I'm not really a big fan of Sean Hannity, but he did give James Dobson (who I'm not a big fan of) a lot of time to make his case for not endorsing Rudy Giuliani (who I'm also not a real big fan of). So why am I posting about this? Because this is where the GOP is right now, fractured and IMHO a sinking ship. The social conservatives are just the latest to make noises on bailing out on them.
If the conservative Christians are as powerful as they believe, then why can't they put their full weight behind a second-tier candidate who is pro-life (Brownback, Huckabee, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, Keyes) and bring them to the front of the tier? If they are so influential in the political arena, they should be able to promote this candidate enough to soar them to the top.
The lack of top tier candidates at the recent "Values Voters" debates would seem to indicate that they are the constituency that can be ignored. The last candidate the social conservatives had an effect on was probably Ronald Reagan. Bush wasn't their number one pick in '88, neither was Dole in '96, and I believe GW Bush was nominated by social conservatives with huge reservations. To his credit, GW did come through with his Supreme Court nominations but only after massive blowback from the Harriet Miers nomination.
Did you know that if you are leaving this country and you have more than $10,000 in cash on you have to let the government know?
So began an almost two-year battle between Zapeta and the U.S. government over whether he is legally entitled to the money after failing to declare that he was carrying more than $10,000 in U.S. currency out of the country, as the law requires. In January, a U.S. District Judge ruled the government could keep all the money but $10,000, which is to be returned to Zapeta. The case is under appeal.
Which brings up interesting legal questions. Zapeta came into this country illegally, what if he had claimed that the $60k that he had on hand was what he brought into this country? Would that money still have been subject to forfeiture? If everything he earned wasn't legal, why was the government saying he could keep $10k. Why don't they keep the whole thing?
The Norwegians are from a show called Rikets Røst, which looks like a combination of The Daily Show and the Aussie show The Chaser. That’s all the introduction you need, I think, aside from a cursory strong language warning:
Liv has a new PSA out. Now the last time I heard a hot girl say "choice between douche and turd sandwich" we were partying and the next thing I remember was ending up in a hotel room in Mexico, 18 hours later, waking up in a bathtub full of ice and missing a kidney. Those were good times.
First Read has learned that Ron Paul has raised more than $5 million: $5,080,000 to be exact. They don't have the total number or donors just yet or the exact average donation, but the campaign tells First Read that "last quarter was a $40 average donation; that trend appears to have continued."
Ron Paul's campaign confirms that it raised $5,080,000 in the third quarter. That's more than double the campaign's second quarter haul of $2.4 million, and as much as "comeback" candidate John McCain has reportedly raised.
By the power of grayskull I hope this train doesn't stop.
For part one of Reaction from the Values Voters Debate see here
It is amazing how many people seem to think that the government exists to turn their prejudices into laws. -Thomas Sowell
A do gooder is a do gooder is a do gooder. Janet Folger suffers from the same syndrome that liberals who want to cure poverty, eliminate racism, and tackle global warming suffer from. That is the belief that government can solve all of the ills of society. It cannot, you cannot legislate morality the same way you cannot legislate eliminating poverty.
Prohibition was an attempt to legislate morality (how far from being a free society have we come? At one time a Constitutional amendment was deemed required to tell our citizens that a particular behavior was not going to be tolerated.) What it ended up doing was enriching organized crime. It certainly didn't stop people from consuming alchohol. What do we have to show for the billions spent on the war on drugs? The EXACT SAME THING. The illicit drug trade is a multibillion dollar underground industry. Legislating laws against it haven't stopped drug use. In addition, you could make the argument that a negative consequence of our strategy on the war on drugs is creation of a condition similar to our military industrial complex. There is an incentive not to change our strategy (with no regard for efficacy) because to do so would affect the special interests that benefit from our current strategy in our war on drugs (primarily government itself).
So just how powerful is the "Values Voters" coalition? The so called top tier of the GOP deemed them not powerful enough to not ignore them. Stated threats this week to back a third party didn't even meet the threshold for the flashing siren on Drudgereport. But keep in mind that the GOP has been a sinking ship for a number of years, for Christian conservatives to leave the party is a little like being odd man out on getting to the lifeboats.
The GOP has been hemorrhaging membership for years because of runaway spending, massive increases in entitlements, loss of privacy for its citizens, a nearly incoherent foreign policy, and all around incompetence and cronyism. Bush can hang his legacy hat on the tax cuts, his immediate reaction to 9/11, and his Supreme Court nominees (he almost missed out on this one, remember Harriet Miers?). Anything else? With a majority in Congress for so many years there should have been.
If social conservatism cannot be imposed by government fiat what is the alternative?
It's a good thing we have full-time legislatures in this country. With no fewer than 2 wars currently being prosecuted and massive deficit spending, the House, Senate, and SF Board of Supervisors have decided to spend their time tackling the important issues: radio talk shows.
The Republicans are just as bad - but I can't find the link. Yesterday, they passed a resolution supporting Limbaugh. Why are we paying these people? Now - don't get me wrong, the more time they waste on this, the less time they can be spending on passing more laws, which is good. But, is this really how the government should be spending its time? It makes me want to write a letter condemning their waste of resources... if only I had time. Unlike the politicians, I actually have to work for a living.
A couple of weeks ago, there was a GOP debate (more of a Q and A really) that had questions from the leaders of the "Values Voters". The distinguished questioners included Phyllis Schlafly (I'm a big fan of hers), and Joseph Farah (editor in chief of worldnetdaily.com). Worldnetdaily.com has literally been a daily stop for over a decade on my tour of websites that I frequent to get my fix since I'm an information junkie. You can watch the whole thing online here.
