Who are the Anarchists Now? Arizona Immigration Enforcement

Let’s put this in perspective, you are often asked to show your ID when you use your credit or debit card, you have to produce ID to get a loan, buy a home, apply for assistance, enroll for school, fly on a plane, stay in a hotel, or rent a car.  Every time I have been stopped by the police I have been asked to produce license and proof of insurance.  But asking for documentation to prove legal residency in this country is an affront to civil rights? What about my Civil Rights?

I will now have to prove to the IRS every year that I have purchased Federally mandated health insurance, but we cannot ask anyone to prove legal residency in this country? Seriously?

I still cannot wrap my mind around the mental gymnastics required to reconcile that a person who is here illegally, has not committed a crime. If you will break our laws to get here in the first place why are you amazed we automatically think you will break others while you are here?  How does one become an UNdocumented worker if Documents are irrelevant?  I mean really we do not have pass amnesty at all if we just quit being a nation of laws.

Of course, that would gloss over the fact that Arizona has become the 2nd place winner in the World Kidnapping Olympics…right behind, huh…Mexico City.  Phoenix has more Kidnappings per day than anywhere else in the USA.

It is Racist to affirm enforcement of a Federal Law?  Of course it is.  And all the cops are racists too.  Arizona is only 30% Latino according the the last census (which I am sure did not include many of the soon to be citizens of this country), so I am sure none of the police officers are Latino, and none of them would be married to a Latino. Nope they are all a bunch of White Racists.

What the pResident and the Left Stream Media are asking the border states to do is to ignore Federal Law, which puts us in the powerful and unique position of getting to choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore.  If the Feral Government is so intent on not enforcing their own law then why not do as Silverfiddle from Western Hero suggests and repeal it?  Just do away with Customs and ICE and Border Patrol, and all of that.  If we can pick and choose what laws we want to follow or not, then why have them in the first place?  That is the logical conclusion to the line of thought now being pushed.  Most liberals are in favor of not enforcing Marijuana laws as well.  So if we are not going to follow Drug Laws, and we are not going to follow Immigration laws, and we rarely follow voting eligibility laws, then guess I don’t have to follow laws that I don’t particularly like either.

NO, that is wrong, we do not get to pick and choose, folks.  Just because we do not think a law is Just (for the record I am in favor of the AZ law, and have mixed opinion on the weed issue) we do not get to decide whether or not we follow it.  People who know me and have been listening know that I have said repeatedly that whoever gives amnesty to the illegal aliens in this country is pretty much guaranteed a 60 year electoral majority.  This is about politics plain and simple, this is how the most rapidly unpopular administration our nation has ever seen plans to stay in power.

I think that this has been a goal of people like William Ayers and Saul Alinsky for years and years, Anarchy for everyone, courtesy of the Progressive Liberal Establishment.

Arriba La Raza, Viva La Reconquesta!

-KOOK

De-Constructing our Progress to Communism Pt. I

We are facing a constitutional crisis in this Country. In debate, one of the best ways to disprove an opponent’s argument is to attack their thesis statement, and not the particulars of the faulty premise.  The faulty premise in this case is that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun. Seemingly all of the Democrats and apparently many of the Republicans, along with hordes of the populace believe that there are alternate interpretations of the constitution, which allows certain usurpations of power by the Federal Government.  But we do not have to guess at the Founder’s intent on these things, because we have documents providing their meaning and intent.   Amongst our elected non-representatives who have an opinion or a clue (and most do not) as to where they might derive the power for their “Progressing to Communist” agenda they will cite the “General Welfare” or the “Commerce Clause”.  Below are just a very few of their recent comments regarding their authority for their usurpation of our rightful power; for the rest check out this Link at CSNnews.com

In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:

House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)  “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!)
 
• Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
  
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)  “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
  
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
  
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
  
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
  

 

And now for someone with credibility…

James Madison, American politician and political philosopher,  fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress,  and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

I think his credibility speaks for itself.  In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)

Some, …, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)

though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest?  Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)

 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.”  See what he means?)

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning.  It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant.  If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)

…How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)

-KOOK

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness: the Case against Statist Tyranny

Socialism is the philosophical belief that if designed well enough and run by people who are intelligent and benevolent enough that a strong central planning authority (Government) can make everyone equal in outcome. What it ends up doing is turning a society of individual humans into an ant farm where only the most rich and powerful have any freedom at all and the rest of us are just drones toiling away so that the political upper class can benefit. I have shown everyone what this looks like with my Profiles In Communist Tyranny series. It is what has happened each and every single time to varying degrees that Centralist Statist Policies have been tried.

Do you exist to live in servitude for someone else, or do you believe your life is your own? If we are merely subjects of the government, and are at their mercy for our food, housing, health, and well being, then they are our Masters and our Rulers. There is another way of looking at it, though. This position would be that we are Free, that our lives are our own, and that We create government to regulate how we deal with other free men and women. This is equality under the law, or Rule of Law and is opposite of the Rule of Kings, or Rule by Decree. What this would then mean is that you do not have a “right” to any of the “entitlements” that the government creates because the government cannot first give you anything without first taking something away from you (or your neighbor).

