Obama Supports Birthers

Birther, the name for those who question the legitimacy of BHO's presidency under the constitutional American birth requirement, have gained more fuel. The newly elected governor of Hawaii reopened the controversy by vowing to release what ever documentation he can under Hawaiian law. Left wing pundit, Chris Matthews, of the tingling leg fame, has also called on the president to release his birth certificate. A recent poll found that only 58% of the respondents were convinced that BHO was born in the United States and therefore eligible to be president. The president has produced what is essentially an affidavit from Hawaii stating that the certificate is on file. Although this is not the best evidence that he claims is available, he says it is adequate to meet constitutional requirements. This is considered a 'short form' Hawaiian certificate. The left leaning press, have not press him, until now.

In the view of Chickenshit New World, the debate has been ended by the president himself. In the recent election he accused the US Chamber of Commerce of illegally accepting foreign campaign contributions. He reasoned that this was something the people deserved to know and therefore he would not drop his accusations until they produced their records to the contrary. His left leaning media sycophants accepted and reiterated this logic. Therefore it appears that the president supports the birther claims until he produces his birth certificate or other definitive proof to the contrary.

See the Washington Post article from the election campaign:

'President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said "the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections" and raised the possibility that foreigners could be funding his opponents.
"You don't know," Obama said at the rally for Senate candidate Joe Sestak and other Democrats. "It could be the oil industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/10/AR2010101004009.html?wprss=rss_politics

National Socialism: Genghis Groans Again

In the first segment of his 12/3/10 program, Mark Levin addresses the issues of taxation currently before our congress. In fact, Mark delineates the conservative position in the age old debate between economic freedom and government economic control. Recordings of Biden and other Democrats represent the opposing views. Mark pulls no punches with his refutation of the Democrat, that is statist, view.

"We are witnessing the collapse of the welfare state ... They have led us to the precipice and they continue..." -- Mark Levin

This program is available for free for the next month at Mark Levin Show Audio Rewinds. Mark is refining his presentation. This is one of his best shows. http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

It seems to me that the public spoke in the last election. They do not want any more big government interference, we have had more that we can take. Obama and his far left wacko commissars have been exposed for what they are and we do not want any more. What we do not know is what to call them. It used to be liberals, but that is confusing; they sound like communists, but they say they aren't; they act like socialists, but the media tells us the definition does not fit. Glenn Beck points out how "state capitalism," which is a currently used term, is really the same thing as national socialism. Listening to the Ed Schultz show callers, one can get an education regarding our current national socialists. They call in sounding like thugs and he encourages them. I call them statist progressives: they propose control by a totalitarian state as the best means of improving our lot (so they say, I think it's their own lot they want to improve). If we are still around, it will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

Will Republicans stick to their guns?

Republicans should agree to meet the Democrats half way to freedom, not half way to tyranny,(to paraphrase Mark Levin). As Ayn Rand explained, how can you compromise with someone who wants you to take poison? Should you agree to take only half the poison? You would still be dead. Bad economic policies are like poison. For example conservatives legislators should not agree to even a watered down form of cap-and-trade,such as government regulations to reduce 'carbon' emissions. (At least until they prove their man made global warming theory, which they never will, or they would have by now.)

Conservative Republicans agree that the federal government needs to drastically reduce spending and reduce its bureaucracy. However congress keeps passing more massively intrusive and expensive legislation. Sometimes, as with the food control bill, we hardly get a peep out of Republicans. In increasingly large numbers, they vote with the Democrats. What is going on?

Currently there is discussion regarding extension of current income tax rates. We seem to have three options: keep the current rates, increase rates for all brackets (which will happen automatically if they do nothing), or increase rate only for higher brackets. There is no option to actually reduce any one's rates. The Democrats themselves want to maintain current rates for lower brackets; not for economic but for political reasons, i.e. to buy votes. The Democrats say they want Republican input and support and that they are willing to compromise. However, the only compromise that they seem to be offering is option three above, that is raise tax rates on higher income brackets (over $250,000). Again for political reasons, to advance 'class' warfare propaganda. In a compromise deal they would get the higher rates that they want but they offer nothing in return. Where is the compromise there?

If Republicans agree to any higher rates on anyone, they should insist upon cuts in spending and reduction in bureaucracy. The taxes would still be economic poison, but spending cuts would to some extent counteract the economic damage of higher taxation.

Just today, there appears to be some movement for such a deal. Next week the president and Democrats in congress may agree to a keep the current rates for all wage earners in return for Republican agreement to extend unemployment benefits from two years to three. (Initially, before other extensions, the limit was half a year.) Extending these payments is bad economic policy because unemployment benefits create unemployment.

One other factor makes this potentially a bad deal. If the higher tax rates for all go into effect because of congressional inaction, the increase can be reversed by the new Republican congress next year. The Democratic Senate and the president would be under political pressure to agree. Therefore, The Republicans should not compromise now unless it is a good deal for the economy. For example, unemployment benefits for only an additional six months and at amounts reduced by about 30% would be one possibility.

The tea party has been leading the way toward freedom and away from the 'liberal', statist progressive agenda (which is becoming more and more to resemble the national socialist agendas of days past.) To remedy economic problems now as always, we need to focus on the philosophy of free enterprise. Economist Frederich Bastiat suggested the true path nearly 200 years ago to deal with the collapsed French economy: We have tried everything else, why not try freedom.

Conservatives' Plan Summarized

This blog is about current events. We have not had the time or energy to post many comments of late. Although there has been some improvement, our conclusion is still: chickenshit behavior by the Democrats (aka statist progressives) and ditto for the appeasing Republicans. The nation has recently said that it is chiefly made up of common sense conservatives and that is the improvement that gives us hope.


The debate prior to the election, a few weeks ago, and all of it's aftermath may be causing many people to be more that a little bit confused. There is so much to say regarding this election, which resulted in a change of the majority party in the House of Representatives from the Democrats to the Republicans. Control of many state governorships and legislatures also changed to the Republicans. The primary reason that the Senate did not also turn to the Republicans is that only a third of its seats are up for election every two years. To many people who gain their understanding of current events from the television, it may seem that nothing has changed.

A lot has changed. Radio commentator, Mark Levin, has been clearly and emphatically explaining the changing situation. Though not a political leader, he seems to have the clearest vision of what the Republican and conservative response should be. He speaks of hope and change that is not merely a return to the pre-Obama situation. He and many others will be attempting to re-establish the rule of law under our constitution. There is much to be done and it can start now.

Conservative Plan: For a conservative view of recent events along with conservative aspirations for near and long term change, listen to Mark Levin's Audio Rewind of the show aired last Friday, November 26:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#

(This audio will only be on Mark Levin's site for a few weeks, so listen to it now, and save it. If you don't, well listen to his new audios as they become avail -- free on his site. Or listen to him on the radio. Unfortunately, the radio station in Western Washington that carried him recently dropped all political talk shows. I do not know why.)

For historical background and in depth information see the Ludvig von Mises Institutes's website and the amusing and edifying YouTubes of Atlas Shrugs, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand. (Which are all being revitalized in the Tea Party, by the way.)

Inflation

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/deficit-reduction-by-the-numbers

A 10 pfennig stamp paid the the first class domestic letter rate in Germany from 1902 to 1916 (equivalent to 2.4 cents US). July 31, 1914, he day before war was declared against Russia, Germany went off the gold standard. Of the 164 billion marks Germany spent in that war, some 93 was borrowed, 29 paid through short term borrowing (repaid by taxation), and 42 billion was printed. In 1916 the first class postal rate increased to 15 pf and to 20 pf in 1919. Six months later it went to 40, then to 60 in 1921. This was when Germany started to see the effects of inflation.

Germany not only had war debts but also billions in war reparations under the treaty of Versailles, which ended the war. They kept printing money. At the start of 1922, a letter cost 2 marks (100 pfennig to the mark). By the end of the year it was 50 marks. This was hyperinflation kicking in. On August 1, 1923, it was 1,000 m. Three weeks later it was 20,000, which only lasted nine days. Then it was 75,000. The printing presses were busy printing money, so the post office had to start surcharging, i.e. printing new values on existing stamps. The postage rate continued to rise sharply and in early October it was 250,000. This continued through the middle of November when the postage rate topped 100 billion marks (the German word for billion is milliarde).