Janet Folger was also one of the panelists and has written her reaction and endorsement for President here. Here is what she said about Dr. Paul:
Here's what I saw: While he's been a courageous defender of the Constitution, Ron Paul had too many wrong answers at the Values Voter Debate to receive our support. Save your angry e-mails until you've seen the video of his podium lit "red" with "no votes" while everyone else voted "yes" to questions about whether they would protect disabled patients like Terri Schiavo from a starvation death, agree to prosecute all violators of the federal obscenity law, and support a trade policy with China contingent on improved human rights and quality standards.
Joe Glover of the Family Policy Network clarified it further when he asked Paul: "Many libertarians oppose laws against same-sex marriage, prostitution, and illegal drugs. Do you share this view?" Go watch it for yourself at http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/. His answer was "yes," he's a libertarian and doesn't think the government has any business protecting marriage and human life. It was Thomas Jefferson who best outlined the role of government when he said, "The care of human life and not its destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Mr. Paul, to protect human life is the only reason government exists – even if that human life is disabled and unable to ask for food and water themselves.
Same sex marriage, prostitution, abortion, illegal drugs. These are all issues that are of obvious importance to social conservatives (otherwise questions on these issues wouldn't have been asked multiple times). But what this much neglected wing of the GOP fails to recognize is that the tool with which they want to impose their values on others is the same tool that can and has been used against them by people who have different viewpoints.
Abortion is the classic case. By Supreme Court fiat, abortion was made legal across the country. Did individual states get to make the decision on their own by voting on it? Not at all. Is it the place of the individual states to make choices on life or death issues? Yes, states decide whether or not they can impose the death penalty. Why not abortion? What Roe vs. Wade did was take away the right and power of individual states to decide whether they wanted to kill babies or not. It sounds crude but it's true. How many innocents have died because of that usurpation of states rights by the federal government? Millions.
What Ron Paul advocates is returning the power of making the decision on whether abortion is legal or not to the states. Let them make the choice for themselves.
The "values voters" raise so many important issues. I'm going continue this in another post.
A personal hero of mine has his memoirs out this week. "My Grandfather's Son" is Clarence Thomas writing about his life. As part of the media blitz, Jan Crawford Greenburg writes a multipart story for ABC news based on the book and 7 hours of interviews with the current Supreme Court justice.
Sixteen years after the bitter confirmation hearings that would forever put the name "Anita Hill" in any story written about him, Thomas remains one of the most compelling and divisive figures in public life. That is both ironic and inevitable for a man who, on the surface, appears to be a study in conflicts. He is black, but a conservative. He is contrarian and independent, but wants deeply to connect with people. He holds a job he never wanted, but has strong ideas about how to do it. He fiercely protects his privacy, but has written a book that is intensely personal and, at times, anguished.
The stories by Jan Greenburg are enlightening because Justice Thomas is fiercely protective of his private life. His formative years growing up in the South when it was transitioning from the Jim Crow era to integration are particularly interesting. His grandfather would make him stand up in weekly NAACP meetings to read his grades aloud. As a black activist in college, he admired Malcolm X.
Part one of eight segments by Greenburg is here. (Along with video)
It looks like Dr. Paul's campaign will hit a million dollars in online donations within the next few hours. This does not include any contributions mailed in or from fundraisers. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the MSM. The pace set by Ron Paul's campaign this week puts him squarely in the range of John Edwards, Mike Richardson, and probably John McCain.
The end of the 3rd quarter is coming up and with a goal set this past Monday to reach $500,000 in online donations by Monday October 1st, Dr. Paul supporters surpassed that goal in 3 days. This showed up in my inbox from the campaign:
Frankly, I'm floored. And very, very grateful. Our $500,000 online fundraising goal for the end of the quarter was reached so fast it took my breath away. But we can't stop now. So I am raising the bar to $1 million by midnight, September 30th. I am so grateful for all you have done. Would you help me with this?
Whenever I face a hit piece on tv, or a smear in a newspaper column, I remember my secret weapon: you. In establishment politics, people make campaign contributions because they want something: a contract, a subsidy, a special-interest deal. But the thousands of people who contribute to this campaign want no favors from big government -- which must come at the expense of their fellow citizens, and sometimes our soldiers' lives. They want only what is their God-given, natural, and constitutional right: their freedom.
What a difference from the other campaigns. What a refreshing change from politics as usual. What a sign of the reborn American freedom that can be ours, and our children's, and our grandchildren's.
Aggressive wars, income taxes, national IDs, domestic spying, torture regimes, secret prisons, Federal Reserve manipulation -- we don't have to take it any more.
And the next step to not taking it is that $1 million goal. Please give www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ as much as you can, before midnight on Sunday, September 30th.
There are two reasons: 1) We need the money. As we move into the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, then South Carolina, California, Texas, and all the rest, we need your support. We can't duplicate the spending of the big boys, and we don't have to, thanks to the internet and our magnificent army of volunteers.
But we need constant website improvements, phone banks, voter registration and get out the vote efforts, mailings, travel, printings, many small offices, targeted TV and radio ads, legal and accounting help, and 101 other things. And without donors like you, we can't do a darn thing.
