Contra Mundum

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Oblivion

2009-10-08T02:05:00.015-04:00

Let me begin this essay with the acknowledgment that I have no credentials whatsoever in geo-politics or military planning. I never served in the military nor do I have any experience in anti-terrorism. I am just a plain everyday American who thinks too much and wonders about the future.

We are losing the “war” in Afghanistan. That is inevitable. We have lost the “war” in Iraq. That too was inevitable. The only “hot” war we have not lost since 1945 was in Korea where our efforts in repulsing North Korean aggression permitted the South Korean people to develop a free and prosperous society.

In Korea, we fought another nation and its allies that sought to defeat and occupy a free state. The threat in Korea was external. In Viet Nam, we fought on behalf of less than popular governments against an indigenous insurgency as well as external forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan we fight on behalf of cobbled together governments in states created out of whole cloth by American, British and French diplomats after WWI against local Muslim extremists intent on toppling these regimes. The only way we can “win” these wars is to behave as conquerors have for time immemorial. Ruthlessly and permanently impose our will on the entire nation. To succeed we must do as was done in The Great Plains, drive out the local peoples and populate the countryside with our own settlers. Make Afghanistan into North Dakota. Since we have no interest at all in permanently colonizing Afghanistan or Iraq we cannot win unless we utterly destroy the insurgency root, branch and leaf. We lack the viciousness necessary for such an undertaking.

This is not to say that America lacks the will to destroy an enemy, just ask Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan - or the Comanche’s or Apaches. Americans must sense an existential threat before unleashing the fullness of its violent nature. The North American Indians were herded and eliminated because they either killed and terrorized settlers or just stood in the way of occupation and growth. In WWII America fueled by rage at the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and a real and legitimate fear of that our way of life would be destroyed created and released the most horrific multi-modal killing machine the world has ever known.

The current conflicts resemble much more the Plains Indian wars than the global wars of yesterday but with one huge difference. Our “cavalry” in Iraq and Afghanistan are proxies for an element of the peoples within those benighted lands as if the French Foreign Legion had fought the Apaches for white settlers.

An indigenous insurgency using guerilla tactics such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban need only avoid total obliteration to defeat a foreign occupying force that is not committed to permanent and merciless rule. In Iraq, our forces won the war when Saddam was toppled. We lost the war when we signed on to protect the nascent and artificial democracy. In six or seven years, we have killed massive numbers of terrorists and Baathists, but we have not killed the critical mass necessary to eradicate the threat. We will not do this because it would require too much bloodshed, combatant and otherwise. Whether we stay another year or six, anti government insurgents will likely still remain, growing stronger among fanatics and those who resent the foreign occupier. When we leave there will be a new war, a civil war in which the most powerful and vicious side will prevail. The winner will then subjugate the land to its will by force. So has it ever been in this part of the world, so will it ever be.

The same dynamic is playing out in Afghanistan. In 2001-2003 we killed tens of thousands Taliban and Al Qaeda in that country. We installed a faux democratic government [as we did in Iraq] and began to apply pacification policies that worked in a devastated Western Europe and Japan in the middle of the last century that have not worked anywhere since and will not work in a region mired in the 12th century. The new government lacking any direction not given by American diplomats and generals flopped about like a fish on the shore while the Taliban and Al Qaeda retreated to Pakistan, licked their wounds, regrouped and began to terrorize yet again.

Having read and participated in recent history the insurgents know well that the American people tire quickly of shedding their own blood fighting for questionable regimes halfway round the world and doing so in kid gloves. They know we will leave and they will have only to defeat the weak and marginally popular government we leave behind.

Experts opine that defeating the Taliban is an absolute must if we are to avoid more and deadlier terrorist attacks on American soil. The American people do not believe this and for good reason. The Taliban live in caves on the other side of the planet. They are no threat to us. An eight-man sleeper cell sponsored by Iran or Egypt or some rich private terrorists has the capability of killing more Americans than all the Taliban in the Afghanistan! The only threat The Taliban poses if they once again rule Afghanistan is permitting and operating training bases for Muslim killers. Our armed forces are reputed to possess satellites that can display the breed of a stray dog scratching himself in a vacant lot. We have weapons that appear out of nowhere to destroy city blocks. We can deliver bombs with drones operated by video game joysticks. Keep one of these eyes on Afghanistan and if a training camp or arms depot appears destroy it from afar. Apply the same policy to Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Yemen, Iran or any other potential home to the Mohammedan scourge.

I fear that our government from GWB to Obama has used Iraq and Afghanistan to deflect our attention from their refusal or inability to deal adequately with the one rogue state in the Middle East that does pose an existential threat to America. Iran. Iran sponsors more terrorism in a month than comes from Afghanistan in a year. It spreads Muslim malignancy throughout the globe, thumbs it nose at world opinion and actively seeks nuclear weapons it has pledged to use to wipe Israel off the face of the map. While we waste money and blood on primitives in Afghanistan a storm brews over Iran that may literally bring an end to civilization, as we know it.

Israel is the most peaceable of all nations. It minds it own business and protects its own borders. It does not involve itself in foreign intrigues. However Israel strikes as quickly and lethally as a cobra when sufficiently threatened. It would do well for today’s world leaders to study the conditions facing Israel on the eve of the Six Day War. Without a homeland for nearly four centuries the Jews will not sit idly by awaiting destruction.

Iran will not obtain operational nuclear weapons. It will be deterred either by the spectre of overwhelming force from America and permit the western alliance to dis-mantle its nuclear infrastructure without conflict – or – Israel will dis-mantle it for them in a first strike that will leave Tehran a smoking, radioactive ruin and the world in shock. If Israeli leaders believe other nations might rise to avenge Iran they too will be preemptively destroyed. Once this nuclear Pandora’s Box is opened who can say what nightmare may ensue. Will India take the opportunity to destroy Pakistan? Will China attack India? Will North Korea take vengeance on Japan for centuries of abuse?

Some allow that Barack Obama is the antichrist. Of course this is so much hysterical hyperbole. That said if he continues to play games in Afghanistan and seek games for Chicago while Iran slouches toward oblivion, our President may well be present with him at the end of time.

Sycamore Trees

2009-07-29T00:34:00.006-04:00

I love sycamore trees. I played hours alone as a boy under an ancient old specimen at my grandmother's. I love the leaves, the bark, the size, shape and smell of sycamore trees. I love everything about sycamore trees.

Sycamores are a tough lot they suffer badly during a hot dry summer. The older men are usually scarred from loss of limbs to ice and storm. They are very late to come out in spring and each year I anxiously await the many fine old gentlemen that populate my neighborhood to show signs of life. Every year just as I am about to despair some particularly gnarly one he displays his new leaves.

If looking for water, a surface stream, a spring or an underground pool look skyward for a sycamore. They love water. Some many years ago, I planted a small sycamore in the corner of my yard that collects runoff into a deep and wide French drain. He prospered in the perennially wet corner.

In his sixth year, torrential rains blitzed our town for 36 non-stop, hours. During this deluge, as I looked out into the backyard I watched my little sycamore begin to list. The youngster was being washed out. My young son and I rushed out looped a heavy rope around the trunk and lashed it to the garden gate. His ball had been about 40% exposed and we wondered if it would reset itself and he would live. It did and he did. Several years later during the construction of a brick fence around our yard my now mature friend sustained root shock. Once again, I feared he would not survive. The next spring showing quite a bit of limb loss he nonetheless gave leaf once more.

Three years thence, we experienced a horrible ice storm that devastated those branches not destroyed previously by the root shock. This time I knew for sure the old boy was a goner and sure enough that spring I counted only half dozen pathetic leaves on the entire 30-foot tree. The wide canopy of lush limbs he had once proudly shown were either gone or barren. He had finally succumbed.

That summer we had a Mexican tree crew out to trim our trees. Were Ruben an educated man one would call him an arborist as it is he is just a man of trees. Trees feed Ruben and his family and he loves them for it. On the strenuous urging of my wife, I reluctantly asked Ruben to take what was now no more than an eyesore down and haul it away. “Senor Hacker” “I think he might be saved, would you like me to try?” “You think so" I hoped. The gentle eyes in the wizened brown face smiled as he answered; “yes I think so”. Ruben owns no bucket truck or fancy ladders he trims trees the old-fashioned way, climbing into and up them on jackboots, with handsaws. He went to work and when he finished what was left was more totem pole than sycamore. The surgery was as radical as radical can get. “Now we wait,” Ruben announced.

It’s two years later now and I am looking out at a 30 foot sycamore just covered with life. No suckers here but new little branches full with lush green leaves. My sycamore has suffered virtually everything nature and man can throw at a tree. He has survived flood, trauma, drought and ice. In the most recent crisis, every live twig was cut back to the trunk. He must have hurt tremendously and felt terrifically embarrassed, even ashamed. Even so had Ruben not performed his draconian but gentle cutting my tree would have surely died.

The experience of my pal the sycamore reminds me of the painful and humbling ways my Lord grows me and prunes the death from me. As I look at the robust vitality of life on display out my window, I am reminded too that if He chose to spare me the hurt and shame caused by His loving care, I too would die.

I love sycamore trees.

A Call To Action

2009-07-01T16:40:00.002-04:00

The United States Constitution belongs neither to the Supreme Court nor any other branch of the federal government but to the states and to the people. The 9th and 1oth amendments to that sacred charter bar the central government from the greater part of its mischief. Yet it continues to abuse and over-reach its privilege. If Washington can enforce on “we the people” a particular type of light bulb nothing then out of its malevolent grasp. The ballot box has proven ineffective in stopping the growth of Leviathan.

In 1799, Kentucky and Virginia in resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison declared the extra-constitutional and tyrannical Alien and Sedition Acts null and void within their respective borders. Thus was established the Doctrine of Nullification. The offending acts were soon repealed. In 1832, South Carolina risked war with Andrew Jackson’s budding empire by interposing the same doctrines with regard to the “Tariff of Abomination” Henry Clay’s “Great Compromise” forestalled for a generation bloody warfare between a sovereign state and its subordinate creation.

The current activity and enactions of the federal government are no more legal than those cited above – The Constitution is after all a legal document – and of far greater threat to liberty so dearly won and preserved. Citizens call out for justice and restraint but our words fall on the deaf ears of arrogant despots. Our cries to be effective, must be backed by the promise of bold action. Tyrannies are not easily undone. I call on the governors, legislatures and peoples of the fifty states to rise up in damnation of federal subjugation and follow the lead of their ancient fathers in Kentucky, Virginia and South Carolina. Nullification is legal within the four corners of The Constitution. It has been proven an effective restraint on federal excess. I pray we take this non-violent action now lest the jackboot and/or bloody revolt necessarily follow.

In Kentucky we have a saying “talk is cheap it takes money to buy whiskey”. So is it with freedom. There is no better way to celebrate this Independence Day than to stretch up tall and once more pledge our honor and treasure against the price of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity.

The Attributes of A Man

2009-05-14T03:37:00.007-04:00

There is much debate and quarreling today concerning the attributes of a “real man”. It is an important question. The future of our culture depends on the answer. I think the plain term "man" is sufficient for this discussion and will use it throughout this essay. Before offering an answer, a more fundamental issue demands attention. How did America arrive at the point where this question needs even be posed?

1942 was truly the watershed year in modern American History. Recovering from the December 1941 sucker punch leveled on Pearl Harbor, America mobilized for war. It would never be the same. Conventional liberal wisdom gives FDR’s New Deal credit for ending the Great Depression. Conventional conservative wisdom holds it was the wartime military-industrial buildup. In fact, General Hideki Tojo cured the pernicious economic illness with his audacious attack. Unemployment dropped from 14.6% in 1940 to 1.3% in 1945 as millions of young men left the unemployment lines and entered the armed forces.

With most men in uniform America’s women left the kitchen en masse. Trading pastry gun for riveting gun they made the tools their men used to defeat The Axis. Husbands and boyfriends gone to war women learned and proved there was very little masculine work they could not do. Wearing respect and confidence earned in the crucible of wartime deprivation the weaker sex entered the post war era a force of nature non-existent on Thanksgiving Day 1941. Their daughters would remake American culture.

The men of “America’s Greatest Generation” began to de-mobilize and re-enter civilian life in 1946. They too were a new race of men. Entering the conflagration as mere teenagers and fuzzy faced young men [the average age of an army colonel in 1944 was 26 years] these “boys” returned home battle hardened grown men having experienced all the horrors Hell has to offer. Reclaiming wives and girlfriends this warrior generation was determined to fill up on that fine wine they fought and bled for. As they drank deeply, they created a grand, booming prosperity.

Days of happiness, peace and plenty were virtually unknown to the fathers and mothers of the baby boom. Born mostly in the mid to late 1920’s these men and women endured a childhood in depression scarcity and came of age just in time to go to war. Despite the affluence of wartime full employment, rationing of essentials like sugar, meat, leather and gasoline kept the home front in want another four years. Having endured poverty and travail and survived the Reaper’s great harvest, fresh faced civilian couples of 1946 to 1955 embarked on a relentless campaign to define and achieve the American Dream. The prize was now theirs for the taking and they seized it without remorse. These children of the valley of the shadow of death wanted material wealth and the warm sunshine of peace for themselves and a better future for their issue – in that order. They loved their children but having themselves grown up fast and hard in the worst of times they concentrated on giving them security and opportunity rather than overweening attention. They must have succeeded in this for the youth of the 1960’s enjoyed enough security to take it for granted and enough opportunity to throw it away.

The Civil Rights struggle of the late 1950’s and 1960’s destroyed the idea of American innocence. Televised, it brought us face-to-face with the injustice and hatefulness in our midst. A foundational myth shattered a crisis of faith ensued that saw American sons turn on their fathers, the first military defeat in US history, assassination and the resignation of a sitting President. Every standard of society went up for grabs. If the qualified working women of 1941 to 1945 stepped down willingly from the workforce as their men demobilized, their girl children grew up to demand mother’s legacy.The Feminist movement was conceived in the wartime arsenals of democracy. It was born on the college campuses of 1968.

Feminism attacks the very structure of society. Using unceasingly the agitprop of gender equality and the deadening effects of time the movement has effectively remade contemporary culture in its own image. As Delilah of old used barber shears to take Samson’s strength while he slept so modern Delilah has talked her paramour drowsy in order to take the gelding shears to him. The very question before the house today is ample testimony to the totality of the feminist victory.

Having arrived at last to the question of the hour, to answer it requires we return now from whence we have come. The characteristics of a man can be found in the heritage and DNA of the United States soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots of WWII and the men that from necessity remained stateside and sustained them. A man offers his life in defense of his women and children. He returns from fighting, picks up where he left off and builds a colossus such as the world has never seen. A man does not do his best to make a better life for his family – he does what is required. He brings his paycheck home, and is faithful to his bride; he loves his children and disciplines them according to godly principles. A man strives to model the character of Christ for his charges and leads them in the ways of The Lord. He accepts the burdens and duty of his divine commission to oversee the home. A man knows the value of freedom and doesn’t stifle his youngsters with endless pre-packaged activities. He recognizes life is cold and mean, that his sons and daughters need a hard-eyed father. The junior mother, playmate and buddy are not for him. A man stands fearlessly on his hind legs in service of justice and honor. He is ruthless in opposition to inequity and evil. Though generously fitted with the qualities noted above a man remains but a man and cannot escape his fallen nature. He sins, repents and sins again. A man is aware of his shortcomings and his excesses. He grieves over them and the damage they cause. He is intimate with failure and bears it with grace.

Three quarters of a million American graves scattered over the face of the earth testify to the masculinity of those men buried in them. It is impossible for a man not participating in the dreadfulness of war to possess the perfect fullness of manhood. Only a magnificent few born after 1945 have suffered these experiences. Nonetheless, lack of combat is no bar to genuine manhood. If you are my age, you probably grew up under the protection, provision and authority of a man. If you are under 40, you are likely to find a man in the person of your grandfather. Perhaps your father is a man. If so, pay close attention to him and remember him well for his kind is unwelcome in the Metrosexual Century and has been marked for extinction. A man today is inconvenient. He expects respect from his wife and honor from his children grown or at home. A man is too authoritarian, too independent, too frank and too unyielding for today’s estrogen softened milieu. He talks like a man and understands like a man. He will stand up when called and will not back down when threatened. A man today is one born out of time. We will likely not see his equal on American soil again.

Church and Culture

2009-04-11T22:52:00.012-04:00

I received today an “urgent” appeal to sign a petition demanding the US Senate filibuster an Obama nomination to the federal bench of a certain “anti-Jesus” judge. The judge opposes public prayer using Jesus name, is very much pro abortion and in general is a liberal twit. I will sign a petition opposed to the fellow for being very much pro abortion and in general a liberal twit – but not for being anti-Jesus! Evangelicals in a misguided attempt to be “salt and light” to a decadent culture have gone from preaching to meddling. The moralistic drones of today's Christian Right have proved the secularists correct. We have gone so far over the line in politicizing The Gospel, that charges that Christians wish to impose a theocracy in America have become more right than wrong.

I am grateful to Our Lord that we are not a Christian nation, nor Mohammedan, nor Jewish nor any other theistic political construct. Constantine the first “Christian Emperor” of Rome proclaimed Christianity the official religion of the empire in the 4th century. Once joined to earthly power The Church mutated over the next 1000 years becoming a venal, corrupt and voracious monster that punished unbelief and dissent with death and oppressed its own nearly as harshly. In Ireland state churches have fostered murder and mayhem for centuries.

The Puritans of New England sought to establish the “New Jerusalem”, a “holy city set on a hill.” The laws of New England based on the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy including idolatry and blasphemy were ecclesiastical in nature harsh in enforcement. Dissenters mostly Baptists, were persecuted and banished. In response to these abuses Roger Williams established Rhode Island, the first political entity in the new world to secure free expression of one’s faith. James Madison, a devout Presbyterian and arguably the most truly Christian of our founders was militantly opposed to any attempt to establish The Kingdom of God on the western shore of the Atlantic. We should be as well.

