Man In The Arena

Ten Years After 9/11...

2011-09-10T21:43:00.001-05:00

Lessons Yet To Be Learned.

1. Terrorists are not psychopaths or mentally ill. They are not cowards any more than we are. What they are is desperate. They are short sighted. They are misguided. If you set out to fight terrorism by fighting psychopathic cowards you will waste your time and money.

2. There is nothing the US can do to rid the world of terrorism but it can limit its exposure to their aims by being measured in its responses to provocation and in how it deals with tyrants and dictators that build the farms that grow terrorism and resentment of the West.

3. Terrorism must be measured and responses to terrorism must be measured in two ways. Principally by REAL potential threats on the horizon and what kind of real damage in life and property these threats could cause. Next it must be tempered by ACTUAL damage terrorism has achieved in terms of life and property. (Which is VERY VERY little compared to many domestic forms of loss of life and loss of property.)

4. Finally to limit liberty and freedom in an effort to “fight terrorism” is to give terrorist “a free one”. Because censorship, a loss of privacy and guilty-till-proven-innocent tactics do more to harm our country at its fabric and base than any type of attack on America has historically accomplished or realistically will accomplish in the future.

Beth and Kristen... and my new Nikon.

2010-10-12T21:53:00.000-05:00

Beth and Kristen Shooting from Benjamin Cook on Vimeo.

The SC Republican primary offers some...

2010-05-28T16:16:00.003-05:00

The SC Republican primary offers some stark contrasts. On the one hand you have career politicians like Andre Bauer and Henry McMaster who have never known a "real job". Then you have Gresham Barrett and Nikki Haley. Relative newcomers to politics. Why does this matter? It matters because power corrupts. Being in politics is also very jading.

In SC we need fresh eyes on our state's problems. New solutions. What we have done and are doing now isn't working or isn't working fast enough. Mark Sanford despite his "issues" has tried his best to keep the state in the black. But, as long as the state of SC is beholding to the US government (thing education) for so much of its programs and funding, managing the "red" and the "black" is never going to be in our own hands. No party and no person can manage the states finances correctly if we are subject to whims of the Federal Government.

With this in mind, who is our best candidate for Governor of South Carolina? Well it is not Henry McMaster who has been in politics long enough to be best friends with John Spratt! Sure he mustered a little courage to stand up to the Feds this year, but he could and SHOULD have had that stance all along. Which begs the question, why the courage this year... an election year?

Andre Bauer is a career politician like no other. Politics, minus a short career selling sporting goods, is all that Andre has ever known. I have nothing against him as a person, and he might even be a "good" politician. But, he is not Governor material.

This leaves Barrett and Haley. Both qualified, both capable. I personally lean towards Halley because she seems the most likely to ATTACK South Carolina's problems. She also has the benefit of being the opposite of "jaded". From LEGAL immigrant parents she still appreciates the exceptional nature of South Carolina and the USA. She sees the benefits and offerings available to all of us.

As a Post Script, to all the people with Vincent Sheheen signs in their yard? Really? Have you looked around this world? Would another democrat in power anywhere in the world be a good thing right now? Another person who thinks that the Federal government is the best entity to handle problems here at home! When in fact, shipping our taxes to Washington just to have them redistributed as Washington sees fit IS THE PROBLEM. If you are a business owner and support Sheheen then come see me. I want to ask you some tough questions!

The SC Republican primary offers some...

2010-05-28T16:16:00.001-05:00

The Physics of Personal Defense

2010-05-28T16:15:00.001-05:00

The Physics of Personal Defense

In previous posts we have covered some of this. But I want to be a bit more specific and make some recommendations.

Newton's Third Law of Motion. Basically, for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Two people on roller skates pushing off of each other will depart each other in an equal and opposite way (other factors being equal). Think of your bullet (projectile) as skater 1 and your gun as skater two pushing off of each other. Of course mass and a few other factors weigh into the effect, but basically you bullet will impact with similar force to what you felt when firing the projectile.

This factors into my previous posts on the Myth of knock down power. Generally handguns have either NONE or very little. Hollywood has done us no favors here. When targets go down from being shot with a handgun it is because it was a "good" shot landing in a critical area incapacitating the target, or it was because of a mixture of physical and psychological factors associated with being shot. Factors like fear and pain. Even modeling behavior. You are supposed to stop and fall when you are shot... so you do!
Kinetic Energy. Or as we like to say... damage or knockdown power. Mass times Velocity Squared. The energy imparted on the target is the mass of your projectile times the speed/velocity of your projectile. The heavier the projectile (mass) the more damage. The faster the projectile (velocity) the more damage.

This means that given a choice you GENERALLY will always opt for more speed to gain more damage. Why?? Because Velocity is Squared. It follows that more speed adds an exponential increase in damage. The exception being pistol rounds. A good rule of thumb would be 2000 ft per second.

Until your projectile is traveling MORE than 2000 ft/s you should opt for a larger and heavier bullet to do more damage. Why? Until you are traveling around 2000 ft/s the secondary wound channel will be too small to produce significant damage. There are two wounds a bullet makes. The primary wound channel is roughly the size of the projectile entering the target. The secondary wound channel is based on the speed the bullet is moving through the target. It is like waves coming off of a boat. Or a rock thrown into a pond. The faster you throw it the bigger the ripple or waves.

This "wave" is your second wound channel that in high velocity does so much damage.

So what does this mean in terms of Personal Defense.

be able to accurately fire your handgun. An accurate shot will do more good than two or three that get no where near a critical area.
shoot as much gun as is prudent. If you can handle a 45 acp and it is practical to have it with you... have it with you. If it is going to be a "left-it" gun, drop a caliber and use a gun you will tote. (left-it in the house, left-it in the car, left-it on the night stand)
if possible and prudent always opt for a high velocity rifle. If you live in an apartment surrounded on three sides by neighbors, I am not sure a rifle is best. If you have children, and in a home defense situation you would need to move from your location to their's, a shoulder fired gun might not be best. This depends on you, your situation and aptitude with a rifle.
no matter what gun you use practice and expect to put multiple rounds on target. In terms of stopping power... more is better. Accuracy is best.

FEDS: We may not process illegals referred from Arizona...

2010-05-21T13:54:00.001-05:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/

Really... then AZ should deport them.

When the US federal system isn't doing its job then the states are left to do it.

That is what is going on in AZ. I am actually pro-immigration. I don't want a wall or mass deportations. But I am also a federalist. AZ is within its rights to do what it is doing. IF the federal apparatus doesn't do its job then AZ can do it for them!!!

25 Things No One Asks Politicians

2010-05-10T18:55:00.001-05:00

25 Things No One Asks Politicians

1. What is you political philosophy and how did you come to it? Follow Up: Would you be willing to publicly defend your political philosophy? When?

2. What, is the role of local/state/federal government? Follow Up: Is that role being performed now? Effectively/Efficiently/Honestly?

3. What is (will be) your role in government? Follow Up: How do you measure yourself as to whether you are being effective/efficient/honest in your role?

4. Do you agree with the statement "All governments have a natural inertia towards growth."? Follow Up: Can you name a time when a government shrank by its own hand and by a significant amount relative to its size at that time in history?

5. What is the role of government social services? Follow up: Anecdotally and Scientifically people appreciate less something that is given to them versus something they earn. With that in mind, how do you justify a fit person receiving social service aid year after year?

6. Describe "Private Property" and how it relates to government.

7. If a citizen or the press accused you of spin, pandering or evading a question would you be willing to answer those charges publicly to the satisfaction of the citizen/press?

8. Anecdotally it seems many have a poor view of politicians. Why do you think that is?

9. What is the difference between a "politician" and a "statesman".

10. How malleable is the Constitution on a scale of 1-10, one being Steel and 10 being Clay?

11. What do you see as the major successes of our nation/state/municipality? Follow Up: Are these successes because of government, nothing to do with government or in spite of government?

12. What are our major shortfalls? Follow Up: Are these shortfalls because of government, nothing to do with government, or in spite of government?

13. How much money did it take for you to be elected?

14. Are you part of the "political elite"? Who is?

15. What is meant by "Tyrannies of the Majority"?

16. What is meant by "Tyrannies of the Elite"? Follow Up: What systems are in place, if any, to prevent these tyrannies.

17. What is your view of State's Rights or Federalism?

18. Who knows what is best for you and your children, the government or you?

19. Do you believe that local/state governments are better equipped to handle issues of "morality" and "education" than the federal government?

20. Assuming that the current tax burden is about right, shouldn't we be paying vastly more money in taxes individually(and business) to state and local governments than to the federal government, the level of government that is furthest from our individual problems/issues/opportunities?

21. If governments must redistribute wealth, would not it stand that those governments most local to the citizenry are best equipped to collect and distribute that wealth fairly -because they can see the issues and facts most clearly and distribute that wealth efficiently -because there would be less bureaucracy and better access to those politicians that control the spending?

22. What is your opinion of "career politicians"?

23. Describe a non public sector "real job" (not relating in any way to politics, public policy or government) you have held and were successful doing.

24. What are your thoughts on this parable as it relates to government: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

25. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism? Explain.

By Benjamin Parrish Cook

The Key to Wining an Armed Confrontation

2010-05-06T15:31:00.001-05:00

A Key to Wining an Armed Confrontation

If you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself in a situation where you must defend yourself with lethal force there is one "trick" to having a serious advantage. That is to be able to move and shoot.

If you can move laterally and still hit your target you have just created a huge advantage for yourself. Firing a gun accurately is tough enough. Doing so in a stressful situation is doubly so. But, then adding to the mix that your target is on the move and returning fire... well. No thanks. I would rather just run, take cover or surrender. But even if your target isn't as smart as me and doesn't bug-out or surrender you can be assured that the advantage is yours if you learn how to shoot on the move.

Shooting Vid 1 Shooting Vid 2

The Myth of "Knock Down Power".

2010-05-06T15:06:00.001-05:00

The Myth of "Knock Down Power".

In a nutshell there is none if your pistol doesn't start in "4" or better. As well, then it is more of a psychological reaction than a physical reaction to being shot IF you do not score a hit in a critical area.

Newton's law of physics says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, if the gun doesn't knock you down when you shoot it, it won't knock someone down when the bullet hits them. There are other factors of course.

A 9mm has been accused of being a poor defense caliber. I even made such accusations at one time. NOW, I think 9mm is a fine defense caliber and is perfect for small concealable handguns. It is fast, and has minimal recoil (except when fired from a small handgun like a Kel-tec PF-9 or Taurus 709 Slim). It also has NO knock down power. Nor does a 38spl, or a 357 mag, or a 40 s&w, or a 380 acp or, or, or...

Now, hold up. I know many of you reading this want to disagree with me on the 357. And, I will give you that it has more "knock down power" than any other caliber listed above, but it suffers from a small projectile and a high velocity. Meaning, it is likely to not expend all of its kinetic energy on the target, but rather pass through. With a proper defense round, it could stay in target, or leave with minimal force left to impart. But it still suffers from a small projectile, which means a small primary wound channel. As well, while it travels fast for a pistol bullet, it travels too slow to create a significant secondary wound channel.

The 45 acp loaded to travel over 950 ft/sec is your best option for knock down. Even it will only provide limited push in the "opposite" direction on your target. But, bullet size, type of bullet and projectile speed will make sure that all of the energy it has to impart on a target is transmitted. Again, remember, if you want to approximate what your target would feel when hit with a bullet... just shoot your firearm. What you feel is a good approximation.

What makes most targets "go down" is either a hit in a critical area or the psychological effects of being shot... perceived pain, fear, etc. So what does this mean for the average shooter. It means don't be an average shooter. Be proficient with your chosen personal defense firearm(s). It means be able to hit what you aim at. It means be able to put multiple rounds on target. It means Hollywood isn't real and no ones arm will be blown off and no one will be sent backwards through plate glass. Physics... It's the LAW.

My Dog Molly

2010-04-27T18:36:00.003-05:00

I just buried Molly, well watched a nice neighbor with a back-hoe do all the lifting. The whole time I was thinking. "God that is a lot of dirt for me to fill in if he doesn't offer to fill it in." But I didn't want him to fill it in, I wanted to have a quick moment with Molly before she returned to nature. Instead he did offer and I accepted. So rather than the "moment" I chunked her unceremoniously down a 4 foot hole and said a few words under my breath. Not at all what I had in mind. And even though we are nearing the end of April it was cold. It was dark with ominous clouds, distant thunder and blowing rain. Despite the fact that Molly and I didn't have our planned moment, nature gave it to us anyway. It was Molly having her last growl, her last bark and her last wet kisses. Molly will be missed.

"Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" May 20th!!!

2010-04-25T01:26:00.003-05:00

On May 20th, please create your best interpretation of the Muslim profit Muhammad.

This is a show of Solidarity with all artists who dare create their visions of a religious figure.

This is also to speak in a clear voice to Muslim/Religious extremists that threaten violence... and turn those threats against them.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/04/muslim_extremis.php

A Review of "Emergency, This book wil...

2010-04-05T18:40:00.001-05:00

A Review of "Emergency, This book will save your life.

What I hate about reviews is I have to read them. So, I will get to the point for all the impatiant uber-male types that want the guts without the frills.

Buy the book and read it. Don't put it down when Neil Strauss seems like a spaghetti spine liberal, endure. While he doesn't get it completely at the end, it is a great journey that he lets us in on.

Neil does a great job relating his growth from a person reliant on the system to a person who is self reliant. He discovers via his attempts to have a "bug-out" plan to leave the US in the event of something catostrophic -like a major national disaster, terrorist attack or the total collapse of the US economy- that he doesn't possess any of the knowledge or skills to make it out, or to make it on his own once he is out.

Along the way he dispels a few myths about gun ownership, survivalists and the generally paranoid.

It is well written and ADD-types will appreciate his varietal style and short chapters. People from the rural south will particualarly love this read as it confirms what we already know. Most folks in big cities will be eating each other in 30 days after a real disaster, while we will be growin' tomatoes and brewing ethanol to live on in most of rural America, especially the littler latitudes.

So go. Buy the book.

A letter to Neil Strauss regarding "Emergency".

Neil,

Wow! I couldn't put it down. I read most of the book in one night. And while I loved the book I thought the ending was a bit odd. You realize in the book that the government can't save you, but then suggest the government is going to save us at the end.

Along your journey you figured out what realists/fliesians have always known, that the government no matter its size has limited capabilities and it is us not the government that makes changes on the ground that last and that matter. The residents of New Orleans figured it out the hard way. Yet, in the final chapters you revert to the same error in attribution that started your journey. You allow the government back in. This time in the form of a politician. Barack Obama.

No career politician will lead us out of our current doldrums. Can he inspire. Yes. But that is not what he is doing. And to look to a politician for answers considering where they have lead this country is a dangerous thing.

I am not talking Republican or Democrat here. I am talking over reliance on the US government. More people now are on some type of government assistance than are not on it. That says something. That means that 50% of the country is a Chapter-One Neil Strauss and less than half are Last-Chapter Neil Strauss.

I don't want to seem too political here. That is not my point. But did you ever stop to think about how those that taught you your skills generally vote? I would be willing to bet that most vote Republican. "Republican" means less and less everyday, but my point is they are likely Realists and Conservatives. Or, like it or not... neo-fliesians.

Which is where I would put you at the end of your book. Not so much a fliesian anymore but a realist slash fliesian. There is no way a person who generally sees the world for what it is (yet hopes for what it can be) could ever really think that a President of the US, much less one whose number one credential was his race, would provide a path out of our current problems.

You made it all that way, learning that you can't rely on the government WTSHTF only to end the book in a way that suggests we rely on the government. I just don't get it.

I hope I am not coming off as an anarchist. I am far from it. I believe as C.E.M.P. does. WTSHTF you look to your family first, then your immediate community then your broader community. There is real wisdom there. It is also a maxim for government and how our Founders hoped we would run this country. Smaller more localized governments are best equiped to service their constituency. A broader government is ill equipped to service, but it is better equipped to redistribute wealth on a wide scale, but the smaller states must have control over that redistribution... We no longer do.

When you listed the Federal bueracracy that snaps into "action" when there is an emergency that was a beautiful illustration. That lethargic beast, the Leviathan, can not be relied upon to save any of us. Nor can it be relied upon to fix the problems it has caused. I was hoping all throughout your book you would come to this conclusion. "It is about personal responsibility."

To say something about personal responsibility rather than "hope" from a politician...

Luckily the ending doesn't ruin the book for me. But, it does make your growth in the book suspect. The Psychology Major in me wants to suggest that even after your personal growth from the one likely to be the first eaten or killed to the one prepared to survive you are holding tightly to the biases you held when you started. George Bush, bad. Obama, good. Or Republican, bad. Democrat, good. Or Iraq war, bad. No war, good. When those biases betray you every time because they are based on outmoded paradigms that I hope you no longer subscribe to.

Now I hope you see that Neil is in charge. And that life is not that simple. Eight years of Bush, wasn't all bad. Republicans and Democrats, generally all bad... maybe a few good.

The country that scared you into this journey in 2004 is still here. It is still the Leviathan but it is wearing another teams jersey. THAT is the only difference.

Now is where I try to sell you AMWAY and pass out the kool-aid.

It is obvious you were not a Conservative before the book. You should be now. You should be for personal responsibility, individual rights and State's Rights (Federalism). You should see the US Gov for the Nanny State that it is. Out of control. Running on pure inertia towards implosion due to its own bloat and girth.

Forget the bullshit about Christian-Conservative and Neo-Conservative. Fuck Pat Robertson and Karl Rove. They are not Conservatives. If you ever run into a "Conservative" that hyphenates they are little "c" conservatives that serve two masters. At the end of your journey I would have thought that you would have figured out that Neil is in charge of Neil and no one in the White House can change that. That is Nature's Law and the 10th Amendment. Remember how you grew into a new understanding of the 2nd Amendment and how you now look at it with similar reverance to the 1st amendment? What I am talking about now is the same thing, but now embrace the 10th amendment.

Let go the Chicago-High-Rise/Chapter-One Neil Strauss and give into the Realist Neil that sees the world for what it is and hopes for what it can be. (Said with my best Star Wars Emperor voice.)

If you have made it this far and are not screaming "NO it's not true, I'll never join you"... Let's have coffee.

Benjamin Cook
Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer

Major General Bob Livingston, says he will not confiscate guns via a federal order.

2010-03-15T21:28:00.002-05:00

Major General Bob Livingston fielding the last question from the Palmetto Conservative Show, a blog show, said he would not confiscate firearms even via a federal order. Alluding to the fact that it would violate the Constitution that he as sworn an oath to, the Major General explained that his oath would prevent him and other Constitutionally sworn federal officers from carrying out this hypothetical order.

This interview was on: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cbmedia-network/2010/03/16/the-palmetto-conservative-show

Tenets of Conservatism

2010-02-23T20:36:00.002-05:00

As I see it:

Limited Government. Conservatives understand that all governments grow. That they have a natural inertia towards growth. Without measures to control that growth we get Hobbes' Leviathan.

Restraint Based Values. Any values system, religious or otherwise, that is based on personal restraint and responsibility is Conservative-friendly.

Personal Responsibility. It is the individuals responsibility to provide for him/herself and for the family. This includes security as well as education and economic concerns.

International Affairs. Conservatives understand that engagement abroad is a necessity. Our way of life must be represented and defended when necessary. Economic disengagement abroad is not an option as economies become more global everyday.

Federalism. State's Rights are not an antiquated part of US History but are a necessary part of our future. Federal over-reach threatens everything that is American. Conservatives believe in a Union of 50 sovereign states. The concept of Federalism is based a basic premise that the smallest government entity able to perform a task will be the most effective, efficient and easiest to hold accountable.

The Enemy of Tyranny. Conservatives are the natural adversary of tyranny. Our core principles stand in direct opposition to all tyrants including and especially Tyrannies of the Majority and the Elite/Elect.

Constitutional Stricture. The Constitution must not be as malleable as clay but rather as iron. Not impossible to cast or to shape, but difficult, time consuming and measured.

R U A real conservative???

2010-02-16T01:15:00.001-05:00

Are you a REAL Conservative? » quiz

The Information Ownership Act

2010-02-11T15:16:00.001-05:00

The Information Ownership Act

Recognizing the evolving importance of secure personal information,

Understanding that the collection, dissemination and synthesis of this information has worth,

Understanding that abuse, fraud and government intrusion or over-reach are but a few of the dangers of unsecured personal information,

Confirming that individuals are the best owners, lessors and arbiters of their own property and information,

Introduced is the Information Ownership Act.

1. Any personal information generated or collected via a commercial relationship is owned by the individual citizen and not the commercial entity.
2. The commercial entity possesses the information for the sole purpose of maintaining the commercial relationship between itself and the private individual.
3. At the close of the commercial relationship the commercial entity may keep in its possession a copy of all information generated and use it internally.
4. Any selling or disclosing of information must be done with permission and compensation to the individual owning the personal information.
5. Commercial entities may not, as condition of service, require individuals to waive or amend their rights in regards to their personal information.
6. Commercial entities must disclose in detail any charges or fees associated with maintaining personal information.
7. Commercial entities are liable for negligent use, or loss of personal information.
8. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to personal information created via a commercial relationship.
9. Commercial entities that maintain financial or medical personal information must disclose all policies, fees, procedures and safeguards to the individual via a clear "plain English" disclosure.
10. Commercial entities must immediately provide to owners of personal information, at a reasonable cost, all information created and maintained by the commercial entity upon request.

This Act is clearly designed to cover this non-exhaustive list: mobile phone information including any location data - internet access data including browsing habits and usage between the user and service provider - all medical information - all financial information including credit and commercial reports - any personal information that has worth or is reasonably considered private or valuable.

This Act is clearly NOT designed to cover this non-exhaustive list: simple over the counter transactions - purchases made or commercial relationships created while physically outside the United States - criminal background checks - tax information - personal information generated or exchanged for simple transactions that is not subject to data mining, resale or third party synthesis.

Avatar... great movie... childish message.

2010-01-19T20:52:00.002-05:00

Hey it's fantasy!

Yeah... that could not be more true. Even the overall tone that at one point seems like a lecture is pure fantasy.

Now, let me quickly say that I plan on giving James Cameron some more of my money as soon as it comes out on DVD. I might even see it again to get the full 3D effect. (Hey, see it in 3D... don't be cheap.) I LOVE this movie. I really do.

But, since Cameron's lecture is sooooo prevalent and the demographic for this movie so willing to be led by the nose... I feel I must respectfully protest it's cultural relativity message.

If you don't know cultural relativity is basically the belief that all cultures have a right to exist and that one shouldn't dominate the another.

WRONG...

It is this kind of Mickey-Mouse Pollyanna thinking that drives me nuts.

My thinking on the meshing of cultures is simple, trade up or you will be engaged in a protracted struggle to survive.

What do I mean by "trade up". Simple. When two cultures meet the less dominant and less modern culture has no choice but to trade up for the dominant culture. The more progressed, more modern, more advanced.

If the less dominant culture chooses to hinder this trade, this inevitable trade, a protracted conflict is possible. The result is that the dominant culture succeeds and the less dominant culture suffers.

Concepts as large as "cultures" survive in a state of nature or every culture for itself, or a completely self-serving agenda. Because of this self-serving nature in which no culture has at any relative time an advantage over another culture this concept is logically and ethically sound.

It is in effect a sort of natural selection for cultures. The ones that work survive, the ones that don't will eventually be taken over by the more dominant selections. Things that "work" in the less dominant cultures survive or assimilate with other working dominant culture aspects. Things that don't "work" are discarded.

This is and always has been the way of things. The victims of this "trade up" system are often dear to the less dominant culture. Languages, traditions, land, resources are lost to the less dominant culture. These are redistributed via the dominant culture's system or discarded. This redistribution and discarding of once important parts of the less dominant culture are quite expectantly painful and hard to cope with. But, the utility of this assimilation is undeniable and fair.

Is it fair in a particular instance? Not always. Can examples of horribly inhuman treatment be found in the history of meshing cultures? Of course. But in a utilitarian, do the most good and the least harm, sense it is the only rational system available, and in fact is the only system available.

Attempts to thwart the "trade up" only result in a delaying of the inevitable and protracted suffering borne mostly by the least dominant culture.

