cipher - key to a cryptographic system.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

America’s Most Credible News Source

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless … people.

From the mouth of Rush Limbaugh this statement gets lost in talk radio static.  When a Russian journalistmakes it, however, every American ought to lean in and listen just as they might if E. F. Hutton was about to speak. It is the opening sentence in  Stanislav Mishin’s article, American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper, which appeared in the April 27, 2009 edition of PRAVDA On-Line1, a Web-based reincarnation of the former official organ of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee, Pravda, which Russian Federation President Boris Yeltzin ordered shut down in 1991.2

Mishin derides American capitalist arrogance given our inability to arrest Marxism’s influence. He evinces sarcastic admiration for the speed with which upstart Marxist rookie, Barak Obama, and his comrades, are showing up Russia’s Bolsheviks, who “wrote the book” on social revolution. In particular, Mishin cites profligate Government deficit spending and private industry takeovers by the Obama Administration as examples of their bold and aggressive style.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
Mishin continues, citing various social strategies statists have implemented to weaken American resolve against totalitarianism:
… the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years … Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters … First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture … Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses …
He concludes by exhorting fellow Russians who own businesses and industries in America to “look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.”

When the Russian media become a more reliable news source of information about goings-on in America than the American media, it is time to stop indulging America’s mainstream media.

© 2009 Unspun Publications.

1PRAVDA On-Line is an Internet-based newspaper run by former Pravda newspaper employees and is unrelated to Pravda. (Source:
2Pravda (Russian: Правда, "Truth") was a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union and an official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party between 1912 and 1991. The Pravda newspaper was started in 1912 in St. Petersburg. It was converted from a weekly Zvezda. It did not arrive in Moscow until 1918. During the Cold War, Pravda was well known in the West for its pronouncements as the official voice of Soviet Communism. (Similarly Investia was the official voice of the Soviet government.) After the paper was closed down in 1991 by decree of President Yeltsin, many of the staff founded a new print newspaper with the same name, which is now a tabloid-style Russian news source. (Source:

Monday, July 6, 2009

Anecdotal Castles

All sandcastles eventually melt into the rising tide, or blow away in swirling coastal winds. No sandcastle has ever stood the test of time or an ocean’s ebb and flow. Sandcastles are anecdotal.

Liberal Apologists’ justifications remind me of sandcastles. When cornered by irrefutable facts and sound reason, Liberals always resort to anecdotal evidence. They dare not stray too close to the rhythmic battering of objective analysis or their constructs will crumble like sandcastles at high tide. Liberalism is anecdotal.

Every time I channel surf into a debate between a Liberal and a Conservative, I listen carefully to the Liberal response to any Conservative point. If the original question doesn't get lost in obfuscation, the Liberal’s retort almost always begins with some form of “Yes, but."  I call this Apologetics by Exception or Liberal Water Torture.

Conservatism’s house rests on foundational principles that have endured more than two centuries of assault by tyranny. Liberalism’s house is a sandcastle built on shifting sands of anecdotal, "Wrigley’s Believe It or Not," exceptions to the rule. It is easier to make a snowball out of sand than it is to understand Liberal reason, if it can be called “reason.”

The Liberal’s utopian dream is not built upon a solid foundation of time-tested truths, but upon seeming exceptions to those truths. If Liberals succeed in instantiating their idea of social utopia, America will enter the anecdotal narrative of nations that have succumbed to governance by exception.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

US Healthcare: An Open Letter to the Democratic Apparatchik

Fortunately for law-abiding citizens, dumb criminals eventually end up in jail. But I am concerned about another more dangerous “super criminal” that is destroying our beloved nation right under our noses! I refer to them as "smart criminals." These high-IQ outlaws don't dabble in petty theft. They always go for the BIG heist. These banditos are some of the smartest desperados ever to brandish—well, a vote, a filibuster or a veto.
Once seated, smart criminals waste no time. With the drive of a crack addict in search of a fix, smart criminals will trample any liberty that gets between them and power. They rush to enact laws that ‘legitimize’ pick pocketing the American people and embezzle their constituents legislatively. No longer is organized crime at war with Government; they are bedfellows!

For the time being, a bunch of these power junkies have gained majorities in the highest political assemblies in this Land, and the White House. As Americans have observed since the '08 presidential election, smart criminals and political power make a combustible mixture. To those who pay more than lip service to the Founders Dream, these faux patriots use the US Constitution as kindling for their national version of "Bonfire of the Vanities" and our liberties go up in smoke. Next up for the pyre—the best health care system in the world.

