Too Funny for Prime Time

Amy Poehler and Tina Fey opened SNL last Saturday.  I missed it because our house has about 10 more people in it than normal, thanks to Ike.  (The hurricane…?)

Anyway, I’m sure you’ve seen it, but in case you haven’t, it’s right here.

As a critic of both the Demopublicans and the Republicrats (aka, the Demopublican Unity  National Committee  for Elections, or “DUNCE”), I found the lampooning of both women to be hilarious.  My partisan friends all thought SNL was satirizing only the “other” party’s standard-bearer.  Silly rabbits…

Another Rant

Can I be honest here, for just a minute?

I want to point something out, sort of a pet peeve of mine.  I recently spoke to the reaction engendered by people who say they won’t support Paul because he won’t win.  This is something that produces a similar response.

It is in regards to the President.  He is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the US government.  His is the highest elected office in the land, by virtue of the fact that there is one of him and 535 members of the Congress [for those of you keeping score, there are also – currently, but not by law or any other compulsion – nine justices on the Supreme Court; in co-equal governmental divisions, 1 President = 9 Justices = 535 members of Congress (435 Representatives + 100 Senators)]; his decisions are reputedly reached by him alone, and not by means of compromise, coalition-building, or haggling.  While the President is not a sovereign, is not a law unto himself [under current law and practice, anyway — just barely, and for the time being], if anyone is the leader of the country, it would be he.

But he is most decidedly not “our” Commander-in-Chief [hereinafter "CINC"]!  Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution reads, in part:

Section 2.  The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Bill Clinton, and later George Bush [the Younger], were my CINC.  My father, both of my grandfathers, almost all of my uncles, and a sizable percentage of my male (and even some of my female) cousins have had, at some point in their lives, a CINC.  But the fact of the matter is, the American People at large have never had a CINC.

There has been, in this election cycle, a push to work the CINC moniker into the common lexicon.  Republican or Democrat, nearly every candidate has promised to be a more competant, decisive, and effective CINC; candidates for both parties have been emphasizing their military credientials, showcasing their [Establishment] military supporters.  “Elect me to be your next CINC” has become a common campaign rally plea, whether for a pro-war Red candidate or an “anti-war” (sic) Blue one.

I shudder to think that this is a deliberate attempt to militarize the general public.  If the Establishment can get the People thinking that they have a CINC, then so much the easier to get them to submit to an authoritarian rule.  If the Establishment can get the People convinced of the imminent threat by ubiquitous and nefarious enemies, then so much the easier to get them to allow the slow dissolution of personal liberties, to accept injustice, and to allow tyranny.

Please do not lose sight of the fact that, in the military, you do not choose your superiors.  They are appointed to you.  You do not tell them what to do, how to run things.  They tell you what the objectives are, and what you will do to achieve them.  No disagreement is brooked, and dissent is harshly punished.

Never forget:  War is the health of the state.  [Not the People]

Il Principe (O La Principessa)

[NOTE:  The title is Italian for "The Prince (Or The Princess)," and is an unapologetic reference to Niccolò Machiavelli's 16th century treatise on proper governance, The Prince.  For the unread among you, Machiavelli proposed authoritarian and absolute rule in order to maintain stability; the security of the ruler was prized more than morale or liberties of the subjects.  In fact, Machiavelli famously wrote – with some significant qualifications – that "it would be best to be both loved and feared.  But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being being loved," which has since been boiled down to "it is better to be feared than loved;" other maxims of power that could be attributed to him, in spirit, if not in fact, include "by any means necessary," and "the ends justify the means."  The overarching theme, if it may be reduced to such, is that a ruler must pursue his own best interests in any case, while making sure to not agitate his subjects excessively; it is a study of how to gain, build, and maintain power for its own sake.  Machiavelli stated that he would not in this work discuss republics, but, let's face it, we no longer live in one.]

