The Coward's (dis)Honesty

One person swears he’s told the truth but not holding long his audience exhales, one person swears he’ll right all wrongs and simplify the world and the insane man thinks he’s sane. Ambitious or prideful, when it all goes wrong a coward will have a truth to explain. Doing what hurts least is really the only good that can be done.

Some take on the challenge of justifying the conscience of the means by marking the nobility of the ends. And even then some see a noble thing covered in its corrosive corruption as something to disdain. Some see this clearly as a fall from grace; others see it as a man’s burden; the consequence of true love.

A few years ago an ambassador was slain along with three other people who charged themselves with defending the indefensible, they were all Americans and are the ones that went into harm to save lives and died protecting the diplomatic mission and are heroes for it. They saved the lives of at least thirty people who now have a gag order placed on them by a government that by issuing a stand down order had for all intents and purposes previously left them for dead.

This web isn’t quite entangled yet, for all its intricacy the simple answer is that the poison in this case is sweeter than the fruit. The ambassador was placed there most likely on a cover up mission to reclaim weapons traded originally to the Libyans for the purposes of ousting Ghadafi; part of the leading from behind policy employed months before. That and that it was an under guarded American consulate gives motive for the consulates destruction to be of value to a terror cell.  The American government at the point of the altercation could have made history but opted not to and instead allowed for the continued victimization of America and Americans by issuing a stand down order.

In the interest of fairness no one can confirm or deny the source of the stand down order only that one had been given to not scramble (a) fighter jet(s). In fact the only order was the launching of a scout drone to give the viewer a good perspective on what they thought were thirty four Americans being bombarded and killed.  There are only three places the order could have come from though; AFRICOM General Carter Ham, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the President. If there was already a negotiation not to use force then only the Secretary of Defense and the President have the ability to still issue the go order. Putting all that complication aside we must remember that the parties noted above had seven and a half hours to put this information together before the first Americans died from a mortar strike.

General Ham isn’t exactly the silent type either; he expressed his opinion about the impact America was having on the Libyan effort to penalize (remove) Ghadaffi. Leading from behind was an overt-covert operation and it is my belief that Stevens was in Benghazi to try to cover up the American foot print, I feel it’s worth noting that it is fairly important politically that no one can say America was giving guns to al-Qaeda. As such Ham made it explicitly clear the US was not giving the rebels weapons… at least not directly. What we actually did was sell the weapons to the Saudis who in turn sold it to the Libyans.   

The cover up of the cover up of the cover up shows how distrustful the American government is of its own constituency as the motivation behind every action during September 11, 2012 was handled militarily incompetently but with political deft.

The solution to all this mayhem would be smaller government. I am in support of having the biggest gun at any shoot out but a leaner more efficient gun doesn’t have to be a big gun, after all we don’t run around with musket rifles anymore do we? Smaller government lends itself to a more cost effective government and the decision making process that led to the selling of weapons at dirt cheap prices to have them eventually end up in our apparently no so close friends hands may not have been as appealing without the near unlimited funds to back it.

There are from my perspective several candidates for surreptitious behavior in this debacle but jail time could only be issued to a few. And possibly even a resignation from office or impeachment could be in order. The way I see it, this is the first time Americans have seen in front of them while the responsible parties are still in office a clandestine, illegal, morally bankrupt, and undignified effort be as exposed as it is, and Americans have the opportunity to react to punish such corrupt, indignant and negligent behavior by those who not only ignored their duties but believed themselves untouchable for it.

American Political Musical Chairs Part 1

Good day reader, did you know that the framers of America’s constitution were Anarchists? Well good deals of them were; you see America was divided amongst two schools of thought. One was the statist who believed that a strong central government was a strong country; these guys were called Federalists or Whig since they were for a Federal government that stood above the States. The other side was the agrarians and individual liberty guys, these guys believed that in order to ensure individual liberties the individual must be represented to the utmost and this means all laws would be handled by the States, these guys were called either Jeffersonians, and to a degree Madisonians and belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party.

In politics there was always a lot of musical chairs, and reader you must understand that in most cases people who we understand today as bad guys may not have viewed themselves or their acts as evil. For example, the KKK is understood to be one of the most evil entities to exist in US history had members that believed their calling to murder people who did nothing to them was noble.