The Democratic Party has mastered its mendacious craft of misleading the American people continually and some Republicans have dissembled with them. They have become a brood of vipers and the “light that is in them is darkness.” Progressives disguise their nefarious legislation with euphemistic names and then pimp it to the American people. They slipped the “National Economic Suicide Act” by an unwary electorate under the name, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Their next major legislative caper involved deleting the first two words from "End of Affordable Health Choices Act." I'd feel less violated by a thief pointing a gun in my face. At least the guy with the gun is honest!

Perhaps you think my line of reasoning is insulting or out of line. You should be grateful that a natural-born American citizen is willing to tell you the truth. There are a lot of naked emperors running around DC these days so consider my letter a friendly tap on the shoulder.

Now that the current brood of smart criminals has set its sights on the US healthcare system, and knowing they are always in a hurry to get back to uh—"the business of the American people," I have limited myself to one simple multiple-choice question.

Which of the following five major Federal social programs enacted since the dawn of the American Republic in 1776 has 1) been so successful that it justifies seizure of an additional 20% of American GDP by today’s Federal Government; 2) stayed within the bounds of its enacting legislation, and 3) not far exceeded its original intent beyond anything it’s originators could have imagined? Place a check mark next to each program that matches each of these criteria.

a Medicare
b Medicaid
c Social Security
d Welfare
e Federal Income Tax
f None of the above
To facilitate informed responses, historical background information for each program is provided below:

Medicare and Medicaid: In 1945, President Harry Truman asked Congress for legislation to establish a national health insurance plan. Contentious debate ensued with forward-thinking opponents warning of “socialized medicine.” By the end of his administration, Truman had abandoned his plan for universal health coverage. Fast-forward 20 years and its déjà vu all over again. In an act reminiscent of “Night of the Living Dead,” Truman is reincarnated as Lyndon B. Johnson and on July 30, 1965, signs Truman's exhumed dream into law as Medicare and Medicaid. Before you throw yourself on the back of the hearse headed to Johnson’s “Great Society,” however, you might want to consider the following facts.

In 1966, 19 million people enrolled in Medicare and 4 million in Medicaid with combined federal outlays in 1967 totaling $4.4 billion. Today, the Truman/Johnson dream has morphed into one BIG nightmare and the Federal Government has night terrors that a sleepwalking American public might awaken to the abysmal state of federal health insurance programs. Today there are 43 million people enrolled in Medicare, 51 million in Medicaid, and combined federal outlays totaling $514 billion or 21% of the Federal budget! Facing the prospect of already below-cost Medicare payments being further reduced, Doctors are reluctant to participate or are fleeing Federal health insurance programs altogether. Can you blame me for wanting the Federal Government to keep its cotton-pickin’ hands off my healthcare?

Social Security: In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law. The original Social Security tax rate was 1% for both employers and employees—on the first $3,000 earned. Seventy-four years later, the rate has nearly octupled to 7.65% for both employer and employee—on the first $102,000 earned. Social Security is expected to be unsustainable in a dozen years or so and rumor has it the current batch of criminals wants to do away with the cap altogether! I guess higher-paid Americans still aren't paying their ‘fair share.’ Do I have it about right?

Welfare: America’s poorest of the poor used to receive aid from private individuals and organizations such as churches, and small state-based programs. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) into law. This initial “welfare” bill provided $18 per month for one child and $12 for each additional child. Since its birth in 1935, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has come a long way—baby! Says Michael Tanner in The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society (August 2003),

Welfare may have started with the best of intentions, but it has clearly failed. It has failed to meet its stated goal of reducing poverty. But its real failure is even more disastrous. Welfare has torn apart the social fabric of our society. Everyone is worse off. The taxpayers must foot the bill for programs that don’t work. The poor are dehumanized, seduced into a system from which it is very hard to escape. Teenage girls give birth to children they will never be able to support. The work ethic has eroded. Crime rates soar. Such is the legacy of welfare. Tanner ought to know what he's talking about. As a Senior Fellow and Policy Scholar at the Cato Institute, Tanner also leads research into a variety of domestic policies with emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security. I'll take my chances with Tanner. Why don’t you criminals have a chat with Turner before you destroy healthcare.

Federal Income Tax: President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862 into law to help fund the American Civil War. No problem there. The Act also established a Commissioner of the Revenue and instituted the Federal income tax as a "temporary measure" that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six.” No problem there either—serious times demand serious action. The Revenue Act taxed incomes above $600 at a rate of 3% and those over $10,000 at 5% and required employers to withhold taxes from pay and send the money to the Commissioner. When the deadline to terminate the Federal income tax rolled around in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six,” total tax revenues had climbed to an all-time high of $310 million and a temporary Federal tax system that beneficent to the Federal Government wasn’t about to be terminated. By 2007, total tax revenues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had mushroomed to 28.3%. Compared to the amount of taxes Americans paid under the temporary Revenue Act of 1862, today’s taxpayers quantify their taxes in the number of months out of each year they must work before The Godfather is paid off. Would someone who knows the actual meaning of temporary please speak up?!

