It's Not Often We Get To Relive History: Bush Out-Hoovers Coolidge

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

By 1932 the economy was so bad that a children's rhyme came about that mentioned then President Hoover and his Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon:

Mellon drove the engine,
Hoover rang the bell,
Wall St. blew the whistle,
and the country went to hell.

From the mouth of babes, as they say....it condenses into a short poem the feelings and beliefs at the time. Herbert Hoover got stuck with the policies of Calvin Coolidge, yet President Hoover was a captive of what John Kenneth Galbraith later described as "the conventional wisdom."

The Franklin Roosevelt administration came into office at a time when American business was looking for someone to save them from themselves. What Roosevelt did certainly alleviated many of the harshest aspects of the Depression, but never cured it. But at least he tried which is more than can be said for his predecessors. One good, and lasting side of FDR's time was the imposition of some common-sense regulation on American finance.

Since the 1970's, many of those regulations were removed by Congress, sometimes at the behest of the president in office. It all looked great, "unleashing the shackles" from business. The first inkling of the wisdom of this was the mortgage crisis of the late 1980's. We were returning to the "conventional wisdom" with a vengeance. Several years ago Congress passed, and President Bush gleefully signed something called the consumer protection act. I love their sense of humor. That law was written by, and for, credit card companies. It was to address the problem of the irresponsible behavior of individuals who ran up credit card debt and then declared bankruptcy. Keep that logic in mind.

Last Friday, President Bush gave a speech at The Economic Club of New York. You can't get more grassroots than that; a roomfull of millionaires/billionaires filling their shorts with fear; fear of losing what they have taken risks with other peoples' money for great personal gain. In Bush Acknowledges Weakness In American Economy by Jennifer Loven (AP writer), our president regurgetated thoughts expressed 80 years ago.

NEW YORK - Trying to calm jitters about the economy, President Bush conceded on Friday that the country "obviously is going through a tough time" but expressed confidence that it will rebound. He cautioned against overreacting to fix the problems.

In a speech to The Economic Club of New York, Bush said this was not the first time the economy has been rattled and that he is certain that it will ride out its troubles. "These are uncertain times," he said.

SNIP,

The president chose American's financial center as the backdrop — and the titans of finance and commerce as the audience — for his attempts to calm nerves from Wall Street to Main Street.

The Economic Club of New York is an exclusive, wealthy, largely homogenous group of top executives. Speaking before the gathering had Bush somewhat literally preaching to the choir — the 101-year-old group's new chairman is Glen Hubbard, the first head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers for Bush.

SNIP,

His main message, aside from optimism, stuck to Republican economic orthodoxy: warning repeatedly against too much government intervention.

For instance, while insisting his administration has an "active plan" to deal with the problems, Bush said he opposed several measures pending on Capitol Hill. They included proposals to allocate $400 billion to purchase abandoned and foreclosed homes, to change the bankruptcy code to allow judges to adjust mortgage rates, and to artificially prop up home prices.

"It's important not to overcorrect, because when you overcorrect, you end up in a ditch," Bush said. "It's important to be steady."

He said his administration would address the crisis "in a way that respects the ingenuity of the American people, that bolsters the entrepreneurial spirit and ensures that when we make it through this rough patch, that the driving will be smooth."

President Bush went on to lament Democrats' recalcitrance on approving more of those "free trade" deals that have done so much for American multinational corporations.

I love the bit where he emphasizes the growth of productivity was one of the strengths of the economy. That is a half-truth. Presidents Coolidge and Hoove also bragged about the growth of productivity. What all fail to realize is that increased productivity is useless if the wages do not rise in accordance with them.

To my dying day I will be a strong proponent of capitalism. It isn't pretty, but it creates wealth; no other system does. Greed is not good, but it's a much better catalyst in wealth creation, however it is distributed. That is the role of government to some degree; to curb the excesses of unfettered capitalism.

Two days after President Bush's speech in New York, it was announced that the Federal Reserve was loosening credit (again) for business. And, that it was involved in pulling Bear Stearns bacon out of the fire (by having it sold to J.P. Morgan for pennies on the dollar).

Some argued that Bear Stearns, an investment bank that screwed the pooch with subprime mortage notes, should go under...to deal with the consequences of its unwise actions. You know, like those individuals who got lectured vehemently several years ago when those bankruptcy laws were tightened.

But, to the Bush administration....like the Coolidge and Hoover administrations....the worth of one bank is much greater than millions of individuals. Suddenly on Wall Street we don't hear the usual cries of "rugged individualism." Of course not; such a notion is silenced in times like these.

Simply put, if our economy is a ship, if it is taking on water, the first thing the captain is going to do is ensure the lifeboats are filled with the first class passengers FIRST.

The wealthy elites are, to borrow from Neil Young, the silver seeds of a grandiose future.

George Carlin was once asked if he thought we had a dope problem in America.

"Sure,' he said, " I think we have too many dopes."
*****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

HILLARY LOVES YOU

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Following this presidential race can have adverse effects on one's appetite. That might be good; perhaps by November I'll have shrunk to the weight the doctors say I should be. Thing is, I choose to be stupid and follow the path of personal health self-destruction. While not a consumer of alcohol or drugs, I do adhere to Oscar Wilde's quote that "I can resist anything but temptation."

So imagine my consternation when I read this piece in the NEW YORKER, THE IRON LADY by Ryan LIzza. True, the article is certainly not complimentary of Senator Clinton, but one part sticks out there all by itself. It was uttered by Senator Clinton during an "economic summit" during the campaign for the Ohio primary. It took place in Zanesville.

It was as if the sheer display of iron-pantsed discussion would further underscore her insistent theme: the hollowness of Obama’s charisma. When one speaker offered encomiums to Clinton rather than economic prescriptions, she gently reprimanded her, saying, “We’re going to put a moratorium on compliments.” Then, with the bonhomie of a high-school health teacher, she turned the conversation back toward government programs to help people “quit smoking, to get more exercise, to eat right, to take their vitamins.”

Is Ryan Lizza making this up? The comment is apparently not "newsworthy" because it doesn't have "substance." In the modern media glossary, "substance" is defined as that which can cause the greatest amount of childish interest within the political sandbox. It should be looked at further, and since the big boys and girls won't touch it, I will.

Many moons ago I read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." 19th century English can be a handful to read, and Thoreau's prose adds to the challenge. But, what I gathered from his writing is that the individual is paramount. That is the acme of Western thinking. The government, or state, is secondary to the individual. In fact, our Constitution goes to some lengths in the Bill of Rights to expressly underline that notion.

When the state becomes the oppressor instead of the protector, then the individual has a choice: either submit or not. Submission is always less painful; at least in the short term. However, over time individuality will seek to assert itself no matter what the state says. What Thoreau wrote was studied by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. All three men were philosophers, pains in the backside to those who prefer people not to think. Thinking is painful, after all, and the struggle to maintain individuality in a politically correct word is an agony.

When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, a contemporary writer gave a good description of FDR as a leader. He was America's bus driver. With a grin and his cigarett holder at a jaunty angle, Roosevelt steered the country down some dangerous road and heart-stopping curves. Sometimes it was scary, but everyone knew that while he was in the driver's seat, he never stopped listening to the passengers.

That is apt, because we, the passengers on the national bus, are the sovereigns of this republic. Plain, simple citizens are the ultimate rulers of the nation. The past seven years there hasn't been a bus; we've had a spoiled brat in a soapbox derby car (that his daddy built) rolling downhill. And we've been expected to keep up with him while dragging bags of cement behind us.

And now....well, it looks like one candidate (or possibly all three right now) foresees her role as a herder; someone to herd those wayward souls who just don't get it. What I don't get is why the power of government has to be used to further a collective goal at the expense of the individual. The context within which I am speaking relates to personal behavior only. If the state declares that an individual's right to abortion, or sexual preferences, or religious preferences. THAT I can understand, as it is in the direction of government staying out of an individual's decisions. It does not matter whether I personally agree or not; the key point is that the individual is, again, to be protected by the state. No matter how stupid they are.