How does this translate to the Na'Vi in Avatar?

First let me say I understand the license taken to make the Na'Vi appear flawless and completely endearing. I get it. But if you are going to have a message it needs to be accurate. This movie could have been just as good and just as successful without the lecture.

A simple but accurate observation of the Na'Vi is that they are of course tribal, yet none of the horrible cultural practices that many "tribal" cultures have exist in the Na'Vi culture. No honor killings, no cannibalism, polygamy, no arranged marriages no female genital mutilation, and no infanticide.

A more advanced culture that doesn't rely on tribal principles to maintain order and predictability shuns these tribal practices because they are no longer needed. Ordered systems of government and civil society replace polygamy, FMJ and other acts we now find horrific or outside the norm. Witchcraft, wizardry and oracles are replaced by the much more reliable and predictable philosophy, scientific method and logic.

Cameron knows this so he had to create a fictional device to over come it. This device is the Na'Vi ability to network with nature. This small but important fictional element actually proves my point. That without this fictional parallel that made the Na'Vi pseudo-modern they were in fact a much less dominant culture. One that could benefit from the human culture in both the painful short term and utilitarian long term.

Emotionally we pull for the Na'Vi. But the bad guy... modernity (the same modernity that allows for this kind of advanced cinematography) has just as much "right" to advance as a culture has to survive. The assumption is that billions or even tens of billions of people need the fictional element Unobtainium that is a metaphor for oil.

If the metaphor is to be complete then this fictional element is literally the second air that the human society needs to breath and survive. Like oil, it touches every part of our lives. Improving it, moving it, saving it, prolonging it. Without it we would not be recognizable as the society we are.

To be clear, if we did not have oil/unobtainium that means you can't go to work, buy goods and services for your family and would have to return to a self-sufficient means of leaving. No, gas. No, markets. No, cheap goods from other parts of the world/universe.

Do your children have the right to be educated? Then quit work and home school because that is your choice without the catalyst that is oil/unobtainium. Want them to be healthy? Tough. We are back to country doctors that can not proscribe modern medicine or treatments. No MRIs, no advanced antibiotics, no cancer treatments.

The assumption and metaphor used in the movie suggests that human life depends on that fictional element. So, while you are ready to cheer for the Na'Vi as I did. Understand also as I did, that the movie is a one of a kind work of fictions to include the poorly thought out and typically leftist lecture on cultural relativity. A lesson that disregards the realities of an upward moving dominant culture and the benefits we enjoy.

And while many of us understandably turn away and prefer a fiction to the reality of the makings of modern society, that reality remains and much be dealt with via an accurate lens that accounts for what will do the most good for all involved or sometimes what will do the least harm. Or to simplify via a common metaphor, many of us don't want to know or see how the sausage is made, we just want to enjoy it.

So enjoy your sausage. Go see Avatar!!! It is a one of a kind masterpiece.

John McCain is supporting Henry McMaster...

2009-12-17T12:45:00.001-05:00

Just got an email from McCain giving his support to McMaster for SC Governor.

Well, I wasn't leaning towards McMaster. Now I know I will not vote for him!!!!

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

2009-12-15T16:03:00.001-05:00

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

California is set to have its citizens vote via referendum on the legalization of pot in 2010. As of now, it is legal for medical use despite it being illegal per the Federal government. Without telling my actual stance on the legalization of marijuana let me list some pretty significant "pros" that will come out of California's social experimentation.

First, the Federal government will be shown to be the actual paper-tiger that it is when it comes to drug enforcement. Long has the US spent BILLIONS on chasing drug dealers and as far as I know the drug trade is tougher and deadlier than ever. No return on our investment! If California legalizes pot, marijuana producers go legal or get shut down via market forces. (Do you buy beer/wine/liquor from a bootlegger or from Foodlion or BiLo?) Chasing drug dealers...good! Putting drug dealers out of business and not spending Billions chasing them... better. As well, now California municipalities can tax the drug and use those funds to chase crack, meth, and cocaine dealers. Or fund addiction centers, head start school programs or build prisons! (Knowing California it will be wasted on a typical liberal agenda.)

Second, the legal precedent of California standing up to the US government will trickle down to all states. California legalizing marijuana will actually make it easier for states like Texas, South Carolina Vermont, Iowa and others who consistently try to protect State's Rights, to do so. That means telling the Federal government "NO" even if they pass massive healthcare legislation that has no Constitutional backing. That means telling the Federal government "NO" to education mandates that are not right for South Carolina.

Finally it lets California, a pretty diverse and representative sample of the US, conduct the social experiment of legalizing weed. We, in SC, get to sit back watch this either be a success or a complete failure. Perhaps test scores will drop and kids become more lazy than they are now. Perhaps people are constantly late for work, zoned out at work and always have the munchies. Maybe California collapses on itself in a drug educed haze. Maybe. Or, they enjoy Billions of dollars in new tax revenue, cut crime and show the Federal government that we are 50 sovereign states in one union of mutual support and protection, not one 350 million person state in need of a massive government Nanny.

Ha!!!! I love being right!

2009-11-24T23:44:00.002-05:00

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Tons of info out there on this stuff.

The idea that the educated scientific community is self-monitoring and in any way judicious within its own ranks is finally shown to bogus.

This is an indictment of all "peer reviews" that continue to be an incestuous mutual-aid-society. RIFE WITH GROUP-THINK!

Roger Goodell.... owned!!!

2009-10-29T10:20:00.002-05:00

Thanks Steve King!

Flute? Manly?

2009-10-15T13:23:00.002-05:00

Can you be manly and play the flute?

Uhhhhh. Yeah actually.

Coolness

...all apologies to Ron Burgundy.

Pageland Nobel

2009-10-09T15:01:00.001-05:00

With so much going on nationally and statewide, I have neglected what is going on right here in our lovely town of Pageland (I will comment on Obama's "Peace Prize" however.). A mayoral race is a foot, as well as three districts on the town council. This past Thursday night I had the privilege of listening to most candidates state their case and respond to several questions concerning the future of Pageland. First let me comment on the turn out. I was happy and disappointed. There was a larger crowd than I expected, as well there seemed to be some sincere interest in the outcome of these political races. I was however very disappointed to not see more Black or Hispanic listeners. Now, I had my back to the entrance so if someone slipped in late I did not see them. But, the point remains. I would have preferred a more representative crowd.

Candidates were allowed to introduce themselves and were then asked a serious of questions. Without a doubt Joe Steen (council candidate) and Brian Hough (mayoral candidate) won the day. Both Hough and Steen spoke clearly about the future of Pageland and what it needs to more forward. Town Councilman Hough spoke with confidence and with more specificity often referring to facts and figures that the other candidates generally did not utilize. Steen laid out a motivated vision for Pageland with a cornerstone of increased industry and jobs to increase the tax base of Pageland.

David Whitaker also convinced me he is a qualified candidate for Mayor. While he does not have the experience that Brian Hough brings he has obviously taken the time to inform himself and seemed more knowledgeable than any other candidate, Hough excluded. If Whitaker doesn't win the Mayor's race this go-round I would very much like to see him try again or pursue a council seat.

In terms of actual "content" the candidates were polite and attentive. Decorum was never tested and the hot-button issues that can be so divisive were handled with care. There is one more event on the 20th of this month held by the Chamber of Commerce. I hope to see more in attendance as well as a more representative crowd. Perhaps those candidates with public speaking jitters will shed those and other front runners will emerge.

The IgNobel Peace Prize

Last week most of the world was stunned when the Nobel Peace Prize was given to our President, Barack Obama. Over the years this prize has become less about peace and more about ultra leftism. Jimmy Carter, the worst US President ever, has received one. Al Gore got one. As well as Yassir Arafat. Not to mention 1976 winner Betty Williams who confessed to school children once that she wishes she could "kill Bush," referring of course to George W. Bush. Oh, and lets throw Kofi Anan in that mix too. The guy who presided over the expansion and corruption of the UN, including sweet-heart deals for his own family. So, Obama is in great company.

Basically Obama received an award for not being Bush. Or, for weakening our country rather than protecting it. Weakness in the eye of an ultra-leftist is the only way to peace. If only everyone were equally weak we would all live in peace. No I believe it is strength guided by individual freedom, capitalism and democracy that brings peace. Our world remains in a general state of peace because of the strength of the US and our allies. Not because of anything Obama has done in the 9 months he has been in office. This award signifies the utter ridiculousness that Obama's presidency has become. It is all HAT and no CATTLE as they say in Texas.

On the job training...

2009-09-24T11:05:00.003-05:00

Last week the United Nations and a host of world politicos demonstrated what they are good for. Pomp and rhetoric. Libyan leader Moamar Gadhafi in his flowing robes shook his fist at the Westernized world and at the UN itself for disregarding decades of conflict between smaller nations. Our own President suggested that anti-Americanism was almost axiomatic or a given in most parts of the world based on US unilateral behavior. Funny, Mr. President... wasn't it your side of the political spectrum that floated that canard in the first place? How convenient for you now that you plead your case to the UN for a new world order based on cooperation. How is that "cooperation" going at home? And Mr. Gadhafi, the US is very concerned with civil unrest through out the world, but if every response we take to remedy these situations is wrong in foreign eyes what is our motivation to intervene in a damned if you do - damned if you don't situation? Go in alone, we are acting unilaterally without world consensus. Go in multi-laterally and we are forcing Western values on the world by the point of a sword.

Obama's Lesson

Obama has no doubt learned a good lesson in international relations in his short tenure. That lesson is that no matter what you do on the international stage it is never the right thing to do nor is it ever enough. That is because international affairs proceed in a state of nature, or every nation for themselves. There is no altruism in international politics. By the way this "lesson" that Obama is just now learning is Political Science 101 for your incoming college freshman.

Our Lesson Learned

If you voted for Obama for any reason other than the color of his skin, AND you have some capacity to be intellectually honest with yourself you have just learned or are now learning a very valuable lesson. A politician's rhetoric void of verifiable action is absolutely worthless no matter how sweet and enticing his/her message. If you are the voter I just described you were sold a bill of goods. One that included "hope" and "change" and "unity". Where is that? Our allies that were teaming with joy at the prospect of an Obama era have all but discounted Obama as a charlatan that lacks any political power to accomplish his lofty rhetorical agenda and are quickly hedging there bets by aligning with Russia and China. The same opinion makers that called Bush a "cowboy" are now calling Obama hollow and impotent. (I would normally discount Europe's opinions on just about all our domestic affairs but we are sounding the same calls here at home on both the left and the right when it comes to Obama.)

Lesson Applied

Obama did not invent the political bait and switch, but he is the most recent and most egregious salesman. The political bait and switch works on both sides of the aisle. So how do we apply what we have learned? Number one we must insist on our country back. The one promised to us by our fore fathers and founders. The one based on a government system of checks and balances that works to prevent one level, one house, figure, or party from being too powerful and too big. We do that by voting Conservative candidates into office. I will even spot you a libertarian or two (Notice I didn't say "Republican." It is more likely that your vote will be "Republican" but "Conservative" is really what we are looking for.). You also take your country back by taking responsibility for yourself and your immediate community. Remember that when you are taking money from the federal government for roads, healthcare, education, law enforcement, municipal improvements, child care, job training, etc, etc.

So while our Dear Leader is courting the rest of the world towards his ever failing system (a Socialist system that Europe is fast voting from power for more conservative cadidates), remember that real change starts at home. You want a better community? Build it. Require it of others. Lead by example. Don't take the easy road and take the hand outs from the federal system. That course is what has us in this situation now. All of us are guilty of "taking the money". Not one of us goes without guilt. This prescription is easy to hand out and difficult to swallow but, it is the only cure.

Glenn Beck

2009-09-19T13:35:00.001-05:00

Glenn Beck

I tell folks all the time when they stop me to say they enjoy my column to "come by the gun shop and see me." Every once in while someone takes me up on that. When they do we inevitably get into spirited discussions of politics, race, religion and every other "third rail" topic you should avoid if you want to make everyone happy. Well, I don't want everyone happy. I want everyone informed. I think Glenn Beck and I have that in common. He is not concerned with your happiness when it comes to politics, he is concerned with your knowledge.

That fact alone puts him at juxtapositions with the rest of the "media" that is based on serving your baser instincts rather than actually informing you. (Baser-instincts = 7 deadly sins by the way...) Rather, Beck just gives it to you right between the eyes. His loudest critics tell on themselves and confirm my supposition when they call him "loud", "dangerous", "paranoid" and "emotional". Rare is the word "wrong" or "incorrect" used. Because Glenn Beck is usually right, or at least headed in that direction.

Before you think I am a Glenn-head who listens to his radio show then rushes home to catch the TV show and has a life time subscription to his web page you might want to know that I never listen to his radio show and catch a TV broadcast about once a month. I base my opinion on Glenn from previous years of listening to him on the radio and the occasional tune-in on my part to his current show on Fox. It will also interest you to know that I generally detest Fox News, I think Sean Hannity is a media whore and Bill O'reilly is in the twilight of his relevance and career. I find most of Fox News patronizing, tabloid and blatantly one-sided. Just like MSNBC is to the left, so is Fox to the right. I am smart enough to know when someone's marketing plan is just to confirm my bias!

Glenn however I count as an anomaly. A welcome anomaly. He, like Rush Limbaugh, bases his ideas on some very simple and heuristic values. I think both of them are great, and I think both of them get it WRONG a good bit. Glenn lets his emotions get the best of him, and Rush lets his arrogance get the best of him.

Luckily the general message shines through. What is so anomalous about Glenn Beck is that he is as close to a true Conservative as I can find in the media. I also truly believe that HE believes every word he says. I can't say that about Hannity or O'Reilly. Glenn knows that Governments always grow no matter who is in charge and that its growth is accelerated when the Left is in charge, he knows that each individual state is sovereign and that our Federal government has grown past its useful size and is a tyrant over each state, he knows that less taxes are better than more and that more tax stifles growth of the private sector and rockets growth of government. He knows our founders created a base set of laws called the Constitution and that we have strayed far beyond their intentions and timeless wisdom. He knows these things because he is a Conservative. The fact that he is able to synthesis our current state of politics and express it back to us on TV and radio in a way that makes sense to us explains his success. Not because he is a fear monger. Not because his paranoia is entertaining. But, because he makes sense to us.

I invite you to tune in to Glenn on Fox News on occasion. Not just because I like him or that his program is good, it is and I do. But, because it scares the devil out of the left. The true Kool-aid drinkers on the left can't understand Glenn's appeal and they will label you "paranoid" and "bitter" and "clinging" to guns and God. Anytime we can scare the left because of their own paranoia about us, we should. Not just because it is fun, but because it sends them on a fool's errand of trying to pry us from our good senses. This give them less time to grow government, socialize medicine, indoctrinate children, and weaken our strategic defenses world wide.

The Struggle to Stay Relivant

2009-09-16T17:28:00.004-05:00

The Struggle to Stay Relevant

No US President exemplifies failure like Jimmy Carter. Most Presidents can point to something in their tenure as the most powerful man in the world and say "hey, I accomplished something." Carter can not. His presidency was marred from beginning to end with miscues and missteps. From giving away the Panama Canal (China now controls it.) to mishandling the Iran Hostage situation to the creation of the Department of Education, his single term presidency was a black spot on this country's history. (If you don't like my list, feel free to add double digit inflation, gas rationing, etc, etc.)

In his ever public struggle to stay relevant and to seem worthy of the office he wasted, Carter once again puts his foot in his mouth. Now he is suggesting that the majority of those who publicly oppose Obama do so with racial pretenses. I particularly take offense to that and so should you. Not because you have been accused of being a racist. No, that is standard fare if you are a Conservative, but because your first amendment right to free speech has just been attacked by a former President. Your ability to speak truth-to-power is now under attack by a man who put his hand on a Bible and swore an oath to protect that right.

I knew that when Obama was elected those that dared stand up to him and his political machine would be labeled racists. I knew Obama wouldn't come right out and say it, but his surrogates would. Apparently, Jimmy Carter is now an Obama surrogate. While we have been listening to the cry-baby hypocrites blast Joe Wilson for daring to speak truth-to-power and suggesting he has violated some kind of congressional "sanctity", the left trots out President Carter to call me a racist, and you a racist if you dare stand up for yourself. Apparently "sanctity" only extends to Washington politics and not to the United States Constitution!

The good news of course is this is an act of desperation. This my friends is the beginning of the end for Obama and his policies, assuming of course you and I continue to reject the lies and accusations and hold politicians to account. This is what the Obama presidency has become. A presidency that never got started. A president that misunderstood his mandate. A mandate that simply said, " don't be Bush." That is it, that is all. It did not say, restructure everything we know and understand about this country into a Socialist oligarchy. It didn't say out spend what Bush spent in 8 years as president in only 8 months. It didn't say try to force a center-right leaning country to the far Socialist left. These things were not his mandate. Now Obama in his own struggle to stay relevant has enlisted Jimmy Carter, the nations worst president, to carry water for him.

Why Parents are Right... and Obama is wrong.

2009-09-09T16:45:00.000-05:00

"parents, don't you want your kids to be responsible, hard working, proud Americans?"

Of course. But how is individual "responsibility" taught via a collectivist (Socialist) agenda? The "hard working" in this country have been demonized. If you make lots of money it is now assumed you did it dishonestly and do not pay your fair share. When in fact, you actually pay far more than your share.

Amy, I can't KNOW these FACTS and know the agenda of the President and in good conscience just give him a pass when he reads a prepared speech to our school children that doesn't follow his agenda. It actually follows MINE. A conservative agenda. He didn't just stop being a Liberal or a Socialist or a Democrat. So why did his message go Conservative?

Why won't he deliver this message to the American people? Why not promote "individual responsibility" to the masses?

Because you will then have a HUGE cognitive dissonance. How can the President ask me to be personally responsible for myself, and then tell me I need to let him be responsible for my healthcare, education, retirement and litany of other things?

"teachers, don't we all strive to push our students to succeed, to be accountable, to fulfill their talents, dreams & possibilities?" Sure. But some of us also serve another master. Ourselves. Some of us are members of a teachers union that spends millions of dollars fighting individual parents rights to have their children educated as they see fit. They do this because they know that if parents get their way teachers who do not perform will be looking for other work. Sound far fetched? Why is school vouchers such a problem then? Why can't you and Jeff take the amount of money spent on your child by the state and local governments and spend it on a private school? Or a better performing public school? Why can't an inner-city mother take that same money and send her kid to a better performing school? Why? Because the Left and the teachers union knows that this spells the end to 1000's of teaching jobs.

You can't say what Obama said to the kids yesterday and also believe the liberal education agenda. You just can't believe in both.

"i just don't understand why people are so scared of letting their children hear our President's speech that aims to inspire & uplift our children."

Because little Suzy and Timmy will come home all wild eyed about our great President. When in fact, our President is shaping up to be a huge failure. Not hyperbole or an overstatement. Use all the old leftist arguments about Bush and apply them to Obama. Don't even use a "conservative" standard and he is one big fat failure. Remember we were spending too much in Iraq and Afghanistan on the wars? Well did you know that his and Bush's bailouts and stimulus are expected to reach at least 1.7 trillion (More like 2.5). The Iraq war will only cost about .550 Trillion.

Average unemployment under Bush... less than 5%... right now we are at 7.9 and rising.

Obama has the lowest approval rating of any President at this point in office.

Amy, kids don't know this. Most people don't know this. They know we are supposed to feel good because America elected a Black Man President. And you know what. Even I feel good about that. But the man, no matter his color, is a failure at President.

Those of us who see it now don't want our children used as pawns in his mess he created. Nor do we want them to mistake Obama as something he is not. Should our kids look up to him for what he accomplished as the first Black President. Yes. But, after that the man must be judged on his actions, not his words. His actions to this point warrant strident opposition.

You will notice I have lumped Bush in this mess with Obama. All politicians have culpability in this mess. Republican and Democrat. Both parties usurp the Constitution for short term gain leaving the next generation to pay the price. Obama is just the most clear and egregious. He is unapologetic for his Socialist policies. Which is why his approval rating is so low even with a media that is still very much in love with him. Our country is a Center-Right country. Not far left.

So, in closing. While his message was true and admirable, you can not separate his agenda and history from it. To do so would be like giving Bush a third term just because he said something you agreed with. Constitution aside, you wouldn't do that would you? You wouldn't forget all of Bush's failures and problems just because he said something that you now agree with. No, you hold him accountable for his past and his current agenda. That is all that most of these parents of these children are doing.

Waking Up Socialist

2009-09-04T13:46:00.001-05:00

Waking Up Socialist

You don't actually wake up one day and *poof* you are a Socialist. Heck, how can you be something you don't even understand? Perhaps you are a Socialist via your habits and actions rather than your conscious volition? Perhaps the incremental behavior and choices you exhibit viewed in total make you a Socialist? Or perhaps you buy into the idea of a Utopia, an egalitarian society where fairness and equality rein supreme and are willing to make those who are in the way of that Utopia suffer until they are forced into equality?

Don't think you are a Socialist? Let's test you. When educating your children who do you rely on for guidance and funding, yourself or the government? When buying a home who do you rely on to set the interest rate, underwrite the loan (to any extent, great or small), protect your investment, yourself or the government? Going to college, do you pay for it or do you rely in some part on the government? Looking for a Job, how entangled is the government in that process? Do you receive unemployment? In your healthcare are you paying for it or is the government? Retirement, are you on Social Security? Are you relying on Social Security as your retirement plan? Chances are there is not one among us that can say that he/she does not look to the government for something that they could or should have provided for themselves. If you take the money you are participating in a system of Socialism. You are at the very least a small "s" socialist.

The idea behind government is to protect your freedoms, property and liberties. Not to force equality on the people. We are born equal, and from that day forward we cease to be equal. The concept of Socialism relies upon the flawed concept that we can all be more equal, or in the Utopia, completely equal. We can't be equal. None of us participates in life the same way. The goal of equality is a false goal. What is obtainable and more importantly maintainable is freedom. The end of slavery wasn't about equality, the civil rights movements were not about equality it was about freedom. All men are free. All men are not equal.

When freedom is maintained there is no government obstacle to economic advancement, no matter your race, gender or creed. When freedom is maintained there is no government obstacle to education, no matter your economic background or geographic location. When freedom is maintained the limits on your successes are based on you and you only. An individual. You are the arbiter of your life and designer of your destiny.

By natural design we form governments to protect our freedoms, property and liberties. We do this because we maintain common among us a desire for freedom, property and liberty. There is no need for each of us individually to expend effort and fortune protecting individually what we all seek to protect together. Therefore we institute governments to protect these individual interests via a common law. Note I said "individual interests" not common interests. In effect we give up to government limited and particular freedoms so that it may adjudicate and protect the individual when problems arise among us. We do this, we give these freedoms up to the government, so that the balance of our individual freedoms, property and liberty are protected.

Socialists substitute "equality" for "freedom" and "collective" for "individual". Freedom is sacrificed so that someone deemed less equal might be artificially made to be "equal." Property is seized and redistributed based on station, culture and patronage rather than labor and productivity. Liberty is redefined as a doctrine of fairness rather than doctrine of individuality, labor and production.

The problems our Nation faces now are not the product of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Nancy Peliosi. George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Abraham Lincoln are as much to blame. Our problems are the result of incremental deviations from a plan for a "more perfect Union". A plan devised by men who had experienced tyranny, oppression and religious bigotry. That plan was purposefully clear in some places and purposefully opaque in others. In an effort to control the "elite" that inevitably populate government and speed up the natural inertia of all governments to grow, our founders instituted a system of checks and balances to fight that inertia. Socialism is like Crack Cocaine for governments. It puts that natural force a government exhibits towards growth into overdrive. It rewards the governmental "elites" much more than is normal to any governmental system, and it retards the access that the everyday man has to the governmental apparatus. Therefore, without knowing it, our founders were per se against Socialism. There is no line from the Declaration of Independence or amendment to the Constitution that mentions Socialism, but the entire meaning of both documents was to prevent the growth of government into what Socialism is, government-run everything.