Eventually the party of Jefferson won and then again with the Madisonians, this pattern continued up until John Quincy Adams who was the first President to severely depart from typical free market strategy and pushed for a banking policy in line with Hamiltonian principles. Right after though Andrew Jackson was elected under the Democratic Party and at this point you were either Andrews’s boy or Adams’s boy and this is where it gets complicated. While both Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adams were from the same overarching school of thought in the Democratic-Republican party, they disagreed on banks, business and government involvement in both. The information of the economic situation during Jacksons time seems to carry the propaganda set by the pro Adams left wing. During this time there was a flip, Federalists were considered conservatives since they followed the old ways of having a monarchy or something close to it. However after being underrepresented in politics for 5 presidents and almost 40 years their tone changed and they pushed instead of for bigger monarchical government for bigger democratic government. 

Okay so let’s take a small breather, I’ll take this moment to clear my throat also: Reader I am not establishing who had the superior ideals here, nor who was good or who was evil. I am explaining to the best of my ability how political ideologies shifted around over the years and in my last paragraph I’ll explain where we stand today because of these shifts and how while the people of those times have died, the ideologies continue with very similar messages.

The term “Nanny State” accurately identifies the Progressive ideology of how government should operate.    But Progressivism had a different name before Teddy Roosevelt, it was also married to another idea called mistakenly referred to as White Supremacy.  Most hear “white” and think Anglo but in reality the ideology of racial superiority the Southerners practiced came from their French background. By this point in history England had decided to end the Transatlantic Slave Trade and positioned Navy and Privateers to harass and arrest those who conducted slave trading to the Americas and Caribbean.  Americans were also weary of a growing Black Slave population and feared a repeat of the Haitian slave revolts but in America. It could be said that fear may have fueled the sense of superiority slave owners felt; it could have been their version of denial. In the end after little over 60 years of slavery there was a war that would ultimately end the institution.

Now reader pay close attention here because this part becomes very confusing, even though I do not recognize the civil war as a war to end slavery many people do and so I’ll take a moment to explain how ideologies got entangled in this pre-civil war game of congressional musical chairs.

Jeffersonians held on to the idea of small but effective government, Hamiltonians held on to the idea of central banking, Madisonians held on to the idea of individual liberties like Jefferson but there was a little more to the ideology, it would be the one that wins the argument after the civil war and would forever change how we look at government, it would reach its apex during rein of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  This was the idea of bicameralism, it was a notion that aristocracy not only does exist but that it should exist in government.  In modern tongue Bicameralism is the belief that the old money or basically the wealthy should be represented separately from everyone else and as with every idea good or bad, there is reasoning behind it. The founders were afraid that the House would become to “fickle” and “impassioned” and so devised the Senate to keep a check on them, the Senate would be the wealthy folks deemed sensible as a verdict of their possession.

Now it’s very important to understand that these identifiers worked before the civil war, after the civil war the political paradigm shifted a lot and it was mainly due to the contagious government structure that England used called bicameralism. In the propaganda spin on things; Monarchy unwilling to give way to the silent ideological revolution called bicameralism established a  ideology called Cameralism. Today we understand Cameralism to mean Nationalism or economically Socialism but there is a difference. Cameralism is the belief that one’s government is one. In turn the government acts on behalf of the people because it is the people.  The Prussian people believed this wholeheartedly and what comes from that is ultimately the rise of nationalism and then when you add the Catholic Church’s far right wing as part of the national identity you have fascism.   

In the US though Cameralism took a different tone as it spread through Europe, Jefferson always had a fondness for Europe but only so far as Empire was concerned and beyond that he had no envy for European political structure or society but Nationalism in a post Jefferson Pre-Civil war era only seemed natural as Social Darwinism made its impact on the norms of society.

Okay, reader now that you have all of that back ground we can continue with how the different ideologies got entangled before the civil war. Before that it’s important to note that from this point on the left wing of America is the Right wing of the rest of the world and the right wing of America is an unrepresented party for the most part and there is a reason for this. There are only a few exceptions to that rule for example in England the Torri party are essentially right wingers and would find a lot more in common with Republicans in America than Democrats.

The founders that were Jeffersonians believed that slavery was a negative of their time, but most like Jefferson except a notable few like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine didn’t want to make a federal mandate abolishing the practice since it went against their idea of small government and also could cause a civil war. Jefferson personally up until his later years did not care for blacks in general and wanted them out of the US so that if they were to be slaves they would be slaves to their own kind, it would be later on in his life that he showed and understanding that blacks are as much men as a Europeans. Even so many early Jeffersonians like James Monroe took steps to get each state to abolish slavery. Part of the reason the North became so industrialized by the civil war was as a result of all the inventions Benjamin Franklin had came up with and the innovations there after.