But smoking? Exercise? Eating habits? Vitamins? If this is the epitome of 220 years of a constitutional republic, then it is sad and disheartening.

We need another bus driver. And there ain't no room on the bus for a throne.
***********************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Will 2008 Be The Year The Democratic Party Is Assassinated?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Within my own lifetime I've lived through the assassinations (or attempted assassinations) of JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan. All of them were so stupid; so pointless. Where the attempts succeeded history was altered, and not for the better. People think of Lee Harvey Oswald of killing Kennedy. But he also gave us Lyndon Johnson in the White House.

Johnson was a terrible president, yet historians seem to concentrate on what a great politician he was. The same is true of Bill Clinton; he knows how to politic but I don't think history is going to be too kind to his acts as president. Don't even think about comparing Mr. Clinton to Mr. Bush.....ANY president looks good, except maybe James Buchanan.

As sad and pointless an assassination of an individual is, the same act carried out against something greater than an individual is even worse. To be fair, it might be said that with the best of intentions the Bush administration has done a pretty good job of assassinating the Constitution.

After the March 4th voting, whereby Senator Hillary Clinton won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, the question is being asked by many just how far the Clinton campaign is going to go. The "math" is clear in that neither Obama nor Clinton will have the delegates to win the nomination before the party convention in Denver. Obama can rightfully claim that he has an insurmountable lead.

The advantage Obama now has is this: while he may be human and not keep his promises, he represents a form of hope. That is, hope that we can finally crawl away from the corporate forces that have been turning the nation into a giant banana republic. Senator Clinton's handicap is her being a reminder of her husband's presidency, which was not exactly an arch-enemy of greed and corruption.

The real rub for the Democrats is do they proceed with a vision or accept the blandness of sameness? The Clinton campaign will not allow Barack Obama to continue to offer hope. Said hope must be dampened down or preferably destroyed.

In so doing, Hillary Clinton will win a nomination and lose any ability to go anywhere but backwards. It is admirable for anyone to follow the advice of Dylan Thomas and not go gently into that good night. But, what works for an individual does not translate into a group. Senator Clinton may or may not be that likable a person. That is not relevant. Franklin Roosevelt was not really a very likable person; he was an enigma to just about everyone around him. But he was a great president.

There comes a point where someone in Senator Cinton's shoes must ask herself if the goal is worth the cost. This year there is a good chance for a Democrat to win the White House. But it would be foolish to assume it's there for the taking. Lots of things can happen.

One thing that should NOT be happening is heaping dirt on an opponent as if he were a Republican in a general election. Worse, using LBJ-style tactics to convolute a convention would be fatal in many aspects. The outcome of the Democratic convention could hand the election to John McCain on a silver platter.

The next president is going to need one attribute more than any other: the ability to lead the American people. FDR did it, as did JFK and Ronald Reagan. Doesn't matter whether you agree with their policies, it's the fact that one individual can inspire people to draw from within themselves that which they didn't think was there any more.
*****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

The Audacity Of DoubleTalk

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The area of North Carolina I live in is used to be an area with large numbers of textile and furniture jobs. Several years ago I had to visit a local machinist to have some work done. While in his shop I noticed this huge machine sitting on the floor. He told me he was contracted to getting the machine in shape before its shipment to Mexico. With no pride in his voice he said that was the last textile machine in the county.

Several weeks ago I was in the local Walmart. I'm not making this up; it actually happened and the multiple ironies compressed in such a short time made me wonder iif some force was trying to tell me something. First, while browsing in stationary I hear on the official Walmart P.A. system a Bruce Springsteen song. "My Hometown" of all things. As I threw the graph paper in the cart I heard the lines that could be the anthem for this area:

Now Main Street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores
Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more
They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks
Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back to your
hometown

Then at the checkout I'm delayed because the couple in front of me is tossing some kind of form on the counter. They are not speaking English and presumably were from Mexico. They had a small infant in the cart. Finally, the cashier did whatever she was doing (they had multiple transactions). Upon asking the cashier what that was all about, I was informed that the transactions involved W.I.C.

So, someone who is presumably in this country illegally (and don't even TRY to convince me of the odds that they are not), working illegally, and yet is receiving government assistance. By the way, one of the REASONS there are immigration laws is to prevent people from coming into the U.S. and receiving government benefits. Try sponsoring or marrying a foreign national and doing things legally. Been there, done that....got a bunch of T-shirts.

To top the whole shopping experience off, I passed this same couple coming out of the Walmart Money Store, where I presume (again, and correctly I believe) that these folks used the savings from their W.I.C. benefits to send some money back home. Yep, that's what welfare benefits are all about....propping up the sagging economy of Mexico.

As a human being I cannot condemn people for trying to take advantage of circumstances to better their lot in life. My problem lies in the fact that NAFTA is the keystone that supports a bridge of false promises, both to Americans AND Mexicans. Let us not forget that while successful in engendering corporate profits, NAFTA has succeeded in eliminating Mexican livelihoods far more efficiently than American jobs.

Yesterday I read an article by Jake Tapper of ABC News, Obama Knocks Clinton, But Wouldn't Ax NAFTA:

Appealing to union voters in a dry wall manufacturing plant in this crucial primary state, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sunday afternoon said that even though he has repeatedly said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country, he would not try to repeal it.

"I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

In the fierce fight for votes here in Ohio, where NAFTA is not popular among many blue collar Democrats, Obama has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for the trade deal pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed in Congress in November 1993.

If one assumes that NAFTA has caused, shall we say, an allergic reaction in the U.S. economy, then it seems rather disingenuous to condemn it while at the same time emphasiing that doing anything about it would be too painful.

Senator Obama can make a talking point out of Hillary's husband and NAFTA. He can make a valid point about Sen. Clinton praising NAFTA in the past while condemning it now......

But what is the point if Sen. Obama is going to throw up his hands and say there's nothing he'll do about it since it's so "entrenched" into our economy? Tapeworms are entrenched too, but any expert will agree that getting rid of it is much healthier than living with it.

Bill Clinton got my vote 1992 based upon the notion that he would also bring "change." It meant a swing away from the worshiping at the feet of Wall St. and concentrating on the greater mass of people who actually live with the consequences of their own actions, let alone those of others in higher places.

Is Obama like Bill Clinton?....great at getting elected but suffering political amnesia as soon as he takes the oath of office? If that's the way it is, then so be it. The nation cannot afford it, but SOME level of honesty and promise-keeping must return or the whole thing is a joke.

And very few are laughing.
*******************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Selective "Free Markets": Time To Reconsider

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

This doesn't make an immediate connection to the presidential campaign, and yet is has more to do with it than one could imagine.

I am very leery of those who expound upon the virtues of the "free market," as if such is a panacea, a cure-all to economic questions. Particularly the selective aspect of its proponents.

Consider this: in the 1970's, Chrysler was in trouble, big trouble. Despite objections from many Congress voted to loan Chrysler $2 billion. The labor unions made concessions, Lee Iacocca came along, and within years Chrysler was back on its feet. It is arguable that it worked to a certain degree.

Now go back to the 1930's. The economic mess that existed at that time had one unusual characteristic: DEflation. Most of us alive today have never lived it and therefore would find it difficult to think of falling prices as a bad thing.

But they were. Farmers in Iowa could not get enough for their corn to justify the cost of shipping it to market. Long before bio-fuels became a household word many people were using corn for heat.

Along came Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. No one had all the answers; it was more a quest to end the Depression and government had a role in doing so. It was true "thinking outside the box" in that for the first time farmers were going to be paid NOT to produce. Hog farmers could not understand how their crops and animal products could give a greater return by lowering the supply.