In short, we have all become socialists in some part. Suckling at the government teat. It is easy to convince yourself it is ok. The government takes your money and then offers it back to you. After all, it is your money right? Is it? Really? Do you really think you are a net producer or a net user of government services, i.e. do you send the government more money than you use? Even then, if you are a net producer, is that the most efficient way for you to use your money? Give it first to the government? Enough is enough! The time is at hand to hold our politicians to account. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution then the Federal government has no business spending our money on it. Contact your State representatives and Senators and tell them NO MORE. Insist that the state of South Carolina stand up to the Federal Government and protect us from the collection of unconstitutional taxes and mandates. Action is at hand. You might have to get off your chair for this one folks! Or, you can remain in your chair and Obama will be with you shortly to take care of everything your heart desires.

What is SOOOO Wrong with Obama Motiva...

2009-09-03T16:14:00.001-05:00

What is SOOOO Wrong with Obama Motivating Our Children to do Better?

Before delving into this subject let me first announce with as little fan fare as possible that I am not seeking the Mayor's Office. For personal reasons and because the current Mayor has announced he will not seek re-election I will not be running. Thank you to all that expressed your support. It is very appreciated. Expect me to be attentive to the goings on of the Council and Mayor and hold them to strict account.

This week Obama plans to address our nation's school children and ask them to be responsible for their education. He also plans to appeal to the children and ask them to help him, the President. On its face that doesn't sound so bad. I have mentored children before and the first thing I told them is that even at 13,14,15 years old they are responsible for their own education. So Obama and I don't differ too far from that. Or do we?

Obama might be asking the children to be goal oriented and to excel in school and to take responsibility for their own education, but that is not what he is really saying. The translated version goes something like this: "School children of the United States, look not to yourselves or too your local communities or to your parents for guidance, but look to the Federal government. Only we at this lever can decide for you what is good and fair and worthy. Your individual states are not well suited to provide an educational platform and your parents do not know what is best for you. Surrender to a least common denominator education that seeks first to lift under achievers to the ranks of the mediocre and drag down those that strive and show aptitude."

If Obama really wanted to help our nations children he would shut down the Federal department of education and send every penny collected for education last year to the states. No longer collect taxes for education and let each individual state grow and learn how to best teach its own children. You know, how the Founders envisioned. Rather, what we will get next week is a "kumbaya" moment for Federal intrusion into State and Individual affairs and decisions. Another inch down the road of Socialism. I invite parents to contact their teachers and principals and superintendents and DEMAND to know ahead of time what exactly Comrade Minister Obama has planned for the impressionable future of our country. It is not just what is said, it is also who says it. Context matters.

Our President has NO CHARTER in the Constitution to be presiding over the education of our children. Considering the first 8 months of his Presidency I see no reason to think his moves towards Socialism will not be targeted at YOUR CHILDREN. When will you say "enough"?

Board member's home numbers can be found here:
http://www.chesterfield.k12.sc.us/school_board.html

Superintendent

Dr. John E. Williams

E-Mail: jwilliams@chesterfield.k12.sc.us
843-623-2175

All Chesterfield County Schools
http://schools.mychesterfieldcountyschools.com/

Terrorism vs Political Violence vs Ci...

2009-08-14T11:31:00.001-05:00

Terrorism vs Political Violence vs Civil Disobedience vs Free Speech

There is a lot of talk these days about the growth of hate speech and hate groups that avow harm to the US and to the President. Unfortunately, our media leans left and they are all too happy to blur the lines between Terrorism, Political Violence, Civil Disobedience and Free Speech. Or, in other words if your free speech is targeted at the left "the media" will upgrade you to Civil Disobedience. If your message is communicated via Civil Disobedience you could be labeled Politically Violent. And of course if you practice Political Violence against the left you will certainly be labeled a Terrorist.

Free Speech is one of our Constitutional rights. It does have limitations. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater or take over an official public meeting (town council meeting or legislative session). Order, and to a lesser extent decorum, must still be maintained. Often there is a fallacy used by both sides of an argument that somehow there is a right to be heard. There is none. No one can be compelled to listen to someone's free speech. This is a standard tactic for the Liberal Left and they have almost perfected it. In town hall meetings people are getting angry at politicians because they give canned answers to questions, talk around an issue or just plain lie. Politicians are not familiar with this treatment. Rather, they expect the treatment they get from the Sunday morning talk shows that give them a podium for their views with very little question or debate. Certainly no one raises their voice and points at them and yells "Judas"! As a tactic for rebuttal politicians pronounce that their right to be heard has been infringed upon. Of course there is no right to be heard. The people who freely gathered at the town hall have every right to speak louder and more direct than the politician.

Civil Disobedience is when you move beyond free speech into disorderly conduct, vandalism or being a public menace. When your voice or actions clearly and consistently makes it impossible for others to enjoy their rights you have moved to Civil Disobedience. Most often Civil Disobedience is planned theater. Just like terrorism. The additional aspect of your actions being illegal can become a boost to your cause. While your immediate audience might have been 120 people gathered at a Town Hall meeting, the fact that you were arrested and forcibly removed and that was carried on CNN multiplies the reach of your message and cause. Because offenses of Civil Disobedience generally carry minor fines without any long term consequences the use of this tactic is generally accepted as "fair play" as long as no one is injured. Watching the Liberal Left whine and cry about the Conservative Right using this tactic is just plain funny. The Left perfected these tactics.

Political Violence is violence directed at ones political enemies OR at the government by the people. This is not terrorism per se. All terrorism is political violence, but not all political violence is terrorism. Political violence that does not terrorize the people can not, by definition, be terrorism. So political violence from the people inflicted on the government is not terrorism. Political Violence from one political faction on to another can be terrorism and usually is. Political Violence is almost always unacceptable. Its use in self-determination and revolution is often historically justified but never surrounding its immediate use.

Terrorism is a difficult action to pin down. Two necessary but individually insufficient parts of terrorism are usually the best indicators. First that the violence be politically motivated and second that the intent of the violence is to terrorise the public (non government). Motivation and intent are often difficult to judge, in those cases the target of the political violence is a good third indicator. Was it a public/private target or was it a government/military target? Malls, nightclubs and transportation are usually indicators of terrorism. Government offices, military installations are less clear but can certainly be targets of terrorism. Terrorism is never acceptable. It is not a tool of the weak it is a tool of the desperate. It is wholly unjustifiable.

With all the Nazi, Swastika, Thug and Goon talk swirling around the "town hall" these days it won't be long before those of us who dare speak truth to power will be labeled "terrorists," "racists" and other hyperbolic over-statements. Now you know where your actions actually fall.

Now It's Personal!

2009-07-30T23:31:00.001-05:00

Now It's Personal!

Liberals are now wanting to tax fatty foods as well as sodas and other delicious items. This is all in an effort to reduce the cost of healthcare. Someone might say it's to motivate me to be thin and healthy... but that is just a lie. Here is one you might not see coming... I agree the obese are too expensive to publicly insure and something must be done!

I agree that fattys put an undue strain on public healthcare and that the morbidly obese are probably expensive to maintain medically. But, the answer is not to tax the fat or sugar it is to stop trying to publicly insure them with things like the old Hillary-care and now Obama-care. If I want two pork chops and not one, it is no ones business. If I die with a turkey leg in my hand it was ultimately my choice. No one is obligated to pay for me. My poor lifestyle choices are just that... my choice. I choose not to smoke, not drink too often, reduce stress and get plenty of rest. I also choose to add bacon and extra cheese. It is no ones concern but mine.

What this boils down to is another attempt to micro manage my/your/our personal lives. Liberals think that you are quite incapable. And... if they are right, that it is the governments duty to manage your life for you. I, and conservatives, disagree. If you want to participate in risky behavior I would no sooner stop you from Super-Sizing those fries than I would stop you from parachuting from a plane. Both more risk than is necessary, both add some flavor to our lives.

I have never advocated the violent overthrow of our government, but if Obama et al think they can waltz down here and take that Beth's Country Kitchen Friday afternoon pork chop from my hands...well... If I might takes some liberties with Charlton Heston. "They can have my pork chop when the pry it from my cold dead hands!"

Rick Perry for President....

2009-07-24T15:14:00.000-05:00

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html

Please Rick, stay out of Argentina!

FatBoy Tested and Approved!

2009-07-24T11:03:00.000-05:00

Hey Kids! Check out my new Blog!

http://fatboytested.blogspot.com/

Where does the Federal Government der...

2009-07-24T10:23:00.001-05:00

Where does the Federal Government derive so much power and influence? Constitutional Originalists like me think they either steal it or derive it from smoke and mirrors. Those in power would point to two places in the Constitution, the "Commerce Clause" and the "Necessary and Proper Clause". Those in power would of course be wrong.

The Commerce Clause in the Originalists opinion gives Congress authority to regulate trade, when necessary, "among the several states". Not within, but "among". Also, authority doesn't suppose reason. Congress still needs a good reason to use its Constitutional authority. Further, nothing is said about trade among the people. The Constitution takes great pains to differ between Federal, State and Individual. Had, the Founders wanted Congressional authority over the individual it would have clearly stated it. In fact, even the briefest study of our Founders shows that almost all of their efforts were to LIMIT governmental authority over individuals.

The legal community still debates to this day what the word "commerce" meant in the 18th century. A liberal generally thinks it to mean every interaction among men. As ridicules as that sounds, that is what some well respected scholars maintain. A more Conservative and researched view points to commerce meaning trade among business and industry. Again, leaving out the individual. While I am a huge proponent of fancy-book-learnin' I freely admit that a lot of "study" is the product of boredom and an attempt to look busy to ones peers. Anyone who surmises that "commerce" has ever meant, in any way shape or form, all interactions among men is surely after some end other than the truth!

The Necessary and Proper Clause or the "Basket Clause" is called such because to a liberal mind it gives the Congress the authority to enact any law it sees and necessary and proper, all that is needed is political will. A Conservative view, a researched view, understands that the Founders meant that Congress could enact laws it found necessary and proper to uphold the Constitution. Or "The congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing powers ,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of
the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." OR... that this "necessary and proper" authority is incidental to the rest of the Constitution, more particularly the enumerated powers. For example, you can't over-ride another part of the Constitution, say... Freedom of the Press, with a law enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Or more relevant, California should be able to regulate marijuana as a drug as long as that drug stays in California. Congress enacting/enforcing a non-enumerated law or a law it sees as "necessary and proper" must be junior to an enumerated law like the 10th Amendment (State's Rights).

Confusing? Yeah, it was meant to be. Our Founders did not make the Constitution all encompassing. It could have been hundreds of pages long and much easier to interpret. But, they new that the more they wrote, the more we would interpret and mis-interpret. Brevity was their most precious gift. The Constitution was written by men and is interpreted by men, therefore it is imperfect. But, it is quite sufficient and has been the standard barer for freedom ever since its inscription. It is completely sufficient in the case of over reaching Federal power. Sadly, it requires sufficient executors and adjudicators as well (Congress and the Supreme Court). These government officials are the crux of the problem. Too long have we sent fools to Washington expecting the impossible. The only way forward I see is for the individual States to assert their power and stand up to the Federal system. Hard to do if you are a state that is beholdin' to the Federal apparatus for education, roads, health-care, credit, etc.

Before I get into my normal bloviate ...

2009-07-20T11:53:00.001-05:00

Before I get into my normal ruminations, let me first congratulate the Pageland Chamber, Town of Pageland, Pageland Police Department, the Sheriff's Department and so many others that contributed to making the Watermelon Festival a success. I was part of a booth next to the music. All those with me had a great time! I am currently in Hawiian Ice and Sausage Dog withdrawal.

On everyone's mind these days is healthcare. Yes, it is expensive, and yes it is getting MORE expensive, but here is a news flash... YOU are not entitled to it. There is no "right" to healthcare. The plain and simple truth is that the Constitution enumerates no power for healthcare. What we have now, given to us by Lyndon Johnson and others, is already Unconstitutional. Medicare and the unfunded state mandate Medicaid are failed concepts. Governments are ill suited to provide for us on an individual basis. It takes a pretty thick and one-sided bias to look at previous Federal government attempts to provide social services and think that they are equipped to provide something as important and personal as healthcare on the scale they attempt now, much less on the scale Obama is proposing.

What is the Federal Government known for? Wasteful spending, unfunded mandates to the states (most unconstitutional), lining pockets of special interests, sweetheart deals, etc. So, even if you think that Universal Socialized Obama-Care is a good idea, you have to be blind to think that the Federal Government is capable of providing it.

We have test cases all over the world and at home. Several states have tried to provide some form of complete care for all citizens. None have been successful. Many nations have tried it and the news if full of stories about the deficits the programs run, the lengthy waits for services, and the long line of Canadians finding care at our facilities because their socialized healthcare system is failing them.

All of this should be moot because our Founders in their wisdom limited the scope and reach of the Federal Government. Sadly, over time, presidents, congresses, and judicial rulings have all but ruined the original plan of a Union of Sovereign states that mostly looked out for themselves on domestic issues. Instead, we have a Nanny State trying to be all things to all people. It is impossible... not difficult... but, impossible for any government to provide effective and efficient social services like our Federal apparatus tries to provide us. What Obama and many Socialists like him want just will not work, even if their intentions are noble.

The "King" rewards his loyal subjects...

2009-07-09T09:48:00.000-05:00

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.

That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

More Here

Well, the good news is that Mark Sanf...

2009-07-08T16:58:00.001-05:00

Dear Liberal Voter,

I quit! As of today I am resigning as head cheerleader of Chesterfield county for the Conservative movement. It really is a breath of fresh air. No longer do I have to worry for the future. I will be heading to the welfare office in short order to sign up for assistance. As well, I plan on defaulting on my student loans because the economy is so bad. Perhaps some HUD assistance is in my future as well! A new house partially paid for and secured by others sounds great!

It will be great to start watching American Idol and MTV rather than reading background and perspective information about world events. No more hours spent backgounding Iraq, Iran or Terrorism. I can't tell you how psyched I am to watch my first episode of "16 and Pregnant" on MTV! Also, the only "foreign affairs" I will worry about will be the Mark Sanford kind! I hear liberal women on TV love his romantic letters to his mistress. COOL! Liberal women here I come!!!

I plan to fully support Obama. I of course will not research any positions. I will just do it because he is black and I feel guilty as a white person, and he is clean cut and speaks so well, and a lot of smart sounding people on the news seem to love him! If the TV says it, it must be true, right?

The gun store I run will of course immediately be shut down. Guns kill people. That is bad. I don't want to be bad. I want to be good. So no more guns. WOW! That overly simplistic liberal pseudo-logic is amazingly easy to get into! I of course will have to purge some information already in my head like the fact that guns DON'T actually kill people. Just like pencils don't misspell words. Or that there are over 2 million defensive uses of hand guns every year and comparatively only 50,000 gun deaths (including legal uses and legal police killings). I will crowd out this interfering data with global warming propaganda.

I am also super psyched to completely loose perspective of the world around me and live my life according to bumper stickers! No blood for Oil! Bush lied people died. Corporations (that employ millions) are bad! America is bad! John Stewart is funny! 9-11 was an inside job! We deserved to be attacked by terrorists! This way of thinking of course will be difficult, but my new pot habit should help dull my sense of reason.

Best of all my downward spiral into liberalism will not change my voting habits, it seems I will be able to continue to vote Republican! Thank you Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford!

Finally, in an effort to streamline the movement of your money to my pocket, I am going to fore-go the formality of taxation and the redistribution of wealth. I am just going to show up at your house and help myself to whatever I think is necessary and proper to feed, clothe and house myself. Oh, and I want a new video game console and some rims for my car!

YES! I welcome the sweet bliss of ignorance.

Benjamin Cook
Former Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer

Neda

2009-06-24T14:13:00.004-05:00

This young lady was at a protest in Basiji was shot and killed.

WARNING: This is heart wrenching. This is her last few moments of life.

I am not posting this for any reason other than to memorialize why she was at the protest that day, what she gave her life for. (She was well aware of the shootings that had already taken place.)

She was there protesting that a single but nonsufficient part of liberal-democracy had been taken from her and her brethren. That is the VOTE.

While a "vote" doesn't make a democracy it is a necessary part of one. It is the starting point.

As we waste and marginalize our democracy here in the US let us remember that we once fought, protested and died in the streets for our freedoms. Let us also remember those who are doing the heavy lifting of democracy and liberty today all over the world and especially in Iran.

Hey LOOK... I was wrong!

2009-06-24T13:55:00.002-05:00

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/366123.html

Looks like I was wrong about Gov. Sanford. He was a politician after all.

This is a major set back for Republicans and worst of all for Conservatives.

Let's make sure we get it right!

2009-06-18T12:57:00.000-05:00

Good call Babs! Nice to see what the priority is in that hearing.

My Naughty Sense of Humor.

2009-06-17T09:59:00.002-05:00

Sorry. But every once in a while I need to break the yelling and screaming with some humor.

Nice Headline...
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=475584&publicationSubCategoryId=63

If you don't get it, you are probably a better person than me...

On the Dole

2009-06-05T14:48:00.003-05:00

On the Dole

I was sitting back today thinking about when and where I might have been on the government dole. Where in my life have I received a hand out or a hand up from the government? Student loans come to mind... but I am paying that back with interest. Perhaps something I used or need was subsidized? I can't think of it if it was. So, other than student loans I have never used unemployment, food stamps, social security or any other government social program. I am now becoming quite the rarity. (Before we move on let me say I am a believer of "social safety nets" and find them wholly indispensable.)

According to recent reports (Particularly one from USA Today.) one of every six dollars in America is from the government. That is $17,000 per person. Food Stamps, Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, etc are all on the rise. Not just because more people need it, but also because less people are ashamed to use it. I can't count the number of people I know that are scamming the system. People who count themselves as "Republican" and "Conservative" as well. On the dole when they could be working. Sure, they tell themselves that they can't find work or are too injured to work, yet they some how are able to live normal lives with out a job, get around everyday and are mobile and productive?

I know it is hard not to want your $17,000 from the government. Heck I can relate. I have many things that $17,000 would go a long way toward accomplishing. But, I also am a healthy person who was raised to think that one should always have a job, always be working. My Grandfather is 90 years old and is still a State Farm Agent in Kershaw. Not because he wants the paycheck... but because it is part of who he is. A man, who works. Things were not always so good for Granddaddy. I remember him relating a story where his family lived for two weeks on a bushel of peaches that someone had given them. That's it, just peaches.

Times like that instill in a person the need for work, the importance of job security and of a man's reputation. All of us at one time will fall on hard times and have to make tough decisions, even have to ask for and accept help. But, with the charity of others comes responsibility to take only what you need, never what you want. Also, the responsibility to pay ones own way as soon as you are able. How can we as a national community or a local community accept that so many are taking government aid? Why is that ok? Why does it seems so much worse now that it once was?

The answer is quite clear to me. It is the loss of two families. The first family is the traditional family of a man and a woman. This two-person team represents the best chance any of us have to grow up safe and with enough stability to become a contributing member of society rather than a consuming member of society. The lack of these two-person teams has resulted in the need for a surrogate that must help us when times overwhelm.

The lack of the second family, the church, is also to blame. Now this will be controversial but it is very true, the church is largely to blame for this. By church I mean organized religion of any sect or denomination. Churches have become too political both locally and nationally. They are judgmental and quick to cast aspersions on those that do not or can not hide their short comings well enough to be accepted. They continue to allow themselves to be ridiculed as unreasonable and affronts to history and science. They judge others by the verse rather than by the Word. This family used to be the social safety net that was looked to second before we looked to the government third. If a family was on tough times the church came together and helped that family. If things were too tough for the local church community to handle a larger community was asked to help.

Now we invoke the THIRD tier of help as the first. We ask not of ourselves and our family, not of our church or community but from the government. What is more, we are increasingly asking help from the furthest removed form of government, the federal government that we have the least control over. The government we are now expecting is called Socialism. We are now, already Socialist. We have abdicated our means of production over to the government. We rely on our governments to provide for us from cradled to grave. We have lost any expectation of help from ourselves and our more local community and are now relying on our least local governments to provide for us. This way of comporting ourselves is completely unsustainable and will be our ruin if we don't take quick and corrective action.

So, the next time you think "there aught to be a law" or that "someone should do something" or that "it's not my responsibility" think of who is waiting in the wings to take on that responsibility in a horribly inefficient way that has generational repercussions. Think twice before handing over all of your rights and responsibilities to the government.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-03-benefits_N.htm

An example of what happens when politicians send me unsolicited emails!

2009-05-30T10:02:00.001-05:00

To Bobby Harrell, SC Speaker of the House, Republican.

_______________

Speaker Harrell,

I am a voting delegate and the Vice-Chairman for the Chesterfield GOP. I am very disappointed that any Conservative would support even passively the "Stimulus" money being spent in SC. There is NO moral justification for taking the money. Being party to the indenturing of our children and grand children to the Federal Government is, to be sure, immoral. This is not hyperbole or over stating. By taking the money we have insured that our children will be paying down on our miss deeds. How can you be party to that?

The excuse that we " will have to pay for the money anyway" or that other states would get the money does not make the taking of the "stimulus" any more defensible. South Carolina is a sovereign state and the Socialist direction (Participatory Economics) that the Federal government is taking us has no prescription in our US Constitution. SC should stand up to the Feds and protect its citizens from the tyranny of the elite. Unlike many that only complain I have a solution.

1. South Carolina should collect the Federal Taxes from its citizens and hold them in trust and pay them out to the US Treasury for only those things expressly written in the US Constitution.

2. South Carolina should refuse any money from the Federal Government that is not for those things outlined clearly in the US Constitution.

3. South Carolina should protect from Federal harassment, fines or imprisonment any citizen that pays its Federal Taxes to SC rather than to the US Treasury.

4. To accomplish this SC should partner with like minded officials in other states, bring suit against any parties participating in any form of Socialism that adversely affects SC and stop participating in any federal education programs.

5. The money left over after paying to the US Treasury Constitutionally defensible funds held in trust should be allocated for the short falls that the federal spending has been covering, like education. Any money left over after that should be returned to the tax payer.

To be clear, I am not advocating less taxes or no taxes. I am advocating that taxes only be paid for Constitutionally viable expenditures and that the Federal Apparatus is so broken that individual states must correct it. I also do not advocate succession. Any Federal take over of industry, including the education industry, is forbidden because it is not listed as a Federal Power and is therefore reserved for the states and individuals.

Speaker Harrell, we can not "politic" our way out of this mess. Strong corrective action must be taken.

If you have it in you to correct these problems I applaud you and support you. If you do not please step down this very hour. Stop your passive support of Socialism.

The Republican party is in the midst of a schism. Big government, Nanny-State Republicans are being shown for what they are. True Conservatives are banding together. Where are you? Lindsey Graham saw where he was at the Convention. Boldly admitting that he would rather win reelection than be on the right side of the issues. Conservatives are watching.

Kind Regards,

Benjamin Parrish Cook
Vice-Chairman, Chesterfield County GOP

While I am angry... lets fume a bit about PayPal

2009-05-28T16:27:00.002-05:00

I am BANNED for LIFE from PayPal. Yep. I own a gunshop. And, I took a payment online via PayPal. Apparently that is a no-no. I didn't know that. So now I am banned for life.

Well, that's ok. Enter Amazon Payments. That's right, https://payments.amazon.com/ will do everything that PayPal does. Even send and receive money.

So, the joke is on you PayPal! All you have accomplished is losing my business and having me direct others to your competitor!

Someone stole my Blackberry...

2009-05-27T21:54:00.002-05:00

Someone stole my Crack-berry. I miss it.

And because of my feelings of loss and mourning I felt today I must admit I have a "connection" addiciton. I must at all times be connected to the outside world.

Seriously, I was not myself all day because I lost my phone. How messed up is that!

And to the M&*($#%# FU^K3R that stole my phone I hope you rot in hell.

I never grow tired of being right!!!

2009-05-26T19:28:00.001-05:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54P5RY20090526?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10531

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seventy-four, or one out of every seven, terrorism suspects formerly held at the U.S. detention site at Guantanamo Bay are confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

Of more than 530 detainees transferred from the U.S. base in Cuba, 27 are confirmed and 47 suspected of "reengaging in terrorist activity," according to a written Pentagon summary.

The total of 74 has more than doubled since May 2007, when the Pentagon said about 30 had gone back to terrorist activity, and increased slightly since January, when the figure stood at 61...

