It is little wonder...

Based on the recently released results of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's Civic Literacy Report, it is little wonder that the American sheeple silently stand by as the Bush administration, aided and abetted by Congress, lead our nation at breakneck speed down the road to socialism. A sample of the results include the following:

• "Seventy-one percent of Americans fail the test, with an overall average score of 49%."
  
• "Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system."
  
• "Officeholders typically have less civic knowledge than the general public. On average, they score 44%, five percentage points lower than non-officeholders."
  
• "The average score on the American civic literacy exam for those who ended their formal education with a bachelor’s degree is 57%, or an “F.” That is only 13 percentage points higher than the average score earned by those who hold high school, but not college, diplomas."
  
• College graduates in all age brackets—except Baby Boomers (ages 45 to 64)—typically earn an “F” on the exam."
  
• "Thirty-two percent of college graduates falsely believe the president has the power to declare war."

The majority of Americans have no understanding of the foundation upon which our nation is built. The masses are content as long as they have their bread and circuses. This is just another reason to homeschool your kids. See the report here. Take the test yourself here. If you don't score higher than 70%, then do yourself a favor - turn off the idiot box and read a book.

Police prepare for rioting hockey/soccer moms

Considering how rampant political correctness is these days, especially in Washington D.C., I was surprised to read this article in The Hill last week. Although publishing the article itself was not too PC, these first two examples of quotes in the column are the epitome of political correctness.

" “I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he (ed. note: Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department) added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.” "

"James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit’s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said."

Translation: The blacks are going to riot no matter who wins the election. Note that both speakers mention that there is a woman on the ticket. As if there is the remote possibility that the suburbs will erupt in flames, and hockey/soccer moms will be breaking storefront windows and looting if McCain/Palin lose on November 4. The next person quoted is more straightforward.

“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”

Translation: The blacks are going to riot no matter who wins the election. The point of the story is this; regardless of who wins the election, stay out of the city on Tuesday night.

Update: I'm happy to write that there were no reports of rioting after the election, except by a few gays in California who were upset that the voters rejected homogamy.

Socialism or Fascism - It's Not Much of a Choice

Everyone knows that Barack Obama, like most Democrat politicians, is a socialist. Unfortunately, most of the American sheeple have turned a blind eye to the fact that the GOP (especially the party's standard bearer, John McCain) are, by definition, fascists. My copy of Webster's defines fascism as, "A philosophy of governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usu. headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy." This definition includes the four fascist characteristics in the Republican party that stand out today: corporatism, nationalism, totalitarianism and militarism.

• Corporatism - John T. Flynn, in his 1944 book As We Go Marching, said about fascism, "Thus we may now say that fascism is a system of social organization that recognizes and proposes to protect the capitalist system and uses the device of public spending and debt as a means of creating national income..." As we have recently witnessed, state intervention in the economy, when it is in the interest of the state and the wealthy elites who support the political machine, is wholly supported by the Republican party (with a few exceptions - thank you Ted Poe). According to Roderick T. Long, "Fascism seeks to incorporate... private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership." The result is an economic system that is somewhere between capitalism and socialism. The camels nose was already under the tent; now the camel (thanks to the Bush administration, aided and abetted by McCain and the Republican Congress) is not only in the tent, but is in your bed snuggling with your wife.

• Nationalism - Whereas communism stresses class struggle, fascism emphasizes the struggle of the nation. The nation is the unifying force of the people. The nation is depicted as facing some never ending crisis (e.g., "The War on Terror") and must rally against the common enemy (e.g., Islamofascists, Ahmadinejad, bogeyman, etc.).

Dissent is grounds to question a person's patriotism. A perfect example is Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Bachmann asking about her political opponents, "Are they pro-America or anti-America?" The incessant flag waving, chants of "USA" and "Country First" banners at the Republican convention are indicative of a brand of nationalism that, as a Christian, I believe to be idolatry (and according to Rep. Bachmann, my opinion, of course, is indicative that I am anti-American ).