It was inflationary, but that was a price to be paid in an effort to preserve American capitalism. Within the context of the 1930's it made sense to tax some people in order to pay other people not to produce. There was a human cost too; in the South many sharecroppers were made homeless since the land owners did better by not having anyone produce anything. These people, black and white, became part of the great internal migration of that time.

Up until the last year or so no one would have thought much about this process' impact on their lives. But.....we're over 70 years away from the Depression. The continuance of these farm subsidies is akin to building Civil War cannons for the modern Army. In the 1930's over 25% of Americans lived on farms. Now it's something under 2%. Most agricultural activity is through huge agri-business combines.

It is absurd for people like Sam Donaldson or Ted Turner to be receiving payments from the U.S. government for NOT doing anything with their land. Particularly at a time when Americans (and everyone else on the planet) are paying a lot more for food because of the emergence of ethanol as the answer to all of our energy problems. Which it is not, of course.

While not an economist, I question what the government is doing, and also question the wisdom of continuing to have government manipulation of agricultural products. With the high inflationary nature of ANYTHING to do with corn or grain, why are people being taxed to give money to people who own land but don't grow anything on it?

Why is the government STILL carrying out an inflationary program in an inflationary time? I know there's votes in them there milk buckets and corn cribs, but it seems absurd to apply an early 20th century solution to a 21st century situation that is the reverse of the program's original intent.

There's not much glamor in this subject. But there's a lot of money. It's brought home to me every time I see the latest price increase in food, always because of the high cost of corn products, wheat products, etc.

The "free market" is supposed to make thing more abundant when prices increase. It is never going to happen if we are spending money to do the opposite.

Next thing you know, the fire department will use kerosene to put out housefires. They'll only be following the example set by the geniuses.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Playing History Scrabble To Help With The Future

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

With the presidential primaries reaching a climax on February 5th, I feel at this point that I am paddling in circles within the Sea of Insanity. At the time of writing, many candidates have withdrawn, essentially leaving four: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

The Republican race appears to be McCain's to lose. After Tuesday the pundits will start speculating on who McCain will choose as a running mate. Time will tell on that one.

The Democrats have a more interesting dynamic going on. One is the first serious woman candidate for the presidency; the other the first black American to do so. Both are very intelligent people; both have egos large enough to sustain them through the process they are now going through.

So, who would not only be the better candidate, but who would make the better president? Democrats seem split 50/50 on this right now. Sen. Obama is charismatic; he actually DOES transcend many things that heretofore have separated Americans. His problem is that he is still rather unknown on specifics. His rhetoric is wonderful; he's one of the finest public speakers I've heard in a long time. How that would translate into effectiveness as a president is obviously debatable.

Hillary Clinton has many attributes that would suit her well. She's determined, intelligent, and obviously not afraid of planting her boot in the backside of those who need a little motivation. Her being a woman with those characteristics may alienate those who prefer women who are demure and silent. I, for one, do not. Ego and aggressiveness are necessary for a chief executive. Margaret Thatcher had it in spades, and she is a lady nonetheless.

Sen. Clinton's millstone is her husband. And this is where the history scrabble comes in. Suppose that we could swap the terms of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. How would the two decades...the 90's and this one...have been different?

Here we run into a bit of a quandary. What makes the difference, the presidents or the times themselves? The 90's were to a great extent a fallow period, almost exactly spanning the fall of Soviet communism (but not communism itself) and the arrival of the Paranoid Period on 9/11/2001.

President Bush would have revelled in the 90's. Oil probably would have risen in price no matter world markets, but otherwise he would have been smack in the middle of a time that favored the conservative cycle. It's doubtful that he would have invaded that many countries, although what action he would have taken in Haiti or Afghanistan would have been more forceful than Mr. Clinton's was.

President Clinton, on the other hand, would probably have done much better in this decade. During his second term he would have been able to take advantage of the slow swing from the conservative to the liberal cycle. With all due respect, Clinton's savvy and intelligence far surpass that of George W. Bush, and his handling of many post 9/11 factors would have been much different, and more than likely better.

History might read like a story; all that happened in the past seems inevitable. Yet that is not so. History is flux; a constant change that requires adaptation by the people living it. We are not the same people we were at the time of our birth, and neither is our nation. A century from now the United States will be much more different still.

Our last two presidents were, in my opinion, the wrong people at the wrong times. THIS election is one of the most important in decades, because whoever it is must be the RIGHT person for the RIGHT time.

Sen. McCain I'll look at more carefully in the future. As for the choice between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton it's almost a toss-up. I have greater hope for Obama than Clinton. Yet all the same I've changed my mind about moving to Canada if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House.

Sen. Clinton's biggest failing is this: she has not developed her own identity. That is why Bill is a burden. For if she becomes the nominee....if she becomes the president, then it must be made clear that a Clinton II administration is politically divorced from her husband's.

If the odds favor a Democrat being our next president, then I would warn both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton of one thing:

Our best presidents made major decisions with an eye on history itself. It's a much better guidepost than polls or pundits. We, as individuals, come and go. The republic itself is sustained by wise decisions.

We've had enough bad ones lately.

How Healthy Is Globalization For National Security?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Today Matthew O'Keefe at PAPAMOKA STRAIGHT TALK has a piece, It's The Economy, Stupid.....Again! It's well worth a read, and the last two paragraphs sent me off in another direction.

When Barack and Hillary figure out who is a racist and who is a bitch then somebody please pass a note or tell them that “It’s the damn economy!” Vote for change or fight for your bread in the next economy.

Maybe the problem we as Americans have is we keep electing millionaires as President that have forgotten what it is truly like to be hungry. Not politically hungry, stomach pain, have not eaten hungry.

I would differ in that I would qualify one statement in that we don't need, nor can afford, any more UNCARING millionaires in the White House. Or in Congress, either. Economically, the United States has been cutting off its nose to feed its face. If you think the geniuses on Wall Street or on the board of the Federal Reserve have any more common wisdom than some poor slob trying to balance a checkbook you're badly mistaken.

The experts possess a great deal of knowledge. Knowledge, as the saying goes, is power. That does not denote wisdom. And one must wonder how much of the decades-old push to de-industrialize America is advanced by stupid greed.

Don't misunderstand me: greed is part and parcel of capitalism and there is NO other economic system that beats it. Capitalism has one glaring drawback, though. It's corrosive, like living in a 100% oxygen environment is corrosive. It's the inert gases in our atmosphere that prevent everything from going up in flames.

Globalization is a very oxygen-rich capitalistic phenomenon. We're told that globalization is here to stay, so deal with it. I've been told the same thing about hurricanes. Difference is; you can avoid a hurricane if you have the economic mobility. In that, hurricanes and globalization are similar.

We can argue all the livelong day about the negative aspects of globalization, but it will not affect the ongoing process of it. What is NOT discussed is how far does globalization go before the economic and military security of the United States is compromised? I've read where workers in the new economic scheme of things will be part of the process of "innovation." Blue collar jobs were to be the only casualty of this changing order. Then white collar jobs started flying way like leaves on the wind.

But not to worry. The economy of the United States will be based on "innovation." Okay, here's a question: how many 'innovators" are there in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many divisions of "innovators" can we send into combat should the United States find itself under direct threat from another nation?

In the race to send as much manufacturing abroad as possible, to look with disdain upon a low-brow "old" economic base, corporate America has lost sight of the fact that there IS a United States. That might be understandable in that most corporations have no loyalty to anything but themselves, but for the government to lose sight of the importance of certain industries' role in national security is inexcusable.

There are little things and big things. For U.S. Special Forces to have their berets made in China is absurd. If you think, "It's only cloth" then you have no concept of what those volunteers go through to wear such an item.