2) I want to make the mainstream media sit up and take notice. They did when we beat John McCain for cash-on-hand in the last quarter. This quarter, we can really shock them -- if you help. Our total can show the sort of enthusiasm, organization, and grassroots support that will chill every big-government backer, and warm the heart of every lover of freedom -- and open the eyes of the media.
Please, help me win a victory for liberty with your most generous gift. You and I are engaged in an historic enterprise. It is growing in power and influence by the day and by the hour. But it will stutter to a stop without people like you. I need your help. Our cause needs your help. We can make $1 million. We can win this thing. Please help me do it. See our progress and donate�today:� http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ .
A hot blonde who likes to walk around in her underwear, drinks beer, advocates free market economics, is against the welfare state and supports Ron Paul? If I weren't emotionally unavailable because of my past relationships (which were all based on the physical anyway, since I'm so ridiculously rich and handsome) I'd be in love:
Check out Liv's myspace here. And her blog with other vids here.
Pat Buchanan weighs in on Ahmadinejad and his visit to the US this week:
It would be an obscenity, we are told, if Ahmadinejad were allowed to place a wreath at Ground Zero. This is a public relations stunt that should never be permitted.
That the Iranian president has PR in mind is undoubtedly true. Much of what national leaders do is symbolic. But that wreath-laying would have said something else, as well.
It would have said that, to Iran, these Americans were victims who deserve to be honored and mourned and, by extension, the men who killed them were murderers. Bin Laden celebrates 9-11. So do all America-haters. By laying a wreath at Ground Zero, the president of Iran would be saying that in the war between al-Qaida and the United States, he and his country side with the United States.
Which I can't say I disagree with. The rhetoric we've heard from Bush since his "Axis of Evil" speech has been one of provocation. But does Iran represent a direct threat to us? Maybe to our military that is in Iraq he is, but follow Pat's reasoning on what would compel Iran to seek nuclear weapons:
After seeing what America did to its non-nuclear neighbor Iraq, which had done nothing to America, and after hearing Bush call them an axis-of-evil nation and prime candidate for U.S. pre-emptive strikes, a not-unreasonable ayatollah might conclude they need nuclear weapons, or the Americans will be dictating to them forever.
So I made a prediction a few months back about the economy collapsing like a house of cards. The ensuing months has seen a lot of turbulence with the Fed cutting rates and making more credit available, the shakeout from the subprime mortgage market not being over, the growing trend of weakness of the dollar versus the Euro. The real inflation rate being pegged at around 10-15 percent. We are witnessing a perfect storm brewing. It isn't going to be pretty.
Turns out I'm not the only one, some anonymous parties are wagering that the economy is going to tank (via Money Morning):
Insiders trade when they know something. They’re not supposed to, but they do anyway. It’s just a fact of life.
Most of the time, it’s pretty petty-ante stuff, but occasionally a trade comes along that makes even jaded professionals like me sit up and take notice.
Just such a trade surfaced last Wednesday when anonymous parties agreed to buy and sell 120,000 SPY September call options using deep-in the-money strikes ranging from 60 to 95.
What does all that mean? The people behind this transaction are betting that by September 21st, the S&P will be trading between 600 and 950. It closed at 1519 yesterday, which is a drop between 35-60%. The article goes further and talks about possible motivations for the trade (I think the China dumping dollars scenario is VERY plausible).
For the longest time, I just didn't think that Jon Stewart was very funny. I still don't but what he has done is become court jester and he does get to ask questions that no one gets to ask. This is a really good but all too brief interview with ex-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan whose book "The Age of Turbulence" has just been released.
This reminds me of a Southpark episode I saw recently:
The Rainbow Family literally are a bunch of hippies who have an annual "Gathering of the Tribes" in Colorado. While I could care less what hippies do or how they live their lives what piqued my interest was this little nugget from the New West:
The Rainbowers refuse to sign the USFS's free permit for gatherings of 75 or more people, saying "Our permit is the First Amendment."
That's awesome and proves the adage about even a clock being right twice a day.
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I have been a fan of Dr. Keyes because he's a Constitutional scholar who has taken consistent positions on following the founding father's advice on limited federal government. In fact, his article "On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says" is one of the most eloquent defense of states rights that I have read. I forward it to people all the time. His short lived MSNBC show was a favorite of mine (it was the first time I had ever heard anyone make a Constitutional argument for putting the military to work on the border).
On the other hand, when he runs for office, he's like Susan Lucci, the Buffalo Bills, and the dude who just wants to be friends with chicks because eventually they'll grow to be attracted to him all rolled into one. They all never get to grab the brass ring. He lost to Obama for the Illinois Senate seat by capturing only 30% of the vote (Obama literally got the other 70%).
_____________
I don't make any secret about where my vote and support is going, and maybe if Dr. Paul weren't running I'd throw my vote to Dr. Keyes. But Alan Keyes just doesn't generate the same sort of visceral reaction that Dr. Paul gets (good and bad). Hearing Dr. Ron Paul's message sounds right. When he takes a position say on the war on drugs, he defends it by saying that yes, there may be negative consequences to ending the drug war. But, following Ben Franklin's timeless dictum "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." What price in liberty have we paid for "safety" in the war on drugs? On the war on terror? Maybe the reason that people are flocking to his campaign realize we are getting to the point where we are ending up with neither liberty or safety.
______________
When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.
Dr. Paul has always said that it is the message that is important. To see someone say things on national TV what I have thought for years literally makes my jaw drop, and I never get tired of hearing it. Apparently I'm not the only one.
