Ya know, I'm sorry my recent posts have not been the light-hearted diatribes from yesteryear. And I'll try to get back on that track as soon as possible. But, while this nation is heading off track, I figured it was time we did some critical thinking about socialism, and why it isn't a good idea. After all, many nations do subscribe to socialism, and we don't hear much issue with that, right?
Recognizing that 53% of the populace voted to put Obama into power, one has to wonder whether they actually knew what they were asking for.
So, socialism, if we could make it a simplistic explanation, it is government owned corporations and industry. Or, in other words, the government owning, say, GM, or the banks, or Amtrak... not that unimaginable, eh? Communism, on the other hand, is the government basically owning everything, including your daily routine. (Although I heard a quote, "Once you've perfected socialism, you have communism.")
I probably do not need to tell you what capitalism is, save for the example the US is and has become the most successful nation in the history of the world based on its model.
Let's go back, way back before we remember. To do this, we need to admit there is a God. Yes, we're getting preachy now. Get some popcorn and enjoy the ride.
There either is or is not a Divine Being. For the sake of this post, there is. In Jeremiah 1:9, God tells him he knew him before he was in the womb. In Revelations 12 we read that the Devil warred with the angels in heaven and was cast out with 1/3 of the hosts of heaven. What were they fighting over? Ideology. Specifically, how things we going to be run here on earth. Let's assume that there are two plans for the future inhabitants on the new Earth; one person says he'll save everyone by controlling them, and the other says he will die so everyone is saved if they choose to accept God. Nevertheless, they can choose whatever they want, but the option to return to God is through his sacrifice.
Hard to choose, would you not agree? One guy, Lucifer (son of the morning light) wants everyone to live in his utopia-esque world, and the other angel named Emanuel (God is with him) offers free will. Either could be the plan of salvation, but only one can be selected. So what's a campaigner to do? Convince as many as possible to accept your plan over the other, thus a war ensued. Maybe it was just a propaganda war, politics as usual, but suffice it to say, one was selected, and my guess is the other party was a sore loser, and was thus cast out.
Let's look at the one that was chosen; Christ's plan. It is obvious we have free will, as no one is dictating to you what you should be doing -- you have that option to select between right and wrong. Coincidentally, all humans are born with the ability to make moral decisions, if it were not so, our sense of reasoning would be on par with common animals. But we know we shouldn't steal, lie, rape or kill. We can desensitize ourselves to it, however, and make it a pleasure as well, but the inherent bad feeling strikes us all universally. From there, you form yourself, or character. (Uhm, side tangent there...)
So, I think we can agree that Christ won, the redemption plan went into effect and Lucifer became Satan, that mighty Devil leading a 1/3 host of heaven on Earth against us. I see it as a loser mentality and heavily influenced by "misery loves company" but also integrating an alternative plan; if enough of the people fail Christ's plan, maybe we'll get another chance at our plan. It doesn't matter really, the point is we're in the first accepted plan and whatever comes afterwards isn't part of this discussion.
If we opine on Lucifer's plan, it was, in essence, the foundation for Communism. We can assume that his plan was the opposite of the winner's plan; freedom to chose. So in my conclusion, Lucifer proposed a communist pseudo-utopia society where everyone was mandated to obey laws that guaranteed a path back to God. Oh, and by default that would have made him the Christ. Still, no one could not chose eternal life -- there is no deviating from the law. You do not choose anything, the government would determine what was best for you and the utopia to salvation.
Let's get back to our world and the facts we do know. You can get to communism without socialism, but it takes massive blood letting of the people. Take, for example, Russia in 1918, or China late 1940's. In China, they were still rejecting communism until the "Cultural Revolution" wherein 20 million people perished and the long traditions of China were erased. [read: Spiral Road]
And here we have the Great USA. If you've been a part of the USA, then you know it is a blessed country, despite the current inhabitants. Looking at the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, there is no leap of faith to determine that this country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Sure, people have tried to split hairs on certain points, but the fundamental premise is there; thank God for helping us make this great country. Not only that, but the government was set up to be a limited entity that protected the rights of its people. Why would they do that? Because they knew that men are free to make their own decisions and that the more laws you make, the more indentured the citizens become to their governments. And looking at the tenth amendment, seems they wanted to keep the federal government limited indefinitely.
The problem with socialism is that it is the stepping stone to Lucifer's original plan -- to enslave the masses with laws upon laws. America is different, we started out free and used that to build up a great nation because we understood our respective responsibilities and accountability. But ever so slowly, more and more laws keep piling up, and if we wanted, we could say that it is because the nucleus of a successful nation is falling apart; the family. We'll save that topic for another time.
Still, with our new president in power, the process of implementing socialism is speeding up quickly as I cited above; the government is seeping into many industries in the country such as housing, auto, banking, credit, charities, and so forth. Now I am not saying Obama is Lucifer or the anti-Christ, because then anyone with a penchant for big controlling government is an anti-Christ and some people just aren't that smart. (he, he!) But what I can tell you is that socialism is not a functioning, thriving government that will benefit any country because it continues to suck away the rights of free men (and women).
Then, what is so appealing about socialism? It is a narcissist dream come true. You don't have to do anything because someone else is doing that for you. Bum on the street? No problem, they have a program for relief. Behind on bills? The government has someone to step in to help. Losing your job? The government will have a program to fix that, either through a union or unemployment. Health care? The government will get you what you need. And so on and so forth. What are you accountable for? What's your responsibility? You don't have to worry about that, someone will be assigned in lieu of you. Of course, you will be taxed for all these defunct programs laden with corruption, and that, too, will minimize your freedom.
Of course, people look for the easiest route to travel. And socialism is certainly that fork in the road more easily traveled. You can claim that Europe has been successfully using socialism for years, but none of them are older than our successful capitalism. Sure, the countries have been around since before the USA, but their respective governments have changed ample times since the end of the 18th century. And, their hands are tied. They do not have the ability the US does to produce wealth and enrich lives because of their government.
