to you?  Not so much to me either and I am fairly confident that 99% of the protesters have no clue whatsoever.

As with many of my writings, my opinions change through my research.  I started this article as a blog on the misguided efforts of a bunch of legitimately mad people who don’t know where to direct their anger for productive results.  What I am now convinced of is that the vagueness is the deliberate workings of a puppet master.  The fact that I think our problem is with government is almost pale in comparison to this new threat of communist uprising that I see taking root through these unwitting protesters.  “Who is driving the OWS website?”, I now wonder.  Maybe George Soros?  It certainly isn’t just a hodgepodge of bloggers.  The calls for action are becoming more brazenly revolutionary and communist in nature.  In fact, the latest call for action is specifically to include children so that they can be taught “about our broken economic system, and alternatives that could help save the planet and provide a future for the next generation” and to embarrass officials by showcasing “parents and their children so invested in Occupy Wall Street that they would spend the night in a public park with their children.”

Aside from the fact that involving children for political leverage in this manner is a distasteful Stalinist revolutionary tactic, there is an awful lot of teaching going on for so little conversation.  BUT, now you and I know at least some of the truth.  I don’t fully understand it and I know I’ve presented just a fraction of what’s out there.  Clearly, the protestors are not any kind of grassroots effort or there would actually be root in something.  They are pawns in a much larger game and one side is gearing up to use them for their breakthrough move in possibly a defining event in American history.  Which side will YOU be on?

When Math Meets Hope

President Obama has laid out his latest and greatest job saving plan that is sure to be even better than the last two.  Part of that plan is an extension and expansion of the current payroll tax cuts which will divert around $240B from the Social Security Trust fund into his $450B proposal.

An obvious question is whether or not the Social Security Trust Fund is an appropriate source of funding.  The short answer is no…hell no, but these are tax cuts not actual borrowing, right?  That’s the first failure in this predictably vague proposal.  The cuts are speculative in that nobody has seen an actual bill. They are gleened purely from the weakly worded but wonderfully delivered speech.  Still, let’s assume they are as predicted.

Social Security is running about $50B in the hole and is projected to level off around $20B in the red in 2012 before it goes on a terminal dive in 2015 that ends in 2036 according to the Social Security Administration Board of Trustee Report of May 2011.  The report includes projections that take into account the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and also cites concerns with the viability and projections of ObamaCare (see the second to last paragraph of the summary).  So, even WITH the added magic of the $1T ObamaCare package, the SSA Trustees have downgraded the insolvency of Social Security from 2037 to 2036 and Medicare is in even worse shape.  Funny how this does not make headlines.

Let’s do some simple math and see if President Obama has finaly taken the walk into La-La land.  Social Security is going to average around $30B in red spending until 2015 before diving even further into an ever increasing annual deficit.  If we add $240B to that right off the bat we get…oh yeah, MUCH WORSE!  I can’t wait to see the Trustee’s report in 2012.  It should go something like, “Why do we even bother?”

Before any of you go into a tizzy about how Social Security has a $2.6T surplus I am already aware of it as detailed by a Huffington Post letter provided by former Democrat  Senator Don Riegle who, incidentally, was formally reprimanded during his last term for “substantially and improperly interfering” with an investigation against a financial institution that cost the government over $3B when it collapsed.  Not exactly a fiscal genius.

That the $2.6T surplus has been borrowed by the government to offset its $13T deficit is a universally accepted fact.  What Mr. Riegle proposes, though, is that the loan is in such good faith that when Social Security needs to collect on it there will simply be a check written from the government…for itself…plus interest.  In fact the Board of Trustees believe the same thing in their report.  The burning question is:  If indebtedness to Social Security (once hailed as self sustaining thus unrelated to deficit spending) is now calculated as part of the national debt, then how can that money actually be paid back…PLUS INTEREST while we are in a deficit???  That’s like seriously saying you can be broke one month, but loan yourself money for your mortgage payment after borrowing money from other people for the rest of your bills, then pay yourself back in twenty years during which your budget is expected to get worse…PLUS COLLECT INTEREST!!!

