I like to drink, go around, and do whatever I want

Well, that's what Bill O'Reilly says about Libertarians in one of his segments with a Russian woman that knows the meaning behind words.
Bill, you can have your protection, I just want my freedom.

p.s. I may want to do whatever I want, but just because I want to doesn't mean that I will.

Good for Russia and Israel

I just saw on Russia Roday that there won't be a need for a visa for Russians visiting Israel for 90 days or less. Good for them, now only if there was no need for visas, but it's a good start. Hopefully this idea will catch on.

Tax the Rich!

I get the argument behind the idea. The rich can afford taxes more than the poor. Of course, I think taxation is theft. I think it's a legalized form of slavery. If I'm taxed on 10% of my income I'm a slave for 1/10 of the work year. If I work 10 hours per day, I'm a slave for an hour. But slavery is slavery even if only for a mere moment...is it not?
So, what if I make $80,000 per year and my neighbor makes $100,000. Let's say for simplicity's sake, I don't get taxed (don't want to screw up the math). Let's say my neighbor has to pay 20%. Well, looks like we're on equal footing, right? He had to go to college longer, and probably a better one, so he's not getting a very good payoff.
Then my other neighbor makes $130,000. What if after taxes he makes "only" $75,000. You know, he can afford it.
So a simple question I have to ask: Why should I bust my butt to work hard and make a lot of money when I may make a little bit than a guy who doesn't work as hard and didn't have as good of an education?
Taxing the rich a lot kills ambition.

The Private Sector and Government

Suppose we had a company that made disinfectants, floor cleaners, bleach, etc.
Suppose this company decided to water it down in order to save money, but passed it off as the pure product. Certainly the government would intervene. Certainly people would more or less call for their heads.
Well, why is the government exempt from this treatment? I'll admit, if government screws up enough, the other party may win next election (but that an be anywhere from tomorrow until 4 years from now). What if it's part of the system though? Like the federal reserve.
A company watering down it's cleaning products is like the fed printing money. They're watering down the value of the dollar. No one seems to mind though.

A prayer to the state

RNC time!
The invocation was quite partisan. I understand wanting to pray for a certain type of leader. I sure do, so I understand people praying for party X or Y. May not agree with their choice of candidates, but I understand.
It's okay to pray for good leaders. Of course, I think NOTA would be a good leader, but I'm not going to slaughter people for praying for Obama or McCain.
But what happens when it becomes politicized? What happens when slogans are tossed into a prayer? Well, I throw up, that's what. Country first should never, ever, be in a prayer to God. Perhaps the state, but never to God who cares more about if you served the poor and fed he hungry than if you served or fed the state.
A prayer for service to the state? Instead of praying that people give up their interest to serve the state (as if politicians aren't power hungry and self-aggrandizing), we should pray that more people give up their self interest to serve God in the priesthood. Or serve the poor through charitiy and volunteering.
And what is wrong with self interest? Often self interest brings good things. For example not many musicians play music to contribute, or serve, to the culture. Yet they serve society, for better or worse, through their self-interest.
Let's put the spiritual side of things away for a moment. Let's say I donated $100,000 to a charity to have an award named after me. Is that $100,000 worth the same if I did it annonymously? Of course! It may be selfish to do it so I can have something named after me, but the ends will be the same!
There's something scary about the melding of the Church and State. Especially when the state becomes the Church!

In Awe of the Almighty God-State

MSNBC's post speech coverage is great. I'm sure there were more state-worshipping statements, but I was busy watching Family Matters.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rev. Eugene Rivers just went through the Litany of Saint Lincoln. Michelle Obama, glory to her name, is a descendant of slaves. Reverend Rivers mentioned America is unique, and great, because the North and South had a war and other nations didn't.
His truth comes marching home indeed.
Deacon Matthews mentioned how he hates Hollywood for making the south sypathetic. That's right, he wants to portray them as the devils they apparently were. Let Hollywood help those Sherman apologists, because not one Southerner was good. Let them be portayed like the germans portrayed those apparently hook-nosed greedy jews. Let them be portrayed as those monkey-like Japs our government so lovingly did.
What was the result? Six million people of a relitively small religious group murdered. Six million more of Jewish and Gypsy ancestry slaughtered. Tens of thousands of Japanese annihilated with an intrinsically evil weapon.
Deacon Matthews should know this.
Even if the Jews were trying to take over, is it ever right to commit a genocide? If the Japanese's spirit was strong, is it righ tto crush it by wiping out two cities?
Slavery is immoral. Humans can not be another's property. And yet the ends don't justify the means. Sherman's march was total warfare, which is immoral.
How can a man, supposively a worshipper of the Prince of Peace, glorify war instead of peace? There can be no mistake, they worship the state. Matthews is the Deacon to the reverend. And Olbermann is a promising young acolyte.
These false teachers called on hollywood to portray the Confederacy as an evil on the level of Hitler and the Union on the level of Saint Michael. And yet both sides seemed to be in the wrong. One advocated slavery while the other advocated statism.
Finally, Olbermann said that the CSA rebelled against the Union and were insurrectionists. If Lincoln didn't invade the South, there would have been no war. The South didn't want to take over the north too.
Everyone has a right to leave a country, whether a state/province, region, city, neighborhood, or individual. Why do I say people worship the state? Look at secessionist regions in the world. They treat each one as a schism if they aren't pro-US. South Ossetia and the CSA? No, they must remain within the one true faith.
On the other hand, they treat pro-US regions like the Church would if a protestant group asked to come home. Kosovo? Let them have their freedom!
It's one thing for a religious group to protest a schism since there is a true faith. It's another for a country sincce there's no one true country.
Although the South embracing slavery was reprehensible, there was something noble about it. It had a more Catholic/Anglo-Catholic culture. An air of dignity, a natural social structure (minus slavery of course), and a more easy-going attitude. The North? Although more "advanced", it was so much more irrational. Just take a look at the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
What was once a cultured society became the stereotypical Southern culture of today. When the northerners moved south during reconstruction, they brought their anti-Catholic and state-worshipping attitudes with them.
Indeed, the Civil War was the first of your modern wars-destroy life and property to bring around a good, then spend millions and billions on reconstruction.
The spread of state worship eventually led to America's nationalism which plagues Liberty to this day. The north fought for the slaves' Liberty, yet it was ironically the death of American-style Liberty.

A Frenchman Tells the Truth

Not that I'm calling the French liars or anything. I mean, just look at the blog address!
Today on Fareed Zakaria: GPS (a very good show, from the few episodes and segments I've seen), the host interviewed a Frenchman and a German. The former said Barack Obama was an idealist and a realist, while the neocons are extreme idealists. Then he said Barack was a mixture of a neocon and Kissinger.
Take it from a man with a clear head, a rational man. Obama is no Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (though I disagree with him on Darfur), or Cynthia McKinney. He's just going to start more wars that are more directly linked to the "war on terror" and genocide
Watch out Pakistan! Watch out Iran!
Turns out that entire nations are terrorist nations if they don't do enough in the eyes of the leviathan. And never mind about possible civil wars if moderates start attacking extremists. The legionaries will come to the rescue!
Yep, we should just kill the people instead of the source, mainly the American Hegemony.
I mean, I think you'd be pretty ticked off if someone decided to stay in your back yard or porch and threatened to shoot you if you tried to get them out, right?
Didn't the colonials have a revolution because the redcoats tried to have sleepovers?

In God We Trust?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Interesting topic. "Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?"

So, I wonder what our options are?

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

No no, it isn't.

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

Wait, these are my only choices?

Guess I ought to just view the results then

Vote to see results

...oh.

I'd say it shouldn't mainly for the "patriotic" significance. I trust in the Prince of Peace. I trust in God. However, the politicians trust in Mars it would seem. I don't want their perverted worship of a false god, the god of war that they masquerade as the one true God, to be proclaimed from my near-worthless money. Not to mention it implies some sort of Divine Mandate that a Chinese Emperor could only dream of.
Of course if we had gold coins it wouldn't matter much what was printed on it since an American coin would be worth the same as a nigerian coin with the same gold amount. Hell, it could be privately minted with the atheist atom symbol.
(Heck even though I'm not one, I'd probably try to hunt one down)

Too Much Choice?

http://climate.weather.com/articles/overload2008.html?from=hp_fe_link

I get what they're trying to say. "The more there is, the more likely you're going to miss out on something." and "The more there is, the more likely you'll buy things that you wouldn't have otherwise gotten."
When in reality, they're saying (or implying) "Listen to us, we'll provide everything you need and you should be happy."
Variety is very good. For example, A&W root beer is better than Mug, Stewarts, and Olde Brooklyn. However, Olde Brooklyn is the best if taken in moderation (very strong taste). If that's all we had, I'm sure I would hate root beer. Mug has better cream soda than those other companies. I like Pepsi better than Coke, AC, and a plethora of no-name brands. I like my hamburgers well done. My french fries curly and by a certain brand. I can go on and on. I'd also type my shoe preferences, but there's not much variety in the sandal family than brown.

Choose between soda sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar, flavored artificially or naturally, colored pink or red or green or blue or purple.

Of course, there's a difference in taste between cane sugar and h-f corn syrup. Artificial or natural. And, hey, who wouldn't like to pick their favorite color?
Here's where it goes from "dang that's sure cool" to "Wait, what?"

