Sunday, August 29, 2010

Is the Muslim My Neighbor?

Addressing the funeral of Daniel Pearl (the American Jewish reporter who was brutally slaughtered by terrorists in Pakistan), Imam Rauf actually uttered the words "I am a Jew" -- in the sense that he believes in the God of Abraham, the mission of Moses, and the commandment from the Torah to love God and his fellow man. While not supporting religious syncretism, I have to ask: Is this the behavior of a stealth jihadi?

Whatever else can be said about the teachings and practice of Islam, this much should be understood: The evil practice of murder-suicide bombing has been condemned by traditionalist
Islamic clerics as an apostate innovation of recent vintage that is incompatible with Koranic teachings condemning suicide and assaults on innocent non-combatants. This reflects the fact that terrorists and those who support them account for a tiny percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.

By way of contrast, most conservative American Christians support unending military aggression against the Muslim world, including the use of tactics (such as bombing civilian population centers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the imposition of murderous blockades against Iraq and Gaza) that can only be described as state-sponsored terrorism against the innocent.

Will Grigg, "Is the Muslim My Neighbor?" - Pro Libertate

Thursday, August 26, 2010


A new Rasmussen Reports™ says that

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters now regard Obama’s political views as extreme. But slightly more (55%) describe the views of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a favorite of many Tea Party members, as extreme.

Though they are both "extremists," clearly Obama and Palin do not agree with each other. The supporters of Obama and the supporters of Palin like their candidate precisely because s/he is an extremist and not a moderate, though none of the supporters would use the word "extremist." Conversely, supporters of one candidate hate the other candidate precisely because the other is an "extremist."

Adolph Hitler was an extremist, as was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was arrested and hanged for conspiring to assassinate Hitler. But who today is most respected: Hitler the extremist, Bonhoeffer the extremist, or millions of moderate Germans who never lifted a finger to stop Hitler?

I oppose assassinations, and I don't agree 100% with either Palin or Obama, but I am proud to say I am an extremist. I hope you think so too.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Moore falls short of qualification for House race

Moore falls short of qualification for House race Springfield News-Leader

I'm sure glad Dean Moore didn't get on the ballot. I don't need such stiff competition.

But it's probably too bad that the election process is so dominated by political parties that thoughtful, qualified, independent candidates are excluded. I was on the ballot in 2004 and got half as many votes as Moore got signatures, but I was part of a political party, and Moore isn't. Having received fewer votes than Moore got signatures, I was on the ballot, and Moore isn't. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me.

Is there any rational, public-spirited reason such an unfair standard is set for independents? Or is it only a self-serving policy of the two major parties? I can understand how the major parties feel. As a candidate, I read the headline, "Moore Falls Short of Qualification for House Race," and my first reaction was, "Whew! That's a relief!"

Let's make it easier for independents to get on the ballot.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Press Coverage

Here is a report from KOLR/KSFX in Springfield.

The media have been very fair to my campaign, almost always treating this as a genuine 3-way race.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Which Religion is Worse?

Which religion is more of a threat to life:

• the relgion of Islam, which arguably commands that adulterers be stoned, or
the religion of Secular Humanism, which arguably commands that thousands of babies be stoned every day in order to make adultery more convenient?

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending

Grover Norquist proposes Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending. These proposals would save millions and millions of dollars. These proposals will never by implemented by Republicans, to say nothing of Democrats.

Unfortunately, trillions need to be cut, not just millions.

I can't think of an easier and more powerful way to cut government spending, however, than observing one of the "first principles" of the Constitution: the "enumerated powers" doctrine.

Cut all government programs for which no authority is enumerated in the Constitution.

So here are 14 ways to cut trillions of dollars of government spending.

No doubt some will say that some of those Departments have Constitutional approval, such as the Defense (War) Department. I would argue that the modern Defense Department more resembles what the Founders feared: "standing armies." The Constitution authorizes the federal government "To raise and support Armies," which I interpret to mean, "when an invasion occurs or is imminent." The modern perpetual military-industrial complex violates the very next phrase of this Constitutional provision: "but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." The Defense Machine has been operating consistently since at least 1961:

Use the comment box below to list any other Department that you feel was "enumerated" -- in its present form -- and cannot have at least 50% of its budget slashed.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Tim Davis

Tim Davis said some kind things about me on "Ramble and Rumble with Rabbi" Eukel on August 12, though he stopped short of endorsing me for the 7th Congressional District seat. Davis was a candidate for the Democrat nomination.