Perhaps I am a throwback, a person concerned with the capability of the United States to maintain the economic and military strength required in a very hostile world. So be it. Should, God forbid, the United States find itself dealing with a belligerent Russia, China, India, or Pakistan......aircraft, bombs, tanks, soldiers and rifles cannot be overcome by innovation in the form of briefcase-toting experts.

Look back, and you will find that prior to any major war there is a period where war itself is declared obsolete. It won't ever happen again; that modern forms of diplomacy and economic interaction preclude any possibility of war. Prior to Hitler invading the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviet Union's largest trading partner was.....Germany.

I have deliberately used the words "the United States" because this nation is, after all, an experiemnt. And an ideal. Being American is a frame of mind. It should precede any global identity.

A dissolved or diluted United States should not be our reward for this global economy.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Who Would Jesus Endorse?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

It is, of course, a ludicrous question. And somewhat offensive. I'm not the one asking, though. It seems to be permeating the candidacy of Gov. Mike Huckabee.

In this AP article by Libby Quaid, Huckabee eschews politics for preaching , there is a clear pandering to what are known as "conservative Christians."

SPARTANBURG, S.C. - Republican Mike Huckabee spoke from the pulpit Sunday, not as a politician but as the preacher he used to be, delivering a sermon on how merely being good isn't enough to get into heaven.

Huckabee is vying for support from the Christian conservatives who dominate the GOP in South Carolina, which chooses a Republican presidential nominee on Saturday. A former Baptist minister and Arkansas governor, Huckabee is competing for their votes with fellow southerner Fred Thompson.

As in Iowa, where he won the Jan. 3 caucuses, Huckabee is rousing pastors to marshal their flocks for him. He pitches himself as someone who not only shares their views against abortion and gay marriage but who actually comes from their ranks.

On Sunday in South Carolina, Huckabee avoided politics entirely, instead preaching about humility and trusting in Jesus to open the gates of heaven.

"The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That's the real challenge in it," he said at First Baptist North Spartanburg, a megachurch with 2,500 members.

"On that day, when I pull up, I'll be asked, `Do you have what it takes to get in?'" Huckabee said. "And if I ask, `Well, what does it take to get in?' 'Gotta be perfect.'"

"Well, I'm afraid I don't have that, but you know what, I won't be there alone that day. Somebody is going to be with me. His name is Jesus, and he's promised that he would never leave me or forsake me," he said.

Huckabee did NOT avoid politics at all. He brought politics into the church. And he'll bring the church into politics.

I'm reminded of the time my father was speaking to an elderly man in rural West Virginia. The subject came up about the different churches in the area, and the old curmudgeon used his 1st Amendment right rather bluntly.

"Ain't go no time for no preachers 'round here. Seems to me ever' time you see one of 'em coming out onto someone's porch they're either pickin' their teeth or zippin' up their pants."

A harsh judgment delivered harshly I suppose, but essentially the man was saying that preachers are human just like the rest of us. As a disclaimer I will freely admit to having been raised a Baptist. Belonging to what many would consider the Treasonous side, I do not believe in placing my beliefs on someone else. And I am very leery of those who do. And I am terrified of those who do and use the power of government to carry out their fervent wishes.

In my otherwise fruitless experience at the University of Florida, I retained a few nuggets. In a political science class, the professor asked, "Why do we have a Bill of Rights in the Constitution?" A very enthusiastic student answered immediately, "Because we believe in the rights of others."

"WRONG," said the professor, "We have them because we do NOT believe in the rights of others."

My own personal experience with this was in of all places, the Republic of Ireland. It is a wonderful nation with wonderful people. As an immigrant I learned enough of the culture to understand why Irish Catholicism is so strongly adhered to by the majority of the population. For centuries Roman Catholics were persecuted by the English. With independence being achieved only in the 20th century, the constitution reflected that struggle.

Problem was, and is, that there are many native Irish who are NOT Roman Catholic, yet must live as such in many ways. Granted, there never was the level of discrimination and resulting violence as in Ulster, but fair is fair. If you are not a Roman Catholic you can be made to feel foreign in your own birthplace. One example is the custom of have the Church Hierarchy review any social legislation before it proceeds in parliament.

So, with that in mind I think of the pitfalls that Gov. Huckabee is leading himself and his flock towards. I could speak for a long time about my beliefs as a Christian; how lousy a one I am and the imperfections of my soul and all the bad and sinful decisions I have made in my life. My faith tells me that Jesus will forgive me of much, if not most, of my transgressions.

But I could not forgive myself if I let stand unchallenged the preposterous notion that Christianity belongs in the White House; that Christians need to control any political party. I believe Jesus once said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Mike Huckabee apparently wants to use the beliefs of a particular group of Americans to render Caesar's unto the "chosen few."

The whole point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to spread His Word; to promote the teachings of Jesus. Outside of government I think that's fine. With government, there is a huge problem because, aside from that pesky Constitution, many Americans are NOT Christians. Many are atheists, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Muslims. Christianity is not their faith but the United States is THEIR nation, too.

Seems odd now when you consider a little history of early America. Massachusetts was run by Puritans. Maryland was a Catholic colony. Pennsylvania was for Quakers. And so on. Yet Roger Williams, a Baptist minister of all things, established the city of Providence and later the colony of Rhode Island. Williams' unique attitude ensured that Rhode Island became a haven for religious freedom. Rhode Island's example was the prime reason the Bill of Rights prohibited the establishment of a state church.

Gov. Huckabee might reflect a bit upon Roger Williams. Four centuries is an understandable amount of time to forget a hard-won lesson. But that's the magic of print; you can read and learn.

As elections approaches each primary state, and in particular the general election in November, I would advise Christians to do the following about those whose llves are not in accordance with what they believe to be righteous. This includes gays, non-Christians, adulterers, liberals, opponents of school prayer.........

Forgive them.

Now vote on some earthly issues.
**************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****The Chicago Sun Times has picked up this post...

Technorati Tags:
Religion, Huckabee, Reverend Huckabee, Roger Williams, Faith in Politics, South Carolina, Baptist Faith, Jesus Christ, Jesus Endorsement, Politics and Pulpits, Libby Quaid, AP, Politics and Religion, Religious White House, House of God, Republican Faith, Gay marriage, Abortion, Perfect follower, gates of heaven, Pearly Gates, Bible Belt, Thomas Jefferson, Catholic Faith, Mormon, Protestant, Church and State

A WALTZ DOWN MEMORY LANE IN 2009

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

I've grown weary of the constant schoolyard buzz whirling about presidential candidates. It has become tedious. And boring. I don't think I can take much more of reading tea leaves to predict who is going to win Iowa, or New Hampshire, etc. It has become so predictable that I've decided to just leap ahead a couple of years.

What my crystal ball tells me is no less accurate than professional pontificators, or any less honest. Well, I'll concede on the honesty part because with this crop of hopefuls outright lying is not beyond the realm of possibility.

But I digress from my digression. Assume for a moment that the year 2008 has come and gone, and we find ourselves a few months into 2009. Here I offer a small collection of what-might-as-well-be's:

President-elect Hillary Clinton stunned experts by naming her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as American Ambassador to Monaco. Relations with several European countries were strained upon learning that Bill Clinton "got to know" a number of female members of European royalty as well as the wives of prominent politicians. Republicans in Congress were also outraged that a special Presidential aircraft was permanently assigned to the "First Bubba" for his exclusive use. Demanding an all-female flight crew was the cherry on top for the opponents of the Clinton(s) administration.

By February 2009 it became fashionable (and required of White House reporters) to refer to the new president as "Hillary The Great." By March, President Hillary had issued more signing statements than former President George W. Bush had in his entire eight years of tenure. Some of the over 900 Presidential edicts are listed below:

Tax on cigarettes to be $150 per pack.
Possession of cigarettes to be a federal felony offense.
Frowning prohibited in public.
Any woman with a better physique than the president barred from federal employment (this resulted in a severe shortage of employees, solved only by a then-illegal data-mining of the Lane Bryant customer base.)