Of course all of the other horrors of inflation were occurring at this time. The price of everything rose on a daily basis. Savings vanished. It did not end until measures were taken by the German government. They stopped the printing presses and made severe cutbacks in government spending. They laid off or cut the wages of thousands of government employees. Disability and veterans' benefits were ended. A moratorium was declared on payment of government debt and taxes were drastically increased. A new currency was issued, supposedly based upon the total resources of land and industrial production of the country. This was of course a fiction, since the new currency could not actually be redeemed for anything at all, just as before. The measures worked only because the people saw no other option, they needed it to work.

The postage rates of the United States have climbed in a way similar to the earlier days of the German inflation. Today, the Deficit Reduction Committee referred to in the above link proposed some austerity measures that are mild compared to Germany's. These will probably not be adopted for political reasons. Any action taken will probably be too watered down to make much difference. Even the proposed measures only result in long term deficit reduction of 4 trillion dollars when the debt is 14 trillion. Social security and Medicare benefits will be paid with borrowed or printed money. The proposed measures would at least be a good start. (Unfortunately, they raise taxes excessively and to not sufficiently reduce government employment or wages.)

The above photo of the German stamps illustrate what happened. To a great extent, the last stamp was the culmination of the story. (By the way, after I scanned the stamps, I see that (at least) one of the stamps, other than the Hitler one, does not really belong because it came after the war. Can you identify it?)

The source for this post is, "Scott's Monthly Stamp Journal." June 1982, Vol. 63, No. 6, by Richard MacFarlane. (This article lists 18 sources, including Michel's Specialized German Stamp Catalog, where he got the postal rates).

Another source of information about the German inflation is "The Bubble that Broke the World." -- that book explains a lot of how it happened, what countries tried to do, and what the results were.

Atlas Shrugs

I do not know how I overlook the blog "atlasshrugs.com." The radio is usually my only source of information, along with the newspaper a little. There isn't enough time in the day for more. However, I see that the above blog has commentary and current news stories. No need to look elsewhere. Pamala, as Atlas Shrugs, also has many fabulous, entertaining You Tubes. She is an unmovable Sarah Palin supporter and a Fearless Protectrix of the State of Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWlh8US1WRw

atlas shrugs at a NYC teaparty

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

election endorsements

Election Predictions 2010

Election Predictions:

11 Republican new seats in the Senate, including a win for Dino Rossi in Washington.

70 seat Republican pick-up in the House.

Gorilla Pelosi looking for Revenue

In order to collect taxes for bankrupt California, Senator Pelosi was seen fleecing corporate officers. She wore a Halloween gorilla costume for these effort. It is unclear if she was posing as a PETA community organizer or if her true personality was coming out. In any case, she attacked corporate officials to hide the fact that the taxes would actually be paid by people in their roles as workers and consumers.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCJHReZPIs&feature=watch_response

Taxen People


Also see remarks of Dr. Milton Friedman for commentary on the end of Golden Ages, applicable to California

The Electorate not Media Matters

According to Glenn Beck, "Media Matters," a liberal blog, has launched an attack against him and the Fox news organisation. Check the following link to see that he is correct:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201010290036

This blog has no fundamental disagreement with the issues that Media Matters raises in this article. That is, we agree that they are issues. We differ diametrically in our view of these issues. In fact, what Media Matters accuses Fox of is often exactly what this blog (and the Tea Party conservatives) say that they (and the Statist Progressive Left) are doing. For example, Media Matters says:

"They [Fox] do all of this while continuing their time-honored tradition of tearing down liberal initiatives and politicians with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories..."

So, they are correct that Fox attempts to tear down liberal initiatives. Fox does it by telling the truth about liberals and their initiatives. It is the left, presumably with the endorsement of Media Matters, that uses shameless smears and fabricates stories. Just look at the recent statements from the left regarding conservative women candidates, which have been exposed as farcical fabrications and certainly smears and shameless too. Look at all the lies we were told about the Health Care bill with hardly a peep of objection from the mainstream media.

Media Matters' article also states:

"Right out of the gate, Fox led the charge against the stimulus, eschewing the views of economists to attack deficit spending and rewriting history to attack FDR and the New Deal.
The network was certainly "the voice of the opposition" on health care reform, spewing countless falsehoods about both our broken health care system and the proposals to fix it while promoting disruptions of health care town halls and GOP initiatives to kill reform."

Here again we have clear lines of demarcation. We believe one thing and they believe the opposite. Fox, Sarah Palin's Common Sense Conservatives, The Tea Party, me, and innumerable others did not want so called economic stimuli from government spending, which some economist believe in. We have discussed John Maynard Keynes, Paul Samuelson, and Paul Krugman (a real bearded Marxist), for example. Other economists, such as Milton Friedman and Ludvig von Mises, disagree. They do not so much eschew the opposing statist progressive views as they have study them in depth then refute and reject them. That is true of the views and initiatives of FDR and of BHO.


That Fox and the afore mentioned conservatives oppose the so called health care and wall street reforms is also no secret. [Ed Note: This blog opposes Cap-and-Trade most of all.] In a free society with a free press, the public hears both sides and decides. Media Matters would have us hear only their side. It brings to mind the bible story of David and Bathsheba. When David saw Bathsheba and desired her, even though she was married, the prophet Nathan (I think that's who it was) rebuked him. He compared King David to a rich man with many flocks who sees a poor man and wants his only lamb. The left is supported by many large media outlets, the only comparably strong voice of dissent is Fox. To Media Matters and its masters, that is too many.

William F Buckley observed that the left says they want to hear both sides, but they are shocked to hear that there is another side. We know who the other side is and what it stands for and we do not want it.

YES 1100 --- NO 1105

Regarding the Washington State election, most of the issues are clear. However there are two different initiatives to privatise State liquor stores. (As with soda pop, which another measure wants to stop taxing, I never touch the stuff.) Go to this site to find out the difference.

"http://yes1100no1105.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-are-differences-between-1100-and.html?spref=bl"

Apparently, 1105 designates certain private distributors as the only source for liquor sold in the state. That makes no sense to me. The point is to free it up. As usual, there will be businesses that use the police powers of government to support their enterprises. I never said business is always ethical. I have said that free competition can only come about without government intervention. That is what initiative 1100 aims for and I hope can deliver. Many commentators have the "It's Golden" Blogovich attitude when they see all of the revenue from liquor sales. In other words, they want to skim some off for themselves or for the State. (Which, for state employee unions is the same thing.)

Other Washington State Ballot Measures:

Initiative #1053 -- The voters keep passing initiates requiring two-thirds legislative votes or voter approval to raise taxes. The legislature keeps repealing the peoples wishes. (and you wonder why this is called chickenshitnewworld). Vote yes to reinstate the requirement. (The legislature MUST cut spending, not raise taxes, get it?)

Initiative #1082 Vote Yes to end the state monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Companies would be able to purchase private insurance, which would have to comply with state guidelines. This would eliminate the higher cost of inefficient government services and save the state and businesses money. It is a step in the right direction.

Initiative #1098 No, a thousand times no on state income tax. (I suggest a voluntary state income tax for a few millionaires who have publicly supported it. Oh, excuse me Mr. Gates, I meant billionaires.)

Initiative #1107 - Yes, obviously. This would reverse interesting government attempts to nudge us by tax laws into "green" or other "socially desirable" behavior. (Tax on candy and carbonated beverages and a few other benign sounding recent legislative enactments. Kick that camel in the noise. There's no room for him in this big tent.)

Referendum #52 To authorise funds, via a bond issue, for "energy efficient" construction projects in schools. I am surprised they let us vote on this. Vote no, no, no. Do not trust anything that they call energy efficient. That would no doubt include every lamebrain "green" proposal that their brother-in-law's company came up with. Environmentalist seem incapable or unwilling to make break-even calculations to determine what is actually efficient. This smells like another environmental boondoggle scam.

Senate Joint Resolution #8225 would amend the State Constitution to use an accounting gimmick to raise the State debt limit. The Statement For in the voter pamphlet is either disingenuous or leaves something out. This, I believe, has nothing to do with whether the State receives federal money as they seem to suggest. The federal government is, for now, giving states money for shovel ready projects. This will not last long (we hope). The resolution would allow more state borrowing, based upon receipt of those funds. The payments on that borrowing would last a long time. As Rep. Jim McCune in the Argument Against states, "Change our addiction to spending, not our constitution. Vote no."

