Archive for June, 2009

Raising the Bar

June 29, 2009

Much discussion about Gov. Sanford focuses on the impracticality of having political leaders who don’t break the most sacred vows they make.

My bottom line is this: If we don’t ask for our government officials to be paragons of virture, then they won’t be paragons of virtue.

If we do ask that our government officials be paragons of virtue, then it means that, at the very least, they will have to behave publicly according to our commonly held moral values. When they stray, or when their private life creeps into the public (whether they wanted to expose it or not), then we have a really good reason to get rid of them.

Yes, it is almost impossible to find people who both seek high offices and are paragons of virtue. After all, those who don’t give a whit above virtue and morality seem to be more compelled than anyone else to seek high offices. Those who live lives of personal moral integrity don’t derive their self-worth from what other people think of them. And this is exactly why people who do not live lived of moral virtue should not be permitted to even consider themselves as a potential candidate, and why we need people of high moral character in all offices.

I am glad, personally, that Newt Gingrich will never be nominated for president. If a man cheats on his wife, even though she is disabled, what will he do to the country? It is apparent that Newt Gingrich stands for Newt Gingrich and no one else, and will do and say anything to get elected just like he would do and say anything to sack that nice looking babe down the hall. That kind of man should be kept far, far away from the controls of government. He has a nice smile, sure, but inside, he is rotten. Even if he has repented and been accepted by Christ for the highest echelons of salvation, we’re better off leaving that judgment to the Lord and using our best instincts and understanding of human nature to say, “No thanks.”

On the other hand, Mitt Romney has, in all respects, been extraordinarily faithful to his wife, family, and extended family. This is a man who understands that families are the foundation of our country and should be the core of our lives. He  has raised a beautiful generation of children who are raising another beautiful generation of children. This is precisely the kind of person we can trust with high office, and precisely the kind of person we should encourage to run for office.

As a moral conservative, I don’t think it is shooting myself in the foot to demand that people like Gov. Sanford confess and abandon their office. I don’t think we’re missing much if Newt Gingrich is consigned to a back-office job of writing white papers no one but those closest to power will ever read. I do think building a system where such people are allowed to rise to the top is a bad idea.

Advertisements

Solution to the Problem of Politics

June 27, 2009

Frank at IMAO has a proposed solution to the problem of politics: politicians. He proposes chloroform and chaining people to office, much like jury duty, except jury duty involves jail and not chloroform.

Of course he’s joking, somewhat.

Our Founding Fathers had already identified the problem of politics and government long ago. They came to the same conclusion we do today: it’s politicians that muck everything up. Get rid of them, or replace them with statesmen, then things won’t be so bad. They thought that leaving the power in the hands of the people was the best solution since the people will inevitably get fed up with their politicians and remove them from office.

Of course, they realized a problem with their system. What happens if a politician changes the law to stay in power? Or what if he uses his office to buy enough votes to get re-elected every year? Both of those things are happening and have been happening in our country for some time now. Campaign finance laws exist to keep people from throwing their money against incumbents. And the bailout and other policies are designed to make certain people rich, certain people who can be counted on to vote a certain way and have countless others vote the same way.

The solution that the Founding Fathers had was actually quite simply: Limits. Put a limit on what politicians can do once elected, and there won’t be many people seeking office for gain.

Of course, we live in a day when no limits exist on the federal government. Why, just yesterday, they passed a bill regulating what we are allowed to do with every economic aspect of our lives, and charging us for it. I can not find any section of the constitution granting such broad powers to the federal government. Yet, I fear, this bill will carry as much weight as a declaration of war or a federal budget for wartime activities.

I propose one simple change to the system: restoring the limits.

Today, when the federal government acts beyonds its powers, there is no recourse for the people. We are counted on to elect representatives and senators who will restore the government to its limits.

It would be nice to imagine some government body or vote of the people or grand jury that determines whether the action of the congress or the courts is within the limtis of the constitution. However, the problem is that all of these are just as corruptible as any other system. That is, get the right people on the constitutional review board, or on the constitutional review jury, and suddenly the government can do whatever it wants.

Of all governments, the least corruptible is the vote of the people. This requires a massive fraud or a massive system of bribery, or both at the same time. Corrupting a handful of senators is a relatively easy task to corrupting half of the voting population. This is why the Founding Fathers put their ultimate trust in the people to hold the government within the bounds of the constitution.