Tom Brady stunned the sporting world by simultaneously dating both Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. This might explain New England's 2-14 record after their Superbowl win the previous January.

Former President Bush was named as honorary President of Baylor University in recognition of his extraordinary grasp of economics. The university subsequently filed for bankruptcy. President Bush finally fulfilled his promise to sit on the porch of Trent Lott's Katrina-damaged chalet in Mississippi. The FEMA-financed cottage had somehow expanded into a 14,000 square foot monstrosity with a final cost of $18.7 million. Former President Bush observed that if it hadn't been for that Kelo decision the costs would have been much higher in running off all those poor folks whose land Trent needed.

Many were surprised that two hours after her inauguration, Hillary The Great ordered the arrest of Karl Rove and had him placed in Gitmo as an "enemy noncombatant." In a special signing statement, HTG announced that "enemy noncomatant" was anyone she didn't like, calling Rove a "fat slob" who needed "to be taught a lesson." Rove was released after 7 weeks, in large part due to the efforts of his supporters, who had purchased and established THE KARL ROVE PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT LIBARY (not a mis-spelling, that's the way they say library) in Tickturd, Texas. The library is a simple structure built in the middle of 40 acres of bull manure-infested pasture. "Seems kinda right to me," quipped one of the site workers.

With the total collapse of the home mortgage market in 2008, along with a number of large banks and corporations, the administration decided to take immediate action by using government funds in the oil commodities market. Citing the president's luck in cattle futures in Arkansas, the thought was that funds could thus be raised to bail out destitute speculators on the government's dime. This was known as "No Greedy Pig Left Behind."

It was not forseen (except by about 298 million Americans) that the price of oil would skyrocket. By March 2009 a barrel of oil peaked at $275 . President Clinton Her Ladyship pointed to the positive effects: with so few people actually having jobs or the money to get to work, the number of traffic deaths and injuries had plummeted. Al Gore was enthusiastic, noting that the atmosphere now looked a lot cleaner from the cabin of his private jet.

62 bridges collapsed in 2008, primarily caused by overloaded Mexican trucks. A Dept. of Transportation official said that a weight limit of 34 tons was being ignored, with many Mexican trucks topping 50 to 60 tons. However, this was cited as another example of the success of NAFTA. (???)

The Clinton adminstration blamed the infrastructure shortcomings on the Bush adminstration, who immediately placed the blame on the Clinton administration (no, the first one I mean), who immediately blamed it on the Bush administration (the first one, again), who immediately blamed it on Jimmy Carter. The Houses of Bush and Clinton finally agreed to blame everything on Jimmy Carter.

As we all look forward to 2010, we can thank our lucky stars that our leaders are looking out for us almost as much as they look after themselves.

Well, it's nice to think so, anyway.

Happy New Year!!!!
**********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

BUSH'S GREATEST LEGACY? THE SEEDS FOR A SECOND CIVIL WAR

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Currently it is a real chore following the numerous candidates for the presidency. The process doesn't bore me so much as frustrate. To me, there is this treadmill of red herrings that citizens are supposed to chase after. Doing so facilitates the basic dishonesty of the process, enabling the triumph of the same sort of corporate-composite persona to sit in the Oval Office.

Recently I struggled through a book, THE LATE GREAT U.S.A. by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. The book deals with the quiet but persistent effort to unite Mexico, The United States, and Canada into a North American Union. Even if a fraction of the book's contents approach the truth, it is an alarming thing to learn that your nation is being co-opted into a foreign alliance/assimilation without the people knowing about it.

The one criticism Dr. Corsi is open to is that, after being instrumental in the re-election of George W. Bush through his efforts in the Swiftboat smearing of John Kerry, he has awoken a little late. But, better late than never I suppose.

The plausibility of Dr. Corsi's allegations is increased by the fact that much of what the book says explains some rather bizarre things. One, NAFTA is STILL being touted as a great success yet we are dealing with millions of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. looking for work. Secondly, President Bush's rather distant and blurred response to the border issue fits into the scenario outlined by Dr. Corsi.

NAFTA was, as it turns out, the "thin end of the wedge." It was not just a trade agreement, but a tool to further advance the eventual integration of 3 nations into one. Corsi compares the effort to the formation of the European Economic Union, and frankly it's hard to argue his point.

President Bush has done practically nothing to seal the border, which is nonsensical in light of the 9/11 attacks. However, it DOES make sense if you are just biding your time until a fait accompli is presented to the people of the 3 respective nations that the new borders are with Guatamala and....the Arctic Circle.

Those reading this will not live to see the full impact of George W. Bush's acts. The end result of a "North American Union" will be the disintegration of the United States. From time to time small glimpses surface. Recently a rapist/murderer in Texas cried foul on his prison sentence because he did not have access to the Mexican Consulate because belatedly he discovered he was born in Mexico. The uncanny aspect of this is when the Bush White House started issuing instructions to the Texas courts on how to handle the case.

Of course, a president accustomed to issuing orders to Congress doesn't have much of a problem issuing orders to a court.....and remember ANY court if he deems it necessary.

After a while, you have to stop listening to what some people say and concentrate on what they DO. George W. Bush has been an utter failure in many things, but not adhering to the faith in a constitutional American government is his greatest. President Bush has been riding his bike blind-folded through the minefield of misjudment. He always has someone to bail him out. But WE do not. We must live with the consequences of a president's actions. It helps if the president is at least OPEN and HONEST with the American people. But apparently honesty with the American people takes a back seat to maintaining and strengthening the bond between government and multi-national corporations.

A North American Union will not be announced at one particular event. It will be achieved through stealth, a little agreement here; a little agreement there, with the Congress being given little or NO notice.

Jame Buchanan is sometimes credited with being the worst president we have ever had. This is mainly due to the fact that he did practically nothing to prevent the Civil War. The Civil War was about many things, but mainly this: what type of nation are we going to be? Two opposing views of life and government came to blows that devastated the nation, but made the decision through armed struggle.

It would be naive to assume that what happened 150 years ago would never come to pass again. It will. By his policies President Bush is planting the seeds for a horrific harvest. The end result will be a struggle for what kind of nation we will remain, or become.

So whoever succeeds President Bush must "address the mess." Most issues are macro in scale compared to the actual life of this nation. But, that is not going to be discussed nor addressed. We will be reassured that "change" is coming.

Yeah, sure. In this sense I am quite conservative. I don't WANT the kind of change I see coming. A voice in the wilderness, perhaps, but a common currency, a common central bank, a "council of ministers" who will decide what laws and regulations are to be created and enforced.....no I don't want that.

It seems to me sad that a nation born in fire, in rebellion of a government thousands of miles away, should be devolving back to a collection of corporate colonies.

We need another George 1, not another George 43.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****Buzz Tracker has linked to this post...
*****Reuters has picked up this entire post...

The Short-Sightedness Of Al Gore's Crusade

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

I'm very happy for former Vice President Al Gore. Being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is an honor no matter the circumstances. Beyond that, however, I have a hard time jumping on Gore's bandwagon to "save the world."

From THE NATION I read this speech by Al Gore, A Precious and Painful Vision of the Future . I'm not saying that Gore's climate change crusade is all bad; quite the contrary. But, in his zeal to address the issue his approach and solution bank leave me rather skeptical.

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

SNIP,

More than two decades ago,scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world's resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent "carbon summer."

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, "Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice." Either, he notes, "would suffice."

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

SNIP,

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon--with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance--especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they've taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

Matthew O'Keefe of Papamoka Straight Talk recently wrote a piece, CLOCK TICKING ON BIG OIL. The title itself addresses the main fear put forth by Mr. Gore. Environmentally the party is over. Yet economically it is also. When it reaches the point that a temper tantrum by some Mid-East tyrant, or South American tyrant drives the price of oil up overnight, then it's time to take serious stock of where we are and where we're going.