In the second chapter of Revelation Christ chastises the church at Ephesus for abandoning The Gospel in favor of good works. “I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.” He did not criticize the good works - only that they had eclipsed the purer and more important purposes of His Church.

Just what are the more important purposes of The Church and its people? Jesus answers this in numerous accounts but three seem to summarize them well. According to John’s gospel [21: 15-18], Jesus asked Peter three times “Do you love me”? Peter answered in the affirmative all three times. In reply, on each occasion Jesus said, “feed my sheep”. In what is known as the Great Commission, Christ calls his disciples to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation”[ Mark 15: 16] and teach them [those who believe] to “observe all that I have commanded of you” [Matthew 28: 20]. Where within these texts does one find instructions to either establish “Christian Nations” or compel unbelievers to observe what Christ commands? According to Jesus the pure work of the church is to evangelize and then educate and care for those who accept His offer of salvation. Nowhere does He compel atheists, agnostics or pagans to obey Christian precepts. Atheists don’t believe in God or His Son, why would they follow His rules or respect His axioms? To expect unbelievers to accept and obey Christian principles is as preposterous as expecting Christians to obey Buddha or The Koran! Trying to pressure goats to fly accomplishes nothing save making them angry, so too efforts to coerce heathens to follow a code meant for Jesus’ followers.

Jesus also made very clear statements about His Kingdom. “Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." [John 18: 36]. The biblical task of The Church is not ambiguous. Clearly we are to be about evangelizing, teaching, worshiping and ministering to each other. Clearly we are not to be about establishing His Kingdom on earth or creating and ruling Christian Nations. We are to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Civil government is Caesar’s by God’s ordinance.

Doesn’t Christ call us to be “salt and light”? Of course! "You are the salt of the earth . . . "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. [Matthew 5: 13-16]. We are always to model Our Lord and oppose sin both as individuals and corporately. The analogies found in these texts are of great import in this discussion. Salt is but one of many ingredients in a meal. Without salt the stew is not very tasty. However as we all know, too much salt ruins it. A light does not compel, it illumines. The light forces no one to take the right path it only makes it visible. Christians then are to season the world not embalm it, to show the way not coerce the unwilling to follow it.

For one who has been a staunch “culture warrior” the above realization has come painfully. “I have been wrong” does not form easily on my lips. To acknowledge that even a jot or tittle of truth is found in secularist indictments of The Church swallows hard. However I have been wrong in demanding that pagans abide by Christian mores and they have been right that Evangelicals attempt even unwittingly to establish a North American Christian theocracy. I repent.

Does this mean I no longer think I should take a position on public political and moral issues? Again, of course not. I am still to be a light amidst the darkness, revealing the truth. I am to meliorate the culture by proclaiming The Gospel and encouraging public policies that uphold the sanctity of life, respect our God given liberties and secure the future for our children. None of these are exclusively Christian yet all reflect His goodness. It is past time pietistic, Evangelicals repent, quit moralizing the culture and “do the works it did at first” It may be astonishing what a few decades of fervently trumpeting the grace of God in Christ His Son might effect on our perishing civilization.

Emergent Heresy

2009-04-04T03:15:00.024-04:00

I have spent considerable time lately reading about the “Emergent Church”. There is much to read, too much. What one may ask is the Emergent Church? Based on my reading Emergent [it goes by this part of the formal name to distinguish itself from the "Emerging Church"] is a “conversation” about the refusal of the hierarchical evangelical church to meet the demands of postmodern man and what must be done about it. It is the latest effort by the “all about me” community to remake The Gospel in its image. What puzzles me is that so many see this movement as something new and take it so seriously. Emergent is nothing more than the extension and updating of the revolt against form, doctrine, and propositional truth that began in the sixties when Father Tim first took his Martin to Mass.

The Emergent conversation begins with the premise that The Age of Reason [modernism] beginning from The Enlightenment of the 18th century, has passed away. Postmodernism has arrived, an age in which there are no absolutes and objective reality does not exist - a sort of updated, intellectualized “Free to be You and Me”. The thoughtful postmodern will not be reached it is said, by arguments from doctrines that order all creation under a singular universal authority.

Postmodern thought offers a worldview, actually a non world view claiming that every pretense to reality is culturally informed and one culture's perspective is no more or less valid than another's - though it may be antithetical! It is an anti-philosophy that precludes knowledge at all. Emergent proposes to adapt Christianity to these ideas. I am at a loss how one one might merge ultimate truth with nonsense and produce anything but rubbish.

Young postmoderns the Emergents insist, will not respond to the “exclusive” “arrogant” and “intolerant” message of the traditional church. If it is to survive the 21st century, Christianity must be stripped of its hard-edged dogmatism and rigid, confessions. God's precepts must give way to “poetry” “community” “affections” and “mystery”. In other words, The Church must surrender truth and embrace emotion if it is to be palatable to these young Hegelians. The message is clear. Unless the gospel is post-modernized an entire generation will be lost and perhaps The Church as well.

Save that this movement has a smokey smell and will surely lead many astray it would be unworthy of thoughtful consideration. It is derivative, vapid, self- indulgent and intellectually dishonest. The Emergent Church proposes its own anti meta-narrative to answer the questions of a world rejecting all meta-narratives. It offers its own non dogma to a society that denies all dogma. The Emergent conversation prescribes incoherence to a culture dying of incoherence. It would replace an ancient edifice built up in service over centuries on the blood of martyrs and standing on the "shoulders of giants" with an amorphous accretion of free form ,leaderless "faith communities" and house churches, un-guided by un-thinking fresh faced, neo hippies.

The visible church is not infallible, nor is it always warm, loving, accepting or authentic. She is made up of hypocrites, idolaters, drunks, adulterers and every other type of malefactor one can name. St. Augustine is quoted as saying of The Church “she’s a whore but she’s my mother”. She has persevered through a never ceasing progression of persecutions, heresies, corruptions, inquisitions and scandals. She has survived Rome, Marx, Nietzsche and unbelief. Until abandoned by Her betrothed, She is the face of Jesus' Bride.

The Church is slow to learn and slow to turn. She is by nature and necessity a conservative establishment. She must also be organized and functional. The apostle Paul set forth the hierarchy and qualifications for leadership and church discipline in his letters to the New Testament churches. The Church is called to do all things properly and in good order and to hand down the gospel and tenets of the faith to its children. This task requires structure and continuity. Emergents pillory the late 20th century churches for failing in just that mission. I suggest that failure to the extent it is failure is the result not of the constitution of those churches but of abandoning truth reverence and tradition in fearful pandering to whining and demanding children. Emergent offers more of the same poison as cure for the first.

Jesus said,"I am the truth”. How do these new age spiritualists plan to season that clear assertion of universal and exclusive truth to the tastes of multiculturists? He also proclaimed Himself The Son of God and that only through Him may one be reconciled to His father. To all who believe on Him He offers eternal life. To those who don’t He promises Hell. How does Brian McLaren or Rob Bell soften these “hard edged” absolutes?

The entire New Testament teaches the exclusivity of Christianity. Can Christo-Buddhism be true? What about Christian-Satanism? I read recently a progressive believer declare that a Muslim-Christian may acknowledge both Jesus as Savior and Allah as God. Would Allah then be Jesus' father? How can this be? Allah’s word expressed in the Koran denies the deity of Christ. Accommodation with other “equally valid” faiths demands just this sort of syncretism on a massive scale. Be it syncretism or 21st century gnostic mysticism, The Emergent Church preaches something but not the revealed Word of God.

“For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart”.[Hebrews 4:12] -
“So shall My Word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it”. [Isaiah 55:11]

So the Bible says and it still is news. The common thread in all the movements or conversations to make Christianity more "relevant" is the disregard for the timelessness and power of God’s Word and the sweetness of The Gospel. The Apostles preached, “Christ and Him crucified” to a cultural milieu thoroughly Jewish and pagan. With fearless audacity, they proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection. They built Christ's Church in a militantly, antagonistic environment. The Great Commission commands “spread The Gospel to all nations”. For nearly two thousand years, this message in its pure and unadulterated form has proven relevant enough to win the hearts of Kings and Emperors, sustain The Church and add millions of vastly diverse citizens to The Kingdom of God.

The wise of this world proclaimed God dead, Jesus a fraud and The Church an anachronism - in the 1960's. Oddly since then, Jesus has continued to call His sheep, they have continued to recognize His voice, come to Him and be added to His Church. S0 it was in the 1st century, so it is in the 21st, so shall it be until He returns.

From The Pen of Abaddon

2009-02-03T04:25:00.004-05:00

Do Tom Daschle and other Democrat pols not have tax accountants?

If the government actually did something that created real money and if it maintained a massive excess stockpile of the stuff - then - federal spending would be stimulating to the economy. As it is our benefactors in DC first take it from us schmoos losing 10%-20% per cent in the process, move it around through the bureaus burning a few more percent and then returning it to some other schmoo at 50 cents on the dollar. I guess they would call this "addition by subtraction."

The next time you consider trusting your well-being to Washington be sure and remember that your house is cooler in winter, warmer in summer and your lights dimmer all around in order to protect you from a "Global Warming" threat that has seen the earth's temperature plummet almost a degree and a half since 1998.

Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. Why would you believe anything else he says?

If you think the $20 billion in bonuses Wall Street bankers gave themselves last year was grand, imagine what Uncle Hank got for making it possible.

Banks too big to fail, politicians too important to pay taxes and a nation full of plump little schmoos ripe for the harvest. Are we almost there yet daddy?

Hacker's First Law of Roundball

2009-02-03T03:42:00.002-05:00

All Wildcat fans fancy themselves experts on the game of basketball. I am no exception. That said 50 years playing the game and of listening, watching live and watching on TV the winningest team in history does I think, qualify one at least an educated ,amateur expert. Some things about this team are so obvious they are overlooked. In other areas the stats tell an interesting story.

Kentucky’s problems this year are not – despite CBG’s assertions - toughness or defensive rebounding. Nor is want of talent the issue. The turnover problem, while troublesome is merely symptomatic of the coaching style employed by coach G. That we lack talent when possessing a lottery pick center and a guard who makes 44% of his threes and is the fourth leading scorer in America is akin to bemoaning that one’s ten-thousand square foot home has only eight bedrooms.

First the obvious, basketball teams make turnovers for three primary reasons, timidity with the ball, inability to make jump-shots [which increases timidity] and lack of unit cohesiveness.

With the exception of Jodie Meeks and Pat Patterson, no Wildcat player appears offensively aggressive or seems comfortable with the basketball. In the case of Darius Miller, it is painful to watch him start and stop, start and stop and then pass up an open jumper for a bad pass.

With three of the five players on the floor routinely passing up open shots early and midway through the shot clock opponents are able to surround Patterson and face guard Meeks. As the clock approaches zero, passes [and individual offensive efforts] become panicked and forced, resulting in miscues. The plain reason UK commits so many errors is so obvious it goes without scrutiny. Efficient, crisp, offense requires cohesiveness and hopefully a bit of chemistry, cohesiveness alone though is sufficient to limit turnovers to a manageable number. Gillispie’s purposely-erratic substitutions, two minute playing stints and practice of “disappearing” players for games at a time categorically precludes any sort of unit cohesion and obliterates the chance of team chemistry. The ‘system” breeds uncertainty, indecision and constant “bench checking” by players on the court. These are qualities that demand large numbers of mistakes.

Too many turnovers is an easy target for blame in losses. However, turnovers are only one factor – and not the greatest – limiting this team to mediocrity. For a long time I have instinctively suspected that [despite coaches’ reflexive denials] the 3pt shot is the most important element in the game. I posit the secret to winning college basketball games is “make the 3 – stop the 3”. The value of a good big man is as a rebounder and inside scoring threat requiring “double downs” to open up the perimeter. Even PPat is not strong enough [too little time for enough 2’s] to carry the team without outside help.

After the S. Carolina game, I did a little statistical analysis of the season so far. Kentucky has only one player making at least one 3pt field goal per game. By contrast, every team in the current top five has at least three and two have four players. In the sixteen wins, this year UK makes on average seven 3pt shots in 16 attempts while opponents go six for 19. In its six losses, Kentucky has averaged only four 3pt goals in 17 tries. Winning opponents are making nearly 10 in 22. When losing the Wildcats give up four more 3’s on three more attempts than when winning. In losing vs winning efforts UK is making three less per game on the same number of shots. For the season Kentucky commits an average 18 turnovers a game, 21 in the losses. Only in the S. Carolina game was rebounding [offensive or defensive] a statistical factor. In fact UK out-rebounded all six opponents.

Summarizing, in the six losing games the ‘Cats have scored on average three less 3pt goals, and given up four more per game than when winning, an astonishing negative 21 point per game turnaround. Clearly this stat explains the difference in winning and losing for UK this year. Soon I will undertake a more exhaustive analysis of this phenomenon including the perennial top teams. If this investigation supports my premise as well as the current data does the “make the 3 – stop the 3” hypothesis must soon become Hacker’s First Law of Roundball.

If I am correct, employing a stubborn coach who values “length”, athleticism and head games over unit cohesiveness and making and defending the three does not bode well for UK, which may well be bearing down on its fifth straight 10 loss season.

1860 and 2009: The First Shot

2009-01-24T15:32:00.004-05:00

Less than four days into his presidency and one day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade Barack Obama overturned an executive order that has barred US dollars from funding abortion overseas for twenty of the last twent-eight years. This could be the action [see 1860 and 2009 posted 1.16.09] that initiates a struggle for the soul of the nation.

From The Pen of Abbadon

2009-01-18T13:32:00.005-05:00

The ga-ga press has imbued Barack Obama with the combined attributes and vision of Abe Lincoln and FDR. Heaven help us if they are right!

1860 and 2009

2009-01-16T14:56:00.008-05:00

The most serious and divisive moral issue since black slavery tore the Republic apart in the mid nineteenth century is that of abortion. We are divided almost equally among those who oppose it and those who do not. The lines are drawn clearly. Abortion on demand has been the salient issue for feminist groups since the sixties and is a galvanizing theme among the liberals who control the Democratic Party. Opposing these are Christians who have steadfastly opposed abortion since long before it was legalized in 1962 by the dubious Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade. To them abortion is no less than the killing of innocents, a direct and monstrous violation of the Sixth Commandment prohibition of murder.

It was once argued that abortion is not infanticide because a fetus is not a person until it is born. Science and medicine have since shown irrefutably that a fetus from its earliest stages is an unborn human being. Only the most partisan abortionists deny this today. As intolerable as is slavery, it involves only the enslavement of a person, abortion on the other hand is the destruction of a person. If eradicating the former lesser offense justified the death of 500,000 Americans, how much more the latter? Our country may be on the precipice of having to answer that ominous question.

For the first time since Lyndon Johnson was President 40 years ago, Democrats have overwhelming control of both houses of Congress and the White House. During Johnson’s term, many of the Democrat legislators were southerners and most of these conservative. Today the left wing of the liberal wing of the party exerts hegemony. The Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and both President-Elect Barack Obama and Vice President-Elect Joe Biden are long time supporters of abortion on demand.

The abortionist lobby, in anticipation of a friendly reception from the new regime has submitted a fifty page, pro-abortion program involving more than a billion dollars in public funds. Among the recommendations are $65 billion for UNFPA a United Nations family planning group that promotes abortion in the third world. $700million for grants to pro-abortion clinics and organizations such as Planned Parenthood andthe repeal of the Hyde Amendment that limits Medicaid from funding abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. Obama has been a vocal opponent of Hyde and can be expected to support its repeal. In addition, the proposal asks the new President to sign an executive order repealing the Mexico City Policy that prohibits non-governmental-organizations like the UN from using US funds to finance abortion overseas. The most odious of the demands is that funding for abortion become a part of the mandatory national health insurance scheme supported by the left. President Obama is drifting right on the environment and the economy. He must give the left something of significance or risk losing his base; that thing is likely to be abortion on demand with all its attendant sorrows.

Heretofore what little use of public money for abortion has been hidden, quiet, and abroad. Abortion opponents have chosen to turn a blind eye toward it. If the above proposals become law, they - particularly Christians - will not be able to ignore it. Believers will be put to the ancient test. How will they respond when the power of government demands they pay for an activity that so grossly offends their true Sovereign?

Christians are by faith and habit quiet people. Not only are they about peacefully worshiping their Lord and raising families; they are commanded to obey their government - or civil magistrate - as an instrument of God for policing society. There are only two exceptions to this mandate, when the magistrate forbids something The Lord requires and when the magistrate commands something The Lord forbids. The question before The Church is to be; in using one's tax money to fund the killing of innocents, does the magistrate command the believer to participate in what The Lord forbids?. For the only time in our nation’s history, individual believers will have to decide whether to obey Caesar or God. The consequences of that decision are grave for the Christian, The Church and the nation.

Liberals Hate Poor People

2008-12-15T21:34:00.008-05:00

A very liberal acquaintance of mine remarked recently that Wal-Mart is the most “destructive” entity in the world because its business plan focuses heavily on reducing costs! This is only slightly less shocking than progressive New York Daily News columnist Neil Steinberg’s description of the company as “an enormous fascist beast”. Wal-Mart’s emphasis on cost control and low prices runs afoul of a number of liberal shibboleths such as buying manufactured items from nations having wage scales below some arbitrarily derived minimum, selling “too cheap” and operating in sprawling “big boxes” that crowd out local mom and pop stores. That Wal-mart furnishes its customers serviceable to excellent products at deep discounts and that items it obtains from third world regions provide otherwise non-existent jobs is willfully ignored.

One trip to a Wal-mart in say Hattiesburg, Mississippi quickly reveals that it is the least economically endowed who shop there. The cars of the working poor and the elderly fill the Wal-mart parking lot. With many prescription drugs at $4 for a month’s supply and cut-rate groceries, clothes and other necessities of life, the company brings American prosperity to the least of us. It is no stretch to assert that Wal-mart does more for poor people in this country than all the liberal welfare programs adopted since the New Deal - and without damning consequences. Overseas Wal-mart suppliers provide countless men and women with jobs at a wage they stand on line to accept.