This is where the theory that “they Govern us with something that we have not consented to give them” comes into play. I refuse to turn my health and my life over to Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid, because they do not OWN me.

Liberty is the concept that an individual has the right to act according to his or her own free Will. Either you have Free Will and you are a Free Man or Woman or you are a Slave, born into servitude to serve your political masters. That is really the basis of the entire debate. The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition in opposition to the internal freedom of the mind:

“It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.”

Tyranny is the normal result of one group of people attempting to control another group of people. Only beginning in the United States at our founding was the modern experiment begun to see if free men acting in the best interests of themselves and their families could prosper and govern themselves without devolving into tyranny.

So what does it really mean to have Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

A man (or woman) has a right to ownership over his Life and also his Property, because he has invested time (i.e. finite part of his life) in it (his property) and thereby made it an extension of his life. For more on this concept read my “Time to Give Something Back” post.

A man or (woman) is entitled to Liberty by virtue that he is Free, Liberty at its most basic and easily understood definition in our modern language is: “leave me alone” or , “Let me do what it is that I want to do.” The other main component of liberty is to do whatever it is that you want to do and to be “Free from Coercion” Our Liberties should only be restrained when they begin to encroach on the Liberty or “rights” of others. In our society today we are “coerced” into doing all manner of ridiculous things that do not affect another person’s liberty in any direct or meaningful way.

There are two types of Liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. A negative liberty is one in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority. A positive Liberty refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things. Positive liberties are, or SHOULD BE, given to individuals. Negative liberties are given to authorities to limit their power to inflict Tyranny on individuals.

Social-Commun-ists detest this concept. Their most common argument is that the preservation of negative liberty requires positive action on the part of the government or society to prevent some individuals from taking away the liberty of others. (preposterous)

Take our pResident’s words:

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

This underscores modern politicians distorted view on what a negative liberty is. Most ancient legal codes saw negative liberty as protecting the less fortunate from harassment or imposition. Ancient legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, forbade compulsion in economic matters, like the sale of land, and made it clear that when a rich man murders a poor one, it is still murder. The ancients understood that the natural state of government was Tyranny.

A socialist defines Liberty as being connected to the equitable distribution of wealth, in their view, without relatively equality and fairness of outcome, power and influence is concentrated into a small portion of the population which to them inevitably results in the the subjugation of the poor. Thus, Freedom and Material Equality are seen as inseparably connected. On the other hand, the Constitutional Libertarian argues that wealth cannot be evenly distributed without force being used against individuals which reduces individual liberty. Further, a Statist view such as above only stirs up envy and does little to motivate a free man or woman from striving to succeed and better their position in life. Lastly, as stated in my “C’mon Time to Give Something Back” post, the wealthy rarely get that way by treachery.

What makes a person Happy is different for every person. And note that we are not guaranteed happiness we are guaranteed the Pursuit of Happiness, the Pursuit. To pursue that which can make us happy. Now what creates happiness for one may not for another, but we can reach agreement on what we most fear, namely, ruination or violent death at the hands of another. So things that are in direct contradiction to our Freedom to Pursue Happiness are things that we are to be protected from. That is the legitimate function of Government. To remove roadblocks and protect us in our personal quest to PURSUE happiness. Not to give us that which makes us happy.

-Kook

American Exceptionalism – Back to Basics Recap

I did a series of posts this week that have received some fairly high praise. It all started with The Story of Stuff, A disgusting little propaganda piece cooked up by TidesAcornSEIUApolloSoros’ propaganda machine and shown to school children in many places.  Sorry to say it is pretty popular.   It hits pretty much all of my buttons: Nanny statism, Eco weenieism, Subversion of our Youth, and Anti Capitalism. Take a good dose of that and add to it the Obama "American Apology" World Tour.  Throw in a little bit of "America is a downright mean country" and you pretty much get where I am coming from with these posts. 

America is an exceptional nation. Exceptional in all recorded history. So, read these posts, not because I am a particularly great writer (I know I am not), or because I know something others do not, I just find out when I do not know. But because this information needs to be shared, read these posts and if you like them or any part of them, use them. It is not as though these ideas are new, they are not, and few ideas are;  but they are vitally important to understand.  They are vitally Important for our Children to understand. Many of you may not remember that cartoon pictured above. But it is/was emblematic of this whole problem.  In the early 90’s this show ran for a few seasons.  Captain Planet and the Planeteers.  I was in Jr. High.  I knew it was crap then. This is about when the subversion of our kids began in earnest.  Children of the 60’s were having their kids, kids who are now in their early twenties. That is a post for another time…
Back To Basics Part I -Exceptionalism not Imperialism
Back To Basics - Part II - Exceptional Science
Back To Basics Part III - Exceptional Economy
Back To Basics Part IV - Exceptional Culture
Read the Script to the Story of Stuff Here
-KOOK

Back to Basics Part II, Science.

 

Read the Other Posts in this Series: Back To Basics I: American Exceptionalism; Back to Basics II: Science, Back To Basics III: The Economy, Back to Basics IV: Culture; Back to Basics V: Recap; and the drivel that inspired me to action: The Story of Stuff

I started this series of posts yesterday. I am fed up with BHO’s American Apology World Tour. I am fed up with finding out crap such as The Story of Stuff is being taught to America’s children. Maybe, if we pass this type of information along we can dispel some of this nonsense. Yesterday I focused on the way in which the United States has used its’ Overwhelming and Awesome Military power in a way that has never been used before in the history of the world, namely that a Nation who could probably defeat and rule the entire planet with its’ raw military whup-ass power has almost uniformly used such power only to free oppressed people and fight the spread of tyranny the world over.