House Joint Resolution #4220 would amend the constitution to allow courts to deny bail to those accused of a crime possibility punishable with a life sentence. I do not like the idea of legislation tying the hands of the court regarding sentencing or bail. It would be reasonable to deny bail to anyone who is likely to commit other violent crimes. I think I will vote yes on this because it is not mandatory on the court. On the other hand, it could encourage changing sentencing guidelines toward more life sentences. I do not support mandatory sentencing either. The constitution should not be amended lightly. Courts already are able to impose very high bail requirements in cases where there is a propensity to violence. Maybe it should stay as it is for now. Your choice.

The Federal Offices:

Dino Rossi over Patty Murray, of course. In Dino's radio and television spots, he comes across like a candidate for Certified Public Accountant. He says the right things in a passionless way. That seems to be his only weakness. (I do not think he would ever vote for Cap-and-Trade, which was my only fear about him originally.) In any case, he gets a score of 95 to Patty Murray's 0. If she ever voted other that liberal statist progressive down the line, I do not know when. (Not that she seems to know what Statist Progressivism is. She needs to educate herself regarding the other side of the argument. The argument between freedom and tyranny, that is.)


Doug Cloud to replace Norm Dicks

Keep Dave Reichert, instead of Suzan DelBene

Dick Muri, not Adam Smith

Unlikely Saviors of Capitalism and the Nation

Tonight Washington State Senatorial candidates Pattie Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) debated. Mr. Rossi has a record in the Washington State Legislature of cost cutting to balance the budget. Senator Murray has a voting record in the US Senate making her the most liberal member of that body. She is running away from that record to a certain extent while also reminding voters of government money that she brought to the state. Dino reminded us of the practice in congress that our representatives use to get support for spending in their state. They vote for projects in other states in exchange. Dino Rossi is no RINO (Republican in Name only), but neither is he a Tea Partier. He seemed to be lack-luster in his early TV spots denouncing the Obama policies. He seems to be only half-heartedly against Cap-and-Trade, if he is against it at all. Nevertheless, his vote will be 90% conservative as apposed to Murray's 99% in favor of BHO and Majority Leader Harry Reid's agenda. Several other House and Senate races involve similar match ups. The Republicans and the nation need to win a majority of those races.

The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.

BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.

These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.

Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.

The People Know Best

The economy will be the issue in the upcoming election. It is nothing new that the voting public will be concerned about whether they will keep their job or find a job. That is normal in a down economy. What is new, is that voters will see economic issues as a choice between competing economic theories. Republicans, in spite of some watered-down specimens, are seen as favoring laissez faire capitalism. The image of Democrats is not so clear. The press characterises the policies of Obama and his majority congressional party as moderate and free of ideology. The voters know that this is far from true. The public has not been blind and deaf and sees Democrats as favoring one form of socialism or another.

The media seldom frames the choices this clearly and the messages from politicians skirt this fundamental debate. Nevertheless, the public knows that change is afoot. The question is whether we want to endorse the changes implemented by the Democrats or to change directions. At long last, this is how it should be. We have never had that choice presented so starkly before. Laissez faire implies freedom, some will fear the personal responsibility that it also implies. However, more of us fear the emphasise on state and collective power and welfare in place of of the individual that socialism implies.

To what extent we will get change along free market lines even with the Republicans is problematic. Even with a slim majority, the president would still have veto power. Unfortunately also, far to many Republicans still want to compromise the principles of our constitution. Old political habits are hard to break. However, even modest Republicans gains, will show that the public at least has turned the corner. If we can do that, economic confidence will build. We will be heading in the right direction and can drag our lawmakers along.

Two Person Poll

I have been speaking to people about the upcoming election. My brother seemed typical of many who have switch allegiance from Obama and his Democrats. As usual, it didn't take any encouragement for him to let me know that he didn't like certain economic developments. He said he had supported Obama only because of the alternative. He seemed to think that McCain was lack-luster with no personal appeal (I don't recall the exact word he used). He didn't have anything good to say about unions, especially government unions. This was surprising because, besides having his Alaskan fishing business in the Summer, he often has had a union job. Even union workers understand the distinction between unions that negotiate with management and those that negotiate with politicians. The biggest difference is that the politicians are not paying the workers' with their own money but with ours.

Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.

Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.

An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.

See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)

More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"

This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)

As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.

Conservative Women

I don't have time to write much but I wanted to post some links. I have been talking to a few people who are are supporters of Obama and the Democrats. That was depressing. Also, some opponents of the Obama crowd and their policies seem quite confused about just what they believe. That is a little discouraging to hear also.

Tonight I was listening to some You-tube's that cheered me up. Everything that Ayn Rand said, I agreed with, except her opinion that a woman should not be president. She said a woman would not be a fit commander-in-chief. She said that before Maggy Thatcher and Goldie Mayer. I listened to another woman who calls her video blog site, "Atlas Shrugs." She is the real thing. I also enjoy reading the blogs of "Liberty Belle." My point is that the women conservatives have always had more balls that most of the men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz8VbtHJp3M&feature=related

--conservative lady, Atlas Shrugs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPSsERhbo&feature=related

--on Sarah Palin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Bl5OKVjpM&feature=related

--Ayn Rand -- v. Obama and McCain


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jcwTdWAEIc&feature=related

A. Rand interview on free society


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydF8YL0iDeY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

--A nice sensible lady

Hostility against Every Tyranny over the Mind of Man

Regarding the Party Like and Obamaton video, the argument has been advanced that its heart is in the right place but not its ‘head’. That is, (I restate the argument): the intellectual underpinnings of free market conservatism are deficient, even though the principal of liberty that it enthusiastically espouses has universal truth and appeals to the human spirit. That argument is also made with regard to the Tea Party.

This seems to me a reversal of the ‘mean spirited conservative' claim but oh well, it certainly deserves to be address. Unfortunately, It has been addressed but to no avail. The corpus of classical liberalism with its ‘heart’ roots in the human spirit yearning to be free, and its ‘head’ roots in the writings of the Age of Enlightenment, which hearkened back to the democratic principles of ancient Greece, the egalitarianism of the Gospel, and the humanism best articulated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, first gave it voice. Its salient political principal may be that 'no man is above the law.' That is, that those in power cannot bend the law to their will, but must abide by it themselves: they rule at the pleasure of the governed. The economic voice of this 'liberalism' reached its heights in the theories and restatements of the ‘Last Knight of Freedom,’ Ludwig von Mises. Professor Mises, Austrian by birth, immigrated (escaped) to the US in the 1930’s. He is the intellectual guiding light of the Libertarian Party, conservative free market thought, and of this blog. His great work, Human Action, summarizes and systematizes most of the ideas of the 'Austrian School' of economics. Professor von Mises wrote many other books on specific political and economic topics, (such as Socialism and Bureaucracy, which have been quoted in this blog). The von Mises Institute has free on-line versions of most of his works along with daily essays.

I could go on at length, but the point is that the free market and the primacy of law are two of Western Civilizations treasured principals. These are what the Tea Party believes in and what they believe are in danger of being lost. Agree with them or not, it seems that these principals are the intellectual match of any tradition in learning. Those who dismiss them out of hand surly have not delved deep enough to realize the majesty of that which they are addressing. Whether they know it of not, it is the classical liberal tradition that the Tea Party espouses. Tyranny, of course, is an older tradition. It is Statist Progresivism, the modern progeny of that tradition, that the present darkness embraces.

Yes They Can Take Our Liberty

A caller to the Billy Cunningham radio show recommended the following You-Tube (Mark Levin may have mentioned it too):


Party Like An Obamaton By The Silent DoGooders; search it on youtube paste into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqiAhW4YejA


I hope some of those who get their political news and ideas from John Stewart and Stéphan Colbert listen to this. They should listen to Mark Levin and Billy Cunningham a few times too. They might have a better idea who and what they voted for when they pulled the lever for Obama (if they haven't figured it out yet).

What We Need to Know about PBS

Tonight the PBS program, Need to Know ran an expose type story on what they consider abuses in campaign contributions. They mentioned contributions to Democrats once. They mentioned that government workers' unions made contributions to organizations that supported Democrats. That statement, took about 10 seconds of the 15 minute piece. The rest was all about donations to Republican organizations. No mention of George Soros and the hundreds or thousands of liberal, progressive, socialist, and communist organizations that accept contributions to support Democrat candidates. They did not discuss the undisclosed sources of President Obama's campaign contributions. (Most people are not even aware that the sources of BHO's presidential campaign funds have been called into questions.) Lastly, there was no mention of the political support of Democrats on the major television news and entertainment programing. Why? Because they categorise the sources of contributions in such a way that the Republican supporters are unfair, unprincipled, and corrupt, while ignoring the categories into which the Democrat contributors fall. Why is that? Simple, because they themselves are Democrat political supporters. Why should public financed television be allowed to support one party over another? You got me there.

