Was it Worth It?

I haven't been updating this blog for a while, and with the 2012 now officially underway, I thought I'd post an article I wrote a while ago, but never published, as it was a bit charged and used "I" too much in it for a formal article. Anyway, it's about the apparent death of Osama bin Ladan, and it's the non-conspiracy version, as I believe the man died a long time ago.

For many Americans, the image of Osama bin Laden is associated with two words: terrorism and the date 9/11. It’s not the man that matters to them, for it’s his image that enrages the populace. We have thrust upon him our own ideas of what a man who would dare touch this benevolent country would be like. He’s the embodiment of all things anti-American, because seeing him as such an embodiment rather than as a man is exactly what’s needed to bring forth a surge of American nationalism and pride. In fact, he grew to be a classic Boogeyman we tell of in legends rather than an ailing, fringe political man. “He hates freedom and the banner that flies it!” some will say. Others will take it a step further and associate all Muslims with this ideology and proclaim, “They’re ultimate goal is to bring down the United States!” This is all obviously because they so strongly disagree with our humble ideals. I’m not going to go into any conspiracies. I’m just going to ask you, in light of his official death, “Was it worth it?”

I was fifteen-years-old on September 11, 2001 and was in P.E. when the announcement came. I remember seeing throughout the whole day those towers come crashing into the earth. I remember the President declaring that “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us!” and the shouts of Americans clamoring for revenge. The implications of such a thing didn’t hit me right away (I was a teenager), but it wasn’t long before there was one man’s face plastered all over every news channel, and along with it came a great surge in nationalism. While we told of the heroics of many ill-fated people that day, we simply didn’t want to ask ourselves any big questions. All we needed to know was that these people hated freedom, and considering that we’re the only free country in the world, we were obviously the choice for attack. It had nothing at all to do with the fact that we’d been occupying the Middle East for years, toppling their leaders and installing puppet governments; it had nothing to do with the half million Iraqi children who died because of our Empire building prior to that fateful day; no, it was all because we’re so good that it’s only natural for evil to try and bring us down.

Allow me to take a break and add a disclaimer. The last thing I want to do is downplay that horrible day or make it somehow seem that we deserved it, but the intellectual failings of a populace when they come under mob thinking floors me. Again, I don’t think America deserved attack, but whenever there’s a murder the police look for a motive. It doesn’t mean that the victim deserved his fate, just that there is almost always a reason for their killer’s actions. I firmly believe this whole thing could have been averted had we adjusted our foreign policy long ago and worked to build good relations instead of trampling on their holy ground and playing their governments like marionettes. Remember, we put the Shah into power, radicalized Osama bin Laden and his crew, training them in warfare so that they could attack the Soviets for us; and placed sanctions and embargos on peoples throughout the Middle East. I’d say that we need to practice what we preach and adopt the non-interventionist foreign policy promoted by our Founding Fathers to avoid making such hateful and bitter enemies in the future.

Moving on, I remember when the War on Terror began, without Congressional approval, and wondering why Osama bin Laden had never been charged when both the media and our politicians were certainly toting him as the ultimate evil in the world and the mastermind behind the attacks. Everyone wanted him dead, and no one seemed to look further than that. We went into the Middle East, first in Afghanistan supposedly looking for bin Laden, then into Iraqi under the flawed assumption that our former ally, Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t a good man, like most dictators, but he had diligently kept the likes of radicalized Islam out his country and even protected the Aramaic-speaking Christian minority during his dictatorship. By hunting him down, we opened the door for those we know as Al-Qaeda to come into the country and the Christians in the area fled to Iran and other parts of the Middle East, as we didn’t do that good a job of protecting them.