In public education, progressive teachers unions foster a culture of inferiority where excellence is suspect and mediocrity rewarded. These same unions promote bloated, out of touch school administrations that siphon off much needed funds from the classroom. Deweyite educators push multicultural and new age curriculums in place of basic and foundational studies. Our schools no longer teach grammar, civics, a truthful history of our nation and other subjects necessary in preparation for life in a 21st Century world. It is the children of the impoverished of course who are condemned to these factories of failure.

Free exchange of goods and services is among the most dignified and moral acts in creation. Dignified because each man gets what he wants from the bargain and moral for the transaction is totally without compulsion. Free enterprise with its handmaiden, privately owned property is the ultimate wealth and prosperity engine yet created by the society of men. The excess profit of trade has furnished every improvement in man’s environment and life since the dawn of time. Liberals despise private property, trade and profit.

Unfettered, free enterprise will ever produce more and better goods and services at lower prices. The production of this merchandise and benefits create the jobs by which the meanest among us may improve their lot. The lower prices guaranteed by competition put more and more quality products in their homes. Social reformers seek heavily sanctioned state control of both trade and production with favored products and services subsidized and others regulated away. Each time the heavy thumb of government falls on the scales of the marketplace, more poor people are put of work and denied the advantages they need and desire. Progressives seem to abhor general prosperity.

Extreme environmentalism harms struggling people by artificially raising gasoline and other energy prices. Excessive regulation and taxation restrict profits thus impairing job creation, again disproportionately affecting families at the bottom of the ladder. Farm subsidies push up food prices making it more difficult for the humble to eat properly.

From demonization of large discount stores to ineffective state schools. From family devastating welfare programs to excessive regulation and taxation I can think of no progressive policy that has produced anything but a negative impact on the less well off. The left claims a deep affection and compassion for poor people. Measured by the effect of its actions, liberals hate poor people.

The Little Moron Blunders Again

2008-12-12T22:15:00.002-05:00

For those of who continue to mistake George W. Bush for a conservative, please consider his response to the Big Three Bailout. Ignoring his own party’s principled opposition to requiring autoworkers in Kentucky making $49/hr to share their checks with union cousins in Detroit making $79/hr. The Little Moron of Pennsylvania Avenue has elected once again to add another liberal merit badge to his Weasel Scout sash. He has instructed Uncle Hank to dip into to his rapidly diminishing slush fund for a few billion for Detroit. In doing so he continues in Poppy’s tradition of state sponsored corporatism.

Having given banks billions not to loan, credit card companies billions to cover losses on cards mailed out like spam and giant insurance companies billions to cover bad bets, it is now the UAW that gets Uncle’s largesse. I have heretofore considered those calling to impeach Bush to be cranks. That notwithstanding by continuing to steal from the average and give to the rich he is getting in my opinion, perilously close to “high crimes and misdemeanors”. The President’s action, which is opposed by more than 60% of U.S. citizens is if not unconstitutional certainly repugnant. He is to be reviled. It is hoped someone will go into the federal courts seeking to stop this knavery.

Tyranny Rant

2008-12-05T23:49:00.007-05:00

The Federal government and the big banks have generated an economic collapse such that 10% of all American homeowners are at least 30 days delinquent on their mortgages. The same tribe of Wall Street vipers and bureaucrats who created the debacle have been given over a trillion dollars of public money to fix it. $350billion has been used to cover the large banks speculative losses and restore liquidity in the marketplace. Credit windows are nailed down and covered by plywood. 530,000 people lost their jobs last month as a recession hidden by the government for nearly a year threatens to become a depression. Your national government has bailed out credit card companies that mass mailed cards like sale flyers. Now cometh the carmakers and the UAW demanding the USA force autoworkers in Kentucky making $70,000 a year share their pay with their unionized cousins in Detroit who make twice that. Congress will after a pro-forma posturing cave in.

America has enough coal to heat and power our country for 200 years. Burning it produces carbon dioxide, which makes the trees green. In homage to a known fallacy and enviro-nazis, our leaders intend to as the new Vice President put it, “bankrupt the coal companies”. While gasoline was $4 Congress wouldn’t permit drilling off our shores and in frozen wastelands. God only knows what they have planned now that gas is below $2. Our same keepers began paying people to turn corn into a fuel that produces more carbon than coal and caused a shortage of corn for food. Democrats who now run the federal circus want to let the UN tell us how warm we can keep our houses. The new President and Congress want to take over our health care and turn it into the type that drives Canadians across the border to use our current system. If you earn more than $50,000 a year Washington grabs half of it. For 6 months a year each working man is a slave. Federal bureaucrats mandate toilets that won’t flush and light bulbs that poison you if you break them. The President elect can't find his birth certificate. By order of Uncle Sam doctors go to jail for alleviating pain and fathers for spanking their sons.

The government makes murdering terrorists’ distinguished professors and distinguished teachers unemployed. Grandmothers are rudely searched while young Arab men walk right on to airliners. Shutting down talk radio is constitutional but listening in on terrorist phone calls is not. You may murder an unborn baby without fear but be prosecuted for cutting a tree that might be occupied by a rat. I could go on but I am just too tired.

Thomas Jefferson allowed, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”. The tyrants are plentiful, where are the patriots. I am 58 years old and have the better part of life behind me. If things continue to run as they are now I may soon declare myself with Jefferson’s fellow Virginian Patrick Henry.

Republicans Beware

2008-12-04T23:24:00.002-05:00

CONSERVATIVE - one who favors building on learned experience rather than untried innovation; in a political context- favoring free enterprise, individual and private property rights and traditional mores.

Lately some traditionally conservative journals such as National Review have become less conservative and more Republican. This bodes ill for both constituencies. Kathleen Parker writes recently that social conservatives, particularly Christians are “what ails” the GOP. Others suggest that the party must be more open to pro-abortion candidates and soften its stance on social issues like gay marriage and the 2nd Amendment. They cite statistics that gun owners and white married couples are shrinking as a demographic and Republicans must court the moderates and independents that are put off by the overtly religious.

I have included the definition above to remind the reader that “Republican” is not part of the definition of conservative. “One who favors…traditional” mores however is. The GOP would be well advised to remember this distinction. In 1966 when Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California, the Republican Party was calcified and dying. It stood for nothing and virtually no one stood for it. Reagan like NR founder William F. Buckley was a movement conservative more concerned with first principles than pragmatic attempts at power. Republicans occupied the White House all but four years from 1968 to 1992. By 1988 to be Republican was to be conservative. George Bush [The Elder] however abandoned Reagan’s legacy for the moderate center over the next four years and facilitated the election of Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992. Returning to principles in1994 Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America led a GOP sweep of both houses of Congress. Sending Sen. Robert Dole, another Republican moderate to the post in 1996 assured Clinton’s re-election.

By 2000, Republicans had repented and nominated the proven conservative Governor of Texas, George W. Bush and won a hard fought campaign to retake the oval office. Solid Republican majorities were maintained as well in Congress through 2006. Bush 43 held on in 2004 defeating Sen. John Kerry. By then however GWB had become compassionate. GOP members of Congress who had been reading the Washington Post for nearly ten years, opened wide the tent and became Democrat Lite. In 2006, they were rightfully swept out. In November last the most liberal member of the U.S. Congress, Barack Hussein Obama was elected President along with 58 Democratic Senators leaving Ronaldus Magnus’ glorious revolution little more than a memory.

The Reagan Coalition that dominated American politics for over 20 years included all those persons described in the definition above, many were Democrats, all full conservatives. A plain reading of this shorthand political history reveals clearly that the Republican Party came to power on the broad shoulders of conservatives and kept that power as long as it remained true to conservatism. Each time Beltway pundits chattered the party leftward [see Rope-A-Dope On the Left; Contra Mundum 5.21.08] electoral losses followed.
In 1992 and 1996 the Republican nominee for President ran as a moderate. Being neither hot nor cold; fish nor fowl, the electorate gagged on Bush 41 and Bob Dole respectfully. Social – conservatives remained loyal. By 2006 it was obvious Republicans for the most part had abandoned conservative axioms and they were turned out. John McCain, ‘The Maverick” that would save the day by attracting independents found his margin of defeat last month equal to the number of independents Bush The Younger got in 2004 that he didn’t.

Republican leaders need understand that many conservatives in the aftermath of the November slaughter are beginning to believe that the party no longer serves our interests. A few party leaders must be getting the message; radio hosts that have gone fool for the party are busy lately reminding conservative listeners they have no place else to call home. Of course, third parties are very problematic. Political organizations though do outlive their usefulness. Whigs are conspicuously absent from ballots recently. Without gun owners, evangelicals and other religious stalwarts more Republican defeats will certainly come followed inevitably by defects of fiscal and national security conservatives. Overtime The Reagan Coalition will reorganize under another banner and the GOP will pass from the scene forever. Let those Republican leaders with eyes to see, see and ears to hear, hear. Drive Christians and other So-Cons out at your own peril.

Lincoln's War

2008-12-03T09:32:00.025-05:00

He suspended the civil rights of his own country, took over 13,000 political prisoners, including mayors, legislators, ministers and newspapermen. He invaded his neighbor lay waste to her lands, killed over 250,000 of her people and caused the remainder to be subjugated to his own political will. Who was this man?

The short resume above belongs to President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is given almost godlike reverence on two counts, resulting from the northern victory in The War Between The States; emancipating the slaves and preserving the Union of 34 states. That he accomplished these with no authority save more and bigger cannon has been ignored if not denied by ancient and modern historians alike. In the brief essay that follows, I hope to gauge Lincoln and the conflict against the philosophical underpinnings of the Union he strove to save not merely the immediate results of the conflict of 1861-1865.

The casus belli of The War Between the States remain as debatable today as they were in 1861. The writer is inadequate to the task of unraveling that Gordian knot. The actions of the 16th President of The United States on the other hand are visible to anyone with eyes to see. President Lincoln unleashed horrible destruction and loss on the southern people not to mention the 300,000 Union soldiers who lost their lives. More Americans died in Lincoln’s War than in all other U.S. conflicts combined. The above notwithstanding, I do not suggest that Lincoln was motivated by anything other than what he thought to be right under the circumstances. I believe Lincoln was met with such intractable problems and powerful external forces that he wearied under the pressure and chose to try to accomplish quickly by force of arms what might have been achieved only through years of painstaking diplomacy.

The America of the 1860’s was very unlike our nation today. Neither the interstate highway system nor the automobiles to travel it existed to tie us together. People and commerce travelled by horseback, steamship and loosely connected railroads. The Republic was divided north and south, geographically, industrially, monetarily and spiritually. The northern states were fast becoming an industrial giant. In just more than a half century it would become manufacturer to the world. The wealth of the nation passed through the banks, trading houses and ports of New York, Philadelphia and Boston. Much of the population north of the Mason-Dixon was urban. On the other hand the American south in the middle of the 19th century, was overwhelmingly rural and dependent on growing and selling tobacco and cotton. More than 90% of the world’s cotton came from the states of the Confederacy. Southern cotton was shipped on northern ships, sold through northern commercial houses and the profit deposited in northern banks. Virtually all southern manufactured goods from farm equipment to weapons to clothing were imported either from abroad or from the north. Industrial tariffs on these importations produced 70% of federal tax receipts in 1860. The high exactions drastically reduced the value of southern crops. Lest we ignore the obvious, the far greater part of plantation labor was performed by black African slaves while radical abolitionists dominated the newly minted and powerful Republican party. In the south, paranoia began to run deep.

When South Carolina and then the other slave states seceded and formed The Confederate States of America a whole host of problems arose for the northern states and the federal government. Without southern tariff receipts federal coffers would soon run empty requiring increased taxes on northern merchants and manufacturers. Additionally, the Confederacy offered foreign nations tax free ports at Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans presenting a mortal threat to the protectionist northern sea trade. In fact, an independent southern nation had the potential to bankrupt the north. These conditions met the 16th President at his inauguration.

It is clear that in defense of the wealth, property and well-being of the northern states and their people, Lincoln could not permit the Confederacy [without mutual agreements on trade etc] to remain as an independent country. Yet the President had the same obligation to protect the people and property of the south, at least as long as they were states. Truly no President before or since has faced such an imponderable dilemma. Half of the nation that elected him President no longer believed it bound to the Union and had set up a nation that threatened the well being of the other half. Lincoln was left hanging between heaven and hell. He had really only three options; accept the Confederacy as a legitimate, sovereign nation and begin the long and arduous task of negotiating the salient issues toward a peaceful resolution and perhaps reunification, declare war on the C.S.A. or claim the southern states in “revolt” and use the United States Army to subdue the “rebellion”. Under severe pressure for a quick solution from northern commerce and with abolitionists railing at him to take the opportunity to free the slaves, Lincoln seemed never to have considered diplomacy. In his first inaugural he put his marker down asserting: “ in your hands my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen and not mine is the momentous issue of civil war…You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it." In a brilliant piece of political legerdemain, Lincoln established a self-serving and false rhetorical basis for the conflict that obtains even today.

No threat was uttered nor intent given by the seceding states toward an overthrow of the government of the United States. Civil war [a legal term] by necessity of definition requires such a struggle thus no civil war was imminent and in fact, none occurred. Further Lincoln’s oath was to “preserve, protect and defend “, not the sitting government but the Constitution. Nothing in The Constitution compelled any state to remain a part of the U.S. We shall see further on what oath the south staked its claim. On April 13, 1861 goaded by Lincoln's ordering gunboats toward Charleston, intemperate South Carolinians fired on Ft. Sumter. In late July 1861, Lincoln invaded Virginia.

The ethical and moral foundations of the United States are expressed in the Declaration of Independence of 1776. In that year, the 13 American colonies of King George III of England declared:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

If these truths are not eternal and invioable the United States is and forever will be a rogue nation founded by brigands and traitors with no moral or ethical grounds for its being and no basis for its laws and customs save force. Below is an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence of the Confederate States of America.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all human beings are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Lincoln’s arguments, to the contrary the Confederacy held exactly the same writ asserted by the colonies against Britain some four-score years past. In ignoring the legitimacy of the Confederate States and using armed force to keep them under United States rule, Lincoln denied the foundational principles of his own country. Like George III before him, Lincoln became a tyrant.

In judging Abraham Lincoln, one may not retreat behind events occurring after the War Between the States. It also cannot be assumed the he was prescient in knowing a re-united America would become a great power and force for good in the world just as we cannot assume that had he let the Confederacy go reconciliation would not have taken place peaceably or that both nations may not have been great. Neither can we contend that the slaves would not in time, have been emancipated. President Lincoln, like all men must be judged according to his times, by the knowledge and wisdom available to him. Lincoln was dealt a terrible hand. He felt an immense pragmatic and mystical burden to maintain the union – whatever the cost. Lincoln’s policies in response to that burden were by the immutable axioms of our own beginning, illegal, immoral and unethical. His actions were those of a despot and resulted in a spiritual, physical, societal and cultural devastation of the nation that is not healed 140 years hence. That the Union Abraham Lincoln salvaged became the American Colossus may be accounted to his favor. That slavery was abolished at that precise time and in the manner it was, is more problematic. I hope to address that issue as well as other significant historical consequences of The War Between The States in future posts.

Out of the Asylum

2008-11-24T10:29:00.010-05:00

Legislator n - A person who goes to the capital of his country to increase his own

Ambrose Bierce

"The Devils Dictionary"

Does anyone remember a time when the Commonwealth of Kentucky was not crying for more funds? Good times and bad, state government offers the tin cup to its citizens. Always the threat is that education, roads, police and parks will have to do without. Always the same solution is asserted, higher taxes. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Enter Governor Steve Beshear, calling for an emergency session of the legislature to deal with a $450-million budgeted shortfall. Beshear declares taxes must increase or schools, roads and public safety will vanish. Rubbish! Budgets can be reduced. The nation is in deep recession, perhaps heading for depression. The states are only the nation in miniature. Each has its own economy determined at least partially by actions they may control. For instance, Michigan, a high tax, heavily regulated, closed shop is in actual depression now while low tax, right-to-work states like Tennessee and South Carolina are performing well, even in these troublesome times.

Raising taxes into a depressed economy is the equivalent in golf of hitting your first shot into the lake with a 7-iron, using the same club for your third and fifth shot and then selecting it for your seventh. Experience has proven a 7-iron is not the right choice and will result only in further penalty. Likewise, history plainly shows that raising tax rates decreases rather than increases receipts and produces an additional penalty in statewide job and income loss. That being the technical reason for not pushing exactions higher, the moral one is of even greater clarity. For a bloated bureaucracy to impose additional financial burden on its populous when the latter is already in financial extremis is the utmost in public knavery. A government must exist for its people, not the other way around.

Clearly, the Commonwealth must adjust its budget downward cutting those services less important to its populace rather than those most dear. If Beshear really seeks to promote growth in public receipts as well as improving the lot of his constituents, he will propose eliminating the state income tax and intangible property tax along with opening the shop floor. Investment and jobs will then flow into Kentucky and as surely as night follows day, those projects lost to tightening today will be redeemed tomorrow, with more besides. If not, Senate President David Williams must steadfastly stand in the gap against even higher taxes. It is said that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the practice of the insane. It is time Kentucky government stood up and walked out of the asylum.

From The Pen of Abaddon

2008-11-22T21:22:00.001-05:00

“I have never seen a Kentuckian without a gun, a pack of cards and a bottle of whiskey”
General Andrew Jackson

The Reaper comes quickly
Anon.

“The politician is the lowest form of life on earth. The Democrat is the lowest politician”
General George S. Patton

From The Pen of Abaddon

2008-11-21T10:43:00.003-05:00

Accuse - to affirm another's guilt or unworth; most often as a justification of ourselves for having wronged him.