And that brings me to perhaps my last point, the death of the American Dream. Obama seems to think that he only needs to tap the top 5% of Americans to make his USA into a socialistic utopia, and this is deceitful. In order for it to work, we all have to give up bits and pieces of freedom -- not all at once -- just small amounts here and there. Because socialism isn't just about money, it's more about control. Money just happens to bring control, but if you have control, then comes even more money.
So there you pretty much have my thoughts on socialism -- it is the end of progress and more succinctly, the end of the productive USA and the freedoms paid for in blood by our forefathers, blessed with divine insight to set up the best country in this world based on a plan founded before the world was inhabited. And it is hard to fathom how this country should end; the same as its inception, or with a slow, pathetic whimper... It could be the sad end note to a great book either way you look at it.
Food and bullets, my friends, food and bullets. Put your faith in God and keep your powder dry.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Nice hand basket! Where are we going?
I have so much to comment on, yet, with that most recent Department of Homeland Security brief that was published onto the web one day before the national Tea Parties, I have become more reticent to post anything online. After all, I am now a Right Wing Extremist. That report neatly lumped me into groups such as Neo-Nazis, WASP, and all those other radicals I detest. How quaint.
I have come to a conclusion about Obama. I know, I was going to give him a chance, as stated in a previous post, and I did. We've seen almost 100 days of him parading around, and to put it mildly, he's vigorously disgusted me. Yes, that makes me a racist now, too.
Ask yourself this; how much do you actually know about the current president? If you're like 90% of the rest of the population, then your response should be "little to nothing." Does that concern you, a bit? It should. First, it tells you that the news agencies probably didn't do a good job with their investigative journalism. Based on my own research, which may not be accurate because of the lacking details (i.e., no facts to base information on) I believe that Obama is a Muslim Communist. Yeah, I know, sounds completely loony. I understand that. I was aghast with my conclusion as well. So let's see what we do have, and you can make your own judgment call...
I'm not even going to go over whether he was actually born in the US. Although if you are curious about that issue, there is currently a case going to the Supreme Court with that argument in mind. 120 soldiers have attached their name to this case because they question his right to be president. Coincidently, 4 people say they saw his birth -- they all live in Kenya and are under a gag order by the government which is controlled by... Obama's cousin.
Obama was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (yes, that's her real name) who was the daughter of well known communists who originally resided in the mid-west until moving to Seattle, and finally, Hawaii. Obama's father is proportedly Barak Hussien Obama, Sr., a Muslim on an exchange program from Kenya, which at this point is a British controlled providence. Both Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. go to the same university and I think we can guess what happens thereafter.
Obama's mother leaves him to be raised by her parents as she goes off to pursue college back in Washington and she occasionally sees him during his younger years. Eventually, she marries Lolo Soetoro, a man from Indonesia who adopts Barak and he attends a Wahhabi Muslim school funded by Saudi Arabia. One of the few things we have on Obama is a report card from that school which lists his religion as "Islam." Subsequently, the curriculum includes studying the Koran and learning Arabic, which he does well.
The marriage breaks apart, Barak returns to Hawaii and once again lives with his grandparents, plays basketball and does a lot of drugs, seriously. He graduates from high school and heads to Occidental college. One thing that really bothers me, especially for someone who promised "transparency and openness" is the overt lack of documentation from Obama. Or in other words, we have no transcripts from Occidental, Comumbia or Harvard Law on this guy, which are the colleges he attended. But there is an underlying recurrance; in all three colleges, his roommates were Muslim exchange students. So what is he hiding here?
When the media attacked Bush in 2004 as 'not being an intellectual', in the process, they found out that Kerry got worse grades than Bush at their respective Ivy League schools. Similarly, they have said that Obama is smart and articulate, yet, no records to verify this at all...
Before Obama heads to Harvard Law, he works in Chicago as a "community organizer" and work in conjunction with ACORN. This is also where he mets Bill Ayers for the first time. Bill Ayers being the communist heading the Weather Underground movement, culpable for bombing several places throughout the US and thus spent time in hiding for several years. Perhaps Bill convinced him to go into law, but somehow, Obama gets into Harvard Law, which requires a 98% on the LSAT and a 3.8 GPA, plus, lots of money. After a $20 million dollar donation by the Saudi Government to Harvard, Obama ... gets in.
After Harvard, Obama joins a local law firm in Chicago, but apparently spends most of his time writing his book, Dreams of my Father -- never sets foot into a court room, never really litigates a case at all. But he does get involved with politics. As a matter of fact, he tries for the State Senate seat on the "New Party" ticket. That new party was in fact, a social democratic party. Sounds nice, but it's just another way for saying "communist." Now why would he run on that party? Birds of the feather, flock together.
He runs on the New Party ticket twice, with all other candidates either being removed on technicalities, or, they decide not to run any more. Strange? Sure, especially since it happened two times in a row. The next time he's running as a democrat. Why the change? Greener pastures, I presume. But what did he do in the Senate? How about this; he proposed November 1st as Muslim Community Day for Illinois. How about supporting a law requiring food manufacturers to prepare food according to [Muslim] Shariah law? And then a long list of bills that are pro-abortion, gun control, the usual suspects.
From the State Senate, as we all know, he goes into the US Senate and is voted one of the top liberal Senators on the floor. Then, somehow, this junior senator with little experience but a golden smile (and I do like his smile), defeats all these veterans of politics and is now the most powerful man in the world, giving out apologies like Halloween candy, and bowing to the King of a nation that funded his early childhood education. Now, what does it mean when you bow and it is not recipricated? Even King Abdullah said in 2005 that only his slaves and harems bow to him. What message was Obama giving to the King...
Anyway, there is so much more on this guy that you will not believe your eyes. If you have the time, and are seriously interested in the future of this nation, then read this. It is very long, but the future is written in history, and he has a lot to answer for already.
My 4 loyal readers, I am serious when I say that I am hesitant to write any more online. Conservative Americans are the next target because we pose the biggest threat to his presidency -- not outside foes that he's been placating over the past 2 months. You're going to see more "change" in this country over the next 52 weeks than we've seen in 52 years. Obama is a charlatan, and his colors of tyranny will shine through.