It seems obvious that contributions to the our local Public Broadcasting Corporation should be reported under campaign contribution laws. Another source of Democrat political support by organizations and corporations that is not in one of the "suspect" categories is entertainment programing. Why shouldn't the contributions in kind of David Letterman and the other latenight hosts whose names I do not recall, be covered by campaign contribution law? The answer, in my opinion, is that they should. Furthermore, if PBS does not give equal time to exposing the Democrats, they should be taken to court and their favorable tax status along with public funding should be ended.

Woodstock Generation and Tea Party Principles

Do you want to be a cog is something turning? Part of a vast machine with Axlerod, Soros, and Pelosi pulling the levers? If so, vote for Democrats, or don't vote at all. Obama? He's just Big Brother, a symbol of the all powerful state, an image to put on the boob screen. The real Masters are the Progressives, who believe that we need to be directed by them for our own good (and for their profit).

The 60's hippies, Woodstock generation wanted to be free of control. Mistrust of the perceived bonds of moral standards resulted in misdirection of the energies of youth. To gain perceived freedom we threw in with the progressives without knowing who they were, as they had planned. Now the progressives are exposed as the real slave masters. The traditions of society, against which we rebelled, were no more that the workings of the marketplace. For a person to be productive, supporting him or herself and family, a certain degree of self restraint is beneficial. That's all that was asked, along with some preparation for an uncertain future. The progressives seemed to promise freedom from want in a world that is necessarily harsh because of limited resources. The progressives lied by promising what they could never deliver. Once in power, they would not even try to provide for the needs of society, only for themselves.

They have now made a miscalculation by blatantly advancing their 'New World' agenda at breakneck speed. By government fiat, they are openly bending the fabric of our society to their plans. Their 4,000 page laws are the blueprints for vastly powerful government agencies, whose bureaucratic decrees will have the force of law. Not only will economic life be immensely more complicated under their regime, but their laws will turn into criminals anyone who tries to escape those decrees. Who could possibly wish for the establishment of that type of servitude? We have seen it. It has been discuss and it has been tried. Ultimately, with the informed debate of a free press, it has been dismissed as immature foolishness. When attempted, at the point of a gun, it has failed. We must renounce the Progressives and their empty promises.

What does the Tea Party offer instead? Only freedom. We have tried everything else, why not try freedom? Big government may be good or bad, it may be many things, but it is not freedom. Freedom is the only condition that allows economic advancement and that can satisfy the spirit of man.

Libertarians, Seniors, Lawyers should Support Tea Party

Because their party is not offering whole hearted support, Tea Party Republican candidates will need help elsewhere. Two groups that share most of the Tea Party principles are older Americans and The Libertarian Party. Libertarians have always warned against big government of either the right or left, precisely what the Tea Party is saying. Seniors, in their wisdom, do not trust change in general; also they are concerned about the loss or degradation of Medicare which they have paid for and counted on. I list links to two of the most influential Libertarians and one to a website for seniors that is an alternative to one of Obama's biggest allies, AARP:

http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/wherestands.php

http://johnhospers.com/Articles/

http://www.wethealliance.com/

Another site which like those above, does not believe that conservative and Republican are synonymous:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/45026/

Now if I can only find a website for the Tea Party and Lawyer alliance. There should be a lot of them. Lawyers should renounce the denial of the preeminence of the law by the Obama administration. They should realize that Obama's 'social justice' has little in common with regular justice. Based on their own self-interests, lawyers should also oppose Obama's vision of change, unless they want to spend all of their time and energy with administrative law. That's a scary thought.

Nothing like a Traitor to Get our Dander Up

We hear some rumblings of third party candidacy from a lot of the Republican, party boss supported, primary losers. This shows that Republicans are capable of being elitist snobs too. I hope than Inga Bart, sitting in tonight for The Great One, is correct when she suggests that this is 'Temporary Insanity.' That probably is the case with'Tokyo Rove.' See today's post at A Time for Choosing:

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.blogspot.com/2010/09/yes-delaware-and-nation-is-better-off.html#comment-form

The above link discusses the reaction of some of the losers, focusing in on Mike Castle, loosing Republican favored by the national and Delaware party elites. Representative Castle, however is no traitor to the conservative cause because he never was a conservative. He barely qualifies as a RINO and he might have switched parties after the election if he had won. If he had won, I do not think Delaware Republicans could have held their noses tightly enough. The above linked article has great facts and statistics that expose him beyond doubt.

Another potential Benedict Arnold is Lisa Markowski of Alaska, who was defeated by the Sarah Palin backed Tea Party Republican Constitutional common-sense Reagan conservative, Joe Miller. (Quite a title!) Ms. Markowski, from a long-time Alaskan political family, threatened to run as a write-in or third party candidate against Miller. This would be high treason and the height of arrogance. Any Teaparty candidate facing such a challenge should be supported with all the resources we can muster. Candidate Miller will have to beat both the Democrat and the establishment Republican elitist, and Yes he can.

Tea Party Conservatives held their noses and supported John McCain, as they always have at least as long back as Rockefeller. What has now happened to the party unity form the John McCain/Dole/Ford type elites? Apparently it only applies when they win.

Elizabeth Warren: No Advise and Consent of Senate

No doubt, she appeals to the small ruling elite, but apparently not the Senate. BHO put her in charge of the so-called reform of Wall Street. She is not going before the Senate, as high level appointees should. Where is the indignation of the press? (Yes, this is the begining of the Wall Street take-over as predicted here.) I do not know her background, but can guess. We will be hearing more about her, no doubt.

High Prices and Recession, Thanks to BHO

When the government wants to spend more, the GCP (Government Controlled Press) comes out with stories that there is no inflation and in fact there is deflation. The Fed chief, who serves at the pleasure of BHO, may make similar statements. Therefore, say the talking heads, in this environment, government deficit spending is OK.

This blog has stated that the huge increases in government spending create money. Since there is no corresponding increase in good and services to spend the money on, this is certainly inflation. That prices don’t go up is explained by the severe economic downturn. Markets are attempting to clear, that is to sell goods and services and produce more. This is not happening because the inflation is not allowing prices to adjust downward, as is the usual way slow markets clear. The result is a more and more sluggish economy. Based upon the actions of this government, a sluggish economy seems to be what they want, except at election time.

The Great Mystery

In spite of the monumental events of these turbulent times, this blog has not featured many posts of late. Blogger in chief, actually the only blogger, Jean-Baptiste, has been busy with other matters. It is not because he has been overwhelmed by the onslaught of the popular press, such as the incessant frivolities from the trivial triumvirate of syndicate columnists, David Brooks, E.J. Dionne Jr., and David Sirota. It is true that untwisting the truth from their daily barrages against conservatism and their progressive propaganda would be a full-time job. Lately, they have repeated the big lie that BHO is actually moderate. Glen, Mark, Laura, Sean, and Rush along with their guests have gone to enormous lengths to show that he is our most radically leftist president in history. (Jean-Baptiste suspected this all along.) Also see David Limbaugh's book, Crimes Against Liberty, for a rundown of the evidence against BHO.

Actually, Jean-Baptiste has been meditating on the 'gods of the copybook headings.' Who are they? Kipling's poem says that they are not the market place. That leaves the Progressives as the primary suspect. Anyway, read the past blogs on The Overton Window, or Glen Beck's book itself for an explanation of what all that is about. Kipling's poem gives some insight into the motives of these 'god-like' progressives, delving into the 'Great Mystery.' The Great Mystery is: why do they keep doing it, why can't they just leave us alone? Is it their depraved greed and lust or some mental defect?

Anyway, Jean-Baptiste also had a garden and berry bushes to cultivate and harvest during the Summer. He had cats, birds, and raccoons to take care of. He had a lot of work to do outside. He had his stamp collection to work on. He even had to get away a little. Lately,he was also reading the Koran. The part where God says, 'remember me, I will remember you,' seems to fathom some unknowable depth. The first words of every chapter are, 'In the name of God, the beneficent, the merciful.' Beneficent means He gives us more that we deserve, merciful means that He punishes us less that we deserve. Christian mystics have said they pray incessantly, by saying the Jesus prayer with every breath: 'Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.' The Islamic mystics repeat: 'There is no God but God." For the less theistic: 'There is no Reality but the Ultimate Reality.'