Ambrose Bierce

THE DEVILS DICTIONARY

Back Up and Look Around vol 1

2008-11-20T21:40:00.005-05:00

It is very awkward to decry giving tax money to those making so little they pay no tax while at the same time feverishly doling it out to those so rich they can avoid paying any at all.

Were George W. Bush not leaving office in less than 90 days the disgracefully dishonest bill of goods he and Uncle Hank sold the nation would warrant sure impeachment.

An officer at a large regional bank granted over $3billion from TARP laughed derisivly when it was suggested the bank would now be opening the credit windows. "That money wasn't given to loan - it was given so we could buy other banks"

The stock market is off nearly 1500 points since The Messiah's election. All you "middle class" geniuses who voted for change have so far had your 401k's changed by a negative 16%. You earned it.

Doctrines of Fairness and Freedom

2008-11-10T18:54:00.037-05:00

Our Founders constructed a number of strong redoubts against the onslaught of tyranny. Strictly limiting and delineating the powers of the federal government, separation of powers among the three branches, the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, habeus corpus, the sanctity of private property and perhaps the strongest of all bulwarks, unfettered political speech.

Freedom of speech was first abridged in 1798 when a federalist congress under President John Adams sought to criminalize political dissent in the Aliens and Sedition Acts. Quickly Kentucky and Virginia announced their intention and asserted their right to nullify these acts within their bounds and a smattering of secessionist rumblings were heard throughout New England A chastened congress soon repealed the nefarious enactions and the nascent union was saved. Lincoln in the 1860's aside from revoking habeus corpus, imprisoned opposition journalists and closed newspapers critical of his continuing prosecution of the War Between The States. Woodrow Wilson the first categorically fascist western leader imposed strict and abusive restrictions on speech during WWI and Sen. Joseph McCarthy is infamous for demanding censorship of ideas in the 1950's. So repudiated and reviled was McCarthy [particularly from the left] that one might have thought free speech safely established till the end of time.

Time, it seems, has come today. Holding a virtual monopoly on the post-Watergate print media and seeing the mainstream television networks become little more than Democrat house organs, the left [ironically] began in the 1990's to try and fetter the expression of opposition opinion. After several abortive tries and with the help of putative Republican John McCain the effort bore fruit as The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Claiming to reduce the corrosive effect of money on the electoral process the act restricts the amount of cash a candidate may receive from a lone donor thus constraining the degree to which individuals rich or poor, might express political ideas and opinions. The self-serving act also limits criticism of incumbent candidates 60 days before an election and by force of operation dramatically increases the power of the friendly press. In a decision that will puzzle legal scholars for as long as the republic exists, the Supreme Court found this bluntly oppressive act constitutional. One locus of free speech so far remains unencumbered, talk radio.

Rising on the broad back of Rush Limbaugh in the 1980's and resurrecting AM radio frequencies and stations, talk radio overwhelmingly conservative in opinion, became outrageously popular. It seemed to have addressed a glaring need in the body politic - an outlet for political expression by Mr. and Mrs. Everyman. The success of talk radio represents a magnificent achievement of three of America's signature attributes, grass roots democracy, free markets and the free dissemination of ideas. The phenomenon however poses a problem to the progressives in our midst. Liberal thought, not only under represented on the air suffers constant and cogent attack from conservative hosts like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. The distribution of ideas having atomized among millions of everyday people is now being harnessed by well prepared and popular hosts. This outcome seems a certain disaster to many on the left.

The talk radio revolution was made possible when the Federal Communications Commission responding to its own finding that its order "had the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the discussion of controversial issues of public importance" [emphasis mine] repealed the 1949 Fairness Doctrine that required over air media outlets to offer equal time for all viewpoints. Progressives made the proper response in 2004 launching the Air America Radio Network featuring liberal talk, phone calls and opinion. By the end of 2006 Air America was in bankruptcy. It remains on the air today though having only 66 affiliates as compared to the nearly 1000 of Limbaugh's EIB Network. Two factors are responsible for the failure of Air America. In the first instance the mainstream print and TV media more than adequately distribute liberal ideas which tends to reduce the felt need for an additional outlet in AM radio. Secondly and more importantly, it seems as if the appetite for progressive talk among the general population is nearly non-existent. To the liberal mind the market forces that have suffocated Air America have made a demonstrable minority of those persons who enjoy left leaning chatter. They have been locked out by corporate greed and power. The progressive movement is at its heart opposed to the winner-loser results of free enterprise. It is not difficult at all to see that it views this situation as unfair.

Recognizing conservative talk radio as not only unfair but a clear and present danger to recently established political hegemony the freshly minted Democrat regime is wasting little time in executing a plan to eliminate the threat, perhaps forever. The brand new Office of The President Elect announced yesterday that former FCC commissioner and Fairness Doctrine devotee Henry Rivera will head up a committee to select the new FCC Chairman who will, in his turn likely support reinstating the doctrine. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who only days ago referred to conservative talk shows as "pornography" and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will head up what must become a particularly autocratic congressional campaign that will attempt to memorialize the FCC regulation in permanent federal law.

The silencing of opposition speech whether from the right, left or center is for a democracy, nothing less than a death wish. From the very beginning of our nation such actions have been opposed by patriots of all stripes and at one time or another by all political factions. It matters not in this controversy, whose ox is getting gored. Liberty itself is in the dock. Now is the time for all good men from every walk of life and the four corners of the political compass to unite behind the banner of freedom, rise up as one and slay this awful dragon that seeks, in the interest of the most base partisanship, to destroy the foundations of our very existence as a free and self-determining people.

God Bless The Commonwealth

2008-11-04T22:57:00.016-05:00

"The sun shines bright in my old Kentucky home" never sounded so good as it did yesterday. As the nation marched hands-over-eyes into the darkness of marxism Kentucky became a shining beacon of hope. A true land of the free and brave. My Kentucky brothers and sisters not only returned stalwart Senator Mitch McConnell to Washington to bear the torch of freedom and stand against repression but also rejected overwhelmingly the The Prairie Socialist and his call to serfdom.

The nation is lost. With every catastrophe though comes an opportunity. This election proves a great majority of Kentuckians still cherish independence, the rights of property and individual responsibility. Let this great majority unite now behind a new banner, a banner of growth and abundance. Let this great majority demand of our legislature the repeal of the state tax on incomes, on Kentucky businesses, and the union shop. Let us announce to the world that as those who embrace socialism stagnate and decline we in Kentucky will create a rennaissance of prosperity. Put the call out to industry that King Coal furnishes Kentucky the lowest electricity costs in America and that inside our borders we will tolerate no caps, trades or carbon taxes that reduce this advantage or oppress our citizens. We have shown that we will not follow like lemmings over the cliff of collectivism. Let us now invite all those in North America who long to be free to come and join us as we reclaim the Spirit of 1776.

The Republic Is Lost

2008-11-04T22:03:00.005-05:00

As the landslide begins to take shape, one thing is painfully clear. America is no longer America. What has happened tonight is not something that has happened. It is a choice made, the willful act of the American people. Let us not be terrified at an Obama presidency. Let us be terrified at what we have become. I can no longer look at my countrymen in the same light knowing that over half of them have chosen serfdom. America has abandoned principle for pottage and taken a flight from reason unimaginable only a few years ago. I am embarrassed to be numbered among them and fearful of other travesties to which they might subscribe. It was once said a divine Providence watched benevolently over drunkards, fools and the United States. Tonight Providence turns away. The Republic is lost.

Time of the Season Final: My Vote

2008-11-02T23:32:00.016-05:00

I often answer: “Why bother” when asked for whom I plan to vote. When George W. Bush and the Republican Congress failed to honor the trust they were given I renounced the pathetic poseurs and vowed to support them no more. With Republicans holding both houses of Congress and the Presidency, those of us who participated in the Reagan Revolution watched helplessly as our hopes for fair tax, a roster of strong new judges and a muscular foreign policy morphed into pork barrels, gangs of 14 and nation building. Why waste time and effort voting electing GOP candidates who upon taking office become republocrats. Voting Democrat of course is expressing a death wish.

By the response of my interlocutor, you might have thought I had just announced my intent to fly the Second Flag of The Confederacy! “Why, you mustn’t give up your right to vote!” they wail, “It’s your duty to vote.” “Thousands of good Americans have given their lives so you can vote” “You can’t dishonor their sacrifice.” And of course: “Well if you don’t vote, don’t complain about what happens.”

By definition my right to vote is exclusively mine and confers an equal right not to vote. Thus in not voting I am exercising my voting right. Further, a right as any literate citizen understands is never a duty. The watchful hens of The League of Women Voters, I offer dreamed up voting as duty believing that more voters begets better government. Anyone vaguely familiar with the quality of the American electorate knows what a misguided notion that is. I shudder at every third person I encounter wearing one of those I Voted stickers!

Not thousands, no not even one person died for my right to vote for John McCain, Barack Obama, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. If asked to do so I suspect one would punch you in the nose. For every courageous American soldier, seaman or marine who died to protect his voting right, ten-thousand or more did so for their buddies, families, girlfriends or just for pride of duty. A great majority I imagine, if told they were enduring the filth, privation and danger of war in faraway places for my right to choose between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, would have dropped their rifles and walked on in.

Sometime in the last century, American civics teachers began mistakenly to equate democracy with freedom. Politicians of all stripes quickly took up the call as a way of convincing people they are free even while enslaving them. The Bill of Rights was a response to the fears of our Founders that the majority of self-serving dolts would impose its oppressive will on the poor lot in the minority. I do not trust the mob. Give me a monarch and nobles who leave managing my life and property to me over an elected congregation of knaves and blackguards intent on taking my property and becoming my keeper.

The prospect of President Barack Obama leading a leftist, Democrat congress though is just too frightening to ignore. I will thus please the hooray for democracy crowd tomorrow by going to the polls and voting - not for John McCain but against Obama and the Democrats.

Why Not?

2008-10-30T15:00:00.008-04:00

Uncle Henry Paulson sold Congress a bill of goods that he must have $700 billion to buy troubled mortgages. He trotted out The Little Moron of Pennsylvania Avenue [LMPA] to tell the country if Uncle Henry didn't get the dough our world would come to and end in less than a week. Congress ponied up. After LMPA dutifully signed the bill Uncle Henry changed his mind and decided instead to buy stock in banks. This accomplished nothing at all for anyone except the shareholders of these failing institutions many of whom are likely on a first name basis with Uncle Hank.Then along came the big insurance companies with hands upturned. Having given busted and fraud-filled AIG more than $100 billion Paulson felt obliged to help these Westchesterites as well.

Meanwhile the banks still won't make loans, thousands of families are foreclosed on, and countless small businesses from home builders to small manufacturers go under. Now come GM and Chrysler asking dear Uncle for $10 billion so they can continue to operate in the red. Ford can't be far behind. To add insult to our injury, Ole Uncle Henry gives his insolvent, mismanaged banks the OK to use your money and mine to make dividend payments to well-off shareholders.

Barack Obama is a Marxist. He intends to take money from hardworking middle Americans and redistribute it to those who, for whatever reason, have less. I am not sure I can argue this is more troubling than than taking money from hardworking middle Americans and redistributing it to the friends of Uncle Henry.

To Live Contra Mundum

2008-10-29T21:49:00.020-04:00

I have learned that to live contra mundum is hard. In fact, it is no way to live at all.

The Founders of our nation lived contra mundum. They believed the comparatively gentle tyranny of George III so egregious they preferred the possibility of dying. I am glad they did. Nevertheless, I wonder how many Revolutionary widows and orphans found the liberty won worth the cost. There are costs and losses more hateful than one's death. In the middle of the 19th century, my ancestors held their right to political autonomy so dear they seceded from the United States. Living contra mundum in this way cost the states of The Confederacy a quarter million dead and the utter devastation of their country.

In my formative years, I lived contra mundum for the thrill and convenience of it. It was fun and required little effort. It came as naturally to me as breathing. My lifestyle likely stole years from my parents and if not it condemned them to months and months of late nights spent in fear and heartache. It crippled my left leg and left me an emotional adolescent even unto this day. I squandered a bright mind on easy course work, doing it my way, thus preempting my future wife and children the secure and stable life they so rightly and richly deserved.

Soon after entering the business world, I developed a reputation for fearlessness. My penchant for ignoring conventional wisdom was proving beneficial. Attacking projects others thought impossibly difficult returned me several fortunes that I wasted with bravado. I began to fancy myself a paladin of lost or difficult causes, invincible. Success redoubled this hubris and I got more daring still, virtually demanding the world mount a charge and take me down. It didn't have to. It just stood still and fired while I, like Picketts Brigade threw myself against it.

When a young bounty hunter drew down on The Outlaw Josey Wales in the film of the same name, Wales replied, "Dyin’s a hard way to make a livin boy". The boy died. To live contra mundum is to court a similar fate. Bounty hunters and outlaws lead solitary lives. Solitary men may live contra mundum with a certain nobility. Not so normal men for when the carnage of recklessness is shed on innocent wives, children, parents and friends there is no honor only the shameful indulgence of lazy and rebellious character.

To live contra mundum is hard. To live in the wake of one living contra mundum is piteously hard. In fact, it is no way to live at all.

America The Dim

2008-10-26T21:30:00.011-04:00

Barack Obama is on the cusp of being elected the first black President of the United States. If he does ride to victory on November 4 it will be on the backs of the willfully ignorant, the biologically silly and the poor. According to Zogby International the post-racial candidate is capturing 70% of voters earning less than $35,000 and has a 14 point lead among independents and women.

Independents, those flinty individualists who vote the “man” rather than the party are the most puzzling of this triumvirate. Disadvantaged neither by nature or man these fiercely stupid voters believe there to be a difference between their man and his party. Since John McCain is the very embodiment of the maverick and Barack the ultimate “party man”, it stretches credulity that a majority of these dopes could support the Prairie Marxist. But such is the nature of the Independent who is too timid to choose sides and too proud to admit it.

At this point I need apologize to the very real set of reasonable women in America which includes both my two daughters and my bride. That said the silliness of the distaff franchise is well evidenced in the last four presidential elections. In 1992 and 1996 women voted overwhelmingly for the misogynist, Bill Clinton, in 2000 for Al Gore, in 2004 for John Kerry and presently for Barack Obama. There is not even one thread of reason connecting this crowd of whore-mongers, cretins and dissemblers which might explain why a group of reasonable people [save the poor] would choose one of them much less each of them. Thus it must be that female American voters as a group are not reasonable people. This however is not of them-selves but by a cruel trick of nature. They are to be excused.

Though as a rule uneducated and dense the poor are here the most rational of voters. They have a real, genuinely American reason to elect Obama. He promises to give them money. Not credits, debits, deductions, offsets or swaps but real money, checks drawn on the Treasury of The United States. These yeomen have retained that spark of American greatness which will permit at least some small hope in the long dark night to come. The lunch-bucketeers understand clearly it is better that Uncle Sam take from others and give to them than vice-versa.

There is a truth here, not a great truth, but a truth nonetheless. By hook or by crook, one may still obtain the American dream, provided one is neither “tetched” by nature nor educated beyond intelligence. If college tuitions can be kept sufficiently high, the nation may yet have a chance.

Don't Blame McCain

2008-10-22T18:44:00.009-04:00

I have been following presidential election campaigns for nearly 50 years and have seen some bad candidates. Michael Dukakis was a doofus, McGovern hopeless and Bob Dole bumbling. But none at anytime approach the ineptitude of the stumble-bum John McCain.

McCain is about to lose to a fuzzy-faced, neophyte with an Islamic name, who lacks only the card being a card carrying communist. McCain is losing to a man whose political career began in the living room of a murderous ‘60’s terrorist and who as a member of Trinity Christian Church sat through 20 years of the rantings of a Marxist, racist, anti-Semitic, hate filled and hateful preacher. Have I mentioned he’s black? My dog could beat Barack Obama and she has only 3 feet and is dead!!

The first ham-fisted move McCain made was to anger his base in the Republican Party by announcing he would sign the Kyoto agreements on global climate change. Then he abandoned his very nature to fight a gentler, kinder campaign against one who learned the trade in Chicago’s Democratic machine. Fearing being labeled a racist, McCain refuses to even mention Rev. Jeremiah Wright much less make him a ubiquitous figure in prime time. He has only just now begun to attack Obama as a proto socialist. And while on the economic front only Borat could have bungled the Great Big Bank Bailout worse than the GOP standard bearer. Having seized the high ground by suspending his campaign “until a bill is passed” McCain instead weasel walked right out of Washington job unfinished to participate in the most mundane debate in history. While McCain was in Washington on the on The GBBB, Obama was in Hawaii being filmed body surfing. The Nero fiddled while Rome burned analogy is criminally obvious – but have you seen the Black Kahuna in a McCain attack ad? Not a chance.

I could go on forever but space and time prohibit. Suffice it to say that if America is to avoid a powder less Marxist revolution it won’t be John McCain’s fault.

Time of The Season 16

2008-10-09T12:37:00.002-04:00

Not to be out done by The Little Moron of Pennsylvania Avenue in distributing taxpayer dough, John Mcain proposes the government buy - at face value - all delinquent mortgages and reduce the balances and interest rates for the homeowners. By bailing out both banks and home owners The Little Corporal has double trumped both Congress and the President.

Attention Homeowners: Immediately suspend your mortgage payments. Not paying may earn you big bucks!

Damn the speculators. According to Barack Obama it's greedy speculators who have screwed up the housing industry. First oil now housing, I hope they stay away from rhubarb futures.

Obama will eliminate income taxes for millions and cut them for millions more. He will also fix Social Security, pay every American's doctor and drugstore bills and give poor people the world over a living stipend. Now I know why made that trip to Europe last spring. He needs the tax base.