I said he was a Muslim Communist, but those two ideologies cannot coexist. So my belief is that Obama's true goal is to undermine the US either using one or the other. Once the US world police ceases to exist, you can probably say good bye to South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the Baltic States, and any other country that's been waiting for the boy scouts to disappear. I believe Obama is that man who will deliver that kind of "hope and change."
Sorry if I sound like a right wing extremist. But do your home work, and tell me what you find. Convince me otherwise, I dare you.
I have come to a conclusion about Obama. I know, I was going to give him a chance, as stated in a previous post, and I did. We've seen almost 100 days of him parading around, and to put it mildly, he's vigorously disgusted me. Yes, that makes me a racist now, too.
Ask yourself this; how much do you actually know about the current president? If you're like 90% of the rest of the population, then your response should be "little to nothing." Does that concern you, a bit? It should. First, it tells you that the news agencies probably didn't do a good job with their investigative journalism. Based on my own research, which may not be accurate because of the lacking details (i.e., no facts to base information on) I believe that Obama is a Muslim Communist. Yeah, I know, sounds completely loony. I understand that. I was aghast with my conclusion as well. So let's see what we do have, and you can make your own judgment call...
I'm not even going to go over whether he was actually born in the US. Although if you are curious about that issue, there is currently a case going to the Supreme Court with that argument in mind. 120 soldiers have attached their name to this case because they question his right to be president. Coincidently, 4 people say they saw his birth -- they all live in Kenya and are under a gag order by the government which is controlled by... Obama's cousin.
Obama was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (yes, that's her real name) who was the daughter of well known communists who originally resided in the mid-west until moving to Seattle, and finally, Hawaii. Obama's father is proportedly Barak Hussien Obama, Sr., a Muslim on an exchange program from Kenya, which at this point is a British controlled providence. Both Stanley Ann and Obama Sr. go to the same university and I think we can guess what happens thereafter.
Obama's mother leaves him to be raised by her parents as she goes off to pursue college back in Washington and she occasionally sees him during his younger years. Eventually, she marries Lolo Soetoro, a man from Indonesia who adopts Barak and he attends a Wahhabi Muslim school funded by Saudi Arabia. One of the few things we have on Obama is a report card from that school which lists his religion as "Islam." Subsequently, the curriculum includes studying the Koran and learning Arabic, which he does well.
The marriage breaks apart, Barak returns to Hawaii and once again lives with his grandparents, plays basketball and does a lot of drugs, seriously. He graduates from high school and heads to Occidental college. One thing that really bothers me, especially for someone who promised "transparency and openness" is the overt lack of documentation from Obama. Or in other words, we have no transcripts from Occidental, Comumbia or Harvard Law on this guy, which are the colleges he attended. But there is an underlying recurrance; in all three colleges, his roommates were Muslim exchange students. So what is he hiding here?
When the media attacked Bush in 2004 as 'not being an intellectual', in the process, they found out that Kerry got worse grades than Bush at their respective Ivy League schools. Similarly, they have said that Obama is smart and articulate, yet, no records to verify this at all...
Before Obama heads to Harvard Law, he works in Chicago as a "community organizer" and work in conjunction with ACORN. This is also where he mets Bill Ayers for the first time. Bill Ayers being the communist heading the Weather Underground movement, culpable for bombing several places throughout the US and thus spent time in hiding for several years. Perhaps Bill convinced him to go into law, but somehow, Obama gets into Harvard Law, which requires a 98% on the LSAT and a 3.8 GPA, plus, lots of money. After a $20 million dollar donation by the Saudi Government to Harvard, Obama ... gets in.
After Harvard, Obama joins a local law firm in Chicago, but apparently spends most of his time writing his book, Dreams of my Father -- never sets foot into a court room, never really litigates a case at all. But he does get involved with politics. As a matter of fact, he tries for the State Senate seat on the "New Party" ticket. That new party was in fact, a social democratic party. Sounds nice, but it's just another way for saying "communist." Now why would he run on that party? Birds of the feather, flock together.
He runs on the New Party ticket twice, with all other candidates either being removed on technicalities, or, they decide not to run any more. Strange? Sure, especially since it happened two times in a row. The next time he's running as a democrat. Why the change? Greener pastures, I presume. But what did he do in the Senate? How about this; he proposed November 1st as Muslim Community Day for Illinois. How about supporting a law requiring food manufacturers to prepare food according to [Muslim] Shariah law? And then a long list of bills that are pro-abortion, gun control, the usual suspects.
From the State Senate, as we all know, he goes into the US Senate and is voted one of the top liberal Senators on the floor. Then, somehow, this junior senator with little experience but a golden smile (and I do like his smile), defeats all these veterans of politics and is now the most powerful man in the world, giving out apologies like Halloween candy, and bowing to the King of a nation that funded his early childhood education. Now, what does it mean when you bow and it is not recipricated? Even King Abdullah said in 2005 that only his slaves and harems bow to him. What message was Obama giving to the King...
Anyway, there is so much more on this guy that you will not believe your eyes. If you have the time, and are seriously interested in the future of this nation, then read this. It is very long, but the future is written in history, and he has a lot to answer for already.
My 4 loyal readers, I am serious when I say that I am hesitant to write any more online. Conservative Americans are the next target because we pose the biggest threat to his presidency -- not outside foes that he's been placating over the past 2 months. You're going to see more "change" in this country over the next 52 weeks than we've seen in 52 years. Obama is a charlatan, and his colors of tyranny will shine through.
I said he was a Muslim Communist, but those two ideologies cannot coexist. So my belief is that Obama's true goal is to undermine the US either using one or the other. Once the US world police ceases to exist, you can probably say good bye to South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the Baltic States, and any other country that's been waiting for the boy scouts to disappear. I believe Obama is that man who will deliver that kind of "hope and change."
Sorry if I sound like a right wing extremist. But do your home work, and tell me what you find. Convince me otherwise, I dare you.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
"Nobody died when Clinton lied"
I love bumper stickers. True, I am too much of a perfectionist to slap one on my car -- it just makes the car look less nice -- but I certainly enjoy reading other people's ugly car decals. I saw one today that said, "Stop global whining!" I thought it was well delivered.