"Stupid is as stupid does," so says Forrest Gump's Mama. How many times does a country need to be misled by smart criminals before it learns its lesson? Apparently, at least five. This legislation will push America closer to tyranny and finish off the Founders’ dream. Is this the legacy Democrats want to leave to posterity? Please, I implore you; do not do this to America. Do not do this to future generations of Americans.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Now the Really Smart Criminals Want to Take Over Healthcare

Fortunately for law-abiding citizens, dumb criminals eventually end up in jail. But these are no ordinary criminals. The banditos I'm talking about are the smartest desperados ever to brandish a filibuster. I refer to them as "really, really smart criminals (RRSCs)." RRSCs don't waste time on petty theft. They head straight for political power where they can pickpocket the American people—legally. RRSCs embezzle their constituents by legalizing their crimes before they commit them. No longer is “organized crime” at odds with Government; they are bedfellows!

With the same recklessness that a crack addict pursues a fix, RRSCs will destroy anything that gets between them and their lust for power. For the time being anyway, a bunch of these power junkies have managed to gain a majority in the highest political assemblies in the Land. As we have seen at an alarming pace since the 2008 presidential election, RRSCs and political power make a volatile mixture. Unfortunately for true patriots, America's RRSCs are using the US Constitution as kindling for their national version of "Bonfire of the Vanities" and our liberties are going up in smoke. Next up for the pyre? The finest healthcare system in the world—ever.

Using the same technique they employed to defuse suspicion over the "Porkulus Bill” by calling it the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” RRSCs are again flawlessly executing the "Give Your Bill A Name That Jukes Your Constituents" strategy spelled out in the "Really, Really Smart Criminals Handbook (RRSCH),” as they “grease the skids” for their next legislative caper by calling the "Now Your Representatives Are Going to Destroy US Healthcare” bill the "Affordable Health Choices Act.” These guys are good—really good. I'd feel less violated by a thief pointing a gun at my head than I do when my representatives steal my wealth and liberty under false pretenses. At least the guy with the gun is being honest.

To those who are clamouring for Government-sponsored health care reform, I would suggest an honest review of Federal Government performance with other major federal social programs such as, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and the federal income tax:

Social Security: In 1935, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, the original tax rate was 2%, 1% for employers, 1% for employees, on the first $3,000 of wages earned. Since its inception, the Social Security tax rate has climbed to 15.3%, 7.65% for employers, 7.65% for employees, on the first $102,000 of wages earned. Social Security is expected to be insolvent in about ten years.

Welfare: Before Welfare, the “poorest of the poor” in America received aid from private individuals and organizations such as churches, and small state-based programs. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the “Aid for Dependant Children (AFDC)” bill into law. This initial “welfare” bill provided $18/month for one child and $12 for each additional child. According to Michael Tanner in, The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society (August 2003),

“… Welfare may have started with the best of intentions, but it has clearly failed. It has failed to meet its stated goal of reducing poverty. But its real failure is even more disastrous. Welfare has torn apart the social fabric of our society. Everyone is worse off. The taxpayers must foot the bill for programs that don’t work. The poor are dehumanized, seduced into a system from which it is very hard to escape. Teenage girls give birth to children they will never be able to support. The work ethic has eroded. Crime rates soar. Such is the legacy of welfare.”
Tanner is a Sr. Fellow and Policy Scholar at the Cato Institute and leads research into a variety of domestic policies with an emphasis on health care reform, social welfare policy, and Social Security.

Medicare and Medicaid: In 1945, President Harry Truman asked Congress for legislation establishing a national health insurance plan. Contentious debate ensued with opponents warning of “socialized medicine.” By the end of his administration, Truman had abandoned his plan for universal health coverage. On July 30, 1965, however, President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law pursuant to his vision for a “Great Society.” In 1966, 19 million people enrolled in Medicare and 4 million in Medicaid with combined federal outlays for both programs of $4.4 billion in 1967. Today, 43 million people are enrolled in Medicare and 51 million in Medicaid with combined federal outlays for both programs totaling $514 billion, 21% of the federal budget. Doctors facing the prospect of already below-cost Medicare payments being further reduced, are reluctant to participate or are abandoning federal health insurance programs altogether.