The notion transcends simple consumerism. It also is the dilemma facing whoever wins November's election. With options beyond our great-grandparents' dreams, is freedom of unlimited choice really a freedom at all?
In a universe of unprecedented static, how can an American leader lead?

The author obviously doesn't realize that before the 20th century, the major parties were made up of a coalition of smaller parties. If we have so much choice, why do the two parties have a virtual monopoly on the political landscape? Without unlimited freedom of choice, a leader would actually lead. Republicans get behind a Republican as long as he doesn't break a few cardinal laws (mainly war, though to a lesser extent taxes and social issues). Democrats get behind a Democrat most of the time. Imagine if the whole nation got behind a president, like they eventually did with Roosevelt and eventually Wilson too? That experiment was very successful.
The whole article is a contradiction of capitalism.
Why is it on "Forecast Earth"? I wonder if it's a jab against oil and non-green technology. Of course, like the hypocrites they are, they'll argue for more choice until a green fuel becomes as popular. Then suddenly...

Thank Goodness for Bottled Water!

I've heard plenty of people complain about consumerism in the United States. We're a consumerist cuture. Is that really all that bad though?
The main example I usually hear is the selling of bottled water. "Why should water be sold? It should be free!" "It's a precious resource God gave to us!" "We need it to survive, something so valuble shouldn't have a price."
And yet food is sold. Isn't it also valuble and necessary for survival? Tap water certainly isn't free since you have to pay the government for it. So, it's morally wrong to give a corporation money for water, but it's fine for the government to charge for it? Of course, I forgot, most people worship the state, so the state is the final arbiter on morals (assuming someone from your preferred political party is in office).
So, the only bad thing about bottled water seems to be a fuzzy moral line.
What is the good that is always overlooked?
Well, it helps in droughts, right?
And during disasters, it'll be there long after water stops flowing and you run out of emergency water.
While jogging, you could pick up a bottle.
Flavored water is always good if your tap supply happens to taste really bad. Or even when it tastes good.
No need to worry about terrorists doing anything funny to the water
Buying in bulk usually is much cheaper, so it's good for picnics.

Of course, there's plenty of other uses for bottled water, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

Russia-Georgia

The media is finally reporting on the war between Russia and Georgia. The media has automatically taken Georgia's side since, y'know, the Russians are always evil.
We hear of an alleged Russian bombing of an apartment building, but they attacked an ammo dump that was next to the apartments. Apparently good guys build highly destructive military installations next to residential areas, right?
There was a lot of talk of democracy. Okay, I'll bite. The South Ossetians want to be free from Georgia. They might want to join Russia or they might want their own country. I don't know, but I do know they don't want to be part of Georgia. Don't they have a right to leave if they feel like it?
Let's assumed the countries were different. Let's say Israel was a part of an arabic country. Let's also say that Israel decided to leave this nameless country. They voted to, but not everyone seems to recognize it. The arab country, over a decade later, decide to shell Jerusalem. Fourteen thunred are dead. Would the US not attack? This is the same situation. It seems like the Georgians started it all, yet they're the heroes. They shell a city (destroying about 80% of it) and they're martyrs. The Russians destroy an ammo dump next to an apartment builing and they're evil.
Now the press reports that the Russians are invading the heart of Georgia. The Georgian president declared war on them. He wants a cease-fire not even a day later.
I'm writing this because I'm utterly amazed at the hypocrisy of the two mainstream candidates and Americans in general. If Russia does it, it is evil, but we can go into any country we want and it's okay.
I understand this is the way politics works. I guess I should just laugh since it's so glaringly obvious it's actually a bit funny.

Heroic!

Some congressman just talked down to Bernanke and the government for bailing out Freddie/Fannie. I even think he advocated taking powers away from the Fed. Good for him! Unfortunately, he was ridiculed a little by Dodd. Ah well, that's to be expected. Rome burns as caesar...cracks jokes?

Bastille Day

I was a bit busy yesterday (okay, not really, I forgot to write in this, alright?).
Thank goodness the Neocons hate the French, otherwise they would also celebrate. After all, the jacobins were the prototype of the neoconservatives.

Vive le Roi!

Another "stimulus" package?

Watching the most dangerous man in America, Bernanke, and it sounds like one is coming soon. Printing all that money and bailing out Bear Sterns is what caused gas to become this "high."
What's happening now? Probably another and yet another bailout. The jackals and their priests (the media) are going to tell the jackasses to believe it's the speculators' fault. They will cheer as they get their "free" money.
Unfortunately, the media always reports that pricces are rising. In reality, the dollar is plummeting.

Edit: Forgot to type this. I said that gas would hit $5 per gallon. I was half joking. But now.....

The solution to oil prices is right under your nose

The only problem is that the Fed's cheerleaders are making you look in hiding places rather than down.
On Fox a few minutes ago the panel was talking about, surprise, how to make gas more affordable. Do we attack supply or demand? Do we drill offshore? Do we drill in the shale? So we open our reserves (which is going to be the death of everthing we love. I'll explain in a later post)?
Of course, they never bring up the real problems. The main one is inflation. No one wants to entertain the idea since it's Mad Ben Bernanke's fault and there's almost nothing anyone can do. No, instead of identifying the problem, they want to be gods and be able to do something. They could, but it won't amount to much as long as the Federal Reserve is still around.
The rebate checks we all loved are a big part of the problem. We want things now, but most people didn't see what they couldn't-it fixes things now, but makes it worse in the long run.
There is a secondary problem. Our import from Canada is very impure. It takes a lot to refine it into useable fuel, which costs even more money. So Conservatives and Liberals both want more domestic and "non-terrorist" (read non ay-rab) oil. Where do they get it? Well, here, and Canada. I'm betting the government is going to give oil companies money to drill here. So no matter what, money will be wasted because we can't give those muslims our precious, sacred money.
And yet the blame is falling on speculators and the very Arabs I think we should trade with more.
Neo-Mercantilism, here we come!

Edit: The point of this post was basically "Not much can be done about inflation, so enjoy the ride and hope the government trades with 'our enemies'".

New Blog

For those interested in Catholicism and religion in general, I will post here.

Subsidizing TV

I haven't seen much in the way of the DTV 2009 deal. Basically, everyone is going to be forced to get digital TV. Fret not though! The government will give you up to $80! That's right, it's basically the community paying for people to get their entertainment. People with compatible TVs and and digital cable are paying anyway. People without TV are paying. Sounds fair? Of course not! Here's a gem.

Broadcasters are transitioning to digital to provide important benefits to consumers. Because digital broadcasting is more efficient, broadcasters require less of the airwaves to provide a better television viewing experience. Once the DTV transition is completed, some television channels will be turned over to fire and police departments for emergency communication and others will be auctioned to companies to provide new wireless services.

Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia

Similarly, video recorders for analog signals (including both tape-based VCRs and hard-drive-based DVRs) will not be able to select channels, limiting their ability to automatically record programs via a timer or based on downloaded program information.

Also, older handheld televisions, which rely primarily on over-the-air signals and battery operation, will be rendered impractical since the proposed converter boxes are not portable nor powered with batteries.

This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.

Portable radios which feature the ability to listen to television audio on VHF channels 2-13 would also lose this ability, while television stations which formerly broadcast on Channel 6 (with analog FM audio on 87.75 MHz) would no longer be heard on standard FM broadcast band radios. These stations would lose the ability for commuters to listen to their broadcasts.

I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.

Were any new TVs to contain only an ATSC tuner, this could prevent older devices such as VCRs and video game consoles with only an analog RF output from connecting to the TV. Connection would require an analog to digital converter box, which is the opposite as what is currently being sold. Such a box would also likely introduce additional delay into the video signal. Fortunately, analog inputs suitable for connection to VCRs have remained available on all current digital-capable TV's.

Changes in signal reception from factors such as degrading antenna connections or worsening weather conditions may gradually reduce the quality of analog TV. The nature of digital TV results in a perfect picture initially, until the receiving equipment starts picking up noise or losing signal. Some equipment will show a picture even with significant damage, while other devices may go directly from perfect to no picture at all (and thus not show even a slightly damaged picture).

Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.

Some signals carry encryption and specify use conditions (such as "may not be recorded" or "may not be viewed on displays larger than 1 m in diagonal measure") backed up with the force of law under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and national legislation implementing it, such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Long hair is destroying America!

First, I was abducted by aliens. Well, that's my best excuse. Sorry to any lurkers for the lack of updates. Been working on my website though. Yeehaw. Anyway, the show continues.
I'm watching Fox now and the anchor/radio host is picking on some kid (11 I believe) with long hair. It goes past his shoulders. Now, I don't have short hair. It's also not long. Heck, I can't grow long hair without it looking like a total mess. If mine is short, my head looks huge. Absolutely huge. So, my hair helps my head look smaller.
I'm all for people having long hair if they choose (obviously, it's not hurting anyone). The woman said when he goes for a job interview, people might think he's a slacker if it's still long.
I think a fairly close shave looks trashy on a lot of people while long hair could look incredible. Slicked back in a ponytail, combed, whatever. It's not that hard to make long hair look presentable.
Another one of her points was something about the line between boys and girls was being eroded in America or something. God help us all! People aren't wearing that stereotypical 1950's buzz cut or something you might see in the corporate world!
Jesus probably had long hair, and Samson most certainly did. St. Louis IX had long hair. So long for her point.
Finally, she asked what else the mother lets him choose. She said his clothes in the morning. This is pretty good. The only reason children rebel the way they do (in m opinion) is mainly because parents don't want to give thir kids more freedom as they hit puberty. Choosing a hairstyle (and a nice one at that) is a good starting point.