The one that I'd like to comment on is found in the title of this post. It comes from the W. presidency and relates to the Iraq war, and that Bush supposedly lied to get us into war. Now, there are a plethora of arguments regarding that assumption, and I've briefly lit upon them before in a previous post, but you can find even more reasons here. However, that's not the reason I am making this post. In fact, I intend to prove that people did die due to Clinton's lie, albeit in a roundabout sort of way.
Al Qaeda (i.e., meaning, 'the base') have been officially around since 1988, causing problems for lots of people in many countries. Sadly, we helped support the mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan to defeat the Russians who afterwards would then build the foundation for the Al Qaeda network. Osama bin Ladin took issue with the US once we laid foot in Saudi Arabi in an effort to defeat Iraq the first time. The "land of two mosques" (Medina and Mecca) was defiled by infidels when we sought to help Kuwait. Yeah, I know, it's just a bunch of sand.
Anyway, in the 1990s, under President Clinton's 2 consecutive terms in office, the Al Qaeda network attacked us several times. The first major attack is one we rarely hear about any more; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. According to some, the tactic they used (a cubetruck full of explosives) was a CIA style idea which, again, we taught them. It killed 6 people, injured over a thousand and caused +$300 million in damages. The intent was to force one tower to collapse into another and potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people. Thankfully, it didn't happen.
Look at it this way; a group of 200-300 operatives, in less than 4 years, was able to get into the US, buy nearly a ton of explosives, and execute a decent plan of attack. Did we retaliate? Well, we prosecuted those involved, and deported some (one of which was acquited in Jordan and released), but where is the Special Forces group going into the terrorist training camp and eliminating subjects? Right, we wouldn't hear about that. Still, in 1998, Al Qaeda has the gall to bomb us again, twice. So if we did punish them at all, it certainly didn't bat an eye for them.
Two US Embassys in Tanzania and Kenya are blown to smithereens in 1998, and 300 people die in that process. We did respond with cruise missiles, but we managed to bomb a pharmacuetical facility which made 50% of the medicine for Sudan. After an investigation, it was determined that our intelligence was "faulty." An after report stated our efforts did not deter the Al Qaeda network. If anything, blowing up a country's medical supplies may have bolstered recruits.
But in 1998, the US is busy with allegations towards President Clinton and a certain intern. Words like "impeachment" and "what the definition of 'is,' is?" were floating around. Suspected cigars and stained dresses is the focus of the media of the Lewinski scandal (also of note, Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones). Here's my main crux; Senator John Glenn was the first American in space back in the 1960s. Later he gets into politics and becomes a US Senator from Ohio in 1974. He also happens to be heading the Senate Committee in charge of the investigations against the president. Remember what happens then? At 77 years old, NASA decides to send him back into space. Why? Even gets a standing ovation during a State of the Union address by Bill Clinton for being the "oldest person going into space." And Bill Clinton retains his position despite perjury and (obviously) tarnishing the office of the presidency. Sure, sure, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, etc. But Nixon had the dignity to resign! (And the law used against Andrew Johnson was deemed unconstitutional later.)
Yemen, July of 2000 we have a Navy ship, the USS Cole refueling at a local port. Then, 2 suicide bombers ram into the side of the ship, causing a 40 x 60 foot hole and killing 17 sailors in the process, wounding even more. Here's what Bill Clinton said, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". But nothing happened. Actually, it wasn't until President Bush's start that they even definitively said that it was actually Al Qaeda, even though Al Qaeda claimed it.
A little over a year later, the twin towers actually do come down, as Al Qaeda had planned back in 1993. In 1996, there was a bombing of the Khobar tower in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 servicemen from the US. Images of Osama bin Laden being congratulated were circulating around shortly thereafter, so the connection leading up to 9/11 would have been, at least from my perspective, a little obvious. Is it so obvious now that we've been in Afghanistan and Iraq? No, we've really put a beating on them. However, after reading Mark Steyn's book America Alone, maybe not.
Nonetheless, if perhaps had John Glenn not been bought out, and had he and others done their jobs, we could have moved on quicker from the impeachment and focused on pending issues such as the growing strength of the Al Qaeda. Maybe if Clinton hadn't cut the Department of Defense to 3% of the GDP, we would have been more astute. And a hundred more maybe's and if's as well. The point is that because of the long and drawn out political scandal, if Clinton hadn't lied about every little detail before the truth was finally brought forth, maybe we could have saved lives, maybe even a war or two, and could have been in a different place altogether. This is, of course, just conjecture. But it would be nice to know...
The one that I'd like to comment on is found in the title of this post. It comes from the W. presidency and relates to the Iraq war, and that Bush supposedly lied to get us into war. Now, there are a plethora of arguments regarding that assumption, and I've briefly lit upon them before in a previous post, but you can find even more reasons here. However, that's not the reason I am making this post. In fact, I intend to prove that people did die due to Clinton's lie, albeit in a roundabout sort of way.
Al Qaeda (i.e., meaning, 'the base') have been officially around since 1988, causing problems for lots of people in many countries. Sadly, we helped support the mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan to defeat the Russians who afterwards would then build the foundation for the Al Qaeda network. Osama bin Ladin took issue with the US once we laid foot in Saudi Arabi in an effort to defeat Iraq the first time. The "land of two mosques" (Medina and Mecca) was defiled by infidels when we sought to help Kuwait. Yeah, I know, it's just a bunch of sand.
Anyway, in the 1990s, under President Clinton's 2 consecutive terms in office, the Al Qaeda network attacked us several times. The first major attack is one we rarely hear about any more; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. According to some, the tactic they used (a cubetruck full of explosives) was a CIA style idea which, again, we taught them. It killed 6 people, injured over a thousand and caused +$300 million in damages. The intent was to force one tower to collapse into another and potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people. Thankfully, it didn't happen.