There are two things you can do to help reduce the corruption of the people. The first is simple: vote. Two more voters means one more that needs to be deceived or bribed to succeed in corruption. If 4 million Washington State citizens voted, then 2 million would need to be deceived and bribed to fix the election. If only 2 million voted, then only 1 million would need to be corrupted and deceived. This is simple arithmetic.

The second is the hardest part, because it relies on your personal intellect and ability to see things for what they are. You must first educate yourself on what the Constitution actually says. Do not allow someone else to interpret it for you! Then, with your understanding of the Constitution, you must hold the candidates accountable for their actions. In the case where none of the candidates support the Constitution according to your personal interpretation, it is your duty to find a candidate you can support, or run yourself for office. You must be wise, though, careful not to throw the election to the most corrupted elements just to spit the less corrupted elements.

This is the only formula which will protect your personal and individual liberties. There is no other way that will work.

Why are Obama and the Democrats so Busy?

June 27, 2009

Watching the Cap ‘n Trade bill go through the House, I have to wonder, what is so urgent that they have to pass the bill before it is even put together?

The answer is obvious. Their time is up. The American people are ready to throw the bums out, every last one of them. If President Bush and the Republicans were bad, then President Obama and the democrats have redefined the scale for all eternity. All of American history will be compared to the utter disaster that is today’s federal government.

As for myself, I am sharpening my pitchfork. President Obama had the power from day one to push the protestors in Iran to victory and establish a state whose primary objective isn’t nuclear holocaust. Instead, he handed all the time in the world to the Iranian regime to ruthlessly slaughter their own people.

North Korea presented a beautiful opportunity to resolve a half-century stand off in the direction it inevitably will go with minimum casualties if he simply acted upon North Korea’s insane aggression. The North Korean regime is, compared to the rest of the world, at its weakest point in history. When its nuclear weapons are operational, it will be stronger than it ever has been.

On the economy, Barack Obama and the democrats pursued the tried-and-failed bailout strategy. Despite all the overwhelming evidence that it would fail, they decided to bankrupt our country in pursuit of simple political advantage.

On energy policy, rather than expand America’s option for energy, including heating fuel, the democrats passed the dumbest regulation ever—limits to the amount of energy we can produce and a massive tax on top of that. Right now the debate is how much damage it will do to the economy. The numbers I am seeing are somewhere between “complete disaster” to “utter ruin”.

On medical policy, Barack Obama and the democrats want to bring the wonders of the VA and medicare programs to every hard-workin American in the country. After all, they reason, how much worse can it be? The answer is a whole lot worse. Despite our medical system’s failings, which are directly attributed to government interference in the marketplace, we are the #1 system in the world, attracting the top talent and behaving as the place of last resort for the rest of the world. After their medical reform, I imagine our medical system will be comparable to Zimbabwe’s or Cuba’s wonder-systems. In other words, we will be eating our own feces and swallowing flies conceived therein in our hospital.

On corruption, the behavior of the democrats and the Obama administration is unprecedented. I read endless articles about countless acts of corruption. Even Senator Dodd, one of the most open and blatantly corrupt senators in the senate, is being censured by his own party in his home state. Rep. Jefferson’s cash in his freezer is the smallest of the examples of the corrupted. The corruption is so massive that ever policy coming out of the White House and every bill coming off the floors of the House and Senate are dripping with it. It’s almost like corruption is the way of life down there. The Republican congress and the Bush Administration look like saints in comparison.

To a rational, sane person, all of this seems incredible. After all, how is it possible that such a nice guy can be such a big disaster? I boldly declare, I do not exaggerate. Imagine what our country would look like if our worst enemies were put in charge. Then multiply the disaster ten times. That’s roughly what we have today.

In a very short time, the people of America will wake up and realize what has happened. Already, they are awakening and demanding their country back. Hopefully, this revolution will be bloodless and quick, and hopefully, it will forever change the government to eradicate socialism and tyranny wherever it is found.

What a Waste

June 24, 2009

Governor Sanford’s admitting to an extra-marital affair is yet another concrete example of how violating the sacred law of chastity has far-reaching and deeply damaging consequences.