• Collectivism - Republican conservatism was traditionally associated with rugged individualism, so McCain's slogan "Serving a cause greater than self-interest" does not pass the smell test for me. I'm not for Ayn Rand-style selfishness, but if the state is the cause that McCain refers to, then "no thanks." McCain's belief in the state over the individual (my interpretation) is common to both fascism and socialism/communism.

• Totalitarianism - According to the definition, fascism has a strong central government usually head by dictator. The United States is not ruled by a dictator as commonly perceived (i.e. one man), rather we have a single party government (with Republican and Democrat factions) and a newly installed economic dictator. The government does not serve the people, but vice versa. This is not what the Founders envisioned.

• Militarism - Militarism is common to all fascist states. The worship of all things military is prevalent in the Republican party. Even while our country wages an unjust, unprovoked war against a country that posed no threat to us; a war that has resulted in the deaths of scores of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and 4,000+ dead American soldiers and marines - the overwhelming majority of otherwise decent, God-fearing people that I worship with every Sunday morning still support the President and his abhorrent policies because we must "support the troops". McCain has surrounded himself with neocon advisors so one can only expect the everlasting war to continue, with potential new fronts in Iran and the former Soviet republics.

Because the lesser of two evils is still evil (and it is difficult to determine in this election which is the lesser evil), I have followed the advice of John Quincy Adams and voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party candidate for President.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

Quote of the Day

"One benefit of this bailout is that it has ended "the lesser evil" argument once and for all."

Vox Day

Unfortunately, even though there is little demonstrable difference between the two factions of the government party, the American sheeple will continue to support either the GOP or Dems - not even considering that there are other options available.

Poor Aggies

From a Longhorn's perspective, Mike Sherman was a great hire for the Aggies. Being a 25 point underdog to Oklahoma State is embarrassing. Not covering the spread is...well, my thesaurus did not have an adequate word.

OSU 56, A&M 28. Poor Aggies.

Update: KSU 44, A&M 30

Update 2: Baylor 41, A&M 21 ("I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!")

Quote of the Week

Describing the Wall Street bailout that both of my Texas Senators voted in favor of tonight:

"This is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle," Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., said of the package. "I'm not going to eat that cow patty."

Some Republicans (and Democrats) Will Still Stand for Principle

I was encouraged today to see that some Republicans (and Democrats) will still stand up and vote on principle. Or more likely they were afraid of facing the wrath of their constituents come November. Democrats voted 140-95 in favor of the bailout bill (HR3997), and Republicans opposed the measure 133-65. See how your representative voted here. It's too bad those same Republicans won't stand for a non-interventionist foreign policy as well.

The wanker Hugh Hewitt actually blamed the failed bill on Nancy Pelosi. Apparently he is unable to comprehend the numbers cited above. Either that, or Hewitt is right and the Republicans are so small and petty that they voted no just to spite Pelosi in response to her partisan speech before the vote. If Pelosi is actually responsible, then thank you Ms. Pelosi.

Regarding standing on principle, Daniel Larson of the American Conservative blog Eunomia says it best, "It is easy to talk about principle when there is no crisis happening and no risk attached to standing on principle. The real test comes when holding fast may actually cost something. Holding to a principle, if it means anything, means that you value it more than mere self-interest, satisfaction or comfort. A lot of Americans want to have it all–the pretense that they are free, with none of the responsibilities or dangers that go with it. In reality, you can either have the latter and remain free, or you can cease being free and then be kept free (temporarily) from responsibility and danger."

The political label 'Conservative' no longer has any mean since so many so-called "conservatives" (e.g., Hewitt, Kristol, editorial staff at National Review, etc.) are willing to embrace socialism and abandon the free market system as long as their 401K does not take a hit.

McCain and the Surge Myth

John McCain has made his support for the "surge" in Iraq one of the central issues of his campaign for President. McCain touts his early support for the surge to highlight his foreign policy experience and judgment. In reality, the surge is not the primary, or even secondary, reason for the decline in violence in Iraq.