Where we are is stretched over an oil barrel. I have not heard it yet put forth by anyone that there might be a cheaper, more abundant, and cleaner form of energy for daily use. There MIGHT be, but that political will mentioned by Mr. Gore is missing. While it is believed by many (including me) that the current administration is more than happy to let the chips fall where they may....this sacred "free market solution" fantasy....it is also fair to ask why Mr. Gore did not use his influence to have then-President Clinton get the ball rolling while oil was stable and relatively cheap.

Re-reading Gore's entire speech, I get this weird feeling like I'm listening to Noah demand that someone build an Ark; that the world is on the edge of total life-ending disaster. But Noah in this case is shouting from his private yacht.

To say that we are at war with our planet and must make peace with it goes beyond a rational warning to an incitement of irrational fear. Pushing for "carbon credits" is to me a nice hypothetical high school solution, but not much else.

And despite Mr. Gore's strong belief in the collective action of treaties and laws, there is NOTHING in economic terms that does the trick like individuality. Americans drive millions of cars dumping millions of tons of pollutants every year. Yet those vehicles give people individual freedom that is not going to be forsaken in favor of trolleys and light rail.

The push should be in the direction of what form of energy is used in the future. Let me pose this question: how far do most people drive their cars to and from work each day? Mat O'Keefe and I discussed this, and it is plainly clear that battery-powered vehicles would suit the needs of the vast majority of commuters.

New battery technology would have to be developed. In two areas..nuclear power and computer technology....private enterprise has done well AFTER the government gave things a shove.

Taxes of any kind affect economic affairs; that is easily understood. Carbon taxes as proposed are one-dimensional...they would make some people feel good (like tossing money into the Salvation Army bucket at Christmas) but would impact those at the lower end of the scale the most. Anyone who says that taxes can be imposed on businesses and not be passed on to consumers is either a fool or a liar.

Tax incentives on the other hand can always lure someone to take a chance. We desperately need leadership on this, no doubt. But scaring the hell out of people without offering hope through a clear and concise policy change is not helping matters.

I know; I know...Al Gore offers some but most of his message is that dire warning harangue. What opponents of Mr. Gore's climate change warnings must not lose sight of is that the debate about whether there IS global warming or not is quickly becoming irrelevant.

What counts most is that ticking clock on oil. Those with the power and influence are betraying national security by not giving us that clear and concise lead.

Towards a stable tomorrow, free of oil speculators and oil tyrants.
***********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****The Gore Hub has linked to this post...

Clarification Of The Damage Done To The Republic

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

In a recent post, CANDIDATE FATIGUE, I wrote something that a reader at THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL asked me to clarify:

“This may be an old refrain, but it does not serve the republic well when the greater good of the nation is forsaken in order to provide relief for numerous complaints. Said complaints having been institutionalized through organizations whose focus is extremely narrow. And in many cases damaging to the republic, and what is stands for. Or used to, anyway.”

In answering the reader's question about clarification I will refer you to a piece by Gaius at BLUE CRAB BOULEVARD. Entitled "Common Sense On Common Language," one can get a close look of what I was referring to:

John Fund comments again today on the deal Nancy Pelosi made with the Hispanic Caucus to kill a bipartisan amendment to a funding bill that provides money to FBI, NASA and Justice Department. That amendment would have indemnified the Salvation Army and other employers from efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to penalize them for enforcing English language requirements in the workplace (original post here.). The Hispanic Caucus had refused to vote for a patch to the Alternative Minimum Tax bill if Pelosi didn't kill the amendment. Fund points out the destructiveness of the position taken by the Hispanic Caucus - to Hispanics and other immigrants.

SNIP,

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), who authored the now-stalled amendment to prohibit the funding of EEOC lawsuits against English-only rules, is astonished at the opposition he's generated. Rep. Joe Baca (D., Calif.), chair of the Hispanic Caucus, boasted that "there ain't going to be a bill" including the Alexander language because Speaker Pelosi had promised him the conference committee handling the Justice Department's budget would never meet. So Sen. Alexander proposed a compromise, only requiring that Congress be given 30 days notice before the filing of any EEOC lawsuit. "I was turned down flat," he told me. "We are now celebrating diversity at the expense of unity. One way to create that unity is to value, not devalue, our common language, English."

Gaius' post is listed under "Immigration Reform," which on the face of it is accurate enough. However, this goes beyond the issue of immigration. It is a good example of how the special interests of a particular group can quite effectively weaken the glue that holds the republic together.

What Nancy Pelosi (that great defender of American Somoa tuna cannery workers) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus did was to further ensure that the great melting pot of the past is now a great big salad bar. Or more precisely, a neo-Tower of Babel.

Millions of Americans, facing the ever-growing net of the Alternative Minimum Tax, were held hostage by the Hispanic Caucus. Not that funding for the FBI, NASA, or the Justice Department mean much to us, either.

No, what was more important was the temporary placating of a group of legislators bent on what they perceive as a greater loyalty: their ethnic group's right to refuse to assimilate. That goes WAY beyond mere "immigration." It involves the future of the nation and how it will be in a generation or two.

That's one thing I failed to point out in my original post. Candidate and officeholders today give no true thought to the future; only the here and now. Our "representatives" take what gifts our ancestors passed to us as a birthright (which it is NOT) and could care less about those who follow us.

We are swiftly becoming a nation of men and women, not laws. On that premise alone we are dismantling that nation. I won't hear of a "better nation because of it" since there won't BE a nation to debate about.

Anticipating the presidential election of 1864, Abraham Lincoln observed that should his opponent win, he would do his best to preserve the republic between the election and inauguration day, as his opponent could only win by ending it.

The forces of destruction are not always in the physical. Tried and true bad thinking, no matter the perceived good intent, have done as much damage to governments as any invading army.

Is it any longer possible to expect people living in this nation to forsake their ethnicity long enough to be Americans?

Is it asking too much?
*************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

HEY TRENT, THANKS A LOTT!

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

So Senator Trent Lott is resigning before the end of the year. What an odd bit of timing, I first thought.

But, silly 'ole me. I have to be educated the hard way about how Washington really works. My first reaction was: do voters have a CLUE as to how the future-soon-to-be-former senator will get along?

I know that the rumor mill started off immediately with a bit about some kind of gay escort service and all that. As if that is a scandal compared to what is going to happen. Congressional salaries/pensions/etc. are a scam; a sham, and a rip-off.

Both parties do it; this is not an indictment of one political party so much as it is a glaring example of how much chutzpah exists among the so-called "servants of the people." Where else in America can one work a job for 5 years and get 80% of their pay for the rest of their lives? Oh, and don't forget the COLA's (Cost of living adjustments) that can (and DO) raise a retired congressperson's income ABOVE what they were earning while in office.

To add insult to injury, the royals elites have devised a scheme known as "ethics," which is always good for a laugh in Washington. See, it might appear to us rubes down on the farm that leaving Congress and then going right to work for the people who were buying lobbying you for all those years as a little questionable.

But not to worry. Currently, those leaving office have to survive one entire year on their pensions, which is 80% of $175,000. Some bright spark decided to increase that to TWO years! What is going on here, folks? Two entire years on such miserable pay? I think such a scenario is more than most millionaires (and their minions) can take.

BUT.....if Trent Lott resigns before the end of 2007.....hooray!, he is limited to only the one year in the poorhouse before signing on to millions in compensation from some lobbying firm. The two-year requirement starts after the new year. It also explains why Dennis Hastert is resigning, too.

I've come to the sad conclusion that the only hope for the future of representative government in the U.S. is a radical change from our current system. Members of Congress should serve just like anyone else does in a jury. You're summoned and you have to do it. One term and you can go home, but in the meantime you'll have to sacrifice your normal life for a while for the greater good of the country.