I don't know how he's been able to stay on the air for so long. But he has outlasted Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Richard Bey, and about a half dozen other talk shows. On top of that, he's married to Connie Chung. Cameltap has a list of the 10 ten moments from Maury Povich. Here is my personal favorite and their #2:
New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick today defended his controversial warrantless wiretapping program in a combative press conference, calling the practice "an essential tool in the war on other teams."
He goes on:
There are teams out there that hate our way of life, our way of winning and are bent on defeating us. We must take any and all measures to avoid that outcome.
No Bill, people don't hate you because of your way of life. People hate you because your cameras are over there...
I do, my roommate woke me up and had the TV turned on. The first tower had just been hit. The first word out of my mouth after watching the news I said under my breath was "bastards". My first thought was we were under attack. There's no such thing as "accidently" running into a 110 story building. I showered, got into my car and drove to work. I don't remember if I hit the usual traffic on the freeway. It seems to me that I was listening to the news on the radio the whole way down and really wasn't observing what was going on around me.
Getting to the office, that's all everyone was talking about. The news of the second tower getting hit was coming around so a group of us went to the gym that was downstairs to watch the TV in front of the treadmill. News of the plane that was hijacked and eventually crash into the ground in Pennsylvania was coming around as well as the plane that was flown into the Pentagon. We were hit, and hit hard. The enormity of the events hadn't really sunk in for me yet, but the dread and uncertainty that I felt that day I haven't felt since.
Eventually, we were all allowed to go home. It must have been around 10 am. I remember a friend of mine who is in the military calling me. She had just heard the news from the phone tree that put her and her unit on alert. She would eventually serve a year in Iraq and survive an IED attack and ambush on her convoy. Thankfully, she wasn't injured or captured.
So here we are, 6 years later. The "War on Terror" rages on, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, but mostly here. The debate in this country among the political classes isn't even about Al Qaida anymore. It's whether the "surge" is working or not. It's whether Congress should keep funding the military operations in Iraq. It's how much of our civil liberties have we given up in exchange for "safety".
--------------
What's lost in all the chatter is how come after all this time, Bin Laden is still sending IM's to the world. Apparently $50 million isn't enough to have his head handed to us on a platter. Shouldn't we keep raising the bounty on his head a la Mel Gibson's character in "Ransom" til someone fedex's us his rotting head? I keep getting told we are the richest country in the world. Shouldn't his ransom be up to about a billion dollars by now? That's chump change to us.
Pavarotti died this week. Not that I'm a follower or fan of opera, but if he's famous enough and respected enough around the world that his passing made headlines around the world, I thought I'd see what the big deal was about:
That was awesome. Here he is with James Brown!?!?:
Tara reads books (not real books like "Basic Economics" or "The Federal Mafia" or "The Supremacists" but she's a chick, so she has books about interpreting dreams and stuff. I'll give her a pass anyway.)
My intention is not to bump Maximus's drug war post, since I think the discussion is very important and relevant. However, this was too good to pass up.
This is Miss Teen USA 2007. To be fair, this is a hard question, but to be more fair, she is an idiot.
And we wonder why the terrorists hate us. Hint - its because our women are educated AND hot!
In a thread on a forum I regularly visit, there was a discussion about the "War on Drugs". I thought it would be interesting to bring that discussion here.
It is telling in how far away we have come from the idea of a free country, of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, the rule of law, and the Constitution that in less than 100 years, a federal mandate that would LIMIT something that our citizens could do was deeemed radical enough to require a Constitutional amendment. The 18th amendment effectively made illegal the consumption of alchohol. That experiment in social engineering from central planning lasted all of 13 years. Mercifully, it was repealed by the 21st amendment.
What about today? Where is the amendment for the "War on Drugs"? Did Congress declare war? I must have missed it. One could argue that for the amount of taxpayer money that has been spent on this war, our return on investment has been negligible. Now, I will concede that it is a noble undertaking to protect people from the devestating effects of drug abuse, but at what price? Is it even the place of our federal government to take on such a fight? How much liberty have we exchanged for the promise of security?
A thought just occured to me that this is an interesting companion to CMStrapz post about Bush and dictatorships.
According to this article, Zimbabwe faces a total collapse within the next few months. Africa is for the most part a craphole anyway. But Zimbabwe, at one time, was on the upswing. It had a strong, growing economy, and was a net exporter of agricultural goods.
That all changed when Robert Mugabe established his dictatorship. He is an avowed Marxist, and he has held power since the 80's, but in recent years he has put into effect a number of programs whose results are all too predictable. A couple of classic examples:
Redistributing private property - he confiscated farms (primarily white-owned and farmers) and gave them to his cronies (generally non farmers). Result: Zimbabwe went from being the "breadbasket of Africa" to a place where people are literally dying in the streets from hunger.
Price controls - mandating pricing of goods and services does not work: "he ordered businesses to cut prices 50 percent and more – supposedly, so people could shop. At least 5,000 resisting business owners and managers were fined and jailed; taxi drivers had vehicles impounded. When stores sold out, producers couldn't afford to import or produce more, so shelves stayed empty. Businesses closed; commerce stopped."
There are other examples that you can look at but the bottom line is this: Mugabe brought this upon himself, his failed Marxist ideology brought this upon himself. He's had 30 years of imposing misery on his people and that's 30 years too many. I hope the next regime learns from his mistakes (unlikely, given the areas history, but I'm an optimist). Oh yeah, if things remain true to form, Mugabe will end up like most dictators. Like this guy, or this guy or this guy. It would be asking way too much if he ended up like this guy.