First and foremost, the U.S placed the Sunni insurgents on the Pentagon payroll, paying them to stop killing our troops and Iraqi civilians. These former insurgents are known as the Sunni Awakening, or the "Sons of Iraq". The Sons of Iraq form an 80,000-100,000 man militia and the Pentagon (i.e., you and me) pays each militia member $300 a month. Based on 80,000 men; that is $24 million a month, or $288 million per year. That is only a fraction of the wars trillion dollar cost; but what happens when we stop paying (bribing) these former thugs and killers? My guess is that they revert to being thugs and killers.

Five years after Bush declared "mission accomplished", the U.S. still has no understanding of sectarian tension in the country. Iraq's Shiite-dominated government have strong reservations about an 80,000 strong Sunni militia, and believe the militia is a threat to lasting peace. Many of the movement's leaders leaders have been arrested and the government will not honor U.S pledges to employ the militia members, potentially leading to renewed sectarian violence (and ending the success of the surge).
(Sources: McClatchy and LA Times)

Second, is the fact that the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad is complete. Sectarian violence has declined because the Shiites have successfully cleansed Baghdad of a large portion of it's Sunni population. There are no longer mixed Shiite/Sunni neighborhoods in Bagdhad, so there is no longer sectarian violence. The mainstream media seldom mention that Iraq has 2 million refugees residing mostly in Jordan and Syria and another 2 million internally displaced persons.
(Sources: CS Monitor, Reuters, UCLA Study and Informed Comment)

McCain does not want to be held accountable for his support of the initial unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, millions of Iraqi refugees, and 4000 dead Americans (and counting). Yet he is happy to use his support of the poorly understood surge to his political benefit.

According to McCain's logic, if you shoot yourself in the foot; seeking immediate medical attention afterward is the lesson learned. Whereas, to a sane man, the lesson learned is not to play with loaded guns.

Democrats are not the anti-war option

For those who think that the Democrats are the anti-war option, please refer to page 33 of the Democrat Party platform.

"We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability–to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."

When it comes to war and peace, the Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.

She'd make a great VP, but...

McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate will certainly make the presidential race more interesting. From what I have heard and read about her she sounds like an actual conservative (as opposed to McCain). She is for drilling in ANWR (as opposed to McCain). And she is definitely not a Beltway insider or an elitist (as opposed to McCain). And she is pretty (as opposed to McCain). All of these are good things. Although, I would like to know more about where she stands on certain issues such as immigration and the Iraq War (since McCain is abysmal on both). But if she were running for Governor of Texas, she would likely have my vote.

Considering that the traditional role of the Vice President is largely symbolic, Palin would probably make a great VP. The only problem is that sometimes the Vice President becomes the President. Based on history, there is a 20% chance that she will become President prior to the 2012 election. Nine VPs have assumed the office of President; four as the result of natural death of the President, four by assassination, and one by resignation.

Three years removed from being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 6,715); there is no way that Palin is prepared to be one breath away from being the leader of free world. According to McCain, "we live in a very dangerous world." He says, "And there are situations which can arise which are not readily foreseen, ...that in my view require experience, knowledge, and judgment." Palin is definitely lacking in experience and her knowledge and judgment are still unproven. If McCain is serious about the world being a dangerous place, then his selection of a running mate is very unserious. If Palin were a man with the same resume, she/he would never have even been considered.

John McCain doesn't speak for this American

John McCain recounted to a town hall meeting audience last week the conversation that he had with Georgian President Saakashvili, when he told the president that "...I know I speak for every American when I say...today, we are all Georgians." I'm confident that 9 out of 10 Americans (at a minimum) can't locate Georgia on a map, don't know the names of the Georgian capital or president, and can't pronounce the names of either if they were to see them written on a page. And it is not that Americans are just ignorant (although we mostly are), but that Georgia is just inconsequential to the everyday life of the average American.