You know, like those 150,000 odd people in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. Of course it won't ever happen. Like Senator Clinton says, we can't afford to have the U.S. government be a learning center for newbies. No, we need professionals like herself, her husband, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Lott, ET AL.

They've done such a fine job so far.

The question is: for whom, though?
*********************************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

*****Telegraph.co.uk has linked to this post...

GOODBYE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: "IS THAT ALL THERE IS?" YOUR NEW CAMPAIGN SONG

Picture courtesy of the FEC

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friend,
then let's keep dancing...
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball..
If that's all....there is

So goes the refrain from Peggy Lee's song from the 60's. The 60's were my formative years, with a lot going on to raise the political awareness of anyone. In those days there really was a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats on many issues.

Not any more. I once wrote that as far as the so-called "two party system" is concerned, it is for voters much like buying a meal at a fast-food restaurant. You can go inside and order, or use the drive-through. It doesn't really matter....you THINK you're getting something different by choosing the way in which you make your purchase. But the fact is, it's the same restaurant with the same nutritionless food.

I had hopes that the Democratic Party would start to swing back towards some of its basics. That is, liberal on economic and social issues yet libertarian enough to acknowledge that people had the right to be people. If there was one hallmark of the Democrats, dating back to Franklin Roosevelt, was its concern for the "working man" (and woman).

Lincoln once said that God must love common-looking people since He made so many of them. That got a little twist over the years to become "God must love common people since He made so many of them." Using the term in the latter sense, the common people, while without money and power, were afforded consideration by the Democrats.

This has has been the case for a long time. Everyone has the right to interpret things as they wish. For me, that means looking at the "initiatives" of the Democrats as generally applying the power of government in an authoritarian manner. It's for the common good as they say, yet is the end result any different than what Republicans offer? Eat in or Take Out; it's all up to you.

There comes that time when one is faced with the proverbial cherry on top; the straw on the camel's back that leads one to say "enough." There are two recent events that illustrate how far the Democratic Party has gone downhill.

Recently, the GUN TOTING LIBERAL had a piece about the SCHIP veto by President Bush, with a subtitle RIGHT MOVE, WRONG REASON. He makes a good point; one that I wish to expand upon. In the manner of pointing out hypocrisy any debate about tobacco is a red herring. What must be acknowledged is that the funding for the SCHIP will be through a $6.10 additional tax on cigarettes. Any demographer will tell you that those paying said tax are not exactly in the wealthiest quintile.

What the Democrats are saying is: we want money for something and are targeting those who are the less well off. Then, wrapping themselves in self-righteousness they proclaim it's "for the children." That is not the point. The point is, DEMOCRATS ARE PROVING THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER.

Then, this "DREAM ACT." Comprehensive Invasion Reform was rejected several months ago. But, like the proverbial bad penny, legislation keeps showing up to achieve piecemeal what could not be acquired as a whole. What the Democratic Party is saying with this is that while obeying the law is fine, garnering votes to perpetuate the party's power is a lot more important.

Doug Thompson of CAPITOL HILL BLUE wrote a column recently, A COMPLETE DEMOCRATIC FAILURE.

Americans enter the excesses of a Presidential election year with no real choices among the frontrunners of either party. Any chance for change remains mired in the muck of the second and third tier of candidates and they have no chance of breaking out.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a failure. The Democratic Party is a failure. But the real failure is a political system that has allowed Democrats and Republicans to become the only choices. In the end, a victory by either party is a failure of the system and the real losers are the American people and a once-great nation called the United States.

Couldn't have said it better myself. For a little triangulation I refer to Robert Reich's recent post at SALON.COM, WHY DEMOCRATS ARE AFRAID TO RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH.

Oct. 25, 2007 New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

SNIP,

If the rich and super-rich don't pay their fair share, the middle class will get socked with the bill. But the middle class can't possibly pay it. America's middle class is under intense financial pressure. Median wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have been going nowhere for 30 years; health costs are soaring (employers are quickly shifting co-payments, deductibles and premiums to their employees), fuel costs are out of sight, the prices of the houses occupied by the middle class are in the doldrums.

SNIP,

If the Democrats stand for anything, it's a fair allocation of the responsibility for paying the costs of maintaining this nation. So far, neither the Democratic candidates for president nor the Senate Democrats have shown much eagerness to advocate this fundamental principle. It seems the rich have bought them out.

It appears reasonably safe to assume that the Democrats are going to do very well next year. In the past someone like myself might find that synonymous with the country doing well also. My opinion has evolved to echo what Mr. Thompson said: a victory for either party is a loss for the nation.

Sure, it's easy to campaign against George W. Bush. ANYBODY could do that. What a voter must do, however, is look beyond the obvious (that President Bush has served poorly) and take a careful and considerate look at what the Democrats are going to do starting in 2009.

Mainly, they will be congratulating each other at exclusive parties about how well the party is doing, to the exclusion of the vast number of people in this country.

I stand corrected in advance if I am inaccurate in this quote from Mark 8:34:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

The Democrats might start asking themselves the same question.

In the meantime....if that's all there is.....then I'll break out the diabetic booze and just keep dancing. And pray, as only a dyed-in-the-wool sinner like me can, that God does indeed save this republic.

I think about those who, in "service" to this republic swear upon a Holy Book that they will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States.....so help me God. For one to say those words yet ignore the oath is a clear indication that God does not exist to them.

But I am a simpleton. I take such things seriously and find the price of my soul is too high to be purchased by a lobbyist or hedge fund manager.....or a quest for political power.
******************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com & The Gun Toting Liberal

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Democracy, Two Party System, Elections, President 08, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independant, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Founding Fathers, Election Games, Politics 2008, Running For President, Voter Disenfranchisement, Party Politics, Political Base, Real Life Politics, Switching Parties, Party Affiliation, Political Lies, Political Liars, Congress, Senate, Presidential Oath of Office, Defending the Constitution, Voter Boredom, Political Faith, Lost Political Faith, Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Romney, Edwards, Obama, McCain, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Dodd, Biden, Must Read Politics

YES, THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WAS THE MAIN REASON I VOTED IN 2006

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

There are those who condemn the Democrats for not ending the Iraq War upon assumption of Congressional power after the 2006 elections. I've always felt that, as unpleasant as it may be, we must be realistic about what Congress can actually do. A presidency without oversight for years is a dangerous thing. Restoring some semblance of that is constitutionally justified; an absolutely necessary.

Now we're being given a lesson in Congressional irresponsibility. Take your pick among the different stories, but I found this one by Brian Knowlton of the International Herald Tribune: U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER VOWS DEBATE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION.

WASHINGTON: The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives insisted Sunday that she would bring to the full chamber a resolution condemning the killings of Armenians nearly a century ago as genocide, even as a Turkish general warned that this could lastingly damage a military relationship crucial to American forces in Iraq.

A House committee Wednesday passed a nonbinding resolution declaring the killings, which began in 1915 in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, to be genocide, and the speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi, said Sunday that "I've said if it passed the committee that we would bring it to the floor."

SNIP,

If Pelosi does bring the matter to the full House, probably late this month or next month, it would be "the most irresponsible thing" to come from Congress this year, said Representative John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the House minority leader.

"There's no question that the suffering of the Armenian people some 90 years ago was extreme," he said on Fox-Television. But that chapter in Turkey's past, Boehner added, "ought to be a subject for historians to sort out, not politicians."

An ABC-TV interviewer put to Pelosi the tough question at the core of the debate: What if forcing a vote on the resolution were to endanger the security of American troops in Iraq?

"Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values - Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, torture," said the California congresswoman, whose district includes thousands of Armenian-Americans. "Our troops are well-served when we declare who we are as a country and increase the respect people have for us as a nation."

SNIP,

Representative Steny Hoyer , Democrat of Maryland, the House majority leader, said he hoped Turks would understand that the resolution was not aimed at modern-day Turkey or its people. But he seemed to imply that the economic and political costs to Turkey of cutting off U.S. access might be so great that it might ultimately back down.