Industrialization however came with its positives and negatives but for the purpose of the civil war the positive was the need for more consumers. Slaves cannot be consumers and so slavery was abolished thanks to that basic principle of Capitalism that says wealth can be created from nothing more than the imagination.  The downside was that industrialization shifted values from soft to hard land as people found more wealth working in factories than on farms. This caused an increase in the size of cities and thus demands for sound money and a central bank. I won’t go into banking in detail here or the green back movement; I just don’t have the space.

The south had adopted some of the innovations themselves but slavery was about another twenty years from ending in southern states as well without war. Economically the states that had abolished slavery were progressing at rapid rates socially and technologically as they became veritable metropolises. In the South though, inventions like the Cotton gin which was meant to ease demand for slaves like it did in the North only increased demand for slaves.  Aside from the economic reasons for the coming war the moral argument of the south was that Blacks did not want to be free anyway because they couldn’t handle freedom, black slaves were indeed the white man’s burden.

A divide was made and the Democrats who controlled the Senate because of how the Senate was elected (Those who possessed the most wealth in land) were segregationists and the Republicans were for desegregation.  Typically in the Senate was always packed with segregationists and only the Republicans  pushed for desegregation or did nothing at all on that issue. The militant component started with the abolitionists which consisted mainly of religious northerners who thought of slavery as a mortal sin and one of them was John Brown.

I feel that it is mainly because of the sensationalism around the John Brown affair why people give more credit to the abolition aspect of the civil war over the economic one.

I apologize reader but this has carried on for very long and so I’ll have to do a part two at another time, but this was a fun exercise in American History.

Science is what Sir Martin Rees isn't

Good day to you reader and how do you do? Fine you say?  Well I can't believe that! You cannot be fine because you are a barbaric, self centered, tribal and worst of all stubborn individual, but if you subscribe to the same beliefs as Sr. Martin Rees and other would be technocrats that say the same thing he does then you'll be slightly out of that quagmire of ignorance. The slightly part is only because you'd have jumped into a quagmire of credulity and adulation but eh you win some and you lose some.

It seems to me that every century we have an alarming discovery that attempts to reshape the legal landscape. As a result it only causes massive death tolls usually because force was needed to subjugate a dissident opinion. On the climate change debate, I've yet to see a level of desperation that would seek violence from my side which says there needs to be a divorcing of science from law. In other words while science is beneficial to mankind in many ways we cannot exaggerate how  history warns us of how devastating it can be when used as the foundation of wide sweeping legislation and the propaganda used to pass it.

Gravity for example advances aging, and people observe gravity but for some reason no law needs to be written for that, despite the fact that everyone will eventually get old and die. I say that's fine and that's how science should be divorced of the legal structure. A science enthusiast may find the current global warming communities disinterest in experimentation very disheartening; it reminds me of the way my high school history book depicted how social Darwinism became popular. I say fine let’s marry law and science but first what about the experimentation process, presently it’s easy enough to believe in Global Warming as a historicist after all Climatologist defend their profession from the rugged truth determiner of empiricism by simply saying they create models based on historical data and so cannot be taken to the task of testing that information.

Again I say fine, so then calling Climatologists scientists is a misnomer and I will start calling them Historians. But "no, no, no wait" they say, "we aren't Historians we can tell you about the future too, let's see" they say, then they say that in 5 years no ice will be in the North Pole and areas of the world will know drought that would be abnormal and so on. This was from the 2007 UNEP report and now that report 5 years later in 2013 is agreed upon as a 300% over estimate on the impact of global warming. This is in spite of a rapid increase in CO^2 emission thanks to China and India.

Ironic as it may sound Asia according to Martin Rees who as a result of the 2013 report I paraphrased above is on damage control for the UNEP and HSBC through Cambridge (I'll explain the connection in a bit) stated the future of scientific advancement rests in Asia for some reason and tossed in "after 400 years of European and American hegemony" wow Martin has hit just about every topic from Climate Change to Foreign policy, way to go Sr. Astrophysicist. I don't mind Martin sharing his perspective but when the facts end and the science begins in his statements leaves me with a giant question mark above my head and that shouldn't be so. Where are the other scientists to challenge his integrity on this issue of him actively mixing unrelated politics to unrelated history to unrelated science and then attempting to relate them with a sophist plea to the audience’s pathos by alarming us that the enemies (people who disagree with him) are "stubborn individualists" who don't care if people die?