Today I want to talk about Science. Since the beginning of the Oministration, we have heard about putting science back in its’ rightful place. We know (in my best Pepe LePew voice) that ze americans are filthay and stoopahd, stupahd Americans I spit un yoo! puh puh! All us Americans are a bunch of rednecks hillbillies. So let’s just talk about what makes the United States Exceptional in all of recorded history with regard to the advancement of science and technology.

I read the 5000 year leap book several months ago. It is a fantastic book, but I just want to focus on the premise of the book which is: in the last 200+ years our species has leapt forward in technology more than it did in the previous 5000 years. I say we don’t need to go back nearly that far, let’s go back to 1492. Many of you may remember that that was the year that Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Let’s talk about that. In Christopher Columbus’ lifetime this is what was invented that had a lasting historical impact: Johannes Gutenberg invented the Moveable type printing press in the early 1450’s; Nicholas of Cusa invented Concave lens for eyeglasses about 1451; The Globe (you know that map drawn on a ball that we use for decoration in library’s, it is what they used before they had GPS.) was invented about the time of Chris’s first trip to the Bahamas. Two other items of note were the double entry system of bookkeeping, and the toothbrush (completely unknown to the listeners of the Grateful Dead to this day). People walked or rode in wagons pulled by animals, ships sailed on the whim of the winds. And that was the way of transporting things and moving people for about another 400 years. Back then, Spain was one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and scientists had recently (re)discovered that the earth was not flat. From 1500 to 1600 here are the major technological advancements. Ball bearings:& Scissors: Leonardo Da Vinci; the Pocket watch, the Pencil the Hookah was invented in India (much to the delight of Obama voters) , Compound microscope, and that most wonderful of inventions the Toilet by John Harrington & Thomas Crapper .

Ok so let’s go another one hundred years (we better get to the US soon, all these other countries are coming up with all the good stuff, we might never catch up). From 1600 to 1700 here are the major advancements in Science. The Telescope; Flintlock musket; The Slide rule (just wait until they invent the pocket protector); the Barometer, paving the way for seers and fortune tellers Climatologists in the future, the steam engine, water pump, and the Piano. Not one American in the lot.

Okay speeding up, from 1700 to 1800 here are some of the best of the best. the Seed drill by Jethro Tull (the rock band came later); and the Steam piston engine. In 1714 the Mercury thermometer was invented by Fahrenheit, further allowing the chicken little's and global warming alarmists serious scientists another tool at their disposal. This is the century in which we were first able to plot the position of ships at sea with any sort of accuracy thanks to the invention of the Octant and the Marine chronometer (both by Englishmen). Thanks to John Kay’s Flying shuttle mechanical weaving became a reality. Then Benjamin Franklin invented the Franklin stove, the lightning rod, and Bifocal Glasses just to name a few. Then Americans invented the Flatboat, the Submarine, the practical Steam Engine and Steamboat. To be fair there were several very noteworthy inventions by the French and the British around this time.

What was invented just by the USA from 1700 to 1865? The coffeepot, the circular saw, dental floss (still unknown in Europe to this day), the electric doorbell, the telegraph, the sewing machine, the wrench, the combine harvester, anesthesia, baseball, the safety pin, the potato chip, the clothespin, and canned milk, the elevator for people, TOILET PAPER (over one hundred years past the invention of the toilet itself sheesh), the mason jar, burglar alarm, can opener, oil well, water tower, repeating rifle, breakfast cereal, modern door locks, and roller skates; and that is just up to 1865.

Since 1865 I count 426 actual inventions listed in Wikipedia as originating in the United States. How many did France have? Every entry in Wikipedia attributable to France for all time = 84 items. Here are some of the most notable US inventions from only the last 100 years or so: Refrigeration, the telegraph, assembly line production, the airplane, the bulldozer, space based astronomy, EEG brain topography, the digital computer, nylon, nuclear weapons, the transistor, supersonic flight, the video game, cable television, radiocarbon dating, the atomic clock, the credit card, the nuclear submarine, the laser, carbon fiber, the microchip, the weather satellite, the birth control pill, Kevlar, the compact disc, the jumbo jet, the PC, email, the space shuttle, the GUI, GPS, the iPod and the iPhone and in case you missed any of that: you can rewind it with your DVR. Oh, did I forget to mention that this nation of racist redneck hillbillies landed on the moon almost fifty years ago, and that we beat the best estimate of how long it would take to map the human genome by about a decade?

Let’s look at it another way for a minute. Each year scientists write papers and those papers are cited by other scientists. Scientists keep “score” on the number of citations their papers produce. These statistics are out there. I guess you would call them units of scientific thought, if someone is referencing your paper it is a coup for you. To appeal to those who would say that the National Science Foundation would be biased I used some stats I found from a Japanese Foundation. From 1981 to 1994 here are the number of scientific citations broken down by several countries:

The United States had 33,923,883 citations the rest of the world combined had 28,234,877. Remember this is with the Japanese keeping score.