--------------
I don't think we are close to having a dictatorship in this country, but who knows? The optimist tells me that wouldn't happen here because a) people still believe in the rule of law and b) there are way too many guns out there (thank god for the Second Amendment). But isn't that how things like that happen? Doesn't it sneak up on a country and reveal itself once it's in power?
Being a ridiculously handsome and charming man, I know what it's like to constantly have people calling and texting. You know inviting you out, what's happening, me and my sorority are having a lingerie show, we want you to be the judge. All of that. It's obscene being so popular.
Anyway, I can relate to this chick. This woman got her first i-phone bill recently, it was 300 PAGES and cost ATT 10 dollars to mail to her:
Here's a clip from the local news station that gives some more background:
35,000 text messages a month?!? Even my imaginary friends don't have that much to say. Except, things like stop texting me, and the judge said that you have to stay at least 500 feet away at all times.
Tommy Thompson, pledged today on his Iowa barnstorming campaign tour to end breast cancer by 2015 and outlined a plan to accomplish this goal.
Analysis:
Thompson, a man with no formal medical training, claims that he will cure breast cancer. Perhaps more ludicrous: He claims that he can become president.
Update: Because of his less than stellar showing at the Iowa Straw Poll this weekend, Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race Monday.
According to this article, there has been no evidence of global warming for the last several years because "natural forces" have offset the effects of global warming. This delicate balance will be upset over the next couple of years, as global warming begins "in earnest" in 2009.
Based on my reading of the article, it looks like they used the actual data for the past several years to go back and generate revised forecasts, which now support their contention that 2009 is the magic year where "natural forces" will no longer offset global warming.
It must be nice to never, ever be wrong. I wish that when the data didn't support my conclusions, I could go back and revise my data. No - it's not that global warming is a total fabrication designed to redistribute wealth from the United States to the 3rd world, it's just that "natural forces" have prevented the symptoms from manifesting.
In other news, George Bush has declared that based on the actual data obtained from the war in Iraq, the mission is not technically accomplished as he said in 2003, but it will be in 2009. Just wait and see.*
This is the first article (but probably not the last) where China is making overt threats about selling its holdings in US currency:
He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.
"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.
"China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar," he told China Daily.
It's all coming together, at some point on the "event horizon" (I'm guessing September or October) there will be an economic collapse unlike anything we've seen since the Great Depression. Some additional opinion courtesy of Randolphus Maximus (booyah!!).:
The subprime mortgage collapse is not where it stops, you are going to see "prime" borrowers following suit.
There is going to be a massive stock market correction, also in September or October. There might be additional highs reached before then, but like I said in a previous post. Get your shit ready.
"Product recalls" of everything from pet food to toys that use lead based paint are some examples of our "economic sanctions" that we've lobbed towards are largest trading partner. Look for more of that as well as increased scrutiny of other Chinese products.
As well as a continued move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The dollar has continued its freefall against the Euro. We accuse China of currency manipulation but we have done the same thing for the last few years. Since the government stopped publishing official M3 numbers. No one knows exactly what the money supply "officially" is.
What does all of this mean? The party might be over for us, and the bills are coming due. We have reached a point where even China is starting to say we're maxed out. Our reaction is "we don't want your crap anyway". Someone is going to lose out and I'm guessing since we don't hold any cards, it's us. Put your money into gold or bicycles, or put it into international assets (while you still can). The sky is falling. This "is the big one" like Fred Sanford used to say.
All is not lost, yet. Our economy, our people, our entrepreneurial spirit can recover fairly quickly if the government will get the hell out of the way. It's probably not going to happen.
I found this on www.ronpaulforums.com. It's the account of a citizen in New Hampshire with the local police. Here's his account in it's entirety:
Below is a video of my August 5 open carry incident in New Hampshire. It starts audio-only then the video picks up a minute or two later when our pro photographer runs to the scene. Very sorry I wasn't wearing RP shirt at the time.
Basically I'm a liberty activist here; I wear a holstered pistol in public roughly once a week. It's legal in New Hampshire but not that common south of the notches. Cops sometimes ignore, sometimes harass you for doing it. When that happens to me, I don't get angry but use the chance to educate police about the open carry rights of NH citizens.
I was walking 50 yards from my car to the monthly Free Stater meeting at Murphy's Taproom in downtown Manchester. I usually open carry to that meeting.
I was noticed by a state trooper, but I noticed him too and called the Free Staters' emergency hotline before he got to me. In the video you hear my call realtime, as I report my situation and try to explain to our listeners what's happening.
Folks inside the bar also came running out to support me. Police thought it was pre-planned it happened so fast, like they'd been set up or something. But this is just how our guys react when they're nearby. I appreciate the fact that the police were able to maintain calm and respectful demeanor despite some of the anger directed against them by the crowd. But of course look I forward to the day when they don't make such stops in the first place.
Note that I am able to lawfully refuse them when they ask for my "papers" and personal information. If you think this is a better outcome than you'd get where you are now.....move your ass up here and share our freedoms!
Visit www.FreeStateProject.org
Thanks to all who showed support during and after this incident.
Hopefully this video will remind people New Hampshire does allow open carry, that officers here do handle themselves better than in most states, and that the Free Staters are continuing to improve level of support which is available to freedom lovers when police take exception to their responsible exercise of rights.
I live in California. It really doesn't work that way out here. Usually, if your holding a stick you get shot.