Speaking of lightbulbs...

From a facebook group:

When it comes to the environment- no, your civil rights are NOT more important than steps being taken to save it. Guess what you Republican nitwits, this planet is dying because of humans, I'm all for extinction of the species via not propagating the next generation. Humans don't deserve this world, which provides us with food, water, oxygen and sunlight; costing a little bit more for a lightbulb which may impact the environment positively, even one iota is the LEAST we can do. Mercury is fine by me, get rid of those damn children and fetuses wasting the resources.

You people make me nauseous.

Now let's change that up.

When it comes to national security- no, your civil rights are NOT more important than steps being taken to save the country. Guess what you Democrat nitwits, the terrorists are growing because of so called civil rights and peace, I'm all for the murder of Muslims to stop terrorism. We don't deserve liberty, which provides us with death, terror, destruction and a weakened country; giving a little bit of freedom which may end terrorism, even one iota is the LEAST we can do. Tyranny is fine by me, get rid of those damn freedoms and liberties making us less safe.

You people make me nauseous.

I wonder if she would be up in arms about that. Though only one person, this may represent a greater number of people. The radical anti-freedom group have control. As long as us pro-freedom people are not radicalized (i.e. free markets), they will win.

The Green Movement Encourages Internal Strife

I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site outlining the dangers of fluorescent lightbulbs. Pretty scary stuff. Then I decided to do a bit of research.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?

The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:

Increased CAFE standards. Automakers are required to boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg (14.8 km/l) by 2020. This applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks".

Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.

Improved vehicle technology and transportation electrification. Incentives for the development of plug-in hybrids.

More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!

New conservation requirements for federal vehicle fleets.

Gasp! The government making itself do something?!

Increased production of biofuels. The total amount of biofuels added to gasoline is required to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. The Energy Act further specifies that 21 billion gallons of the 2022 total must be derived from non-cornstarch products (e.g. sugar or cellulose).

So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)

Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs.

Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.

Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.

I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.

New initiatives for promoting conservation in buildings and industry.

Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!

Requires all lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star products.

Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!

New standards and grants for promoting efficiency in government and public institutions. New and renovated federal buildings must reduce fossil fuel use by 55% (from 2003 levels) by 2010, and 80% by 2020. All new federal buildings must be "carbon-neutral" by 2030.

And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!

Accelerated research and development of solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.

More subsidies, more taxes.

Expanded federal research on carbon sequestration technologies.

More subsidies, more tax.

Green jobs - creation of a training program for "Energy efficiency and renewable energy workers".

How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.

Energy transportation and infrastructure. New initiatives for highway, sea and railroad infrastructure. Creation of the Office of Climate Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation.

More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.

Small business energy programs, offering small businesses loans toward energy efficiency improvements.

Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?

Smart grid - modernization of the electricity grid to improve reliability and efficiency.

Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!

Pool safety - new federal standards for drain covers and pool barriers.

This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.

To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.

Well, I guess it could be worse

I found this Mitt Romney quote on his wikipedia article:

"I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st Century - still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."

This is a reference to the growing anti-war sentiment. France was a superpower three times (as far as I can remember).
First was way back when Charlemagne was king. What happened? Well, his kingdom split. We all know what happened last time someone tried to split from the US, and there's no reason it won't happen again.
Second was under the Bourbons, mainly Louis XIV's reign. Ultimately, all the wars bankrupted the kingdom.
Third was France under Napoleon. Needless to say, his empire was only great because he conquered so much.
So, what will it be, Willard Mitt? America splitting up, America bankrupting, or America conquering the world then losing everything? Looks like we're #2, trying to be #3s.
If only we were 1s.
If only we, like the French, would grow tired of endless war and empire.

Huckabee quote

Found this quote on the LRC blog:

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism;

If classic Republicanism is conservatism, wouldn't liberalism be the exact opposite and therefore the biggest threat?

it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says 'look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.'

Wrong, eliminating government is anarchism, which is usually a part of Libertarianism. There's also Minarchism which says that the state is a necessary evil. Is there "social liberalism" in the movement? Yes, but there's also those of us who believe the federal government shouldn't legislate morals. Economic conservatism is a cornerstone of classic Republicanism, just as it was for the Bourbon Democrats.

If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it.

I never read anything by a libertarian that said "so be it" about this. We always say that the free market will take care of this. The only reason there's not a low-priced medical plan is because of government. To statists, this seems like a paradox. Think of it in terms of a rock in a sea. The water, or the markets, go around it. Without the rock (government), the water would flow right by. This is what libertarians believe.
And it doesn't even have to be the markets proper. Charities could spring up.

If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.'

Again, free markets would take care of this. Public schools have some of the best tools and facilities for students, yet (at least in NY), they fail miserably. If a provider does not provide a service well, they go out of business. When the government fails, they throw more money at it.

Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message.

*phew* Glad to know I'm not an American! I think an adventure is in order to find out what exactly I am.

It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people.

Truth, we're collectivists. Err, they, I forgot, I'm not an American.

That's not historic Republicanism.

More truth, historical Republicanism (I'm going way back) is neoconservative and protectionist at best and murderous at worst

Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be.

The government interfering in people's private lives means that there's not as little as there can be.

But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Whoa, hey, holy excise taxes Huckman!

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ...

Not nearly as much as keeping the social structure up.

police on the streets,

Think we already have that. Oh, wait, you mean to keep the social structure. Wait, if the social structure falls, I think that means the police failed. Woops.

prison beds,

If we end the drug war, we won't need so many. Wait, if we do, somehow the social structure will collapse. Hm, I'm starting to see a pattern that statism bring more and more.

court costs,

Again, end the drug war. Also, stop ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts. Oh, right, seatbelts are going to lead to the collapse of the social structure.

alcohol abuse centers,

If the social structure collapses, there will be alcoholism? Or does alcoholism lead to the collapse of the social structre? Either way, more statism!

domestic violence shelters,

So, if we get our way, there will be more domestic violence? I just can't wrap my head around that logic...

all are very expensive.

Ya don't say?

What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say 'yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff.'

It is quite expensive. Again, the markets would come in at the very least.

But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community.

I dunno, it seems that private charity is better. You feel better giving money instead of having it taken, right? I'm sure most libertarians would support private charities and enterprises. Heck, maybe even most people. But if they don't want to, what does that say about using their tax dollars to? Well, that would be stealing. Stealing is a sin, isn't it Revvie?

You can take the cops off the streets

Not a bad idea. They aren't on my streets. They seem to look for trouble whenever I see them elsewhere.

and just quit funding prison beds.

Not a bad idea either. Private prisons would be far more accountable.

Are your neighborhoods safer?

If yes, no need for cops. If no, the neighbors will band together and form a neighborhood watch.

Is it a better place to live?

Without having to worry about being tasered? heck yes.

The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before."

I bet!

I think most minarchists would support a small, efficient (government and efficient?) force. Cut the drug war, no need for the DEA or all those funky militarized gagets. Will people lose jobs? Sure, but they'll find employment elsewhere. In the meanwhile, we'll have more money.

P.S. Nice not so secret shot at Ron Paul.

McCain isn't the only one that can quote a communist

Today in a speech he quoted Mao, "It's darkest before its totally black", in reference to his campaign.

Fine, I'll quote Deng Xiaoping in reference to his love for toiling for a greater good (i.e. the state), "To get rich is glorious"

Holidays for the Troops

I forgot to mention what I saw on C-Span yesterday. The president met with bikers that drown out the "God hates fags" crowd. Fine and dandy, but he said there had to be more holidays for the troops. Alrighty...
There's memorial day, veterans day (why celebrate armistice day?), and armed services day. There's probably more, but these are just off the top of my head.
Don't forget about statist holidays either: "loyalty day" and "'peace officer' day"
How many about the consitution? One. No one celebrates. Hell, I had to look it up at Wikipedia! And while we're there...

Private businesses often observe only the "big six" holidays (New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas).

Two out of six are dedicated to soldiers, one to the new year, one to work, one to our secession, one to the proto-americans, and one to Christianity.
I do think there needs to be more holidays dedicated to Leif Erikson though.

Edit: National Gold Star Mother's Day, National Korean War Veteran's Armistice Day, Pearl Harbor Rememberance Day (fo Pearl Harbor, but certainly turns into a day to those troops), and quite possibly National Defense Transporation Day (though I guess it could be defensive driving...I don't know)

In terms of weeks, we at least have a Consitution Week, but also a police week.
Months? Well, Steelmark month is so incredibly protectionist that I think my head exploded.