Or to put it another way,because we are the worlds largest marketplace (even The Story of Stuff admits this) when a person anywhere in the world develops a product, if they are serious at all about selling it they file a patent application, which makes this a good measurement for innovative thought.

Number of Patents in the US 1995-2008- 2,096,055, rest of the world- 1,728,002

# of Patents per State/Country 1995-2008
United States (Grand total)	2,096,055
JAPAN	718,729
CALIFORNIA	393,085
GERMANY	261,683
NEW YORK	163,184
TEXAS	131,120
NEW JERSEY	108,033
ILLINOIS	107,613
UNITED KINGDOM	99,760
FRANCE	99,397
MICHIGAN	97,709
PENNSYLVANIA	96,197
OHIO	95,507
TAIWAN	86,798
MASSACHUSETTS	85,021
CANADA	79,327
FLORIDA	67,175
KOREA, SOUTH	62,767
MINNESOTA	60,178
CONNECTICUT	51,747
WASHINGTON	47,055
WISCONSIN	44,574
ITALY	44,125
SWITZERLAND	41,980

Remember as The Story of Stuff tells us, the United States only has 5% of the world’s population. I think that is pretty good, 5% of the world population contributing 55% of the world’s inventions, and 55% of the scientific citations. One might even say that level of scientific advancement would be astounding, special, and maybe even Exceptional.

Of course, we could always go back to life as it was in the late 18th century.

Tomorrow we will talk about Economics…

Read the Other Posts in this Series: Back To Basics I: American Exceptionalism; Back to Basics II: Science, Back To Basics III: The Economy, Back to Basics IV: Culture; Back to Basics V: Recap; and the drivel that inspired me to action: The Story of Stuff

-KOOK

Back to Basics

Read the Other Posts in this Series: Back To Basics I: American Exceptionalism; Back to Basics II: Science, Back To Basics III: The Economy, Back to Basics IV: Culture; Back to Basics V: Recap; and the drivel that inspired me to action: The Story of Stuff

It has become very clear in the last few months that We know something that many of our children are no longer being taught and many of our elected officials have either misunderstood, or perverted in some way. We know that this country of ours is special and is a force for good in the world. We are blessed to live here. Two things have really driven this widespread lack of understanding home to me lately. First, during the presidential campaign I clearly remember American Exceptionalism being bandied about a lot. The fact that this was debatable outside of some far extreme fringe subculture of this society was incomprehensible to me. Second, the more recent stark lesson in just how fundamentally screwed up some of our children’s school lessons have become; specifically The Story of Stuff. So I am going to do a series of posts to correct this notion that America is a bad place and has hurt this world. First I want to make one point very clear:
Patriotism
a devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national
loyalty.
I am not arguing patriotism here. Every citizen of every country should love their country and see it as a place with a unique position in history. I am not talking about mere nationalism. I am talking about this country being unique in the annals of all recorded history. This country is different from all others before it and is uniquely different than every other country of the past and present.

ex·cep·tion·al·ism (k-spsh-n-lzm) n.
1. The condition of being exceptional or unique.
2. The theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not
conform to a pattern or norm.

What is a nation?
Nation 3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently
language; a nationality.
What customs and values makes a nation unique? In what ways does a nation distinguish itself? Military Might? Scientific Advancement? A Powerful economy? Cultural Prevalence?

England, Italy(Rome), France, Spain, Russia, Japan, and Germany have all had a lot of military might in the past, what makes the US special with regards to the military? All of the previous countries have conquered other nations and had colonies on new lands. This is the definition of an empire; imperialism. But the United States has (with one near exception) only fought wars to free people not to enslave or assimilate them.

At the end of WWII, only two military powers of any consequence
remained: the United States, and the Soviet Union, and while the Soviets had a large army, They virtually had no navy, and their air force was nonexistent. Not to mention they were starving. Whereas, the United States possessed, intact, the most awesome kick ass Navy the world had ever seen (hell yeah), much larger and more advanced than that of the Mighty British navy that had helped the Brits establish an empire not rivaled since before the time of Christ. We possessed the largest and most advanced air force of any nation. We, alone, had the atomic bomb and the will to use it. (for better or for worse, we had the power to destroy the planet. )

What did we do with this awesome power? Did we do as Conan would have had us to do? “to drive our defeated enemies before us and to hear the lamentations of their women and children” as we settled their lands? No. We did what NO other country in history who has destroyed its enemies has EVER done. We departed the field of battle, returned home, scrapped our military, literally turning our war machine into construction materials, and then returned to the defeated lands and rebuilt the nations that we had just laid waste to. As Colin Powell has been quoted as saying, the only thing we asked for was the space to bury our dead. AND …WE, WE PAID for the rebuilding effort! And in all the time since then despite what many of the Hollywood crowd have implied, nor what many of the hippies and radicals have proclaimed as fact, we have never been imperial.

empire 1. a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control:

This is why Spain France and Britain colonized North America. First the lure of GOLD and then the lure of trees, furs, food, etc. This is a key charge of The Story of Stuff: that we have gotten rich by taking wealth and resources of the third world countries. So, is the US an Empire? Well, where are our colonies? Psst, there aren’t any. We have a handful of very small territories that stay that way of their choosing, and also repeatedly vote not to become states. We do have military bases all around the globe, but far from as we see in movies from back in the knight in shining armor days, our armies do not pillage an area, nor do we make other nations pay tribute to us, no declaring our right to prima nocte, but rather we pump vast amounts of money into those other economies. Other nations appreciate the income that military bases produce, and the protection they provide. A little known fact is that if the EU had to provide for its defense they would not be able to afford Socialism. Free trade (Capitalism) is the economic and moral antithesis of imperialism.