Moreover, we didn’t do a very good job of telling civilians apart from terrorists and the body count rose. For those of us who looked a bit deeper, or who spoke with veterans who had been shocked by our own brutality in this war, we heard the stories of American soldiers shooting up vehicles only to find that they’d killed entire families, or sometimes left young children orphaned when they shot their parents to death mistakenly; when a Good Samaritan came by they would mistake them for terrorists and shoot at them. Some soldiers even claimed that they’d signed up for Iraq in the first place so that they’d have an excuse to kill humans. I know these kinds of people are in the minority, but for every mistake we make and every no-morals soldier we produce, we lend that much more credibility to the ideas of terrorists, and more kids grow up hating Americans and more disgruntled Arabs join the ranks of those trying to kill us. All of this leads to more dead Americans.

That’s the great fallacy of declaring a war on terror. “Terror” isn’t an individual, a militia or other radical group, nor is it a government or a country; it is simply an idea, and you can’t fight an idea through the use of physical arms. To change an ideology you need to promote a different ideology. Killing will only lend strength to a rapidly-spreading idea, but activism will reveal the murderous flaws of terrorism. Terrorism itself is attacking a civilian population to achieve a favorable political outcome, and even Americans have engaged in such activity. The whole world can be accused of terrorism, whether it’s Nanking or Hiroshima, Dresden or 9/11. You can’t stop it, as much as I wish I could. Declaring war on Al-Qaeda and hunting down the members of that group is more specific and more prone to victory, in my opinion.

This also led to an unprecedented loss of freedom on our part. We were supposed to be fighting to protect our freedoms, yet every war seems to bring nothing but a loss of those intangible things, and they slipped away more quickly during these invasions than any other point in history. It was just as Abraham Lincoln predicted when he said that “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and loose our freedoms, it will be because we destroy ourselves,” not because of any foreign enemy that seeks to take them from us. The Patriot Act, an act frighteningly Orwellian in both name and nature, came to pass and many Americans were stripped of their privacy. Habeas Corpus was suspended, and warrantless arrests and searches became routine in some areas of the country. I am always thankful that I live where I do because the tyrannical reach of our own government will reach us last, and I fear that more than I fear any terrorist.

We as a nation also conveniently forgot that our rights are not given to us because of our race or nationality, or because the government finds it convenient, but that our Founders believed that our rights are “inalienable” and “endowed by our Creator,” belonging to each individual human, not just Americans. Because of this, when an Arab was spied on or arrested without warning, we would shrug our shoulders and say, “What did he expect? He’s an Arab!”

As the war continued on and spread throughout the Middle East, it grew to costing us trillions of dollars. We borrowed it, taxed it, and even still continued to expand both the war and our domestic programs. We’ve begun to go the way of the Soviet Union prior to its collapse. All Empires fall when they over-expand their military and inflate their currency. It happened to Germany during WW2, the Soviet Union, and many more Empires throughout history. All those “temporary” bases from WW2 still remain, angering the citizens who must put up with them and their waste of natural resources, sucking up taxpayer money and putting us in massive debt to the Chinese. We’re fighting more and more wars (Libya now, too) that we simply can’t afford, and we’re trying to increase our domestic programs, which not only fly in the face of the Founding Fathers’ ideals, but we also can’t afford! This country would be bankrupt if not for our useless fiat money, and even that won’t save us forever! Our monetary troubles are more complicated, but I’m not writing this rant against our monetary policy in this country.

Finally, what does human life mean to you? We’ve killed so many through our foreign policy, and even declared that it was worth it! In retaliation, America comes under attack and we lose roughly 3,000 lives. In retaliation, we invade the Middle East under UN resolution and continue to kill even more, which in turn radicalizes even more. It’s not only a senseless cycle of violence, but it is compelling evidence that neither side cares much for the lives of others. The Middle East is running with blood, but neither side will ever get enough of it.