A Very Sad Story

2008-10-08T22:44:00.008-04:00

When I sat down to compose this article I was angry. Having heard David Gergen declare incipient racism the only possible thing that could elect John McCain and then James Carville all but threaten widespread race riots should Barack Obama lose, I wanted to call on white voters to behave exactly as expected by these cynics and vote en block against Obama. Not because Obama is black but in answer to this sort of extortion and intimidation by the left. But as I began to write, a different story emerged, a very sad story.

Americans are a generous loving people willing to go to great lengths to live in harmony with one another. We despise lies and injustice. We extol fair play. Our ancient Christian heritage, notwithstanding the blubbering of the neo-atheist, has led us for the most part to love our neighbors and to seek his well being. It is also the foundation of white guilt. Americans are ashamed of racism and we hate it. Real racism, the mean spirited kind that seeks to hurt and the cynical, self serving kind that seeks to use race as a means to quite different ends. This is the kind of racism that is becoming an important part of this election campaign.

Because Americans hate racism and want an end to identity politics, we are anxious to elect a black president. We want to take this ultimate step in proving ourselves to be the greatest people the earth has ever known. We are tired of the constant sound of discontent running in the background of virtually every issue. We are tired of being barred from honestly discussing our feelings and attitudes - a condition perfecting race as the impossible problem. We want this to go away so bad we are willing to suspend intelligence and risk catastrophe to make it so. Enter Barack Obama.

The more I see of him the more I like Barack Obama. I despise everything he stands for politically but I like him. I am convinced that he is a gentle and sincere family man and that he actually believes the policies of Marx and Lenin will – despite 100 years of proof to the contrary – create a better society. I believe he wants badly to be the first President of The United States of African descent. And why shouldn't he? I also feel very sad for him.

Barack Obama has never lived outside the shadow of Marxist teachers, mentors and handlers. Hard left Democrats having lost the last two elections to a lightweight son of privilege have seen in Obama a way to tap the longing within white America for a St. George to slay the dragon of racial politics. Presented as such Obama it is believed, can lead Democrats not just into The Oval Office but to unassailable majorities in Congress. Past associations having gainsaid his being “post-racial” the success of this plan hinges now on portraying the candidate as black but not very black; authentic but not threatening.

Obama is not in any way racially threatening. Articulate, handsome, likable and cool under fire he might be called the Jackie Robinson of presidential politics. If that were the end of the story, Obama breaking the presidential color barrier just for the rightness of the cause there should be no sadness, for his foes, win or lose. But that is not the case. The Maoist left, dominated by white elites seeks to use Obama not to advance the cause of race relations or even of African Americans but to achieve its own ends in power. In this purpose the left makes of Barack Hussein Obama, not a Jackie Robinson but its own Uncle Tom and that is very, very sad.

In The Long Run IV [Don't Try This at Home]

2008-10-07T21:02:00.010-04:00

"In the long run I believe this economy will be all right"
--President George W. Bush, October 6, 2008

Taxpayers to IRS, April 15, 2009

"In the long run I believe the economy will be all right and I will be able to pay. Call me then"
BG, Texas

"My entire compensation package this past year has gone to make the mortgage payments on my home. I am terribly sorry and I take full responsibility."
JM, Ohio

"Go ahead and have Hank Paulson sign over my bailout check to you guys. Save the postage"
GFF, California

"I am too big to fail. Please send me $700 billion"
BI, Kentucky

"The money is gone. I don't believe assigning blame will solve anything"
JR, NC

"I had laid aside the entire amount of my 2009 tax bill plus a $100,000 patriotic bump in a lock box at The Left Bank of The Mississippi. Unfortunately late last night a Mr. Kashkari transferred all of it to some guy named Paulson in Washington"
BDB, TN

"Barney Frank called me just today and advised that since I made my annual contribution to the Barney Frank Re-Election Fund I would be exempt this year."
CB, Boston

IRS to Taxpayers: April 16, 2009

Dear Deadbeats,
How on earth do you expect us to keep our big financial institutions afloat, pay everyones doctor bills and furnish your neighbors a $500,000 home for monthly payments of $99.99 unless you live up to your patriotic duty and pay these taxes? Unfortunately for you we have neither the time nor inclination to wait on you nor are we interested in your excuses, whining and simpering. There is no long run for you. Unless you cough up the cheese inside of the next 30 minutes the entire enterprise will implode leaving us no choice but to foreclose on all your assets not currently held by our house banks and suck the money from your 401's and IRA accounts that we aquired along with our new insurance subsidiaries. I urge you with all the gravity I can manage to call immediately and make arrangements to pay up. We will accept virtually any valuable article in lieu of cash although we are currently somewhat overstocked in size 38 shorts. Jack-booted agents are standing by.
Sincerely,
Neel Kashkari
Senior Accounts VP
Goldmann-Sachs-JP Morgan-United States of America and Company. INC
New York and Washington

PS: Dear CB,
Please accept our sincerest apologies. Your account is paid in full.
JK

In The Long Run III

2008-10-07T20:33:00.005-04:00

Wall Street Santa Hank Paulson's new elf is named Kashkari. I swear you can't make this stuff up!

In the seven years it took Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld to run the venerable investment house aground he was paid $350 million. Does Dick think perhaps he was overpaid? Nah, Lehman's compensation committee, according to Fuld, spent " a tremendous amount of time" insuring his pay rate struck a fine balance between his needs and those of the shareholders. Let's see Dick $350m; shareholders and creditors $0. Yeah that's about right. Before a house sub-committee Fuld was remorseful accepting full responsibility for the firm's failure. He didn't offer to return the money. I guess being sorry is enough responsibility for any CEO to bear. I'm sure in the long run Dick will be all right.

The Long Run II

2008-10-06T19:21:00.007-04:00

"In the long run this economy will be all right" - GWB.

In the long run the cows will come home, the crocuses will bloom, the swelling will go down and you'll forget the one that broke your heart. In the long run maybe we'll even forget that The Little Moron made Barack Hussein Obama President but I hope not.

The Long Run I

2008-10-06T19:03:00.010-04:00

"In the long run I believe this economy will be all right" - George W. Bush, Oct 6, 2008.

In the mean time Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson has put one of his pals from Goldmann-Sachs to work helping hand out the government cheese on Wall Street. I suspect "the long run" will be be over alot sooner for these malignant creeps than the rest of us. Call me a cynic. Call us all screwed.

Render unto Caesar

2008-10-03T21:17:00.003-04:00

Christian churches should consider very carefully any challenge to IRS rules prohibiting a political pulpit. The law clearly states that congregations that actively and openly promote particular candidates or parties are subject to forfeit tax exempt status. Each election cycle a few more raise objections to these rules citing infringement on free speech and expression of religion. They are tragically wrong.

Jesus allowed "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. . . ." Eccliastical America has made a bargain with Caesar. If The State will forgo it's right to tax the property and income of The Church, The Church will forgo it's prerogative to exhort the flock electorally. It is truly a Faustian bargain.

For a handful of silver The Church has permitted The City of Man to proscribe speech inside the City of God.

Time of The Season no. 16

2008-10-03T21:02:00.003-04:00

Within five years someone will write a bestselling book entitled: How The Bush Family Destroyed The Republican Party.

Time of The Season no. 15

2008-10-03T20:42:00.004-04:00

"The nation is in a terrible mess and it's your fault" "The nation is not in a terrible mess and it's your fault"

If I were the debate moderator. "Governor Palin you have asserted that Senator Biden voted yes. Senator Biden you have asserted you did not vote yes. One of you is a liar and we are not going forward until we determine which of you it is"

The "greatest financial crisis " in American history has required $700 billion to cover the losses of the big banks and stock crooks and another $150 billion to bribe enough congressional crooks to save the nation.

Is it just me or is Barack Obama's baby choir very very spooky?

At about this time each four years it becomes painfully obvious that Republicans are too stupid to govern properly and Democrats to dishonest.

2008 Ryder Cup: Abominable

2008-09-20T17:33:00.004-04:00

Golf has always been a gentleman’s game, embodying the best in manners and fair play. Not so anymore. The 2008 Ryder Cup, the 37th renewal of what began as a friendly sporting competition among professional golfers from Great Britain and America, seems now less golf than field hockey.

On a golf course set up more for amateurs than the world’s best players [the better to begat crowd pleasing birdies] with flag waving, face painted crowds and fist pumping, caterwauling players, this year’s event has surrendered all pretense to sportsmanship. It's one thing to pull for your team and teammates, quite another to incite the home crowd while your opponent has golf yet to play. American captain Paul Azinger established a Ryder Cup bottom when he urged the partisan, Kentucky, crowd to cheer when the Euros miss a shot or putt. Citing such behavior by European fans he recommends boorishness as the answer to boorishness 'Zinger’s attitude is more appropriate in the poolroom or bowling alley than on the golf course.

There has been a huge push in America to democratize golf. This has manifested itself in media glorification of public courses, drunken, rowdy fans and poorly behaved players. Unfortunately the effort to bring golf to the common man has brought instead the common man to golf. Can "full contact" golf be far behind? Stay tuned.

History Making?

2008-09-19T21:16:00.005-04:00

Pundits of both right and left characterize the presidential election of 2008 as history making. Only if Barack Obama wins the presidency and carries with him a filibuster proof majority in the Senate will Obama v McCain be truly historic - and then only that it will speed up political processes already underway.

America began a descent into socialism in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt rent the GOP by forming the Bull Moose Party which permitted the election of progressive Woodrow Wilson. The 16th Amendment a soak-the-rich measure adopted in 1913 allowing a tax on incomes, released a constantly increasing source of funds for an ever-expanding federal government. The Great Depression and WWII accelerated this trend, Franklin Roosevelt and The New Deal ushering in the modern welfare state. The post war period saw a rapid increase in federal subsidies to diverse recipients. Washington's growth continued to spiral through the 1970's as more and more free citizens became wards of the state. The Reagan Revolution offered hope that this inexorable drift into semi-marxism might be reversed. However the Bushes, Elder and Younger, betrayed their legacy, squandering every gain made under Ronaldus Magnus leaving us in the current miasma.

The optimism of talk radio and those who confess a confidence in the American people to reject statism is unfortunately misplaced. The average American is ill educated, totally lacking in understanding of complex political ideas, self-seeking and interested more in barring another's success than in achieving his own. This condition is getting worse rather than better. This sort of electorate is the natural constituency of the socialist. Fed by a leftist popular media willing to openly promote fear and class warfare this storm surge of collectivism is unlikely to be checked absent a taxpayer revolt. Conservatives, here as always and everywhere, are fighting a rear guard action. Our children and grandchildren will likely have to be more aggressive if they are to maintain any freedoms at all.

Financial Crisis

2008-09-15T21:20:00.003-04:00

Only one thing can happen when you give armies of Ivy League MBA's lighntning fast computers and access to other peoples money - a financial crisis. As Lehman Brothers follows Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie Mae into the tank it is frightening to know the same crooks and knaves that created the meltdown are charged with undoing it.

Of Liars, Obamadens and Poltroons

2008-09-02T18:37:00.012-04:00

A woman successfully keeps a household of 4 or 5 children while advancing from small town mayor to governor. A triumph for women every where! Not among the rats and slithering things that make up the left leaning media and the Democrat Party.

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and GOP Vice President nominee is being scurrilously vilified by The New York Times, NBC, MSNBC and other supposedly legitimate news organization, not to mention the sewer slime of moveon.org and The Daily Kos. "Can she handle the job and her new downs-syndrome baby"? "What kind of mother is she"? "what about that DUI her husband got"? [22 years ago]. "Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock" they sneer [although she is engaged to the father]. "Too inexperienced" they snicker on and on and on. There must be something wrong with this woman the rest of us are not privy to.

There is something wrong with her, something awful. She is not a Democrat or member of the abortion caucus. Remember Clarence Thomas? One would have thought his heroic rise from abject nothingness to Supreme Court Justice would have been universally celebrated - especially in the black community. Thomas, however was "lynched" by the Negro-Liberal Combine. Of course Justice Thomas is a Republican. You see the racialists, hacks "journalists"and other cretins of the left cannot bear a successful woman or black or any other member of a "victim class" whom it does not own. To do so would be to admit that one can succeed without mother government's help. Such an outcome of course would diminish the endless whine that life in America is too mean and hard unless the state gives you some advantage it has taken from some other hapless schmoo.

These Marxist poltroons want your car, your home, your money and your life. Oblivious of the historical fact that collectivism's only products are corruption, poverty, fear and torture, they will stop at nothing to make us all comrades. Real people are appalled by the egregious abuse heaped on Justice Thomas and Governor Palin. They question how decent people could behave in this manner. Everyday people just can't grasp that the Andrea Mitchells and Keith Olbermans of this world are not decent people. They are true believers in socialism who think their intentions are morally pure and thus they are exempt from behaving morally. They will spare no principle in the effort to convince a majority of the collective knaves, fools and aforementioned schmoos of this country that the Obamadens alone can and will service each and every want they can imagine, and that the dastardly "rich" will pay for it.

We can expect only more of the same from these malefactors. Look for them to trot out an endless number of women to tell other women that this Palin woman is not really a woman. One can only hope that Gov. Palin is as tough as she is described and that she counter attacks without mercy or compromise. If she does she will like Clarence Thomas, achieve the position for which she is nominated.

Does What I Wear To Church Matter to God

2008-09-01T22:39:00.009-04:00

Jesus called his disciples to come as they were. He dined with crooks, thugs and prostitutes. An itinerate rabbi who gave most of his homilies outdoors and off the cuff, I doubt seriously He cared what one wore while listening to The Sermon on The Mount. On this basis most 21st Century, evangelical, Christians take the position that what one wears to Sunday Worship is unimportant. Formality is in the norm, considered elitist, old fashioned or silly at best.

A deeper look might prove this majority opinion to be in error. In the book of Exodus, after God gives Moses the Law, He sets forth in elaborate and minute detail, the specifications for The Ark in which the tablets were to be carried and the Tabernacle which was to house The Ark. In Chapter 38-40, The Almighty describes down to width and color, the thread to be used in the priest's garments [only the High Priest was permitted to come into the presence of The Most High]. Clearly, God here cares deeply about the way in which He is worshiped and the manner of clothing worn. When Jesus entered Jerusalem and began to teach in the Temple it would be foolish to think He did not present Himself in his finest robes. To do otherwise would have been an affront to the dignity of the Temple and His Father in Heaven.

America has become a laid-back nation. Casual Friday has become dress-down Tuesday, sloppy Thursday and slovenly Saturday. In our youth conscious, antinomian culture, attention to form and detail in dress is seen as snobbish or eccentric. School teachers resemble their students and druggists and doctors have abandoned the white lab coat. Tradesmen and artisans who once dressed in starched blue or khaki uniforms now come to your home in wife beater tee shirts and cut off jeans. It seems as if only bankers, lawyers and high government officials - and a few Ministers of The Gospel - can be regularly found in tailored clothing. Nowadays we are all one in unpretentious, familiarity.

Again sadly, The Church has let itself be defined by the world. Finding slapdash dress acceptable in the schoolhouse and the workplace, The Church has surrendered its own sanctity by embracing the relaxed style of dressing for worship attendance. “After all”, we say “God doesn’t care what one wears when he comes, only that he come”. Further we don’t want to put off unbelievers or appear “better than”. The reality is we find it easier to throw on a golf shirt and khakis and slap shorts and flip-flops on the kids than bother with neckties, dress socks, shoes, trousers and jackets.

Unfortunately there is an inconvenient truth for our nonchalant worshipers. It does matter what you wear to Sunday services. It matters to the world of unbelievers and most of all it matters to God. Those in the First Century who came to hear Jesus were did not understand they were in the presence of The Son of God. He kept His Deity a carefully guarded secret until late in his ministry. Even The 12 were not advised of His true identity until very near the end. In the world of Second Temple Judaism, this Jesus was the son of man.

Not so today. Christians go to The Lord’s House on The Lord’s Day. These titles are not merely pious sounding names. They are the titles of God, of our Savior. When we enter the church building we step inside the earthly house of The Great I AM. Sunday is not just the day of Jesus the dusty rabbi but of Christ, The King of Kings, The Lamb worthy to receive glory and honor. Casual dress is explicitly familiar. Familiarity does not beget reverence. In what way does coming into His presence dressed as if for a cookout bring honor and glory to The Risen Christ? Is it in the coming alone? If believers don’t respect their Savior and Sovereign enough to enter His courts in dignified apparel why should we expect unbelievers to hold Him other than in contempt? Why should our children accept the authority of a God not worthy of dressing up for?

I am not suggesting that one needs to wear expensive or sophisticated clothing to church in order to properly honor God – only that it be serious and dignified. For those who don’t know what serious and dignified attire is, I offer this question as an example. If your family [including your children] were invited to dine at The White House with The President and First Lady, what would you wear? How would you clothe the children? Is communing with God Almighty, in His House less important?

Time of The Season no. 14

2008-09-01T09:26:00.004-04:00

The selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate is a brilliant political stroke. Palin's nomination completely washed out Obama! Live at The Apollo and reduced the Democratic Convention "bump" to near zero. More on Palin later.

Think About it.

2008-09-01T09:10:00.005-04:00

Among men, everywhere and always, right and wrong is determined by who has the biggest gun [or club]. Democracy is merely a bloodless way to establish who gets to hold the heater.

Among Democrats the greatest woman is she who can manage career, children and home. Sarah Palin, however, the Republican VP candidate is being criticized by the Obamadens for dividing her time between campaigning and caring for her recently born child.

Leftist filmaker Michael Moore thought it a good thing that New Orleans might be once more inundated [by Hurricane Gustav] so that the GOP Convention is disrupted.

Time of The Season no.13

2008-08-29T20:42:00.002-04:00

Lest the nation think them fiddling while New Orleans floods [again]. The GOP ponders what to do until Gustav strikes land. A bigger issue may be: Can we afford to spend $200 billion every three years rebuilding a $100 million dollar town.