But you may say what our “wars for oil.” We have destroyed Iraq twice in the last 20 years and we did it both times in a matter of days. So stop and think, here is what a “war for oil” would look like: First the SEALS would HALO jump right down on the pumping stations and tank farms and in about an hour would secure the oil fields. Then we’d place an armored perimeter around the oil fields using M1A1’s, Bradley’s, and artillery. Lastly, using convoys protected by high flying air superiority fighters, and low flying Apache helicopters we would transport OUR oil to a secure port where it would be pumped onto US tankers and escorted out of the region by a Carrier Battle Group. Who would begin to oppose us? We had them, and what did we do in ‘91 when Saddam had set them on fire and they were ours for the taking…?

In all our Imperial Glory We put out the fires and then we came home.
Not much of an empire…I would call that decidedly Anti-Imperial. No country ever in history has done that. That is unique. That’s exceptional.

Part two tomorrow…

Read the Other Posts in this Series: Back To Basics I: American Exceptionalism; Back to Basics II: Science, Back To Basics III: The Economy, Back to Basics IV: Culture; Back to Basics V: Recap; and the drivel that inspired me to action: The Story of Stuff

-KOOK

Healthcare: One Quote, a comment, and a couple of thoughts

Obama has been quoted as saying:

"I think the people of Oregon did a service for the country in recognizing that as the population gets older we’ve got to think about the issues of end-of-life care."

Hmmm. Think about that. Let it soak in. What is he REALLY saying? Well what has Oregon done exactly? Currently, physician assisted suicide (think Kevorkian) is legal only in Oregon. Hey, if the guy is for killing babies that are not yet born, or in some cases even ones that are, what makes you think he cares about Grandma? Remember his brother lives in a shack in Kenya and his auntie Zetuni lived in the projects (and she may have since been deported)

I have learned that they have stuck in an "end-of-life services" phrase in the HR3200. What they really mean is "assisted-suicide". However, HR3200 states that the elderly must attend counseling for what is termed "the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available". Look up the the meaning of "end-of-life services" and it reveals a whole range of things such as general counseling, hospice, wills, etc. And it conveniently also includes the counseling of the elderly on the stoppage of life-sustaining procedures. They won't tell you that they support physician assisted-suicide (it's illegal to request of the doctor that you be injected with some fatal potion). Instead they allow, and even encourage, physicians to starve or dehydrate their patients to death (Terry Schiavo, anyone?).

This is NOT SURPRISING Progressives have been in favor of Eugenics since back in the day. This is what they do. This is where the savings will come from. Less Care and less Patients equals less cost.

AARP supports this bill. Why? Medicare already covers the old folks. hmm. That one is sure curious. AARP was founded at first as the NRTA National Retired Teachers association. Then an insurance company got a whiff and changed it to AARP the American Accociation of Retired Persons. Starting within the last few years membership is for anyone over 50. This means is is no longer the American Association of Retired Persons, now it is just AARP and the acronym means nothing. They are the largest insurance agent in the US, but they are not an insurance company, they only license their name to be used for other companies products, like an endorsement. And...voila...they are teamed with the SEIU for the last couple of elections. It has been infiltrated by Insurance companies and the Unions. Still a little vague on why exactly they are pro socialized medicine, as there is no way it will help the elderly, and it really should not help insurance companies.

Lastly, Remember how it used to be “Global Warming” and now it is “Global Climate Change” ? Remember how it used to be “War on Terror” and now it is “Overseas Contingency Plan”? Have you heard how “Card Check” has become “Fast Track”?

Wait for it. If this Healthcare bill does not pass it will come back as an “Insurance Reform Bill” , everyone is emotional about healthcare, but everyone hates Insurance Companies so “Yeah! Stick it to those Insurance Companies, We hate them!”

The Most Fundamental Thing

Many of our opponents (those opposed to Liberty & Freedom i.e. Progressives/Liberals) say that us Right Winger KOOKs (Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Reagan Republicans) are Single Issue voters.

Well I will not make the argument that Feminists and Environmentalists are too. Everyone has one or two issues that are closest to their heart.

I have not been sharing much philosophy and history lately, but I was inspired by Clay over at BBCW with the last couple of his posts. I have several issues that are near and dear to my heart. But if I had to pick one, and I have been thinking about this, Clay’s posts sealed the deal.

The most important issue are Taxes. They were the most important to our Founders, they were what Reagan won with, and it is what we will win with again. Our Tax system Sucks, but there are alternatives.

It is the most Fundamental thing. Let’s review really quick.