Back in December, a “holiday card” was anonymously sent out to South Carolina’s GOP faithful.  It included a passage from the cultic Book of Mormon that had been obviously selected to color the Mormon church, and by derivation, Mitt[ens] Romney, as inherently and irredeemably racist. [Because we all know there is nothing in the world as bad as being a racist.  You could eat your own children and be better off than a racist]  It was widely believed, you’ll recall, that this was an attempt by the Mike Huckleberry campaign to pick off Romney from behind, since he [Huckster] had so blatantly condemned Romney and all Mormons by being a Christian™ former pastor.

Another [now largely defunct] blogger commented at the time that this was, without laying blame anywhere, despicable and significant of the worst of political scheming.  I replied, thus:

I dunno… Call me a cynic, but it’s entirely possible that the Romney campaign could have sent this, in an effort to smear the other campaigns via blowback. I mean, wasn’t Romney the first to begin attack ads in Iowa?

I know, it seems too Machiavellian to be true.  But I have an enduring and absolute faith in the utter depravity of all humanity.  And this presidential campaign cycle has from its beginning been a war of attrition on all fronts, a no-holds-barred free-for-all.  And no tricks too dirty.  [I've seen mosh pits with more decency]

So, now, we have this picture, “broken” by Drudge:

Now there’s a lot of hootin’ and shoutin’ about BO being a terrist, a “stealth Muslim,” even accusing him of being in cahoots with the Very Bad Men.  I’ll allow that he’s in cahoots with ‘em, but no more so than Billary, Huckleberry, and Johnny Windsock.  Of course, I probably have a different idea of who the Very Bad Men are than those perpetrating these shenanigans.  But I digress.

The publication of this picture by Drudge, “provided by a Clinton staff member,” [according to the New York Times] set off a firestorm of accusations of Billary smear tactics, fearmongering, and worse.  Billary swore up and down that she had no knowledge whatsoever, and the pic didn’t come from her camp.  BO accused.  Billary denied.  He said.  She said.  Blah, blah, blah.

To quote Clinton’s own new campaign manager, Maggie Williams, “Enough.“

I would not be surprised to learn that Drudge hadactually received this shot from Clinton’s campaign.  The conciliatory moves Clinton’s been making toward him are well-documented, and they could’ve very well been in bed together on this.

But at least as well-documented is Matt Drudge’s dislike for the Clintons, and his love of the neocon war machine.  Though he publicly split with Faux News a few years ago [over editorial and journalistic differences], he’s been beating the same drums as most Murdoch vassals.  Iran Is Evil, Giuliani For President, Those Pesky Insurgents.

I find it hard to believe that he’d've been able to resist the opportunity to torpedo Billary’s candidacy via a similar blowback smear to the one described above.  Obama [or, less likely, Gravel... but I find it hard to believe he's awake and alert enough to find something like this, or come up with such a plan]“leaks” this pic to Drudge with the express understanding that he will plaster it up on his site and cast aspersions on Obama’s religion and loyalties.  Since BO is a major player, he predicts that such a move will play out in his favor:  he can rely on the Party faithful to launch a red-faced defense of him, on the MSM to forego any questioning of him in fear of appearing racist by implying that people aredifferent, and he can sit back and take calibrated shots at Billary [because he knows that support for her candidacy drops in inverse proportion to the shrillness of her voice].

Of course, there’s always the possibility that this is what it seems to be, and maybe I’m mis-over-estimating BO.  And there’s precedent here, as well:  Waffle Bill’s “fairy tale” comment, the Bob Johnson ”won’t say what he was doing” thing, the Bill Shaheen “so many openings” comment.

Either way, I think the “brass tacks” is that neither of these two Democrats – nor, for that matter, Huckster or Johnny Windsock – is fit for the Office of the President.

But they’d probably all fit right in at court in a medieval Italian kingdom.

A Rant

Johnny gets yer guns!

Most don’t know this [because most don't care to research for themselves, content instead to be spoon-fed their information from state-approved sources] but John McCain (Media – AZ) [hereinafter referred to as Johnny Windsock] is no fan of firearms, nor a proponent of the Second Amendment.