Time of The Season no. 12

2008-08-29T20:36:00.003-04:00

At Denver's Obamaden Temple on Thursday, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama gave a rousing speech before 80,000 mesmerised sycophants. But was it really Barack or was it MEMOREX?

Just an Observation

2008-08-23T20:27:00.000-04:00

NBC has turned its news department over to a sophomoric, jumped up sportscaster with a high opinion of himself and a low opinion of the truth. As a result the venerable network has surrendered virtually all the journalistic respect earned in the days of Huntley, Brinkley and Brokaw. If the suicide attempt that’s Katie Couric doesn’t prove entirely successful at CBS, perhaps they can move Gary [Banned in Augusta] McCord over from golf.

Time of The Season no. 11

2008-08-20T22:53:00.004-04:00

Nuanced [traditional] - a statement having subtle shades of meaning, feeling, tone or color.

Nuanced [political] – a statement by a candidate equivocal and ambiguous. Perhaps the result of ignorance by the speaker or an attempt to deceive or obfuscate.

Weekly Update August 18, 2008

2008-08-18T23:40:00.002-04:00

The sun still shines bright, Generalissimmo Francisco Franco is still dead and Barack Obama is still black.

The Eagle Has Left The Building

2008-08-16T22:57:00.002-04:00

Do you often wonder why the United States is openly despised around the world? Why we have so few allies willing to step up when the moment demands? Look no further than Syria, Iran and The Republic of Georgia.

Syria is an admitted and confirmed sponsor of terrorism. It is a hereditary dictatorship that threatens our allies and uses its proxies to actively attack them. It fearlessly furnishes arms to al- Quaeda in Iraq, resulting in the death of American troops. Iran furnishes weapons with which to kill our soldiers and marines and sanctuary to those who use them. The Mullahs openly promises to wipe Israel, our only true friend in the Middle East, off the face of the earth. When confronted with our solemn ultimatum to cease the pursuit of nuclear weapons, they publicly scoff. Ahmadinejad reads the newspapers, he knows who we are and what we are. So does everyone else. What have we done or are we doing in response to these viscous outlaws that adhere neither to international law nor basic human rights. How do we respond to these miscreants when they spit in our face and threaten our friends?

Our government wags its finger and makes hollow threats. We whine about Europe not standing up for us and seek meaningless resolutions from the UN. We impose economic sanctions that even our own companies disregard and seek diplomatic answers to questions that require – or will require – force.

Last weekend Russia invaded the tiny Democratic Republic of Georgia in an act of bald and illegal aggression. The Russians are thugs and their government is composed of gangsters. Georgia is a nation wholly committed to representative government and is a stalwart friend of America. They have kept 2,000 of their 37,000 man army fighting beside us in Iraq from the time that war began. The Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvilli, has been educated in America and he and the courageous Georgian people cherish freedom on pain of blood and treasure. They are heroes of liberty, the very model of what President George W. Bush calls for and promotes throughout the world. They are our friends.

What reward do the Georgian’s get for this steadfast and loyal friendship? How does America support a friend and ally in existential peril? The most potent US response has been sending Secretary of State Condleeza Rice to make a speech and stand beside President Saakashvilli, demanding the Russians go home. Of course that is not the only measure we have taken. We suggested Georgian troops leave Iraq and defend their homeland and sent some of our troops along to deliver cheese and freeze dried potatoes to a people under siege. Leaving no diplomatic stone unturned we again went to the UN for a toothless resolution the Russians would surely veto in the unlikely event it was adopted. Further,of course we issued the obligatory whine that Europe stand up and be counted. Just in case none of these powerful deterrents to Cossack atrocity proved effective we have threatened to kick Putin and pals out of the G8 economic community and the World Trade Organization. Russia contains the third greatest reserves of oil and gas on earth. The world economy needs Russian trade far more than Russia needs world trade. Furthermore gangsters have no need for polite civic clubs.

We are despised and disrespected in Europe and the world because we are put up cheap! We don’t honor our commitments, don’t back up our threats and most disgracefully of all, do not rescue our friends when they are being plundered. We hide under the skirts of the UN and kow-tow to Europeans who haven’t the snickers to protect their own culture from the Habibs and Yassars who overrun their borders. We will be respected and feared, which is all a sovereign nation should expect or seek from other nations, when and only when we stand up on our hind legs and make the motto “Don’t tread on me” a warning received with grave solemnity. Until then we are worthy of nothing more than the scorn and loathing we currently endure.

John Edward's "Mistake"

2008-08-09T20:27:00.005-04:00

Putting one's trousers on backward is a mistake. Cheating on one's wife is not. The craven dissembling of politicians who betray their spouses, families, friends and constituents and they way it is accepted by the media is reprehensible. A mistake is merely a thing incorrect like a mispronunciation or the wrong phone number. One needs no absolution for wearing one brown and one black shoe. A mistake has no moral dimension for it informs no purpose or motive. A mistake can be corrected. Adultery on the other hand is a moral offense, a pre-meditated, hidden and improper sexual dalliance having self indulgence and self gratification as its end. It is base, deceitful and without concern for anyone but the adulterer. It cannot be undone.

John Edwards is only the latest phony creep to take the “mistake” plea. Jim Bakker, Bill Clinton and Elliot Spitzer, among others, preceded him. “I made a terrible mistake” offered the disgraceful ex-senator in an interview with CBS News. “I confessed the mistake to my wife and sought her forgiveness, and to God and asked His forgiveness”. “I used very poor judgment”. Philandering is not an act of poor judgment nor is it a poor choice. Whoring is an act of audaciously poor character committed by someone void of integrity. To claim it a mistake displays no sorrow for committing the affront only the pain and humiliation of getting caught.

One whom is shown grace and forgiveness is bound to offer grace and forgiveness. Forgiveness however requires honest contrition and repentance. Until John Edwards admits to the reality and depth of his willful delinquency, he has no claim on anyone’s indulgence. After all, a mistake requires no pardon only a correction.

Weekly Update August 11, 2008

2008-08-08T20:32:00.005-04:00

Bob Wills is still the King, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead and Barack Obama is still black.

Visibly and Intellectually Different

2008-08-07T20:09:00.006-04:00

Barack Obama is determined to have us understand that he doesn't look like the ex presidents who appear on our currency. Well, this is true but not nearly the extent of the difference. Take Washington and Jefferson for instance. Both these great Founders of our nation placed high value on individual freedom and unfettered commerce. Obama considers the individual no more than a member of a larger community and commerce to be the means by which the few subjugate the many. Washington and Jefferson considered the United States a compact of individual sovereign states. Not only does this republican ideal find no place in his philosophy, Obama would have us surrender our national sovereignty to international councils and orders.

Washington and Jefferson believed each man to be responsible for himself and despised personal taxation. Obama demands that each of us be responsible for all of us and sees taxing as a means of levelling society. The final and most striking difference between Obama and Jefferson and Washington is the latter believed government to be at its best a necessary evil to be feared, restricted and restrained lest it oppress free citizens Obama on the other hand sees government as the greatest good, able to solve all problems and eliminate all inequities. Let's hope Barack never has his image on US currency or coinage, he's just too different.

Rating the Cities

2008-08-07T19:48:00.002-04:00

Car for car, signal for signal, Lexington Kentucky is the ten most irritating American cities in which to drive.

Time of The Season no.10

2008-08-06T23:14:00.006-04:00

Barack Obama is the perfect standard bearer for the Democratic Party. He knows so little about so much and speaks volumes saying nothing at all.

For his part, presumptive Republican nominee [barring any fortunate health issues] John McCain remains adequately medicated.

Time of The Season no. 9

2008-08-05T09:17:00.004-04:00

If you believe the mainstream news outlets chose red as the color for conservative leaning states think again. Red has been for the last ninety years the recognized symbol of communism and Marxism [Soviet Red Flag, Red China, Mao's Little Red Book]. The subliminal message of red added to the Democrats lurch leftward must have been seen as threatening to the Jackass Party's electoral chances going forward from 2004. Thus the captive whores at ABC, CBS, NBC CNN and MSNBC rolled over and tagged the Republicans as red.

Brilliant!

2008-08-05T09:10:00.003-04:00

Emergency officials in Texas have issued a "preemptive" disaster declaration for 17 Gulf coast counties in anticipation of a tropical storm coming ashore. I am sure the annoucement impressed the storm.

This past winter, the US Weather Service in Louisville KY issued a "non precipitation advisory". What safety procedures are required to protect ones self from winter "non precipitation?

Weekly Update August 4 2008

2008-08-04T23:25:00.003-04:00

A kiss is still just a kiss.,Generalissimmo Francisco Franco is still dead and Barack Obama is still black.

W's Opportunity

2008-08-01T20:21:00.003-04:00

President George W. Bush faces an historic opportunity in the next few weeks. By exercising prerogatives granted the chief magistrate by our Constitution, Bush may be able to force Congress to repeal moratoriums on off-shore drilling, provide John McCain and Republican House and Senate candidates a stick with which to bludgeon Democrats - and - strike a blow against the overweening Judiciary.

The Democrat Congress has adjourned for the summer without addressing the people’s most pressing problem – catastrophically high gasoline prices. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuse to permit a vote considering removal of restrictions on off-shore drilling. Why? The Democrat caucus, many of whom are up for re-election, face a Hobson’s choice, either betray their radical environmentalist patrons or patently refuse to relieve constituents of burdensome energy costs. The President has authority to call Congress into special session and force it to address this emergency. Were Bush to act thusly the potentialities are of great benefit to the average American. Either the onerous drilling restrictions will be lifted, resulting in an immediate and significant drop in the price of oil and gasoline or the Democrats will be exposed as having a complete disregard for the well being of the American people. The benefit of the former needs no explanation and the latter presents McCain and Republicans with an atomic powered issue by which to retain the presidency and perhaps recapture the majority in Congress.

The second opportunity for President Bush arises out of a ruling by a DC federal judge ordering White House aides to answer Congressional subpoenas. Such a ruling if accepted, effectively eviscerates free and candid discussion between the President and his staff opening to the public the necessarily private counsel of presidential advisers. The US Constitution established three co-equal branches of government. In Marbury v Madison [1803] the Judiciary in a bald power grab declared itself to be first among equals and sole arbiter of the Constitution. Since then the judges have been remaking America in their image. The Founders did not foresee this turn of events for they knew the lions of the court had no teeth. The Constitution grants the Executive branch exclusive authority to administer and enforce the laws of the nation. The Judiciary has no army or police force. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson made use of this actuality. When issued a Supreme Court edict he deemed unconstitutional “Old Hickory” replied to an aide: “Judge Marshall issued the order, let him enforce it!” President Bush should echo this sentiment and ignore the current ruling.

George W. Bush has been a terrific disappointment to conservatives and has helped wreck The Republican Party. With only a few months left in office, decisive action on these fronts will go a long way toward his reconciliation with the right and in reestablishing the GOP. We hope against hope he will strike while the iron is hot.

Of Apolgies, Reparations and Black People in America

2008-07-31T19:51:00.007-04:00

The United States House of Representatives just recently issued an official apology to African-Americans for the harm done them and their ancestors by slavery, segregation and discrimination. Barack Obama declares that words are not enough he wants to see “deeds”. As co- sponsor of a bill establishing a commission to consider cash reparations to all black people in America, it’s not much of a leap to anticipate what is to come if he is elected. Enough is enough! With all due respect I reject the entire notion of apologies and reparations.

Who would deny that slaves suffered inhumanely, yet from Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation forward, the slave’s ignominy has been a singular blessing for his progeny. Yes a blessing, for as a result of the “peculiar institution” the descendant of slavery is a citizen of The United States of America. Regardless of race or creed or heritage, to be born a United States citizen is an act of penultimate grace envied the world over.

Every African-American having slave blood coursing his veins, were it not for slavery, would likely be an African. To be born black in Africa is to be virtually condemned to a life “nasty, brutish and short”. In Rwanda and Uganda warring tribesmen have butchered more than a million souls. In Darfur, the Arab Muslims systematically attempt to eradicate the black population. Throughout black Africa, violence, corruption, starvation and sickness are the rule rather than the exception. Offer anyone $100,000 and a one way ticket to any African nation in return for his US passport and you will get few takers.

African-Americans are a remarkable blessing to America. What are we without the influence of black culture? African American artisans and craftsmen labored to build this nation. The blood of black men is shed for America in every corner of the world. Today’s African-American has striven mightily and suffered abominable indignities to achieve what he has. Should Barack Obama be elected in November it will represent the culmination of that struggle.

I would be a repugnant fool to imply the climb has not been difficult, unjust and sorrowful, yet we mustn’t forget that this struggle is of a piece with America itself from the original settlers of Jamestown Island to the Irish to the new Vietnamese immigrant.

This nation and its people owe nothing at all to African-Americans save the rights and liberties guaranteed all Americans. The misery or infamy endured by the black community at the hands of American society has been more than offset by the blessings and opportunity of being a part of that society

The Time of The Season no. 8

2008-07-31T19:12:00.001-04:00

As if anyone could forget, Barack Obama keeps reminding us of his blackness, most recently pointing out that he does not look like the presidents appearing on our currency. For his part John McCain has kept his head - buried securely in the sand.

Time of the Season no.7

2008-07-16T13:30:00.001-04:00

The philandering husband is roundly condemned for on Friday night, promising his mistress to soon divorce his wife while on Saturday morning assuring the little lady she is the only one. Isn’t that what Barack Obama is doing when he makes extravagant promises to the left in the Democrat primaries while for the general election, comforting the center with platitudes and pledges of moderation?

Mousetapo

2008-07-09T12:45:00.000-04:00

Hurricane Billy, my magnificent two year old grandson is visiting this week and we are having too much fun. This morning however, I was confronted by something very disturbing. While we were watching the Disney Channel waiting breakfast an animated segment called Safety Patrol came on. The Safety Patrol is comprised of two children wearing black uniforms and badges whose job is ostensibly keeping little ones safe. On this day the boy and girl were on day watch working Snack Patrol out of Playground Division. For the next eight or ten minutes the screen was filled with these two smarmy brats haranguing, harassing and busting other little dudes for eating chocolate, drinking pop and laying under shade trees playing video games. It seems as if there is nowhere a regular kid can hide from these carrot and celery pushing fascists.

Something must be done to stop this growing menace before every schoolyard in Amerika is overcome by little rats running round denouncing their chums for eating Ho Ho’s. Kids, if one day you are lying under a tree minding your own business playing MurderTon ,enjoying a double Reese Cup, with a 100 octane Dr.Pepper and one of these Jr. Jackboots hassles you. Tell him if he doesn’t get lost you’re your gonna shove the 16 ounce empty up his nose and kick his little Nazi butt right back to Uncle Adolph’s Happy House! We did it before, we can do it again.

What Happened to The United States?

2008-07-05T16:52:00.001-04:00

On this day 232 years ago, thirteen British colonies asserted them each sovereign States and declared their independence from the English Crown. There was then no United States of America only thirteen distinct and independent nation-states. At the end of the bloody eight year war that perfected their declaration, these States sought to form a union that would offer each of them and all of them protection of the freedoms so preciously purchased. Finding the first attempt at a compact, The Articles of Confederation, insufficient the States sought “a more perfect union” and after much toil and strife brought forth in 1787 The Constitution of The United States of America.

The Constitution created a republic in which a limited common government would preside over a strictly enumerated set of powers leaving all other prerogatives to the sovereign States which had created it. Nothing in the document remotely suggested or anticipated the federal government should dominate as it does today. It was anathema to The Founders that the Union might one day become no longer a federation of sovereign States but rather a vast empire of quasi distinct provinces ruled by an all powerful central authority. As I write on this Independence Day, I am given to ponder; what happened to the United States?

Almost immediately upon its formation the national government began to claim powers it was not granted and that were prohibited to it. In 1798 the Federalist Party under President John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which permitted the central administration to arrest and imprison any alien [residing in any State] it deemed a threat to homeland security and made political speech in opposition to the sitting government a high federal crime. In response, Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions [written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectfully] condemning the acts and asserting the States to be the court of last resort on questions of constitutionality. These resolutions further affirmed the right of any State to veto [or nullify] an act of Congress if it thought the act to be un-constitutional and to make it nugatory within its own country. The offending acts were soon repealed and liberty restored.

Ironically Jefferson participated in what has proven a mortal wound to popular government. In 1803 Marbury v Madison, a historically meaningless dispute over the appointment of federal magistrates, the Supreme Court claimed – under color of no constitutional authority at all - sole ownership of The Constitution and thus to be first among the three “equal” branches of government - and the States - when it ruled that Jefferson’s Secretary of State James Madison had unlawfully refused to deliver an appointment to Mr. Marbury. Chief Justice John Marshall had been Secretary of State under Jefferson’s fierce political foe John Adams.

Here is the first merging of politics and the judiciary. Marshall cleverly avoided a direct clash with the executive branch by not ordering Madison to deliver the judgeship [which would have certainly been refused] instead merely offering what seemed at the time to be an innocuous opinion of law. Meanwhile the power of the Capitol grew at the expense of both liberty and the States.

The next usurpation of State authority occurred in 1819 and gravely wounded republican ideals. With McCulloch v Maryland, The Supreme Court set itself above even the Constitution when acting as exclusive judge of the acts of its sister branches, declared the Constitution to have assigned the national government broad “implied powers.” Powers that were nowhere enumerated or contemplated in the founding document. In McCulloch, the federal government, through a concurrence among the President, Congress and The Supreme Court eviscerated the 9th Amendment and kicked down the door Marshall had eased open in Marbury, permitting to itself virtually un-circumscribed powers, limited only by one’s interpretation of “implied.”

In 1831, President Andrew Jackson took actions which somewhat restored the balance of power between the States, Congress, The Presidency and The Supreme Court. In that year The Supreme Court barred the government of Georgia from removing the Cherokee from their tribal lands. Georgia ignored the ruling and President Jackson who had pushed through Congress, The Indian Removal Act of 1830 refused to enforce the Court’s order with federal troops. Whether he acted immorally toward the Cherokee is not in view here. What Jackson did do was to re-assert the equality of the Presidency viz a viz The Supreme Court and show why Hamilton and Madison thought the Court the weakest of the three elements of the government. “Old Hickory” is famously to have said: “Judge Marshall made the ruling, let him carry it out” Abraham Lincoln would later apply this same axiom in a dispute with Chief Justice Roger Taney.