What is not so universally accepted in the letter (but is gobbled up by SSA proponents galore) highlights typical agenda driven selective reasoning.  Mr. Riegle properly cites a 2010 SSA Board of Trustee report that details a surplus in funds forever and ever.  However, Mr. Riegle provides a graph that I have not found in the report.  Furthermore, the graph appears to be compiled from data in a table on page 194 of the report.  More specifically, the data is from the column representing “Low-Cost” projections which most certainly shows increasing surplus that seem to carry on without end.  Here’s the catch:  On page 7 of the report there are 3 “alternatives” for predicting the performance of the Social Security Trust Fund:  Intermediate, Low-cost, and High-Cost.  Intermediate is based on current information and trends (and is the one that predicts insolvency by 2036) while Low-Cost and High-Cost assume best case and worse case scenarios.  The table shows all three outcomes.  Mr. Riegle conveniently uses the Low-Cost, or “Best Case”, scenario to support his claim that Social Security is simply not in trouble and does not disclose that bit of information.  It is the only prediction that shows a sustainable surplus.

BTW, here’s a CBO report that shows transfers from the General Fund into Social Security through 2020.  They are called Intergovernmental Transfers to Trust Funds.  Even by 2020 they do not even closely match what is being loaned.  Also, Medicare has been and is projected to continue running increasingly in the red, which offsets the annual increases of the Transfers that might actually make a difference if we were just talking about Social Security.  This shows that Medicare is an inseparable problem with Social Security that is like an anchor that weighs more than the ship.  If I read the SSA Trustee report correctly ObamaCare is expected to create only a 25% improvement in Medicare fund performance (through decreased payment schedules for medical care) over a finite period of time.  Again, the projected decline in Medicare includes whatever benefits are assumed from ObamaCare.

I don’t think anyone with any economic sense believes best case scenarios are ever the ones to base economic policy on.  That is, of course, unless you campaign on “Hope”.  Welcome to La-La land.

A Musing On Killing

     Several months ago, I heard an interesting take on being a Soldier that is probably well known, but I hadn’t heard it before. Maybe I never bothered to pay attention until now. Basically, it’s the observation that what sets a Soldier apart from the average person is not that he is willing to die for is country. Anyone can do that. What makes a Soldier unique is that he is willing to kill for his country. Take a moment to ponder that. I’ve been doing it ever since I heard it and figure only now I could intelligently write on it.

     On the surface, this makes us look like glorified monsters. Somehow, we are stable enough to mingle with society, but we are messed up in the head enough that, given a simple set of circumstances, we would violently end another person’s life. There are layers of philosophical meadows to wander in with this discussion. What of the concept of patriotism, of defense of one’s family, or of the protection of a society’s ideals? All of that is interesting, but apparent clutter in the grand scheme of things. The cycle of life does not concern itself with politics, or bloodlines, or such subjective notions as religion. Life simply is or it isn’t and the general default human position is that it should be protected at all costs.

Consider the following marching cadence taught to us in Basic Training:

 

One and one

We’re havin’ some fun

Killin’ commies, commies

All day, all day

And all through the night

Hey, Hey!

 

Two and two

I’ll do it for you

(last 4 lines repeat with every verse)

 

Three and three

I’ll do it for free

 

Four and four

I’ll do it some more

 

Five and five

They won’t stay alive

 

Six and Six

I do it for kicks

 

Seven and seven

They won’t go to heaven

 

Eight and eight

Now don’t it feel great

 

Nine and nine

With gun or landmine

 

Ten and ten

Let’s do it again

(These days we say “terrorists” instead of “commies”)

 

     Freaky, right? By the day-to-day standards of society we are celebrating murder! How could we be so sociopathic?

     Having asked the question, there doesn’t seem to be a good direct response. “It’s not sociopathic” is simply not adequate. Life has two extremes with practically no transition (“brain-dead” might be the only example). As Soldiers, we are trained and paid to instantly arrange the extreme that is diametrically opposed to our regard for life.

Allow me to diverge for a moment…

     I spoke with a captain in the Air Force at the DFAC today. He was an A-10 pilot and our conversation started with how boring we thought the game of cricket that was being broadcast seemed to be. We talked about what each other did and I mentioned that I was in the unit that had lost two members in the chinook RPG assault. He expressed his condolences and I remarked that at least the attackers were found and killed. We both celebrated that fact. We talked for a few more minutes as we walked out of the DFAC. The rise in violence during Ramadan became the topic of discussion. As we parted he mentioned that he had killed two insurgents the day before.

     That last remark caused me a moment of pause (though I instantly said, “All right!”). Casually, though with obvious pride, this guy just stated to me that he recently and deliberately killed two people- perhaps less than 24 hours before I met him. An A-10 pilot probably does not leave much intact of his targets.

Back to the question at hand about being sociopathic.

