Re-Elect Captain Obama

by Rick McKee - January 17th, 2012 August Chronicle

Obama Energy Policy

by John Ransom (On Facebook)

America BORROWED money from CHINA to give foreign aid to BRAZIL so Brazil can drill for oil that it sells to CHINA while we PAY INTEREST TO CHINA ON THE MONEY WE BORROWED from them to provide them the oil from Brazil. Meanwhile Obama refuses to drill for oil here, or even allow Oil refineries in America that are sitting idle to import oil via the Keystone pipeline from Canada to refine for our use in America - so Canada sells that oil to China as well."

That about sums up Obama's energy policy in a nutcase.

Nutcase is right!

The Ron Paul Effect

by Dr. Ada Fisher - January 15th, 2012

Win or lose, the Ron Paul campaign will have a lingering effect that will affect not just our assessment and inclinations on the federal reserve banking system, but also on foreign policy. In a recent visit with a dear friend who I considered marrying and who was a Vietnam War Veteran with shrapnel still in his chest, I asked, why were we there and was the war worth it? Without pause he articulated the mission to stop communism.

And then, he wavered on whether it was worth it noting that in his battalion alone were two of his black classmates and while in Vietnam he ran into about six men who were in his segregated high school.

He and I then agreed that the best line of the 2012 New Hampshire Republican debate was when Newt Gingrich tried to ‘professorally’ respond to Ron Paul’s accusation that he was a “Chicken Hawk.” Gingrich hid behind the shield of having a wife and children to which Paul’s rejoinder was so did he, but he served.

In my high school senior class, 10% went to the military for the impact of the draft was felt. I was distressed that one of the young men whom I loved was one of the first to die. The wavering from my friend was about the sacrifice of our children that our black communities made while the children of the rich and famous too often went to college, think tanks and job offers, some developing public policies destined to send more to war. My friend said he couldn’t marry me when we were together more than 25 years ago for he was still messed up and believed I was going somewhere and didn’t need him holding me back.

The take away from youth is they no longer want to fight wars in ill defined missions on behalf of a nation whose Congress lets the battles begin without being willing to sign their names in formally declaring a war, defining our mission and insuring a viable exit strategy. Paul is right about the previous impact of wars on the economically distressed and minorities who sacrificed much and returned home battled and broken to find no jobs, limited support and insufficient health care. And his message had best be heeded by conservatives in reference to youth who Paul attracts in abundance.

Though many of us may feel his views aren’t main stream, Paul is articulating what a lot of our children's believe about not getting into wars where the national interest is questionable.

Iran, the instability of Israel and its neighbors, China’s meddling with economies and Russia’s hidden hand in Middle East nuclear escalations, up the ante for war in the near future. As I weekly visit the VA Salisbury cemetery about a mile from my house and pray for those who sacrificed so much that we might be free, I can’t help but wonder who will fight on our behalf if our children continue to so disengage?

Dr. Fisher is right when she says conservatives (and moderate Republicans too) need to accept that wars must be justified. It is my opinion that we should have pulled out of the war against the Islamo-fascists the instant that they voted in new governments. For those who forget, that was several years ago. Why did we stay? Why to "nation build" of course.

As America has repeatedly proved, it only takes us a couple of weeks to invade and defeat these nations. Having disarmed them, we should have made it clear. Stay on our side and we will help rebuild. Oppose us and you can rebuild by yourselves. Plus, the second you start military actions again (even if you use so-called non-aligned Islamo-fascist terrorists), we will invade and disarm you again. But in the meantime, we are out of here.

No President has the moral right to conduct nation building exercises using American troops to fight the battle for others who are not willing to fight for themselves. That is not moral or just. Yet that is exactly what George W. Bush did. That is when he lost my support.

In fact, though he is my third choice, it is his position on fighting unjustified wars that is the reason that I would vote for Ron Paul before I would vote for Mitt Romney. This issue is not going away. Dr. Fisher is right. The real "Ron Paul Effect" is his position on America fighting wars that do not serve our national interest, but serve the interests of others.

Democracy Cannot Be Sustained

Two historians and writers, Alexander Fraser Tytler and Alexis de Tocqueville, contributed significant insight into the problems that are known to plague democracies. Their work has over the years been paraphrased into a short denunciation explaining why Democracy is so often reviled by those who favor the individual liberty the founders of America sought to establish.

One paraphrase of the work of these two writers, sometimes attributed as a quote to Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, follows:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

It often continues with a detail breakdown of the above summary as follows:

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
- From bondage to spiritual faith;
- From spiritual faith to great courage;
- From courage to liberty;
- From liberty to abundance;
- From abundance to selfishness;
- From selfishness to complacency;
- From complacency to apathy;
- From apathy to dependence;
- From dependence back into bondage."

There is no documentation that either paragraph is a direct quote of Tytler's. The first paragraph above is consistent with Alexander Tytler's known writings. It also draws from known writings by Alexis de Tocqueville. However, according to Wikipedia, it actually first appears in its quoted form as a 1951 editorial by Elmer T. Peterson in The Daily Oklahoman.

The second paragraph is sometimes included as a detailed explanation of the summary. It comes from a 1943 speech by H. W. Prentis, one time president of the National Association of Manufacturers, titled "Industrial Management in a Republic". It follows the same logic of both Tytler and de Tocqueville's criticisms of Democracy. Again though, it is neither Tytler's nor de Tocqueville's words but a paraphrase of their work by Prentis.

Democracy has always been an evil system that ends in dictatorship. Both the work of Tytler and the work of de Tocqueville accept that premise. Those who adore the tyranny of democracy can't dispute that so they argue that some have mis-attributed the summations to the wrong author. That critics appear more focused on contesting who first wrote a specific version of the thoughts than the accuracy of the thoughts is a classic misdirection.

Democracy is incompatible with individual freedom. It always evolves into a fiscal disaster that destroys the nation and the freedom of its citizens. Our current fiscal crisis is proof the thoughts are true - whoever wrote them. We are progressing, apparently irrevocably, to the usual outcome.