McCain's arrogant claim to speak for every American would be amusing if McCain wasn't ready to pledge American blood and money to defend this country that no one knows about. If McCain had his way, Georgia would be a member of NATO and the US would be obligated to defend her against attack. If McCain had his way, American soldiers and marines would be dying in Georgia. What exactly is the vital US interest in Georgia that would justify the loss of a single American life?

Personally, I prefer the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers to the interventionist foreign policy of McCain and his neocon advisers. As Washington said in his farewell address, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. ...Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. ...Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"

If only today's politicians (both Republican and Democrat) would abide by Washington's "great rule of conduct."

I'm Embarrassed for Big John

This video was Senator Cornyn's introduction at the TX State Republican Convention. As a Texan, I'm embarrassed. Apparently someone on Cornyn's staff thought that this was a good idea. But can he blame his staff for the fringed buckskin jacket that he is sporting at 2:13 in the video. Unless you are Davey Crockett, this is not a look that any straight man should try to pull off.

I voted for "Big John" in 2002, but I haven't been happy with Cornyn and no longer identify myself with the Republican party. I know how Ronald Reagan felt in 1962 when he switched parties and said, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. The party left me." I'm still undecided so far in this year's election. I may opt to stay home on election day, or "waste" my vote on the Libertarian candidate. This video definitely does not bolster the likelihood of Cornyn getting my vote.

The Revolution, A Manifesto (Review, Part 1 of 2)

Manifesto, def. "A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature."

I pre-ordered my copy of the book on Amazon and eagerly awaited it's April 30 release date. Apparently I was not alone, because Ron Paul's The Revolution, A Manifesto is at No. 5 in it's 4th week on the New York Times bestseller list after holding the top spot two weeks ago (as of June 1). Although already familiar with Dr. Paul's philosophy from following his presidential campaign and reading his articles and speeches at the Ron Paul Library, I still read the book with interest. Paul outlines the principles that ignited the "Revolution" among many folks like myself who are sick and tired of politics as usual.

Paul begins with the "false choices of American politics." He argues that there is little disagreement between the two political parties (or the R and D factions of the Government Party as I call them) on fundamental issues. The two parties may disagree on who to bomb, but neither party questions the American prerogative to wage preemptive war or play the role of world policeman. The issues that are discussed are mainly a distraction.

Dr. Paul explains the basis for his own political views; the beliefs (specifically the foreign policy) of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Paul expounds on his foreign policy of non-intervention. He is not an isolationist; to the contrary, Paul's foreign policy is that of Washington and Jefferson, and is summed up by this quote from Jefferson's first inaugural address, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Because of Paul's foreign policy views, his political adversaries have attempted (with success) to tie him to the 'blame America first' crowd. Paul, while believing that the 9/11 terrorists were solely responsible for their actions and that the sponsors of terrorism should be found and punished, does make the case that America's interventionist policies are bound to cause resentment. Resentment may then lead to the desire for revenge; and as Paul writes, "That revenge, in its various form, is what our CIA calls blowback - the unintended consequences of military intervention." We do not operate in a vacuum, and should not be surprised when our actions have repercussions.

Unfortunately, the government's policy of intervention around the world is accepted by both major political parties (again with the "false choices"). It not only makes us less secure, but also bears a huge cost; both in blood and dollars. The cost in terms of lives lost and shattered is enormous. 4,000+ dead American servicemen, tens of thousands more wounded, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and 4 million Iraqi refugees. Estimates for the cost of the Iraq War are now between $2-3 trillion. This at a time when the dollar is in a downward spiral. The Iraq War vindicates Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.

Dr. Paul takes his oath of office seriously. When he swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he meant it. During his time in Congress, Paul's vow to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" has earned him the nickname Dr. No. Paul illustrates the assault on our Constitution; not by some foreign terrorist, but the government. All three branches of the government have been contemptuous of the Constitution over the last several years.