     Clearly, we are cognisant that our existence is philosophically much more than just life and death. If that were not the case than we would be no better off than an amoeba. Though life itself is indifferent to human endeavors, the vast majority of us believe there is much more that we have relatively little comprehension of, but a strong sense for. Such things as peace, justice, balance, and the very notion of God challenge the strictly on or off nature of life. These aspects of our consciousness are not just random, irrational clutter. They are the very color of and, we hope at least, clues to the meaning of our existence.

     So passionate are we about these notions that we consider them our very identity. Both as individuals and as communities we see ourselves as much more than just another piece in the mechanism of life. We are part of the consciousness that moves it. As such, we perceive a responsibility to protect what we have determined to be the aspects that best contribute to that movement through the symbiosis of peace, justice, balance, and God.

     Though we as individuals have our own understanding of these aspects, we find commonalities as societies and identify ourselves through friendships, laws, and spirituality. Anything that threatens the aspects we have established to represent our society threatens the society as a whole. Often such threats are only perceived through ignorance, but there are those times when society determines the threat to be direct and real and mobilizes its defenses to protect itself. Thus, we find ourselves looking at life not just as an individual endowment, but also as a collective phenomenon. At this point we find that society determines the value of eliminating the threat to be in some way proportional to the life it threatens with relatively little regard to individual loss.

     Soldiers do not determine that value, save for the occasional coup (a very dangerous situation as this essay inadvertently highlights). As a volunteer Army, we are among those who have embraced the aspects of our society to such an extent that we present ourselves as defenders of it. We have accepted the value of the collective and pledge to preserve it in the manner consistent with the wishes of our society. If society determines that war and the death we must inflict in it is the best course of action, then we accept that it is correct and worthy of setting aside our initial notions of life for a larger purpose. We pledge not to question it and to commit to action.

     For this, we as Soldiers accept that our cause is good and our actions are just. I realized after a few moments of pondering that the reason I paused on the pilot’s comment was because I did not know the circumstances around which two people died by his hand. Such is the way our society is wired through its values. We default to our basic notion of life and the value we place on it. After a while, I concluded that I had no place to even falter on the justness of his killing. That had already been done when society sent him to war.

     So, if we are to question the mental stability of a Soldier who is willing to kill we would more effectively spend our time questioning the stability of the society that sent him on his task. It all boils down to faith. Faith in our values, faith in the strength of our society, and faith in the fidelity of our Soldiers’ commitment to our society and everything it represents. Such faith does not and should not come lightly. So long as Soldiers commit to fight honorably for what is believed to be the greater good that they are sent to defend, then they certainly do set themselves apart for they are the warrior ambassadors to something valued more than themselves.

The Return of Our Fallen Soldiers: Another Obama Photo Op?

Media coverage of the arrival of our fallen Soldiers was banned to respect the wishes of bereaving families. President Obama chose to not only take official photographs despite other U.S. dignitaries excluding their staff photographers, but also distributed a photo of him saluting the caskets to the media. I don’t think I am politicizing by pointing out the disrespect and narcissism of this decision.

Just so I am clear, I would have understood had this picture been used strictly for White House releases. But to take the deliberate step to distribute to the media is beneath a Commander in Chief. He owes an apology to the families of the fallen.

Rest In Peace Soldiers of B Co, 2-135th GSAB

Since the media can’t shake it’s fixation on the Special Operations Soldiers we tragically lost on the Chinook that was shot down on 06 Aug 2011, I am reposting something from “medicbear” at another forum. There were 5 Army National Guard crewmembers (two pilots and 3 door gunners) who bravely flew that bird into a hot LZ in order to insert the Spec Ops Soldiers for assistance to the Rangers who were pinned down. Medicbear says it well:

“The real flight crew. RIP CW4 David Carter and SGT Patrick Hamburger 2-135 Aviation Regiment CO and NE Guard. CW2 Bryan Nichols, SPC Alexander Bennett, and SPC Spencer Duncan 7-158 Aviation Regiment, USAR from Kansas. Assigned to my BDE.”

May they rest in peace.

Pay Attention and Stop Sitting On Your Ass!!!

 

If every year you adjust your home budget higher so that you can borrow more merely to cover the payments of your loans and you keep opening lines of credit to buy more things would you consider your household finances in good order?  Would you be even remotely responsible?  Would you be a good parent for forcing your children and grand children to pay for your debts on a vast list of unnecessary bills?  This is what we are letting our government do in trillions of dollars.  Why the hell are people so…gullible (trying to not be inflamatory) that they actually believe our economy is improving in any meaningful way?  I’m going to war to protect this country yet all the while politicians are destroying it with their stupidity through the inattention and “gimme what I want” attitude of the American people. 