Edit again: I love Hawaii. They have a Fr. DamienDay

Libertarian Party Convention

I watched C-Span from a bit before 10:30 until 6. Here are some of my thoughts:
Caught the last part of a show about the national guard. I hate hearing people whining about why you should respect someone. If we do, we know. If not, leave those folks alone. It reminds me of the people on Histoy's show Axemen and Tougher in Alaska. I don't care if you almost die every day, I don't have to respect you. And if I did, I sure don't because you're whining. Be more like the Ice Road truckers. You're alone, going to starve to death, then get eaten by a polar bear? Just curse a lot. Of course, I like the axmen/soldiers/Alaskans that don't whine (unless they're asses).
I caught a presentation about locks of love after that. I was wondering what this had to do with Libertarianism until the presenter mentioned that it's an example of individual contributing to somethiing without government coercion. Perfect!
Then C-Span cut to an interview with George McGovern. I didn't pay too much attention since the meatballs were ready.
Somewhere between this point and before a commercial for Thomas DiLorenzo's appearance discussing Lincoln aired. Too bad I won't be able to catch it.
Then the LP convention speeches started. I can't remember who the first speaker was, but boy did he look like he doesn't take any crap from anyone.
Then the chairman announced the order the candidates were going to speak. First was Root. I was turned off by the Mancow endorsement. Normally I'd like a guy named Mancow, but that just goes to show you how much of a jerk I think he is. I didn't catch the debate, but it sounded like he was trying to appeal to gamblers. Surprise surprise, he had no support in Nevada.
The order gets a bit fuzzy at this point, so I'm just going to post the ones that come to mind.
Barr gave a decent speech. One part made me a bit nervous. I'm well aware of his stance on South America, but I think the line he said made me wonder if he really was going to intervene.
Christine Smith gave an awesome speech. In fact, I went in rooting for Barr, but ended up supporting her (and two others later on).
Mary Rewart gave a good speech too. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have remembered her too well thogh. What made me? Well, the clever signs and Guy Fawkes. Yep, someone wore a V for Vendetta mask there. It was awesome.
Steve Kubby gave a great speech. He ended up getting my support as well.
Phillies...I honestly had to look at Wikipedia to remember him since his nominators took up a lot of time.
Mike Jingozian seemed to just be a Gravel fan. He had a multimedia presentation that messed up a few times (though it was the CD drive's fault). Alright, not his fault, right? Well, at the end, the audio/video was messed up.
And finally Mike Gravel. I boo'd him (yeah, I was doing this at home), but clapped a few times. I have to say, I have a lot of respect for him now. A hell of a lot. He said that he did't believe some of the things the LP stood for. Okay, we knew that. But then he said he'll put the party before himself. Yes, he'll support things he doesn't believe because the people that nominated him did. I know, he could be a liar, but you know what? I do believe him and that he would do his best.
I said I ended up supported three, but I only admitted to two. The third is coming up.
I was never prouder to be a New Yorker than today. The delegate chair was just too awesome.
Anyway, first round, Smith and Jingozian are out. Jingozian wants to give a speech. he mentionsthat he'll be back (I think). Then Smith comes on. She gives the single greatest speech of the day. Seriously. Maybe even of the year. Or this century! She gives a non-endorsement of Bob Barr. It was more passionate than Zell Miller. And more awesome.
She also went on an intelligent rant for reporters.
Kubby lost the next round and endorsed Ruwart. I support her, not because of the endorsement, but because of the Mary-Barr shenanigans that's been going on during votes. Or maybe that was next round. Eh, one of these rounds.
Phillies loses. Whoop dee doo. Also a tie, holy cow!
Then Gravel. It's also another tie.
Root's gone! Mary's in the lead! Sounds like Barr is going to win since they pretty much ant to run together.
And then Barr wins.

Though I supported Barr going into this, I must say it as a bit dissappointing at the end. I'll support most of his ideas, and might vote for him. I just hope the mainstream media doesn't label everything he believes as libertarian.
It's like hoping that fire won't burn me if I stick my hand in though. If the LP was a major party, they would play on this crack in the wall. Make it larger. Since they aren't, they'll try to mold it into their mainstream vision.

A Message to Gold Standard Crusaders

As a gold standard crusader, I'm worried about the future. As long as we stay with the fiat dollar, our money will be nearly worthless if more hyper inflationists become the Federal Reserve chairman.
However, the Gold Standard may bring more frightening problems. Populists like Lou Dobbs and the Democratic Party (of the Irony) will end up fighting for Free Silver. This will be as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than the Fiat Dollar.
If we can ever return to the gold standard, I see free silver becoming an issue within a few decades. Unfortunately, I can see McBamaton fighting for it.
And this is the problem with populism. With a gold standard, it hurts the government (causes it to bankrupt) while the fiat dollar hurts businesses. This is mainly because without the issue of free silver, the populists will turn their sights to wages and some of the more socialistic ones will tax the rich to make one class which the parasite can devour.

Polar Bears

The government deemed that they need protection. It's the first global-warming centric reasoning too. Not only are they going to be illegal to kill, but industry is likely going to be killed too. Make up your minds, do we want to keep jobs here or not? If yes, stop regulating! If no, well, keep it up I guess...
God forbid that a polar bear wonders into a town. No one will be able to legally kill it. Of course, I'm betting the government is going to tell us to wait for our local lawa enforcement agencies to tranquilize it. You can always trust the government to protect you!

Uh, what?

Some town hall meeting in Cape Girardeau: Barack is going to crack down on countries that won't allow our products and is going to tax companies that sends jobs overseas.
Crack down? Like, go to war? Sanctions (which is always immoral)?
Oh, and want to keep jobs here? Get rid of minimum wage.

Bob Barr #10

On Yahoo's top searches.
Certainly a moderate, but I'm considering voting for him. I'd say there's a 30% chance (pretty high considering).
I have a bad feeling that the media is going to make him the poster boy for libertarianism and try to take down the movement. Well, they're reporting that Gravel is one, even though he was kicked out of the nominating process.

Al Gore is right

Saw this on the front page of yahoo:
citizensugar.com/1609388

Al Gore says that the cyclone in Myanmar is a result of global warming. He told NPR yesterday:


And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.

Gore said that because ocean temperatures are on the rise, extreme and dangerous weather is also on the rise.

Critics of Gore say he's taking advantage of the deaths of thousands of innocent people to promote his political advantage. But, if he truly believes that we must address climate change to stop such disasters and save future lives, doesn't he have an obligation to speak up? If he is wrong about global warming, what harm is there in taking better care of the planet anyways?

Is Gore right to tie Myanmar Cyclone deaths to global warming?

How dare anyone question whether or not it was global warming's fault for all these deaths! Just like all the horrible Asian cyclones, Katrina was due to global warming.

Of course it has nothing to do with the government. Nope, it was global warming's fault that the Burmese government didn't give people proper warning. It was global warming's fault that the levies broke in New Orleans too. And George Bush's. Nope, how are anyone claim the government is incompetent.

Good for them

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/palace.takeover/

Things Which are Seen and Things Which are Unseen: Excise Tax

I will applaud John McCain for getting rid of the tax on gas for the summer. Would it be nicer to get rid of it altogether? You bet, but I'm for any tax cut as long as taxes on others aren't raised to compensate for it.
You bet Hillary Clinton's plan is going to eventually include a compensation to save the highway projects (or whatever they're crying about losing). I have a sick feeling that taxes on tobacco are going to be raised. Think about it. They won't suffer any monetary loss and it might encourage people to quit since they can't afford it anymore.
Let's apply Bastiat's great essay in this hypothetical case. The things that are seen are slightly lower fuel costs and a decrease in smoking. We see jobs being lost and infrastructure collapse.
Certainly collapsing bridges are tragedies. Of course it's incredibly regrettable that so many people are going to be out of work.
What is unseen though? Non-driving smokers are going to "subsidize" drivers. The infrastructure can be saved by cutting elsewhere. With fewer people on the government's payroll, the tax payers may get more money which they can use to buy goods with.
Does that seem uncaring? Sure, but they can surely get new jobs with private contractors. If they were sub-par workers, why should the taxpayers' money go to pay them? Can I not say that it seems like the objector is the uncaring one? With more taxes, wouldn't that mean less money would go to the micro economy?
Of course, the mainstream certainly does not remember Bastiat since they consider the crazed hyperinflationists at the Federal Reserve great economists.
I certainly do not claim to be a good one (I'm just a lowly armchair economist), but if Hillary Clinton actually cuts taxes, I'm sure she'll increase them elsewhere. And of course, Boobus will celebrate because she says she's for the working man even though the unseen things hurt them even more than they claim free markets do.

Rev. Wright

I hear all these dopes on the news cry about how horrible Jeremiah Wright is. Their main points:
-It's an outrage to compare US Soldiers to Roman Legionnaires
-His style is arrogant/egomaniacal
-It's damaging
-He's shrill, therefore his point is wrong (seriously)

Questions:
-Aren't we building an empire? Don't we have soldiers far away from Rome (uh, I mean, DC)?
-Since when is being a fired up, charismatic minister something intrinsically bad?
-How is his defending himself damaging?
-Ad hominem?

Answers:
-Yes, but our soldiers should be revered as Saints. So shut your anti-American mouth up.
-Of course, unless its on a Sunday. The only acceptable ministers are the ones who are hypocrites and worship the state.
-Logic? Haw haw

Apparently, answering semi-sarcastically (i.e. "Do you know what your pastor said on Sunday?) is absolutely evil.
I'd love to see what they would say about Bastiat if he was alive.
Does he hurt Obama? Maybe, but I have no respect for Barack now.

P.S. I'm laughing my butt off at their fruity responses. "He might have a point" "The black experience" "A conversation!"