Federal Income Tax: President Abraham Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1862 into law to help fund the American Civil War. The act also established the Commissioner of the Revenue and specified that the Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six.” Annual incomes above $600 were taxed at a rate of 3%. Incomes over $10,000 were taxed at a rate of 5%. Employers were required to withhold taxes and send the withheld funds to the Commissioner of the Revenue. Tax revenues reached a new high in 1866, totaling $310 million. By 2007, total tax revenues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had mushroomed to 28.3%. The amounts working Americans pay in taxes each year have reached obscene levels. We’ve come a long way since “the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six” when the “temporary” Federal income tax was supposed to end.

It would take much less time to write or read about every successful Federal social program because the page would be blank. Given its track record, what would possess the American people to turn the best healthcare system in the world over to an organization that has mismanaged every social program it has ever supervised? If we, the American electorate, allow our Federal Government to seize control of our healthcare system, then we have become the proverbial abused woman who, believing her man’s assurances that “it will never happen again,” goes back for more.

In behavior that suggests self-loathing taken to a new low, Americans are about to turn the best healthcare system ever over to a bunch of really, really smart criminals who have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are not up to the task. Have we lost our collective mind?!! If we do this, we prove our own stupidity and deserve the abuse we will get.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Feline Hit Man Headed for the Pound

Michael Vick killed dogs, but Tyler Weinman committed the unimaginable—cat abuse.[1] Investigators have been combing through Weinman’s Internet history and veterinary records of the deceased cats to find out if Weinman’s is just another case of a sadistic adolescent thrill seeker or honor killing by a dog lover over Vick’s crimes against canines. Police also want to know if Weinman acted alone, but the cat’s got Weinman’s tongue. The prosecutor may try to apply the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute if other cat killers are involved.

The teenage kitty killer was released from jail today on $250,000 bond. Weinman will wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and remain under house arrest while he awaits trial on 19 counts of catslaughter. The question that has cat lovers choking on hairballs is “Why, would he stoop to such barbarism when there are humane ways to terminate Tabby?” One bereaved cat owner meowed, “Poor defenseless Tigger,” and fainted. Neighborhood kitty litter boxes have been filling up fast because cat owners are afraid to let their cats out at night to use their neighbor’s gardens. "I've been going through cat litter like a mouse through a box of Grape Nuts," one cat owner quipped. Feline activists and police are worried that there could be copycats.

Cat Coroner Henry Harebawl darted around the crime scene earlier today to assess the carnage. “These cats are in full rigor. I’m finding paws and claws everywhere!” he said. “By the looks of these carcasses, these puddy tats were probably catnapped around midnight and drugged with catnip; toxicology reports will tell us for sure. The toms usually go on the prowl for kitties around midnight. They were probably slain shortly after that; the Cat Examiner’s autopsy reports will pinpoint the time of death.” Harebawl also mentioned that “Cat owners, desperate to save their furniture, are so afraid of furtive feline rescuers that they won't carry kitty into a vet clinic in broad daylight. They end up turning to back alley cat butchers to get rid of their pissing pussycats.”

Callie Calico of Cats Against Cat Abuse (CACA) was on the scene early to make sure investigators didn't overlook anything. "I lost my kitty to a cat abuser," she said." Calico added, "After that traumatic experience, I founded CACA and have given my life to stopping this kind of abuse from happening to other cat lovers. We're working for a cat abuse-free world."

Weinman will be arraigned on July 6 and could get up to 158 human years in prison. That’s about 843 in cat years for the purr sadist. If the prosecutor makes this a hate crime, Weinman's sentence could be longer. The defense is hoping that prosecution will accept the lesser charge of involuntary catslaughter by reason of insanity in exchange for a no contest plea. Lead investigator Bloodhound Bill Bowser (a.k.a. “Snoopy”) snapped at rumors that Weinman could end up in the same prison cell as Michael Vick. “Not on your leash!" Bowser growled. "They’d end up fighting like cats and dogs."

If my satiric take on this story strikes the reader as insensitive or offensive, I've hit my mark. I refuse to raise an eyebrow over the wanton slaughter a few cats in a society that approves the wanton slaughter of 4,000 helpless unborn human beings who are butchered, poisoned, chemically burned, and dismembered in the sanctuary of their mothers' wombs each and every day. Our priorities and indignation are perverse and our damnation is just.

I would only ask that readers be equally indignant over the wanton slaughter every year in America of 1.5 million unborn human beings who are of inestimable value to God who made them, certainly far more valuable than any number of cats. If your contempt for cat abuse exceeds your disdain for child killing, then there is something in you that is as twisted as the neurosis that motivated Tyler Weinman to torture cats.

© 2009 Spin Cipher Publishing.