Paul describes how the power of the executive branch since 9/11 has expanded beyond anything intended by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution. And how Congressional silence on executive orders and signing statements has granted implicit approval to the President's abuse of power. The singing statement is especially egregious. A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued when the President signs a bill into law. The signing statement has been used extensively by President Bush to express how, or if, he intends to enforce the provisions of the law. Paul quotes Jonathon Turley, "By using signing statements to this extent, the president become a government unto himself."

Paul goes on to make the case that the Constitution is not a "living document." If the American feel the need to change the Constitution, then there is the amendment process - as opposed to the courts interpreting the Constitution to the further a social agenda, or politicians just ignoring the document. Paul believes in original intent; that we should always consider the original intentions of the men who wrote and signed the Constitution.

Case in point. The Constitution gives the authority to declare war solely to Congress. Both parties have regularly ignored this clause of the Constitution and accepted the President's authority to commit the country to war since the Korean War began in 1950. Paul believes that the American people, through their elected representatives, should have some input on whether the US goes to war. After all, the American Revolution was fought to rid ourselves of a king. Dr. Paul quotes Robert Taft, Paul's 1950's kindred spirit, "If the President has unlimited power to involve us in war, war is more likely. History shows that...arbitrary rules are more inlined to favor war than are the people, at any time."

A President more likely to commit the country to war needs cannon fodder. A historic source of young bodies to fill the ranks is a military draft. Paul expresses his great disdain for the draft and presents his case in opposition on both moral and constitutional grounds. According to Paul, "The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as wishes." The draft is antithetic to the American ideals of freedom and liberty.

Part 2 coming soon. Covering abortion, economics and civil liberties.

This is a bad idea

Vacation Bible School is a summer tradition at my house. Growing up Southern Baptist and now raising my own family in the Baptist faith tradition; one week every summer was and is set aside for VBS.

VBS includes Bible lessons, crafts, songs and activities such as puppet shows. It is an opportunity to reach out to the community and invite unchurched kids to attend a fun summertime event (giving kids something to do and their mothers a break from kids with nothing to do). VBS is staffed by church volunteers (i.e., moms).

I was made aware of this latest incarnation of VBS when my sister-in-law went to register her son for VBS at a local church.

"Children will enjoy...The coolest water recreations, delicious snacks, fantastic crafts, and incredible entertainment!

Cost is $30 per child. This is all-inclusive, children will not need additional money during the week."

All-inclusive!? Is there an open bar? The church advertises this on their website as if were some kind of a bargain. Hopefully the pay-to-play VBS scheme is not too commonplace. It seems to miss the whole point of what vacation bible school is all about.

There is still hope

In Texas today, the rule of law prevailed and a tiny bit of my faith in the system was restored. State-sponsored child abduction is not condoned by Texas courts. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the Child Protective Service illegally seized 468 children from their parents at the West Texas polygamist cult compound. The court stopped short of calling the CPS abduction of the polygamist's kids what it really was - collective punishment and an assault on the freedom of association.

The court ruling was based on common sense - if a case is to be made that abuse has occurred/is occurring, then present the evidence. And if there is no evidence, then send the kids home. I was happily surprised to hear that the state says that it will take immediate steps to comply with the ruling. However, I will believe it when the kids are actually returned to their parents. The state rarely relinquishes power so freely.

See various media coverage here, here, here and here.

Update: As I suspected, the state is dragging it's feet on returning the kids to their parents.

McCain shoots Republican base the bird, again

John McCain told business leaders today that immigration reform should be a top priority for the next president. Quoting the New York Times, in regard to the failed McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would have granted amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, "Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal “failure,” as well as one by the federal government.

“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”

Saving the best for last, McCain said, “They are also God’s children, and we have to do it in a human and compassionate fashion.” After all, they are honest, hardworking people - except for these POS (pardon my abbreviated French) and thousands more like them (see here, here, here and here) .

Is McCain trying to not get elected? You would think that he would at least wait until after the general election in November before stabbing the Republican base in the back.

Lipstick on a pig

"You can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig." Patrick J. Buchanan

See here Pat Buchanan's commentary on the California court's gay marriage ruling. Buchanan is right on the money, as usual.