Chuck Baldwin recently wrote about how ol’ Johnny Windsock has a history of UN-like statist views of private gun ownership.  The Gun Owners of America give Windsock an F-minus because he lo-o-o-o-oves him some Constitution.  Puh-lease!  Looking at these two, Windsock and Huckleberry, I can’t decide which one is Tweedledum, and which is Tweedlestupid.  Or maybe it’s not them.  Maybe it’s the Republican base.  [The vast majority of which is Southern evangelical Christians™.  Conservative Southern evangelical Christians™.  People like me... but not really so much like me, can ya' dig?]

Wake UP!  There are far, far worse things in this world than Hillary Clinton, people!  Are you really so scared of men – men, humans [!] – that you’d mortgage your “lives, [y]our fortunes, [y]our sacred Honor” to Oz, the Great and Terrible, in hopes of a few more years of comfort, no matter how dictated, how controlled, how surveilled? [If I hear one more person ask me, "why do you care whether the gummint's listening, if you're not doing anything wrong?," I tell you, "I [will] stab him 76 times.  I [will] gouge out his eyes, I [will] cut off his fingers, I [will] not hesitate.  But that’s me.” (With apologies to Laura Linney and Gregory Hoblit)(And William Diehl)(And anyone with a weak stomach)]

Why is it that thinking, believing people are so willing to go all heels-up for the state when there’s an idiot with an “R” after his name [as opposed to an idiot with a "D" after his name] at the wheel?  Yeah, sure, Romans 13 says that all governments are instituted by God [which kinda makes you wonder why Christians™ are so gung-ho to take down those they are told – by the gummint – not to like], but only because we’re too stoopud to accept God as our King; he gives us what we ask for, and we get what we get.

So, what do you want?

Ihre Papiere, bitte.  [Your papers, please.  Auf Deutsch.]

How do we keep the terrists out? How do we keep our society safe?

Do we enforce immigration and Visa laws?  Do we defend our borders by, say, actually defending our borders?  Can we even just build a stupid fence already?

What? No, no, no… you’ve got it all wrong!  We don’t need to go do all that [rational, logical, and effective] stuff!  There’s a much easier boondoggle way!

The REAL ID!

That’s right! Now, we can, without federal support, but under federal decree, ensure that the Very Bad Men don’t hurt us by simply telling every single law-abiding citizen that, before he can do anything as simple as go to the store for some milk, he must be able to prove to any requesting government official that he actually is who he says he is, and has a right to be doing whatever it is that he’s doing!

Invasion of privacy?  Surrendering of basic civil rights in the name of a questionable promise of a minimal increase in public safety?  Police state?  What are you talking about?!!??

It’ll keep the terrists away!  I tell you, it’s better than DEET!

Besides, this is America, dagnabbit!  Founded on those inspiring, immortal words, “Give me Liberty, or give me a really good reason to kvetch!”

Bobby doesn’t get your guns!

Congress apparently agrees that they, after all, actually will have to pry them from your “cold, dead hands.”  ‘Bout time they got something right.

And who pushed this?  None other than the fresh-faced new Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.  [Then-Congressman (R-LA)] Keep an eye on this guy; he’s going places. [And not just to the bank, like his predecessors]

One final thought

Came across this, couldn’t pass it up:

Ron Paul Revolution (XVII)

It’s an historical fact that annual national defense spending – especially during times of war – usually ends up costing twice as much as the submitted annual budget.  So how does “W” justify having overseen the first 2-trillion-dollar budget, (in 2002, I believe) and, now, the first 3-trillion-dollar budget, vastly increasing defense spending, while cutting veterans’ benefits?  It has been suggested that the Iraq war alone will end up costing US taxpayers over $1T by 2013.  I think that 10 years is probably a very liberal estimate; I doubt it will take that long (of course, in that amount of time, a trillion bucks could be worth a lot less).  And that’s not the worst fallout from this American hegemony.