The latest edition in my continuing quest show what this blog is mostly about, chicks doing yoga, Ron Paul, and puppies. I have such a crush on the girl who does these videos from Ford Models in a totally inappropriate way:
I have to admit that presidential hopeful Mitt looks pretty good here in an interview on a radio talkshow in Iowa. Eloquent, passionate, and luckily for him it was caught on tape and made its way onto the internet because the part that's gold didn't make it on air:
I do like that the interviewer framed his questions that made it on air around the Constitution (would love to see questions like that on the debate tomorrow).
I've said for a long time that the irrational hatred of George W. Bush has caused many otherwise intelligent, educated, well-spoken people to descend into madness and lunacy. Well, this article helps to prove that I'm right. I don't know how sane/rational Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis were before GWB became the President, but I would be willing to bet that his election was the inciting event that caused them to punch in at the laugh factory.
It simply must be read in its entirety, and the comments are pretty entertaining, too. I know not everyone has the time to read what looks like it should have been written with letters cut out of magazines, so I'll hit some of the high points.
The Bush administration will not hesitate to cancel the 2008 election in the event that Republicans are poised to lose.
Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida. (Repeatedly proven incorrect, but whatever)
Bush stole the 2004 election in Ohio.
The MSM is complicit in these nefarious plans, and will refuse to object when the election is canceled.
Republicans stole over 6% of the vote in Ohio in 2006 (Governor election), and still lost. (Why didn't we just steal more?)
The Supreme Court will rubber-stamp Bush's attempt to remain in power.
The long and short is that Bush will remain in power without an election and no one of consequence will complain. (Tenting fingers, using best Mr. Burns voice) Excellent.
One of my favorite parts of this article is the following: "When George W. Bush went on the record (twice) as saying he has nothing against dictatorship, as long as he can be dictator, it was a clear and present policy statement." Apparently, Bush hatred suppresses the body's natural logic centers. EVERYONE would love a dictatorship where they are the dictator. EVERYONE wants to be in charge and wants EVERYTHING run their way.
Finally, the master plan that is alluded to here would require massive amounts of evil genius in order to implement. Since, according to liberals, Bush is an idiot of the first order, I fail to see how he could have planned something to subvert 220 years of a constitutional republic. I'm no huge Bush lover (I prefer a Brazilian look), but I don't think he wants to be Stalin, either. Again, I can't suggest enough that you read the column and at least some of the comments. It's important to know how devoted the left is to laying the foundation for their eventual 2008 loss.
Hypothetical situation: IF I were famous, and IF I had killed a couple people, and IF I had gotten away with it thanks to a slick defense team and an incompetent prosecution, and IF I had subsequently been found responsible for the deaths in a civil suit, and IF a decade later I was still widely reviled by a large segment of the population... then maybe -- just maybe -- I would think twice about going on live television with a call-in segment. I'm just sayin'.
Say what you will about W's administration, his nominees to the Supreme Court have been one campaign promise that he delivered on. It may be a tough pill to swallow for a lot of the liberals out there, but I believe that the president's lasting legacy will not be the "War on Terror" but Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Even in the most recent completed full term, a number of 5-4 decisions on issues such as late term abortions, campaign finance laws, and school desegration policies have prompted Senators Arlen Specter and Chuck Schumer to make comments in recent days about the direction that the Supreme Court is moving. Here's Senator Schumer:
"Were we too easily impressed by the charm of nominee Roberts and the erudition of nominee Alito?" Schumer asked. "Did we mistakenly vote our hopes when our fears were more than justified by the ultraconservative records of these two men?"
"Yes," he said.
How about this: The reality at the time was that a Republican majority in Congress gave little lattitude for anyone but a strict constructionist with a proven track record (not Harriet Miers) to be sent up as a nominee. The end.
Which makes the 2008 election critical. The new President will have the responsibility of nominating at least one justice to the Supreme Court (maybe even two). Rudy says he will send up strict constructionists (at least his website says so) and I'm sure the other top tier candidates from the GOP would make similar pledges. The question becomes getting those judges confirmed.
So why is this post titled "The Supreme Court and Ron Paul"?
The GOP has the Supreme Court issue locked down. But on nearly everything else that conservative voters care about, they have pretty much dropped the ball. Ron Paul hasn't and he has the track record to prove it. An unknown at least among the GOP will be Iraq. Will voters have soured on this by the time the primaries roll around?
Based on current numbers, head to head, Giuliani loses against Hillary and Obama (all 3 being the presumed frontrunners) What is an unknown is how Paul would fare against Hillary or Obama. How many GOP voters would he be able to bring back to the fold since it has been taken over by the wing known affectionately by Pat Buchanon as the "War Party"?
Worldnetdaily.com has a story on the Louisiana attorney who was recently found innocent of "willfull failure to file".
If there were an even greater indication of why the income tax is such a scam here's this:
Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."
Why can't the government just answer the friggin question? This guy spent 10 years waiting for an answer. Some spokeshole in DC can't make a comment about it?
This is from 2005, I've been meaning to post this for awhile. It's an account a meeting that the President had back in 2005 with GOP Congressional leaders when discussing renewing the Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
Here's the moneyshot:
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
I wonder how much of that is just being in office for 5 years (at the time).
This could be a trend. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing (Bravo!!). This attorney, Tommy Cryer, spends 2 years doing research on the law and decides to stop filing. The IRS takes him to court and he beats them. Ed and Elaine Brown are doing the civil disobedience thing. Ed Shulz and his We the People group have their court cases winding their way through court. Will we see an end to the income tax? Or will the economy collapse first? I'm guessing the economy will collapse first.