The collection and distribution of taxes in the United States predate the American Revolution. The Colonists fled Europe mostly for two reason, Taxation and Religious Freedom. They did as much as possible to avoid the taxes that they were burdened with by the British. The straw that broke the camel’s back leading to the Revolution was Taxation.

Do not misunderstand, The Constitution gives Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” For our first hundred years as a nation, most tax revenues came from import tariffs, excise taxes, etc. From my reading the Founders believed three things, 1)Federal Taxes should only be to provide for the common defense and other things the states could not do on their own 2) They should be mostly temporary to pay for wars and such, and 3) we should pay for our expenses in the generation that they were spent by.

The first federal taxes were enacted in the late 1790s, and they were basically estate and personal property taxes. President Jefferson terminated direct taxes in 1802; and until the outbreak of the Civil War, the government relied on import taxes for revenue. During the war, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which reinstated former excise taxes and instituted a 3 percent tax on annual incomes of $800 or higher. In 1862, a cash-strapped Congress levied new excise taxes on various goods and made several reforms to the income tax legislation, including allowing a standard deduction and creating a two-tiered rate structure. Most taxes were repealed in the years following the Civil War; the income tax was abolished in 1872. For the next forty years, the government relied mainly on excise taxes for revenue.

Disagreements between states regarding tariffs and excise taxes eventually led to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 (Progressives), giving Congress the authority to levy income taxes nationwide. Soon after, Congress enacted a variable income tax rate of between 1 and 7 percent (double the taxes of only 50 yrs prior) for the highest earners.

WWI and WWII made higher taxes a necessity. The 1916 Revenue Act raised tax rates to between 2 and 15 percent (5 times more than only 55 years before, and doubled in 3 years) and instituted an estate tax. Further laws passed in 1917 and 1918 increased the tax burden, lowering exemptions and raising tax rates. Due to the great economy of the 1920’s (postwar) the US experienced a series of tax cuts.

The Depression caused federal revenues to plummet. The New Deal (Progressives) thought the best way to make up for the loss was to raise taxes to exorbitant heights make up for the shortfall, Congress passed the controversial Tax Act of 1932, which imposed much higher tax rates. By 1936, this and other tax reforms had increased the lowest tax rate to 4 percent; the highest earners were subject to a 79 percent tax rate( 25 times higher in 75 years) . In addition to that hijacking of people’s earning the Social Security Act in 1935 added a 2 percent tax to fund entitlement programs. In addition to all of this they lowered the minimum level of income at which taxes were imposed which resulted in a sharp increase in the number of taxpayers.

In the decades following World War II, tax rates remained relatively stable, but rising inflation during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s ( Great Society = Progressives and the Misery Index) increased the tax burden, creating strains on the economy. Endorsed by President Reagan (Ronaldus Magnus), the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 provided an across-the-board 25 percent reduction in marginal tax rates and increased economic tax incentives for businesses and individuals. This and other tax cuts enacted during the 1980s (most notably the Tax Reform Act of 1986) operated on the assumption that high tax rates diminish incentives for additional work, discourage saving and investing, and create the impetus for people to find ways to avoid paying taxes or seek out tax shelters.

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, tax rates and policies shifted mainly along political lines, with rate hikes during the Clinton years, followed by tax cuts enacted by the current administration.

It is like I said before. If it exists, Progressives believe it exists only to be taxed. They view earning differently. What you earn is theirs and what you take home is what they graciously allow you to keep. We have been getting a break all this time with them not taxing beer, cigarettes, 4x4s, big TVs, potato chips, sodas, The Internet, cell phones, mileage, water, air, being fat (I mean Obese), etc. They might as well tax us for being poor. All money is theirs to begin with in their minds.

Now for my final piece of ranting/philosophy, this is the ultimate affront to our Liberty and Freedom. Why? Simply put, a person trades their time for money, that is what Work is. Time is finite, and it is all that we have of our life. Our time is our life. The more money they confiscate from us, the more of actual Life they are sucking out of us. We are guaranteed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property), but if they take all our money, they are taking all of our time, and therefore all of our life. Without Life, we have no Liberty, or no ability to Pursue Happiness.

Taxation is THE ISSUE. Taxation is what allows them to do all the fun things they want to do, so as soon as we can cut the umbilical cord we will be able to start having some Liberty again.

Violence a Right Wing or Left Wing Phenomena?

The whole DHS report thing still bugs me. The more I study and the more I read the more I realize and come to think that it is almost always a MOONBAT LEFTIST that commits acts of terrorism or assassinations. Then The media goes Awol over Tiller the Baby Killer's Killing, and barely says "boo" regarding the murder of the service man in Arkansas. Brief cases in point.

John Wilkes Boothe - Yeah yeah many sources claim that he was a Southern Sympathizer which they naturally assume means he was to the Right of Liberal Lincoln. Liberals cannot take Lincoln from us. Briefly let me explain. Lincoln, in freeing the slaves was completing the work started by the founders of this nation. As I have posted previously here:

The Whigs believed in preservation of the union and strict interpretation of the constitution. This is the first party that appealed to ordinary voters and others as well. The Whig party sort of dissolved over the issue of slavery and the anti slavery crowd moved to the new Republican party also called the Grand Old Party or GOP. The pro slave folks moved to the Democrat party. At this time the Democrat party was more socially conservative which at that time meant conserving slavery and was more or less the party of rich white men.