I’m a bit odd in that I tend to follow the ideals of mercy and forgiveness rather than any perceived sense of vengeance or justice. Yes, I believe that revenge and justice are almost the same, and I tend to despise both, especially when it means that someone will have to die. In the case of Saddam Hussein, he died and he didn’t even do anything to Americans specifically, and killing him destabilized that whole region! Now, Americans dance in the streets in a way reminiscent of the Israelis and Arabs who danced when the towers came down because a man whom they knew little about other than what ideals his image supposedly represented, has been killed. He was never charged with 9/11 despite all the hate that was thrust on him, and he was incredibly ill – not even able-bodied! What has killing him done? Did it raise those towers from the rubble and restore them to their glory? No. Did it bring back all our dead civilians and soldiers? No. Did it even end the war? No. All it did was help quench the thirst for revenge and revitalize American support for a war that was rapidly growing unfavorable.

Am I glad when I hear of the deaths of our soldiers, the enemy’s soldiers, or men, women, and children? Of course I’m not. I tend to value life to the point where I’m going to make it public that if I’m ever killed, I don’t want my killer to die. It doesn’t do anything. It doesn’t put my soul to rest, bring me back, or anything else of value. All it does is prematurely end the life of another human being, and you have no idea what kinds of things he might decide to do with his life. That’s why we have jails.

So, now that we see the death and carnage of this war; the economic ruin it has left this country in, and the ideals of our Founding Fathers and pieces of our Constitution scattered about like remnants after a storm, I ask you, “Was it worth it?” Was seeing Osama bin Laden killed worth the bloodshed, the financial ruin, and the loss of freedom? Was the birth of the TSA, the passing of the Patriot Act, and the spying worth it to see this man dead? Was it worth your neighbor’s foreclosure and you’re increasingly tight budget because of the inflation and bad moves of our banks and Federal Reserve? Is it worth it to be indebted to China and other countries? What about the lives of those killed, both our soldiers’ and the citizens of Muslim countries? When you see that picture of Samar Hassan covered in the blood of her parents, screaming in agony because our soldiers killed her parents, do you think it was worth it? I certainly don’t. I say end this horrible cycle. You can’t kill an idea through physical means, and trying to only exacerbates the problem. It’s destroying lives everywhere and is destroying what made this country so great to begin with! I’ll take my freedoms, please, even if it leaves me vulnerable. Bring our troops home!

Rapture Ready Hates Ron Paul

So, I was informed that, apparently, there's this forum called Rapture Ready, and it officially hates Ron Paul. Well, they don't call it "hate" they call it, "anyone who isn't a neocon isn't welcome here." Never mind that they're a Fundamentalist Christian board, not a political one. As such, their only rule should be that you have to have the viewpoint of a Fundamentalist Christian, eager to be raptured away while the rest of the world burns. Political views should not be censored. They act like the only way you can be a Christian is to be a neocon! I'm a Christian (though not a Fundamentalist, I suppose) who supports Ron Paul proudly, I know tons of Fundamentalists who support Ron Paul proudly (check out Chuck Baldwin), and I know lots of Democrats who are Christians as well, but they don't support Ron Paul. I know a ton of Libertarian and Constitutionalist Christians, and even Socialist and Anarchist Christians. Even Ron Paul Forums won't throw you out for disagreeing with them. They'll just refuse to support you and wind up dividing themselves...

So, I decided to take a look at the reasons why Ron Paul is now being censored by Big Brother over at Rapture Ready and debunk what it says, just in case someone wants to know the difference between a real conservative and a neocon. This could get long, so let's first take a look at the new rules on this board.

1) We are a conservative board. Paul is Libertarian, not a Conservative. Paul won't be a major part of this political board.

Apparently, Libertarians are not Conservatives because they yeild to the Constitution of the United States and the philosophies of the Founding Fathers. At any rate, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.

2) DO NOT insert Paulian politics into existing threads. They are different from conservative political thought and muddy the waters. If you must, OPEN A NEW THREAD. I am not above deleting individual posts.

So, debate isn't welcome. Instead, they must be kept in a different thread. I wonder how long before those other threads then become "hijacked" by the neocon mindset?