Teddy R. once again providing precedent and guidance!

2009-05-26T14:06:00.001-05:00

He is my favorite President for a reason. And when you are done reading this, slide over to his "Man in the Arena" speech to recharge those Conservative batteries!
http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

Oh and if you one of those folks that does not trust random emails... you are in good company.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp

1907 PHOTO This one needs to circulate

I think this is one email that needs to be forwarded until every American with a computer receives it.

The year is 1907, one hundred years ago.

READ PRINT UNDER PICTURE!

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Every American citizen needs to read this!

KEEP THIS MOVING

Cheney... LOVE HIM

2009-05-22T10:25:00.000-05:00

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw9i42HdcJfk&refer=worldwide

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney accomplished something yesterday that Republicans have seldom been able to do: directly challenge President Barack Obama in real time on a major policy issue.

In a nationally televised speech delivered just minutes after Obama had spoken on how to protect the U.S. against terrorism, Cheney defended the decisions he and former President George W. Bush made after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

While Republican leaders have largely avoided direct attacks on Obama and focused instead on Democratic congressional leaders, Cheney, 68, has taken the opposite tack. Republican lawmakers and strategists said he was able to raise the intensity of the criticism yesterday because, unlike other party members, he isn’t worried about damaging any future political ambitions by taking on a popular president.

Cheney “might not have the highest favorability ratings, but on this issue, I think he’s viewed by people across the country as being very credible and very knowledgeable,” said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican. “What he says carries a lot of weight.”

obama gitmo

2009-05-21T12:48:00.001-05:00

President Obama has announced a framework for dealing with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The "Gitmo" detainees are hardened terrorists either caught on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan or they are captured via raids and other interventions world wide. What to do with these detainees/prisoners/terrorists? To be sure these terrorists deserve a trial, sadly most will never get one and it is their own faults. Not ours. But is it our responsibility to provide one anyway? Unfortunately there is no plain answer. The answer is "yes" and "no."

Here is Obama's framework.

--When feasible, try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts.

--When necessary, try those who violate the rules of war through Military Commissions.

--When possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be safely transferred.

What jumps out at me is that this is the exact same framework the Bush Administration has used except of course the easier access to US courts of law. Which is a bit misleading because the detainees have been tried in US courts under the Bush Administration. It was just not the preferred venue. Basically all that is changed is the vehemence with which a "trial" is sought. Under the Bush Administration the detainees were treated as international terrorists. Under Obama they are treated as US criminals.

Terrorists can be both criminals and soldiers. You could try to parse each individual terrorist as criminal or soldier but even that is problematic. It seems simple. But if you have a person who has committed acts of terrorism in Yemen, Pakistan and found fighting the US in Iraq is he a soldier or a criminal. Or neither. The Bush Administration said "neither," he is an Enemy Combatant. Which means we will put him on trial in a court that is our best effort to match what the terrorist is... to what we have available to try him with. To me that makes perfect sense rather than driving a "square-peg" terrorist into a "round-hole" court system. Which is the Obama alternative. Our courts can't deal with the sensitive nature of the evidence itself, its collection or the sensitive nature of those that collected the evidence. Obama knows this and that is why his Gitmo Plan is just smoke and mirrors with a few bones thrown to his constituency so he appears as having actually done something.

Lets look at the plan and problems with each. After doing so you will understand why Guantanamo was so successful, useful and necessary. When "feasible" Obama wants to try terrorists in the US Federal system. On its face that sounds good. But it will never, or almost never, be "feasible" for the security and sensitive information reasons I have already laid out. When "necessary" try terrorists in Military Commissions. Well my friends that is exactly what we have been doing. Again, smoke and mirrors to look like big change, but actually effectively no different than Bush. Finally "when possible, transfer to third countries those detainees who can be SAFELY transferred." That means transfers can only happen when the terrorist comes from a modern Western country, which they rarely do. If you are a terrorist from the UK we can ship you to their prisons to rot and cost their tax payer money. But if you are from Yemen or Saudi Arabia you will be broken out of jail in about a year if we ship you there, and back on the battle field. Or, you will actually be tortured for information. Not water boarded or have dogs bark at you while wearing women's panties on your head. NO, I mean real torture.

So what does this mean. It means that 90% of the folks in Gitmo deserve to be there and they will get trials when we get around to it. The other 10% are to be used by the Obama administration as a distraction and smoke-and-mirrors campaign to hopefully woo his supporters into thinking he is making good on campaign promises. In the mean time, Gitmo is still open. It will be open for some time and those inside will get the justice they and we deserve on our timetable not theirs.

The Way Forward

2009-05-11T15:50:00.001-05:00

The Way Forward

How can the Republican Party get back to its Conservative Roots, and there by be the party we deserve?

The answer is simple, though the work may be hard. The answer: Follow a set of Conservative Principles, reject anything that varies. This will require introspection and amendment to our current "principles."

Amendment to items that have been part of our platform for years. However, it is through this resoluteness that we will find the clearest path.

Not to be confused with the easiest path...

To be clear, we need to understand what it is to be a Conservative and apply those principles when we act as Republicans. How can we do that locally?

Here is what I suggest.

1. Start a lending library of books that are part of the Conservative cannon of literature (classical liberalism). For example books by William F. Buckley Sr., Barry Goldwater, Rush Limbaugh, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson. Too few of us understand Conservative principles, and what is more, how to apply these principles to our daily lives and to the problems that face this country.

Free Markets? Why? Smaller Government? Why? Pro Life? Why? States' Rights Why?

You can't be an ambassador for Conservatism if you don't speak the language and understand the basics.

2. Create a Century Club. One-hundred $100 donors. These donations are earmarked for the election of local Republican politicians.

3. Two part-time paid staff members that work under the direction of the County executive committee.

4. Executive officers that lead the way by example in terms of preparedness, planning, organization and fund raising.

5. Require politicians that request an endorsement or audience from the County GOP to submit in writing how their positions and platform are Conservative (classically liberal). This will weed out those that only parrot the current platform in an attempt to gain political power.

6. Attract youth to our cause by speaking their language. Create an online presence that attracts young people to our county party.

7. Create committees to share the responsibility of important CCGOP business like fund raising, conventions, precincts/redistricting, membership.

8. Realign our monthly meeting structure into two different types, election year and non-election year. In an election year we meet with our full membership as we do now, once per month. Other years we rotate general meeting, fund raising meeting, membership meeting, officers meeting. Three or four meaningful meetings with good attendance is better than 12 mediocre meetings with poor attendance. When the General Membership does meet, have it meet for a reason. Have learning goals like Conservatism and Free Markets, Conservatism and Globalization or Conservatism and Abortion. Make these meetings meaningful.

9. Office space. We need a member or donor to donate office space for the party. Preferable somewhere large enough to hold monthly meetings.

10. Set yearly goals for fund raising, membership and other attainable markers.

Chesterfield County is a county that leans Conservative yet votes Liberal in local elections. Our number one goal should be to fix this problem. With our re dedication to what matters we can do it. A word of caution, NO amount of planning, goals, meetings or funds can replace a clear understanding of what it is to be a Conservative. Without this understanding we are doomed to return to the sad state of Republican politics we have today.

If your friends are Conservative/Republican let them know we either need their active participation in the party or/and their donation. If they can not be active in the party we need their funds to be active in the party. It is all our responsibility to fund raise.

Thank You,

Benjamin Cook, Vice-Chairman and Public Relations Director
Chesterfield County Republican Party

How the Mighty Have Fallen

2009-05-10T21:35:00.002-05:00

Fareed Zakaria, you can find his name and links littered through out my blog. Until today I held his opinion in high regard. We often disagreed, but I respected what he said. He still has an informed view of all things Pakistan... but now, now he has sold his soul to the devil in order to confirm his Obama bias.

In one of his latest Newsweek columns he lists the "accomplishments" of the Obama administration in its first 100 days. He goes on to suggest that "any President would be envious" of those accomplishments. What?

Throughout the meat of his column he lists nothing of consequence. He says so in the first few paragraphs... he notes that Obama's policies all need time before we can judge. NO Mr. Zakaria they do not need time. We can judge Obama's policies against History! Against Precedent! And against good common sense! We can judge them now for what they are... Socialist. Your love for European Style Socialism betrays you! You adherence to your Obama narrative betrays you! You uncharacteristic unacademic assessment of Obama's first 100 days puts you off my list of liberal leaning pundits I respect.

I understood how you could back Obama in the election. I did. The right offered no real candidate. Obama was intoxicating to those who had even a slight leftward lean. I get it. But you have abandoned yourself and us by sugar coating a failing 100 days. A 100 days that will forever be the time the left tried to make the United States of America the United Socialist States of America!

Perhaps these are your true colors. I hope not. I hope there is a shred of intellectual honesty left in your body. I hope that you will abandon a failed narrative and bias. I hope I am only witnessing a stumble and not a fall.

This is great.

2009-04-29T09:36:00.000-05:00

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=2539741

What a great idea!!!!!!!!

Read this or I will come to your house and light your pants on fire!

2009-04-26T18:06:00.000-05:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Socialism

2009-04-23T15:15:00.000-05:00

You just have to pay attention and have a modicum of intellectual honesty.

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

Guidance for Law Enforcement, Citizen...

2009-04-16T10:20:00.001-05:00

Guidance for Law Enforcement, Citizens and Politicians:

Department of Homeland Security Risk Assessment of Right Wing Extremists, 2009.

Recently, news reports have surfaced about the DHS report on Right Wing Extremists (RWE). This report advised in relatively clear and concise fashion the increase in planning, chatter and recruitment of radicalized groups that advocate extremist action.

While the assessment was near satisfactory in its reporting it did not provide guidance on how to deal with the risk. It is important to use the dearth of information available post 9/11 from a wide range of sources to not only assess a risky situation but also know on a front-line level how to prevent an event, further escalation in recruitment, funding and planning and deal with an event to limit its scope. In this capacity the DHS document falls short.

Terrorists and extremist groups are opportunists. They use tactics that turn our efforts against us. Without knowing how these extremist groups accomplish this law enforcement, everyday citizens and politicians will waste time and resources while at the same time drive recruits, funding and attention to these extremist causes.

Limit Access to Potentially Exploitative Materials and Actions

To do this effectively you must train yourself to think like the extremists. A politician, law enforcement official or citizen might take this to mean limit access to guns, extremist publications or mass media access. That would be playing into the hands of these radical elements. By appearing to limit the rights of these extremists you give credence's to their causes. Possibly to such a point as to gain media scrutiny which will in turn help legitimize or popularize the radical cause.

Tactics that observe with limited intrusion or contact work best. Tactics that can be misinterpreted as harassment or some kind of Constitutional infringement will be exploited.

Public statements and documents that target radicalized elements play into their hands. Make sure these public statements, including internal items that could become public, have been crafted by a qualified person who limits elements of the statements or documents that could be hi-jacked. Overly aggressive rhetoric by a politician or law enforcement official is just as useful to the terrorist or extremist as it possibly is to the politician or official.

Heavy handed treatment of radicals will be used as political capital and exploited fully to legitimize the cause and glorify the "struggle." It is important to note that radical elements taken into custody are trained to cause problems and invite aggressive restraint and treatment to exploit. Expect members of these elements to claim abuse and mistreatment. Follow procedures exactly.

Finally, where the DHS estimate on RWE falls short is that it does nothing to clarify the difference between activist and radical. Impassioned activists that invoke the Declaration of Independence and Federalism should not be confused with anti-government groups. Libertarian ideas about limited government can be hi-jacked by extremist elements. This can be confusing to front-line personnel with an incomplete picture of the differences between activist and radical. As well, political opportunists can and do use this confusion for political benefit exacerbating the problem.

When providing intelligence estimates to front-line personnel about Extremists and Terrorists it is advisable to include best-practices in how to deal with these unique national security threats. Even more so when dealing with domestic threats that are politically charged. Failing to do so lets opportunist gain the the upper hand by exploiting our efforts for their political or radical ends.

Benjamin Parrish Cook

Mr. Cook has a Masters degree in International Security and Conflict Studies, is a columnist for his local news paper, is a political consultant and owns a gun store in Pageland, SC.

Idiot Journalist

2009-04-13T20:53:00.002-05:00

"So far, pirates have generally treated hostages well, sometimes roasting goat meat for them and even letting them phone loved ones."
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1235409220090413?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112

"Well"? That is unless you count the actual condition of being a hostage! How is anything about being a hostage good or well?

Idiots Abound

Fail Fail Fail

2009-04-05T22:12:00.001-05:00

Obama is now presiding over the largest job approval gap in American history. Democrats think he is great, Republicans think he is terrible. Or in numeric terms the non partisan Pew Research Center reports 27% of Republicans approve of Obama and the job he is doing and 88% of Democrats give Obama an at-a-boy. Now I normally don't give much weight to any poll. Even if the reporting entity is non partisan. Polls can be made to show anything. But in this case the numbers are so stark it is hard to refute what they are saying. And what they are saying is clear. Obama has united no one but his own party.

Compared to other presidents at the beginning of their terms Obama has divided us the most. More than Bush 41 or Bush 43. More than Clinton and more than Nixon. Now all presidents run on change and at least give lip service to being a uniter. But, Obama made it a trademark of his campaign. Considering this and the poll numbers as they appear, he has failed. His presidency is a failure. What has he done? Moved us closer to full on Socialism. Failed to move on N. Korea's long range missile test, gathered no additional troops to help the cause in Afghanistan from other NATO member nations, indebted our children and our grand children by taking over the banking and automotive industries (among others).

A few of you reading this voted for Obama. It is not to late to fix the problem you caused. You can vote for Conservative candidates and support conservative causes. Or, you can wallow in your bias and feed your flawed narrative to such a point as to not believe the facts and truth when presented clearly. The choice is yours. Here is a prediction if you chose the latter. Eventually, "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it [will be our] right, it [will be our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security."

Obama doesn't want the TARP money back, he wants control...

2009-04-05T16:19:00.000-05:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

"Ick" and other nastys

2009-03-31T16:39:00.002-05:00

A guest column from someone almost as smart as me. My older brother. Mike is a school teacher, a coach and a father of two of the most precious girls.

___________

In the last six months I have heard otherwise reasonable adults argue that no one should make two hundred million dollars a year but then complain they are not given enough opportunity to expand their personal profit margins. I have been asked countless times to explain what a toxic mortgage is to be told the answer just can not be correct. I listen to people complain about two dollar ATM fees and five dollar bank fees who do not realize a third or more of their income goes to taxes. Do you know the capital gains tax rate? Who makes more money on tobacco and gas sales, the government or the private sector? Who owns Exxon, who owns Wall Mart and is there a difference?

In Principles of Business we call it “Ick.” Ick refers to a manifestation of socially evolved correctness. In psychology ick is called cognitive dissonance. It exists regardless of the terminology, and most people don’t like to acknowledge it. For example, how do you save the giant panda? You eat it. When was the last time we had a shortage of chickens, cows or pigs?

Cognition is an idea. Dissonance is a conflict between two ideas. Therefore, cognitive dissonance occurs when the reality of the truth or facts gets in the way of what we want or hope to be true. Humans are the ruling species of the plant. To sacrifice a human for a panda is absurd. All the preservationists and animal rights people can lament the facts, but given the death of a family member or a panda, they should choose the panda. If not, the rest of us are dealing with a person who is rationalizing and showing confirmation bias and plain denial.

We the people, to steal a phrase from one of my favorite bits of writing, hold certain truths about our representative democracy and free market economy cognitions. These lofty ideas recognize that equality exists before the race starts, not in the results. Equal results are equal misery. Need more proof? Ask an athlete or scholar if he would take a tie game or the same grade as the rest of the class before the competition starts.

That warm tingly feeling you have right now is ick. If you can not move past the ick to the reality and truth above, I encourage you to stay away from cults and politics. None the less, our free market economy is under assault. Our global economy discussions without the realization that main street is Wall Street is fraught with peril, and there are perilous days ahead.

Ahead of us lie days filled with ick. I have confidence in the market over government. I have confidence in market corrections, small or drastic, over redistributions small or drastic. I have confidence in the power of income staying home over not being distributed via taxes. I have confidence that capitalism breeds philanthropy and that a rising tide raises all boats. I have confidence that some will achieve excellence and some will not. I have confidence that the struggle of each is equally honorable.

Ahead of me lie days filled with ick. I have ick in the realization that my wife and girls are not football players and that dinner and a bath does not need a practice schedule and a walk through. Also, I now know I will not get a delay of game penalty if bedtime runs past 7:30 p.m. I have confidence that those who make it past the ick are the cornerstone of life, liberty and happiness but may still struggle with dinner, baths and bed times for five and two year olds.

Will the Real Carnegie Please Stand UP!

2009-03-24T15:02:00.000-05:00

Mr. Brack in his last offering (March 24th) titled our Governor the "anti-Dale Carnegie." Not being a student of Mr. Carnegie and only knowing the hall and do-it-yourself audio tapes that bare the same name I had to do a bit of research. Seems Dale changed his name as a marketing ploy fromCarnagey to Carnegie to take advantage of the name recognition he would receive by grouping himself with Andrew Carnegie of which Carnegie hall is named. Andrew Carnegie was an industrialist, a self made businessman. An insanely rich man. Not Oprah money. NO. Bill Gates' kind of money. Mr. Carnegie made the majority of his money in the steel industry. What he is known for is his philanthropy. Rather, not how much money he made, but how much he GAVE away. It is this Carnegie I think our Governor should be compared to.

What? How is this? "Our Governor doesn't want to give away money!" one might say. True. But to be exact. Governor Mark Sanford doesn't want to give away YOUR money for YOU. What is more, as a conservative, he wants you to be able to amass as much wealth as you can with as little government interference as can be limited. That is why our Governor is much like the great Andrew Carnegie. He wants you to have the opportunity to follow Carnegie's Dictum on wealth: A) To spend the first third of one's life getting all the education one can.

B) To spend the next third making all the money one can. C) To spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.

I don't see the part where Carnegie suggests having your wealth arrested from you and given away to whom ever without your input or consent! Or having your business enterprise taxed into forfeiture. An especially cynical liberal might point out that it is corporate greed that has us in this fix. Not true. When companies and men have a personally satisfactory amount of wealth and a reasonable expectation that their ventures are safe, they will free up that wealth for philanthropic reasons. But, when markets are uneasy and capital is tight, expect that philanthropic spending to shrink. Not out of greed, but out of fiscal responsibility to one's own self and business ventures. In other words, if you are the decision maker for a company you have a fiscal responsibility to protect your company's assets first. Not feed the hungry. Or, teach the children. Your first duty is to the company. By being so dogged towards that company you ensure that those in the company's employ have jobs and job security. So that they may feed themselves and provide for their own children.

What a novel concept. Paying one's own way!

Governor Sanford has done us a great service by exposing the sheer lunacy that is the "stimulus" package. Creating money out of thin air or borrowing against our grandchildren is not sound business. And no person today, no matter how unemployed, is entitled to encumber the unborn with massive government debt. Not even the great all knowing all changing all hoping Obama. Mark Sanford knows this. There is no amount of personal suffering today that excuses the excesses we are about to undertake today. No child uneducated enough, no person homeless enough, no medical bill expensive enough to tax your grandchildren into governmental servitude the day they are born!

Sanford is a moral man. He has a set of core principles. Conservative principles. These principles are guiding him while times are tough and "easy fixes" are tempting. It would be great to do the "popular" thing, take the money. Great for the poll numbers AndyBrack points out. But, lucky for us, Sanford has in mind what is great for us long term. Quick fixes that ignore unintended consequences are exactly what have us in the situation now. Washington got us into this problem. Washington's bi-partisan interference in private enterprise. Coaxing companies to lend money to those who could not or would not pay it back. Big government is the problem. Always has been. Always will be. So pardon me if I side with the one public official that has a clear andun-debatable record on trying to shrink government!!!! So, Mr. Brack, will the real Carnegie please stand up?

Benjamin Parrish Cook

Mr. Cook is a self avowed Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer in Pageland, SC. He has a MA in International Security and Conflict Studies. You can read more of his hubris at http://arenablog.blogspot.com

Grand Pa's Smith & Wesson and Other Valuable Tid-Bits.

2009-03-18T21:40:00.000-05:00

While the death of our economy has been greatly exaggerated, to the point of almost becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, there is no doubt that times are tough and investing for the future is scary. Well, let me remind you of what many of you already know. Guns are and always have been a good investment. Granddaddy's Smith and Wesson is no doubt worth triple what he paid for it and in some cases 100 times what he paid for it. Not a bad return. About the only thing selling like crazy these days are guns and SPAM!

Right now guns are scarce. If you happened to purchase a gun last year and wanted to sell it this year you would almost invariably make money on that deal. What else in this climate can claim that? This comes with a caveat. If you are the buyer, unless you REALLY want that firearm, I would suggest only paying blue book or slightly over. The reason being is that prices on some, not all, guns are artificially inflated by the phenomena know as Obama-mania or the Obama-effect. This "mania" is the panic some have shown faced with the fear that the new Administration will make good on their promises and historical precedents to do away with as many guns as they can. My opinion on the "mania" is simple. I don't participate in senseless fear based buying. I didn't do it during the gas shortage, I am not doing it now with Obama-mania.

My guidance for buying now during the "mania" or for an investment is also simple, buy as many QUALITY guns as you can find at a fair price. Two very important caveats there. Quality does not mean buying three inexpensive Hi-Point 9mm pistols at $150 each. Those guns will only go up in value 100 years from now when they reach relic status. Buy a Hi Point if you must for defense, but not as an investment. But a brand new Springfield Armory 1911 orXDM will no doubt increase in value in the near future. (If you have granddaddy's 1911 from the war, come see me. You might be sitting on a small gold mine.) Even the purchase of a Remington 870 pump shotgun will retain enough value after shooting it to make it a great trade in one day.

"Fair price" is very subjective. It is a function of condition and market saturation. If the gun is rare or very sought after and in good condition it will be worth a lot of money. Condition is condition is condition. It is either good, bad or like new. But market saturation is relative. Normally your gun market is the 50 miles around your home, but, with the advent of Gunbroker.com and other websites it is now the entire US. Again... the caveat. Shipping isn't free, you must purchase the gun online via a Federally Licensed Dealer in your state who will charge you to do the transfer, paperwork and background check and the negotiating deals online isn't everyone's forte. So, a $500 dollar shotgun in the hand is still worth two in the bush (Internet). If I can buy the same gun from my neighbor and it costs me $50 more I will do it rather than go through the stress and hassle of online purchasing. That being said, in the gun shop we consult two places when we value your gun. We consult the Blue Book of Gun Values and GunBroker.com. I suggest you do the same to arrive at a "fair price." Also, selling a dealer a gun is like selling a car. I will not give you what it is worth. I will give you less so I can make money selling it for what it is worth. (I can't keep the lights on and Beth's County Kitchen pork chops on my plate any other way.) Private sales always net more. You just have a better chance of selling it to me than to another person.

Most of us still visit a gun store to purchase a gun. Here are a few tid-bits to make your purchasing experience better. Nomenclature: It's a magazine not a "clip". Clips go in your hair. It's Smith and Wesson not Smith and Western. (Seriously, you sound silly... stop it.) It's pronounced St-ah-k (stock) not St-ah-lk (stalk). It's a hollow point, not a hollow tip. There are no Glock 40s. You mean a Glock 23 or 22 that is chambered in .40 caliber S&W.

Behaviour: Never walk into a gun store with your hands in your pockets. Never. Don't ask for a "cash deal" or ask for a "parking lot" price to have the gun off the books. It's offensive and illegal. Most gun stores don't mind if you legally carry a concealed weapon in the store, but do not show it to anyone. If you need to show the gun store employee your personal defense firearm go outside, unload it and return with it empty and the slide or action open. (Pulling a gun on me in my store could get you shot!!!) Best practice for bringing a firearm into a gun store is for it to be in a case. If you don't have a case, ask permission to bring the firearm into the store unloaded.

If you don't know much about guns ask questions. If you do not get good service because you are inexperienced with guns you should be offended. We pride ourselves at CMC on helping first time gun owners safely operate their new firearm. You deserve all the sales person's attention if this is your 1st gun or 50th. MOST IMPORTANT, do not attempt to sale your gun to another customer in the gunshop or in the parking lot. If you buy a gun on the premises of a licensed dealer you are required to fill out an ATF form 4733 and submit to an FBI background check. Other than being completely rude to the gun store owner, that has provided at great expense a place for you to discuss and purchase guns, it is illegal.