So at the time of the Lincoln assassination Booth was a Democrat and therefore pro slavery. Lincoln was a Constitutionalist loving Republican and against slavery. It is becoming more widely recognized that Democrats have been on the wrong side of the Civil Rights movement all the way up until the 60's (and I believe they still are)

so BOOTH was a Leftist

Charles Julius Guiteau - you don't know who he is do you? He assassinated James A. Garfield (Republican) 20th President of the United States on July 2, 1881. Again the revisionist history books try to make him out to be at a minimum crazy (which I can agree with) but many portray him as a religious nutcase Christian of some variety. He was nothing of the sort. He was a member of the Oneida Community which was a religious sect but was closer to Charles Manson's cult than it was to Christianity. They believed in Polygamy, and Communal living, free love and peace basically.

So Guitaeu was a Moonbat LEFTIST

Leon Frank Czolgosz - Assassinated the 25th President of the United States, William McKinley, Jr (Republican)

Czolgosz was an anarchist, socialist and communist sympathizer. In the last few years of his life, he claimed to have been heavily influenced by anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.

In 1917, Goldman and Berkman were sentenced to two years in jail for conspiring to "induce persons not to register" for the newly instated draft. After their release from prison, they were arrested—along with hundreds of others—and deported to Russia. Initially supportive of that country's Bolshevik revolution, Goldman quickly voiced her opposition to the Soviet use of violence and the repression of independent voices...

During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and derided by critics as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution.^[2] Her writing and lectures spanned a wide variety of issues, including prisons, atheism, freedom of speech, militarism, capitalism, marriage, free love, and homosexuality. ...After decades of obscurity, Goldman's iconic status was revived in the 1970s, when feminist and anarchist scholars rekindled popular interest in her life.

Czolgosz = Leftist Communist Sympathizer

John Flammang Schrank attempted to assassinate Teddy Roosevelt, Roosevelt was saved by his steel eyeglass case and folded fifty page speech. Apparently Schrank was not in favor of a President serving three terms in office. Other than that it appears not much is known about his politics. But doctors did declare him insane.

Schrank = ? maybe just nuts

Giuseppe Zangara - was the assassin of Chicago mayor Anton Cermak, though United States President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt is generally believed to have been his intended target.

I cannot say exactly what his reasoning was on the issue, but his final words might have something to do with it. Zangara confessed and stated: "I have the gun in my hand. I kill kings and presidents first and next all capitalists." He pleaded guilty to four counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to 80 years in prison. Zangara said after hearing his sentence: "You give me electric chair. I no afraid of that chair! You one of capitalists. You is crook man too. Put me in electric chair. I no care!". His last words at his execution were: "Get to hell out of here, you son of a bitch [spoken to the attending minister]. I go sit down all by myself. Viva Italia! Goodbye to all poor peoples everywhere! Lousy capitalists! No picture! Capitalists! No one here to take my picture. All capitalists lousy bunch of crooks. Go ahead. Push the button!"

Lee Harvey Oswald Everyone knows he shot Kennedy. Science has now proven to me that he was the only shooter. He was a communist sympathizer.

Lee Harvey Oswald = Liberal, Leftist

Sirhan Sirhan - Everybody knows this whacko. According to Sirhan's mother, Mary Sirhan, he killed Robert Kennedy because of his Arab nationalism. She said, "What he did, he did for his country." Further, Sirhan believed he was deliberately betrayed by Kennedy's support for Israel in the June 1967 Six-Day War (at least we don't have to worry about this pResident supporting Israel too much)

Sirhan Sirhan - Islamo Fascist Nutjob

Arthur Herman Bremer was convicted for an assassination attempt on U.S. Democratic presidential candidate George Wallace on May 15, 1972 After Bremer's arrest, his apartment was searched. Found were Wallace campaign buttons,... Black Panther literature, a booklet entitled 101 Things To Do in Jail and various newspaper clippings, about Wallace's 1972 campaign, and some on the 1968 presidential election campaign. There was also one which described the difficulty of providing security for campaigning politicians. In Bremer's diary were comments such as "My country tis of thee land of sweet bigotry", "Never say colored, say Negro, so here is a negro card", "My blood is black", "Cheer up Oswald", "White collared male conservative, middle clas republican, suburban, democratic robot", "A Thundering of hooves and out of the western sky came the colored man" and "If I live tomorrow then it will be a long time"

Arthur Herman Bremer = Lefty!

Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme - If you remember who she was it is likely you remember her in relation to Charles Manson and the Tate Murders but on September 5, 1975 In Sacramento, California, she drew a Colt .45 caliber pistol on Gerald Ford when he reached to shake her hand in a crowd. There were four cartridges in the pistol's magazine but the firing chamber was empty. She was soon restrained by a Secret Service agent. Fromme was sentenced to life in prison. Why? Allegedly because she was convinced Ford was going to ruin the environment. Also Manson's girls were all hippies, and for further proof that they were Liberal Leftists the Weather Underground folks, you know Bill Ayers' crowd, friend of the current pResident, idolized Squeaky and Charlie even adopting their signature hand gesture to help them remember the good ol' days of the Tate Murders: Dohrn raised three fingers in a “fork salute” to Charles Manson, whom she proposed as a revolutionary inspiration. She went on to joke about Manson’s victims and dubbed them the “Tate Eight” after Sharon Tate, the pregnant actress whom members of the Manson tribe stabbed in the womb with a fork. “Dig it,” said Dohrn at the time. “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!”