3) DO NOT hijack existing threads. This is already a rule. Rule #2 is considered hijacking a thread.

Oh good! This clears up my thoughts regarding #2. And here I thought the moderator had a big stick up his/her rear end and would be policing these other threads and "hijacking" them, too. No problem, though, since real conservatives love to debate the neocons.

4) There have been serious problems with Paul people in the past election. A new election season is coming up. We WILL NOT have a problem in this one.

Propping up a political agenda, are we? "You cannot be 'one of us' and vote your conscience!"

And here's the last thing:

RR does not offer a platform for conspiracy discussions. There are plenty of sites on the net where such discussions are welcomed. It the same thing with Paulianism and Libertarian issues. There are plenty of other sites, RR will not be one of them.The rules have been changed, its official now.[13] No liberal left wing libertarian political agendas, pacifism, socialism,

Ignoring the blatantly bad punctuation error at the end of this, I have to say that I feel sad. Just a little while ago they said that the RP people could post his viewpoints on seperate threads! Contradiction galore! And since when is Libertarian known as "left wing" and "pacifism"? Oh yeah, ever since these people decided it should be. I don't believe I have ever seen this kind of association before. How sad.

So that was pretty amusing, I think. Let's look a bit more at this thread. You gotta love how the fascists on that board locked the thread so no one could post a reply.

RP is unable to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished, he will never vote on the best bill possible; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect.

Do I want to know what this poster calls "the best bill possible"? Maybe not. It's probably the Patriot Act or some other oppressive bill. On that note, a lot of people are coming around to Ron Paul's side. I guess, though, that unless your the majority, you're obviously not worth wasting time on.

Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive.

Of course! We all just go with the flow and not set any examples! Hurray for collective mindset! "There is no such thing as a wasted vote," as were the words of someone I can't remember. Besides, the inability for those forum members to bend speaks volumes for their flexibility.

RP’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. He may have the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. His policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," once said Benjamin Franklin. I'll see you in the Fema camps. After all, who needs terrorists to take away our precious rights when our own government can do it without any opposition? On that note, we were never lacking in intelligence, rather, as Ron Paul put it, we need intelligent people to interpret the intelligence we manage to get. This mindset is classic Orwellian. In the book 1984, the government knows that people are ready and willing to give up their freedom in order to save themselves from their enemies. I wonder if the government's kool-aid tastes good?

RP is an isolationist and is against free trade, his “Libertarian” policies are not some great new idea but hark back to the old and flawed ideas of individual-anarchism and right-wing “Libertarianism” which have been argued over and refuted many times in the last 150 years

When was Ron Paul against free trade? Ron Paul consitently argues for free trade! You're allowed to disagree, but to outright lie? And when was Libertarianism refuted? Where did this person get their information? The talking heads on MSM?

RP is a conspiracy nut. His supporters are the Jesse Venturas, John Birchers, and others who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional

Ron Paul is not a conspiracy nut. Name one instance where he says that he believes the government staged the moon landing, 9/11, or any of those other things. Wait, he says 9/11 should be reinvestigated! I forgot that doing a thorough search for information without a propoganda bias is wrong! We musn't forget that our government is totally honest, very thorough when it comes to terrorism, and a Godly entity. Anyone who says differently is unAmerican. So he might have some radical supporters. Big deal. Did you know that Sarah Palin wants a reinvestigation as well? 9/11 truther!

Let's keep going, since the thread goes even further when they define their definition of "conservative".

a good conservative president would:

Preserve and uphold the US constitution, no attempts to change

Because we all know that Ron Paul insists on rewriting the Constitution. I jest. Ron Paul is more dedicated to this task than anyone else in Washington!

Strong national defense, support of Israel

Again, Ron Paul is definately for a strong nation defense. However, given that this is a neocon we're dealing with, I need to elaborate.