Things that are seen and not seen-Catholic Schools

In Westchester, some Catholic school teachers are protesting their low wages. No one can argue that they get tend to get paid well, but some do (though it requires a Ph.D.).
I heard that they want an 11% wage increase. They were striking not too long ago, so it's obvious that they're trying to milk the Archdiocese for everything it can give and more.
What is seen are low wages. What is seen would be a revitalized staff. What is unseen are tuition increases (or using less quality material) and theft. Yes, these teachers who complain that they're not paid enough are stealing from every single parent. Subsitutes are brought in, school is closed, etc. They paid for their children's education. Isn't stealing the act of taking something, without permission, and without giving something in return? Parents payed for a full year of school, and they don't get it.
Not only are they stealing from parents, but they're stealing from the Archdiocese and anyone that contributes any money. Ultimately, these ravenous babies are stealing from the Catholic Church. And they say Capitalists worship the dollar? At least we're not stealing from the Church.

Give me freedom and no protection or give me death!

"We need the government to tap phones. So what if they tap innocent people's? Only those who do wrong need to worry."
The government does not protect us. We just need to look at Ruby Ridge, Waco, El Dorado, and all the cases of the police slaughtering innocents and destroying property. I fear the government far more than I fear terrorism. The government is more likely to do me personal harm than a thug with a box cutter.
I fear our own government more than any other nation's. Russia, China, Iran, etc had its fair share of atrocities, but no other nation used a nuclear weapon before. And for this I worry. Not for myself, but the global community.
I will not give up my liberties for protection. Not one. Once one is taken away, they have a case to take another and another away until we have cameras on every street corner and microphones in every room.
I'd rather be killed by a terrorist than be made "safe" by the government. Death before slavery.
Safety from outside invaders is a right. It's one of the few legitimate things the government can do. Freedom is another right. Freedom and safety go hand in hand, which is why we will get no safety if we sacrifice our liberties.
Yet the hordes jump for joy when the goverment comes to help. To protect them. They'll gladly give up their freedom to be "safe." The only question is: who will protect you from the government?

Rising food prices

The price of milk, corn, flour, oil, etc etc is rising steadilly. Corn's price rise is pretty obvious. The government says X amount should go to ethanol, so there's shortages. Remind you of something? Reminds me of two things-first, the 1970's oil lines. Regulation caused that. Second, FDR's New Deal which got us into this mess. Everyone curses Hoover, but the brunt came after Holy Lord Roosevelt (Exalted be His Name and His State!) implimented the New Deal.
What about the other stuff though? Is it the end result of food shortages? Sort of. Inflation has a pretty big hand in this I'd imagine. Just wait until the price of Pepsi rises. I'll be laughing while people bring up...Pepsi shortages?
So, what are some solutions to this problem? Well, I'm sure our glorious State will figure something out, right? Of course, I was testing your faith. Some of my predictions:
1. Further rationing
2. Kicking out 12,000,000 illegal immigrants because we obviously can't support more than 300,000,000 people
3. Government queues on production

So, socialism (Obama), fascism (McCain), or a mixture of both (Clinton)?
Good luck picking!

More cronyism in Queens

So, a judge decided that three NYC policemen weren't guilty of slaughering a man on his wedding day. It wasn't even decided by a jury. Yet another example of lackies of the state protecting eachother. Yet if you or I shot someone we thought was trying to run us down we'd be guilty before innocent.
Yet policemen and others employed by the state gets away with murder (literally).
Let's get real, there's a reason "to serve and protect" is only a TV slogan. TV is the only place that police never make mistakes. Boobus, of course, believes this. The only questions in my mind is "Who do they think they're fooling? Serve, hah! And who is going to protect us from them?"

The Republican National Convention

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/04/18/1561/email_tells_delegates_to_applaud_--_and_stay_out_of_politics_at_rnc_convention

You should also be aware that, unlike your service as a State or local delegate, your influence on the process is considerably limited. The other primary states will, by convention time, have determined the Presidential nominee.

Yes, Ron Paul or another candidate might not win, but to give up would be giving into despair.

The platform process is divided and the opportunity to participate in even a piece of it is limited. After the convention, the platform is generally ignored.

Hey, finally some truth!

For this reason, the role of National Delegate is generally seen as a 'reward' for long and faithful service to the Party, rather than as a 'representative' to a deliberative body or a 'learning opportunity' for newcomers."

Although I'm not a fan of the Republic, I'm less of a fan of party despotism (Soviet Union) and the olgliarchy. I'm also begining to wonder if the big wigs have a fetish for service. First McCain's service to his country by being in the army and senate (since when is being a politician service?) and now service to the party? Yeesh.

The most frightening, yet hopeful, part:

3. You are expected to contribute to the "TV image" of the Party by being present, applauding and cheering at the "right" places, etc.

On one hand, it's creepy and almost cultic. On the other, they're probably a thread away from a party civil war.

Intelligent Design

I'm all for schools teaching Evolution or Creationism, and I'm all for the government getting out of the school business. It's their choice to teach whatever they want. Will there be some poor saps that learn that the Earth is flat and that gravity isn't real? Of course, that's an unfortunate side effect of freedom, but certainly not one to curb those freedoms. I'd bet a good number of these kids were either messed up from the beginning or will eventually come to the truth.
Intelligent design is being touted as the new creationism by secularists. Of course, a school should have the right to decide what to teach, even if I completely disagree with it. I wouldn't send my kids to that school.
What is intelligent design though? It's basically evolution with the mention of God. When I was a freshman in biology (and as a kid watching TV), I always assumed the "intelligent design" line. God created the universe, life, etc. Apparently this isn't enough for Christian Rightists. They're against the state unless its doing something for them (just like liberals). For some reason, God has to be mentioned. can their children assume anything? Can they figure anything out without having it spoon fed to them? Wait, I forgot, they went to state schools.
I have a solution for this problem, though. I know it'll never be considered by anyone important, but here goes: Teach evolution. A student is going to ask how life came into being. Tell them most people believe either X or Y. If no one asks, they're probably not interested.
See how easy it is? We'd have to go on the honor system (there is no honor in the government), but at least they both have grounds to complain.
As for creationists...they'll have to suffer through it. Hey, I had to suffer through the lies in my European History class, so why not just suffer through that? If it's garbage, it won't effect you.
(Don't they claim atheists are stupid for being opposed to something they don't believe in?)





Checkmate?

I knew I shouldn't have watched it...

Ten minutes in and McCain made me absolutely sick.
Or maybe its the media...they don't question the economic impact of continuing and expanding the empire. They actually like it. Yep, Americans may not die, but our economy is. Well, on the bright side, at least the US won't be involved in any wars...

Aww crap, who am I kidding? They'll try to hang on until someone conquers us, won't they?

The Pope in AMERICA!

No, actually the Pope is in DC and New York. That's another long, strange story about me liking NY more than the US though...
Anyway, here's how my day went:
I was pretty tired around 1, but was scared to death by Fox's decision to do an emergency broadcast test. Seriously, that's the most annoying sound ever. I guess its supposed to make you fearful, but after the initial "aaah!!!" factor, it gets me more pissed off than anything else. That cold synthesized voice could say something like "Emergency broadcast: *message*". Of course, at normal speaking levels. The mind piercing screech isn't helping.
Anway, I'm wide awake and decide to keep watching the news. Maybe someone is going to say something so painfully stupid that it literally knocks me out. No, indtead I'm reminded of three things.
First, it's the deadline for you to "willingly" have your money stolen.
Second, John McCain is going to be on Hardball (I caught the last half of it and decided it was too painful to wwatch again. Since when is someone serving their own ambitions by getting into politics service to the country? I'm really getting scared of the 19 20's and 30's style rhetoric)
Third, the Pope is coming here.
Okay, I was never a fan of Sinclair Lewis' quote about fascism. I see it coming with protectionism and the green movement. I'm having second thoughts though. What little bit I could stomach, it was like the collective spirit of America ambused the Pope and suffocated him with the flag.
He's here to minister to the faithful. He's here to call for peace and harmony. He can care less about what Obama said. He's here as a religious leader, not an insane evangelical Christian Rightist. He's not going to endorse McCain, Obama, Clinton, Paul, or anyone running for president. He's here to endorse a spirit of renewal among American Catholics.
If there's one criticism I have of the Pope, it's that he came to America at the wrong time. At any other time, the media would't focus so muh on the politics. Of course, I doubt he knows that Americans are largely apathetic until the presidential elecction.
There were two highlights (besides seeing the Pope). First, there was a priest in awesome sunglasses. Second, the Vatican flag was a bit higher than the American flag.

No sense humor

Apparently the Yankees are looking into legal action against the guy that buried a Red Sox jersey under their locker room.
No sense of humor at all...

The fires of the rEVOLution spreads

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=14513

Nick News

Nickelodeon had a special about where a few kids stand on some issues *rolleyes*
I tried to get as many down as possible. And what I would have said if I was 7 years younger:

War in Iraq:
Worst part: Stay in Iraq even though it's draining our economy
Best part:???
My take: We can't continue the empire

Terrorism:
Worst: I'm afraid of terrorists every day since 9/11.
Best: Media fearmongers
My take: They may attack a building or blow themselves up one day, but they aren't going to take over

Education:
Worst: Plenty of kids say more government money. Kid bitching how his mom doesn't get paid enough.
Best: Yeah right
My take: Privatize it.

Environment:
Worst: No drilling for oil in Alaska. Get off oil (this way the government can invade Saudi Arabia! But the politicians say it's for the children...err...environment.)
Best: Government itself should become more green
My take: Let individuals choose. If we have to ban something though, let's ban the government. They're the biggest polluters.

Health Insurance:
Worst: Single parent/children not having healthcare heart string story. Government regulating prices. Girl calling for more taxes to pay for universal healthcare.
Best: Anti-government, pro-property girl. Tax cut boy!
My take: If the government takes control of it, the hospitals are going to raise pi=rices just because no one will complain.