Jackson played a primary albeit opposite role in the next confrontation between the still sovereign States and Washington when in 1828 Congress voted entirely along sectional lines to institute “The Tariff of Abominations.” This act a protectionist rather than a revenue measure, laid a fifty per-cent tariff on virtually all imported manufactures. Such a high exaction was ruinous to the agricultural economy of the South. Seeking to advance his standing in the Middle Atlantic and Northeastern States for an upcoming run for President, Jackson had sold the South down the river, having his surrogates in Congress support the tariff bill.

In 1832 South Carolina reacted by claiming again the doctrines of “state interposition” or “nullification” that first were asserted by Kentucky and Virginia in 1799. John C. Calhoun, writing for South Carolina found no constitutional authority that permitted the levying of a protectionist tariff and further argued that any act of Congress that preferred one group of States to the detriment of others was unconstitutional on its face. South Carolina acting in Convention declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within its boundaries and barred collection of the imposts by federal agents. President Jackson heretofore a staunch defender of the supremacy of the States, declared nullification treasonous and dispatched warships to Charleston. Calhoun who had resigned the Vice Presidency to return to the Senate and Henry Clay of Kentucky saved the republic - and the nation from war - by working out the compromise Tariff of 1833. This was the first time the Union had sent gunboats militantly into the harbors of a State. It would not be the last.

Between 1832 and 1860 the issue of slavery dominated political debate. It may well be said that slavery was the cancer that ultimately killed the American Republic. In the 1850’s Northern abolitionists in Congress rammed through hard anti-southern policies including rising tariffs and demands for the end of the “peculiar institution.” The 1860 election to President of Abraham Lincoln, head of the abolitionist Republican Party, was the last straw for South Carolina, always the most determined of the States in opposing federal authority. She resigned the Union on December 20, 1860.

The end of the republic might yet have been avoided had there been less duplicity on the part of President Lincoln and more wisdom and restraint on the part of the Carolinians. Rather than resolutely pursuing a diplomatic solution to the schism both sides rattled their sabres until they were covered in blood. When Lincoln goaded South Carolina into firing on Fort Sumter, a mortal blow was struck to the idea of a North American Republic and much that The Founders had strived for and dreamed of would soon be in ruins.

At the conclusion of The War Between The States there were no States, only provinces of the federal regime. By force of arms, at the cost of half a million American lives and the utter destruction of half the nation, Washington fully and forever established itself as the omnipotent North American power; from sea to shining sea. On that day April 9, 1865, The United States ceased to exist and The American Empire was born.

Time of The Season no.6

2008-07-03T13:25:00.000-04:00

Obama moves right. McCain moves left. By election day they will be distinguishable only by their hair color.

Time of The Season no. 5

2008-07-01T21:01:00.000-04:00

The high road of politics travelled by Barack Obama has decscended into the great campaign swamp. By sending out sleazebags like Jay Rockefeller and Wesley Clark to mock and impune John McCain's military service and sacrifice, Obama has provided further evidence of his duplicity and cowardice.

Obama is opposed to same sex marriages yet felt compelled to congratulate a group of gays recently married in San Francisco. Gay union is not the point here, rather Barack's continued insistence on being for and against something at the same time.

John Mcain is in favor of aggravating the sunbathers in Florida and California, but not the odd caribou in ANWAR. Can caribou vote?

Oil and Self Rule

2008-06-29T21:29:00.002-04:00

Thomas Friedman in a recent column asserted that democracy is in “a recession”. Friedman attributes this to his “First Law of Oil and Politics” which posits that as world oil prices increase, the rise of democracies declines. Friedman asserts the potential for plundering this scarce asset is so attractive to potential and current tyrants that they strengthen their grip rather than supporting liberty. Friedman must believe that absent some looming monetary windfall, tyrants routinely relax their rule and submit to the will of the people. Despots will be despots at all times and as history proves yield only to superior force. It is not the power and wealth that tyrants derive from high oil profits that suppresses freedom, it is rather a want of cultural precedents and individual initiative that retards the establishment of new self governing regimes.Before examining this premise we must clarify what is meant by democracy.

In today’s political and social environment democracy is often equated with freedom or liberty. This is an incorrect assumption and leads to many and serious errors in both understanding and policy. Freedom is an attribute of individual persons and means to live without oppression. Democracy is merely a method by which free people resolve civic conflict without resorting to violence. Liberty may exist without democracy but democracy [true democracy] cannot be without individual liberty.

A deep and powerful canon of historical and spiritual precedents are necessary if democracy is to exist. The first and foremost of these is the priority of the individual over and against the group. This is a very, almost exclusively Western philosophy that finds its genesis in very Eastern spiritual beliefs. In fact it is the first book of the Hebrew Bible, The Book of Genesis where the Judeo-Christian view of the supremacy of the individual is established. In the biblical account of creation, God declares that he has made man in His image, endowed with the dignity and value of God himself. Each man is intrinsically free [subject only to God himself] to own his own body, the fruit of his labors and the free exercise of his will. Later in The Decalogue, God further declares the individual sacrosanct by forbidding his murder and prohibiting assaults on his property and reputation. 3500 years of struggles in philosophy and blood informed the founders of the American democracy to affirm that the individual possesses rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are inalienable and subject to no earthly power.

In most non-western societies the group is ascendant. Rights are possessed by the tribe, sect or ethnic group rather than distinct persons. Liberty in these societies means freedom from forces of oppression outside the group. Inside the clan all members are subject to strict adherence to group prerogatives. Individual autonomy is unheard of.

In the West, liberty is the individual’s superior claim against the collective. Where ones value, position, pride and life are contingent on the power of family, clan or tribe; to dissent against the moral or social imperatives of the group or to act in furtherance of one’s personal agenda is to risk being ostracized or worst. Thus personal beliefs and desires are rigorously repressed. This dynamic occurring over generations creates a subdued and servile population virtually demanding of a potentate.On the other hand in highly developed individualistic societies, personal action is highly valued and encouraged. Collective restraint of private prerogative establishes a constant tension in civic society and certain resentment in the population.

Thomas Jefferson said that from time to time the tree of liberty must be fertilized by the blood of free men. A critical mass of popular resentment must exist before men become willing to shed the necessary blood and treasure to throw off a despot. Free societies are formed out of extreme discontent leading to revolution. Societies normalized over hundreds of years to group subjugation are infertile grounds for such initiative, nor are those marked by complacency, cynicism and fear.Much, much more than discontent and rebellion is required if a society is to effectively and peacefully govern itself. Hundreds of years of acquired wisdom, tradition and devotion to freedom, justice and the rule of law must pre-exist the revolution.

It is not fluctuating commodity prices or the failure of United States’ support for rule by consent that accounts for the dearth of new democracies. Popular governance represents the highest order of human organization. It is the “rocket science” of civil polity. To expect a historically servile and uneducated people to rise up and overthrow an authoritarian regime and establish effective democratic rule is an act of naivety akin to handing a group of fourth grade students a physics text and expecting them to put in place and operate a space station. Freedom does not ring throughout the world simply because the world is incompetent to ring the bells.

The Time of The Season no. 4

2008-06-26T14:26:00.001-04:00

Like the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, “The Post-Racial Candidate” has come a cropper. Barack Hussein Obama has openly and boldly played the race card. Cynically defining himself as inexperienced, with a funny name and “by the way” black. The Democrat nominee has dared anyone to attack him on pain of being labeled a fear-monger or racist. Well, I'm your huckleberry. Barack Obama is woefully inadequate for the job he seeks, his character and associations are frightening and by the way, were he not black he would still be in the Illinois Legislature.

Time of The Season no.3

2008-06-22T09:30:00.000-04:00

I hope someone is able to drag the truth from Sen. Joe Biden [D Maryland] before he expires. If it goes to the grave with him, what will we do!

Attempting to "out maverick" "maverick" Senator John McCain, Senator Chuck Hagel, a man devoid of principle, seems to be trying to become Barack Obama's running mate. We hope he gets it.

Tuesday [5.27.08]The presence of anti-war popinjays at a John McCain speech in Denver signals the nutter migration to Denver has commenced. The influx of the various leftist tribes and sects could be a big boon for that city's hotel and tourist industry. On the other hand they may just lay about the parks getting high, making a big noise and screwing.

On Campaign Finance: A Response

2008-06-16T12:38:00.002-04:00

We learn early on in life that it is not what we know that puts us at risk, but what we do not know. It is what Steven Kay doesn't tell about campaign spending limits that threatens every citizen of Fayette County.

The half-page of newsprint the Herald-Leader made available to Mr. Kay to espouse his ideas about campaign finance would, if purchased, have cost some Four-Thousand-Five-Hundred Dollars [$4500.00]. It is an expensive proposition to disseminate ideas. Campaign contributions and spending is the required response to this truth. The more money spent in this endeavor the wider the dissemination of knowledge and the more cogent the knowledge distributed. It is puzzling that anyone in this "The Information Age" would wish to restrict the transport of ideas, particularly those ideas which affect our governance.

Mr. Kay, however, and those within the circles he travels, would do just that; through the vehicle of laws restricting the amount of money a candidate may spend for this necessary and exemplary purpose. Such legislation, if adopted, will bring with it two primary consequences Mr.Kay has failed to either consider or disclose. Restricting the quantity and quality of information provided voters in an election cycle, information about the candidate's person, philosophy, and vision must by normal operation of the restriction, produce a less informed voter base. Our Founders presciently understood an informed, educated population to be a necessary prerequisite for the proper operation of a republic.

The First Amendment, so jealousy guarded by the news media, is about the people's right and need to know, as well as the right of free expression. A less obvious, but even more disturbing consequence of campaign spending restrictions is the increased power it unavoidably places in the partisan press, a press that cannot be limited or restricted and that buys ink by the barrel and paper by the roll.

Does Mr. Kay really believe an information rationed population subject to inordinate influence by a partisan press , will produce good government? If so he is childishly naive. I suspect Mr. Kay believes no such thing; but rather considers the citizens of Fayette County unable to sift information from varied and diverse sources and make wise judgments and need be protected from the influence of anyone at all; save the elite journalists and their big brothers and nannies in the academy and chattering classes.

In the 21st Century, the control of information is the penultimate power. He who controls the information controls the agenda, he who controls the agenda controls the reality. Do we really want to place ourselves at the mercy of The Herald-Leader - or any other newspaper - to provide a divers and balanced quantity of information, untainted by partisanship? Limit campaign spending, and that is exactly what what we will get, to our enormous regret.

Rack 'em: A Response

2008-06-12T20:32:00.001-04:00

Below please find a comment by a Professor Jake Gibbs in response to my Op-Ed piece published in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Monday June 9, 2008. Immediately following is my answer, which may also be found in the online edition of that newspaper.

"As a college logic instructor, I was delighted to read developer Joe Hacker's commentary, "Don't fall for hysteria over 'carbon footprints,'" in Monday's paper.
It is a rare treat to find so many examples of rhetorical techniques devoid of solid reasoning in so short an essay. Ad hominem, strawman, rhetorical analogy and more -- just in the first three paragraphs. It will make a great learning tool for my students.

As a citizen, however, I found the piece disturbing. I suppose Hacker thinks himself clever. But someone who wants to be taken as an authority on urban-planning issues should supply us with reasons for disregarding the recent Brookings Institution report that rated Lexington so poorly in managing carbon emissions.

Once I sifted through the distortions and distractions of Hacker's commentary, all I found remaining was a call to ignore people who study urban issues ("educated elites" as portrayed by Hacker), reassurance that everything will be fine if we keep wishing for $2-a-gallon gas and that change is to be feared.

Hacker urges us to put our heads in the sand and just keep on sprawling. I think I'll side with the fact-mongering eggheads rather than the man with a vested interest in sprawl who presents no support for his position.

It's interesting that Hacker chose to call those who fear maintaining the status quo "Cassandras." Perhaps he has forgotten that Cassandra was right."

Jake Gibbs,
Lexington

Dear Professor Gibbs,

I shouldn’t want to take your logic course for you seem unable to avoid some of the same pitfalls you attribute to others. Before I get specific let me confess that I do consider myself clever and that my failure to recall that Cassandra was indeed right shows me in this case, to be too clever by half. That said let me examine your critique.

A college professor should know that if one is to make a cogent critique of someone’s work, he should read it until he understands what the author is saying. I clearly state that the contents of The Brookings study is not the subject of my treatise but rather the newspaper’s recommended action in response. Thus I have no reason to attack or even question the report. Second, I make no suggestion at all that the study should be ignored. A clear reading of my article finds that I am moot on the subject. Again my aim is at the suggested correctives.

An educated man should as well remember the adage “the pot mustn’t call the kettle black”. You accuse me of engaging in ad hominem argument, rhetorical analysis and of using straw men to frame my thesis. Of course, the freshman rhetorician knows these all to be valid forms or elements of argument that in and of themselves have no probative value. In fact when you indict me for thinking myself clever and of “having vested interested interest in sprawl” you are guilty of the same ad hominem attack you condemn. You also with vincible ignorance, impugn my credentials as a commentator on urban planning, obviously not knowing I have both academic letters in the subject as well as thirty some years of practice and study.

You accuse me of being devoid of reasoning and of fear mongering when I point out that Smart Growth infill will necessarily change the social and architectural character of the neighborhoods in which it occurs. You offer no evidence to the contrary; I suppose this due to the fact that the premise is evident in itself. And while ignoring full paragraphs of statements in support of my conclusions you submit no evidence at all, for anything, only a few bald assertions.

You mischaracterize me as urging that “we keep on sprawling” and “wishing for $2 gas”, when I merely point out those who enjoy suburban homes and single family neighborhoods and don’t get why expensive gasoline is a good thing are being condemned and their lifestyle threatened. Further, no where within the four corners of my essay, do I remotely suggest any type of development pattern as the answer to the demands of increasing population.

I sincerely appreciate your letter. It proves that at least one person read my column. I also have a request. Before you use my work in your classroom, as negative instruction, please post this answer as well.

Respectfully,
J. Robert Brock Hacker

The Brookings Report and You

2008-06-09T13:58:00.000-04:00

The following was published on the Op-Ed page of The Lexington Herald-Leader on June 9, 2009.

Nothing stimulates a Cassandra like a “sky is falling” report. The Brookings Institute report on metropolitan “carbon foot prints” has found Lexington the foulest polluter in the land, pouring out greenhouse gases at a volume sure to burn up the globe. It sure has heated up the small fowl of the Herald-Leader editorial board. Like plentiful corn, the report has fueled a wing flapping, feather flying frenzy of sprawl bashing, mass transit celebrating and a new round of attacks on your home, your freedom and your pocketbook!

What the Brookings report alleges is unimportant in the current context. What it and others like it support and promote is the subject and poses a far greater threat to the future of our children and grandchildren than possibly warmer winters. A collective of educated elites, politicians and radical environmentalists, consider the most of us unattractive herd animals, ravaging the earth in our SUV’s as we run aimlessly, thither and yon about our suburban homes, too selfish to stop and too stupid to know better. As European imperialists once felt compelled by nobless oblige to rule the benighted peoples of Africa, so today’s self-styled nobles feel an overwhelming obligation to correct and rearrange the lives of the dim-witted.

The embarrassing state we find ourselves in, according to the Herald-Leader, is all the fault of “urban sprawl, long commutes and addiction to cheap power”. If you live in a single family home, have a yard, drive to work and prefer $2 gas to $4 gas, the editorial board has you squarely in its sights! You are the problem. And what must the town do to re-enter environmentally polite society? “Push hard for more and better infill.” “Support established neighborhoods and discourage automobile usage” Smart Growth.

Neighborhood associations and coalitions, please consider the following. You have been sold a bill of goods and are being lined up at the Kool-Aid stand. Infill and supporting the character of existing neighborhoods are mutually exclusive endeavors. Infill means increased density and it must occur within your neighborhoods, there is nowhere else. The Urban Service Area is virtually full with the large tracts located on the edge. Nonetheless, during the next 20 years the smart growth lobby and the Planning Commission, plan to move more than 30,000 new residents into this area of already established homes. This is infill and it must utterly and irrevocably destroy the status quo and radically alter the social and architectural character of your neighborhood!

And how shall we discourage automobile usage, an additional gas tax? Perhaps a steep annual mileage tax will do the trick or a $500 annual city parking sticker? If they cannot talk you out of your car the greeners are ready and willing to tax you out of it.

Over the years the Herald-Leader has published a number of my letters and essays most have been directly opposed to its point of view. Usually, these are in defense of the building industry of which I am a long time member. This message though is not about me but about you. People will continue to find Lexington a better place to live than whence they came and I will continue to plan, develop and build the homes they want. The smart growth party would have me do this by bulldozing large sections of existing neighborhoods and starting over.

This “Green Revolution” is a revolution indeed and it is a clear and present danger to your homes and your freedoms.

Transferring the Cost; a response

2008-06-09T13:49:00.001-04:00

The following was published in the May 2008 American Spectator in response to an article by Roger Scruton entitled Transferring The Cost.

Before Roger Scruton writes again on the relationship of liberty, private property and market capitalism, I advise he spend some time becoming familiar with his subject matter. Beginning from a set of erroneous presuppositions that Al Gore could wear comfortably, he proceeds to opinions and conclusions more likely to be found in a Michael Moore screed than the American Spectator. There is so much rubbish within the four corners of this article that time nor space permit a thorough cleanup, One fallacy however stands out.