It can be a little tough to stay focused on the current convoluted progressive schemes of Axelrod, Emanuel, BHO, and their masters.

Washington State Demos Support BHO Agenda (Openly)

The local television campaign ads may not be examples of all that is wrong with American politics, but they are not far from it. Democrat Senator Patty Murry says that Dino Rossi is a pawn of big corporations, especially Wall Street. To prove it, she plays a short clip in which Dino says he would vote to repeal the Wall Street Reform Bill. He should have said he would repeal the Wall Street so-called reform bill. Obviously no one is against reform but he opposes the bill for what is in it, not for its title. The bill is over 2,000 pages of who knows what. Like the other bills passed by the sitting Democrats with the help of a few Rinos, it enacts into law more of the socialistic, state control agenda of the far left.

This blog and many others along with talk radio have explained some of the aims of recent Wall Street take-over attempts by government. The Party's primary purpose is to funnel power and money to the constituent groups of Barack Obama and his leftist associates, and Wall Street is where the power and money is. Mr. Rossi should obviously want it repealed. Unfortunately, his message is, "Our problems did not start yesterday, but I will start fixing them tomorrow." A Tea Party candidate would go to the the heart of the current debate and point out that Democrat Party socialistic policies are what caused our problems. In other states, the Democrat candidates are facing that kind of opposition and respond by disavowing their support of Obama / Pelosi / Ried. Unfortunately, almost all these 'blue dog' Democrats vote with their party when they are back in Washington, DC. In Washington State, the Demo's don't have to distance themselves from their Masters in the other Washington.

It is Interesting

When liberals want to introduce the latest talking point into the conversation, they often start by saying, "It is interesting that..." I guess that is because they want to cast aspersions without thoroughly looking at all sides of an issue. For example, "It is interesting that we had a budget surplus under Bill Clinton but not under Ronald Reagan." They know they cannot support the conclusion that they want to imply, i.e. that Clinton benefited the economy.

Isn't it also interesting to hear government functionaries and the press attack the Reverend who is going to burn Korans after they just finished supporting the mosque at ground zero. It seems that the same statement that it is allowed under our constitution, though it may be unwise and insensitive applies to both actions. The argument is advanced by the left, with rare exceptions, for the mosque but not the Koran burner.

I suppose that the two proposals are materially distinguishable, but I do not need to go there. My issue and question is this: If the reverend agrees not to burn the Korans, what will the radical Muslims do in return? Stop blowing up Innocent people maybe? What about other, nonviolent Muslims, will they do anything about the radical killers in their midst? We could certainly use more vehemence from Muslims directed against those who murder in the name of their religion.

BHO and Demos Not Even Trying

According to the economic theories of Ludvig von Mises, it is impossible for government officials to make efficient economic decisions. That is because their decision making process cannot duplicate the millions of individual decisions made every day by buyers and sellers in the market for consumer and industrial goods. Only the marketplace can evaluate the constantly shifting and interdependent wants and needs of consumption and production. This is referred to as the economic calculations argument for the free market.

Mises concludes that the market, therefore, best supplies the most urgent needs of humanity. Others have argued that the government can indeed calculate the important economic choices that lead to the optimum satisfaction of human needs. Unfortunately, with the progressive mind set at work, such attempts at providing for our most urgent needs are seldom even attempted. Instead, huge amounts of resources are devoted to very limited ends. These narrow goals are based upon the theories, dreams, visions, and whims (not to mention profits), of small special interest groups. The long term consequences of their actions are inadequately evaluated. What we generally get is wasteful expenditure and a situation that is ultimately worse than it would have been without any government intervention.

Little wonder that none of the recent schemes have improved the economy. The situation is like that in France when Bastiat was moved to say, "We have tried everything else, why not try the easiest of all, freedom." That is why this blog listed that quotation as one of the first posts. When will they ever learn?

Still more Chickenshit

I was considering renaming this blog. Unfortunately, due to recent developments, that seems a little premature.

I have not posted here for a month. That's not because there has been nothing to write about. On the contrary, reading the local paper and other mainline media, there seems to be a great need to set the record straight. In fact, there seems to be so much misinformation and disinformation that it is hard to know where to begin. The tactic of the mainstream press seems to be to overwhelm the debate. By the time there is a response, they have moved on to promulgate some other factoid (something that sounds like a fact but not necessarily is) or error in reasoning. That's why Rush calls them the drive bys.

One example of an error in reasoning is represented by a proposition that has been often repeated of late. To wit: high levels of taxation are good for the economy. Hilary Clinton said so and now all the liberals are saying it. I guess that's what they mean by a talking point. Their proof of this is that during the Clinton administration, we had much higher income tax rates for the highest brackets. During that period, we had balanced federal budgets, even surpluses, and economic growth. This is an example of the post hoc fallacy. That is an error in reasoning involving the inference that if one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. (The full name is post hoc ergo propter hoc -- after that, therefore on account of that.)

This is where the difficulties in unravelling this claims come in. I have not checked the economic data so I do not know if it was taxes collected from these higher tax brackets that brought about a healthy federal budget and economy (I doubt it). I seem to recall that Republican, Newt Gingrich was speaker of the Republican dominated House of Representatives. He proposed his 'contract with America,' which the press called a 'contract on America.' The House cut all of Clinton's spending proposals. They passed Welfare Reform over his multiple vetoes. In other words, Clinton was dragged to a balanced budget kicking and screaming. This and the fact that not many people paid the high income tax rates due to various tax avoidance strategies was probably what happened. As I said, I need to do some more research. This is one reason why the Austrian School believes that theories based upon mathematical economic analysis are mainly invalid. Statistics can show what happened but but not why. Common sense reasoning based upon observation of human behavior can tell us more.

Much more has been happening in the politicoeconomical realm. There's the Mosque at ground zero and its opponents, who the press portray as conservative bigots. There's the fed's plan to monetize the debt (which this blog said would eventually happen in an attempt to support the dollar.) There's the talk of further stimulus bills; the liberal talking point is that we have really not tried this yet, there was only the Bush (and therefore totally wrong headed and ineffective) TARP spending plan. Seems to me I recall a lot of Obama attempts at stimulus spending also, not to mention bailout/payoffs (e.g. to the auto workers). Just lately, there was the 'teacher bail-out.' This was a multi billion federal payment to the states so they could avoid cutting teacher salaries. Along with the funds come a federal mandate not to cut education spending by the states that accept the aid, including in subsequent years. (Seems there was a post about that here; Washington State did not want money offered earlier because of the strings attached.)

There has been much on the encouraging side as well. David Limbaugh's latest book catalogues the setbacks to liberty suffered by this nation due to the Obama policies. The book apparently addresses many of the catastrophic events that have lately befallen us; even an entire book is not nearly enough. Another recent happening was Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' rally in Washington, DC. I wish I could have been there.

Anti-Global Warming Scientist Site

Dr. Spenser is one of those non-existent scientist who does not believe in man made global warming. Al Gore and his pals have said over and over and over that there is no legitimate scientific opposition to their global warming view. Even the supreme court bought the argument of the cap-and-trade crowd, not that they even tried to get the facts. The press of course repeats it every chance they get. Chickenshit to the max.

I try to take a look at Dr. Spenser's site as often as I can"

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Loopy Libertarians and Tea Partiers v. Reality

There are still a lot of points of contention between Libertarians and 'Common Sense Conservatives.' See what a Libertarian has to say:

Tea Party Fave Looks Increasingly Loopy

This Libertarian blogger takes issue with the platform of Nevada 'tea party' Republican, Sharron Angle. This shows some interesting riffs. How to compromise? Republican and tea partiers might modify views on marijuana legalization: there are good free market arguments for allowing people to screw up their lives if they so desire. Republicans need Libertarian support to oust the current regime this November and in the 2012 presidential election.

Also, the war in Afghanistan presents some tough technical problems. Libertarians just want out of this and any war other that in defense against an immediate, direct threat to this country. It would be nice to have a democratic, pro-American government in Kabul. However, without the 'democratic' requirement, this is all the Russians, British, and many others (including Alexander the Great) wanted. Over the centuries, this has proved elusive. Less ambitious, possibly achievable goals might be found. These goals would have to incorporate a lot of compromise reached through private negotiations with diverse factions. The deals would eventually fall apart. About all that could be reasonably hoped for would be a little influence with factions with the power to make life difficult for violent anti-West factions. Such a strategy could give us a little time, at least until the next violent fanatics come on the scene. It would also probably help if our government did not offer encouragement to the fanatics.

Tacoma Ethnic Fest

I had a very pleasant day at the Tacoma 'Ethnic Fest.' This is an annual event held in our large, near to downtown, Wright Park. There are always many booths selling items from around the world and 'ethnic' food. I am not exactly sure what ethnic means and am not comfortable with the concept. Once my own ethnicity was represented at the event. There was a French Canadian booth selling hot dogs with Frenches mustard.

Today there were also many political and semi-political booths. I had long discussions at the Republican booth. Jesse Young, candidate for US Congressional Sixth District, was there. He is an excellent conservative candidate running for the nomination to face Representative Norm Dicks in the general election. Is web cite is at:

http://www.jesseyoungforcongress.com/issues.html

Mr. Young's primary concern is to try to bring some sanity to the budget, that is less spending. He also favors repeal of the Health Care law. Outright repeal and redoing health care legislation from scratch is a position that separates the conservatives from the RINO's. He says all the right things about free market economics. That also is something the RINO's give only lip service to. Mr. Young seems to have a real understanding of the terrible results of government intervention in economic affairs.

Other people working at the Republican booth were interesting and informative. I emphasised that I was wholly in favor of the Tea Party principles and would support candidates similarly inclined. For the most part, I believe that they were sympathetic. Dick Muri is an excellent candidate for the 9th Congressional District. There are three candidates for the Republican nomination in the Senate race. At this point, I am uncertain who is best.

Claire Sussman is a very nice lady and well qualified by experience to be on the bench. She is running for County District Court. When asked about her philosophy, she stated that she does not believe in legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, they all say that, even Sotamayor and Kagan. Her campaign brochure emphasises that she is a working mother, former deputy prosecutor, handled over 20,000 cases as a pro temp judge, and worked as a private attorney. She certainly sounds good. As the first judge candidate I have met or asked a question, it occurs to me that the most that can be expected of a judge is an extensive knowledge of the law and respect for it. She seemed to have those qualities based upon my limited discussion with her.

I also spoke to the Democrats, who were cordial. As I was wearing a couple of Republican buttons, I felt somewhat protected against attempts to win my vote. I bought an artistically done BHO button for my collection. The ACLU people were pleasant and I even signed up for their emails. Their sign-up sheet asked for areas of interest so I put 'freedom.' They claim to support that. I talked to people at the Centro Latino, The Washington Health Plan, and the Islam booth. I told the very polite young lady at the Islam booth that I certainly supported her right to wear the Hijab (veil) and would like to wear a burka myself. We also talked about the Qaran. I talked to the Theosophical Society people. Their motto is 'There is no higher religion that truth.' That sounds good to me.

The teamsters were about the only standoffish people. I picked up 'The Guardian' newsletter and a flyer opposing I-1082. This initiative would end the state run monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Of course, their argument is something along the lines of big corporations: bad, insurance companies: bad. That is, the same old anti-business claims they have made for decades to take over or destroy industry. I was not so anxious to talk to them either. Of course conservatives support the people, we are the people. We do not support the oppressive policies toward business that make us less prosperous and makes life harder for anyone just trying to support themselves and their family. Unions can only help a select few at the expense of everyone else. How can anyone but the select few favor that? If all workers were in a union, as they claim to want, no one would be helped. Higher wages would only cause higher prices. The only ones to benefit from that would be the union bigwigs through dues. The goals and methods of labor are deceptive and illogical. Ultimate success of the labor movement could bring only complete socialism and should be opposed because socialism is destructive. (Progressives and Unions go hand in hand and are equally dishonest and destructive.)

Elena Kagan, Just a Gigolette?

Is Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan’s primary qualification that she is an Obama sycophant zombie drone clone? Appears that way. Here's what she had to say about her silver tongued, rock-star, wizard hero:

An intense Elena discussing her 'hero' BHO when he was a senator. She heaps it on quite deeply about his 'truly rock star qualities.' You can imagine the thrill running down her leg. Unfortunately the utube link may not be functioning anymore, it appears. The link may be reestablished but I also add an entertaining video on the topic of Elana K that I just found:





Not that she is bought and paid for; she is just on the same wave length as BHO. Just as Judge Bork was sympathetic toward the constitutional philosophy of Ronald Reagan, Kagan is in accord with the anticonstitutional philosophy of BHO. Is that sufficient reason for conservative senators to oppose her nomination? Political differences alone have been good enough reasons for liberals to oppose Judge Bork and other nominees for the supreme court and courts of appeal. With Kagan, Obama is pulling no punches. She is a blatant rubber stamper for his policies, which conservatives believe to be often at odds with the constitution. If Republicans on the judicial committee are not going to make a stand here then where? Nowhere, I guess.

Republican Lindsey (Goober) Grahm has nothing but praise for the lady. (Goober is the epithet supplied by Mark Levin.) This seems to defy reason. What are conservative voters to think of someone who claims to oppose the socialist policies of the current administration, does not vehemently voice that opposition, and now will not turn that opposition into action with his vote?

Economics of Unemployment Benefits

It is a truism of economics that unemployment is caused by wages being too high. How can that be? Simple: government intervention. Unemployment benefits are only one form of government intervention that prop up wages. Government hiring for work projects is another. We are doing both of these now. Most attempts at regulation in that area distort the market for labor. Labor laws that make it difficult and costly to dismiss workers once hired is a disincentive for business to hire. Uneven labor laws often give business only the option to cave in to union demands or go out of business -- negotiating at the point of a gun as they say. These laws are enacted to support union workers but actually hurt them and other workers. Due to higher labor costs, the level of production is decreased. Therefore, not only are fewer union workers hired, but nonunion hiring is diminished due to lower overall production.

Adjustments of price is the mechanism that allows markets to clear. In order for markets for labor or anything to clear, prices must adjust downward until a buyer comes forward. Labor prices, i. e. wages, are notoriously sticky downward. This is because of reasons outlined above and because of similar government intervention policies.

These are simple and basic economics principles. Even socialist economist, for the most part, agree. The difference is that champions of the free market want market principles to prevail so that we can have sustainable economic functioning and growth. Socialists want to intervene to 'correct' the market. They also favor certain groups to enhance their political power so they can implement more intervention policies. The progressive believes that policies of more and more government intervention will lead to continuing improvement in people's lives. The actual outcome of their policies is increasingly depressed levels of employment and production. Progressives' only remedy is to increase government intervention. This has always led to still worsening conditions. There seems to be no limit to their interventionist economic ideas. They have all proved to be destructive. Ultimately complete or nearly complete loss of liberty can be the only outcome. We have Cuba and North Korea as leading examples.

Unemployment benefits lasting over two years are currently a major impediment to lower wages. (This is obvious, but to state the obvious, many will not want employment if they are paid benefits, which in addition to the value they put on their free time, exceed the amount being offered. Therefore, employers have to offer more to purchase labor.) Employment benefits should be limited and the amounts paid should gradually diminish. Now is the time for choosing freedom and prosperity, not slavery and impoverishment.

Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't

Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.

Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.

Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.

That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)

Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.

Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.

Political Riddle

Q: Why is Barack Husein Obama like a newspaper?


A: They are both black and white and red (read) all over.

Peurto Rican Statehood Favored by Rep. Dicks

I sent an email to the Hon. Norman Dicks (D), my elected representative in the US House. (I posted it to this blog.) His reply was thoughtful and factually correct but I still disagreed with his vote and position.


"Thank you for contacting me with regard to recent legislation that seeks to allow Puerto Ricans to have a clear voice on the political future of the island. I appreciate your comments regarding this important issue.

Congress in 1917 granted U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans, and in 1952, the islands became a U.S. commonwealth ?" a status that has raised legal questions about whether Puerto Ricans have full constitutional rights. Additionally, its residents do not vote for the U.S. president or pay federal income tax on income earned on the islands.

Over the past several years, plebiscites have been conducted to determine the political future of the island. The most recent, conducted in 1993 and 1998, resulted in confusion and frustration as voters were directed to decide between several poorly defined options on a single ballot, with a majority vote necessary to spur any action.

To address past problems with the earlier plebiscites, the elected leadership of Puerto Rico developed a plan that would allow for a possible two votes. First, Puerto Ricans would be asked to decide if they want to remain a commonwealth or to seek a new political designation. Should the first vote result in a decision to change, a second vote would be taken to determine what change Puerto Ricans would prefer - to become an independent nation, to become independent in association with the United States, which would establish legal, economic and defense ties between the two nations, or to petition the U.S. Congress for statehood. Puerto Rico's elected representative to Congress, Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, submitted this plan to Congress for its consideration.

In late April, with my support the House voted to approve the plan. The right of self-determination is a core principle of the United States, and I believe that the American citizens that live in Puerto Rico should be given the ability to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and the Congress.

Some of my constituents have expressed concern that the plebiscites would bind Congress to specific action based on the outcome. Although the outcome of the plebiscites would certainly be an important factor in determining the future of Puerto Rico, it is advisory only. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to make decisions regarding the disposition of U.S. territories, including the admission of new states.

This legislation is now under consideration by the Senate. Should it return to the House for any reason, please be assured I will recall your comments."


My response:

"It seems to me that the ballot options that you outline for the Puero Rican voters are confusing and limit their options. This is what you said was wrong with previous proposals. It seems to me that the voters in Puerto Rica should be given the option of petitioning for statehood or not so petitioning. If the vote is no, as it has been in the past, then a new vote could decide if a majority prefers some other option over the status quo. In this way the majority would prevail and any other option to be considered could have a fair hearing. The schema that you describe, which was my understanding as well, forces a decision among three options (if the second ballot is reached) with no option for returning to the status quo. Before abandoning the status quo, the consequences of the other options should be clearly explained. Would a majority vote be required for any option to prevail, and would the status quo be the default?

Except to deceive the people and confound their will, I see no reason for the proposed schema. Perhaps political interests had designed the previous plebiscites to be biased toward maintaining independence. The real problem with the past plebiscites was that the vote did not go the way certain US political interests desired. Now they have redesign one with the opposite bias. Such plebiscites are a corruption of the democratic process that are well known in the history of tyranny. Our own constitutional system is not immune and a free press along with eternal vigilance are our only defenses.

The schema proposed by the Puerto Rican leadership and the US Senate is reminiscent of the underhanded method used for Hawaiian statehood, in which the queen conspired with strong US interests to surrender sovereignty. This was not in keeping with the will of the Hawaiian people but statehood had US political and industrial backing. Therefore the plan was hatched and executed before there could be affective objection.

Thank you for your attention and for your response to my original message."

My message to the Representative did not address an important issue. This vote by the house was taken with nearly no public notice. There was no public debate in the press and in fact nearly no debate in the House. Ron Paul abstained because even he didn't know what it was about. He was angry when he was told that the Democrats, in collusion with Peurto Rican factions, were conspiring to sneak this through because they could be assured of buying the majority of P.R. votes with promised largess from public funds(such as they are).

Elena Kagen and the Primacy of the Law

The title of this post does not refer to a book or law review article written by the Supreme Court nominee. It refers to something that she does not understand.

There are two books that the nominee should read:

Bureaucracy , by Ludvig von Mises (the full text is on line at von Mises Institute.), and

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. (a very short book written in 1850 in France. See other references to Bastiat on this blog).

Since I do not have time to give justice to this topic, I will give only two quotes. Please refer to the two short books, which say it all far better that this writer ever could.


"Primacy of the law means that no judge or officeholder has the right to interfere with any individual’s affairs or conditions unless a valid law requires or empowers him to do so. Nulla poena sine lege. No punishment unless ordered by a law. It is precisely the inability of the Nazis to understand the importance of this fundamental principle that qualifies them as antidemocratic. In the totalitarian system of Hitler Germany the judge has to come to his decision according to das gesunde Volksempfinden, i.e., in accordance with the sound feelings of the people. As the judge himself has to decide what the sound feelings of the people are, he is sovereign on his bench like the chieftain of a primitive tribe." von Mises, Op. Cite

"Justice Means Equal Rights." Bastiat, this is the title of a section of The Law.

The point is that the law is not decided with reference to personal goals for society. Otherwise, why aren't my own goals based upon my own ideology as good as anyone's? BHO's and presumably his nominee, Elena Kagen's ideology is Hegelian Dialectic Materialism. Mine is free enterprise and freedom in general. Theirs leads to forced redistribution to makes everyone equal. My leads to everyone, rich or poor, being treated equally under the law. Now is the time for choosing which direction to go.

What We Never Wanted to Know about Politics but Were Forced to Find Out

This post is about "Government by Crisis." It should not be necessary. Anyone with the least political savvy, and it's hard to avoid having a little now days, should already know what it is all about. Yet still Barrack Husein Obama comes on the radio (I don't watch TV) and says: "Now look! these (fill in the blank) caused the mess we're in and now they don't want us to fix it. The few common sense measures in this legislation (of 3,000 pages) will prevent (fill in the blank) in the future. Don't worry. Pass this bill, It will save us from... (whatever)."

This was the tactic used for the bank bail-outs, auto take-overs, health care take-over, student loan program take-over, etc. It is being used this minute for the Wall Street Regulation, (or take-over?), bill. It will be used for internet and other media control and/or bailout and for Cap-and-Trade. BHO has a solution for any crisis (or pseudo crisis that the Central Committee can invent). All we have to do is surrender some more liberty (and money). As Ben F. said, "Those who surrender freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security."

That is why the Tea Party Movement says that this is a "Time for Choosing:" liberty or otherwise.

By the way, I think that BHO's slow response to the Gulf oil leak was because it took him by surprise. He and the Central Committee did not yet have a plan to exploit that crisis. If it got worse while they waited, all the better. Anyway, it shows that oil is bad, and that is good... whatever.

Internet Unprotected from Spies: We Need Obama Ware Now

Regarding the arrests recently announced of individuals in a Russian spy ring, I was surprised to hear so many average Americans question why Russia needs to spy on the USA. Aside from being a naïve question in a world that has lately become so unstable, Russia (at least the Soviet Union) has never needed much of a reason. They have inquiring minds. Being nearly obsessed with current domestic political activities, my first response was that the Russians had forgotten how to do Communism so they were here to learn how to reinstate it back home.

To answer a few of the basic factual questions, consult the NY Times article from June 30, 2010, at:

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/russian_spy_ring_2010/index.html


This article states among other things:


"June 27, 2010, 10 people in Yonkers, Boston and northern Virginia were arrested and accused of being part of a Russian espionage ring, living under false names and deep cover ... scheme to penetrate ... American "policy making circles."
… identity borrowed from a dead Canadian, forged passports, messages sent by shortwave burst transmission or in invisible ink. A money cache
… cutting-edge gadgetry, deep knowledge of American culture and meticulously constructed cover stories.
…collect routine political gossip and policy talk...
… The court documents detailed what the authorities called the "Illegals Program," … to plant Russian spies in the United States to gather information and recruit more agents.
… used cyber-age technology, according to the charges ... embedded coded texts in ordinary-looking images posted on the Internet, and they communicated by having two agents pass casually with laptops containing special software flashed messages between them.
…They were directed to gather information on nuclear weapons, American policy toward Iran, C.I.A. leadership, Congressional politics and many other topics, according to prosecutors...
… agents often spend years just developing a fake life story, known in Russian as a "legend," ... the K.G.B. would often keep an agent in place abroad for years or even decades before he or she was able to gather useful information."


This should pretty much explain things, at least as well as we will ever know.

Russia has long been known for setting up “illegal," i.e. without diplomatic cover, spies and networks around the world, even in friendly countries, for future contingencies. A “legend” is like a cover story but more in-depth and for long term purposes. It is a complete false identity. A cover story is more of a task or mission oriented fake motive for being somewhere or doing something. These illegals may have no definite purpose. They might be placed where they would have access to financial executives, scientists, or military officers. Sometimes they might recruit agents with special access to confidential information. Sometimes they only keep taps on things. Setting up secret contacts and communications within the network are important steps because in emergencies or hostilities they need to be ready. There also are “agents of influence” who have media, industry, government, or other influential positions where they can promote US domestic policies helpful to their foreign masters. (Of course the British, French, US, Chinese, and everyone else does this to a certain extent.) Source of my information: the novels of John Le Carré (See his personal web cite for his readings and spy info.)

Returning to current domestic political shenanigans, my question is why has the government taken action now? Why have they “rolled up” this network, which the NY Times says has been in place for over ten years? References to the internet and “laptops with special software,” make me wonder if this is not part of the push for government control of the internet. It's such a threat, you know what they will be saying: "Look, This is unacceptable ... unsustainable .. a security crisis... With these simple security precautions in place, I will make you safe...blah, blah, blah."

We’ll just wait and see.

Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate

I sent Art Bell the following:

"As soon as I have the time, I will put a new post on my blog: Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate. My website is called chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com. Pardon the name. I started it chiefly because of the direction things were going. However, it is not an angry website. If anyone is angry about your program tonight, it is because the alternative global warming view is entirely ignored, or mischaracterized. Long ago, we were promised a scientific debate but the proponents debated themselves then declared that the debate was over and we lost.

I realize that Coast to Coast has been great in presenting both sides. I have listened ever since some guy called in about bats i his bedroom about 15 years ago. George Noory especially does a better job than anyone on the air with presenting both sides of all disputed issues. (By the way, man-made global warming is disputed.) So I would ask you to have a rebuttal program yourself. Hearing both sides is only fair."

Art was filling in on Coast to Coast AM for George Norry. I used to agree with most of his views, but tonight, he is off his rocker! The guest, the head of the National Wildlife Foundation was a real global warmy. He said the same old things that we have been hearing for years, as if no arguments to the contrary had ever been advanced. Of course, tonight he talks a lot about the Gulf Oil Spill. Likewise, he does not address the claims that regulations that stopped drilling in safer places helped to cause the spill. He mentions that Republicans and older people are just unable to understand the obvious and are obstructing progress, by which he means cap-and-trade legislation. He does not mention the accusations that PB is a very Democrat leaning company that favored cap-and-trade and donated a million to BHO's campaign.

They do not address the cost of cap-and-trade. They do not mention any alternative defense against global warming, if there is any, man-made or otherwise. They certainly do not mention the massive graft, greed, and conflicts of interest of the cap-and-trade proponents. They question, without phrasing it as such, the value of our constitutional form of government. They do not question the cost to liberty. Art goes along with it all, hook, line, and sinker! He wants "this" done now, by whatever means it takes. I couldn't believe it, he was totally off the deep end.

They ignore the arguments against cap-and-trade. That's nothing new; they only get away with it because of their virtual control of the press. So much can be said about the attitude of the guest (is he a god of the copybook heading?) but I have already said it. I guess it must be repeated. ... to be continued.

The Overton Window continuing reveiw: Quo Bono Libertas?

It could be argued that I, as a fan and a reader of about half the 150 odd books in the Destroyer series, know nothing of literature. Be that as it may, the more I read The Overton Window, the more I like it. The protagonist is something like the Remo Williams character of Destroyer fame. Between moments of action there is his ruminations and his awakening sense of responsibility and a tinge of guilt. He ends his first such session of soul searching by admitting to himself that questions arise in his public relations assignments that he would be wise not to find the answers to. I am only to page 49 but I believe that the moralizing inner dialogs of Noah, the principal protagonist, will come up again. They are a good vehicle for filling the reader in on details that occurred before the narrative began and for showing changes in Noah's outlook.

The book cover seems perfect to me also. What appears to be the statue of liberty is viewed from behind. The cobalt blue duo tone is a dusk scene with a flock of birds passing in front of a cloudy sky and a NY city scape. The statue seems to gaze over the forboding scene as the sun sets (or is it rising?) However, it is not the Statue of liberty. It is a male figure whose right hand holds aloft liberty's torch, the symbol of her wisdom. His left hand does not hold Liberty's book but holds a spear. I and other book purchasers, of course, do not know the significance of these things. We want to read on and find out. Could the statue be the embodiment of the Gods of the Copybook Heading? Could it be Noah, who eventually will turn away from the heartless pursuits of power of his father and of his progressive clients? Could it be Glenn himself?

For what it's worth, isn't there a quotation regarding an earlier French statue depicting Liberty. Something about, "Oh what crimes are committed in your name!"

Glenn's grinning visage on the back cover is also perfect.

The State is not God

All we are saying is Give Freedom a Chance.

The defense of Liberty is Always Extreme.

Silent no More.

The Truth Shall Make us Free.


Just thought I would throw out a few slogans.

On Starting to Read Overton Window

I have only read about 25 pages. My first four impressions of Glenn Beck's new book are:

1) The writing technique is top notch. Character development and the early introduction of plot elements is excellent. I do not know how much Glenn actually wrote but the book's beginning is a polished example of the political and financial thriller. The seemingly overworked premises comes across as very original due to it's grand scale if nothing else. The character who is apparently going to be the villain puts Goldfinger or Captain Nemo to shame with his global vision of destruction and vast cynicism. Also, by the first few pages, a hero and heroine, (who will soon be in love), emerge to save the world from its dire danger.

2) Public relations is part of the plot. Not the way that an advertising company is part of the setting as in Dorothy Sayers, Murder Must Advertise, but almost precisely as Hollywood was an important part of the plot of Wag the Dog. The PR firm is hired by the government to advance its plans (and cover its ass). It is in fact the top PR executive who tells the 'progressive' government bureaucrats how nefarious their plans actually are. Nevertheless, he's up for the job. The PR angle fits well with Glenn's nonfiction radio and TV narrative, which contains a strong element of condemnation of the press for their willingness to be blatant propagandists.

3) This book is extremely scary. The scenario is too near reality. Glenn pulls no punches regarding his opinion of the extreme crisis situation that the world in the book, and in reality, finds itself in.

4) Lastly, the book is funny. Within the first dozen pages there were five or six subtly comical lines. The humor of the interplay of the male and female protagonist, lightens the tone somewhat.

If the book does not bog down or become overly preachy, it should be a big hit. In any case it will open some eyes and maybe even some minds.

Gods of the Copybook Headings

Glenn Beck's book joins the growing genre of anti-totalitarian fiction books. Actually, the borders of the genre merges with the 'non-fictional' accounts such as, Darkness at Noon, Out of the Night, I Chose Freedom, and Witness. The Overton Window, by Glenn Beck is also advertised as a thriller. This blog would feature a book report if the blogger were not too tired (or lazy) to read the book anytime soon. (He will try.)

($14.99 at Costco)

The connection with Rudyard Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Heading is intriguing. There are interesting explanations of that poem at Literature Network Forums:


http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14755&highlight=gods+copybook

General Petraeus Takes a Nap

The major news media has reported that General David Petraeus fainted during a Senate conference. Watching the video, it does not appear to be exactly correct. He may have just nodded off. Since Senator McCain was speaking at the time, boredom was the probable cause of the generals sleepiness. Indeed, soldiers from time in memorial have been known to fall asleep in just about any circumstance. Recruits in training, who might be running, marching, or doing calisthenics out in the elements, inevitable fall asleep when they are herded into an auditorium for a class. The drill instructors themselves nod off unless they remain active walking around waking people up.

High ranking officers also fall asleep during briefings and classes. Not getting enough sleep is of course the main reason but also boredom from having hearing the same thing so many times contributes. They usually are left to sleep. Listening to presentations by non-military official is probably the hardest thing for a soldier to take. The main issue to the military mind is what to do next. Civilians briefings are usually highly irrelevant to that immediate practical concern. General von Hindenburg at the Brest-Litovsk negotiations performed the most famous snooze. The doplomats finally had to wake him up to ask why he insisted on occupation of the Baltic countries as part of any cease fire agreement. He stated that Germany needed it for the army's left flank in the next war. He then resumed his nap.

Incidentally, the name Petreaus is somewhat similar to Paulus. Besides starting with 'P', they both have latinized endings. Both generals commanded a large army in the farthest eastern advance of their respective forces. General Paulus of course commanded the 20 division strong 6th German Army in the attack of Stalingrad. After months of heroic efforts, 6th Army succeeded is taking Stalingrad for the most part. However, it became trapped when Russian offensives cut through his flanks and rear. General Paulus' chief failings were thinking like an overly bureaucratic staff officer and trusting Adolph Hitler. General Petraeus commands in Afghanistan. He has not suffered the fate of General Field Marchall Paulus (or of the British in Afghanistan for that matter). It occurs to this writer to ponder how he would escape from Afghanistan if Pakistan fell in an Islamic coupe.