Davis earned his PhD. in Economics from the University of Toronto in 1998 and his Law degree from Oxford University in 2001. He is the author of “Ricardo's Macroeconomics: Money, Trade Cycles, and Growth (Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics),” among other works.

In addition to Davis' near-endorsement of me, Davis talks about his Democrat primary opponent, Scott Eckersley, who won the contested primary. Davis also talks about the Republican nominee, Billy Long. The relevant excerpt is here:

Saturday, August 14, 2010

$202 Trillion Debt - U.S. is Bankrupt

We have previously cited the report published by the Federal Reserve which calculated the federal government's unfunded liabilities at over $60 trillion, and haltingly suggested that the U.S. was, maybe, could be, "bankrupt."

Now the author of that study has updated the figure to $202 trillion:

U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff - Bloomberg

He says,

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Those are not the words you would expect from an economist who gets published by the Federal Reserve.

This means the federal government has made $2 million worth of campaign promises to every household in America -- promises which the politicians cannot possibly keep. "Vote for me, I'll give you this!" "Vote for me, I'll give you that!" "You deserve it!" "You're entitled!" "Vote for me!"

More from Kotlikoff:

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

"Massive benefit cuts" doesn't sound like "keeping our promises to the elderly."

"No incentive to work" means the economy collapses into a black market.

"Printing vast quantities of money" = hyperinflation and probable military dictatorship.

The government knows this. Politicians who are not abysmally ignorant and are less forthcoming than Kotlikoff are liars and frauds.

Kotlikoff concludes, "The U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece."

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Can You Pass the Terrorism Quiz?

19. What are the Annual Risks for an American to die from: Heart disease? Criminal homicide? Lightning strike? Terrorism?

Heart disease: 1 in 300 people in America typically die of heart disease in a given year;
Criminal homicide: 1 in 18,000;
Lightning strike: 1 in 3,000,000;
Terrorism: 1 in 5,293,000.
(Alan B. Krueger; What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism; Princeton University Press; New Jersey: 2007; p. 139)

Perhaps if Americans better understood the risk they face from terrorism they would fear it less and thus be less susceptible to manipulation.

Can You Pass the Terrorism Quiz? -- Informed Comment

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Social Security: "Just Say 'NO'"

The prevailing myth of our day is that "the government" is the Messiah, our Savior.

Is this a wacked-out criticism by some anarchist or "extremist?" Well, yes . . . but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

The mainstream mindset is that government exists to solve all our problems, and that libertarians are unbelievers. Nihilists.

Michael D. Tanner reminds us that "Saying No Is Not Nihilism." He directs his remarks to Republicans, but even Libertarians sometimes forget this message.

Tanner applies this valuable thinking to Social Security and Medicare: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us.

"Destroy" is not too strong a word.

Please read those two articles.

Bernie Madoff told thousands of clients that their "investments" had earned them almost $65 billion. His promises were just lies. His clients lost an estimated $18 billion that they had contributed to Madoff's scheme, and did not have returned. The money was paid out to previous "investors."

As Tanner points out in those very important articles above, the government's Social Security system has told its clients that their "investments" will pay them nearly $16 trillion. These promises are lies. I don't have the numbers on the amount the more recent investors have put into this scheme, but their money will not be returned. Their money has been paid out to previous "contributors." Every dime you have "contributed" to Social Security is gone.

There is nothing there for you.

Of course, in any ponzi scheme, the first few "investors" -- those at the top of the pyramid -- really do receive more than they pay in. It's the masses at the bottom of the pyramid -- a much larger number -- that lose everything. They lose what they "contributed" and they lose what they were promised, and whatever "security" they were depending on.

Are you depending on the federal government for security?

Bernie Madoff is evil.
Social Security is evil.
For exactly the same reasons.

Except Social Security is even more evil.
The Federal Government is more evil than Bernie Madoff.

Bernie Madoff couldn't even pretend to keep his promises.
The Federal Government can pretend.

Bernie Madoff couldn't create the money he promised his investors.
The Federal Government can.