Finally, how do you protect your investment? Too many gunshop stories start with "I had a gun like that but it was stolen." If someone broke into your house and stole your gun from anywhere but a gun safe, I am sorry to inform you, but that is partly your fault. It is also your liability. We all know thieves live among us and we all know that failing to make reasonable accommodations for that puts us all in jeopardy. If I break into your house tonight and steal your gun and kill someone with it you could be held liable. Guns often require extra care in the eyes of the law. What may seem reasonable to us might not be enough. Please, protect your guns. Every gun stolen is ammunition for the anti-gun crowd. You make owning a fire arm harder when your guns are stolen. If you have any questions about firearms or firearms ownership just come by and see me at the gun store or visit any other reputable dealer.

Failure

2009-03-02T17:57:00.002-05:00

In earlier postings to you I expressed my best wishes for our current President. That still holds true. But, I must also agree with Rush Limbaugh (Conservative Guru) that I hope the President FAILS in his "stimulus" and "bail out" initiatives. Nothing Obama has shown me so far passes the Economics 101 test. Meaning, even college sophomores capable of being intellectually honest would give Obama an "F" for his plans. Socialist European countries all over are even voting down programs and plans like Obama is touting for being too risky and too Socialist.

The intellectually dishonest fall right into Rush's obvious trap. "How can you hope your president fails? Isn't that un-patriotic?" Not if what is best for the country is the President's failure. The country is bigger than any one man or office. Including the highest office. Our country can't afford to look the other way just so half of us can feel good about voting for our country's first black president. We can't afford to look the other way just because we can't fathom this first black president being an utter failure in his first 6 weeks of office. We can't afford to look the other way because our personal narrative and bias will be crushed if we allow ourselves to even contemplate the consequences of Ben Cook being right (again!)... and you being wrong.

Obama's failures:

Hope

Obama is pushing his "plans" with mushroom cloud politics. When Chenney and Rice sold the Iraq war, they did so with "mushroom cloud" politics. Or, fear. Fear got us to rally behind a war. Rather than explaining that in order for us to get to work on Monday for the next few decades we need to bring order to Iraq, we were told of WMD. Obama, taking a page from Rove, is telling you the economic end is near unless you let him spend TRILLIONS of dollars. Dollars we don't have. If you don't the consequence will be soup lines and boy's homes. Mr. President, where is the "Hope" in that message? Not to beat a dead horse... but if you can't repay the loan... do you deserve it? How is borrowing going to fix the problems created by... wait for it... borrowing!?? Seriously, am I the only one who sees the IDIOCY at work here?

Change

The "Stimulus" bill or "Pork-ulus" bill or "Spend-ulus" bill is laden with special interest spending. Where is the "Change" in that Mr. President? Politics as usual I say. Mr. President, You have had a particularly difficult time finding folks to fill important positions because they can't seem to pay their taxes or other ethics issues. How is that "Change" we can believe in? In fact, Mr. President, you broke your own rules in order to fill at least two positions. (Oh, and I am tired of the school yard logic of "Bush did it first" to explain, or more accurately change the subject, when pressed for an explanation of Obama's current plans and policies.)

The Troops

While campaigning the current president told us he would "bring an end to the war [combat] in Iraq and bring the troops home." Well, if by "troops home" you mean only 2/3rds then yes... troops home. It seems the devil is in the details and if you are part of the 50,000 troops that stay in Iraq... well what a devil that is. Those of us that can muster a little objectivity have been saying for over two years, it doesn't matter who the next president is, there is no way "the troops" will come home before the mission objective is accomplished. (my arm is a bit sore from patting myself on the back for getting this one right)

Socialism

Look it up. That is where we are headed. You can polish this turd all you want Mr. President... but government take over of private institutions and infrastructure is Socialism. The New "New Deal" liberals are talking about for our country and the world is actually the same old deal, a raw deal. More government, more redistribution of wealth, and less of what actually makes this country great. Things like individualism, capitalism and free markets are the enemy in Obama's eyes.

I do hope for the best for my country, and in doing so I have to cheer for the complete and utter failure of President Obama's current plans. I want him to FAIL. For our country's sake, we all need him to fail. If the sound of my wanting our first black president to fail is too much for you, I suggest you reevaluate what is important in your life, being right about your presidential pick, or the economic survival of our country.

Mushroom Cloud Politics... Obama style!

2009-02-16T18:31:00.002-05:00

First... an example of bad journalism:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152009/news/nationalnews/whats_the_rush__155255.htm

There is no such thing as an actual day off for a President. Chicago or Crawford or Oval Office, the Presidency is always with you.

Now, Good Journalism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html
* FEBRUARY 13, 2009, 11:43 P.M. ET

Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'
In 1932, automobile production shriveled by 90%.

By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
[Commentary] AP

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different magnitude...

The rest @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html

Personal Update

2009-02-06T03:23:00.002-05:00

Well as some of you know I own a new business. A few partners and I have opened a Gun Shop. We sell a good many pistols, a few rifles and shotgun, a goodly amount of ammo and shooting and hunting accessories. Business have been VERY good. Lets hope the trend continues.

We got a little boost from the "Obama Effect". The effect Obama had was to have a complete run on any gun that is a usual target of Liberals in the US. But, those guns are usually high ticket items which means in the market we operate in few customers will pony up $900+ dollars for an AR-15 or the like.

Currently we are trying to expand our business online and have seen some initial success. Also, we are in the beginning stages of developing a range. Our hope is to have a first class facility that can host shooting sport tournaments.

Also, I moved to Pageland and intend to make good on my promise to run for Mayor. I am also considering other political moves.

I hope to make some grassroots improvements in the Republican party and develop a better level of sophistication amoung conservatives. My hope is that we rely less on rhetorical platitudes and more on sound political philosophy.

We shall see...

Yes yes yes, I know

2009-01-29T22:53:00.002-05:00

I have been HORRIBLE at updating. There is NO excuse.

So where are we?

Well, we have a socialist as president. He is trying to spend SO much money that it doubles, triples etc, most countries GDP. To bail out poorly run companies. There has to be consequences associated with poor performance.

Add to that the LIBERAL "pork" that is added to the b a i l o u t !!!!! And... you have the least disguised attempt to socialize as much as America as is possible!!!

WTF....

Yeah liberals

Yeah Europe

Yeah so much of the uninformed world...

You sad sons of bitches

NO REALLY I am that pissed at your COMPLETE lack of foresight.

I say "your" because I know that most folks that visit my blog are likely to be liberal.

Sadly, it will only get worse from here.

I HOPE I am wrong... but Obama's first week suggest that I am RIGHT.

Have you NO CLUE where you security (order and predictability) comes from?

The truth hurts...

NO

2008-12-16T16:22:00.001-05:00

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

NO

Had a bad day? Try laughing at others!!

2008-11-26T12:00:00.002-05:00

http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/09/great-olan-mills-photos.html

Thank the Heavens I am shallow enough to find this funny!

Our Job is to Re-Introduce Conservatism

2008-11-07T17:06:00.000-05:00

The best way to build the party at the grassroots level is to rediscover what it is to be a Conservative. Let your conservative principles guide your voting and the rest will take care of itself. Well, almost.

Look at the candidates we send to Washington. Are they conservative? No. George W. Bush is only slightly more conservative than John McCain who is only slightly more conservative than President-Elect Barack Obama. Can we really be surprised at the outcome? Lindsey Graham was not even tested on his conservative principles this election because most of us don't know how to call him out on being a pseudo-socialist himself. Which is what every big-government Republican is.

Many of you might remember my anger at the sad bunch of candidates that spoke to us this past year while running for US Senate. McBride tried to sneak in like Ron Paul. Witherspoon, who I like as a person, was a one trick pony with immigration and couldn't do much more than read off a card when challenged. The other guys never came close.

We must first begin our journey to take back this country by re-defining Republicanism. That definition must mirror almost exactly conservatism. America had a choice this election, it could vote for a very liberal candidate or a moderately liberal candidate. There was no conservative choice.

Conservatism has been weighed down by to many hyphenated words. It has lost its meaning.

Christian – Conservative
Compassionate - Conservative
Social - Conservative
Security - Conservative
Fiscal - Conservative
Neo - Conservative

What about a CONSERVATIVE - Conservative? If you consider yourself any of those on that list you are something less than a Conservative and you my dear friend are what is wrong with the Republican party. Sorry, but the truth stings. That includes you Christian - Conservatives especially.

What is great about Conservatism is that you don't need to hyphenate! Conservatism is accepting of moral religions that teach restrain based values. Which Christianity most certainly is. There is no other ideology more compassionate than conservatism. What could be more empathetic than promoting individual success over subjugation and rentierism? Conservatism is the only socially responsible party that judges its successes not by how many people it helps but by how many people no longer need help. Conservatism understands that security comes first or every other effort is in vain. Conservatism requires fiscal restraint and knows that the only true way to restrain the Leviathan is by a planned and controlled scarcity of funds. In other words, the easier it is for the government to get the money the more it will spend, therefore access and use of the funds must be laborious to the Federal apparatus of governance. This is a heuristic. It is undisputable. Finally, the biggest canard of all that of "Neo" conservative or "New" conservative.

Neo suggests that the old conservatism didn't work. There is only one conservatism and it always works and it is timeless. There is no room for additions or deletions from strong conservative principles. Therefore as conservatives we reject the moniker of "Neo".

What are these principles of conservatism?

Number one we believe in a strong government. But, that government must protect individual freedom and there can be no individual freedom without the protection of individual property. Locke wrote of life, liberty and estate (property). Jefferson changed it in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." To be clear conservatives recognize that there can be no happiness without private ownership and legal protection of property.

Number two we believe in the strict adherence to laws. We are a country of laws. Laws are to be followed or amended. Never bended. This is not to say there is no room for interpretation, but just as God judges those harshest that take on the awesome responsibility of teaching the word of God so too must we judge those that take on the responsibility of adjudication and mediation of our laws. Our judges and lawmakers must show restraint and wisdom.

Number three we believe that the smallest form of government capable of performing a governmental service should do so. This means that the Federal government should rarely get involved in the minutia of our daily lives. Micro managing from Washington is the definition of Socialism and bureaucracy. By tackling issues on the most local level possible we waste less money and redistribute less wealth. And to this end we believe in Federalism. Federalism is not just an idea our founders had in mind at the creation of our Union of sovereign States; it is the only way to guarantee the existence of our Union. It is folly to think that a centralized system of government can control, lend, adjudicate, and mandate, collect, redistribute, enlist, and provide all that is needed to 50 states and 310 million citizens. We must restrict our federal branches of government to only those things listed in our Constitution and recognize that the other rights and powers are given to the State or the Individual. (Yet we send politicians to Washington to grow our federal government and shout to the heavens "...there ought to be a law.")

Number four we believe in individual responsibility. This most important principle of conservatism is the most misunderstood and mistreated. We are willing to forget this tenet easiest when our comfort is pressed or our bias challenged or our morals questioned. Individual responsibility is the belief that we are to provide first for ourselves and our families so that we do not become a burden to society. Also this is the belief we are to be patient and tolerant of those individuals who look and act in ways other than our own. This includes religious, sexual, cultural and other practices we might find strange or different or even vile. (When “Christian - Conservatives” tried to take over the Republican party they did much damage to the reputation of conservatism. Forgetting the other principles of conservatism they lobbied for a federal law on abortion and gay marriage. These are State’s issues and can be voted one way or the other on that level. The Constitution should not be used to promote a political agenda or religious ideology. Remember, no one ideology or party stays in power. And if Conservatives do damage to the Constitution or look hypocritical in the face of these issues then what consequence must we suffer when liberals are at the helm?)

Number five we believe in Smart Power internationally. This is a mixture of soft power (diplomacy) and hard power to promote our international agenda and protect us here at home. There are many liberals that suggest the same. Where the difference lies is in the belief that you must first establish a hard power position for soft power to work. Soft power alone will never accomplish anything in the face of tyranny, despotism and extremism. The worst the world has to offer will not succumb to diplomacy or carrots only. The threat of the stick or the use of the stick will bring them to the negotiating table so diplomats can then have their turn.

Finally and humbly number six we conservatives believe without question in American Exceptionalism. There is no other country like ours. There has never been a country like ours. Our defense of freedom both internationally and individually is not equaled anywhere. We are not perfect and have many faults but we recognize that freedom is the indivisible variable in our every success. So far, other countries have tried to emulate or approximate our systems and achievements with only some success. Some are closer than others and some reject the very notion of us and work to undermine us. Our exceptionalism is never more on display than when we are under pressure and under fire. Conservatives reject the exploitation of our exceptionalism for ends other than the protection of our freedom and the cautious and deliberate expansion of the cause of freedom to which America has no monopoly.

Given the above, where do you see our nation?

What we have is Republican and Democrat alike voting everyday to expand the scope and control of government. Republicans might want tighter controls, and more oversight on spending… but they still want the spending. Republicans might want to see people off welfare, but they concede to liberals that the Federal government should be in the welfare business. Most Republicans are barely recognizable as Republicans, much less as conservatives.

The problem is that we still elect the same people every year. And what is also true, is that the Republican National Committee still promotes the same candidates every year. Was the RNC behind anyone running against Lindsey Graham? Why because he was an incumbent? That is the worst of all excuses. The devil you know is the choice of the weak and lazy. Were they working hard to find an alternative to John Spratt? The RNC is run by Big Government Republicans. These Big Government Republicans are the mark we need to be aiming for. With a few exceptions like Jim DeMint, the motto should be “if you were in in 2008 you are out in 2010.” It is time for a “throw the bums out” strategy that puts real conservatism in office to combat liberalism/socialism run wild.

That strategy must consist of an education plan that reminds and informs America what a conservative is. John McCain does damage to the cause when he calls himself a conservative. He is not. He is a good man, possibly even a moral man, but he is not a conservative. We must take these six principles of conservatism and debate them refine them and communicate them to those who have ears to hear. You ask for grassroots? This education must be grassroots.

As important, Republicans in office like Jim DeMint and a few others that actually vote in a conservative fashion must be rallied behind. Because the minute we see an ounce of success the liberal machine will go to its old play book and brand us as heartless old white guys that want kill senior citizens, starve school children and engage in international adventurism. We must have our responses at the ready to help those brave conservatives already in the fight.

What we do now is what will make the difference in 2010. What we do now is what will protect the 2nd Amendment, stave off socialism and protect us from our enemies.

Worth Reading

2008-11-05T15:05:00.000-05:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Your Duty

2008-11-03T13:28:00.000-05:00

Well, by the time you are reading this you have made up your mind on who to vote for for President. Also, by the end of the day you will see that… what… wait a minute, John Spratt is running again. John Spratt was expecting such an assault on his re-election he opened his Campaign Headquarters on September, 6th 2008. That’s right, less than two months before the actual vote. Seems that Dr. Albert Spencer is not quite doing the trick as the Republican alternative. Why? I don’t think I can blame Dr. Spencer. I blame me. And you!

Apparently we are so happy with our government that we don’t need a change. Apparently we think Spratt’s 26 year career as a politician is good for the country and good for SC. Apparently we don’t want change and America is just fine.

But, that is not what we have been told. We have been told that America is on the brink. That the world hates us. That “the economy” is folding and the sky is falling. If you believe all of this (true or not) you have been told to vote for “change”. Well why, pray tell, do we continue to vote incumbents into office over and over and over and OVER?

John Spratt will win quite handily today. And if you are someone who is voting the “change” ticket, why did you vote for the same guy this year? If you are a Republican and voted for Spratt…ha! Never tell me. Never. Because I will not be able to hold my tongue. A Republican that votes for Spratt is quite seriously the worst kind of a Republican and in no way is a Conservative. This means, as a Republican, you actually have ZERO grasp of the issues. You want less government, yet vote for more. You want lower taxes, yet vote for more. You want more individual freedom, yet vote for less. You want Constitutional protections, yet vote for liberal judges. NO, don’t ever tell me that you voted for Spratt if you are a Republican!

I said all of the above to say this, elections are less about being informed and more about shouting matches. Elections are about candidates finding your biases and playing to these biases. Not about points of contention or contrary ideas. Elections are about motivating the mindless masses of each party to show up and vote and publicizing “wedge issues” to get the on the fence votes down on your side.

Sadly this is not what makes a State. This is not what makes a Republic. This is what makes an Oligarchy, where political power rests with an ELITE few. Thomas Jefferson told us what makes a State in a letter to John Taylor in May of 1816. He quotes Sir William Jones:

What constitutes a State?
Not high-raised battlements, or labor’d mound,
Thick wall, or moated gate;
Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crown’d;

Men, who their duties know;
But know their rights’ and knowing, dare maintain.
These constitute a State.

Does Jefferson via Jones speak of you? Do you dare maintain your rights in the face of the Oligarchy? Or do you freely give them to the Leviathan to spread to whom it sees fit? Do you know your duty? Your duty that I have spoken of time and again to be informed? Or are you mesmerized by the rhetoric and swayed by the crowd unable to make your own decision. Can you summarize your candidate’s positions? “Change” is not a position. Being black is not a position. Being a war hero is not a position. Being a Republican is not a position.

Have you freely given up your rights and shirk your duty?

Yo Soy Comunista - the United Socialist States of America

2008-10-16T15:13:00.000-05:00

Comrades,

We here in Russia, Venezuela and Cuba welcome you to our Socialist club. With the passing of the “bail out” plan and the possible election of Obama America will be the newest member of far-left Socialist network of nations.

Soon America can look forward to complete redistribution of wealth. As our savior Karl Marx put it, FROM each according to their means, TO each according to their need. Soon, America will remove any incentive to strive and risk for a better life. Mother Government will provide all that a person needs. Those that try to work outside the system will be punished. Obama has already begun this system of punishment with his healthcare proposal that penalizes those that choose not to carry insurance or submit to the government plan. These people must be brought in line for the good of everyone.

Comrades, it is not the individual that counts not the protection of his or her property but it is the only the common good. Old ways of thinking that suggest the best way to provide for the common good is by protecting the individual and his property are over. The founding fathers of your country were wrong. Protecting the individual and his or her property only leads to corruption and greed. Those that hoard wealth are to be shunned and their property redistributed for the good of the people.

We urge all of our Comrades in the USSA (United Socialist States of America) to vote for Obama. Soon, you will no longer be burdened with the process of voting. The natural progression of Socialism is more government control. Your tacit approval now to Socialist agendas will be taken to mean permanent and total approval of complete government intrusion into your lives. In other words, the removal of the republic and your democracy.

In the future we hope to see government control of your energy infrastructure, housing, employment, education, and of course healthcare. The American Utopia is just around the corner. With the election of Obama you are on the path to true equality. Now, you are no longer merely born equal, but are mandated by government to remain equal.

Workers and Peasantry unite!!! Vote Obama for United Socialist States of America First Secretary!!!

Yo Soy Comunista!

Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Dmitry Medvedev (Vladimir Putin)

Socialism vs. Diet-Socialism

2008-10-01T16:10:00.000-05:00

With Central High School’s victories over Cheraw and Chesterfield balance has been restored to the way-of-things. Shortly after universal harmony was restored by Central regaining its place atop our county rivals a ripple was sent to Washington (obviously started by the Central High School VICTORY). Congressmen with constitution enough to stand up to the old establishment struck down the bi-partisan effort to once and for all time establish Socialism as our countries inevitable future. I am speaking of… the Bailout! Jim DeMint and a few others saw the economic bailout, supported by both Presidential candidates and the current Republican President, as a horrible idea and tantamount to trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.

The cure for our economic woes will not come from more government interference in business, but less. There is NO historical precedent that suggests that more and larger government will fix any problem long term. NONE! Please show me the example where larger government and more interference resulted in a positive for the long term! Certainly not the “New Deal”. Look at entitlement programs now and the state of Social Security. Certainly not No Child Left Behind. Our schools still suffer. Our teachers hate the added bureaucracy that keeps them from actual teaching. What about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that fixed yesterday’s “ENRON” problem but not today’s. It was just another hurdle that slick lawyers and accountants can easily by-pass. A substitution for market forces, the only forces that can actually correct economic ills. (Trick is, they work at there own pace.)

Laws are a necessary but insufficient part of our life. Necessary as a set of base standards of conduct and insufficient in that they are no more useful than the folks that enforce the law, administrate the law, and write the law. All prone to human frailty and failings. “There ought to be a law” is the vilest phrase ever uttered with the possible exception of “we are from the government and we are here to help!”

The greatness of our country does not lie in the fact that we are largest or the best, but rather in that we are the least. We have traditionally had the least government interference in our daily lives than other places on this big blue marble. And, when government interference was necessary it was proscribed in such a way that understood that the natural inertia of government was to grow beyond its usefulness into something counter productive. The “economic bailout” package was the I-Ching of counter productive-ness. It was the poster-child for big-government inertia gone wild. In its inertia it swept up democrat and republican alike. Few could break its hold. Few could understand that a little suffering now will help us down the road. What is best for me and you today might not be what is best for us tomorrow or our children’s tomorrows.

As our personal economic situations cause us pain this electoral season please remember who put us in this situation. I don’t mean, Obama or McCain. I don’t mean Democrat or Republican. I mean politicians. I mean all those elected to office that contribute to uncontrolled growth of our Federal Government. Politicians of all strips are to blame. And, those in power longest are more to blame. That means McCain has more to answer for than Obama. That means Graham has more to answer for than DeMint. That means Spratt should be kicked out of office as soon as is humanly possible.

WE are the only chance we have to fix our country. A Socialist President (Obama) and a Diet-Socialist President (McCain) can not be allowed to facilitate continued unchecked expansion of our federal system of government. No matter who gets in you had better be writing your President, Congressman and local paper demanding less government interference. Or, it will be more of the same. More Nanny-State, more Big-Brother, more Big-Government that you and I have to pay for.

Palin vs. Obama

2008-09-11T12:54:00.000-05:00

Palin vs. Obama

Sarah Palin has been a sports reporter, worked in commercial fishing, and was the Commissioner/Ethics Supervisor for the Alaskan Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a city council woman, a mayor, a Lieutenant Governor and is currently the Governor of Alaska.

Barack Obama was a community organizer, civil rights attorney, taught law and an Illinois state representative and is currently a US Senator.

Executive Experience

Sarah Palin has worked in an executive capacity as the Commissioner of the Alaskan Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a mayor, a Lieutenant Governor and currently as the Governor of Alaska.

Barack Obama has NO executive experience.

Time in Government

Palin has been in government since 1996. Hardly a career politician, more than Obama but less than Joe Biden the Democrat nominee for Vice-President who has been a politician since 1970 having only had one other job as an attorney for two years. She has been Governor of Alaska two years in December.

Barack Obama starting in 1997 was an Illinois state senator. In 2004 he became a US Senator. He will have two years in office as a Senator in November.

You may be asking why I am not contrasting and comparing John McCain to Barack Obama. Simple, there is no comparison. Everyone is well aware of McCain’s qualifications for President. No, he does not have as much executive experience as we would like, but he does have more than Obama and Biden combined. Which is to say that Obama and Biden have ZERO executive experience.

Obama owes his entire success to his inspirational speeches and flawless delivery. But, now that we are into the “meat” of the campaign and we have some off tele-prompter moments to judge him by we see that his oratory abilities have been over stated. His lack of policy that he got away with in the primary is now hurting him as well as the general flawed nature of any liberal platform compared to a Conservative platform.

There is also no comparing Biden to Palin. Biden is a career politician who has not worked a “real job” in 30 years! 30 years in the Senate makes you no longer a man-of-the-people. It makes you the stereo-typical congressman who has lost touch with what it is like to live in the real world. You want change? Sarah Palin is real change with a real record of rooting out corruption and waste in government. Including her own party. Gov. Sarah Palin has looked at the Republican party and found it lacking. What is more, she has taken solid action to correct it.