[1] Actual story can be found on numerous online news websites doing a Google search on “South Florida Cat Killer.”

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Islam Rising in the West: A Prophetic Perspective

Early nineteenth-century Liberalism,[1] "… stresses the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire and others … The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, which grants a more interventionist role for the state."[2]

Liberal and Liberalism as they are used today, retain very little of their original meanings. Today’s Liberalism equates to Statism[3] and today’s Liberal is, for all intents and purposes, a Statist. Before they can plunder a society, statists know they must first “bind the strong man” of truth because truth is the statist's greatest enemy. Statists achieve this objective by infecting a society’s time-honored traditional values with pathogenic philosophies such as Multiculturalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, Abortion, and other vile ‘isms.’ Statists act as parasites that carry the societal plague called Statism. The first stage of Statism involves co-opting the host culture’s language, particularly as it relates to traditional values—a free society's first line of defense against tyranny. To illustrate, American Statists have hijacked Classical Liberalism’s ‘individual liberty' by shackling to it an “anything goes” meaning that amounts to moral turpitude.[4] Thus, Statists have turned America's time-honored value of individual liberty against our society in much the same way that an autoimmune disease turns the body's own immune response against itself.

The Apostle Peter spoke of the days we now live in: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19) The Psalmist wrote, “But unto the wicked God saith, ‘What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.’” (Psalm 50:16-17) Why is this important?

The West has tossed out God’s Law and a terrifying irony is unfolding as a result—an implacable ideology is rushing in to fill the spiritual and moral vacuum in Europe, Canada, and the United States. What is this terrifying irony and what is its prophetic significance?

Muslim populations and thus, Political Islam, are metastasizing indomitably across Europe, Canada and the United States. Muslim birth rates in the west are far outpacing native population birth rates which in many cases have fallen well below the replacement birth rate. If these demographic trends continue, the only thing that stands between Eurabia, Canadistan, and Amerabia is time, and not much of it. What does neo-Liberalism have to do with the spread of Islam?

The terrifying irony is this: As Political Islam (a redundancy) ascends to prominence in the West, what is left of the Law of the one and only God, who is love, will gradually be replaced by an intolerant, oppressive, imposed Islamic morality that is at war with everything modern Liberals hold dear.

The neo-Liberal values the West has stubbornly refused to let go of will be ripped from its hands to be replaced with Sharia.[5] Voluntary adherence will be replaced by forced subjugation to Islamic law which rejects Multiculturalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, and Abortion and imposes austere penalties for law-breakers, capital punishment among them. Then the West which opted for absolute “freedom” over the perfect “Law of Liberty” (James 2:12) will be given absolute tyranny.

As the scenario above plays out, the West will find itself in the horrible predicament described in the first chapter of Proverbs for those who reject God’s wisdom and counsel:
"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices." (Proverbs 1:24-31)
© 2009 Seeds for Good Soil. For reprint permission, send email to:

[1] Liberalism: Also known as Classical, Traditional, Laissez-Faire, and Market Liberalism. (Source: Wikipedia).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Statism: 1. “the political expression of altruism [which] is collectivism … [statism] holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” 2. “A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the … government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same.” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon)
[4] Moral Turpitude: Vile, shameful, or base character; depravity. A vile or depraved act. (Source: Wikipedia)
[5] Sharia: The body of Islamic law. (Source: Wikipedia)

Saturday, May 30, 2009

The Good Ship Lollipop (a.k.a. The Supreme Court)

Good Ship Lollipop is a fitting metaphor for a Supreme Court that will be that much closer to weighing anchor for Candyland (for statists) if Sonia Sotomayer is confirmed by the US Senate. Captain Obama will only need one more oarsman and then he can sound the All aboooaaard! for liberals and their interests. The Court is already listing hard to port. The weight of Sotomayer's activism might sink the whole Country.

Once Lollipop shoves off, the US Constitution will be made to walk the plank, effectively leaving the Court blindfolded on a rudderless ship. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas will be reduced to four dissenting voices whose opinions will be stowed down in the bilge directly below the poop deck. Intially, America, like the seemed-to-be invincible Titanic, will seem fine, but her fate will have already been sealed.

Be not deceived! Obama wants Sotomayer on the Court for one primary reason; to import her ridiculous views and rulings on immigration so he can fling US borders wide open and ensure amnesty for illegals who, as a voting bloc, favor liberalism. As a card-carrying member of Partido Nacional de La Raza Unida, someone like Sotomayer is his best bet. This is part of O's strategy to circumvent any legislative impediment, federal or state, to amnesty. If he can stack the numbers, he will ensure his reelection, regardless of how many Americans join Tea Partys.