See here Jesus on marriage: "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” " Matthew 19:4-6

McCain's supposed principles

From a McCain press release today regarding Obama and national security:
"With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros -- a 'gesture of good faith' as Senator Obama said yesterday -- it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles."

I, for one, believe that the US government should stop punishing the Cuban people, end the trade embargo and establish diplomatic relations with Cuba - but that is not the point. The point is McCain's hypocrisy regarding his supposed principles. He has no qualms about dealing with China.

Even though he acknowledges the "suppression of rights in China," McCain says, "Our relationship with China is important, and we value our ability to cooperate with the Chinese government on a wide variety of strategic, economic, and diplomatic fronts." So what McCain is actually saying is that we cannot compromise our principles unless you sell us a bunch of cheap crap.

Update: Cuba is listed alongside US trading partners China, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia in a report on the world's most oppressive societies prepared by Freedom House.

So why should the US establish relations with Cuba? To quote Ron Paul, "History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies." This is the approach that we have taken towards China. Why does it not apply to Cuba?

McCain's Pipe Dream

I've read the text of John McCain's speech from May 15 (see text here) about what he hopes to achieve during his first term as president. It was one of the most idealistic, utopian pieces of fantasy that I've ever read, with no basis whatsoever in reality. The intended audience was apparently a class of grade school kids. In the first paragraph of the speech, McCain states, "We [candidates] spend too little time and offer too few specifics on that most important of questions". McCain then goes on to deliver a 3,000+ word speech with no specifics. Here are a few examples:

• "The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy..."

And if it doesn't work out as planned, then McCain says 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me".

• "The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based."

Pakistan has only marginal control over the tribal areas. Future Pakistani leaders are not likely to be as friendly as Musharraf, and he hasn't been particularly helpful. And I guess that the successful counterinsurgency tactics McCain refers to are another future event in fantasyland.

• "The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us."
  

The US already spends more on the military (defense is a misnomer) than the rest of the world combined. The US has troops stationed in 135 countries. Do we really need to "significantly increase" the size of our military?

• "Encouraged by the success (in Sudan), the League is now occupied with using the economic power and prestige of its member states to end other gross abuses of human rights such as the despicable crime of human trafficking."

McCain promises to expand our role as self-appointed policeman of the world.

• "Community colleges and technical schools all over the country have developed worker retraining programs suited to the specific economic opportunities available in their communities and are helping millions of workers who have lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away."

What are these new jobs that won't go away? I may want to steer my kids in that direction.

• "Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools...Test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country."

Charter and private schools. Don't we have those now?

• "The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well."

How does McCain intend to do this? Ethanol? Invading and annexing Iran?

• "Construction has begun on twenty new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process."

Apparently nobody has told McCain that the nuclear power plant licensing process takes several years. Submit a completed license application into the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission tomorrow and you will not have started construction by the end of McCain's first term.

• "Voluntary national service has grown in popularity in part because of the educational benefits used as incentives, as well as frequent appeals from the bully pulpit of the White House, but mostly because the young Americans, no less than earlier generations, understand that true happiness is much greater than the pursuit of pleasure, and can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest."

If you are providing incentives, then it's not really voluntary is it. And McCain's whole shtick about serving causes greater than self -interest reminds me too much of the Karl Marx slogan, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

And who can say no to:

• "The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future."

• "The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved."

• "Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history."

It all sounds great to me (jn). The sad thing is that there are probably American sheeple out there thinking that this was an inspiring speech (aside from McCain and his speech writers).

Definition of Marriage

According to my version of Webster's (touted on the cover jacket as "Today's Most Up-To-Date Dictionary" when published in 1984), marriage is defined as: Legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

According to the California Supreme Court (comprised of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges) , CA law limiting marriage to a man and woman violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

Apparently a dictionary was not available during deliberations of the court.

C.S. Lewis Quote of the Day

“If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I've been pondering on this quote for the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure it means what I think it means.

McCain Won't Jaw-Jaw

John McCain was on the Hugh Hewitt show today and talked about Barack Obama's willingness to meet with and talk to the leaders of Iran and Cuba. (see transcript) McCain said, "...but I do now that he does not, has not displayed the judgment which comes from experience and knowledge and background, whether it be saying that he would sit down with Ahmadinejad and talk face to face with him, or Raul Castro and talk directly to him..." I personally don't see Obama's suggested attempt to settle disputes with our enemies peacefully as some outrageous betrayal of God, mom and apple pie. As Winston Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." And Churchill was quite the war-monger himself.

It is not as if sit-down talks with our nation's enemies are unprecedented. As Obama has said, "Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.” Numerous US-Soviet summits were held during the Cold War. Eisenhower and Kennedy both met with Khrushchev. Johnson met with Soviet Premier Kosygin in 1967, while the Soviets were supplying and training our enemy in Vietnam (the same thing that we have accused the Iranians of doing). Nixon, Ford and Carter each met with Brezhnev. Reagan met with Gorbachev, leading up to the peaceful end of the Soviet Union.

Instead of showing leadership, McCain sounds more like a child whose feelings have been hurt. He is going to take his ball and go home (or bomb Iran).

And by the way, I'm no fan of Obama. I believe that he is a far-left liberal and there is not a snowballs chance in h&!! that I would ever vote for him (I also think that Hugh Hewitt is a wanker).

McCain shoots Republican base the bird

McCain proves yet again that his views on immigration are more aligned with Ted Kennedy than with the Republican base. McCain used Cinco de Mayo to launch a Spanish language website and reach out to Hispanic voters. Why the Spanish language website? The ability to speak English is supposedly a prerequisite for American citizenship (and the right to vote that comes with citizenship).

McCain said that "everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message." Well, not quite everything. In fact, Hispanics don't share traditional conservative social values with the typical Republican voter. The illegitimacy rate for Hispanics is double that of whites (roughly 50% to 25%). The high school dropout rate is 3.5 times that of whites and double that of blacks (22%, 6% and 10% respectively). [Note that these numbers are from the US Dept. of Education, so I'm guessing that the numbers for all three groups are probably twice as high in actuality.] I could go on... So much for the strong Hispanic family values touted by the open borders crowd (McCain included).

McCain also said, "A lot of times it saddens me to see these conflicting approaches toward the issue of illegal immigration because we would not have this problem if the federal government had carried out its responsibilities." Wait, does he mean that the government should have carried out its responsibilities and enforced the law, secured the border and deported illegal aliens. No. McCain means that the government should have granted amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens that reside in our country.

Republicans that turned a blind eye to the real John McCain will get what they deserve if he is elected president.

Federal Gas Tax Holiday Just a Gimmick

Candidates Clinton and McCain are both doing what politicians do best - pandering for votes and making empty promises. They have both tried to take advantage of voter's concerns over high gasoline prices by talking about a federal gas tax holiday (pandering for votes). I calculated that a suspension of the 18¢ a gallon gas tax for the summer months would save my family around $60-75. That assumes that I would actually see any savings. I'm guessing that the 18¢ a gallon would actually end up in the pockets of the oil companies and that I would pay roughly the same for gas. The gasoline tax is actually one tax that I don't mind paying. The gas tax finances road building projects nationwide, which is actually a legitimate function of the federal government. Of course, neither Clinton or McCain has yet to introduce any legislation to enact their plans (empty promises). Hopefully the voters are not gullible enough to fall for this ruse.

It would be refreshing if one of the candidates actually presented a long-term energy plan instead of feel good platitudes. Maybe something like leadership on promoting nuclear technology as an alternative power source. Or how about a $70 billion prize to makers of the first alternative fuel vehicle that people would actually want to drive (I just threw $70 billion out there because that is the amount Bush just requested to fund the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for another year). Instead we get farm subsidy-driven ethanol (more pandering for votes) leading to food riots in the third world.