Look at it this way; a group of 200-300 operatives, in less than 4 years, was able to get into the US, buy nearly a ton of explosives, and execute a decent plan of attack. Did we retaliate? Well, we prosecuted those involved, and deported some (one of which was acquited in Jordan and released), but where is the Special Forces group going into the terrorist training camp and eliminating subjects? Right, we wouldn't hear about that. Still, in 1998, Al Qaeda has the gall to bomb us again, twice. So if we did punish them at all, it certainly didn't bat an eye for them.
Two US Embassys in Tanzania and Kenya are blown to smithereens in 1998, and 300 people die in that process. We did respond with cruise missiles, but we managed to bomb a pharmacuetical facility which made 50% of the medicine for Sudan. After an investigation, it was determined that our intelligence was "faulty." An after report stated our efforts did not deter the Al Qaeda network. If anything, blowing up a country's medical supplies may have bolstered recruits.
But in 1998, the US is busy with allegations towards President Clinton and a certain intern. Words like "impeachment" and "what the definition of 'is,' is?" were floating around. Suspected cigars and stained dresses is the focus of the media of the Lewinski scandal (also of note, Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones). Here's my main crux; Senator John Glenn was the first American in space back in the 1960s. Later he gets into politics and becomes a US Senator from Ohio in 1974. He also happens to be heading the Senate Committee in charge of the investigations against the president. Remember what happens then? At 77 years old, NASA decides to send him back into space. Why? Even gets a standing ovation during a State of the Union address by Bill Clinton for being the "oldest person going into space." And Bill Clinton retains his position despite perjury and (obviously) tarnishing the office of the presidency. Sure, sure, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, etc. But Nixon had the dignity to resign! (And the law used against Andrew Johnson was deemed unconstitutional later.)
Yemen, July of 2000 we have a Navy ship, the USS Cole refueling at a local port. Then, 2 suicide bombers ram into the side of the ship, causing a 40 x 60 foot hole and killing 17 sailors in the process, wounding even more. Here's what Bill Clinton said, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". But nothing happened. Actually, it wasn't until President Bush's start that they even definitively said that it was actually Al Qaeda, even though Al Qaeda claimed it.
A little over a year later, the twin towers actually do come down, as Al Qaeda had planned back in 1993. In 1996, there was a bombing of the Khobar tower in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 servicemen from the US. Images of Osama bin Laden being congratulated were circulating around shortly thereafter, so the connection leading up to 9/11 would have been, at least from my perspective, a little obvious. Is it so obvious now that we've been in Afghanistan and Iraq? No, we've really put a beating on them. However, after reading Mark Steyn's book America Alone, maybe not.
Nonetheless, if perhaps had John Glenn not been bought out, and had he and others done their jobs, we could have moved on quicker from the impeachment and focused on pending issues such as the growing strength of the Al Qaeda. Maybe if Clinton hadn't cut the Department of Defense to 3% of the GDP, we would have been more astute. And a hundred more maybe's and if's as well. The point is that because of the long and drawn out political scandal, if Clinton hadn't lied about every little detail before the truth was finally brought forth, maybe we could have saved lives, maybe even a war or two, and could have been in a different place altogether. This is, of course, just conjecture. But it would be nice to know...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
In passing remarks...
Sadly, today I do not have anything thought provoking to share with you all. Yeah, sometimes life is a little more simpler than other days. That is not to say I didn't engage in deep thought --no, I've got some things mulling over in the back of my mind (still).
However, I would like to give a shout out to the malevolent flock of birds, who were deservedly cursed with a chronic case of dysentery. For reasons unbeknownst to me, they altered their bombing run to graciously intersect with my poor, poor car. I am sure there are some yucki-yucks in NYC that would call it art, or maybe even PETA would harold it as animals getting even. But seriously, what on earth did these friggin' birds eat, poo?! Which led to this conclusion; it was a stork carrying a new born whose diaper had fallen off mid-flight. And that filthy little baby browned-out over my car. It could happen!
I am open to other theories on the matter.
Makes me thankful that pigs do not, in fact, fly, as has been mentioned many times... Or did the cow [pie] jump over the moon?
Have a good Spring Break!
However, I would like to give a shout out to the malevolent flock of birds, who were deservedly cursed with a chronic case of dysentery. For reasons unbeknownst to me, they altered their bombing run to graciously intersect with my poor, poor car. I am sure there are some yucki-yucks in NYC that would call it art, or maybe even PETA would harold it as animals getting even. But seriously, what on earth did these friggin' birds eat, poo?! Which led to this conclusion; it was a stork carrying a new born whose diaper had fallen off mid-flight. And that filthy little baby browned-out over my car. It could happen!
I am open to other theories on the matter.
Makes me thankful that pigs do not, in fact, fly, as has been mentioned many times... Or did the cow [pie] jump over the moon?
Have a good Spring Break!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Lacking Character of a King
I've had ample things to write about lately, but I just couldn't formulate one into an actual post here. I know, I know, many of you go without sleep between my random postings, and I am sorry for your chronic insomnia. I shall try to be as weekly as possible.
Lately I've been on this political kick, as a few of my previous posts have dictated. I'll change gears ever so slightly today.
Today, I'd like to opine on race. *gasp!*
A few of weeks ago, the New York Post printed a cartoon that I thought was pretty funny. You may have seen it; two cops in the caption have just gunned down a chimpanzee, and one of them says, "Uh oh, who's gunna write the stimulus bill now?" I am paraphrasing a little, could have been worded differently, but I liked it! Why? Because, that same week a chimp named Travis was shot to death by Connecticut police officers after the primate literally tore the face off a lady. Coincidentally, that same week, Pelosi, Reid and a host of democrat-only participants finalized a $787 billion dollar stimulus plan, which ultimately was a democrat sponsored wet-dream, laden with thousands of earmarks, including a $30 million dollar grant for preserving the white marsh mouse, located just north of Pelosi's home town of San Francisco. Not to mention Reid's $8 billion dollar light rail from LA to LV.
Anyway, though I didn't recognize it, thankfully Al Sharpton and other racist seekers found it, boosted it throughout the media, and held protests in front of the NY Post building. Despite receiving an apology, Sharpton has asked the FCC to conduct investigations into The Post, my guess is for other supposed racist remarks? I don't know, investigate what, exactly?