Fromme= Nutzo Moonbat Leftist

Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford on September 22, 1975 in San Francisco, just seventeen days after Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme had also tried to kill the president. A native of Charleston, West Virginia, she was a former nursing school student, Women's Army Corps recruit, and accountant. Moore had married and divorced five times and had four children before she turned to revolutionary politics in 1975. Moore's friends said she had a deep fascination and obsession with Patty Hearst.After Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army (who were kind of like Community Organizers) Big time leftists.

Sara Jane Moore - Liberal Nutcase

John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Washington, D.C. on March 30, 1981, as the culmination of an effort to impress actress Jodie Foster. Okay, he was mostly just Mentally Ill, but he thought Lee Harvey Oswald was his role model, and the Bickle character from Taxi Driver that he was obsessed with was based on Arthur Herman Bremer, the man who attempted to assassinate Wallace. So in my mind there is a strong tie between this and a nutjob lefty.

James Early Ray Supposedly shot MLK, but later on even King's son didn't think Ray did it. But I guess if he did then it was because he was against the civil rights movement, which up to that time was supported by the Right and not by the Left, the Democrats. Such as the Kleagle Robert Byrd. What I am saying is at the time if there was a party of hate it was the Democrats.

Talmadge Hayer, a Black Muslim also known as Thomas Hagan, was arrested for the assassination of Malcolm X. Eyewitnesses identified two more suspects, Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson, also members of the Nation of Islam. All three were charged in the case. All three men were convicted. So Malcolm X an Islamic, sometimes violent, Civil rights activist was killed by even more violent Islamic Radical Leftists...

Need I go on? They are all Lefties, Communists, Socialists, Hippies, Radicals, Community Organizers, Environmentalists, Feminists, you get the idea.

These are just presidential type assassins, lets not forget the SLA, the Black Panthers, the SDS, the Weather Underground, and all the enviro and animal rights whackos.

TIm Mcveigh was a Militia member, so I guess that makes him a Right winger. I suppose the guy who killed Tiller the Baby Killer was a Right Winger. I honestly cannot think of anyone else...

Do the words of the anthem mean anything?

Does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

How many times have we heard this line? Every baseball game, football game, nascar race, rodeo...

Is it still a relevent question? Should we change our anthem?

Land of the free:

Where is the freedom or liberty to get a quality education in DC public schools now that the voucher program is dead? All the trillions spent since the beginning of the Obamanation and this program had to go?

Do you think the bankers who had contracts that were violated by the administration feel very free?

How about the GM board of directors whose job it should have been to retain or fire Rick Waggoner, or how about Rick Waggoner himself; do you think they feel very free?

What about shareholders or creditors of Chrysler...do you think they feel free when Obama strongarmed and attempted to exhort them into taking thirty cents on the dollar for their outstanding debt?

How about the mgmt of chrysler how do you think they feel toward their freedom to know that Obama gave the UAW controlling interest in their company...the group arguably heavily to blame for the current state of the auto industry?

How free will you feel when the only vehicles for sale are tiny little econocubes?

How free will you and I feel when we no longer have a choice in our healthcare provider or in the decision making process of our healthcare?

Do you suppose we will feel free when everything we buy nearly doubles in price because we are taxed for the building block of life (carbon)

Will we still feel like singing about our freedem when our combined tax burden approaches 60%?

Do you think our kids will feel free if Obama gets his way and they have to go to the Government with their hat in hand to get a student loan and likely have to join the Obama youth to receive one?

Do you think our kids will feel free to know they are in debt from the moment they can understand what that means?

Home of the brave?

Can we feel as though we are brave and not cowardly when our supposed leader bows to a foreign despot?

How much bravery does it take to call us an arrogant and dismissive nation in front of other nations?

What amount of bravery did it take to write a stern memo to N. Korea when it flexes its nuclear muscle?

How brave is it to continue discussing bringing charges up against the past administration when almost all americans do not want that?

Is it bravery...intestinal fortitude...that makes us incapable of putting our sworn enemies through what amounts to college hazing to attempt to save lives?

What bravery does it take to fail to stand up and say, "we will take your tired and sick and poor, as long as they abide by our laws...starting with immigration"

What level of bravery and courage would it take to say "pedophiles get no special protected status"

How much bravery is on display when the govt turns a blind eye and a deaf ear on nearly half a million americans protesting an out of control government?

Show me the bravery and tolerance needed to tear a young woman in a beauty pageant apart in the media for sharing her honest opinion on a heavy social issue?

Show me the bravery in not allowing an open debate and instead using fear paranoia and intimidation to reach your goals.

Was it brave of our congress to confirm at least two tax cheats to the white house?

Were our vp and speaker of the house showing how brave they were when they said they would not use planes trains or busses because of the swine flu?

There are a lot of people who still want freedom and are brave enough to speak out for it, but we are being sold into slavery by the cowards WE elected... And that is not very brave of us either.