Between the inflationary monetary policies of this (and prior) administration (i.e., fractional lending, interest rate manipulation, printing and dumping more fiat cash into the currency markets to cover shortfalls), Bush’s rampant deficit spending (especially with things like this hare-brained “rebate” – returning $150B “tax dollars” by borrowing money from China, who already holds over $1T – coupled with exponentially expanding the size and scope of government), and the bloodlust of his neocon (and, yes, largely Jewish — and their at best somnambulant evangelical shills) cabal being used as justification for the accelerating erosion of individual rights (while expanding the “rights” of the federal government), this administration is speeding the dissolution of the America that I grew up in, and so much more the one that most of you knew.

Yesterday’s primary results were very telling.  Republican voters in the South – far and away evangelical Christians – backed Mike Huckabee, a man who, as Governor of Arkansas, managed to assail the Rule of Law (a basis for civil government rooted in the Gospel and the Reformation) at every turn, and who seems to think that both the safety of US citizens and the very sovereignty of the United States are passé notions.  Inter-mountain Republicans backed Mitt Romney, a cultist who claims to be a Christian, a gay rights advocate who claims to be pro-family, and an abortion proponent who claims to be pro-life.  Finally, RINOs and dupes across the country bought into the “maverick,” the “straight talker,” McCain, whose rush to appease the opposition in the Senate and desire to prosecute the so-called “War on Terror” into the next century and beyond are dwarfed only by his willingness to sell out America to the lowest bidder.  It absolutely boggles the mind that people to whom, by their own confession in exit polls, the economy and (presumably illegal) immigration were their main concerns, would overwhelmingly support a man who (by his own admission during the Jan 30th debate) knows little about the economy and who thinks the first, best solution for illegal immigration is immediate, across-the-board amnesty (no matter what his recent “campaign promises” have been).

I can guarantee that a vote for any of these three men will guarantee that none of them will be the next President.  Either Obama (whose race it is to lose, still, at this point) or Clinton will be sworn in next Jan 20th if McCain, Romney, or Huckabee is the eventual GOP nominee, which seems almost inevitable now.  Not that it’ll make much difference, anyway; the Democrats will be at least as eager to sell out America as any of the Three Stooges.  It’ll just be easier because both houses of Congress will be Democrat-controlled still. (Maybe even with a super-majority in both)

If the Republican Party nominates one of these guys, it deserves the defeat it will see in November.  (And you may well be seeing the end of the GOP as a national party)

 

What choice do I have?  Who would you recommend?

Isn’t it obvious?  Ron Paul, the only real conservative running.  Paul has a 10-term history of resisting the growth of government and expansion of its powers.  He has voted against every tax increase, and every unbalanced budget, that has ever been brought before him.  He has defended the Constitutional rights of every citizen, and opposed the granting of those rights to illegal (read:  criminal) non-citizens.  Paul has championed the cause of rational monetary policy, sound money, and decentralized banking, not to mention removal of federal interference in the operation of free markets.

But he’s a libertarian, not a republican!

As Col. Potter said, “Horse hockey!”  True republicanism has at its very heart the libertarian ideals of limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility.  And no matter what the establishment media try to tell you, “libertarian” does not equal “libertine.”  For all of my lifetime, at least since the early 70s, the “Republican” Party has been moving away from these vital ideals, ideals held by our Founding Fathers.  Teddy “Chappaquiddick Ted” Kennedy once said, “If you run a Republican against a Republican, a Republican will win every time.”  He meant that the Democrats were starting to look too much like the GOP.  What is actually happening is the liberalization of the Republicans has made them virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats. (In fact, the main difference I see is that, while they both grow the government at every turn, the GOP sends its welfare checks to lobbyists and multinational corporations, while the Democrats send their welfare checks to lobbyists and race- and class-baiters.  And, sometimes, the poor.)

But he wants to end the “War on Terror”!  What about the terrorist threat?