Economy:
Worst: Keep low interest rates. Stimulus package. Rant against the rich (raise their taxes!). Repaying foreign debt by raising taxes. Fascism.
Best: Stop out of control spending.
My take: No intervention in the economy.

Illegal Immigration:
Worst: Fence makes tension rise. Fence is awesome. More I.D. to get into country. Hinting at taking away business owner's right to hire them. Find them and toss them out. Amnesty.
Best: Boy that wanted to ease immigration law.
My take: read best :D

The rEVOLution, MSM, and Bob Barr

You really have to love the hypocrisy of the MSM.
They focus on young liberal an neocon voters, but ignore the most dedicated young people and their candidate. Your basic Obama college age voter is only fired up about things that ultimately effect them. They would be ga-ga over Hillary if she promised free college, or at least a reduction in tuition. This frightens me since they're taking away state's rights (the price of a government school) and private property rights (regulation of the price of a private college).
It does make sense that they would ignore the ones that honestly believe that we should get back on the gold standard and end the fed, though. Most of the mainstream media's anchors and hosts are baby boomers who think they can use the government to change things for the better. They fail to see that it's like a pact with the devil. Yes, he can give you powers, but ultimately you're his servant no matter how much the opposite seems true. Most of them view people my age as apathetic if it doesn't benefit us. Paradoxally, most people my age that go to college are collectivists, so you'd think they would want to benefit humanity.
The media made a huge enemy this election year in the form of Ron Paul supporters. If Bob Barr wins the LP nomination, I expect the media to make even more enemies since they'll largely ignore him or ridicule him despite surprisingly high numbers. I hope I'm completely wrong though; it would be very interesting if he was able to participate at the presidential debate.

Fallen human nature and the economy

I read an article by Christopher Mannion and he mentioned fallen human nature and communism.
And then I remember the arguments from mixed economists and socialists that capitalism is bad because humans are imperfect and will eventually abuse the system.
Made me wonder, if communism or capitalism can't be implimented because of fallen human nature, how can a mixed economy be the best? Seems like the worst of both worlds.
So, it makes sense to me that capitalism is the least destructive economic system. If abuses are going to happen, at least it provides the most capital and the most in demand goods for reasonable prices.

Continuing the ADD train of thought

I know a few people with legitimate ADD, but even more with "public school ADD" (as I call it).
What better way to get kids to sit down and shut up when they're being bad, but not ADD disruptive, than ritalin? Maybe the disruptive kids are bored? Instead of taking the blame, schools shift it to the kid.
It's pretty normal for a kid to bounce off the walls a bit, right? Well, if the Public Schoolers got their way, kids would be robots.
(then again, if I got my way, kids would be Battlebots!)
Like I said, ADD is real, but schools are way too ritalin happy and give it to kids that act like normal kids.

So, I have ADD, OCD, Social Phobia, and Aspergers?

I took the single dumbest quiz ever.
Let's see why:
I don't find Dane Cook funny
I'm horrible with words and describing things
I can't take notes well (mainly because I'd rather just listen)
I don't want to be disturbed while painting models (I mean, I don't want to waste any paint or anything)
I happen to be fashionably challenged and have a bunch of shirts that are similar
I get ticked off if someone interrupts me while I'm doing something I like
I like things
I don't like it when people are late
I don't like meeting new people
I like daydreaming
I don't start or finish stuff
I bounced off the walls a bit when I was a kid
I hate hate hate hate working in groups and work better alone
I don't like when people hug me without warning (usually a real ass if they do it without even putting their arms out or something)
I don't like shaking hands
I'd rather figure something out then let someone tell me how (well, regarding most things anyway)
I hate it when people just decide to stop by without any announcement (hey, maybe the damn house is a wreck!)
I don't like reading aloud (I also hate my voice)
Sometimes smile at those wacky clip shows on Spike...I mean, besides the hurt people, it's pretty awesome
I twittle my fingers
Sometimes I stutter
I'm generally slower and more chilled out in a regular conversation so I take a bit to answer. Try keeping up with your basic New Yorker while not being on the edge of your seat.
Sometimes I express hapiness with prases like "a bat out of AWESOME!"
I occasionally answer rhetorical questions (either because there are real answers or I'm too dumb)
Sometimes I enjoy spinning and blinking objects
I like to watch slowly flowing rivers
Sometimes I feel like jumping over things
Sometimes I like to walk on my toes
I can't stand uncomfortable clothes
I can take a punch
I'm sensitive to lights
I don't like when people stamp their feet
I'd rather think of a dinosaur than the word dinosaur. Partially because Dinosaurs are cool
I'm a klutz
I suck at judging measurement
I got made fun of before
Sometimes I'm impatient and impulsive
Sometimes, I don't care if your dog died
I never care about who you know
I think a bit before I speak
I like cartoons :D

So then, aren't I just your basic lazy introvert that has green eyes and is a bit (or more than a bit in my case) nerdy?
Seriously...who likes when people are late? Or most of the things I mentioned...I know I'm weirder than most people, but I certainly don't have OCD (check my desk), ADD (I don't bounce off the walls), social phobia (I'd ather be by myself, but I'll talk to folks without a problem if I have to), or aspergers.

DEA

So, I was up kind of late last night and decided to watch some TV before I went to sleep. Should I watch Rock of Love II? Some news show? Whatever was on Nick at Night? The Universe on the History Channel? Nah, I decided to watch DEA, a show about the drug war!
Hoo boy, was I in for a surprise! Star Wars Ep. III was going a bit too long, and the ending symboized a lot for me. Those of you that can't remember, the last scene shows how Luke and Obi Wan got to Tattooine. There was also a beautiful sunset. What made this scene so awesome? Well, it symbolized a beautiful transition from those horrid new movies to the rockin' original three.
It also symbolized how I felt about the upcoming show. The Sun setting was beautiful, but you don't want to be out in the wilderness at night. Yep, DEA was like the night.
The opening minutes mentioned how heroic they were and how they could get killed. Well, people could get killed on that logger show on History, right?
I imagine the idea of the show is to muster up support for that endless war (as well as entertainment). Hopefully it'll do the opposite. I highly doubt it though.
I did realize three things though.
First, if the drug war ended, they would be out of a job. One guy said they wanted to end the sale of drugs (or something), but that's like saying you want to stop murder. Nice, but nothing you could do about it.
Second, I'm incredibly afraid of needles. I mean, the very thought of them unnerve me.
Third, I would get killed if my house was raided. I'm too snarky and sarcastic I suppose.
The show itself was alright. Just a lot of whining followed by innapropriate jokes and some door shmashing.




Dear Lord there was a lot of whining...

Racism is more rampant than you think

Before the Civil Rights movement you had Klansmen openly enjoy carnivals, people calling other folks niggers, wetbacks, and countless other names.
Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to create a colorblind society. We have integrated schools, stores where anyone is allowed to shop, and a half black man running for president since his death. Of course, there are far more things I could list, but I won't.
King failed in his dream. The color blind society is not here yet.
Children are bussed to schools far from their homes in the name of integration. Businesses are forced to hire minorities just because they are minorities. Everyone on the news is ga-ga over Barack being black.
Sure, it's historic, but an obsession with this is inherently racist.

McCain: our lovable oaf

When I finished somewhere in the middle of my class (thanks to homework protesting/laziness), I got weird looks. When John McCain finishes near the bottom of his class, he gets a hardy laugh and a smack on the back.
When I screw up incredibly, I get yelled at. McCain crashes a few planes? Ho ho, have a medal!
If I ran for something and made vague religious references, I would be accused of using religion to further my ambition. McCain makes a few campaign videos using his POW footage and everyone loves it.

Yet if John Kerry was captured, I'm sure the neocons would have been up in arms about this sort of exploitation.
...maybe not. Kerry was pretty neoconservative himself.

Election 1920's and 30's?

What's more frightening than demons and cultists destroying whole solar systems? Nationalism and Socialism!
Keeping up the tradition of a previous post, I present Election: WWII edition!
McCain is Hitler (Godwin!), the soldier bent on fighting the enemy and making America greater.
Hillary is Stalin (Godwinish?), the one to bring even more socialistic reforms.
Obama is FDR, New Dealist, Wilsonite, and oh so beloved.
Romney was Moussolini (Corporatism in Michigan).
Ron Paul is (fittingly) Ludwig von Mises, the man who tried to fix Austria's ravaged economy (in a capitalistic way).
Now, which ones were involved in the war? Exactly.

Prince Phillip, get well soon

I sincerely hope you get well and recover soon.

Protectionism? Didn't we take care of this when we were little?

Remember when your mom/dad/teacher/passerby/whatever would tell you "The world doesn't revolve around you"? Remember how you shrugged it off and said "but it's not fair!" Remember when you realized that there are indeed other people you should take into consideration? Remember when you realize you deserve things because of what you've done, not because you're you?
If you're a free trader, yes you do.
If you're a protectionist, you don't. And if you do, you're disregarding something.
Does the average American boob deserve a job by birthright? No, they would deserve it because they have a skill.
"Well, Americans tend to be more skilled than poor people in South America/China."
Yes, they tend to. Doesn't this destroy my argument? No, if you continue reading.
People deserve jobs because they have a skill relating to it and are paid accordingly.
Ah, now we see clearly, yes? I did just state the obvious-jobs are going overseas because they don't have to pay them as much.
People will continue to curse the companies and corporations. They will ask the government to regulate wages even more. Ultimately, they're doing a disservice to Americans. Americans can't compete with foreign workers because their skills aren't worth minimum wage. What was intended to protect the average person now hurts them. This is nothing new; the government regulated the market to provide a higher standard of living to Americans but the opposite happened, and always will happen.
Asking the government to help and protect you is like an injured antelope asking a lion to do the same.