You may not be inclined to serve your country in the same capacity, but YOU CAN SERVE YOUR COUNTRY.  Don’t just listen/read the news.  Pay attention to the message and the underlying problem.  THINK and ask your own questions.  Then, find the answers- stop waiting for “experts” to spoon feed you the answers because most have their own agenda.  DO NOT seek an agenda while you look for your answers.  Seek the TRUTH, then communicate your results and listen to those willing to communicate back intelligently.

Communication is the very drive of freedom.  Don’t confuse communication with talking.  Talking is what the prettified, corporate paid heads do on broadcasts.  If we do not communicate, we will lose the spirit of freedom and subject ourselves to the whims of those who understand this power, but wield it for their own purposes.  Slaves are not allowed to speak their mind, but too many Americans actually CHOOSE to not speak.  Does this make them lower than slaves? 

***It most certainly will***

Here is a link to the Debt Clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ .  It’s a good place to start.  Our GDP is $14.7 trillion.  We have a national debt that is almost past it.  This means we will soon produce less than we borrow.  This is insanity no matter how you try to justify government entitlement programs and runaway spending whether it’s on nationalized healthcare or even bloated military programs.  Look at every number and it’s title.  Among the scariest are the Unfunded Liabilities as compared to our National Assets.  If we sold everything the US owns we would still be on the hook for $40 trillion worth of promises by our esteemed politicians.  UNACCEPTABLE!!!

If you care at all about this country then there are three simple steps you must take:  THINK, COMMUNICATE, VOTE!  Part of this is to not be afraid to talk about difficult subjects and to accept that you might well be personally affected by the reforms necessary to put this country on the right track.  STOP WHINING ABOUT IT because it’s not your money you’re saving- its your children and grand children’s money and they are looking up to us with desperate eyes to make the right choices because they don’t have a voice to scream their desperation!

 

Islam and the West: Oil and Water II

My blood is boiling.  Thank God I had some time to mull over what I had read earlier in the day because I would likely have been quite vulgar in this post.  Let me start with the only vulgarity I intend to include:

FUCK YOU, KARZAI!

With that said, here is the article that prompted my anger.  Just who does President Karzai think he is to dare suggest he has any authority to impose ANY demands regarding whatever twisted sense of justice he’s got going on in his pathetic skull regarding the behavior of American citizens on American soil?!?!

(please refer back to stated vulgarity)!!!

Who does Karzai think he is to INITIATE the release of the information that the Quran was burned by our arguably nuts pastor and then start pointing fingers at OUR CITIZEN for the mindless killings that ensued 10,000 miles away???  Either he is too stupid to know he himself incited the violence in his country or he is playing extremely dangerous political/religious games while our Soldiers risk life and limb on a daily basis to help his countrymen.  I’m going to take this a leap further, Karzai knew damn well that releasing the news of the Quran burning would lead to violent unrest.  He could have kept quiet until someone else released the info and THEN condemn it.  Hell, he could have discretely passed the information on to his own press and THEN condemn it after it was broadcast.  Oh no, Karzai takes a mighty swing at us and PERSONALLY releases the information right before an anticipated cycle of insurgent uprising!  What more could he have done short of declaring a Holy War?

(please refer back to stated vulgarity)!!!

Does Karzai condemn the killings in his country?  No, no, no…how silly would that be?  He “expresses regret” over them.  -NOT EVEN AN APOLOGY to the several nations represented in those murders!

(please refer back to stated vulgarity)!!!

So…(breathe)…about that whole Oil and Water thing.  If Islam is such a peaceful religion why on Earth has the president of an Islamic nation not condemned the killings in his own country?  Sort of flies in the face of President Obama’s assertion that no religion tolerates ”the slaughter and beheading of innocent people” regarding this very situation doesn’t it?  Either that, or our President has finally admitted in the best way he can that Islam is not a peaceful religion…hmmmm.  I don’t think so. 

What sort of punishment is Karzai suggesting for our citizen exercising his right to freedom of speech, anyway?  Sharia Law would certainly be a logical start- get out your very own copy of the Quran to see what the punishment for blasphemy is or just look here.  The religion of peace suggests such things as cutting off opposite hands and feet or crucifixion among other varieties of punishment depending on the peace-du-jour.  I guess when our military was ordered to burn Bibles in Afghanistan we were just practicing for the day we got to burn the Quran according to Karzai.

I am ever closer to believing in my heart that Islam is a truly violent religion.  BUT, wether it’s the whole religion or the increasingly remote chance all the violence around the world associated with Islam is somehow perpetuated by a few craaaazy radicals:

Know thine enemy.

Watch thine enemy.