As a friend of mine once said “if a noted figure makes public statements and you cannot figure out why just follow the money.” I did, HSBC is a major provider of student loans to Cambridge where Sr. Rees works as an Astronomer and whatever else. The bank itself thus holds leverage within Cambridge, but the kicker is that HSBC is heavily vested into alternative energy resources in... You probably guessed it Hong Kong. Now my reader may not know this but 4 out of 5 of the major exporters for solar technology comes from Chinese firms and a few of them happen to go through HSBC who regularly can be found cited making damning statements month after month and year after year about fossil fuel investments.

My point here isn't to say simply that Global Warming isn't an issue; I say it might just be but it needs to be something that goes through the normal scientific methods of verification before ever influencing the law. It cannot be the science version of the Nancy Pelosi Affordable Healthcare meme: "You have to pass it to see what's in it." Or George W. Bush’s “Too big to fail.”

Furthermore I don't ask for perfection, the universe is not perfect and so I only ask that the formulas that constitute the global warming theories can be said to have been more accurate than not accurate. That said a 300% disparage between the prediction and the reality is unacceptable in any profession or situation.

While I'd like Martin Rees to keep talking his points I now consider him nothing more than a sold out A-hole... who did he sell out? His countrymen and anyone who loves the principles that constitutes the expectation of right knowledge that science most fleetingly maintains.

Obama's Pseudo War

Good Day!

What a month, okay let’s start with a few terms, one is hegemony another is exceptionalism and the last is trust. In recent news the President of the United States a Mr. Barack Obama -whose birth name was apparently Barry Soretto and no I don’t have any idea why he changed it- unilaterally decided to unilaterally send cruise missiles hopefully over the heads of innocent men, women and children and into probably bunkered weapons of mass destruction which in this case are nerve agents and other chemical weaponry.   I wrote before on the Middle East, specifically Iran and as an American myself who has traveled I can say that Iran most definitely tops my list as places not to visit. It was suggested to me to go through Tehran; after all they have a lot of beautiful sites, mostly religious testaments of their expectations in an Islamic variation to the Christian book of revelations. I’d start believing in the supernatural if I weren’t me when I walk by a television whilst being told this over the phone to see news of some poor chaps who were just released from an Iranian jail over espionage. The shocking question dawned on me, shocking because I never thought of it before: “Why would I want to visit a police state?” I passed close by though and of course met some Iranians who are friends of a friend, stayed at their place and I had to ask them about the issues in Iran and if I as an American simply have the wrong understanding. After that I think it’s safe to say that Iran is a country that has declared war on the United States however the US for some reason has no desire to declare war right back.

The issue with Iran predates the current President and even if it would be nice of him to you know do something about it the fact is there is no pressing matter there for the American people to want to have a go at them about. Some say our last President made the mistake of invading Iraq and should have gone for Iran, indeed Iran and Pakistan are both responsible for the conditions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia is very much responsible for Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and Yemen.  To make it short and sweet, the axis of evil if you will in the Middle East is Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Those three countries have managed to fortify themselves through different ways, the simplest to understand is Iran, if the world would be understood as American and Anti-American which I’ll call Decent Folk and Anti-Decent Folk (evil and good in some cases may be too strong to use). Where Decent Folk is the side that tries to do the right thing and Anti-Decent folk simply try to centralize more power?  Then Iran is a regime that sees America as a threat to its sovereignty and because sovereignty is the issue here then the Eastern Alliance is truly a treacherous one.

Saudi Arabia plays the game the other way; they claim to be American allies in order to gain protection from Iran who would naturally be their enemy since the Ayatollah considers the King of the Saudi to be a fake who has his hands on Mecca. Again without an American hegemony these two sides would have probably settled their differences back in 79. It’s only a matter of who was there first as well as who is friends with who that lends the allegiances of Saudi Arabia to the United States.

Finally the last is Pakistan which plays its game both ways. Pakistan knows it is a failed state, it’s goal has always been to be a failed state at best right now it’s nothing but a segmented group of tribes pretending to have a state from time to time. Pakistan’s historical purpose has always been the exportation of Islam East into Indonesia and parts of the subcontinent. Pakistan pretends to be a US ally so that it’s natural enemy the Iranians who are only bolder because of their other ally is Russia who also really doesn’t like Pakistan either doesn't jump down their throat.