Now, allow me to pontificate from my perch that I am not a racist in the overt sense that we hear alleged all too often these days. Actually, I don't believe you can dissent from Obama without being labeled a racist, which neatly keeps us in line. Still, I think that just about everyone has some form of racism within themselves, but not in a disparaging sort of way -- more like a concern of not knowing the culture, a fear of strangers, etc.
But here's my main point, specifically aimed at Al Sharpton and his ilk -- I'm not afraid of the color of his skin, I am afraid of the content of his character. I, like many others, didn't see racism in the cartoon, but he saw a dead monkey and considered it racism. So who is the racist here? The cartoon implies that the stimulus could be written by monkeys, perhaps a million monkeys typing, but now we're one short (not to worry, Pelosi, Reid, et al. made up the difference). A monkey had been killed that went feral and attacked a human. Obama didn't write one stupid page of that 1,100 "stimulus" bill, he ultimately signed it, but that came after the cartoon was printed. To draw parallels to racism is a huge leap from the actual facts on hand, and invokes old racist stereotypes to persist.
Moreover, go ahead and type into The Google 'George Bush + monkey' and you will get about 1 million hits, and on the front page you should see the face of Bush merged into the head of a monkey. Furthermore, there are plenty of racist remarks towards Condi Rice that were never addressed by Shaprton and crew. And right now, the Jews are getting hammered because of this recent Gaza incident. Meanwhile, the Mexicans are on the back-burner as well as the Arabs.
Perhaps it is wrong of me to conclude, but I kinda feel like the African American race card is being pulled to keep us in check, make us hyper-vigilant, refill Sharpton's coffers and provide more political sway. I mean, seriously, Obama is president with nearly 53% of the vote, Oprah is the richest woman in the world, and the majority of our sport stars are black. And I have no qualms with that (well, aside from Obama driving us towards socialism...). But seriously, Colin Powell was my write-in for President. Or was it me? Or that old guy? Again, goes back to content of character. And this fear mongering puts me at odds, especially when no race issue was there to begin with. The "Reverend" Sharpton is the antithesis to what Dr. King preached over 40 years ago, and that concerns me greatly.
Lately I've been on this political kick, as a few of my previous posts have dictated. I'll change gears ever so slightly today.
Today, I'd like to opine on race. *gasp!*
A few of weeks ago, the New York Post printed a cartoon that I thought was pretty funny. You may have seen it; two cops in the caption have just gunned down a chimpanzee, and one of them says, "Uh oh, who's gunna write the stimulus bill now?" I am paraphrasing a little, could have been worded differently, but I liked it! Why? Because, that same week a chimp named Travis was shot to death by Connecticut police officers after the primate literally tore the face off a lady. Coincidentally, that same week, Pelosi, Reid and a host of democrat-only participants finalized a $787 billion dollar stimulus plan, which ultimately was a democrat sponsored wet-dream, laden with thousands of earmarks, including a $30 million dollar grant for preserving the white marsh mouse, located just north of Pelosi's home town of San Francisco. Not to mention Reid's $8 billion dollar light rail from LA to LV.
Anyway, though I didn't recognize it, thankfully Al Sharpton and other racist seekers found it, boosted it throughout the media, and held protests in front of the NY Post building. Despite receiving an apology, Sharpton has asked the FCC to conduct investigations into The Post, my guess is for other supposed racist remarks? I don't know, investigate what, exactly?
Now, allow me to pontificate from my perch that I am not a racist in the overt sense that we hear alleged all too often these days. Actually, I don't believe you can dissent from Obama without being labeled a racist, which neatly keeps us in line. Still, I think that just about everyone has some form of racism within themselves, but not in a disparaging sort of way -- more like a concern of not knowing the culture, a fear of strangers, etc.
But here's my main point, specifically aimed at Al Sharpton and his ilk -- I'm not afraid of the color of his skin, I am afraid of the content of his character. I, like many others, didn't see racism in the cartoon, but he saw a dead monkey and considered it racism. So who is the racist here? The cartoon implies that the stimulus could be written by monkeys, perhaps a million monkeys typing, but now we're one short (not to worry, Pelosi, Reid, et al. made up the difference). A monkey had been killed that went feral and attacked a human. Obama didn't write one stupid page of that 1,100 "stimulus" bill, he ultimately signed it, but that came after the cartoon was printed. To draw parallels to racism is a huge leap from the actual facts on hand, and invokes old racist stereotypes to persist.
Moreover, go ahead and type into The Google 'George Bush + monkey' and you will get about 1 million hits, and on the front page you should see the face of Bush merged into the head of a monkey. Furthermore, there are plenty of racist remarks towards Condi Rice that were never addressed by Shaprton and crew. And right now, the Jews are getting hammered because of this recent Gaza incident. Meanwhile, the Mexicans are on the back-burner as well as the Arabs.
Perhaps it is wrong of me to conclude, but I kinda feel like the African American race card is being pulled to keep us in check, make us hyper-vigilant, refill Sharpton's coffers and provide more political sway. I mean, seriously, Obama is president with nearly 53% of the vote, Oprah is the richest woman in the world, and the majority of our sport stars are black. And I have no qualms with that (well, aside from Obama driving us towards socialism...). But seriously, Colin Powell was my write-in for President. Or was it me? Or that old guy? Again, goes back to content of character. And this fear mongering puts me at odds, especially when no race issue was there to begin with. The "Reverend" Sharpton is the antithesis to what Dr. King preached over 40 years ago, and that concerns me greatly.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
History repeating itself
As some of you know, I have a penchant for history, probably one of the main reasons I keep a journal, a journal for my daughter, a blog, and poop nonsense. Hey, it's all gotta go somewhere.
Imagine my delighted surprise when parallels where delineated between Plato's The Republic and our current steady demise. I'll put in the bulk of the matter, and the rest you all can read at the appropriate website.
***
On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.
Imagine my delighted surprise when parallels where delineated between Plato's The Republic and our current steady demise. I'll put in the bulk of the matter, and the rest you all can read at the appropriate website.
***
On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato's writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for "corrupting" the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.
In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."
Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.