Palin is a God-Send for the conservative movement, the Republican party and the United States of America. She offers more than any candidate in the past 40 years has offered… Democrat or Republican. You may want to justify your vote for Obama via the limp and sad vehicle that is “Change and Hope” but you will eventually have to own up to the substance of that vote. Obama is not the “Change” candidate. He is a well spoken candidate that offers far less than his history suggests he can provide. Vote the resume. Vote history. Vote an informed choice. Vote McCain-Palin.

Update: On Wednesday night I submitted the above article about Palin vs. McCain to the powers-that-be at the Progressive Journal, at 11:43 pm Wednesday night I see this “diddy” online from the head of the Democrat party in SC:

Carol Fowler (Dem party chairwoman) releases a statement of apology: "I personally admire and respect the difficult choices that women make everyday, and I apologize to anyone who finds my comment offensive. I clumsily was making a point about people in South Carolina who may vote based on a single issue. Whether it’s the environment, the economy, the war or a woman’s right to choose, there are people who will cast their vote based on a single issue. That was the only point I was attempting to make."

What Fowler is apologizing for is a statement that Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

This is a defining statement for the Democrat party. It at once shows their panic and contempt towards a successful woman that is not Madonna or Oprah and their elitism towards the people of South Carolina who apparently are generally beyond making an informed decision and must cling to a single issue. Or in other words a continuation of Barack Obama’s telling moment that we folks that “cling” to guns and God are merely “bitter” intolerant bumpkins incapable of sophistication.

Should someone tell the liberals that we cling to guns to fulfill our duty and responsibility to provide our own individual protection from all assailants including and occasionally our own government, and that we cling to God for the day that the guns fail us..?

Old Enemies Are The Best Enemies

2008-08-29T11:49:00.001-05:00

I thought Russia was a toothless tiger? Well, it was until the developing world dumped all of its cash in Russia for oil and gas. Now Russia is growing its weak military and expanding its influence as far as it can.

Russian giant Gazprom is the largest extractor of natural gas in the world and is second only to Saudi Arabia in oil reserves. Russia, in an effort to gain tight control over the energy business, seized Gazprom with a token and undervalued purchase of shares in 2005. Now it appears that the company is open to all investors and is technically no longer “owned” by the Russian Government. But is the damage already done?

Oil and gas tax revenues account for a large percentage of Russia’s “working capital”. So would that make Russia a one trick pony? Yes, but with $31 Billion in Gazprom sales and 16% of all the worlds natural gas production… that is one hell of a trick! All of this spells out that Russia has the money to expand its influence. It is expanding that influence in Georgia right now. Russia is frightened that the US and the NATO are gaining many foot holds in former Soviet republics. And, we are. Poland, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine have all been romanced by NATO and the US. If the Russians were to enter Poland we would be obligated to send troops and force them out.

Is this a return to the Cold War? No, maybe the “Chilly Conflict” but not a “Cold War.” The US has just retained permission from Poland to park defensive missile batteries in Russia’s back yard. The Czech Republic and the Ukraine are considering and have considered similar deals. This makes Russia nervous and in their eyes this recalculates the formula for MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. Thus their entry into Georgia to do a little flexing and saber rattling.

What? I thought we didn’t have to worry about nuclear war any more?

When did we stop? As long as one country possesses a nuclear device we will have to worry about it being used. This is why we have parked defensive measures in Eastern Europe, to defend ourselves against the threat that most of us have forgotten about. A very real threat that has never gone away. In fact, even though the US and Russia have enjoyed a de-escalation over the past 20ish years the world has seen an escalation in or proliferation in the number of countries that have nuke capabilities.

When Russian and the former republics were dirt poor in the 90s trading in nuclear secrets was all the rage and a good way to earn some money. Information and material was traded all over the world. Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and many more have enjoyed the fire-sale discount of nuclear know-how thanks to Russia’s lean years. As previously stated those “lean” years are a memory and Russia enjoys top billing as an energy giant.

So what next? Will Russia go too far? History says yes. Russia will over extend itself adventuring into former republics. It will re-take its role as the traditional bad-guy that the US has had to play for the past 10 years and it will over state its potential and underestimate its rivals. I see only one change -bigger pocket books to dwindle.

So dust off that copy of “Red Dawn” or “The Hunt for Red October”. Our favorite villain is back with deep pockets and wayward ambitions!

Thou Shalt Not Question "The Ben".

2008-08-18T13:10:00.001-05:00

Since I have been writing this column for the Progressive Journal I have received a great deal of feedback and pleasant criticism. No matter who I encounter when it comes to this column folks all have one critique in common, “Do you think anyone in Pageland knows what you are talking about” or “Don’t you think you are talking over the heads of most people in Pageland?” Even if these observations are true, that is not the point.

Because I have been given this wonderful soapbox on which to bloviate I want to raise the level of debate by informing my readers of their obligation to be informed and when informed, engaged. This above all is my goal. There is no way for me to accomplish this goal if I speak from a least common denominator position. Or, in words and concepts that all of us can easily understand. If I “dumb-down” my opinions to make them more accessible I do damage to the truths I wish to ruminate on. Many of the issues of our day are NOT accessible. Rather these issues are complicated and require more than basic understanding. Such is our world and it appears that it will only become more complex as time passes.

If I were to take on the lie perpetuated by the Right-Wing political hit-squads that Barrack Obama is a Muslim, I would have to give you not just his correct history but also a brief history of Islam. I would have to touch on issues of religion, conflict and how there is a long history of the fear of different religions being used to control the masses. I could do this in simple language and remove any information that might be difficult to understand or believe, but I would then be playing fast-and-loose with the truth and using fear and emotion to convince you rather than facts. I would rather have you read the correct and often lengthy truth rather than read a summarized version that appeals to the masses because it reads easy and only touches our baser instincts.

I think the people of Pageland are a very smart and savvy bunch and I think they should expect more from their information sources, politicians and each other. Yes, there are those folks that think that Russia just invaded the Georgia to our Southwest. And that the South Ossetians must be a misprint for South Atlantians. But, those folks do not dominate our community. Perhaps one day my column might even inspire someone to pick up an atlas or Google a term I have used. Perhaps one day at Beth’s Country Kitchen or Plyler’s Bar and Grill I will be asked if I think the use of measured force in Iraq and the largest diplomatic effort since the Marshall Plan constitute Smart-Power, and if so, does that then disprove the idea that both Hard and Soft Power are needed to be most effective in International Relations. Perhaps.

Until that day I will continue to give it to you “between the eyes” rather than sugar coated. I will use colloquialisms and foreign concepts that many will have to look up online or in a dictionary. I use these in the hopes that am coaxing you into being better informed and in turn more engaged. Less American Idol and more Politico.com. Less Evening News and more of your own original research. Less reacting to what your politicians are doing to you, and more influencing your own life.

Take a look!

2008-08-06T21:55:00.001-05:00

http://www.beargrylls.com/

Bad Ass!

Sorry

2008-08-06T21:35:00.001-05:00

I apologize to my regular readers for going so long without a post. As many of you know I have opened a gun store and that has made me very busy! So to make up for it I have posted three updates!!!

Thall Shall Not Question "The One"

2008-08-06T21:30:00.000-05:00

The Presidential race is now in high gear. Vice Presidential announcements are just days away. The conventions are around the corner and each candidates spin machines are running strong. Right now we are only allowed to see scheduled very rehearsed moments. Last week, Obama encountered an unrehearsed moment. How did he do? He failed.

Obama was confronted by a Las Vegas TV man about his flip flop on energy policy. Jon Ralston: "You were against drilling and tapping the petroleum reserve, but you've reversed on that. Now you're for both. You want to compromise on energy. So you don't really favor drilling, but for political reasons you're going to change your position. This is change that we can believe in, Senator?" Never mind that Obama’s current stance on drilling (the stance McCain has always had) is the only sane stance, on to his answer when cornered!

Obama responded, “What I said is that we can't drill our way out of the problem, and that's what I've said from the start. Uh, what I've also said is that we've got to focus on alternative energy. What I've also said, uh, is that there's room for domestic production in the overall energy mix. I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. That's not being political. That's common sense, Jon, to give relief to the American people, but more importantly to set ourselves on a path of energy efficiency over the long term.”

So why Senator where you ever against more drilling? What has changed in the past few weeks? Are you only now aware of the energy situation in this country? Or have your political advisors warned you that continuing the Liberal Democrat party line on drilling will do damage to your campaign?

It goes on, Jon Ralston: "Well, there's a story out today about how you [Obama] supported the Dick Cheney bill, the energy bill 2005." [Interestingly Obama voted for the 2005 bill and McCain did not!] "That bill gave subsidies to the oil and gas companies. McCain opposed it, saying that those are tax breaks for the oil companies, but Barack Obama favored it."

OBAMA: “Hold on a second. Uh, eh, er, you know, Jon, I, uh, er -- I -- I thought I was, de -- uh -- taking to you as opposed to debating John McCain but I'm happy to let you, uh, serve as his proxy. Uh, the, eh, uhh, we -- The fact of the matter is that I supported that energy bill, uh, saying at the time that those tax breaks were wrong, but also recognizing that this was the largest investment in alternative energy in history and that it was important for us for the solar industry, uh, to get off the ground in places like Nevada, for wind to get kicked off the ground, that that was something that we had to do.”

Actually, I applaud Obama for supporting this bill for the exact reason he did. Solar does need more funding. But the story here is his treatment of the reporter that DARED ask a difficult and necessary question. How dare this person question “The One” aka Obama. When put in a corner Obama accuses Jon Ralston of being a McCain operative.

What!!!!

This is laughable. 99% of all media is completely in the tank for Obama. It is obvious. And the one guy out of hundreds that have recently interviewed “The One” and dared confront him is accused of being a McCain “proxy”. Too funny! So Obama gets a taste of his own medicine and how does he react? As expected he makes a rookie mistake and in the process reveals himself to be immature and unready to lead.

This political season promises to be a lively one. Look for the media to circle the wagons around Obama in the face of any criticism. Look for Obama’s camp to accuse anyone who dares question “The One” of being a McCain supporter, ignorant or worse a racist.

Wake the kids and call the neighbors!!! It’s politics time in America again!!!

Nice Try John Spratt

2008-08-06T21:28:00.001-05:00

I recently received a mailer for Representative John Spratt, our democratic congressman from 5^th district (14 counties in all). At first glance you would think that John Spratt and I don’t differ too much on the issues. It even took a “trained” political contrarian like me a second reading to catch that Rep. Spratt was not like me at all; rather the mailer was just a “least common denominator” representation of his views. Or in other words, John Spratt paid someone good money to create a mailer that watered down his actual stances and voting record to a point to where it would appear to be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives.

Nice Try.

It starts with an innocuous introduction about his offices and background. He says that he is “accessible” or at least his offices are in Rock Hill, Sumter and Darlington and that his staff has helped “hundreds of folks” receive a “fair shake out of the federal government”. The reverse of the letter states his “positions on a few key issues.” These issues are listed within quotations so these are the words of Rep. John Spratt from the 5^th Congressional District, a Democrat, a Liberal. He says he is for more drilling if it lowers gas prices; in fact he is “for anything responsible that will bring down prices.” Fair enough, strange to hear that talk coming from the side of the aisle that has made access to oil so expensive. Everyone knows that Democrats are the party of the environmentalists. Perhaps Mr. Spratt should ponder the responsibility of ZERO new atomic energy facilities in the US in 40 years more than half of that time Spratt has been in office (25 years). Perhaps Spratt should ponder the responsibility of us sending $700,000,000,000 (700 Billion) over seas for our energy needs when a large chunk of that could stay home or at least in North America.

Spratt confuses the issue by going on about how many permits and acres the oil companies already have to drill on, suggesting that other places like the Gulf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) shouldn’t be explored or drilled. The number of permits and acreage available is immaterial Rep. Spratt if your investment-to-return ratios are better elsewhere. If I could drill in Mudville and get 10 Barrels a day but drill in Ruby and get 25 barrels a day for the same investment, where would I drill first? Or if I only have money to plant one field with melons and one of my two fields cost twice as much to prepare and to harvest which field do I choose? These are the dilemmas facing the oil producers. Spratt tows the party line using the silly talking points issued to him by Democrats much more powerful than he and tries to turn it in to something palatable for all of us.

On Iraq he says he has “traveled to Iraq four times” suggesting the trip makes him more expert. Hardly. It would be what he did with his time there that made him more expert. I have traveled to Phoenix more than four times to change flights, but have never stayed, am I now an expert on Phoenix? Mr. Spratt, tell us more about your conversations with the troops on the ground. What are you hearing from the Generals and Colonels? The problem is, the Democrat Representative from the 5^th District can’t do that. Because to do that would betray his party. A party that has invested in defeat. A party that has made the mission in Iraq harder and more dangerous by giving indirect aid and direct comfort to our enemies. If he discussed what he has seen and what he is hearing from those who know and are expert on Iraq and are in a position of power in the country of Iraq he would have to confess that his party’s positions on Iraq and his own behavior/vote/positions, either by act or omission are and have been less than helpful and often close to Treason. John Spratt will find NO QUARTER with me on this issue. His positions and his party are irresponsible. They have taken up with the blame-America-first and the anti-war crowd rather than do what nations do in a time of war, you pull together. As a son of the South Spratt was no-doubt raised better. He his partially protected in Washington because his party keeps him from the microphones and cameras on these tough issues? As well the media is either so inept that they don’t know to ask the tough question or so biased as to keep tough questions about the war for Republicans only. Shame on you Rep. Spratt.

On Health Care he starts with a dangerous premise that “…every American [has] affordable medical care.” Can you point to that in the Constitution Mr. Spratt? Does that fall under “necessary and proper” or interstate commerce? The Federal Government has no charter to provide health-care nor monkey with its affordability. It certainly doesn’t have the right to tell States that they MUST pay for 20% of a Federal program!!!

On the Budget Rep. John Spratt goes on about his work balancing the budget in the 90’s, before the dot-com bubble burst, before 9/11, before Katrina, before the war on Terror and the War for Energy Security (Iraq). Well, whoop-tee-doo! If I was Bill Gates I bet I could balance my check book with a bit more ease and security. But, I am not, so it is often difficult for me when times get tough. The heady days of the 90’s are gone and we are paying the price for it now. I no more expected John Spratt to be clairvoyant enough to predict our situation today than I expected George W. Bush. But now that the causes of our economic situation are clear, I at least expect honesty. Seems I get none from Democrat Representative John Spratt from the 5^th Congressional District. Honesty would admit that the globalized nature of our economy has given us our current situation and a temporary negative budget might be a necessity for the short term. A balanced budget should be the norm of course and we have gone too long in the “Red”, but let’s be clear headed about the situation.

How could a Democrat be a Democrat without talking about education? As with health-care, please point to the passage in the US Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right or obligation to deal in education and to dictate to States how we should educate our children? Increasing Federal spending on education has never worked. Yet we keep spending. Spratt’s mailer is even targeted towards me, it suggests a decrease in loan repayment interest rates and more money for need based grants and loans that I have taken advantage of in the past for college. Why don’t we let states handle the education, we can still have Pell Grants and Student Loans but lets do it on a State by State and community by community basis. In Ireland part of your local taxes goes to paying for local kids to go to college. The benefit for this kind of taxing and spending is obvious. Who knows best how much to tax and where to spend your money, John Spratt, a man who you can’t even pick up the phone and contact, or someone in your community? Federal interference in education has been a complete failure. Shame on John Spratt and all that support it.

Finally, Spratt has two sentences on taxes. In these two short sentences he manages to clandestinely promote his party line that the “rich” should be taxed more and are not paying their fair share. Well Sir, lets do some research.

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid (2006)

(Folks that make over: ) (Percentage of total taxes paid to the Feds)

Top 1% $388,806 39.89

Top 5% $153,542 60.14

Top 10% $108,904 70.79

Top 25% $64,702 86.27

Top 50% $31,987 97.01

Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99

Source: Internal Revenue Service (via www.ntu.org)

This means that those that make over $100,000 dollars are paying over 70% of the taxes. Those that make over $31,000 are paying 97 percent of the taxes. 97%!!!!!!!

Let me translate a bit more. 40% of the taxes are paid by the so called “rich”. 20% of the taxes are paid by the “well off”. 10% of the taxes are paid by the “upper middle class”. 25% of the taxes are paid by the “middle class”. Less than 5% of taxes are paid by the people who use the programs the taxes pay for. If you think all your money is going to Iraq, you are VERY WRONG. The majority goes into Federal Funded Entitlement Programs!!!

How about a mailer that shows these numbers Representative John Spratt from South Carolina’s 5^th Congressional District?

Remember Terrrorism?

2008-08-06T21:25:00.000-05:00

To most of us Terrorism is 9/11, or roadside bombs in Iraq, or Palestinian Suicide Bombers. How many of us are directly affected by a terrorist attack? How many of us have ever been the immediate target of primary target? How many of us even know what the difference is between “ordinary” political violence and terrorism?

Terrorism, the term, has only been meaningful to most Americans post-9/11 and since that time so few of us have advanced our understanding of what “terrorism” is and how to prevent and defend against it. This includes elected officials and those on the supposed front lines.

Terrorism 101, Violence as Theatre

The passengers of the planes and victims in the buildings on September 11th were the “immediate victims” of the terrorists but were not the “primary victims/targets”. The primary target and aspired-to victim was you and I. The spectacular attacks were merely theatrics designed to facilitate the real damage, the terrorizing of millions. The act of blowing up planes and buildings without any media coverage would only result in a few 100,000 people being actually affected. But, when broadcasted world wide it then can affect billions of people. If no one goes to see the movie or play can it have much effect? If you never heard of it do you even know that you are missing it? The same for terrorism, it is only effective if it is known.

Because of this fact the Media, some times wittingly sometimes not, plays a necessary role in terrorism. And, the more free and democratic a society, with little to no government controls on media, the larger the potential for effective terrorist attacks.

Terrorism 101, Three Ways Terrorists Win: Over React, Under React and Under Estimate

Terrorism works when the primary victim, say… America, over reacts to an attack by either retaliating against too broad a target or retaliating against the wrong target. This over reaction then lands right into the Propaganda wheel-house of a proficient terrorist organization. The improper actions are turned into recruiting material and new generations of terrorists are more easily spawned. (Important to remember that terrorists “spawn” without us contributing to their propaganda, over reactions act as an accelerant, not a necessary catalyst.)

Terrorism works when the primary victim, say… America, under reacts to an attack by retaliating too late, against the wrong target, or not at all. Bill Clinton pulled our troops out of Mogadishu after the “Black Hawk Down” incident. Ronald Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon after two bombings. Both of these under reactions to terrorism emboldened our terrorist enemies, giving them confidence to strike us. Osama Bin Laden in his “Declaration of War” (on America and the West) speech invoked both Beirut, Lebanon and Mogadishu,Somalia as signs of American weakness:

“We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving
mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all.
Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut
took place on 1983 CE (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered
pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed.
And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made
you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where after
vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold
war leadership of the new world order you moved tens of
thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands
American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your
solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was
dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.
Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and
promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for
withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew;
the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It
was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the
"chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic
cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu”

Terrorism works when the primary victim, say…America, under estimates terrorist capabilities, psychological and personal make up and motivations. Many of us think of terrorists as insane or cowards. Both of these characterizations are normal reactions to being terrorized; call it the “who could do such a thing syndrome”. Many of us think of terrorists as Muslim or Arab or “brown” people. I am fairly certain that Timothy McVeigh was neither Muslim, nor Arab nor brown. Terrorism is not a mental abnormality nor is it a tool of cowards. It is important to note that by most definitions of terrorism that Francis Marion would have been a top rate terrorist from the viewpoint of his enemies.

Many of us consider terrorists capabilities to be limited to large sensational attacks in locations like New York or L.A. We only think of the large attack rather than the small systematic one. By minimizing what we assume a terrorist capability to be and by misjudging capacity and mischaracterizing terrorists we under estimate who can be a terrorist, a terrorist’s means and where they might attack.

Terrorism 101, In your back yard.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed were arrested in Goose Creek, South Carolina on explosives charges last year, the two University of South Florida students were supposedly on their way to Myrtle Beach with a box of 22 rifle ammunition, a 5 gallon can of gasoline, homemade “fireworks” packed into a pipe and 25 feet of safety fuse. After further investigation a video was found on a laptop in the car that showed how to turn a toy remote control car in to a detonator. The narrative of the video suggests it is directed to suicide bombers and had been previously posted on YouTube.

In Fort Bragg, NC Ali Mahamed worked for the US Special Forces (Green Berets) and from time to time with the CIA. Mahamed was also working for Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda. Mahamed infiltrated and spied on the United States for years before being caught. One FBI agent suggested that Mahamed has actually taught both Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden in terrorist tactics.

Terrorism 101, Our Apathy and Misunderstanding Fuel Terrorism

Terrorism requires our reaction to the primary terrorist incident. For our purposes the terrorist “tree” in the woods does NOT make a sound if we are not there to hear it. You may still have political violence but it is our reaction to it that makes it terrorism. When we react to terrorism with Apathy and Misunderstanding we make the effects of terrorism worse. By not understanding the grievances of terrorists and not seeking out its roots and causes we doom ourselves to more terrorist attacks in number and greater attacks in affect. When we don’t concern ourselves with what our politicians are doing to detect, deter, and defend us from terrorism we doom ourselves to over reactions, under reactions and “mis-underestimations”. When we don’t understand the nuances of terrorism we allow our media outlets to sensationalize terrorism and there-by act as a terrorist force-multiplier worsening the effects and hampering the detection, deterrence and defense.

I hope this handy terrorism synopsis is useful. If you think you are many times removed from the front lines of terrorism you would be wrong. Your proximity to the ballot box puts you smack-dab on the front line with major responsibilities for our nation now and in the future. An ignorant vote is as bad as no vote, maybe worse. Accept your responsibility and inform yourself about these issues and vote accordingly.

Benjamin Cook
Right-Wing Propagandist and Local Arms Dealer

Financial Times Journalist v. Me (or someone who has actually been to Ireland!)

2008-06-23T18:15:00.003-05:00

For two weeks in a row a gentleman at the Financial Times has been, in my biased estimation, too rough on Ireland. I think he thinks a bit too much of the EU's role in the "Irish Miracle" (a term I hate). Here is my response.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8dc810e6-3ada-11dd-b1a1-0000779fd2ac.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2856b69a-40bb-11dd-bd48-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Mr. Wolfgang Munchau of the Financial Times writes this week that the Irish are in danger of ruining their economic “miracle” based on the recent “NO” vote on the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Well Mr. Munchau, I think you discount the Irish and misunderstand the definition of “miracle”.

Wolfgang Munchau suggests in two recent articles that the Lisbon Treaty is destined to be ratified with or without the Irish, fair enough, but I don’t see how if the convoluted rules of the European Union state otherwise. Sure, as Munchau pointed out, The Republic of Ireland could be kicked out in some back room slick deal by an “unpredictable court,” but how is that good for the EU? What precedent and unintended consequences does that course of action suggest?

As an American who has lived in Ireland I am torn as to the best course for Ireland, I suppose on the one hand the “No” vote has signaled to the EU that it is a loose affiliation of States that has real limits on its ability to encroach on the sovereignty of a member. As well, the “No” vote signaled that the Treaty, even with the concessions to Ireland, was still stained with the lingering stench of Corporate Tax Harmonization… a nasty little phrase that means that France and Germany are tired of watching Free Market Capitalism work for such a small “insignificant” country (or the basic idea/rule/heuristic that lower taxes stimulate economic growth, and an educated labor pool keeps costs low by providing levels of efficiency and productivity). Ireland has had its moment in the sun and now must be taxed into submission like the rest of Europe!

On the other hand the “Yes” vote steers the EU towards a more realistic and streamlined decision making process. Basically, the “Yes” is what is best for the EU and the “No” is what is best for Ireland. And, so far as Ireland is part of the EU what is good for the EU is good for Ireland… right? Maybe not. A utilitarian calculus might suggest that a weaker EU provides more room for aggressive, capitalist, economically principled economies to flourish and not be so easily raided from time to time to pay for broad-based least-common-denominator agendas from Brussels.

Yes the rest of Europe just can’t figure out why this small area historically rife with “troubles” has jumped so far ahead of so many other countries. Pundits and some in Europe, confused as to how this could happen, apparently suggest it was the hand of God or a “miracle” -because basic principles of economics certainly can’t be the reason.

Munchau in an attempt to understand the Irish Miracle has suggested that it is a matter of Corporatism, a Socialist pseudo-egalitarian concept that might be instructive in a classroom setting but looses its meaning when placed into a real world situation. The myriad of interests supposedly represented in a modern so-called Corporatist system can not possibly be satisfied in a complicated real world economy. But, to his credit Mr. Munchau does note that the one interest left out of this “system” is that of the EU. In the American South we would say that Ireland has relegated the EU to the “hind teet”.

Finally, in what can only be termed “grasping” Wolfgang Munchau also suggests that Ireland’s majority Anglophone populace is a chief reason for its success. While I do agree that speaking English is the only way to have a hand in the big game, I would like to introduce to the associate editor at the Financial Times a country called INDIA. Ireland has two official languages and India has over 20! No, Ireland’s tech based economy would still be just fine if Irish were the predominate language rather than English. I can understand Irish taxi drivers just as well as Dell tech-support from Bangalore.

The EU in its rush to be fair to all has seen the consequences of that fool’s errand. Utopian concepts will eventually be shown for what they are, and I believe what the road to Hell is paved with. Ireland does have some reckoning to deal with (like inflation, problems of socialism, the utopian concept of Neutrality and immigration) and the good-ole days of Ireland’s economic up turn are fewer and fewer ahead, but Ireland’s powerhouse performance will continue for now and it is not a fluke, a miracle or a gift from the EU. It is good policy based on economic principles and hard work. “Principles” and “Hard Work” yep… that sounds like the Ireland I know.

One of my few liberal heros gets it wrong on Oil Exploration

2008-06-23T13:14:00.002-05:00

Below is my email to Thomas Friedman in response to his recent column in the NY Times. Mr. Friedman is a Liberal with sense... which is to say he rarely lets his heart get in the way of his head as most liberals do. In being this way he is often on the properside, the right side, of an issue. For example, Thomas understands that couching Alternative Energy to Republicans in an end of days/Al Gore rhetorical scenario will never work... but discribe it as Conservation, Innovation and Stewardship and Repubs can get their Conservative heads around the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/opinion/22friedman.html?ex=1371787200&en=3c18c6b8b5bb4a3e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
_____________________________________

Mr. Friedman,

Wow, you really missed a big one here. You are all over Bush for asking the congress to open up the oil fields in the gulf and in ANWR when that is the very thing he should have insisted upon post 9/11 and then once again post Katrina. Now he is finally doing it (dubious timing, sure) and you think it is to get another "hit" for our oil addiction. To finish your analogy, what happens when a heroin addict quits cold-turkey? Can the US survive the convultions and shakes? De-tox ain't pretty.

I am sure you agree that there is nothing we can do to bring alternative energy to the masses until the infrastructure is in place? What do we do in the mean time? Suffer needlessly? Using current oil based infrastructure is the only means to effectively stave off short term (but very real) economic hardship.

Sure, not drilling would hasten alt energy infrastructer... but at what price? Inflation? Energy Security?

Respectfully, you missed the point on this one. I support your "Green" efforts not just for the nobility of it but the utility as well. But, you can not get from "A" to "C" without going to "B". Refusing to drill ANWR and the Gulf is trying to skip "B" and go to "C".

Keep up the good work.

Ben

NY Congressman suggest we follow Chavez and Evo Morales

2008-06-18T20:50:00.002-05:00

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

1115

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.

So Hugo Chavez and Eva Morales (Boliva) are now the example? Nationalizing natural resources???? Communist much?

Redux: Irish Neutrality

2008-06-14T09:43:00.002-05:00

The following is from October of 2007. I was placed on an email list that went out to many in Irish academia calling for US troops to leave Shannon airport.

http://arenablog.blogspot.com/2007/10/answer-to-unsolicited-email.html

'Are you straight?"

'I am.'

'How straight?'

'As straight as a rush.'

'Go on, then.'

'In truth, in trust, in unity and liberty.'

'What have you got in your hand?'

'A green bough.'

'Where did it first grow?'

'In America.'

'Where did it first bud?'

'In France.'

'Where are you going to plant it?'

'In the crown of Great Britain.'

- A greeting of the United Irishmen Circa 1791

I am so glad I found my way on whatever list this is. Perhaps some
common sense and a bit of accuracy will help some of us.

First, the idea of Irish neutrality is what is "spurious". Neutrality
or what some like to consider neutrality happens only at the pleasure
of those that are NOT neutral. The same for pacifists. Both concepts
are utopian concepts that can never actually be achieved. Both
concepts survive only at the pleasure of those willing to stand for
something and defend something larger than an unattainable concept
like neutrality. Ireland is full of people willing to stand for these
"larger" concepts and may God bless their efforts.

Ireland the country that welcomed me and that I fell in love with is
not neutral, at least not in deed -though it may strive to be so in
concept.

Ireland is connected to the US and the non neutral West via economics,
among other things. It is the fact that these non "neutral" countries
stand for something concrete and are willing to defend and protect it
that provides the market relationships necessary for Western progress
of which Ireland is a major part.

Chief among these ideas in need of defense is that of energy security.
I am not defending US consumption practices, far from it. I am
merely pointing out how energy and OIL are the life blood of Western
(Irish) economies. To deny this is folly and perhaps the root of our
major differences. You do not touch one thing or travel to one place
or have one interaction that is not facilitated in some way by oil.
This FACT is immutable. Is this situation a "best-practice"? I think
not. Is it optimal? I think not. Is it correctable? I think so
-with conservation, stewardship and innovation. (Noticeably absent
from this list is fear-mongering, like Al Gore's "End of Days"
scenario.)

This "correction" is not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time.
So, until the arrival of the distant future we must be pragmatic and
even utilitarian in our energy security policy. WE being the West or
developed world that Ireland is a part of. This pragmatic approach
includes having an influential role in the areas that provide the
energy the West (Ireland) needs. (Not to mention emerging economies
like China, India and Eastern Europe.) This influential role is the
crux of my admonition.

What bothers me most with the current Bush administration is the silly
and cowardly way they continue the failed policy of denying that the
war in Iraq was about energy security, ie... "a war for oil." Because
the cause of "energy security" in and of itself is as necessary a
cause as there has ever been. That cause should be explained clearly
not avoided as is the policy of the current administration. That
cause, "energy security," is axiomatic, a maxim, a heuristic. It is a
moral imperative.

Sadly in order for this moral imperative to be seen clearly many
people must step outside their own bias and out of the narrative they
have placed themselves in. A narrative for Ireland that promotes the
concept of neutrality when in fact Ireland is in the thick-of-it by
action and association –far from neutral. A narrative for many of us
that is an investment in both self-loathing and West-loathing.
Investment in this narrative sadly has some suffering from
true-believers syndrome. Or being so invested in your own bias that
even when faced with facts that counter your position you will
construct walls (read: lies) in your narrative that counter the
cognitive dissonance that occurs when confronted with the truth
-thereby, victimizing you. What is more, when you take it upon
yourself to induct others into your false narrative you victimize
them.

Most wretchedly, once you have induced enough people the process
becomes easier. Your responsibility for the false narrative is
diffused over all that you have convinced of your bias. This
"group-think" will now transform the narrative into doctrine and
promote "mind-guards" to police dissent and deflect any attacks… even
those of reason!

Finally, I find the flaunting of death tolls particularly disturbing
because invariably it is done as an appeal to emotion rather than
reason. It is a distraction if the tolls are void of context as they
usually are. It is sad that many of us pick and choose the value we
place on human life so easily. If we were true humanitarians we would
look not at the cost of human life in terms of our comfort and
emotional well-being but rather we would look at it in a utilitarian
way. A way that sought to preserve the largest number of lives over
the longest foreseeable future.

When we extol the context-less body count we ignore history's lessons.
Lessons that have taught us again and again that freedom, liberty and
happiness are functions of hard work over great amounts of time. Hard
work that translates into men and women standing up for freedom and up
to tyranny. If your narrative suggests that energy security is best
provided in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Mahmood Ahmahdinejad rather
than people of liberty participating in a true Lockeian sovereignty
then you my friend are indeed suffering from a narrative rank with
group-think and self-loathing.

It is important to read this with an open mind but it is even more
important to not assume what is not written here. There is nothing
suggested here-in that says the Iraq war was the proper or best way to
provide energy security. There is nothing here that says the war was
and is being prosecuted efficiently. There is nothing here that says
Ireland should take up arms and join the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is nothing here that says Ireland should take any aggressive
position with its own military. There is nothing here that suggests
Ireland's voice not be heard no matter what it is saying or how
difficult it is for the US to hear. What is written here is an
admonition to Ireland that it is neither neutral nor an outsider
looking in on the US and the broader West. It is a fully vested
player with all the rights, privileges and RESPONSIBILITIES that go
along with the progress and prosperity it enjoys.

So, you don't have to have US military planes, transporting the best
and brightest America has to offer to and from combat, on Irish soil
to be a participant in the battle for energy security. You need only
fill up your car with petrol or take the bus to the City Center or
welcome tourists off of jet planes or purchase a pint from the pub or
any item from any establishment in the whole of the Republic of
Ireland. Like it or not your participation in energy security is tied
not to the military planes in Shannon but the economy and progress you
and the rest of the developed world enjoy daily. To deny this is
either ignorance or hypocrisy of the worst and most dangerous kind.

Terrorism Statistics??? Over stating terrorism deaths.

2008-05-27T11:02:00.001-05:00

I find myself looking forward to George Bush’s and his Administration’s departure and perhaps a breath of fresh air. Do I hope for too much? Can McCain be that breath? Will he surround himself with wiser council than Bush? Does he see the folly of misreporting terrorism related deaths to the American people? Or, will he continue to talk down to us?

Recently it took a Canadian University’s study of terrorism deaths to wake up a few of us that continue to “drink the kool-aid” of the Liberal Left and from the Bush Administration. This study suggests what was previously obvious in other studies, that you don’t count civilian war deaths as terrorism deaths. Historically this has always been the case. Why the change now? Who does it benefit?

Canada’s Simon Fraser University in an independent study came to the conclusion that death from terrorism is on the decline, and has been since 2001! They attribute this to the Global War on Terrorism and the lack of support from Muslims to terrorist groups because of terrorist tactics (this is not to say that many Muslims don’t support the causes of terrorist organizations). The data used in these studies does not include Iraq civilian war casualties like US government backed studies do. In many of the US backed studies Iraq can account for more than 50% of the total deaths. This makes no sense. Iraq is a war zone, and while the tactics and organizations suggest terrorism, by definition terrorism can’t really happen in a war zone. Now this flies in the face of the Bush Administration’s characterization of the conflict in Iraq. The Administration likes to call insurgents terrorists. But they are not. They are insurgents using terrorist tactics and belonging to terrorist organizations. When these insurgents step foot on a battlefield in a war zone they are no longer terrorists.

This seems like some kind of procedural or scholarly caveat and rather if it walks and quacks like a duck it should be a duck, but this small caveat is massively important in understanding the conflict in Iraq and putting it in proper context. Fighting insurgency the way you fight terrorists is part of the problem. It has taken years and many unnecessary deaths for us to begin to figure this out. US backed studies from the National Counterterrorism Center, the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terror and the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism all suggest that the civilian deaths in Iraq are terrorist related. Why? I can only think that it is to continue to sell the war. It is to continue to scare you into support (you should support the war, but not because of terrorism deaths). The Bush Administration talks down to us and supposes we can not handle the truth, that Energy Security is paramount to the survival of the West and Developing Nations, instead we continue to get these numbers that one has to read-between-the-lines for the truth.

The ever dangerous and under accounted for “un-intended-consequence” is that the Administration has given the Liberal Left ammunition to attack the efforts in Iraq on dubious grounds. Now Liberal Presidential candidates can suggest that we are less safe since the invasion of Iraq. According to a broad reading from the government backed agencies reporting on terrorism statistics we appear to be less safe. But getting into the metrics we actually see that unless you live in Baghdad or Falujah American’s are actually more safe not less.

So who does this benefit, the Republicans, the Administration or the Liberal Left? The answer is all three. Republicans and the Administration get to over-state the security situation of the United States and the Liberal Left gets to suggest that we are “less safe” because of the Bush Administration’s Iraq efforts and the Global War on Terror. It is a win-win for politcians and governments that want more power and a lose-lose for citizens that want accurate information and a real understanding of national security. So to be clear, the efforts in Iraq and the Global War on Terror have not made us less safe but have made us more safe. Despite politicians and statisticians best efforts!

Three reasons to vote for John McCain, even if it hurts.

2008-05-18T20:55:00.001-05:00

I am very disappointed with the Republican nominee for President of the United States. John McCain is a fine enough man and a war hero who has my respect and admiration for his years of service in the Navy and as a US Senator. But, he also has a liberal voting record, questionable judgment on taxes and a history of cavorting with the Left under the guise of a Liberal trick called… “bi-partisanship.” Not to get off on a tangent but I send Republicans to Washington to either pass Conservative laws or none at all. Not watered down, least-common denominator laws that are just useless bureaucracy costing us Trillions of Dollars and accomplishing nothing.

No, the senior Senator from Arizona is not a “TRUE” Conservative. But he has an opportunity to be the most Conservative President since Reagan. Possibly even more so if he only keeps three campaign promises. Senator McCain has promised to Veto any bill that has “Pork-Barrel” spending that has not been debated openly on the floors of Congress. Keeping this promise will force into the open all the Billions of Dollars wasted for pet projects that have no real benefit to this Nation.

McCain has also promised not to raise taxes. He hasn’t asked us to “read my lips” yet so at this point I will take him at his word. By keeping this promise he will insure that our economy will continue in the right direction of creating jobs, investing in research, and exploring new markets, i.e.…what we do best!

Finally, the Senator has consistently shown in word and, more importantly, deed that he understands the stakes of letting America’s Liberal left define the War on Terrorism. Or as I call it…The War for Energy Security. McCain knows that if we leave the Middle East all the worst elements will filter in and quickly take over. Just like in Afghanistan. When the Soviets left Afghanistan in the 80’s they left a power vacuum. The US did not foresee the rising danger of the Taliban as it filled the vacuum and instituted a Tyrannical version of Sharia Law. But John McCain, many Conservatives, Republicans and Joe Lieberman see the danger now.

Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine all are on the verge of becoming either democratic allies or safe-havens and training camps for terrorist who have stated aims of destroying our country. That is not over stating. That is not over securitizing the issue. That statement is not hyperbole or sensational. The stated aim of Al-Qaeda is the destruction of the US and the Western world and the institution of a Caliphate where Islam is the world’s religion. John McCain knows this and knows that this kind of enemy ONLY responds to strength. He also knows that carrots work for those that are not yet sending bullets and bombs towards our soldiers and our homeland. He knows that diplomacy has its place and that Smart Power over Hard Power will bring the quickest end to the War for Energy Security.

So, if the Senator can keep these three promises I am willing to look the other way if he wants to have Ted Kennedy over for drinks or John Murtha over to swap war stories or Nancy Pelosi over to discuss immigration. But if he so much as flinches in the face of the Liberal left on these three issues I will work to make sure his Presidency is limited to only four years even if I have to vote for democrat!

Not My Achy-Breaky Heart!

2008-04-28T17:58:00.004-05:00

I find myself scraping columns left and right these days for more pressing matters. I have done it again with this column. This column was going to be about the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his address to the Detroit chapter of the NAACP and how I, having seen the entire speech in context, still think he is a race-baiting bigot who wants black kids to be powerless victims more than he wants equality.

But, I think Miley Cyrus is more important than the Reverend Doctor.

This week my niece’s and cousin’s favorite performer appeared in Vanity Fair. The photos showed her bare back, holding a blanket in front of her chest. The 15 year old pop star and Disney meal ticket was billed on DrudgeReport as being “semi-nude” and on Entertainment Tonight and ABC as “semi-topless”. When in fact there was LESS skin showing than shows with most modest swimsuits.

Well, is it then implied-nudity? Because she is obviously “nude” under the blanket she holds. Uh? I guess so, but then I guess I am also implying nudity by wearing jeans and a T-shirt, because as horrible an image as it conjures… I am nude under my clothes, as I assume most of you are as well.

So, hyperbolic spin aside does this photo shoot go too far? If there had never been a Brittany Spears or a Madonna, no. But there has been, and therefore it did. Hannah Montana is barreling down the slutty path pioneered by Brittany and Madonna. It is not too late for her. She can pull back the reins and remain one of Hollywood’s good-girls. To do this she needs to require her entourage to surrender their camera phones back-stage so no more tabloid fodder escapes into the irretrievable ether (the internet), fire her stylist that suggested a plunging neckline to the Nickelodeon KIDS Choice Awards show and finally she needs a conservative uncle, cousin or friend to kick Achy-Breaky’s behind for allowing his daughter to continue this kind of behavior!!!

Please do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting we meet in the town square and burn our Miley/Hannah CDs, Movies, Games, Dolls, Clothes, Lunch Boxes or other swag. I am merely suggesting that we keep an eye on the young starlet and hope for the best. Hope that she starts acting like a Rated-G Disney star instead of clamoring to be a R-Rated Lolita.

Bigot

2008-04-28T17:57:00.001-05:00

I was blessed with the opportunity to listen to Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s address to the NAACP in Detroit, Michigan on Sunday night. Dr. Wright is obviously a brilliant man. I see the pull of his personality and his strong intellect. I also see where he, either purposefully or not, slips in the doctrines of victim hood so rife and cyclical in many (not all) African-American communities. Dr. Wright suggests that black children learn differently. Fair enough, no reason to think otherwise. Dr. Wright suggests that the US system of education is biased against black children. He sites academic sources. Fair enough, I do not doubt that the system of education we depend on in this country is biased away from approximately 17% of the population and toward approximately 70% of the population.

Where I disagree with Dr. Wright is in his assertion that the African-American child, learning in our education system, is significantly disadvantaged in achieving equal success to other kids of different races and different learning styles. In other words, black kids are victims of the US-European system of learning. Dr. Wright said so many words of inspiration in his speech, yet lets the underling principle of victim-hood spoil the whole thing.

Case and point, he starts his address by suggesting that 50 years ago it was only black kids that were corrected when they spoke poor English. I was not allowed to say “ain’t” or use double-negatives and taught the value of communicating in correct English. Not because I was white, but because that value was taught to my parents 50 years ago by their parents. Race had nothing to do with it. Because I did not do enough to heed the adults who tried to teach me proper English and grammar I have suffered academically and now all of you reading this must suffer through usage errors and so much more! Suggesting that black kids are at a significant disadvantage to white, brown or tan kids and that only black kids are hassled to learn certain things whether now or in an incorrect historical anecdote is only perpetuating the myth that to be smart is to act white.

I saw this first hand at Central High School. One of my black peers fought past the teasing of other black kids suggesting he was “white” because he was smart. This gentleman went to college and by all evidence leads a great life. Another of my black peers was in college prep courses with me in the eighth grade but decided for another path in high school. He participated in teasing the before mentioned peer for being smart. Now the second peer who dropped out of the college accelerated courses and teased another black kid for being smart has a prison record. While there is no direct causal relationship between a lack of education and going to prison, there is no doubt that there is a correlation.

Dr. Wright’s words empower insane ideas like being smart is being white and his suggestion that the Federal Government introduced drugs into inner cities empowers the epidemic problem of “stop snitching.”

Dr. Wright has suggested in a recent interview that the problem was that he is a VICTIM of sound bites and that if you would listen to his views in context we would understand his side. Well, Dr. Wright I have listened to an entire speech and found that you are at the very least defending your bias against whites and at the worst actually are a bigot. Education and degrees do not defend someone against the dangers of bias, only the ability to see ones own weaknesses and then to search for truth and understanding do that. Dr. Wright has shown me he is neither aware of his weaknesses nor interested in truth and understanding.

Politician to English Dictionary

2008-04-17T19:28:00.000-05:00

Excerpts for the yet to be published “Politician to English Dictionary.”

When a Democrat politician says:

I support the troops in Iraq!

Translation:

I vote against spending for them to accomplish their mission, I question their methods, I equivocate between freedom fighter and terrorist, I down play their success and point to their failures to gain political power for myself and my party even though doing so gives indirect aid and direct comfort to the enemy, thereby endangering the troops and prolonging the conflict. I also where an American Flag lapel pin.

When a Republican politician says:

I support the troops in Iraq!

Translation:

I vote for all defense spending measures no matter how sound, I hide pork barrel spending that puts defense industry jobs in my district without regard to actual military effectiveness, I over securitize the issues and underplay any soft power efforts as “liberal” or “French”.

When a politician says:

So we can SAVE the children. -Or- It’s for the Children!

Translation:

If you disagree with us you must hate the children. Give me your money and don’t ask questions. Asking questions means you hate the children. Why do hate the children?

When a politician says:

It’s for national security.

Translation:

If you question the means or the ends you are unpatriotic and hate America. Anything that makes us safer is allowed, even if it means taking more of your liberty and property.

When a politician says:

I believe in Free Trade and support Small Business.

Translation:

I believe in trade that is “Free” if by “Free” you mean crippling government oversight and regulation under the guise of the “environmentalism” or “fairness.” Oversight and regulation that makes entering a market almost impossible except for the largest of companies that can afford a cadre of lawyers and accountants.

I support Small Business as long as you are not a White Male. If you are a minority I will arrest the wealth of hard working Americans of all races and sexes and give it to you based on your sex and the color of your skin.

When a politician says:

I am a man/woman of the people!

Translation:

I have never had a real job and have been a politician most of my professional career but I will role up my sleeves for a photo-shoot to make myself look common or blue-collar.

When a politician says:

I am the candidate of Change

Translation:

I am a great speaker and the intonation of my voice and the meter of my speech will make you like me so I don’t need to discuss actual policies and positions.

Or

I implore you to blame all that is wrong with the current governmental situation on the incumbent and elect me to make the exact same decisions when I get into office (as my past actions/voting record will show if you bother to look).

Gov. Jessi (The Body) Ventura is an Idiot!

2008-04-09T15:37:00.003-05:00

Congrats Minnisota! You elected an idiot for Gov.

You should be so proud.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=76553

Ex Navy Seal or not, I never met a conspiracy theorist I didn't want to punch!

Treatise on Conservatism

2008-04-08T23:58:00.000-05:00

Real Conservatism

I was told recently by a political operative in SC that Republicans can’t run as conservative as they would like because the depth of understanding required to negotiate the issues in the time frame allotted for election is lost on most voters. Let us see if he is right.

This election cycle has collided with my becoming keenly self-aware of my political virtues. In doing so, I have been motivated to explore what a “Conservative” really is. Let me start by telling what a True Conservative is not.

-Rush Limbaugh
Rush, the de facto flag bearer of our current movement, is not truly and completely conservative because he lets personal convictions, which do not track with tenets of conservatism, inform his opinions on Abortion and Gay Marriage.

-For a Constitutional Amendment on Abortion
The principles that I am about to lay out will show that Conservatives will find a dissonance between the ideas of personal rights, less government interference, Federalism and wanting a federal ban on abortion.

-For a Constitutional Amendment on Gay Marriage
For similar reasons as stated above being the movement of less government and more personal responsibility does not work in concert with the idea of a federal test for what marriage is or is not.

-Protectionist in Trade or Security
Libertarians parading as Conservatives like Ron Paul and SC candidate for Senate Mark McBride try to pass off populist messages about taking care of our own first at home before we worry about the world as some kind of conservative virtue. I assure you, disengagement abroad is the furthest thing from a conservative principle that there is.

So, what is True Conservatism?
First let us look at the domestic component of Conservatism. True Conservatism is actually “Classical Liberalism.” Classical Liberalism is a doctrine emphasizing individual responsibility and limited government. More specifically free markets, personal property rights, natural rights and the protection of civil liberties make up the “bread and butter” of Classic Liberal virtue. It is the finger in the eye of Tyranny. It was not until Franklin Roosevelt that the term “Liberal” became associated with Big Government, the Nanny State and the Welfare State.

Chief among these pieces of Conservatism/Classical Liberalism is that of individual freedom or the more descriptive ‘individual sovereignty.” The idea that a person possesses the sole moral or natural right to control his or her own body and life and by extension his personal property is to my eyes the alpha-and-omega of every other conservative principle. If we must have a government its only purpose is to promote and protect our individual sovereignty (rights).

If we did not have a government to promote and protect our individual freedoms and rights we would be left each of us individually to do so. We would exist in a “State of Nature” or an every-man-for-himself free-for-all. Survival of the fittest. To avoid this chaos we employ governments to protect and promote our individual rights and we give up some rights and power to the government so it can skillfully and fairly adjudicate any discrepancies between the individuals and protect us via the rule of law.

Most political movements and theories more-or-less accept these principles as I have laid them out. Where Conservatism shines alone is True Conservatives understand that these governments that we put in place to protect us have a natural and predictable inertia to grow and restrict and take more freedom and more liberty and more property. Both Machiavelli and Jean Jacques Rousseau have skillfully chronicled this escalation in power (though from very different approaches). The Conservative knows of this growth, fights this growth and prepares for this growth. This inertial growth is facilitated often out of ignorance but also by crafty design by the modern Liberal left in the form of Socialized education, health care, welfare and a litany of other entitlement programs. Programs and policies designed to protect us from ourselves to such a degree as to rob us of our individual sovereignty. When you facilitate, coax, or advocate for this unnecessary movement against “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property” you are something other than a Conservative.

What is the best system for a government to protect our rights? A True Conservative can look honestly at history and its chronicles for the answer. Collectively Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Jefferson and Paine have promised that the best form of government is a representative democracy most likely in the form of a Republic with a system of checks on the balance of power so that the before mentioned inertia does not lead to either a Tyrannical Despot or the Tyranny of the Majority.

Our Classically Liberal Founding Fathers framed a system that checked the inertial power of government by not only playing the Judicial, Legislative and Executive against each other but also by setting as sovereign the States of the Union. Our founders knew that as governments grow the harder it is for them to skillfully and fairly govern. Therefore the smaller more nimble States and the Individual were to retain all powers not expressly listed in the Constitution. How many checks and balances do we therefore have?
Executive v. Judicial v. Legislative
Federal v. State v. Individual
It is the Federal versus State versus Individual system of checks and balances that has borne the most neglect and suffered the worst assaults. A Federal system was envisioned by our Founders. Unfortunately, because of necessity we have moved away from this Federalist system that was supposed to keep the government from becoming the massive Leviathan that it is today.

“The Chicago Tribune showed that the federal government is now the ‘biggest land owner, property manager, renter, mover and hauler, medical clinician, lender, insurer, mortgage broker, employer, debtor, taxer and spender in all history.’”

Fancy a guess as to the decade the Tribune is referring? This quote is from the book “The Conscience of a Conservative” by Barry M. Goldwater initially published in 1960. In his book Goldwater laments that the federal government was about to pass the $100 Billion mark in terms of the federal budget. It is now $3,100,000,000,000.00. That is $3.10 Trillion dollars. Is George Bush, under whom the US budget grew by 1 Trillion, a conservative? NO! Is this what the Founders had in mind??? NO!

If the necessities of ending Slavery and the New Deal had never happened we might not be in this situation. But it did. And we are. If we are to ever “break the rules” ending Slavery was as good a reason to do so as there ever was and it points out the fact that there is no perfect system of government. But in order to form a “more perfect Union” our Founding Fathers created the most perfect system that has ever been envisioned. A system that gave States and Individuals far more rights, duties and responsibilities than we are currently legally able to exercise.

Next, International Relations. As stated before, the beginning and end of everything a government does should be the protection and promotion of my and your individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. The best way to protect and promote is to be keenly engaged abroad so that our interests at home are considered by allies and enemies alike. The opposite of this is to behave as protectionists or isolationists. To suggest protectionism in good conscience one must assume economic self-sufficiency and the ability to defend effectively from our own shores and borders. This assumption is not backed up by any historical fact or even by common sense. Security threats are best handled at the source OUTSIDE our own borders and economic realities dictate trade with other nations. Not to mention the pursuit of happiness and property is no where limited to only within the borders of ones own nation.

Conservatives see engagement abroad for the benefit of the individual as axiomatic. Security and economic alliances are a must. The projection of power is a must. Conservatives also understand that because there is no world governing body that can skillfully and fairly adjudicate discrepancies in economics or security and enforce judgments it is incumbent on every nation to behave as though in a State of Nature. Every nation for itself. International Relations exist in a system of anarchy up to and until a nation or group of nations provide leadership and either coerce or attract other nations into agreement. This leadership is based on strength and benevolence. Or Hard Power and Soft Power. Being a part of an alliance should only be undertaken if an individual’s right to life, liberty and property is forwarded. It is this NeoRealist notion that has taken the United States from a fledgling nation vulnerable to attacks of conquest to the world Hyper-Power that it is, with no equal in history. Not the Socialist vision of the American Liberal Left.

Before, you make the mistake of seeing this as merely cold and self-serving please consider this. When are you in your best position to be helpful to others? When you are at your strongest or weakest? Can you help your neighbor best when you are fighting tooth and nail to survive on your own or when you have achieved a level of comfort and affluence, allowing you to attend to other matters? It is precisely US success and leadership that allows us to be the benevolent nation that we are, out-giving other nations by orders of magnitude, providing the order and predictability necessary for International Relations to occur. Conservatives understand this concept rooted in individualism and promote it as policy.

Other nations, Socialist and Communist nations, are based not on individualism but rather on collectivism. They believe that the collective consciousness is the truest direction. That individual efforts should be combined with other individuals in an egalitarian manner. This sounds good, Utopian even, such is the attraction of Marxism and lesser forms of Socialism. Brilliant men and women have been wooed by the Siren’s Song of Socialism for years. In reality this goes against all psychological norms and is thus doomed to failure. Every person’s first duty is to him or herself, not to the community. To suggest otherwise is to go against human nature. Conservatives recognize this truth and promote it as policy.

Rather than telling the farmer to grow only corn or wheat, we tell the farmer nothing and he is free to grow what makes money. Rather than tell the farmer that he will only be paid for corn by the State apparatus and only at the State price, we let the market (less and less so every year) dictate prices. Rather than provide socialized health care with price floors, ceilings and fixes we try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to let the market dictate price and by extension promote innovation and development of resources that happens naturally in a competitive market. Individual competition is good. This competition gives us a market that rewards risk and research & development. Research and Development that has given us many of health care’s greatest advances, advances that would likely not be possible under a system with no free market -a system reliant on ONE source for R&D, the Socialist government.

In closing, True Conservatives believes that governments will always try to grow, even beyond what is healthy and useful. Conservatives believe that it is our duty to constantly keep this natural inertia in check by promoting the separation of powers and the promotion of individualism. Conservatives believe that the most basic idea of Individual Sovereignty is the cornerstone of all Conservative principles and that the best way to protect this sovereignty is with as small a government as is generally useful. Conservatives believe that there is no moral issue that takes precedence over limited government and individual sovereignty. Conservatives believe in engagement abroad and that true peace only comes from strength and when provoked, clear victory. True Conservatism rewards a moral and virtuous life but provides NO religious tests and promotes no moral belief system above another save the innate morality of Conservatism itself.

What is Conservatism? It is the political movement of individual rights, the basis of our founding, the key to our past success, and a moral imperative for our future.

Battlestar Galactica

2008-03-23T10:24:00.002-05:00

BSG is my favorite TV show of all time. That might not sound like much, but I don't watch much TV. In fact, I have not watched normal network television in years.

I suggest you catch the last season of BSG. I also suggest you buy or download the previous seasons (Season one is the best.) and catch up.

But, if you don't have the money and don't want to download... here is an 8 min recap!

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=29334603

Or

There is no causal link between skin color and HATE.

2008-03-14T14:20:00.003-05:00

There is no causal link between skin color and HATE.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright

The Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church
More here: http://www.signmovies.net/videos/signmovies/index.html

HAMAS Children's Television

Arab Children talk about being a Martyr

La Raza teaching Children how to break the law.

La Raza inciting hate. (Will Tijana become Gaza...?)

SC Candidates for Senator offer more of the Same

2008-03-11T14:11:00.000-05:00

For weeks now I have been working on an important column about True Conservatism that would set most Republicans on their ear. I took a break from my readings and research to see three Republican candidates for Senate vie to replace our embattled Lindsey Graham. I came away very disappointed in the candidates that appeared at the event put together by the hard-working Conservatives of Chesterfield County. All three candidates used the “check-list” approach to appeal to Republicans.

Abortion
National Security
Immigration
Social Security

With few exceptions mere mention of the above and the typical Republican rhetoric was offered as proof of competence.

The Three candidates were Mark McBride from Horry County, Bobby Witherspoon from Columbia, and Timothy Carnes from the Up-State.

Mark McBride is an overly confident young man who has mayoral experience but has much too simplistic a view of international relations and US foreign policy. His remark that the only thing we would lose if N. Korea took over S. Korea is the Hyundai showed a complete lack of sophistication on how important US projection of strength is. The US and its allies provide the Order and Protection necessary for the world to function as well as it does. The US is the light, and Mark McBride’s suggestion that we pull back our troops from around the world and disengage is not only simplistic but also dangerous. This talk got a lot of attention via Ron Paul. What Ron and Mark fail to see or REFUSE to see is that our globally interconnected economy requires that we project power. The protection of S. Korea from the N. Koreans (Read: CHINA) is as important as securing trade routes and securing energy. It is through the projection of STRENGTH that the US and the World have enjoyed the relative calm we have seen since WWII.

Perhaps what Mr. McBride is suffering from is a lack of perspective. There is less conflict in the world now than there has ever been. More governments practice some form of democracy than ever before. Mark McBride and Ron Paul perhaps need to turn off the sensationalist 24 hour news channels and invest in some real research into what actually goes on in this world and what roll the US plays in it. Basing foreign policy on hyperbole and sensationalism is dangerous. On a scale from one to ten I give McBride a -2-.

Tim Carnes has no previous political experience and I like that! He is an accomplished business man. He also touted that he was active in his Church. I like that but am always cautious of politicians asking for my vote by trying to connect with me on a religious level. Tell me you support the protection of my right to worship and leave it at that. Mr. Carnes has some great ideas but many are unpolished. Calling for less government and then calling for two or three constitutional amendments giving the government more control of our lives is not Conservatism, it’s double talk. We are suffering still from giving the Christian Right too much control over the Conservative movement. We have forsaken the Conservative call for less Federal Government when it benefits an objective like Abortion or Gay Marriage. Mr. Carnes struck me as a brilliant man, so I was disappointed that he had not seen this disconnect in his policy stances. I had occasion to speak with him at length after the meeting and was very impressed with his command of the issues. I think Mr. Carnes could be our next Senator from SC if he runs more as a TRUE CONSERVATIVE and less as a Republican. I give Mr. Carnes -6- out of a possible 10.

Buddy Whitherspoon is sharp and caring candidate from Columbia with a long conservative history. Buddy unfortunately had trouble verbalizing his vision. I have met with Mr. Whiterspoon and discussed Alternative Energy, US foreign policy and Conservatism. I know he “gets it”. The problem is he did not show that he “got it” to the Conservatives gathered in Cheraw this night. He used the check-list approach and merely hit the necessary items to be considered a Republican. I give Buddy a -4- on the night but a -7- based on the fact that I know his stances even if he had trouble that night expressing them.

The voters of the United States and South Carolina are dying to vote for a true Conservative. It was obvious from the three candidates’ presentations of their policies that they either do not care what the voters want, are not aware of what the voters want, or just are not truly conservative enough to give the voters what they want (Mark McBride).

I will be following these candidates and expecting much more in the near future. The Primary is in June. That’s right, June. Most voters don’t even know that it is time to vote again in a few months and incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham is counting on that! Finally let me say that Graham was represented that night by two ladies from his office in Rock Hill. I found both combative and merely “yes men” that could not answer difficult questions. This is typical of how Lindsey had treated SC. I would vote for two of these three lacking candidates over Senator Graham (Whitherspoon and Carnes). His lack of attentiveness to constituents and his liberal political alliances warrant his immediate removal from office.

Don’t forget to register to vote, be an informed voter! Look for my upcoming column on TRUE CONSERVATISM.

Fareed Zakaria’s “The End of Conservatism”

2008-02-17T20:54:00.000-05:00

I love Fareed and Thomas Friedman not just because they confirm my bias most times but because sometimes they do not, and when they don’t they deny me in a way that is void of party politics and hyperbolic rhetoric. I also have been known to learn a thing or two from them. So… When I saw Fareed’s piece at Newsweek online I had a bit of a start. Certainly Fareed has not sided with the 24 hour cable news pundits. That would be crushing. Or perhaps I was wrong and he was right? Scared of either outcome I read on. It turns out that Fareed’s shorter than normal piece is kind of a musing rather than anything else.

Fareed starts out with the accounts of a Bush insider who is writing a book defending Bush and his policies and makes some good points. But that certainly doesn’t spell the end of Conservatism? He goes on about how “conservatives” are voting for McCain. Hmmm, not really Fareed. They are voting republican and McCain is the most Republican. You see Fareed even a great mind like your own forgets that Republican and Conservative is not interchangeable. He commits this error in the first sentence! “Conservatives are a gloomy bunch at the moment. Many believe that their party—the Republican Party—has lost its way and that it has done so by abandoning its principles.” You see Fareed’s assumption here is that Conservatives own the Republican party. We do not. He also assumes that as GW Bush is the de facto head of the Republican party for a time he is also for a time the head of the Conservative Movement. He is not.

Conservatives have not had a politician as a leader since Reagan. And to be fair, Reagan was not absolutely conservative. Only in hind sight do we see that he was the most important conservative leader of our time but by no means the conservative messiah. He was not the embodiment of conservative principles. But he was close. Certainly the closest of my generation.

So how can Fareed infer that because of McCain and Bush being the head and temporary head of the Republican party that the Conservative Movement is dead? Only by assuming that the Party and the Movement are inextricably linked. Again with much respect, he is wrong.

Conservatives are at a crossroads and we are in effect defining ourselves. (Not “re” defining ourselves. The principles of the movement have always been there. Conservatism is a priori. ) The world is seeing that Conservatives are not just Republicans and that we are not necessarily white Christians. Now, if you are wagering that the next conservative to come through the door will be a white Christian that would still be a good bet. But more and more conservatives are defining what we are and what we are not. We are casting off stereotypes that have haunted us and revising flawed policy. This distinction between us and the Republican Party is what is being confused as “the end.”

You see, the Conservative Movement has pushed the Republican Party for a long time. But it is not the only influence. Christian and Social Conservatives have also done some pushing. And modifying Conservative with “Christian” or “Social” makes one something other than a true Conservative. Your heart may belong to God but when it comes time to render unto Caesar your ass belongs to the Movement. And unfortunately on issues like abortion and gay marriage the opposite has been true. There is no way you can call for less government intrusion and call for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. There is no way a rights minded conservative that understands the meaning of “slippery slope” will be for any federal mandates or influence on abortion. And don’t even get me started on Federalism and education or immigration!

These issues are being discussed like never before. Conservatives are not coming to an end we are actually streamlining and defining what we are. The next logical step is that we remove from the Movement the modifiers. Modifiers are fine in a political party but you are either a conservative or something else. I welcome with open arms the Social Conservatives and Christian Conservatives and the Security Conservatives, all three legs of Rush Limbaugh flawed conservative stool/table, to the Republican Party but there is only room for true conservatives to lead the Movement. I know this is tough for some to hear. I am sure Rush would call me Judas for my notions on abortion or gay marriage. Or, maybe Rush knows that abortion is a State’s Rights issue and gay marriage was a useful tool for Rove in ‘04 that never had a chance to be law but is ultimately bad for the country. Which ever it is we shall see.

So, Fareed’s eye catching title did its work. I immediately clicked that link and read what he had to say. On this subject however he is off the mark. Conservatism is much broader than any party and is not tied to the failures or successes of that party. Conservatism is what Conservatism is, a movement, an ideology, a values system. And neither McCain nor Bush can do permanent damage to it.

Guns don't kill people... Bombs don't kill people... SUVs don't kill people...

2008-02-15T17:28:00.000-05:00

It’s coming. Just wait a bit.

After the obligatory waiting period of a week or two the attack on “Guns” will begin. I was living in Ireland when the VA Tech shooting took place. The Europeans moved from condolences to contempt after about a week. “Gun Culture” was the preferred narrative or catch phrase. It won’t be long before the assault on guns begins here at home.

Soon after the Virginia murders I wrote a hasty piece for my blog you can find that here (please excuse the many typos and poor grammar). When the blame begins please note the amount of attention given to “guns” or other gun related equipment rather than the person who pulled the trigger. This is done sometimes on purpose and I suspect most often subconsciously. Because it is easier to attack something that has no voice like “guns” or "bombs" or "SUVs" and difficult to confront something that does, “people,” debaters will take the easy route and unfortunately address the symptom with much more rigor than the actual problem.

The problems of mental health, youth violence and desensitization will take an unfortunate back-seat to besmearing the availability of lawfully gained guns and accessories. The same ridiculous notion that more regulation of lawfully gained guns will somehow reduce gun crime will be explored and emotion rather than fact and reason will take precedent. The fact that lawfully gained firearms are rarely involved in any crime will not be brought up or will be poorly represented. The fact that outlawing guns will only result in criminals having guns will be ignored or poorly represented. The fact that lawfully carried firearms reduce crime will be ridiculed and belittled with no facts to back up the slighting of these truisms. And most disturbing of all politicians will call for more "gun" regulation, addressing the symptom, rather than more understanding of "people" and the reasons they kill, the problem.

It’s coming…just wait.

Nancy Pelosi goes NEGATIVE

2008-02-11T01:05:00.000-05:00

While my mind struggles between a bad choice (McCain) and uneasy choice (Obama) I am once again reminded of the stakes. Nancy Pelosi on CNN’s late edition told Wolf Blitzer that the surge is a “failure.” She sights the same thing we hear from all the liberal candidates that the surge was supposed to provide the time and space necessary for Iraq’s government to bring political change and to reconcile, which is partially true. Any student of history knows that six months of surge is not sufficient enough time for lasting reconciliation or real political change, for that matter neither is five years enough. These lofty goals will be the work of decades, if not centuries.

The surge was never designed to work in six months. It was designed to quell the violence enough for these goals of political change and reconciliation of religious sects to BEGIN. Not to be successful in total. Also mentioned are “benchmarks” that the Iraq government must achieve.

A list of benchmarks is great but if unrealistic deadlines are set it is only a list of failures that never had a chance. You can set as a goal loosing twenty pounds this week but you have no realistic chance of achieving it. You can set as a goal losing twenty pounds over the next two months and then only eat bacon cheese burgers and have no realistic chance of achieving it. Setting goals is easy, it’s the achievement of these goals that is hard.

What Pelosi is counting on is that you are stupid or very uninformed or so invested in defeat that you will believe anything to protect that investment. She doesn’t care that “Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an ‘extraordinary crisis’. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military ‘created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight’. The terrorist group's security structure suffered ‘total collapse’” according to the TimesOnline’s Martin Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher is quoting Abu Tariq an al Qaeda leader in Iraq. No, Nancy Pelosi and those like her will not bring this up. They can’t retain power or get elected on the truth because they have invested in defeat.

What Pelosi will do is summarily suggest “failure” and hope that you believe her, or even grow tired of hearing it and elect a leader that just makes it all go away. It is tempting to be that person. It is tempting to be a republican or democrat and just want it all to go away. I know I struggle with it. But it will not go away without the US finishing what it started. The Iraq investment is like a 30 year mortgage on your house. Nancy Pelosi treats it like a five year car loan.

My admonition to you this election cycle is not a particular candidate but rather a particular mindset. A mindset that questions defeatist language and holds political leaders to the truth. Not the truth as we want it to be but the truth as it actually is. You can find this truth by doing your own due dilligence and research. It is not just your civic duty to vote but to be an informed voter. Nancy Pelosi hopes on the other hand that you remain ignorant and accept “failure.”

A dirty little secret and Barack Obama.

2008-01-28T19:59:00.000-05:00

At first glance at the title to this piece you might assume this is a hit piece designed to belittle or discount the efforts of Barack Obama. You would be wrong. This is about a secret so damaging that it could rip apart families and friends. A secret so powerful that most dare not speak it for fear it will heap ridicule and shame on the head of the fool that spoke it. I however am going to reveal this secret to you now.

Republicans like Barack Obama.

From Rush Limbaugh to Fred Barns to Benjamin Cook, republicans like Obama. They like the way he campaigns, they like the way he is beating up on the Clinton’s, they feel his inspiration and want to be apart of it. Republicans are not the cold hearted bastards characterized by the Clinton’s as wanting to starve children and kill senior citizens, we too want to be inspired. We too want to be apart of a change movement.

The question now is, does running an honorable campaign, being an inspiration and standing up to the Clinton Machine mean we will vote for Obama? For some it might. For me it will not. Obama is still a Liberal. That means he doesn’t recognize that Liberal social policy begets Liberal social policy and the never ending flow of money into these entitlements can not stop the social ills they are designed to stop. He doesn’t understand that national security is the most important issue of our time and that threats on our horizon are real. He doesn’t understand that the Federal Government is the second biggest problem in educating our kids and that less government involvement in education is better than more. (The biggest problem in educating our kids is the kid’s family or the lack of one.)

Barack Obama is an inspiring and great man. He moves me when he speaks, at times to the point of tears. I am not willing to say that there is not a scenario where I vote against my own party. There is. That scenario is very unlikely. I will say this. If Obama is running against the candidate of my choice this November and the results are close when I go to bed, I will not go to bed in a state of panic or fear scared that a Liberal will be the next president of the United States. (Like when Bush ran against Al Gore, or Kerry.) I will sleep very easy knowing that if Obama wins the election two things will happen. One, he will be very good for this country in many ways and two, after eight years of Obama the next Republican president will have his work cut out for him.

American Exceptionalism

2008-01-24T01:24:00.001-05:00

It has been interesting watching the international markets react to our economic "troubles". The weak dollar has made foreign investment in the US even more attractive. It is an interesting dynamic. I have always thought that a large part of the international economy is based not on our economy per se (think dollar value) but rather on the stability and predictability of our economy. Gainful economies require order and predictability and most nations’ economies “borrow” or “invest” in our order and predictability to stabilize their own economies. Looks like foreign markets are rebounding on word of our "stimulus" package. A package not designed to bring any real economic change, only temporary order and predictability.

These foreign markets rely not just on the value of the dollar and performance of our markets but on the predictability and strength of the US economy. This begs the question “what is the US economy?” What are the various parts that matter? I don’t mean economic indicators, I mean the actual parts: industry, research and development, innovation, emerging markets, industrial standards, productivity, acceptance of risk and enforcement. These things that the US provides are the pillars of the world economy, not because we choose for them to be pillars, but because the ordered predictability of our economy makes it that way. If this predictability and order was hypothetically provided by China or some other country then that country would be the pillar that world economies leaned on.

As it is, the world leans on us. This phenomenon is part of what is known as American exceptionalism. Most would point to other more tangible variables to explain this exceptionalism, variables like our constitution, republicanism or environmental explanations such as geography, climate, availability of natural resources, social structure, and type of political economy. These variables are not what actually make our country exceptional, rather it is the reaction of other nations to these varibles in action. None of these variables are exclusive to the United States of America. Other nations have similar political economies, more natural resources, friendlier georgraphy and climate. Why then are these nations not exceptional. A better question, why then are these nations not treated exceptionally by other nations?

You see it is not the variables nor the outcome that makes America exceptional, rather it is the fact that we are treated exceptionally by other nations. We are held to different standards and given larger responsibilities, not because we ask to be exceptional but because others ask it of us. So it is the act of others asking and us acting that makes us different from all other nations in world. There is no arrogance nor benevolence to this relationship. We did not ask for this responsibility but neither can we shrink from it. It is just the way it is. So as Dubai, and the United Arab Emirates buy up our resorts, ports and bail out our banks ask yourself what it is they are really investing in? What makes this American investment more attractive than another? The answer? The exceptional security provided by the US in the form of order and predictability, something in short supply in the Middle East.

A few of my favorite photos.

2007-12-19T18:15:00.000-05:00

You see, I am not all politics and anger!!! I actually have a creative side.