This entanglement of alliances and ideological enemies is the recipe for war and it’s all of the reasons why peace may never exist in the Middle East. If America should abandon Pakistan then it sends the wrong message to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Europe and vice versa with Russia and their hold on Syria. Now I’m not supporting any of this stuff or knocking it, I am just explaining what I understand of that region.  Now you reader understand a bit of the complexity within the word hegemony. My thing is that the cold war is over, and Russia while still a nation that operates on levels of corruption and may fail again if it stopped being corrupt  -that is how dependent on corruption it is, think if you’re an American of the  “too big to fail” logic- and started operating as a free republic.

Now this is a key point that must be made about Americans and I’m not about to say this because I am one and damn proud of it. It’s that America is a country that is founded on the principles of free republicanism and has an open policy towards any idea. American exceptionalism isn’t a sense of national pride which is what the world and some Americans might understand it to be but of the fact that we are individuals from all walks of life and we are uniquely adapted to one another. That sense of unity between individuals is what makes America exceptional and taking that way would make Americans like the Europeans, the Russians and well every other country. The idea of American exceptionalism can get conflated but what I just described is called pluralism the next part is what makes us American, it is our wish to have no control over the lives of our neighbors and in return for our neighbors being free to pursue their own goals without us interfering we expect the same kind of attitude towards us pursuing our goals. We wish everyone to be free in other words and as a result we establish laws which punish people for taking away another person’s freedom. We then have our Anglo background which says everyone from the President to the Janitor must adhere to the law and the law must be imposed the same across the board.

Every government official requires that you trust them, the thing is that only matters if they were unelected, an elected official that asks for trust is a demagogue. Put it this way you elected someone and if you are an American you don’t trust that person to do something, you expect it. If I’m hired to sell hotdogs, and you’re my boss I can’t ask you to trust me to sell hot dogs, you expect me to sell hot dogs and I know this is expected of me otherwise I’ll be fired. In this case we hold referendums to try to help these public officials find the right direction when they forget since they can get out of touch living like aristocracy. And when they go against those referendums we vote them out. Case in point Christine Quinn who sat on the council three years ago and after two referendums voted for two terms being enough for Mayor Bloomberg decided to go against the referendum and gives Bloomberg a third term. The reason for her decision evidently was that her own term was about to end and Bloomberg kept her around. Now that she’s running for Mayor New Yorkers I’ve talked to remember Mrs. Quinn from three years ago and so she’s out of the race.

A democratically elected politician that asks for trust is actually asking to be worshipped, more correctly they evaluate themselves as some kind of hero and expect to be treated as such. Such tactics work on those who believe that government on a whole is capable of doing things for the benefit of mankind that individuals cannot or will not… never mind the fact that government is consisted of individuals, there is a glaring issue of expectations. I could expect someone to fly to the moon but that may be impossible without a machine to help him/her do so. This idea of worship for a deity works on the same wavelength where expectations which are in some cases flat out wish thinking are rested on the shoulders of a sky god. The issue is that the same impossible expectations can be rested on a very real government and as a result you have very real ramifications with little or no accountability. That mode of thought that says government is essentially like a demi-god as it carries the will of the entire mankind is progressivism and it lends itself to hero worship and mass credulity.

I’m not saying not to trust or to trust, I am saying that this is what trust gets you when you invest it in a politician. Dictators on the other hand are simply politicians who have been trusted.

Barack Obama falls into the category of either a genius or an idiot, it may be that I do not have his information and thus cannot consider other angles. Maybe he’s just incredibly lucky which always comes with the recoil of being unlucky.  Secretary of State John Kerry establishes grounds never before spoken of how to end a Syrian confrontation. He did this in an off the cuff way and you could see that he understood what he said only after he said it. Since then the President kept quiet and only spoke when Putin suggested he take over the securing of WMDs in Syria. At that point the decision should have been clear, even if he was quiet before when he should have explained Kerry’s statement or had Kerry do it himself. He should have said that if any weapons were to be collected it would be collected in a joint effort between the 5 permanent countries of the UN. That would have been more than enough to send Putin packing and would still have allowed him a way out of the bed he made as well as keep the perception up with American allies that the American President who controls the American military means exactly what he says.