First of all, placing our troops all over the globe doesn't do anything for our national defense - it actually weakens it. Look at what our government has done throughout history. We prop up tyrants and tear down democracies, pretty much whatever suits our political agenda at the time. We place sanctions on people, install curfews, and even throw children in concentration camps.

On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (Ambassador to the UN) appeared on a 60 Minutes (before 9/11, remember). Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it." If you were a citizen in Iraq at that time, would you have thought it was worth it? Would you hate the US? What if China came over here and placed sanctions on us, policed our streets, etc.? Would you want to drive them out? Put yourselves in other peoples shoes, would you?

A strong national defense means keeping our soldiers on our borders, not taxing us to run around the world and playing it like a chess board. Get rid of all those bases, which were only meant to be temporary after WW2 anyway, and come home! This isn't an isolationist policy! It's a common sense one! You don't want people to hate you, you leave them alone! It's none of our business anyway.

On that note, most people are unaware that the reason America was not stationed all over the world previously was because the Founding Fathers expressly forbid it. It's not rocket science to look through history and find that great empires simply collapse when they overspend on their military and run all over the world! It ruins the currency, bankrupts them, and ultimately brings them down!

Then again, I don't think that these people like the Founding Fathers. They'd be rolling in their graves to hear these people speak.

"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace." George Washington – Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has extended her dominion over them all, Africa, Asia, an America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit." Alexander Hamilton on Colonialism, The Federalist Papers 1787 - Kind of like the US now, isn't it?

"My ardent desire is to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none." George Washington (Letter to Patrick Henry, October 9, 1795)

There's more, but there's a few memorable quotes. I would like to touch on the supporting Israel thing. I argue that since Christ has already come, God no longer blesses those who stick by Israel, the nation that openly rejects His Son. God did not save Israel when she was destroyed before, and I do not think He means for us to stand by her now. As such, the current Israel is not the Israel that existed in the Bible; it is not Abraham's Israel. At any rate, regardless of how you interpret scripture, it doesn't change the fact that support of Israel is a religious viewpoint, not a political one. It has nothing to do with being a political conservative.

Considering that two of Ron Paul's brothers are pastors (bet the RR people didn't know that!), I'm sure Ron Paul knows what to do when it comes to Israel. It's not like Israel benefits much from us, anyway. She cannot make war on her own, cannot declare peace on her own, and is essentially the red-headed step-child of the Middle East. Our politicians, as it currently stands, do not support Israel because of their piety, but because she gives us a foothold in the Middle East where the oil lies. Our government doesn't flow with righteousness, but with selfish desires.

Small government, tax breaks for small businesses, support free market

Again, where does Ron Paul disagree with this?

Rehabilitating the prison system

You just said that a conservative president would uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the president the authority to do this, it is for the States. They do believe in States' rights, don't they?

Tax ratio percentage rate dependent upon income

Or, just get rid of the income tax! Don't get much more conservative than that! And why don't they like RP over there?

Fiscal responsibilities, cut out government waste, reduce salaries, fire all unnecessary government bureaucracies and offices, about 70%

Now I'm laughing. Ron Paul would cut way more than that, yet they still don't like him? No other presidential candidate this past election ever talked about cutting that much except for Ron Paul! Sure, they all talk about how wasteful government spending is, but they don't ever have a plan for cutting it, except a little trimming here and there. Ron Paul should be these peoples' heroes!

No political correctness, global warming, imaginary protection of critters, and all that other liberal garbage

By now Ron Paul should have their vote. Ron Paul is so unpolitically correct, it makes even the Republicans (and the RR people) cringe. What? You mean the US government is a political vessel and not a righteous overlord? What? You mean they really don't hate us for our freedom, but for our domineering interventions? We'd be safer if we didn't give people a reason to attack us? But I thought it all came down to the fact that we're good and their evil! Evil doesn't need a motive! They just hate us because their evil! Where'd this logic come from? That's not politically correct.