"Turkey's help to us is vital," he said on Fox TV, but "more vital is the United States' help to Turkey."

Eight former U.S. secretaries of state oppose the resolution, and on Sunday, former President Jimmy Carter joined them.

"I think if I was in Congress I would not vote for it," he said on CNN.

It's a strange day when I find myself in agreement with John Boehner, eight former secretaries of state, and former President Jimmy Carter. There are many definitions of maturity, one of them being the process of anticipating the consequences of our actions before we actually take such actions.

As someone with an avid interest in history, I am always saddened and outraged by man's inhumanity to man. Josef Stalin once said that killing one man is murder; killing a million is a statistic. Stalin was right and wrong; when the numbers of victims reach into the millions it is impossible to grasp the true horror of mass deaths.

But let me say that I am horrified by the needless deaths of millions of Irish during the great hunger of the 19th century. The Irish "Famine" as it's known is not accurate because while people were literally collapsing and dying from hunger, wheat was being exported from that country. The Holocaust, the systematic extermination of Jews, the millions murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the millions slaugtered by Stalin BEFORE World War II, the millions who died under the tutelage of that moron Mao Tse Tung, the suffering of Native Americans......I could go on for pages and never finish listing all the atrocities.

The suffering of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century was no less nor no more horrible than other instances of the callous application of power. For the Congress to take up a resolution NOW, aimed at what is purported to be an important ally which just happens to be a NEIGHBOR OF IRAQ, is one of the more bone-headed things I've ever heard of.

Like it or not, foreign policy is determined by the president. It is not wise, or mature, for Congress to alienate a nation that the president is trying to work with during combat operations. For this I voted for Democrats in 2006? I don't think so.

One comedian said that Congress was issuing a strong warning to the Ottoman Empire. But it's true, that's exactly what they're doing. How stupid would it appear if Congress passed a resolution condemning Britain for what happened in Ireland between 1854 and 1865? What purpose would it serve other than to unnecessarilly anger and alienate a nation that only shares the name of those who caused such suffering?

For once in his life John Boehner is right: it is a matter for historians, not politicians to debate. Nancy Pelosi is illustrating Harry Truman's point about a "do nothing Congress."

More precisely, this Congress is turning out to be more of a "do something worse than nothing."

Is there such a thing as a voter's refund?
****************
Cross posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

THE PYRRHIC "VICTORY" OVER THE SOVIET UNION

Picture courtesy of Vet Friends.com

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

It is repeated often enough that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War. True, his defense policies helped push them over the edge; an edge the Soviet economy had brushed against for decades. But if one were to give proper credit for presidents who "won" the Cold War, we'd have to start with Harry Truman and go right through to George H.W. Bush. Each of those men maintained the patient but remorseless bulwark against the totalitarian regime once headquartered in the Kremlin.

Those not around in those decades would find it hard to fathom what people lived with on a daily basis. The worst case scenario was a full-blown nuclear exchange which would have made moot any point about who was right or wrong since everyone would be dead. It was a very real thing; a threat that somehow people lived with yet still managed to carry on.

But then, it might be fair to ask if those born since 1990 do not indeed have a better understanding of living with the threat of the yoke of totalitarian government.

It is a misnomer to refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the "collapse of communism." To do so ignores the fact that the people of China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam live under communism. It's not quite two decades since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and yet here we are as a nation (and economy) in hock up to our eyebrows to China; a communist nation providing debt relief for a society that thinks itself some kind of "victor" over their form of government.

It might be said that the Cold War began in earnest in 1949. That was when China was "lost" to the communists. It was also then that the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. The Korean War would shortly follow in 1950. Communism WAS a real threat to the national security of the United States.

That, however, did not prevent the usual twisting of facts and reality by certain politicians for their own personal gain. The greatest alarmist in the early 50's was Senator Joe McCarthy, one of the all-time nihilists to serve in government. He pushed an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that lasted for years. Hence, the term "McCarthyism" to describe that era.

One example of how wacked out things were then was an experiment carried out by a political science teacher. He had his students re-word the Bill of Rights into modern language and sent them out to sign a "petition." Said petition was, of course, nothing more than what was already in the Constitution.

Amazingly (or not so amazingly if you study human behavior) very few people would sign it. It was too "controversial" for most people to sign onto. It would have put them outside the stream of acceptance, which was very important in those days. Individuality was not encouraged to say the least.

So here we are, again, at the start of a new Cold War. Calling it a "Global War on Terror" is a misnomer. It is, in fact, a war on freedom. On the face of it not many of us would argue that some freedoms might have to be "temporarily" forgotten in the overall struggle against a menace.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems as though every single one of the candidates for the presidency, whatever their party, do not speak of personal freedom. Oh, they might if we're talking about lowering taxes on the suffering top 1% of income earners. But not within the context of the "land of the free" America that we still worship in rhetoric but do our best to erase in deed.

There is always some group somewhere that insists that it cannot in any way, fashion, or form...be offended. And government power exists for the sole purpose of stamping out perceived affronts. And it's all so wonderful because people idiotically assume that THEIR agenda will never be touched. Too many people fall for that line of goat manure about some corporate or government entity being "on your side."

That is not so. A power granted to government by the governed is rarely returned. Government exercizes power for the benefit of itself. True, some may benefit financially but not within the realm of freedom.

This new Cold War, like the original, has a clear beginning; September 11, 2001 to be precise. Many agendas that had laid dormant burst forth like rotten Spring flowers seeking cross-pollination. And what did we do, as a people? We snored on.

This is what bothers me about the current crop of substandard candidates for the White House. NONE of them ring a bell of freedom, except to illuminate what they perceive to be a good lever for acquiring votes. It is NOT from the heart.

The fall of the Soviet Union led to a presumed sense of superiority; one that indicated no need to continue to compete with another ideology. That was the first, and perhaps biggest mistake.

We lurk in restaurants, waiting to be offended by someone using tobacco. We delight in those fast-food companies getting hammered for the fatty foods. Not only do we have "zero tolerance" for kids bringing aspirin to school, or drawing pictures of a gun, we have zero tolerance for kids, period. We must have instant adults....childish behavior is now unacceptable, even from children.

We live in an era of self-righteous prohibition that is nothing more than national navel-gazing. Yet it goes beyond that. Two examples come to mind. The first is Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) whose rhetorical question about the Patriot Act, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" exemplifies a blindness to the dangers of expanded government power. What Ms. Myrick does not understand is that it all turns on what the word "wrong" means.

The other example comes from the Fox show COPS. I rarely watch it but it was one of those times when I couldn't look at a monitor very long or read a book, either. I see this policeman (in Broward County, Fla....it always seems to be in Broward County) cruising along.

He says something that stuck with me..."It's my business to get into other peoples' business." He pulls over a woman with a boombox system for being too loud. Then the 'ole "mind if I have a look in your car?" and within minutes he's found a whopping 22 grams of marijuana, the driver is handcuffed, weeping on the sidewalk.

I didn't feel safer watching this. It felt creepy. It was creepy because I had this flashback to the film "Dr. Zhivago." Zhivago is ripping down a wooden fence for firewood. His family is freezing. A policeman arrests him, telling Zhivago that he "has the right" to do so. Zhivago responds, "You have the authority, not the right."

I was raised with the notion that there are written laws (authority) and unwritten laws (the morally right and wrong). In the almost two decades since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has increasingly abandoned the unwritten for the written only. We've become obsessed with authority while placing the human condition in a straitjacket.

What a victory over totalitarianism. We are becoming that which we once defeated. Welcome to the brave new world, comrades.

Technorati Tags:
McCarthyism, USSR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bomb Shelters, School Drills, Kruschev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Salt I, Salt II, STAR Wars, MAD, Nuclear Weapons, History, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Biden, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd