When leaders ask volunteers to place themselves into harms way in an undeclared war using premises that include religious mysticism (Bush) and social mysticism (Obama and Bush) you know you are in deep, deep trouble and it will take a long time to extract yourself (if ever) from the theater in question. Moreover, the cost in lives and money will be insane in the long run.
Such military interventionism is neither virtuous nor prudent. And the brave men and women who volunteer to abet this need to check their premises. A sacrifice, properly understood, is the surrender of that which you value more for the sake of that which you value less (or of a non-value). Politicians and leaders who promote, and the citizens who volunteer to participate (we still have a volunteer armed forces, so no one “has” to go to Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan again, etc – they employed free will in volunteering to participate), who consider it a true sacrifice are implicitly indicating they value the lives and livelihoods of non-Americans, and the funding of military operations and nation-building, LESS; they are willing to surrender that which they value more (their own lives and the money it costs to do what they do) for the sake of others whom they implicitly must value LESS. This is the only premise under which the use of and participation in military force can be considered a sacrifice, and by this standard much/most of our present operations are irrational; operations for which there have been and will be undesired consequences. I do not remember the author, but the quote that “when you pursue the irrational, do not be surprised to awaken one day and discover that the world does not make any sense” seems rather spot-on.
Point being, please, don’t call what volunteer military personnel do at the call of our political leaders a sacrifice as if sacrifice can merely be misinterpreted and then vomited out as some justification for an irrational military operation; or worse, an inherent virtue. A rational thinking person, a proper national military policy, would NEVER sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. Moreover, let’s keep in mind that the proper use of force is only in retaliation, and never initiated.
This is a truth that Gary Johnson appears to be close to understanding, but has not yet articulated. If he were to do this, he would be the only candidate in the race with a rational concept of military power, its proper and moral use (and there definitely is a proper and moral use of military might), and the proper meaning of what a sacrifice for ones country really is and ought to be about.
” ‘I honestly thought he was just playing up to the far-right voters, because that’s what Republicans are supposed to do in the primaries,’ said Grand Rapids, MI resident Dan Banks, who explained he had dismissed as manipulative campaign rhetoric Santorum’s assertion that President Obama would send Christians to the guillotine. ‘But now it’s dawning on me that this guy means it, all of it. Every single thing he says is an accurate depiction of how he sees the world’. . . . ‘So, when he said that Satan was currently attacking the United States, he meant exactly that,’ added Banks. ‘Satan, the devil himself, is attacking the United States. Rick Santorum believes this is a real thing that is actually happening. I…wow. Just wow.’ “
Dan, now do you see why some of us refer to this crowd as evangelical nut-jobs? He is-they are-run for your life from these people!!
Bolstered by his win in South Carolina on Saturday, Newt Gingrinch head for Florida promising to deliver a “big idea” speech every day on his vision for the country. Obama and Romney also have their own visions. But none of the candidates for President, including Obama, ever saw the financial calamity, or the debt problems of the United States and Europe, or the problems escalating in the Middle East.
Only one candidate had the foresight to see where government intervention leads. The following is a speech given by Ron Paul in 2002. It appears he is the only true visionary.
I have a prediction to add:
If the Republicans nominate either Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, then the party will go the way of the Whigs. And you can say Obama-four more years
Nearly two months ago, a gathering of friends highlighted a problem facing the mainstream media labeled frontrunners for the Republican Presidential nomination. At that time, the two leading candidates were Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Among our group not one single person picked either one as their candidate of choice.
Last night at an impromptu meeting of a half-dozen friends the same question was again put to the table. The people involved in the question, like the time before, are quite intelligent and knowledgeable about an array of subjects. The answers last night were again all over the board. Gingrich pulled one vote; Cain got one other; two voted for Paul; one said anybody but Obama, and the most politically astute member of the group voted they were deeply conflicted. Notice how Romney again received not a single nod.
Furthermore, several voiced the opinion that if Gingrich or Romney ended up winning the nomination, then two would sit out the election and another stated they would mark the ballot for Obama in an act of pouring gasoline on to the fire.
The problem for the Republicans, and thus the country appears to be this: A significant portion of the country truly wants liberty restored and an end to American imperialism abroad. They see government at all levels as corrupt. Additionally, they recognize the crony capitalism of government and the Federal Reserve as the source of all economic evil, which is true. Many may agree with such an outline, but swayed somewhat by the media and the Republican power brokers, they have determined a candidate espousing these views cannot win a general election.
A candidate like Gingrich or Romney that speaks in tempered terms about freedom while still promoting the ideas of American global power and government solution to economic woes is according to the experts palatable to the masses. But the two recently anointed front-runners leave a bad taste to those with a deep conviction toward minimal government, not just less. With a chunk of the electorate bolting someone other than Gingrich or Romney, then the pair becomes no different than the stigma attached to Ron Paul; they are unelectable.
The fact remains this country is about evenly divided between the :makers and the takers”. At this point, the election for President appears to be headed for a very ugly conclusion, which is the re-election of Obama.
Today Standard & Poors upgraded General Motors credit rating two notches to BB+ from BB-. In addition the credit agency raised the auto company’s outlook to stable from positive. The reasons for the upgrades are ratification of a new union contract and analysis that General Motors under the agreement could remain profitable even if auto sales declined by 15%.
Considering the recent SEC investigations into S&P’s downgrade of US debt and possible insider trading, I have to cynically wonder if the government is putting the muscle on the company to bolster the stock price of General Motors, which the government presently holds one-third of the outstanding stock. In order to fully recoup the $49.5 billion in bailout funds, the government must sell its holding of General Motors at a share price of $133.78 or about $113 higher than where the stock is currently trading.
Ever since the government sold a portion of its General Motors stock almost a year ago in the mid-thirties the price has declined by almost 40%. Along with the government, the UAW and I would speculate some state pension plans also hold large amounts of stock. In other words, a lot of Obama’s political allies are suffering extensive losses with the decline of GM share prices and something needs to be done to halt the freefall.
As usual, Ari and Linn hit a triple sending in two runs..
President Obama calls for “shared sacrifice” to address the nation’s debt. But forcing individuals to sacrifice their present and future wealth to politicians’ whims caused the problem. To restore economic prosperity, we need to stop sharing sacrifices and start sharing a respect for liberty and people’s rights.
On June 3, 2011, 73 year-old Carey Dyess went on a shooting rampage in Yuma, Arizona. By the time the gunfire had stopped, five people laid dead, including the gunman. Nearly five months before to the day, Jared Loughner shot six people dead and wounded another thirteen 240 miles east of Yuma in Tucson, Arizona. Among the wounded was Congressman Gabrielle Gifford.
Though the mass shootings occurred within the same state only a couple hundred miles apart and separated by five months, the outpouring of collective grief could not have been more different. Almost immediately following the first reports of the shooting in Tucson, a choir that included the Governor of Arizona, members of Congress and even the President sang hymns of grief. Four days after the shooting in January, President Obama travelled to Tucson where he led a national memorial service for the victims.
The public expressions of grief were not limited to government officials, our pastor on the Sunday morning following the shootings asked the congregation to join him in praying for the victims and the city of Tucson. I am certain it was a prayer echoed in churches throughout the country on that Sunday morning.
In the immediate aftermath of the murders in Yuma, the choir that sang so beautifully for the victims in Tucson apparently lost their voices. The deep sorrows were gone and the hall for the memorial service sat empty. At church, our pastor led the congregation in prayer that did not mention a word about the people in Yuma, Arizona. The President or Governor could not muster the time or even the money for a sympathy card.
Tragedy also hit this spring in the form of violent tornadoes that killed hundreds and property destroyed beyond recognition. Two populated areas where the death and destruction was relatively extreme happened in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and Joplin, Missouri. As we witnessed after the shootings in Tucson, President Obama acting as a taxpayer funded ambulance chaser visited the cities to observe the effects of the tornadoes firsthand. In Joplin, he told the residents that the rest of the country would not forget their city until it had been restored.
Two days after the Joplin twister, a series of tornadoes touched down in the Oklahoma City area that killed at least four people and destroyed millions in property. The President arranged to fly thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean, where he attended a meeting of the elites, to express his sympathies to the people of Joplin. Though he was sitting in the White House, the President could not find time in his schedule to fly a couple of hours to Oklahoma to show his or the nation’s care. I doubt even a phone call was made. Read More→
In neighboring Minnesota a budget showdown looms as the Democratic Governor and the Republican controlled legislature cannot come to terms on how to close a fiscal deficit. If the Governor does not surrender his stance on increasing taxes or the legislature capitulates on spending cuts, then the real possibility exists of the state government shutting down. Of course like all phony government shut downs, essential services will continue.
On the national front, the Republican controlled house is threatening to vote against raising the debt limit if Obama and the Democrats in the Senate do not agree to $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years (not even close enough). Failure to raise the debt limit may result in another shut down in addition to a US Treasury borrowing calamity.
According to a local teacher going by the pseudonym of “One Guy”, government is necessary to keep order in our lives. The only purpose of government in a free society as espoused by true libertarians is to protect the individual and their private property from the force and fraud of others. But as we shall see most of the societal order as “One Guy” proposes to be the role of government is in reality taking the wealth of one individual and giving to another by bureaucratic force.
In part II we will take a look at how effective government programs have been in curing a problem that often has been caused by bureaucratic meddling in the first place.
How much of federal spending is transferring dollars from the pocket of one to another?
The following breaks down the percentage of the federal budget that translates into transfer payments:
Safety Net Programs- 14%
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP- 21%
Social Security- 20%
Benefits for federal retirees and veterans- 7%
Interest on debt- 6%
International Foreign Aid- 1%
Nearly 69% of federal spending involves transferring wealth.
First of all, for reasons that are purely justice oriented the taking out of Bin Laden was a very good thing. Good riddance I say. But in what can only be described as bizarre beyond belief, Obama ordered Bin Laden’s body be handled “according to Islamic law.” What?!?! Why bother to say and or do this?!?!
So, Bin Laden takes a bullet to the head BUT gets his religion (that which provided all of his motivation) respected? Well now, isn’t that special. Religion at the point of a gun is so inspirational, isn’t it?
This is far worse than handling Adolf Hitler’s body with respect … to Nazi’s everywhere.
The historic budget cuts hammered out by Boehner, Obama, and Reid amounts to far less than the announced 38 billion dollars. How much less you ask. According to the CBO, the actual amount chopped from the federal budget did not even get to a single billion. It didn’t even get to a half billion. It didn’t even get to 40% of a billion. The exact number is $353,000,000.
What I find priceless is how the Political Transvestites spin all this budget talk. Tough guy John Boehner says the next time they will be talking about trillions instead of billions. You guys could not even cut $400,000,000, so what makes anyone think you have the balls (better peek under the skirt) to chop 2000 times the amount in this historic budget resolution.
John, I need to get back to Washington to vote for the bailouts and the wars, McCain insists Congress needs to take draconian measures on the budget. I am sure his record proves his spine when it comes to cutting government. Maybe we should start with his government paycheck and pension.
John Thune said tonight on television that the deal certainly did not cut as much spending as he would have liked. But it is a step in the right direction. That is the same thing they said about the Titanic when it bounced after hitting the ocean floor.
Suppose for a moment you landed on a tropical island where schools of fish swim just offshore and fruit abounds in the trees. The natives, however, appear to be starving. How could this be? The king of the island explains that his experts believe that the citizenry will be healthier if they eat more beef and green vegetables. In an effort to prod the people toward his idea, the king banned all fishing except for two hours on Saturday and fruits could only be eaten by obtaining a special permit. The reaction by most would conclude that the king and his subjects are certifiable crazy.
Obama spoke today about his vision to cut the nation’s dependency on oil by a third over the next fourteen years. In other words we are to deny ourselves plentiful resources like coal and untapped oil fields, while pursuing the fantasy of switch grass, wind, solar, and even cow manure. In essence the plan calls for starving the economy even further in hopes that alternative energy can produce kilowatts past known physical law.
This line of idiocy would believe that the invention of the automobile to be dependent upon banning horses for the purpose of travel. Or the stimulus for developing the computer would be to destroy chalk boards and chopping off fingers and toes.
In his speech, Obama stated that oil companies are intentionally holding back on drilling and exploration. The complete lack of economic understanding by the floppy-eared one never ceases to astound me. What economic laws state that creation is a function of denial and profit maximization occurs by not producing?
Scott Ellingson, leader of the local teacher union thugs, rationalized pay raises for his troops as good for the economy since he would have more money to spend. Of course his increase in wages comes from taking money out of my pocket and others by force in the form of taxes. If his logic is economically sound, then robbery should be legal.
It only took a matter of hours after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan for some buffoon to conclude that the disaster has an economic silver-lining. Larry Summers, former Harvard President and a member of Obama’s economic advisors, stated that the years of rebuilding in Japan will help spur a stagnant economy. One would expect such dribble from the likes of Scott Ellingson, but not a person holding a PH.D in economics. French philosopher Frederick Bastiat dispelled such nonsense in his “Fallacy of the Broken Window”; a must read for any class in economics.
The purpose of production and exchange is to make one better off by satisfying an infinite numbers of wants. Using scarce (limited) resources to replace broken items makes one no better off than before the item was destroyed. In ways the person is worse off since resources that could be used for the satisfaction of other wants now has to be used for an item already attained. If destruction truly spurs economic growth, the ability to satisfy an increasing number of wants, then why wait for a disaster to take place. To ensure economic activity, we should make vandalism legal. If we want to stimulate the economy then why not take a sledge hammer to cars in a parking lot (cash for clunkers) or bulldoze houses (some economist actually suggested this as a cure for slumping housing prices).
The “broken window” buffoon logic permeates the thinking found in our universities and economic central planners. No wonder the country and the world finds itself in a state of turmoil.
I remember over the last 4 years or so I heard the term “elections have consequences” drummed over and over by various Washington left leaning politicians. What was meant by this? This means that the people who are voted into power have the upper hand. They can control the agenda, committees, and otherwise general direction of national, state, and local issues. This has always occurred in our nation’s history. People were elected through a fair process and now have the ability push through legislation much easier.
When people end up on the wrong side of these legislative agendas their legislative bodies use various methods such as filibuster, amendment propositions, and even fleeing the capital grounds as ways to forestall the legislation. In the end, most legislation will get passed and one side will be left bitter. Last evening in Madison, the Wisconsin state Assembly approved a bill that would save the taxpayers million of dollars. One side was left bitter. This was also a consequence of an election.
This is the way most people felt when Obamacare was pushed through Washington’s House and Senate without even being read or even understood. Because of Obama’s other power grabs, banking regulations, undisclosed bailouts of trillions of dollars, GM bailout, and other far reaching acts many people wanted change. Not the kind that Obama wanted. At the first opportunity in a national election after Obamacare was pushed through where over 70% of the people did not want, the chickens came home to roost. There was a wave of states that changed the majorities of their states elected Houses, Senates, and Assemblys.
I heard listening last evening that the budget bill was because of the national economy. It was. But how we arrived at the condition of the economy was never even brought up by the Democrats. The wave of national sentiment against government largess, over taxation, and government intrusion into our lives brought on by the aggressive national legislature and presidential actions is what last night was all about.
Whether the pendulum of power will swing back is remaining to be seen. But the issue was only bringing the differences of retirement and healthcare between private and public sectors a bit more closer. The bottom line is that 90% of the private sector would love to have the benefits that were passed last evening for the government workers. Wisconsin and several states simply do not have the money to continue paying for Cadillac pensions and benefits.
This is being played out in several state houses across the country. Elections do indeed have consequences.
Today’s Ray of Hope goes to House Representative Steve Womack for proposing elimination of Obama’s teleprompter funding.
LOL
The House formally began debate, which is expected to last three days, Tuesday afternoon following some wrangling over the hundreds of amendments lawmakers want to attach to the package. More than 400 amendments were filed Monday night. Among them were a proposal from Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., to eliminate funding for the president’s Teleprompter and one from Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, to strip funding for the alteration, repair or improvement of the executive residence of the White House and instead divert that amount to deficit reduction.
If (and this a big if) the so-called Tea Party movement is responsible for the emergence of a candidate such as Stephan Baily, then to that extent it is beginning to bare fruit. On the other hand, we will need more time (and many more candidates who share Mr. Bailey’s views) to find out to what extent the Tea Party is actually making cultural inroads.
Obama and his ilk pronounce reflexively that the “philosophy” of the Republicans is flawed and failed. If what he means by this the creed of self-sacrifice-light and all the rest of the subjectivist nonsense spewed by traditional Republicans then I would heartily agree. If, however, what he is alluding to is capitalism premised upon the concept of individual rights (as I suspect he is) then he is simply being too cute by half. What he is attempting to argue is that philosophy was actually incorporated into what the Republicans did during their tenures of political control. Well, such could not be further from the truth.. What he clearly wants is, at least, euro-centric styled governance; ideologically, his rhetoric implies socialism. So what he tries to hang on the record of Republicans is the antithesis, philosophically and practically, of his ideological predisposition.
Stephan Bailey, it appears, has thought this through and his plain-spoken and articulate positions reflect the actual philosophy that has not been implemented by Repbulicans but SHOULD HAVE. It stands in stark raving contrast to what most now consider traditional conservative views, or the defacto views of the vast majority of people who call themselves Republicans. If what people want is a real change, then a Republican with Bailey-esque views is a very plausible answer. The key here is that his positions are philosophically defensible, and do not rely on social sacrifice or religious fundamentalism.
I took a moment recently to read Bob Cesca’s Huffington Post article. Cesca is no different than many who are taking the oil spill as an opportunity for context dropping smears of capitalism and capitalists; the economic system and the risk takers within that provide them the very means to spew their socialist claptrap, not to mention create the highest standard of living in the history of mankind. Such pot shots at capitalism are clearly not helping matters.
The degree of myopic, out of context, drivel spewed by Cesca seemed to know no end, as he apparently has little or no knowledge of history (one wonders if he ever heard of the Santa Barbara spill of 1969, and what ensued on the heels of reaction to it). Mr. Cesca would like us all to believe, just as the proponents of government controlled health care, that there IS a “free market”…and that this “free market” is the root cause of the current disaster (just plug in one, it doesn’t seem to matter with this crowd). The same lame argument was made regarding the supposed 40 million people without health insurance, that it was the free market supposedly failing by virtue of the fact some people chose not to purchase health insurance, or simply could not afford the premium charges (let alone purchase care out of pocket). Ergo, it must be the free market, capitalism, that is to blame for this “social injustice” simply because in the present state providers of those services and the insurance companies who pay for it make an accounting profit; as if there is something fundamentally wrong with making a living in the provisioning of health care or insurance to pay for it…
In the same convoluted and out-of-context way energy companies are now being held up as poster children for the failure of capitalism.