A case against sanctions?

Iraq was placed under sanctions.
They had no navy or airforce.
Bush claims they build WMDs to sell to terrorists (ignorning the fact that they couldn't launch it, let along carry it in a suitcase without looking suspicious)
Why would they sell it? Not because they hate us, but because they would need the money.
Aha! Sanctions do cause war.

Patriotism (Nationalism) above all else

I heard Billo say something like "What about Obama's kids hearing Rev. Wright's rants against America."
Oh yes, let's worry more about God Damn America and chickens than racial junk. Apparently a parent's first duty is to teach patriotism *salutes*
Yep, America is totally becoming a religion.

El grillo è buon cantore

Some crazy Hillary supporter asks why being a PoW is a qualification for president. I actually agree with her. The talking heads went nuts that someone would question a former military man.
Not shocking though. In the Religion of Democracy, saying anything vaguely negative about the military is blasphemy. If the Tree of Liberty replaced the Cross, soldiers replaced Christ. It is through them that we are "redeemed" (that is, our freedoms are protected and our "religion" spread.) They are the holy crusaders that protect us and spread "our" religion.
It begs the question...I guess someone who was locked up for having drugs is qualified to run for president? Wasn't he a prisoner of the drug war? Didn't he go through enough Hell in a prison?

Pray for Peace

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7271658.stm

Thanks a lot, Mr. Bush.

Women should rule the world?

The lady that wrote Why Women Should Rule the World is always on MSNBC. Sheesh, if we're going to say why *group* should rule the world, maybe I should write Why Franks Should Rule the World. It would probably make a more interesting read.
Wait...maybe Why Women Shouldn't Rule the World! Yeah, that's the one. Sure to get beat up by a mob of angry folks too!
Thesis: Women are more totalitarian.
Hoyeah!

Military Industrial Complex I

Figure I'll keep tabs on the Military Industrial Complex.
Boeing lost a bid for refuelers to Northrop-Grumman and Airbus. The lady on MSNBC said that it could have provided 44,000 jobs. Isn't that a bit creepy? Not only the government providing jobs sucking up human resources like the parasite it is, but jobs being provided to build planes for the military.
Ah well, at least the US' arch enemy France got the deal. That makes it just that much sweeter.

Take this, nanny statists!

Possible proof that violent video games doesn't cause violence?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/27/scideath127.xml
Reasuring indeed. Okay, nanny ststists are going to go ape about "protecting people from themselves" (flood gate alert!) but I just love having actual evidence instead of the usual "you're a moron" response.
Who knew it...video gamers could be less violent (ignorning the retards that post at gamefaqs) thanks to violent video games. Irony!

So, who do we have running for presdent?

A keynesian neoconservative that wants war with Iran and Russia
A keynesian Christian-rightist that wants war with Iran, Syria, and Jordan
A socialist who wants a conflict in Darfur and a war with Iran and Russia
A socialist who wants a conflict in Darfur and a war with Iran and Pakistan
An austrian traditional rightist that wants peace and prosperity

Pretty easy to pick from there. Socialism for all and war for most! Ho ho! I wants mah free collidge! Yeehaw!

Still debating whether I should vote third party. Hm...

SSPX on the Good Friday Prayer

So, the post about the women ref should be part I. Actually, I probably wrote about them before....can't remember. Like I always say, there's some good folks in the SSPX, but the society itself is rather...off in the name of "orthodoxy". I remember something about a group of people that are orthodox and have something to do with one of the cardinal directions. Oh golly gee, I can't remember what they're called!
They're not in schism, but at this rate, I'll give it 50-100 years.
Anyway, while drinking down some flat, but cold, Pepsi I read that the Society probably isn't going to use the new Good Friday prayer.
This isn't some kind of trap to get traditionalists in (wait, aren't they already in? Oh, right, in the NO Church. Oh wait...) and make them forget about their traditions.
The prayer isn't novelty. If it is, why don't I call the Fatima prayer a novelty? Or, I know, kneelers. They are protestant after all. If you're not suffering, you're not livin' man.
Anyway, let's pray that the SSPX accepts this prayer and some of the more rabid ones stop calling it novelty and all those other buzzwords.
Or maybe we should let them use those words and laugh when they are accused of being anti-semitic mysoginist evil doers and they complain how those are buzzwords used to smear them. Nah, that would be uncharitable...

The virtual fence

is creepy. Cameras and radar? Oh my...

American Mint

http://www.americanmint.com/
My grandma got a survey type thing from these people. I figured it was a government type thing, but these people are good.
http://www.americanmint.com/layout_home.php?&seitflag=content&suchbegriff=umfrage_auswahl
This is the one we got:
http://www.americanmint.com/layout_home.php?seitflag=content&suchbegriff=umfrage_us_symbols_mrz07

Here are my answers:
1. No (loved the bias of the yes though)
2. Oddly enough, I dont think this was on it. I would have answered other figures (Look at the US presidents coins...if I wanted Lincoln I would get a penny)
3. Yes (Imperialism at its best)
4. No (surprised how many answered no)
5. No (didn't we get our butts kicked during the olympics? And most of the good baseball players are foreigners or take steroids)
6. Statue of Liberty (obviously)
7. Yes (I love the bias of the negative....homeland?!)
8. This was a fill in, so I would have wrote "my rear end." I love how freedom is typically American. Yep, those damn Eye-talians ain't free!

There's some awesome ones there. I found out that Lincoln won the best president award and Washington came in second. I wonde how many people actually know anything about their presidency....seriously, Lincoln rage aside, I'm betting most people don't know much about Washington's.
Another question asking what 3 presidents should be honored on currency. The top 3 are already on coins...and 97.2% like paper money.
Strangeness hits when a lot of people like the gold standard. And more people thought Real Estate was a better investment than gold. Where is your house gods now?

Closing Statement: http://www.americanmint.com/user-pages/pictures/americanrole-04.gif

Election 40K

Hillary Clinton as Nurgle (the country will decay as the government expands)
Barack Obama as Slaneesh (drives his audience into estatic fits when he just blows his nose...seriously)
John McCain as Khorne (blood god wants endless wars and more skulls for the skull throne)
Mike Huckabee as Tzeentch (apparently flip flopping as he claims the conservative mantle)
Ron Paul as Malal (the outcast god...pretty apparent)

I just threw up in my mouth a little

So, Keith Olbermann interrupted Hardball with some breaking news. McCain may have had an "intimate relationship" with a lobbyist. Blargh....and to think I was expecting them reporting that Huckabee dropped out.
I will have heartburn all night. Thanks a lot Keith!

Bl. Karl

Likely to become Saint Karl.
Pray for us, pray for peace, pray for the return of Christiandom.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/an_inconvenient_miracle/

And yet people idolize Wilson as a hero. Hopefully, he'll now be remembered as the man that went to war with a Saint.

Story about the SSPX and my position on them

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/487355.html
Now, I'm not a fan of forced equality, but I am a fan of eqality (argh you're a modernist!!) and that's just...strange and an assortment of nuts. I can't believe I thought about going there. It's for the better, Kansas' weather sucks bigtime anyhoo.

I used to be a big time fan of their's, but now I can't stand it (though I know/know of a few really good folks that go to their Masses). I'm willing to accept that they're not in schism. However, they would be in "partial communion" meaning they're in "partial schism". I took the route of "Communion with Rome is more dear than life" and abandoned them. Of course, some of the fanatics made me incredibly ticked off.
Long live the FSSP and other approved groups!

More on the Pope and the Jews

Seems like SSPXers fall into a few camps. First, those who outright reject the changes to the prayer. Second, those who are waiting for Fellay to give a statement. Third, those who have accepted it.
I think the prayer is good and just worded differently.
The first camp us split into three groups: Those who reject it for tradition, those that reject it for ambiguity, and those that reject it because of the circumstances.
The latter group makes me confused. Reject it based on why it was written and not content? Not a good excuse. I don't like why, but still accept it as perfectly orthodox.
I see no ambiguity in the prayer. They're likely just looking for something that's not there and inerpreting it wrong. Kind of like looking for shapes in clouds. (False analogy! Piss off...)
Based on tradition? Well, argumentfrom tradition. We don't do something because it's tradition. We have tradition based on a solid point. For example, we shouldn't recieve the Eucharist on the tongue because it's tradition. Instead, we should because of the possibility of abuse. Tradition exist because there's a reason to have it. We sholdn't do it for Tradition, but for the reason. The reason for the prayer for the Jews? To convert them! The changes are okay because the reason is kept and it's just re-worded.
Then there's those waiting for the SSPX's Bishops to speak about it. I absolutely don't like that. The Pope is the leader of the Church. We would't wait for a Duke to tell us if the King's law is good or not! We have to follow the Pope in all things but sin. That's the one time we could be disobedient. Instead of following the Bishop and SSPX, follow the Pope. The prayer change isn't sinful at all.
Then again, those awaiting the SSPX's position are the ones that are most likely to call him a Modernist while still claiming he's the Pope (Fr. Morrison aside, of course)

Russia and THE END OF THE WORLD

It's coming. You have your candles? :O
Again, too much is put on Russia. The Soviet Union did end. Everyone who says otherwise isn't well versed in what happened. They either don't know (like I didn't when I was a 15 year old neocon) or explain it via conspiracy theories that are way too elaborate to actually happen.
Why was Boris loved? He ran Russia into the toilet. Not because he brought freedom, but because he made Russia weak. Putin is hated beause he's good for Russia.
I read "thank God for NATO" but that's one of the the sources of the problem. Thank God for the problem?
What about the big hullabaloo about the *gasp* bombers over our ships. OUR SHIPS!!! Over international waters. There was no law broken. Get over it, America. Russia is not out to get you, they're just trying to become strong again. Instead of trying to kill the infant in the crib, why not try to be friends?
Wait, I forgot...our leaders are like little kids. They can't stand being friends with someone trying to be their equal.
And no, the world isn't going to end anytime soon. Things were worse in the past. Trust me. get rid of your martyr complex.
But I don't like Russia for rejecting Pepsi over Coke. Sure Pepsi was big in the USSR, but Pepsi is better!