For Socrates, democracy's "insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things" end up putting it "in need of a dictatorship." The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: "Extreme freedom can't be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city."
Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain what kind of man resembles the democratic city. In other words, he wants to know how "democratic man" comes to be and what happens to make this freedom loving man eventually beg for a tyrant. Socrates clarifies that the democratic man starts out as the son of an "oligarchic" father -- a father who is thrifty and self-disciplined. The father's generation is more concerned with wealth than freedom. This first generation saves, invests, and rarely goes in for conspicuous consumption.[i]
The father's pursuit of wealth leaves him unwilling and unable to give attention to his son's moral development. The father focuses on business and finance and ignores the business of family. The son then begins to associate with "wild and dangerous creatures who can provide every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way." These Athenian precursors of the hippies begin to transform the son's oligarchic nature into a democratic one. Because the young man has had no moral guidance, his excessive desire for "unnecessary pleasures" undermines "the citadel" of his soul. Because the "guardians" of the son's inner citadel -- truth, restraint, wisdom -- are absent, there is nothing within him to defend against the "false and boastful words and beliefs that rush up and occupy this part of him."
A 1960s revolution in the son's soul purges the last remaining guardians of moderation and supplants new meanings to old virtues: "anarchy" replaces freedom, "extravagance" replaces magnificence, and "shamelessness" replaces courage. The young man surrenders rule over himself "to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot." Here Socrates notes the essential problem when a free society becomes detached from any notions of moral virtue or truth: desires are chosen by "lot" instead of by "merit" or "priority."
For the son the democratic revolution in his soul is complete. In this stage "there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but he calls it pleasant, free, blessedly happy, and he follows it for as long as he lives." Socrates gives a brief illustration of the young man's new democratic life:
Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he's idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to admire soldiers, he's carried in that direction, if money-makers, in that one.
In short, the young man has no anchor, no set of guiding principles or convictions other than his thirst for freedom. His life is aimless, superficial, and gratuitous. The spoiled lotus-eaters of his generation have defined themselves simply by mocking all forms of propriety and prudence. What's worse, as these Athenian baby-boomers exercise their right to vote, they elect "bad cupbearers" as their leaders. The new cupbearers want to stay in office so they give the voters whatever they desire. The public, according to Socrates, "gets drunk by drinking more than it should of the unmixed wine of freedom." Conservative politicians who attempt to mix the wine of freedom with calls for self-restraint "are punished by the city and accused of being accursed oligarchs."
As conservative politicians court suspicion so do conservative teachers and academics who stubbornly hold on to objective measurements of performance: "A teacher in such a community is afraid of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their teachers or tutors." Conservatism becomes unpopular just about everywhere, to a point at which even the elderly "stoop to the level of the young and are full of play and pleasantry, imitating the young for fear of appearing disagreeable and authoritarian."
The explosion of boundaries and limits extends even to national identity itself, so that resident aliens and foreigners "are made equal to a citizen."
The citizens' souls become so infected with freedom that they become excessively paranoid about any hint of slavery. But slavery comes to mean being under any kind of master or limit including the law itself. Says Socrates: "They take no notice of the laws, whether written or unwritten, in order to avoid having any master at all." That is, any kind of "hierarchy" in a democracy is rejected as "authoritarian." But this extreme freedom, according to Socrates, eventually enslaves democracy.
As the progressive politicians and intellectuals come to dominate the democratic city, its "fiercest members do all the talking and acting, while the rest settle near the speakers platform and buzz and refuse to tolerate the opposition of another speaker." There are "impeachments, judgments and trials on both sides." The politicians heat up the crowds by vilifying business and wealth and by promising to spread the wealth around. The people then "set up one man as their special champion" and begin "nurturing him and making him great."
The people's "special champion" however transforms from leader to tyrant. He "drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land" and continues to "stir up civil wars against the rich." All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, "soon discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them." The people give him this new security force, "because they are afraid for his safety but aren't worried at all about their own."
Socrates describes the early weeks of the new leader's reign:
"Won't he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he's no tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in public and in private, freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, and to his followers, and pretending to be gracious and gentle to all?"
After a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war in order to generate popular support, the leader begins to alienate some of his closest and most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant attracts some of the worst elements of the city to help him rule. As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling national bodyguard. The citizens finally decide they've had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.
At this point in the dialogue Adeimantus asks Socrates incredulously: "What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] or to hit [them] if [they] don't obey? Socrates answers:
"Yes - once he's taken away [the people's] weapons."
***
Here is the full article for your review, it is worth your time:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_democracies_become_tyranni.html
And here you can read the entire text from Plato:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Fascinating, no? 2300 years ago Plato had already seen this outcome. Interestingly enough, the Romans would see it happening again, with Julius Caesar. Caesar being the man who turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, caused a civil war which he won, and thus dominated the people. Caesar in Latin is Kaisar, which we have also seen manifested. Maybe Kaiser means community organizer in Americanese? I mean, he did suggest a "security force" for the US already. Google it, Obama + security force. The dominos are set. Nobody sneeze.
"Yes - once he's taken away [the people's] weapons."
***
Here is the full article for your review, it is worth your time:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/how_democracies_become_tyranni.html
And here you can read the entire text from Plato:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
Fascinating, no? 2300 years ago Plato had already seen this outcome. Interestingly enough, the Romans would see it happening again, with Julius Caesar. Caesar being the man who turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, caused a civil war which he won, and thus dominated the people. Caesar in Latin is Kaisar, which we have also seen manifested. Maybe Kaiser means community organizer in Americanese? I mean, he did suggest a "security force" for the US already. Google it, Obama + security force. The dominos are set. Nobody sneeze.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Come what may
I admit that I did not take the appropriate classes in college to actually know what the total current economic problem is. Yes, that adversely affects my ego. Don't worry, I'll just make fun of someone and be back on par shortly.
But here's what I have figured out without said education: if we're just slowing down the problem of a recession and still haven't hit rock-bottom, then why are we doing that? We've already been through two "stimulus projects;" the $150 billion return from last spring which netted my family a $1500 check ($600 + $600 + $300) which was spent on... something? I don't remember. I didn't earn* the money so I didn't track its expenditure. Then came the other bailout stimulus last fall that was over $700 billion. And that failed too.