On our Social Security page, we quote an exchange from Congressional Hearings on Social Security between a respected Senator and the Social Security Commissioner. The Senator says that the voters in his state have been promised returns on their "investments." The Senator doesn't want to break his promise, like Bernie Madoff did, but the Social Security system is bankrupt. So the Senator proposes creating money out of thin air to pay Social Security beneficiaries.

The Senator wants to "keep his promises" to the elderly. He promised 15 trillion of these things called "dollars" to the elderly, and he wants the elderly to have 15 trillion of these "dollars."

Inflating the money supply, however, will destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. The Senator knows this. He brazenly admits:
It may not be worth anything when the recipient gets it, but he is going to get his benefits paid.
"We have the capacity under the Constitution" (he wrongfully claims),
the Congress does, to coin money, as well as to regulate the value thereof. And therefore we have the power to provide that money. And we are going to do it.
The Social Security Commissioner responds:
I tend to agree.
This is a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the dollar, is it not? A conspiracy is two people agreeing to do something evil. Printing dollars until dollars are worthless is evil, is it not?

It is not just the elderly that are going to have "dollars" that "may not be worth anything." ("May not?") Everybody's dollar will be worthless after 15 trillion of them are printed up so that politicians can "keep" their promises.

The Senator cannot be unaware of the fact that after the German hyperinflation of 1922-23, Adolf Hitler was the result.

But at least the Senator will have kept his promise to provide the elderly with 15 trillion objects called "dollars."

Bernie Madoff destroyed his clients, but at least he didn't destroy America.

This is why Social Security is evil.
This is why the Federal Government is more evil than Bernie Madoff.

Are you willing to destroy America in order to get your benefits? Or will you surrender your "right" to "entitlements" and vote for a candidate who promises to abolish all evil government ponzi schemes, and every program for the compulsory redistribution of wealth?

Thursday, August 05, 2010

The Sunset of the State

I don't believe the speed of light is a constant, nor do I accept some of the other paradigms undergirding this video. I do believe the sunset of the State is in our future.

More Republican Support for Homosexuality

According to David Boaz, the federal judge who recently struck down California's Proposition 8, which defined Marriage as a union between one woman and one man,

was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December.

Boaz adds:

Josh Green of the Atlantic notes a pattern: the federal judge in Boston who struck down a significant portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that it denied gay and lesbian couples the federal benefits afforded to straight couples, was appointed to the bench by President Richard Nixon. And the chief judge of the Iowa Supreme Court who wrote the unanimous decision striking down that state’s marriage ban was appointed by Republican governor Terry Branstad, who was just renominated for governor by Iowa Republican voters.

Republicans have also given us Roe v. Wade, and the murder of Terry Schiavo. Fringe Christian protesters in Colorado noted:

• almost all Republican judges are pro-choice [on abortion] and pro-homosexuality
all six of the Reagan/Bush Sr./W. Bush judges on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals voted for starving Terri Schindler to death.
• the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition/Focus on the Family quarter-century strategy of getting godly judges through Republican victories has utterly failed
• it was a Republican Supreme Court which legalized abortion
• Republicans have nominated seven of our nine Supreme Court Justices making it a solidly pro-abortion court
• even the “pro-life” Justices are actually pro-choice on abortion if passed legislatively,
• even they have never declared an unborn child’s fundamental right to life as a living human being and as a constitutionally protected class of “
our posterity
• a Republican-nominated judge wrote the U.S. 9th Circuit ruling against the words “under God” in the Pledge,
• Republican-supported judges issue so many of the most anti-Christian rulings in America

Conservatives must stop voting Republican if they wish to conserve Christian Civilization. True Christianity will not be preserved by more Republican victories at the polls and Republican bureaucracies in Washington D.C. True Christianity needs only liberty.

In a libertarian world, no judge would have the power to rule that a priest or minister must baptize an open atheist, or "marry" a man and his horse.

I have not read the pleadings, but it appears that the Alliance Defense Fund, which defended the electoral majority behind Prop. 8, attempted to defend marriage on purely secular grounds, and opposed efforts by a more explicitly Christian group, Liberty Counsel, to intervene in the trial.

A Gavel Falls on Marriage: The Proposition 8 Decision -

Stand to Reason Blog:
Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8
If Judge Walker Were Consistent

"Special Meaning" - Pyromaniacs