We cannot tolerate people who do not keep the law of chastity to lead us. They are damaged goods. They are broken in a fundamentally deep and significant way. This isn’t a flaw people are born with, a flaw that has nothing to do with a person’s ability to lead. This is a flaw in how they choose to live their lives. This is a flaw that shows that they do not choose the better choice, but choose to satisfy their personal lusts and greed. This shows that they do not put those closest to them—their wives and children—ahead of everything else in their lives. This shows they have no loyalty, not even to their closest partner in life.

How can we count on such a person to lead in even the most insignificant government role? We can’t.

If you are an adulterer, please do not apply for leadership in our country.

The Republican Party is going to do the responsible thing and find a replacement for Mark Sanford. Hopefully they will do this sooner rather than later. And hopefully Gov. Sanford is contrite enough to stand aside and let someone else who hasn’t put personal lust above others.

Can Obama’s Support Hurt the Protestors in Iran?

June 23, 2009

People who seem very smart are claiming that President Obama, and every other Western Country, should stay as far away from Iran as possible. See, if the protestors are seen as allying themselves with the US of A and other Christian countries, then that will delegitimize the movement and draw people to the wrong conclusion—that we are trying to bring Iran away from Islam.

If Ahmedinajed didn’t control what is shown on television, then I would agree with that statement.

But the fact is that we are already interfering with Iranian politics. See, we have already paid off and supported the leaders of the protestors. In fact, the entire thing was our plan from the beginning, and the Iranian people are too stupid to realize it. At least, that is what Ahmedinajed is saying to his people on TV, along with every other reporter and politician who are allowed to air their views on the issue.

That’s the problem with this theory. If butting out would actually mean the Iranian people wouldn’t be told we were butting in, then it may make sense to butt out. But it doesn’t matter what we do. We will still be blamed for supporting the movement to begin with.

Logically, if you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t, you might as well do what is best in your own interests. In this case, seeing the Ahmedinajed/Khameini regime topple is definitely in our interests. Seeing a democratic Iran where people have natural, unalienable rights and are allowed to choose their government and influence their politics is definitely in our interests. Not only will it make us feel good, but it will make us safer, since free societies don’t attack America with weapons and terrorists and nuclear weapons.

Historical Perspective on Iran

June 23, 2009

Democracy, or rather, our modern form of representative democracy, is a noble, worthy goal, but the road to get there is bumpy. Our Founding Fathers noted that throughout history, societies have swung between extremes of tyranny and anarchy, rarely ever staying in the happy medium for long.

Let’s consider for a moment the history of England. As you haven’t been taught in grade school, up until about 800 AD, the English were united under a set of immutable laws. This is the “Anglo-Saxon” society that predates the kings of England. Under these laws, everyone was equal, property rights were protected, and problems rarely arose that required more than the local village to get involved. For the occasional war, a military leader was appointed and then stripped of power once the war was done.

The kings arose partly because the system grew more and more corrupt over time, but mostly because of the influence of the Franks to the south across the channel. The endless invasions soon led to a loss, and the Franks installed their own puppet government over the English. Of course, over time that government became separate from the French, and soon turned on the French itself. But throughout history, the English have always felt a certain distance from their kings as foreign oppressors.

Before the American Revolution, there were several revolutions in England, each of them important and each of them a critical link in the history of the United States government and modern republics. The English Kings tried to exert their power in whatever sick and demented ways they could imagine, and then use that power to amass fortunes both from taxes and wars. Indeed, for a time, the English subjects believed that Christ himself anointed the kings as rulers over the English, and to overthrow the king is to reject Christ. This is comparable to the atmosphere in Iran today.

An interesting logical tactic was used against the king. The logic goes something like this. God Himself is just, merciful, and preserves the people. God appointed the King to rule over the English people. The King acts in the name of God and with his authority to do what God does. And since what the King says he will do something unjust, unmerciful, or that damages the people, the King must be playing some trick on us. Do you understand what we are saying, holy King?

Of course, when the King does understand what they are saying, and correctly interprets their logic as an outright rebellion against the authority of the King and his high and holy calling from Christ himself, and tries to lock them all up in prison to rot out in a forgotten cell. And the people realize what is happening and decide that they’d rather have a bunch of politicans rule over them than a king, and lift their swords against the King.

This is what is happening in Iran right now. See, the religion of Islam teaches one thing, but the government of Iran is doing another. Obviously, they are no rightful government since they are not Islamic, because Islam doesn’t teach oppression of fellow muslims! And so, let’s install our own Islamic ruler who happens to believe what we agree with—freedom, equality, and unalienable natural rights.

And like the King of England who tried to suppress such a rebellion, the leaders of Iran are discovering that their math was highly flawed. The people of Iran greatly outnumber the oppressors of Iran, and  that means something, even if the oppressors are highly trained in the art of oppression and shooting little girls in the chest and murdering unborn children on the streets.

If the revolutionaries in Iran do not want American interference, we should steer as far away from the problem as we can, cheering the revolutionaries from the sidelines. However, the moment they look to us for leadership or material support, we should instantly do what we can to help, the same way we, as individuals, are incapable of looking upon the suffering and refuse to offer a balm in our possession.

Find your Inner Kennedy, Obama

June 22, 2009

It is blatantly obvious that President Obama’s approach to foreign policy is failing in the worst way possible. In the few months since Obama has become president, our international relationships have degraded far beyond its low point under President Carter.

President Obama, it’s time to change course, shift gears, admit failure and “change”. Adopt President JFK’s, Reagan’s and Bush’s hard stance against our enemies. Issue ultimatums, move our troops around, threaten and carry out those threats against our enemies.

The cargo ship carrying North Korean missile components is a legitimate target since we are at war with North Korea. Sieze it today, capture the crew, and display what was on board for the world to see. Fly a few bombers over North Korea and bomb their missile launchpads. Be ready if they decide to strike South Korea by having standing orders to eliminate the North Korean emplacements the moment a single shot is fired. The North Koreans are incapable of carrying out any of their threats, for the time being. It’s time to call their bluff.

The Iranian regime must be deposed of. Fly a few sorties over the country, eliminating any Iranian air assets they deploy against you. That will rattle their cage. Line up our Iraq-based soldiers just across the Iranian border and announce a deadline of a matter of days for the violence to end.

These two actions will do more to keep our enemies in line than anything else. No words will melt the hearts of these sick rulers who drink the blood of their people and dull their senses with idiotic justifications. Only the immediate fear of death and the pangs of eternal hellfire can possibly inspire these people to behave appropriately.

Iranian Revolution Lives On

June 22, 2009

Fox News reported that the military in Iran refuses to fire on the protestors. This is tacit approval of the protestors, and perhaps will translate into the military turning their guns on their leaders.

From other sources, there are unconfirmed reports that the leading Ayatollahs are splitting from Khamenei. It is possible that the highest council of clerics will vote to remove him from office and install someone much more moderate.

It is also reported that the Iranian regime has taken President Obama’s carefully worded speech and intentionally mistranslated it as direct support of the protestors to destabilize Iran. This is why it doesn’t matter what we do, we will always be villified. We should only focus on doing what is right, and what is right is to do what we can to see that every body every where is free. In fact, if the Iranian regime believed what they are saying about President Obama, they would be far more restrained in how they would deal with this.

It’s On: US Troops Move in Iraq

June 20, 2009

President Obama finally declared that the US stands with everyone who exercises their God-given natural, unalienable rights to speech, assembly, and government. (link) He declared that we are watching, and any injury or death is inexcusable.

The Iranian regime is cracking down in a furious way. There is a video on the internet of a young girl shot in the throat and dies in front of the camera in the most horrific way imaginable. There is a picture of a fetus shot through. I have seen neither, and I refuse to do so. They exist, and that is enough.

The revolutionaries are not backing down, and the regime is trying to crack down on them. This is an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object scenario. At least we’ve declared our side with the unstoppable force.

Second bit of news: US troops in Iraq are on the move. Iraq declares victory in several key cities and the US troops hand off control to the Iraqi troops. (link) Interesting timing? I think so. Perhaps they are being reassigned to Afghanistan. They will have to march through Iran to get there, of course.

President Obama has made a statement that must be backed up by force in the short term. The United States people are overwhelmingly behind action in Iran. The rest of the world is as well. In our political system, a president or congress who tries to stop the overwhelming majority is always run roughshod over by the people. That is what happened. The people of the US blindsided President Obama’s “delicate” approach to the situation.

Iran Scenarios

June 20, 2009

It looks like the protestors in Iran have pretty much beaten up the Basij, the moral equivalent of Nazi brown shirts. The Basij are afraid to show their faces. However, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the 100,000 strong militia of so-called elite soldiers (compared to the 1,000,000 string regular military) are now deployed, though no violence is reported on behalf of the IRG. (link)

The revolutionaries are responding by marching with their Korans, sitting to read when they get attacked. They also have guerrilla groups operating with the full support of the people, picking off Basij wherever they are found.

And 100,000 IRG against millions of their brothers? I don’t see that working out.

What are the possibilities? If American doesn’t interfere, then there are three possibilities.

  1. The revolutionaries get crushed with America standing on the sidelines. They all end up dead or in prison. Hope for a democratic Iran is gone forever. (We lose, they lose, tyrants win.)
  2. The revolutionaries win with America standing on the sidelines. Iran becomes a pro-Western modern democratic republic. (We win, they win, tyrants lose.)
  3. The revolutionaries win with America standing on the sidelines. Iran switches out governments for an equivalently anti-Western theocracy and continue to develop nuclear weapons to slaughter the Jews. (We lose, they lose, tyrants win.)

I’ll be the first to admit that although 2 is hopeful, it is actually unlikely. 1 or 3 is far more common in history, and there is no reason why Iran should be any different this time.

What if we do interfere?

  1. The revolutionaries lose, we lose, and we retreat to Iraq and Afghanistan to lick our wounds. The tyrants become the sole power in the Middle East, and become even more belligerent.
  2. The revolutionaries win with our help, we help them setup a temporary government, then we walk them through the process the same way we walked Iraq through the process. After some time (1 year? 50 years?) we leave Iran in the capable hands of the people and their constitution.
  3. The revolutionaries win with our help, but turn on the Americans and defeat us. We retreat into Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran becomes the new power in the Middle East, this time with a different tyrant in control.

Which one do you think is most likely? Given the results we are seeing in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Japan, Germany, and others, 2 is the most likely outcome if we choose to pursue it. The part in the middle of 2 isn’t pretty. It wasn’t pretty in Iraq and it isn’t pretty in Afghanistan. I don’t know that Iran would be as much trouble as Iraq or Afghanistan is today. Regardless, we are figuring this thing out for the first time in world history, and our unexpectedly quick success in Iraq was despite all odds and all things at our disadvantage. The Iranians are nowhere near suppressed as the Iraqis, and the people love us and want us in the country to depose the government they have today.

I honestly don’t think that we could lose in Iran. That would require some super-power assisting Iran. If we were to occupy Iran, we would need only secure the borders of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan. Azerbaijan is weak, Turkmenistan is weak, the Caspian Sea can be patrolled with aircraft, and Pakistan is at least neutral.

The only powers who would have an interest in meddling with our meddling in Iran are China and Russia. North Korea is far too weak to conduct a proxy war, and they have no way of getting to the battle field. China isn’t interested in a war with the US, and Russia is falling apart.

Given that we are already accused of meddling in Iran, actually meddling will not hurt our image or hurt the revolutionary’s image. Not meddling will lead to accusations of not caring, which is absolutely not the case.

I think it is time to assemble a coalition of the kind to protect this fledgling democracy and welcome them into the new world.

The war plan should be:

  1. First, put the regime off balance by veiled and unveiled threats. Begin to move assets into place for a full-scale invasion, and send a conflicting message.
  2. Suddenly announce unconditional support of the revolutionaries along with several other countries. Demand that Khomeini and Ahmedinajed step down and allow the new government to form, as per the revolutionary’s demands.
  3. If they don’t step down, announce a time limit, and complete moving military assets in place.
  4. If they exhaust the time limit, begin an air strike against the air assets. Bomb the nuclear facilities and military hardware. Destroy any military units used to oppress the people.
  5. If they still don’t step down, send in ground troops in a mad rush for Tehran. The goal is to seat the new government, not pick a fight with the people or any remnants of the military.
  6. Once the new government is seated, begin working to extinguish the remnants of the old government and establish the new, under the direction of the new leaders.

Iran knows that we are fully capable of carrying out these kinds of threats. If we simply start making them, they will listen very closely.