With vincible ignorance, the author, labels supermarkets as “The most conspicuous example” of an industry whose very existence is based on externalizing costs! He scolds them for taking advantage of economies of scale, transportation networks built at public expense and zoning laws that he believes favor large stores in the suburbs over their smaller urban counterparts. He even gets in a gratuitous swipe at sprawl, that ubiquitous enemy of all things bright and beautiful.

Scruton fails to consider that taxpayer financed transportation systems are two way streets, benefitting the consuming public as much as the grocers. Absent the advantages of such facilities the great basket of fresh and inexpensive foods we enjoy in our homes every day would be an impossibility. Want of customers in the inner city [the most having left for suburbs] rather than BIG GROCERY explains the decline in downtown retailing. The sprawl which Scruton so maligns and which furnishes shoppers for supermarkets is the happily chosen lifestyle of the overwhelming majority of American families and represents a direct result of the exercise of liberty in property.

That exploitation and mischief exist in any arrangement where liberty is preferred to the jackboot is an unfortunate reality. Be it free markets or a free press, a general framework of laws is a necessity. Mr. Scruton seems to be an advocate of both kinds of freedom but just doesn’t quite trust the venal businessman and the unenlightened property owner to use them properly. Scruton suggests these sorts [unlike more principled writers and journalists] need a more vigorous nudge by Leviathan to see they do the right thing.

There is often little difference between the goals of the collectivist and the reactionary. Neither fears to oppress. Roger Scruton’s essay is a retreat from conservatism toward reaction and is unbecoming of a magazine that purposes to defend freedom.

Why Rescue The Perishing?

2008-06-03T09:03:00.003-04:00

I recently watched a film on television about the genocide occurring in Darfur. Narrated by George Clooney it focused not so much on the genocide itself but on the response to it by the United States under George Bush. Repeatedly the producers condemned Bush and our country for giving only lip service to this horrific violation of human rights.

Why hasn’t the United States stopped it – at whatever cost? Isn’t denouncing the perpetrators and then doing nothing a form of terribly cynical hypocrisy? At no time did the film suggest how the US might stop the killing.

It must be noted that these same people liken Bush to Hitler because he used force to depose another bloodthirsty regime in Iraq and continues there trying to mediate just such a civil war in that cobbled together nation. What should America do to stop these horrors? Are we, do we want to be the world’s police force? Isn’t this what the United Nations is to do? While these are looming and significant questions, there is a much greater one. Why should we stop the killing?

In a politically correct world where no culture may be held as better or more legitimate than another, by what authority does the West impose its mores on nations in Africa or Asia? It appears as if mass murder is the accepted way for some ethnic and tribal cultures to manage disputes or defend their understanding of themselves. Certainly, the Muslims of the Middle East have a markedly different view of conflict resolution than do Europeans and their descendants in the new world.

What then separates societies that find genocide and ethnic cleansing a legitimate way of preserving the tribe or sect - from those who condemn such practices? What is it about the West that it values humankind so highly? Why should we rescue the perishing and by what authority?

What are human rights? From where do they come? In today’s Darwinistic worldview, which seems to dominate western thought, who or what sets forth what rights humans have against each other or for that matter against any other species? If it is true that man grew out of some accidental chemistry occurring in the primordial ooze and proceeds only to oblivion then what but his power elevates him above other creatures? If man as Sartre concluded, is no more than “a useless passion” why is he more meaningful than the beautiful tiger? If life, per the Bard; “is but a tale told by a fool, full of sound and fury signifying…nothing” then whence man's value, his dignity, his “human rights”? Why bother to stop the slaughter? If nowhere else in 21st century thought, this is the point at which secularism multiculturalism and Darwinism run smack into Moses and Christ.

Christians and Jews come forth here to rescue the humanists from their philosophic dilemma. The God of the Bible is described as personal, vocal and moral as well as eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. Of all the animals, according to the first chapter of Genesis only man was created in His “image”. That would be as personal, vocal, and moral and possessing dignity value above the rest of creation. Later on in Genesis in the story of Cain and Abel, God condemns homicide and further still in The Decalogue He codifies the prohibition against man-killing. Like it or not what we call “Western values” and ethics are directly descended from the Torah and The New Testament. It is by the authority of Almighty God and Him alone that we may free the oppressed and rescue those about to be annihilated and it is for the sake of His image that we are obliged to do so.

Notwithstanding the above, rescue here by Jews and Christians creates its own logical dilemma for the doctrinaire multiculturalist. It is academically very difficult, if not impossible, to barge into a society’s internecine conflicts and impose one’s own concept of justice; without tacitly at least, trumpeting the superior moral stature of your own. Doing this represents a total repudiation of the foundational tenets of multiculturalism. It is even more disingenuous to intervene on the authority of God when one denies His very existence!

Kant, though arguing that we cannot know anything about God and thus He is epistemologically non-existent, nonetheless declared that we must for self preservation, live as though He is. Perhaps the contemporary atheistic-humanist cleaves to this notion? Christians who daily fail to live up to the behavioral demands of their faith while at once calling for others to do so are routinely called hypocrites. Whether this term applies universally is a topic for another day. What is not debatable however is the crass hypocrisy involved in aggressively imposing one’s own values on neighbor cultures while contending the former is not superior or more legitimate than the latter?

Christians are often said to have “checked their brains at the chapel door” while secularists pat themselves on the back for being rational. You decide which is more foolish. To believe in a God who created all things and has endowed man with a special dignity worth saving, or to act as if such a God exists while knowing full well He doesn’t?

The Power of Green

2008-05-30T22:02:00.002-04:00

Green may become the most powerful piece of political propaganda the world has ever known. Using this potent symbol, the various socialist, environmental and earth first extremists are poised to do what seventy years of world communism could not; destroy property, free market capitalism and with these personal liberty.

If you think me wrong, just listen for twenty minutes to any of the news networks, Green is the headline day after day after day. Green is a perfect icon; there is in it nothing at all objectionable. Green evokes powerful images of peace and tranquility that are almost universal. The 23rd Psalm invokes “green pastures” as a heaven like place of rest. The beauty of the forests and green hills is undeniably moving.

The real power of the Green brand however lay in its appeal to suburbanites, particularly women. Home is the center of the family and whatever the architecture of one’s house, the color of home is green. Ivy covered walls, the lawn and garden stir up feelings of pride, harmony and security. When a suburban homeowner is offered a policy promoting more green space or woodlands or protecting the rain forest she has an immediately favorable reaction. Perception of any threat to the green environment becomes a threat to home and hearth resulting in stiff and often fanatical opposition.

The environmental movement has never, until now, been able to fully integrate this large, wealthy, and mostly conservative demographic. Today, through the charm of Green, that critical job has been accomplished. This massive voting bloc if added to the existing left leaning coalition of interest groups could give the socialist-environmentalist collective hegemony in American politics for some time to come. The tragic irony of this development is that the suburban lifestyle is a primary target for Green inspired elimination.

Poor Boy Rich Man

2008-05-27T15:15:00.004-04:00

William Ayers is a winner of the sperm lottery. The son of former Commonwealth Edison CEO, Thomas Ayers, he grew up in the tony Chicago suburb of Glen Ellyn and attended the very private Lake Forest Academy. In 1968, he was awarded a B.A. in American Studies from The University of Michigan. He showed his gratitude by becoming a terrorist. Joining the Weather Underground in 1969 Bill Ayers manufactured and set bombs in the Capitol Building and The Pentagon. His most infamous act however was trying to blow up innocent GI’s at a Fort Lee, New Jersey dance.

After his girlfriend, Diana Oughton was and three other well-heeled thugs were killed in 1971 by their own bomb, Ayers and future wife Bernadette Dorn went missing. No doubt drawing on wealthy contacts and donors, they avoided capture for 10 years before surrendering in 1981. After an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for Ayers and Dorn, a friendly judge tossed all charges. Bernadette Dorn went on to become a Chicago lawyer. The unrepentant Ayers who regrets only that he, “did not do more” is now Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois- Chicago.

Jonathon “Bud” Mackey grew up in the Scroggins housing project in Georgetown, Kentucky, a small manufacturing town 12 miles north of Lexington. Essentially, he has no father. Bud Mackey however was not entirely without blessing. He possesses extraordinary basketball talent. He led his Scott County Cardinals to a 34-2 record and the Kentucky high school championship. He accepted a scholarship to Indiana University. Just prior to graduating Mackey was arrested within 1000 yards of a school with 1.6 grams of rock cocaine in his shoe. The weight of the drugs carries a charge of trafficking whether or not Bud intended to sell the crack or not. His once bright future now a black hole, Bud Mackey is in jail.

I couldn’t care less that Ayers and Dorn are big supporters of Barack Obama or that the candidate may be friendly with them, who should one expect the most left wing Senator in Washington to hang around? What is unacceptable is that a cowardly, self-congratulatory domestic terrorist who only by Providence is innocent of mass murder is a Distinguished Professor of Education while a 19 year old boy with a promising future and poor judgment languishes in jail for a first offense possession of five rocks of crack cocaine!
Now is the time for me to ask; where is the outrage. However, I don’t have to ask. The outrage lies at the feet of all Americans who are more fearful and condemning of a poor, thoughtless teenager with a pocketful of drugs than a high born, well-educated gangster with a pocketful of dynamite.

Does Shakespeare Prove God?

2008-05-26T15:16:00.003-04:00

Those who believe in the existence of a Creator God that made all things are routinely denounced by secularists and Darwinists as, among other things; “anti-science, superstitious fools”. The supernatural features of God, they say are an affront to science. God cannot exist because He cannot be verified by the scientific method. You cannot see, feel or measure Him. Well there you have it. Science rules, has spoken and all you superstitious, knuckle dragging, cretins had better get out of your Bibles and into the 21st century!

Well I have some bad news for the Bright Ones. Science is not The Master of Knowledge but only one among the tree of academic branches which are subject to Logic, The Great Organon, the set of formal principles which govern all knowing. One cannot investigate, know or communicate anything without the order established by Logic. Science is lost without it. What Science cannot do its Master can. To illustrate Logic’s lordship, let’s use it to try and prove God by the unscientific disciplines of Literature and Music.

“To be or not to be; that is the question”. So said the noble Dane. In his lament reposes the answer to the question of God’s being. As a matter of logical law, a thing can be nothing other than what it is. A dagger cannot be a flower and remain a dagger. As the distraught Prince agonizes over fate, he understands that he must either be [alive] or not be [dead], a person or a corpse. By this we know that neither a prince nor anything at all can create itself. To do so it must be and not be at once. If he was to be, Hamlet must have been created by someone else. Of course he was created by William Shakespeare who did not at all spring from himself.

One cannot create without thinking and Descartes great truth, cognito ergo sum places thinking and thus creating as personal characteristics. Hence, we know from the existence of the play Hamlet that The Bard was at one time a living, thinking, creating person who was, himself, brought into being by another.

Jumping forward a few hundred years we come to another creative man. Billy Preston extolled in song the iron Law of Logic, ex nihilo nihili fit; “nuthin from nuthin leaves nuthin." Not even the “fifth Beatle” or for that matter, all The Beatles together could craft something from nothing. Preston’s song leaves no doubt that there must be, from eternity, something, for if there was ever nothing [no thing], neither Shakespeare nor The Beatles nor you and I nor anything else could be.

From the above flows the inevitable conclusion that men exist and have life. Men think and write and sing and they record their thoughts on inanimate material like vinyl and paper which in turn are created from some other substance. Undeniable also is the truth that men are not eternal, and did not create and endow themselves with life. Whence then, cometh man?

There is in the study of knowledge a formal proof called The Argument from Necessity. This argument takes the form of the syllogism: If A is true and B is true then C - by necessity - must also be true. If [A] Spot is a dog and [B] all dogs bark then [C] Spot must bark. That Spot barks is true whether or not anyone at anytime hears his croon. Using this formal investigative tool in the current case we can write stipulating that men are living beings, did not create themselves and are made of something:

If men are beings and are alive [A]
And;
If men did not create themselves [B]
And;
If men are made of something [C]
Then:
[D] There must be – by necessity of sufficient cause – some thinking, creating, personal, being, eternal, possessed of both matter and life and the will and power to create and give life. God. The conclusion is irrefutable. It is formally true and must be true whether or not anyone at anytime has ever seen or heard God.

I am a poor philosopher with woefully little training. Those who will attack me as sophomoric, foolish or worse are likely to be very educated men and women with advance academic and scientific degrees. Until these great minds, however, can explain man and his attributes and explain away the necessity and sufficiency of God without traversing the limits of coherent thought, they might do well to consider just whom the fools are?

Rope-a-Dope on the Left

2008-05-21T21:28:00.001-04:00

The left of center media seem to be enamored of John McCain. They laud his “centrist” and “maverick” tendencies. So far [this will surely change] they have spared him the brutal reviews normally forthcoming Republican candidates. The New York Times, long comfortable with the senator from Arizona endorsed him for the Republican nomination. The political pundits praise him as the GOP’s best chance to claim four more years in the White House. They say he will be able to take independent and “swing voters” away from the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be. All this may be true but at what cost to the Republican Party? Perhaps, the left is practicing a little political rope-a-dope.

The GOP rose from the ashes in the 1980’s on the back of Ronald Reagan and movement conservatives. The Reagan years were misery for the left and its toadies in the mainstream media. The party began descent from the summit in 1992 when George Bush 41, a mainline “country club” Republican squandered a ninety per cent post Gulf War approval rating and lost a second term to then unknown Bill Clinton. Even though Clinton proved such a disaster to his own party that Republicans swept to control of Congress in 1994, Kansas Senator Bob Dole, an aging war hero and centrist, could not unseat “The Boy President” in 1996. In 2000 self professed conservative, George W. Bush wrested that disputed election from Albert Gore.

In the intervening years W has quietly and steadily abandoned conservatism and like his father, allowed an approval rate nearing one hundred per cent to evaporate. Bereft of original thought Bush the Younger has since followed the purposeless, neither fish nor fowl policies of his father. The decimation of solid majorities in both the House and Senate during Bush 43’s watch is hard to fathom. The desolation is so complete on the right that a book entitled How the Bush Family Destroyed the GOP is likely soon to be published.

Given the mismanagement of the Iraq War, housing in free fall and $4 gas, the press has declared not only Bush to be a failure but conservatism as well. Throughout the past four years we have been treated to a continuous assertion that GWB is a knucklehead, a conservative of the whacked out fringe, when in fact he abandoned early on any pretense to conservative ideals. President Bush has neither promoted such conservative goals as comprehensive tax relief and reform nor used his veto against such dubious legislation as Ted Kennedy’s, No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Neither has he imposed discipline on a wild spending Republican Congress got drunk on majority.

The left has only to win the Presidential election of 2008 to effect a total repudiation of The Reagan Revolution. Enter Senator John McCain, the aging war hero and centrist. Co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, the Senator is a champion of No Child Left Behind. McCain joined the “gang of 14” to block Republican judicial nominees and has supported amnesty for illegal aliens. The presumptive GOP standard bearer joined Democrats to stop [by one vote] drilling in ANWAR and voted against Bush’s post 9/11 tax cuts. He vows he will follow the fiscally catastrophic Kyoto Protocols on global climate change. Most conservative Republicans can’t stand him and may support him only under duress. Many see him as a greater threat than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama!

In stealthily supporting McCain’s march to the nomination, the left has accomplished a great strategic victory. It has demoralized the Republican base vastly improving the chances of victory in November. And just in case the Democrats do the unthinkable and somehow manage to lose the election, in President John McCain they will have someone the record shows will be easy to co-op. Regardless of what happens on the first Tuesday in November, one thing is for sure, the right will be in tatters.

Change Now, America Devolves

2008-05-20T15:05:00.002-04:00

Every hour of every day in this political season, some candidate is either demanding or promising “change now”. It seems as if the public is very dissatisfied with the way things are. There is a lot to be dissatisfied with; four-dollar a gallon gas, house prices falling, foreclosures soaring, factories closing, high medical costs and more and more and more. The complaints are easy, everyone wants low gas prices, increasing values of our investments and secure jobs, but who or what do we want to change these things? The apparent answer is very troubling. The majority of Americans seem to want the government to change these things they are unhappy with and to solve all their other problems as well.

America was once known for its rugged individualism. Our founders established a classless society where each man or woman could rise to the highest level of his ability. No one was guaranteed anything and many failed to advance. Many more chose to remain as they began. The founders also understood government to be a dangerous threat to free people rather than a panacea. These ideals had propelled the United States to the top of the world at the end of The Great War. For the most part during this time [excluding the Civil War era] government for law-abiding people was inconsequential.

Despite the freedom and prosperity he saw in America in the mid nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville, the French philosopher foresees in his seminal work Democracy in America, a gloomy prospect for this thriving republic. As he toured the United States he began to sense that democracy might spawn a despotism more oppressive and all encompassing than that of any king or emperor.

This absolute rule would take “a different character” than those of the past. It would be “more extensive and mild” and would “degrade rather than torment” its subjects. This new type of tyranny would be “unlike anything ever seen in history”. In his prophecy, Tocqueville saw a massive leviathan of power, “absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild”. Government so established would rule “as a parent” but one not working to prepare its people for manhood, but rather to keep them in “perpetual childhood”. He goes on: “For their happiness such a government willing labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities; facilitates their pleasures; manages their principle concerns; regulates the descent of property and subdivides their inheritances: what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living.” "Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent…. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits”.

Just as the ancient Israelites failed to heed the prophets of old so have Americans ignored this very prescient warning; for as indicated by the whining and pandering of this year’s Presidential campaign, here we have come in the year 2008. If we are not so already, we are surely becoming a nation of “timid industrious sheep of which the government is the shepherd”.

Every American ought be ashamed of this condition and terrified of its portents. Surely each of us would feel obliged try to reverse and undo the processes and ideas that have led to this forlorn state. Yet I fear that if Toqueville’s prophecy were presented in special prime time editions of the several news networks - as having been fulfilled in our time - the vast majority would react with strong indignation and denial! Let us all cry out together: “Baaa! Baaa!