Okay, so the dog isn't a puppy, and it's a commercial, not someones homevideo but this is a great ad. A friend sent this to me awhile back and I just thought I would share:
Ron Paul received 49.5% of all contributions to Republican candidates from military folks last quarter, meaning he leads all other Republicans in military contributions. What's more, "Ron Paul leads all 2008 presidential candidates (Republican AND Democrat) in military contributions from the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and war veterans. Presidential candidate Ron Paul leads with an impressive one-third of all contributions this second quarter according to newly released data from the FEC." (Complete numbers here)
I'm keeping hope alive that the next great political trend in this country will be a return to the Constitution and the idea of a limited federal government. Reading stuff like this keeps me going.
UPDATE:
Michael Barone on Fox News talking about the donations from the military
I don't agree with his take on why Dr. Paul did so well with the military last quarter. It implies that military men and women are out looking to fight wars. The ones that I know don't, but they will and have when called upon to do so.
In essence, according to this op-ed from "The Nation"
A little background first:
Under Georgia law, candidates of all parties run together in primaries to fill open House seats. Then the top two finishers -- no matter what their partisan affiliation --face each other in a runoff. In the overwhelmingly Republican district of the late Congressman Charlie Norwood, primary voting last month produced a run-off featuring two conservative Republicans.
Which led to this:
Given a choice between two conservative candidates, Georgia voters were asked: Do you want a candidate of the GOP establishment who promises to work with Republican leaders in Congress, or do you want an outsider who promises to go to Washington without strings attached?
The answer to that last question has always been to run for office as "the outsider". That ended up being the case here.
What piqued my interest, was the platform that the candidate who won ran on. Let's just say the newly minted Congressman's position could be considered remarkably similar to a certain Presidential candidate whose first name begins with "R" and ends with "n", and whose last name is also a first name...
As evidence of his independence, Broun emphasized a Ron Paul-like [campaign]committed to "work to restore government according to the Constitution as our Founders intended." While the Georgia[n] appears to be a more cautious constitutionalist than the maverick Texas congressman who is making a longshot bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, Broun borrowed one of the most popular of Paul's principles, promising that if elected he would assess any new legislation by first asking: "Is it constitutional and a proper function of government?"
People are realizing that the Feds have expanded their reach into citizens lives way beyond the scope of being a mere nuisance. And since I'm playing Nostrodamus with the economy, I'm going to make the call here on the 2008 presidential race.
It will be Ron Paul in a landslide.
As recently as yesterday, I was saying that "Dr. No" would probably, at most, be able to shape the debate for the GOP nomination. But, I think I've underestimated the power of Ron Paul's message.
The thing that has happened with Bill O'reilly has happened to Sean Hannity. When Fox News first came on the air, Bill and Sean were great. They asked good questions, they let the experts talk about their viewpoints, it made for interesting TV (to me, at least). What has happened in the last 5-6 years is that Bill and Sean have become insufferable egotists. They can't get out of their own way in fawning all over themselves. O'reilly is at least watchable (when he has people guest hosting) but Sean. He's a smaktard.
So the Dow hit 14,000 a couple of times today. The exuberance in the stock market hides the reality that a correction is in the works, a major one probably in September or October.
Not that I have any evidence to back it up, but there is this:
After an amazing five-year run that saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increase in value fivefold, prices peaked at 381.17 on September 3, 1929. The market then fell sharply for a month, losing 17% of its value on the initial leg down. Prices then recovered more than half of the losses over the next week, only to turn back down immediately afterwards. The decline then accelerated into the so-called "Black Thursday", October 24, 1929. A record number of 12.9 million shares were traded on that day.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
So said Ghandi in his quest to gain independence from England.
It is in that spirit that Ron Paul's campaign has grown from a grassroots movement initially ignored and ridiculed as the den of conspiracy nutjobs, 9/11 truthers, tax protesters, John Birchers and assorted "fringe" groups. Dr. Pauls campaign has grown exponentially in the past few months since the airing of the televised debates.
This blog has never made a secret of which presidential candidate it endorses. But objectively, it is fair to say that Dr. Paul has the chance to, at the very least, frame the issues and shape the debate for the GOP nomination. Following are the Randolphus Maximus conventional wisdom talking points for and against Dr. Paul:
Pros:
Trackrecord - Dr. Paul has spent nearly 10 terms in Congress, with a track record of never voting for a tax increase, government spending increase, or anything that would expand the powers of the federal government
Message - the small government message still resides in our national character, freedom from government intrusion still resonates with the GOP base. Eight years of "compromise" have led to unprecedented increases in entitlements and spending, to the disgust of conservatives everywhere. His stance on illegal immigration and abortion fall into line with most traditional conservatives.
Supporters - Dr. Pauls supporters are enthusiastic about his message. They haven't seen a candidate like this in a long time. He brings out the passion in voters that has been lacking in recent elections. Personally, I know that George W has been a disappointment on a lot of issues. As a side note, I think that W's lasting legacy will not be the "War on Terror" it will be his Supreme Court nominations (the one campaign promise he has made good on)
Electability-
Dr. Paul's anti-Iraq war stance appeals to a lot of conservatives who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea (I don't like that we didn't declare war on Iraq, but that's a whole other issue). It also appeals to the Dems who feel the same way.
Cons
Message- does a small government message have any appeal anymore? Yes, it sounds good, but does that translate into votes on election day.