The so-called “War on Terror” should be called the “excuse for growing government.”  War always expands government powers and erodes individual liberties.  After the truth of Saddam’s “WMD” programs came to light – that he didn’t have any – why would anyone gets their dander up over administration claims about Iran that sound suspiciously familiar?  The fact is that Iran has no modern military forces to speak of.  Its armies can only harass its immediate neighbors, and its naval power was demonstrated in the Straits of Hormuz.  They do have medium-range (~2000 miles) missiles, but that is by definition no threat to us.  Bush’s concurrent attempts to break down all barriers among the US, Canada, and Mexico, however, are.

What about 9-11?  They came “over here” then!

September 11th was a massive failure of the US government to do its main – perhaps only – legitimate job, namely, defending our borders.  If immigration laws already on the books had been enforced, 9-11 never could have happened.  If administration-supported firewalls to communication had not been in place between various executive bureaucracies, 9-11 never would have happened.  And let’s not forget:  not a single Afghani, Iraqi, or Iranian terrorist was on any of those jets; 19 Saudis, however, were.  I wonder why we aren’t fighting them “over there.”  Or, for that matter, even demanding that the Saudi government shut down its Wahabbi maddrassas.  And why in God’s name are we still allowing massive, unfettered immigration from states who either sponsor or, at least, do nothing to discourage Islamic terrorists?

What about Israel?

What about Israel?  Israel, with a modern army/air force, a modern navy, and hundreds of nuclear weapons, is more than able to defend itself against its regional enemies.  In fact, without modern weapons and tactics, Israel defended herself against attacks from several enemy states in 1967’s Six-Day War without much in the way of help from the US. US involvement in Israel’s affairs only serves to undermine Israel’s self-defense and self-determination, as Israel is currently unable to respond to outside threats without US approval and backing.

But it’s our Christian duty—

Stop it.  Our Christian duty is to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”  Period.  (And don’t suggest Zechariah 14 applies here.  That is eschatology, and doesn’t apply to the UN-created pseudo-state of Israel, at any rate; only to the Biblical, God-ordained Israel, John Hagee and his like notwithstanding.  Hint:  Read Romans to find out who modern Israel is.)  And besides, the United States has no Christian duty; it is not a Christian.  It’s demonstrably not even a Christian nation anymore.  Would God use such a putrid instrument as us to do His bidding?  (And don’t point to OT use of pagan nations to accomplish God’s will.  In the OT, God either demanded complete obliteration of pagan nations by Israel – not prolonged “surgical” wars by proxy – or used the pagan nations to enslave Israel in order to get their attention and bring them back to Him.)  At any rate, war hardly fits into the covenant of Grace, does it?  And pre-emptive wars of aggression don’t even fit into Augustine’s “Just War” theory.  (It’s more in line with Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution.”)

By the way, Ron Paul’s contention with the war in Iraq, aside from his Christian view of war in general, is that it is an unconstitutional, undeclared war.  The President cannot just go willy-nilly into the world, starting wars whenever, wherever, and with whomever he chooses; the Constitution (I know, no friend of George W. Bush) requires a formal declaration by a majority of Congress.  Paul voted (tho’ I imagine he wouldn’t now, having seen the fallout) for the constitutionally-declared Afghan war.  The War Machine is in full swing now, though.  And no other candidate – from either party – has the (ahem!) constitution to stop it.

Eisenhower’s chief fear, in the tense atmosphere engendered by the Cold War, was that the government would fall into the grip of a combination of bellicose senators, over-eager brass-hats and greedy arms-suppliers — what he termed the “military-industrial complex.” [Paul Johnson, Modern Times, p. 464]

Maybe “Ike” was a prophet.

Vote for Ron Paul (if you still can).  Or you will vote for Hillary/Obama (and an end to America).

You decide.

[NOTE:  If your chance to vote for the republican Republican candidate has come and gone, and you're now feeling "voter's remorse," take heart.  There is a solution.]