Saturday, January 30, 2010

I Want to be a "High Value Individual"

An "insurgent" does damage to the Bush-Obama regime whenever the insurgent reduces the ranks of the U.S. Armed Services, either by gunfire, an I.E.D., or some other terrorist act.

If I reduce the ranks of the U.S. Armed Services by persuasion, reason, or eloquence, would the Bush-Obama regime consider this "damage?"

It certainly would damage the chances that the Regime would be able to keep its campaign promises to major oil and gas special interests, that the regime would open up stable pipeline corridors through Asia.

It might even be sufficient to be

placed on a secret "hit list" of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed

The Washington Post's Dana Priest reports that

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill....

Glenn Greenwald urges us to

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations.

America is an idea. America is a creed. Summed up in three words, that creed is "Liberty Under God." And the secular Bush-Obama Regime is the enemy of this America.

If John Witherspoon, George Washington, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry were transported through time to our day, they would be the enemies of the federal government. They would be added to the regime's list of "High Value Individuals," just as they were added to a similar list in Britain in 1776. While I reject their means, I agree with their goal: abolish tyranny.

I hope I can be enough of a threat to tyranny someday to be labeled a "High Value Individual." I seek the approval of Witherspoon and Adams, not that of Bush and Obama.
Feb. 4 Update

Friday, January 29, 2010

Snow White vs. Avatar

Americans, educated in secular, evolutionist schools, believe that the more recent is the more highly evolved, and just has to be better. The older it is, the less we care about it. So the high-tech movie "Avatar" is being touted as "the highest-grossing movie ever."

Since it was first released in 1937, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" has sold 109,000,000 theater tickets. "Avatar" has only sold 76,421,000 tickets (with a much higher price-tag). Also beating "Avatar" in ticket sales:

1 "Gone With the Wind" (1939) 202,044,600
2 "Star Wars" (1977) 178,119,600
3 "The Sound of Music" (1965) 142,415,400
4 "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982) 141,854,300
5 "The Ten Commandments" (1956) 131,000,000
6 "Titanic" (1997) 128,345,900
7 "Jaws" (1975) 128,078,800
8 "Doctor Zhivago" (1965) 124,135,500
9 "The Exorcist" (1973) 110,568,700
10 "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937) 109,000,000
11 "101 Dalmatians" (1961) 99,917,300
12 "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) 98,180,600
13 "Ben-Hur" (1959) 98,000,000
14 "Return of the Jedi" (1983) 94,059,400
15 "The Sting" (1973) 89,142,900
16 "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) 88,141,900
17 "Jurassic Park" (1993) 86,205,800
18 "The Graduate" (1967) 85,571,400
19 "Star Wars: Episode I" (1999) 84,825,800
20 "Fantasia" (1941) 83,043,500

and five other films.

Largely unrelated, but worth reading:

1/3rd of Women in US Military Raped

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Wealth and Debt

Stewart Dougherty writes:

According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent report on wealth, America’s private net worth was $53.4 trillion as of September, 2009. But at the same time, America’s debt and unfunded liabilities totaled at least $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion), or 225% of the citizens’ net worth. Even if the government expropriated every dollar of private wealth in the nation, it would still have a deficit of $66,600,000,000,000.00 ($66.6 trillion), equal to $214,286.00 for every man, woman and child in America and roughly 500% of GDP. If the government does not directly seize the nation’s private wealth, then it will require $389,610 from each and every citizen to balance the country’s books.
(Remember to multiply this amount by every person in your household, including any infant children.)
State, county and municipal debts and deficits are additional, already elephantine in many states (e.g., California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York) and growing at an alarming rate nationwide. In addition to the federal government, dozens of states are already bankrupt and sinking deeper into the morass every day.

In other words, if the government takes your house, your car, and empties out all your bank accounts and savings and gives it all to the Chinese, Saudi Arabian, and other owners of government debt, the government would still have to take a whole lot more from you to keep all the election promises politicians have made. Promises to the elderly, promises to the poor, promises to the bankers.

The question is, are you able and willing to apply effective political pressure on decision-makers to keep them from taking your wealth, or are those to whom the promises were made more willing to do what it takes to have your wealth redistributed to them?
The poor can riot.
The Chinese can nuke L.A.
They're going to get the wealth that was promised them.

Can you top that? What will you do?

Most likely, you will obey orders. The Middle Class is like that. You will continue working every day, producing the things demanded by the rich and the poor, all the while thinking you're "getting ahead," even though you're a slave.

The government is already confiscating more than two-thirds of everything you earn. The Patriots who threw tea into the Boston Harbor would look at our government and say you are a slave.

But slavery is better than Theocracy, is it not?

Those are the only two alternatives.

Life under God's Law ("Theocracy") would mean at least a tithe (10%) of your income given away. Americans today are only willing to give (voluntarily) one-quarter that amount. A full ten percent would eliminate all illiteracy and provide complete health care for all. But Americans say they're "not nder law, but under grace." Americans say, "I gave at the office."

And so Americans have a different savior. This savior claims to provide a better "safety net" for "the least of these" in our society. Two problems: the government safety net has lots of holes; it costs 6 times more than God's plan.

If Americans would agree to abolish the government and give two tithes away (8 times more than they do now), the poor would be much better off (if they were poor at all), and the middle class would have twice as much as they have now.

“If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”
Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Two Disasters

An earthquake did this to a neighborhood in Haiti:

The United States Federal Government did this to a neighborhood in a Muslim country:

They don't hate us for our "freedoms."

Saturday, January 23, 2010

How Many Murders by Major Nidal Malik Hasan?

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan executed a massacre of Fort Hood soldiers, killing 13 and wounding 30 while proclaiming "Allah Akbar!"