Ron Paul also doesn't believe in global warming, so no problems there. As for animal rights and animal welfare (I'm all for animal rights and welfare, by the way), the federal government doesn't regulate that. That's for the States, so Ron Paul's (and mine) own viewpoints are rather irrelevant when it comes to that. In fact, most of that liberal garbage is for the States, not the federal government.

Uphold sanctity of moral principles.

What does that mean? There's no clarification.

Someone else added, before the thread was locked:

uphold the sanctity of marriage

This is, again, a States issue, not a Federal one. Besides, Ron Paul personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Those guys never actually studied out the Federal Government is supposed to operate, did they? Given that they act like Constitution experts, the fact that they believe the president has this kind of power speaks otherwise. What do they suppose the States' governments do?

uphold the sanctity of life

Again, a States right. However, Ron Paul feels very strongly about this issue and has proposed bills in the past to define life as starting at conception, thereby making abortion murder. Unfortunately, the Sanctity of Life Act never passed. You can blame pretty much everyone except Ron Paul for that!

no amnesty shamnesty

Ron Paul is about as against amnesty as you can get, unlike a certain Mike Huckabee.

protect national sovereignty

This is Ron Paul's key issue! He's the only guy who actually would pull us out of the UN! These people should love him!

In the end, it seems that the RR board is full of hypocrites. They kind of remind of the Pharisees, trying to call everyone out on everything when they themselves aren't exactly clean, either.

Pharisees: Don't vote against the Constitution! *They then go vote for someone who is willing to 'bend' and violate the Constitution because their just upholding a cause that said Pharisees feel strongly about.*

Well, here's hoping for more tolerance in the future. Cheers.

Obama Mocks Tea Parties

Thought I was going to post about the swine flu, didn't you? Quite frankly, swine flu doesn't scare me, and it is primarily a health problem and not a political one, or so it shouldn't be. This is just a little blurb to let you all know that Obama has officially acknowledged that the tea parties exist. So, what does he do? He mocks them, of course! Why wouldn't he, as from the sounds of it in this clip, he has no real idea of the reasons behind the protestors.



These tea parties aren't about health care and social security, and if you really want to know how the government could fix these, it could do so by just stepping aside. Anyway, the protestors are more concerned about Obama's stimulus plans, devaluing the dollar, the invasion of our privacy, the stripping away of our inalienable rights, and just Big Government, or Big Brother, in general.

I actually didn't expect him to acknowledge the tea parties, really. I thought standing around and waving signs and tea bags was just a gimmick to make you feel good about being so rebellious and patriotic while not requiring any real work. Tea parties can be easily ignored.

Example, if I'm upstairs writing, or maybe even drawing, and someone is outside waving a sign that reads, "Drop your pencil now!" there's a good chance that I won't. After all, that person won't stop me, they wouldn't dare. They just don't have it in them to run into my house, yank the pencil from my fingers, and set my ambitious *cough* works ablaze. Americans, we've lost our spirit.

Ron Paul on Secession

I'm posting this just because he's recieved so much negativity for practicing free speech. Ron Paul claims that secession discussions should be kept alive for obvious reasons:

a.) The Federal Government may not be so eager to step on State's governments if it were afraid that the State would seceed from the Union.

b.) We did seceed from England, though not in a very peaceful way. The principal is still there.

So, what's everyone doing now, namely CNN (Communist Networking News)? Shouts of, "Treason!" are flowing out of their mouths. What's treasonous about talking about secession? Ron Paul doesn't actually think the Texas governor was serious when he mentioned it in passing, but I agree that it's a good discussion.

My definition of treason: any organization, government, or individual that violates the rule of law as defined by the Constitution and is in blatant contrast to the ideals of America, which is independent of any government or president.

As such, Bush committed treason, Obama committed treason, Clinton committed treason, etc. and we have a right to stand against that treason. Seceeded from a corrupted government is not treason. Here's the video:

CNN + Tea Parties = Awesome Behind-the-Scenes Footage!

Believe it or not, I'm not a huge fan of these tea parties going on, but more on that in a later article. However, I believe that a number of the people who attend them are passionate, and probably more open to conservative and Libertarian philosophy than a lot of people. They aren't there yet, and there's too much space for neocons to step in and overtake these little parties. Not to mention, some of them lack any kind of spirit at all (I feel another article coming along).

Anyway, here's a CNN reporter who attempted to "report", or biasly bash the tea parties and paint them as being a movement created by right-wing extremists who are angry that Repubicans lost this year's election. This clip includes the segment that CNN actually aired, followed by some awesome bloggers who got there right afterwards and managed to catch the reporter being told off by a very angry woman!

The Good, the Bad, and Downright Stupid

There's been a lot going on politically, and I fear that I've neglected this blog during it all. So, it's time to start by updating the MIAC report, followed by discussion of HR 1388, and China's newest move. I might also mention Obama's reaction to Fargo flooding, since it goes into the downright stupid bit.


First of all, MIAC has officially decided to change their report! *shouts of cheer emanate from Missouri* Governor Nixon, naturally, avoids all responsiblity for the report. For some reason, he kind of reminds of a certain President whose last name was also Nixon...


Now, I know I didn't cover this bill at all, and I definately regret it now, but HR 1388 has passed. So, what is this bill? It's called the Give Act, and it's mandatory voluntary service, and, yes, I know that those two words don't go together. So, why is this bill scary? Here's a few excerpts from it:

From the Misc. section, #6104: (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable
mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.SEC.

6107. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings and Sessions- The Commission may, for the purpose of carrying
out this title, hold public hearings, sit and act at times and places, take
testimony, and receive evidence as the Commission considers appropriate.

(b) Powers of Members and Agents- Any member or agent of the Commission
may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take by this section.

(c) Obtaining Official Data- Upon request of the Chairperson, the head of
any department or agency shall furnish information to the Commission that the
Commission deems necessary to enable it to carry out this title.

(d) Physical Facilities and Equipment- The Architect of the Capitol, in
consultation with the appropriate entities in the legislative branch, shall
locate and provide suitable facilities and equipment for the operation of the
Commission on a nonreimbursable basis.

(e) Administrative Support Services- Upon the request of the Commission,
the Architect of the Capitol and the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission on a nonreimbursable basis such administrative support
services as the Commission may request in order for the Commission to carry out
its responsibilities under this title.

All of tht basically means that while the service is voluntary now, it could easily develop into something that's mandatory. I know, there are people out there, some of whom might be reading this, and saying, "What's wrong with serving your community?" Nothing. What's wrong, is when government tries to step in and make you serve your community. Trust me, community service is so much better when you're doing it for the sake of doing it, not because you're being pressured into it. It's really nothing short of enslavement of young people.

Moreover, this is in clear violation of the 13th Amendment:

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

Here's where things get a bit sticky. While you're committed to serving your, or Obama's, community, you will be prohibited from a variety of functions, further stripping you of your rights and offering nothing but slavery in return.

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section
125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows: `SEC. 125. PROHIBITED
ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
`(a) Prohibited Activities- A
participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not
engage in the following activities:

`(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

`(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or
strikes.

`(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

`(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining
agreements.

`(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

`(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

`(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

`(8) Providing a direct benefit to–

`(A) a business organized for profit;

`(B) a labor organization;

`(C) a partisan political organization;

`(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

`(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

`(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

`(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

`(b) Ineligible Organizations- No assistance provided under this subtitle may be provided to the following types of organizations (including the participation of a participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle in activities
conducted by such organizations) or to organizations that are co-located on the
same premises as the following organizations:

`(1) Organizations that provide or promote abortion services, including referral for such services.

`(2) For-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, or
organizations engaged in political or legislative advocacy.

`(3) Organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud.

`(c) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers or Other Volunteers- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not perform any services or duties or engage in activities which–

`(1) would otherwise be performed by an employed worker as part of his or her assigned duties as an employee or by another volunteer who is not a participant in an approved national service position; or

`(2) will supplant the hiring of employed workers or work of such other
volunteers.’.

Can you say, "All your kids are belong to us"? If you read all that, you should be scared out of your wits, and this stupid thing passed! What all that basically means, is that while you are pledged to servitude, all your loyalties lie with the State. You cannot be devoted to church, political activism, or even a business; you are a complete drone for the State. Regardless of whether or not this is voluntary or mandatory, this is completely unacceptable in a free society!

So, please, refuse to cooperate with this bill. Civil disobedience is an amazing form of rebellion, and we should definately not allow ourselves or our children to be owned by Big Brother. Voluntary or not, this is another Big Government program that wishes to run our lives.

Okay, time to keep going. China is not calling for a new World Currency. Do you know what's scary? Some articles, as the one I just linked to, state that they're being taken seriously. However, Obama has also claimed that he doesn't see that happening, but how much do we trust Obama? According to him, he doesn't see much happening at all!

Now, there's way too many people in the world who ask, "What's wrong with that?" I'll tell you what's wrong with it right now.

First of all, think about how easy it is to change policies in your home town or local school. If your childrens' school is doing something you dislike, you get a bunch of parents to join together and run up to the school board, begging for change. There's a pretty decent chance that you'll get what you want.

Now, think of the work it takes to change state legislation if your unhappy. It requires a lot more people to ask the governor to change such-and-such law and get the job done, doesn't it? It's not impossible, but it sure as heck is tougher.

Finally, how hard is it to change things at the Federal level? Can it be done? Yeah, but it's downright hard! It is very difficult to get things done right at the Federal level when they screw up, so how hard do you think it will be to change things once they've gone global?

If the IMF regulates money with the same restraint that the current Federal Reserve does, then the whole world is screwed, and it will take the whole world to bring it down. Even if things start out artificially prosperous, they can and will go bad.

Moreover, how easy it would be to slowly usher in a real NWO, although I understand that this is tin hat stuff to most people. But think about it for just a second. The banks ultimately control the world, not the various kings, presidents, etc. That kind of power in the hand of a single, global "bank" is scary stuff! Money makes the world go round.

Some good news, though, is Michele Buchmann, a Congresswoman, has put forth a bill that would ban the US from taking part in a global currency. Please, call your legislators and have them support HJ.RES.41. Buchmann's bill is important, and you can check the cosponsors and see Ron Paul's name on there if you want.

And now, for the downright stupid. We all know that Fargo floods to a certain extent every year. Crazy people built a city on top of a lake, has a river that runs backwards, and gets a big pile of snow almost every year. All of this is the perfect setup for a flood, and they always get one. This one happens to be a big one, but we've had a lot of snow in these parts recently, so that probably has something to do with it.

However, Barrack Obama begs to differ. He believes it is due to that pesky little inconvenience known as global warming. Yep, he thinks that this is a wakeup call to take action! Granted, I'm not entirely sure if Obama knows where Fargo is, nor do I think he was aware that Fargo was having a blizzard at the same time they were flooding (when the north-running river hits a blockade of snow and ice, well...). That's not going to stop him from shoveling more money into the various programs he wants in order to stop an all-natural climate change. He also plans to pay for 75% of the flood damages in this Federal Disaster Area.

People on forums tend to post things known as facepalm pictures during these kinds of revelations. I don't have one at the moment, so use your imagination. Cheers.

Finally! An Update! AKA Ron Paul on Glenn Beck

I've got to catch up, because there are huge things happening in the political world, and it's going to bite us all in the butt. I'm working on some articles to cover all of this, but for now, here's Ron Paul's interview with Glenn Beck this morning. This is a follow-up to the MIAC report I posted earlier.