As of today, I noted that the proposed new bailout stimulus is over $900 billion and counting. All for what? I mean, ACORN apparently gets a few billion out of that, and $250 million goes to Hollywood for movie productions. But, what is the point? We've already dumped billions and the economy is still sinking! It isn't saving any jobs, houses are still foreclosing at record levels, and Congresses approval rating isn't going any higher.
I'm looking at this with the band aid approach: take it off quickly. And that's how I see the economy at this point. Let it hit rock bottom faster, so we can start the rebuilding process quickly. If that means a Depression, sobeit. At least we'll hit the bottom and can start working our way up instead of our current method of moving slowly down to the bottom.
Now I don't mean that a Depression is a good thing. I remember my grandma talking about how hard it was back them, and then when given an orange, she mistook it for a ball, as she had never had an orange before. She was about 10. At the same time, it did produce "The Greatest Generation" and ended with the greatest war in history in terms of sheer violence and death. I'd like to avoid that aspect, obviously.
Here's my point: last year the US Government paid $416 billion in interest on the Federal Deficit. Supposedly we 'owe' this money to ourselves, and yet we pay interest on it, which doesn't make much sense to me unless someone is financing this pending domino debaucle. So if we're going to continue dumping money into a failing economy, then pay interest on that with the increased bailout amounts, there will come a point when we're paying over a trillion dollars in interest per year. Our GNP is around $13.8 trillion per year. Our Federal Deficit is climbing over 10 trillion right now. So we're paying close to 5% interest on our national debt. I hate to say it, but I think we need a depression to bring us back to reality on a national level. We've lived beyond our means for too long. We're going bankrupt as a nation, just like Iceland is going through right now.
There are other alternatives such as balancing the budget, but with Obama in office, it just isn't likely with a National Healthcare agenda. I know, Clinton had a budget surplus for his last year in office, but it wasn't put towards the national debt and it was spent. Republicans used to have the right mentality of cutting spending and big government, but they lost their foundation a while ago.
Let's look at this another way: if we don't do this now, guess what will happen when we truly are nationally bankrupt? That's when no one will finance us because our international credit rating is bunk. We'll possibly be 20 or 30 trillion in debt by then, and nothing will bail us out. Not only that, but our currency will be valued less than the paper it is printed on. It'll be like Germany after WWI. A barrel full of money for a loaf of bread. They got out of by gearing up for war.
So again, my economic expertise doesn't expand much further than my checkbook, but looking at our national situation, and the growing issue of debt, I think that we need to get things fixed sooner, rather than later because the fallout from the national debt will make The Great Depression look like speed bump comparatively speaking.
*Technically I did earn the money, as the government actually has no money itself; but rather, our taxed money. Still, I pay taxes because I support this country and this stimulus was just an additional tax return.
But here's what I have figured out without said education: if we're just slowing down the problem of a recession and still haven't hit rock-bottom, then why are we doing that? We've already been through two "stimulus projects;" the $150 billion return from last spring which netted my family a $1500 check ($600 + $600 + $300) which was spent on... something? I don't remember. I didn't earn* the money so I didn't track its expenditure. Then came the other bailout stimulus last fall that was over $700 billion. And that failed too.
As of today, I noted that the proposed new bailout stimulus is over $900 billion and counting. All for what? I mean, ACORN apparently gets a few billion out of that, and $250 million goes to Hollywood for movie productions. But, what is the point? We've already dumped billions and the economy is still sinking! It isn't saving any jobs, houses are still foreclosing at record levels, and Congresses approval rating isn't going any higher.
I'm looking at this with the band aid approach: take it off quickly. And that's how I see the economy at this point. Let it hit rock bottom faster, so we can start the rebuilding process quickly. If that means a Depression, sobeit. At least we'll hit the bottom and can start working our way up instead of our current method of moving slowly down to the bottom.
Now I don't mean that a Depression is a good thing. I remember my grandma talking about how hard it was back them, and then when given an orange, she mistook it for a ball, as she had never had an orange before. She was about 10. At the same time, it did produce "The Greatest Generation" and ended with the greatest war in history in terms of sheer violence and death. I'd like to avoid that aspect, obviously.
Here's my point: last year the US Government paid $416 billion in interest on the Federal Deficit. Supposedly we 'owe' this money to ourselves, and yet we pay interest on it, which doesn't make much sense to me unless someone is financing this pending domino debaucle. So if we're going to continue dumping money into a failing economy, then pay interest on that with the increased bailout amounts, there will come a point when we're paying over a trillion dollars in interest per year. Our GNP is around $13.8 trillion per year. Our Federal Deficit is climbing over 10 trillion right now. So we're paying close to 5% interest on our national debt. I hate to say it, but I think we need a depression to bring us back to reality on a national level. We've lived beyond our means for too long. We're going bankrupt as a nation, just like Iceland is going through right now.
There are other alternatives such as balancing the budget, but with Obama in office, it just isn't likely with a National Healthcare agenda. I know, Clinton had a budget surplus for his last year in office, but it wasn't put towards the national debt and it was spent. Republicans used to have the right mentality of cutting spending and big government, but they lost their foundation a while ago.
Let's look at this another way: if we don't do this now, guess what will happen when we truly are nationally bankrupt? That's when no one will finance us because our international credit rating is bunk. We'll possibly be 20 or 30 trillion in debt by then, and nothing will bail us out. Not only that, but our currency will be valued less than the paper it is printed on. It'll be like Germany after WWI. A barrel full of money for a loaf of bread. They got out of by gearing up for war.
So again, my economic expertise doesn't expand much further than my checkbook, but looking at our national situation, and the growing issue of debt, I think that we need to get things fixed sooner, rather than later because the fallout from the national debt will make The Great Depression look like speed bump comparatively speaking.
*Technically I did earn the money, as the government actually has no money itself; but rather, our taxed money. Still, I pay taxes because I support this country and this stimulus was just an additional tax return.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)