But what is not as well known is that Private Francheska Velez, one of those executed by Hasan, was apparently pregnant at the time of her murder. If that turns out to be true, then Hasan actually executed 14 people rather than 13.

Understanding this, a group of Texas legislators has asked the Secretary of the Army to confirm whether Velez was pregnant, and if she was, to prosecute Hasan for 14 murders rather than 13.

View their letter here.

Planned Parenthood may oppose this move, since it might adversely affect their corporate profits.


Updated Wisdom

"The danger to America is not Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of a Clinton, a Bush, an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is MUCH deeper and far more serious than Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Bill Clinton, a George Bush, a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
--- Author Unknown

HT: Richard Boddie

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Haiti and Pat Robertson

Shepard Smith at FoxNews and Right Wing Watch are both criticizing Pat Robertson for his remarks regarding Haiti. I've criticized Robertson before, but not for this:

"Fair and balanced": Lefty Shepard Smith balances out Glenn Beck.


America, a Christian Nation - Christ, the Root of Our Liberties

America is a Protestant Nation

America: A Calvinist Nation

Why has there been less happiness in Haiti than in America?

Prosperity: The Pursuit of Happiness

True Religion vs. Voodoo Socialism

Magic, Envy, and Economic Underdevelopment

America was officially a Christian nation. Haiti gives official recognition to the religion of voodoo. The results have been predictable:

Boston Globe Online / Nation World / Official recognition of voodoo in Haiti stirs enthusiasm, concern

BBC NEWS Americas Voodoo's spell over Haiti

AP Wire 07/26/2003 Haiti Voodoo Pilgrimage Draws Thousands

The Only Hope for Haiti

God Ordained Duvalier

Update: Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Comments on Haiti

Emergency aid is needed, and Robertson's organization is helping supply it; government-to-government foreign aid to Haiti to "re-build Haiti" is not the long-term solution to Haiti's spiritual and material problems. Haiti needs investment, not government aid, but wise investors will not plant capital in a voodoo economy.

Does God Hate Haiti? -

Thousands of deaths in Haiti are the result of "false religion." Spiritual darkness produces poverty which creates ramshackle housing that cannot withstand earthquakes. The "Protestant Work Ethic" creates the infrastructure that makes it possible to save more lives. James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution." One of his most famous works is "The Memorial and Remonstrance" of 1785, written in opposition to a bill in the Virginia legislature. In section 12, Madison opposed the bill on the following grounds:

12. Because, the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

All legislation should promote the true religion, and lessen the number of people trapped in the darkness of false religions.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

Term Limits

I just received an email from a supporter championing the "Congressional Reform Act of 2010." The "Act" limits Congressmen to a fixed number of terms, stating:

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

I oppose term limits.

The author of this "Act" does not understand the concept of "citizen legislatures." The idea does not mean serve ONE term and go home, and never return to Washington. It means government is so small that the business of the legislature is accomplished in a few days or weeks, and then all the citizen-legislators return home to their farms and businesses, which is their real livelihood, for the rest of the year.

Obviously it's been a long time since we've had constitutionally-sized government. It will be a long time before we return to constitutionally-sized government. If we kick out all the Ron Pauls and replace them with inexperienced Constitutionalists, they will not be as effective in battling career bureaucrats as a career Constitutionalist like Ron Paul would.

The proper goal is not rotating inexperienced legislators, but shrinking down the size of government until career legislators [those who do not have any business at home, but whose only business is as a politician] are no longer needed.

If Thomas Jefferson were running today on a platform of opposing the growing socialism in Washington, I would vote for him term after term after term, knowing that he will be outnumbered in Congress, and that it will take a couple of generations to undue what has been done over the last 100 or more years.

If voters send me to Congress to root out unconstitutional bureaucracies, I would not be able to accomplish this task in six years. I woudn't want to be term-limited. I would hope voters would continually re-elect me, term after term after term, until so much of the federal government has been abolished that Congress only need meet in session for a few weeks a year.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Capitalism and Culture

Jeffrey Tucker has a nice article at on improving culture. Critics of capitalism claim that free markets lead to McDonalds and trashy novels, and that we need government funding of art and National Public Radio to balance the culture-corrupting influence of capitalism. Tucker gives a couple of anecdotes about entrepreneurs who enhance culture.

Tucker notes that

Capitalism makes more of everything available to the consumer. That means more trashy novels and rotten music, but it also means more great literature and high-level music, all of which is accessible as never before.

If consumers want it, they can get culture on CD's, DVD's and HD, and get it far cheaper than their ancestors, thanks not to government, but to capitalism.

But today, cultural entrepreneurs are seriously inhibited in their innovations by high taxes, regulations, and mandated benefits. This produces fewer attempts to improve our world than there would otherwise be. Some markets are hobbled to the point of near inaction, such as the education market, and others are less vibrant than they would otherwise be.

Education is critical. Homeschoolers are statistically more interested in culture than public school students. Why don't government schools create consumers who crave culture and drive capitalist markets upward? Do we really want the culture of government's public schools reproduced society-wide?

So what we need is not the overthrow of private property but more freedom for cultural entrepreneurship, and more individual initiative to do more than complain that the world is not conforming to your own values. The next time someone complains about what the market is doing to the culture, ask that person what he or she has done to enter the market and make a difference. And ask what that person has done to make the world freer for those who seek to make the world a more beautiful place.

Tucker is being pleasant and politically correct when he says

So what we need is not the overthrow of private property but more freedom for cultural entrepreneurship....

"More freedom" simply means "less government." The logical and literary parallel to "What we need is not the overthrow of private property," is "but the overthrow of the government." Not just on cultural grounds, but on economic and moral grounds. But Tucker is undoubtedly trying to avoid sounding like an extremist.