Time- Does Ron Paul have enough time to get enough name recognition? When will it be enough to register as a player on traditional polls?
Resources-
$100 million dollars is what's needed to get a job that pays a quarter of a million dollars a year. Ron Paul has $2.5 million cash on hand. Is it enough? It's at least more than John McCain.
In honor of Independence Day, hattip to Gorillamask. The idea for this list was swiped from Uber:
We're the best. Everybody knows it and that's why they're so dang jealous all the time. Sorry if our chicks are easily the hottest and our cars totally kick ass. It's not our fault we rule and everyone else in the world sucks. If anyone's got a problem with us we kick their ass or bomb their shit. BOOYA!
I like the intro but the list itself is kind of weak. So here's mine, with video evidence where applicable of course:
What does an obscure TV show from the 80's have to do with why America kicks ass? Because TV shows about our high tech prowess and know-how and its application in fighting badguys and saving lives is uniquely American. From Star Trek, to Airwolf, to Bluethunder, to Knightrider, Streethawk, to MacGuyver to ER and CSI, we know how to make shows with gadgets.
Imagine a whole store devoted to office supplies! I love walking among the aisles of inkjet cartridges, reams of paper, and pens, lots and lots of pens. The fact that there is a market for a store that caters to people's need to find cases of 24lb. 92 brightness recycled ecofriendly laser printer paper shows that commerce is alive in America.
The greatest city in the world. Period. The museums, the sights, the clubs, the bars, and the food. Strapz reminded me of how many different languages that you can hear just walking around Times Square. I was out there for two weeks and I don't recall ever having even an average meal. The fact that the sticker shock of visiting Manhattan ($20 for a mojito? $45 to park your car for a day?!?) was quickly forgotten since I was elbow deep in models and model wannabes sort reminds me of Vegas...which brings me to number 7
Let's see, gambling, world-class restaurants, prostitutes, drug dealers. Las Vegas is a city built on vice. It is also a city whose character is derivative of every other destination worthy place in the world. Want to see France? Don't want to be stuck with sitting next to dirty, stinky Frenchmen? Visit the Paris Hotel in Vegas!!! Want to take a gondola ride in Italy but don't want to sit in the dirty stinky water that plagues the canals in Venice? Visit the Venetian Hotel in Vegas!!! Never got laid in high school but think that the idea of meeting/getting intimate with a nice girl or two or three at the same time sounds neat? Stand at the corner of Las Vegas Blvd and Tropicana and grab the card from the Mexican who's sticking them into the holes of the chainlink fence surrounding the latest casino under construction.
6. I agree with Uber's listing at #6:
The Unholy Trinity (Paris, Lindsay & Brtiney) - They show their cooters and nipples like it's nobody's business. Screw reading the news, show me some celebrity beaver! Yeee Haw!
5. Uber's #2 : Morbidly Obese People
We're fat and we're good at it. Even though McDonald's was forced to get rid of super sizing and KFC's chicken now has 0 grams of trans fat, America will continue to find new ways to keep it's citizens fat as shit.
The top four admittedly take a turn away from the spirit of Ubers list, but I have to say that I've had more of a chance to reflect on the title and this is what I've come up with:
4. Milton Friedman
A diminuitive man whose gianormous intellect and personality propelled him to become an economic advisor to Presidents and other world leaders. His message about economic freedom and monetary policy literally changed the world and set millions of people free. I'd like to give some love and mention Hayek and the influence of the Austrian school but this is a list about why America kicks ass after all.
3. Ronald Reagan
The Gipper, along with Milton Friedman, make the top 5. He is America. A man who, over the course of his life, married, divorced, married again, had kids, adopted a kid. He switched careers a few times, got into acting, got into politics. Oh yeah, his vision as President toppled the Soviet Union and set millions free. Yeah world, you're welcome.
2. We Americans have a Tradition of Rebellion
So goes the subtitle of this blog. What's interesting is we tend to rebel non-violently. Of course, our country was founded on a violent armed conflict and there was the whole Civil War thing. But look at the great social movements in this country, most have happened relatively peacefully. Women's suffrage, desegration, prohibition. It's too soon to tell, but I think that illegal immigration, and the ending of the income tax can be put on that particular list as well. Anyway, the number two reason why America kicks ass is because rebelling is part of our national character. That we do it peacefully is even better.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
So said W when confronted by members of the GOP in talks about renewing the Patriot Act.
Yes, it's the same paper that's been around for a couple hundred years, the same piece of paper that W and everyone else in government swears to "protect and defend". It is also the same piece of paper that we can come back to when we've lost our way as a country.
The vision of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other founding fathers has brought an unprecedented amount of freedom and wealth to us. How fortunate are we today that the phrase "you can't do that, it's unconstitutional" still carries at least a little weight with our government.
The Constitution is the number one reason why America kicks ass. There are many like it, but this one is ours. Happy Birthday America!
There used to be a tradition in this country of reading aloud the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at independence day celebrations around the country (at least that's what my "Little House on the Prairie" books used to tell me). I'm reviving that tradition this week.
Henry Lamb from Worldnetdaily.com writes an article that mentions two things that don't get talked about enough or not at all: the Electoral College and the 17th Amendment.
The Electoral College is an ingenious scheme to balance the power among small and larger states. Without the Electoral College, a few large states could elect the president, and the small states would be left completely out of the voting. But the wisdom of our founders foiled the monopoly of power for the big states.
Ahhh, brings us back to 2000. Was that really 7 years ago?