Big Pimpin'

Conservatives and Liberals really are grasping at straws. Ever since Pimp My Ride, pimping was redefined. Yes, selling a prostitute about is still pimping. It could also mean making better, spiffy, raising to a certain level, or (in these cases) put forward. No, not put forward sexually. If you think that, you should really stop ordering all that junk from Talk Radio.
I'll start with Olbermann. Although thinking of Gen. Petraeus as a prostitute (i.e. clown makeup and walking about the streets of Baghdad at night)does make me giggle, but Keith meant NOTHING like that. Truly, grasping at straws. And yes, another example of the nation worshipping the military.
What about David Schuster and Chelsea? The only reason this is anything at all is because (drumroll and Captain Obvious warning) she's a woman! Ho! No, I don't mean ho as in prostitute, but a joyous shout. Seriously, you nappy headed ho (not meant as a joyous shout).
Ack, I'm a miserable heretic...blasphemy against the military and a, like, totally dignified woman!
Anyway, they meant nothing sexual or seedy by it. People should get off their case. Now Hillary is in a fit of "grr WOMAN POWER!!!! OMGZ" and saying that the media is treating her badly. Aww, ain't that a sin? No, really, ignoring any annointed frontrunner in the media is a sin. That's why we had Rudy shoved down our throat for so long. Hillary isn't being ignored. She's just pissy that Obama has a chance. She has the favor of the MSM gods.
And no, I'm not a big fan of political incorrectness. I just happen to hate when people make mountains out of molehills.

Why da yoof luv Barack

Free (or cheap) college!
You think "Hellya! Eye Ken lerned reel gud!"
Who's going to pay for it? Taxpayers.
"Dud, jus, like...print money"
Like I said, damn it, taxpayers. Printing money=inflation. Inflation=idirect taxation!
"Hold yer horses, bucko! The government could set prices!"
Yes, we need far more government intervention. They are, truly, looking out for you. So, in conclusion:
1. It'll be paid for via direct taxation
2. It'll be paid for via indirect taxation
3. The college your dumb rear end will just become another community college.
Go Barack, go! Steal money! Counterfeit! Make Americans even dumber! But Everyone will cheer as America burns. Free money for you! Free college! Gotta get that edumacation in a college that I got in because I memorized a bunch of words that I forgot already! GOD BLESS THE SAT!!!!11

MSM more or less admits that they know nothing

Yesterday on MSNBC, the anchorwoman got confused by:
1. Superdelegates
2. Delegates distributed by district (3 d's!)
3. Delegates being committed by word only.
For example, a delegate could support Mc100-years-in-Iraq but like Tax Hike Mike by the time the convention comes around. They should vote for McLol but could vote for the Huckster.
It was a glorious moment. For that one point in time, they admitted they were confused. Glorious!

The fightin' 14th

Here's the fellow running against Ron Paul:
http://www.chrispeden.org/
Keeping the idea of a "noble America" alive and...well...on life support. We can't cut funds to NASA! Those evil Chinese are going into space! We need to claim space for ourselves! We need to keep our honor by not surrendering to those Islamo-fascists! Fred Reed certainly knows what honor really is...
I believe he says Ron Paul believes 9/11 happened because of America whie he believes it's Islamo-fascist terrorists. No doubt terrorists did it, but they didn't do it because we're free or prosperous. Some may want to make us submit to their laws, but most of the radicalized Muslims really just want to be left alone. Don't we all? Well, except Americans. We don't mind being taken care of by the government.
Anyhoo, here's to Ron Paul's congressional campaign!
I'm waiting for "Catho-Fascism" and the Pope being called a Theocrat and Terrorist. Just think about it. He wants Catholic Culture to spread. He's against the US' interventionist wars (yes, he is Catholic Neocons) and might be in league with the terrorists! After all, he regularly talks to middle eastern countries! Even Iran!

McCain is Pro-Life?!

He just said he's proud of his pro-life record.
Bombing civillians and being a war monger is pro-life? I never knew. I guess I'm pro-choice then!

Papa, you have the support of this Traditional Catholic!

Pope Benedict XVI has released the revised Prayer for the Jews. I've stalked around message boards and seen a mixed reaction on some and complete hatred on others.
I quite like it. Nothing has changed except the language. It's become softer, in a good sense. The way some are reacting you'd imagine it to be

Dear [insert god here],
Please let the Jews come into a Church, but if they don't, we'll let them be. Give Christians the strength to read the talmud and possibly convert.
Thanks!

No, it's basically the same in a more charitable language. It's not watered down. It's not a mush. It's the same prayer in a different tone. What the Pope ultimately did was change the words and not the content. It seems like they're trying to criticize anything the pope does that doesn't involve:
1. Lifting the Excommunication
2. Getting rid of the NO overnight
3. Have some sort of Godly power where he can hear every litergical abuse ever.
4. Everything in Latin. Everything. Inclusing the picnic (okay, I'm joking, but I'm sure there's a Sede or two that believe this)
5. Cannonizing Archbishop Lefebvre
Anyway, I quite like the prayer. I don't care about the circumstances.

Let us pray also for the Jews.
May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men.
Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.
Almighty and everlasting God, who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

I glanced over a post where the US Bishops praised the Pope and affirmed what the prayer said. Wasn't one of the complaints about the old prayer? There we go, same substance, different language, the Latin Mass is even more free!
Anyone reading this (yeah right): don't say that this makes non-SSPX Latin Masses phoney.

P.S.
I wrote this because of a post I saw where a protestant was praised for bashing the Pope.

Traditional Conservatism: Altar and Throne

I firmly believe that Altar and Throne governments are better than any other forms. The Cult of Liberty stands in direct defiance of this, and is always self-destructive. I hear people quote Ben Franklin imploring us to never give up liberty for safety. The ideas of liberty were new then. Perhaps early American liberty actually worked for a while, but French liberty degraded to bloodshed and hatred.
We must not give up liberty for protection and safety, but we shouldn't give up the Altar and Throne for liberty.
American liberty died during Lincoln's presidency, and quite possibly before then. Soon, protecting it became the reason the government should expand. One can't have liberty if they're poor, uninsured, jobless, etc. The very thing that was supposed to limit government made it expand.
Altar and Throne politics never did this. The state never expanded to a monsterous size to protect it.
I think it's the best position since the Church exists for two reasons. First and most important, the spiritual. The Church is in charge of the Salvation of Souls. Second, the secular. The Church has a power to limit government. I don't think it's a coincidence that France became dictatorial and violent after the French Revolution. It's certainly not a coincidence that dictators rose after the Papal States were destroyed. The 20th century was the Church's weakest period since She was persecuted in Rome. Communism and Fascism rose because the Church was not in place to keep a check on government powers.
Kings are rulers of their state, but they are all part of the "Kingdom of Christiandom" ruled by Christ the King.
There are three other forms Altar and Throne politics can morph into: Throne and Altar, Throne, and Altar.
Although I admire him quite a lot, Louis XIV tried to make France a Throne and Altar state. The king was above the Church. He led France out of the realm of Christiandom by allying with the Ottoman Turks. Modern day protestants try to make America into a similar state, although their government will be astronomically larger than the "absolute monarch." What this form ultimately does is divinize the state and/or the ruler.
America and most other Republics are Throne states. The Altar is completely out of the picture. As I've mentioned, America did fairly well but fell into tyranny. Without the Church, the State can grow into a parasite. It sucks away life and freedom from the host (the people). Like Throne and Altar, the state becomes divinized. Unlike it, though, it's a secular church with no checks and balance from an outside faith. They'll petition religioud leaders to support their endeavors but know that patriotism runs deeper than faith in most people.
Altar governments are the most dangerous. The ruler, state, policies, and laws are divine. People turn a blind eye to corruption because the rulers are either gods or prophets of a god.
And yet I upport Ron Paul who talks about liberty and the constitution. Why is this? Well, in the 18th century we would be opposed to eachother (I am an economic anarchist though). Like I said in my last blog post though, we are allied against the enemy-the Neocons. We both believe in limiting the power of the state. We both believe in peace. We just disagree on the way to keep it.
Nonetheless, he is the best candidate I've seen. I am proud that I voted for him and would do it again and again. I consider the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party my allies and would vote for one if I like them.