Note: For another chilling reason why we need to be concerned about US immigration policies, see YouTube video on the Nation of Atzlan.

Why does the Supreme Court bother accepting cases at all? In reality, a judicial ruling by fiat doesn't require a legal case, does it? I propose that the Supremes cut to the chase, choose 6-12 social inequities they feel need fixing in America, and render opinions on them? Why wait for cases? We need 'Hope and change' now!

Forget the Constitution; I'd settle for a little common sense! How did we manage to put a bunch of community activists with absolutely no common sense, on the highest court in the land?! What a joke!

Friday, March 20, 2009

Multiple Outbursts, The Pontiff of Bombastism, and Other Profanities

"Why Rush is Right: The party of Buckley and Reagan is alive and well because of the politics of Limbaugh. A true conservative's rebuttal of Frum’s lament"

The cover story of the March 7, 2009 edition of Newsweek Magazine features a contentious article by David Frum entitled, “Why Rush is Wrong: The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.” Frum opens his dirge with an outburst over an outburst (Frum’s term for any of Levin’s opening monologues) by Conservative talk show host Mark Levin in which he castigates pseudo-Conservatives using Frum as an illustration.

After his initial outburst over Levin’s outburst, Frum launches into another outburst, this time to bombast Rush Limbaugh for his bombastism. Realizing that bombasting a bombastic Conservative icon like Rush Limbaugh in Newsweek might not carry as much weight with Conservatives as it would say, in the American Spectator or Human Events, Frum precedes his bombastation of Rush with his CV of Conservative “bona fides.” He cites a meal with Mark Levin, volunteering for the Reagan campaign, attending Republican conventions, presiding over his law school’s Federalist Society, working on the WSJ editorial page, writing Bush II speeches, serving on the Giuliani campaign, voting for McCain, supporting the Iraq war and supporting Clinton’s impeachment, to prove he’s earned the right to bombast Rush.

In his bombastation, Frum insinuates that Rush’s bombastism typifies the views of a small but vocal Conservo-Fascist fringe and this, he argues, disqualifies Rush to be anointed “Conservative Pontiff.” He then explains why Rush as Conservatism’s ex cathedra bombastador would accelerate the current exodus from Conservatism and spell the end of the movement as we know it. I thought Frum was against Conservatism “as we know it?”

So let me get this straight; Frum’s participation in a bunch of Conservative field experiences makes him a bona fide Conservative? Considering the level of intelligence those activities demand, Frum must be smart enough to know that joining a Conservative scavenger hunt doesn’t automatically make someone is a true scavenger, any more than participating in Conservative activities makes someone a true Conservative.

The activities Frum lists would be expected of a model Conservative, to be sure. But they are only an indication that someone might be a Conservative, not dispositive proof. I don’t mean to be profane, but for Buckley’s sake! Judas participated in discipleship activities with Jesus for 3.5 years, heard his teachings, ate with him, and witnessed his miracles, but in retrospect, few would argue that those activities by themselves made Judas a bona fide disciple of Jesus. Neither does doing Conservative activities make one a bona fide Conservative.

I can’t recall ever hearing Rush Limbaugh say he wants to be anointed “leader of the Republican Party,” as Frum asserts, except perhaps as a tongue-in-cheek gadget to illustrate the absurdity of his detractors’ bombasts and outbursts. To be honest, we true Conservatives don’t “need” Levin to outburst or Rush to bombast for us, we can do it ourselves. We love Mark and Rush, not because they teach us what to believe, but because they espouse principles we already believe.

Conservatism is simple, really. “In a nutshell,” true Conservatism is a set of absolutes that derive from a Judeo-Christian understanding of right and wrong and a devotion to the United States Constitution as the Framers intended it. As such, Conservatism and bombastic Government are mutually exclusive; Conservatism and abortion cannot coexist, and so on.

Granted, it’s not always easy to tell who is and who isn’t a true Conservative. Some people who look a lot like Conservatives might actually be of the Heinz 57 variety, Liberoconservamoderate mutts if you will. But true Conservatives are, by definition, pedigreed purebreds. You can’t be a Conservative and have a little bit of Liberal in you. You can’t be a Conservative on every issue save one, such as abortion, and still be a Conservative. “Purebred mutt” is an oxymoron.

A Republican is a Conservative is a Republican does not hold up; true Conservatism is party agnostic anyway. Which brings me to another question: Is Frum a true Conservative or not? Is he a purebred or a mutt? Has he relaxed his Conservative values, or is he just now “coming out.” The difference is subtle, but the answer could explain why so many people who claim to be true Conservatives never were.

As for Levin’s outbursts and Rush’s bombastism, they comfort me. Why? Because they provide cathartic relief by mirroring the anger that has been building in me as I watch the irresponsible, dangerous, idiotic, America-destroying things that, as Frum decorates him, our “soft-spoken,” “conciliatory,” “never angry,” “always invoking the recession and its victims,” “devoted husband and father,” President and his appointees are doing to dismantle America. Again, not to be profane, but for Reagan’s sake! just because he’s smiling doesn’t mean he’s not destroying the country!

It is unfortunate that Mark Levin’s outbursts and Rush Limbaugh’s bombastism are offensive to David Frum and other pseudo-Conservatives, but it wasn’t Limbaugh or Levin who said, “Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a howling reproach.” It was ABC Nightline anchor, Ted Koppel, a noted master of artful confrontation. The only thing I see in Frum’s lament is an adolescent over-sensitivity to frank logic and tough love.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

We Will Never Quit!

Winston Churchill had ordered Operation Dynamo to begin. It was an ambitious plan to evacuate tens of thousands of Allied troops who were pinned between an advancing German army and the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk, France. The rescue was performed by an ‘armada’ of 860 boats that included British naval vessels and the legendary “little ships of Dunkirk,” whose civilian crews had been pressed into service for the urgent mission. In the end, 338,226 Allied troops — 198,229 British and 139,997 French — were ferried to England. On June 4, 1940, the final day of Operation Dynamo, Churchill delivered his famous “We shall fight on the beaches” speech to the British House of Commons. Following is one of the most notable excerpts from that speech.

Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

In view of the ominous threat to our liberty Americans now face from radical Socialists who have taken control of our Government, I thought it fitting to adapt Winston Churchill’s words to inspire our own "Operation Dynamo" to rescue America from the oppressive hand of tyranny that has infiltrated our country’s leadership.

Even though we and our ageless Constitution have fallen under the oppressive hand of tyranny and all the odious apparatus of Marxism, we who are patriotic Americans shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in every state, we shall fight in every city and town across the Fruited Plain, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in prayer, we shall defend OUR country, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the halls of every state and local government, we shall fight in the halls of Congress, we shall fight in the courts, we shall fight on every sidewalk in America, we shall NEVER surrender to this tyranny, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, our beloved country or a large part of it were subjugated, we will draw on the strength of Almighty God who gives strength to the weary in their just cause, and we shall carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, this great nation, with all of its potential and promise, is liberated and returned to her rightful owners as “the Land of the free and the home of the brave!"

We will not, we must not allow fear or resignation to incapacitate us or defeat us. We must not give up for we shall not lose if we do not surrender. We must remain confident in this our mission because God is with us and our cause is just!

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Dumb criminals are in jail ...

... but the smart ones are running America. The "Stimulus" Bill is evidentiary proof that the smart criminals have learned to codify their thievery before they steal somebody else's stuff.

Frankly, I'd feel less violated with a gun pointed at my head than I do as my representatives pilfers my paycheck. At least the armed robber doesn't try to convince me that he's merely making sure I pay my "fair share."

A robber only demands the money I have in my wallet. By this legislation, our Government has intercepted our hard-earned dollars long before they will ever reach our wallets. And if you refuse to pay their definition of your "fair share," you can bet a legally-armed federal agent will show up at your front door to help you come to your senses.

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States and principal author of the Declaration of Independence said, "I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing."

In the eleventh chapter of his Second Treatise, influential English philosopher John Locke wrote, "For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good."

Where are the Thomas Jeffersons and John Lockes of our day? It is as if our elected representatives have lost their minds, substituting whim for constitutional principles!

The "Stimulus Package" is nothing less than Government-sponsored embezzlement. Strong words? The Founders had a far more visceral response to the comparatively minor British incursion on their property rights. Ultimately, this "taxation without [a corresponding] representation" will be used by our Government, not to benefit their confiscates, but to transfer wealth in a "money for votes" scheme.

As we try to recover from the federally-sponsored fiscal rape that has just been perpetrated on us, we must remember that more money in US Treasury coffers is not the zero-sum game they are playing. Increased power and control are. And they will use our hard-earned dollars to heap new benficiaries to themselves and thus solidify their power and control for years to come.

No longer is organized crime in competition with Government; they are bedfellows! Wake up America!

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

All Roads Lead to Caliphate Shangri-la

It is encouraging to know the US Government is doing everything they know to protect us from acts of terrorism. But there’s a more insidious concern.

Perhaps not as obvious to the casual observer, is the need to understand, not only how Islamic ideology drives Islamists to commit acts of terror, but also how that same ideology energizes a subversive "stealth jihad" that seeks to gradually transform our culture by infiltrating our institutions of government, education, and law.

I am not at all convinced that radical and Islam are separable, exceptions notwithstanding. If, as author and syndicated columnist Mark Steyn discredits, radical Islam is "desperation born of poverty,” then equal opportunity and “random acts of kindness" toward the Islamic community should defuse their animus. If, however, Islamic fundamentalism and Islam's own sense of its “manifest destiny” are driven by core theological beliefs, then a 'social services' approach will cost valuable time and resources and accomplish little to interdict the real problem. I believe it is mostly the latter with poor economic and social status fueling proselytizing efforts.

I am amazed at the level of ignorance and "Willful Blindness" (to borrow the title of Andrew McCarthy's book) most Americans exhibit toward the Islamist threat to our way of life, style of government and culture. Few, including most policymakers, understand the 'pathology' of Islam that sometimes leads to terrorism. As a result, the West is capitulating fast, particularly Western Europe. If we are to create effective solutions, we must 'choose wisely' in assessing the underlying energizing theological principles that spawn terrorists. Otherwise, we will be firing at the wrong target and empowering the real threat as we strive to convince our sworn enemies that we aren't such bad people once they get to know us.

Few would disagree that Islam is an ideology; it is also a religion with a mono-deity, a holy book (the Koran), a one-of-a-kind 'prophet' who ostensibly received the revelation recorded in that book, which book enjoins strict and extreme requirements on its adherents, including an austere set of religious disciplines. Taken together, these ingredients provide a powerful inoculation against Western attempts to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, not to mention understand and combat the terrorist threat. In order to fully and accurately assess the threat, analysis must be informed by an unvarnished understanding of Islam in its various forms. Understanding the ideology may also shed light on the method or timing of terrorist attacks. Absent this understanding, analysis is apt to misread the 'tea leaves' in its assessment of 'cold, hard facts.'

All this to say, the West must not force its “politically correct” filter over Islamism. Otherwise, we risk walking into a seductive trap. Islamists don’t particularly care which road they take to Caliphate Shangri-la; they just want to arrive. Terrorism or subversion from within, either will do. Superimposing our own idiosyncratic wishful thinking on Islam that “Mohammedism” is a “religion of peace” may make us feel more secure, but it won't prevent Islamists from turning us into a nation governed by sharia.

Islamists neither play by nor recognize our world view or principles of governance; they will gladly allow us to believe that they want what we want, when they do not. Until we come to terms with this "elephant in the room," we will continue to problem-solve by exception with our pineapple doormat set out to welcome those who would replace our way of life. Our good intentions may pave the road to our demise.

Associating Islamic extremism with Islamic ideology creates discomfort because it flies in the face of prevailing 'politically correct' beliefs. Of course, if this connection is made, it will force us to rethink our position on multiculturalism and a religious freedom that keeps quarter with an ideology sworn to supplant it. Then we really will have something to worry about.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Freedom of Choice for Who?

Certainly not for the "blob of tissue." If you believe freedom of "choice" is tied to accurate and complete information regarding opposing alternatives, then certainly not for the mother or her parents (in the case of minors).

If, for example, in the process of applying for a job you withhold germane information about yourself you present yourself as "someone else," you have impeded a prospective employer's ability to choose whether or not to hire you as opposed to the impostor you portray. "Choice" without true and complete information is no choice at all.

Someone recently asked me, “What legal impediments [to abortion] does this law ["Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)"] remove?”

According to Americans United for Life, fifteen "impediments" to abortion that will be overturned by FOCA are:

  1. Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
  2. Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions).
  3. Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals.
  4. Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal workers.
  5. Informed consent laws requiring parents to be notified if a minor is seeking abortion.
  6. Waiting periods.
  7. “Delayed enforcement” laws if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned or abortion is returned to the states.
  8. Parental consent and notification laws.
  9. Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics.
  10. Right of licensed physicians to not perform abortions.
  11. Bans on abortion after viability.
  12. Limits on taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
  13. Limits on the use of public facilities for abortion.
  14. State and federal legal protections for healthcare providers who refuse to participate in abortions.

Baby boomers gave us abortion. Absent the Social Security revenues that would have been generated by 50-million aborted taxpayers, boomer generation progeny will give boomers geriatric euthanasia, particularly in economic hard times. The boomer generation taught their offspring that life is only important if it is convenient. When boomers are are old and inconvenient, their children do likewise.

Granted, I speak in simplistic, broad strokes, but mark my words - America's hospices, nursing homes and hospitals will become killing centers for the aged or disabled. We are already moving in that direction.