Charles Krauthammer put it wonderfully when he said that America at this point needs to learn how to bite it’s lower lip and bare with the atrocities of the world. People die and it isn’t America’s job to do something about it outside of our borders. I add that developing a culture based on solving humanitarian issues is either a symptom of or a precursor to a government that can, will and does invent enemies at every turn. It becomes tedious for the population to discern which enemies are real and which are not, and the whole dialog becomes breeding ground for apathy. And there is nothing more dangerous than a government on the loose with an apathetic population.

I’d like to add one more thing, people who make statements like “America tries to be the police of the world” have given away a very bit of detail if only it weren’t overlooked. The countries they defend like Iran, North Korea, Russia and China and so on are the ones that wish for a world without an America (I’m speaking about governments and ideals here). So of course a murderer, a rapist and a crook would want the police to just leave them alone. People who are silly enough to fall for such an argument under the guise of criticism have just committed themselves to a sad case of sloppy moral relativism.

Mind your own business!

As a business guy I hate fairness, I don't like equality, I hate fair playing fields because they are always only fair to the ones who get to decide what's fair. Enter the Market Fairness Act, which has a real potential of being passed unless you reader write your senator of course and protest the act as aggressive and sloppy legislation designed to harm the consumer aka you and me for the benefit of mega-corporations.

Check it out sometime, Even if you reader are an anti-Capitalist and so you probably wouldn't believe a word I say towards that Capitalism doesn't cause the suffering of the world, so the paragraph above may come off as odd so I suggest you check out the Market Fairness Act for yourself.

In short the pro MFA side says that Brick and Mortar stores are benefited by this act because now taxes are flattened across the board. So for example, the current legal system says if you bought a sprocket from a retailer in New York and you lived in New York it would cost 7 dollars and 1 dollar of that would be taxes. If you bought the same product from NJ you could pay 6 dollars if you bought it online, usually with free shipping. Okay that's fine but the reality is that the odds are the retailer you bought it from locally was a part of a major conglomerate that has at least one store in nearly every state. These are not the traditional Brick and Mortar, the real Brick and Mortar was that obscure store you bought it from in NJ that swear by their quality to the point where they even sell their own emblem printed T-shirts so you can support their store. Being taxed for something from a state you do not live in is presently illegal since a result of it is being understood as taxation without representation.

The MFA is designed by incumbents using politics as a legal avenue to prevent themselves from being disrupted and the Government loves the idea of forcing the consumer to be restricted in where they can make purchases since they can tax it easily and legally. The reason why people will be forced to buy within their own states is because producers for small stores that don't have a store in your state will -if this act is passed- have to file taxes for any State they ship to, there are over 9000 different tax jurisdictions, for example food in one tax jurisdiction may be considered a grocery but in another it counts as a prepared meal.  The rates each are taxed further alter based on the local, city or state. The cost from this on these up and coming real Brick and Mortar online stores in time and lawyers becomes a reason to either close up shop, move out of the country or sell within your state; where they are run out of business by local mega stores who can eat production costs to price the small time businesses out, like they have been doing for years. While pricing wars are in the short term good for the consumer the reality is that the prices are artificially low and once competition is gone or regulated the prices become artificially high as mega companies work with one another in government sustained oligopolies like cell phone, internet and insurance companies.

Blame the Messenger

So who should be President of the United States?





My only beef with Ann Coulter is that she's a conservative but otherwise her personality is perfect for the job. Today she was berated for saying that Megan McCain and her sister should be killed in order to get Republican Senator John McCain to get on board with the gun control bill.

She was attacked despite the fact that Martin Bashir in a conversation with US Senator Elihjah Cummings was the one who said and I quote: "Do Republican Senators need to have their family members killed in order to have this gun control bill passed?" Ann Coulter in response to the exchange writes an article in criticism saying, "...yes and how about we start with Megan McCain then..."

Sadly Ms. Coulter lacks the whole package because she didn't even understand that what she did wasn't humorous and should never have been intended as such. It was criticism, end of story and it should have been explained as such by her when she took the heat for saying it as Bashir did but only adding who should go first.

I could see her being a the kind of President I was talking about with a friend though, but she's missing a certain quality I think, she seems to have a level of cowardice about her that prevents her from really going all out and turning a phrase so quickly your head would fly off as it spun like a helicopters propeller.

As for the families of Sandy Hook...

My issue with the sobbing pictures of women tearing and fathers mourning and mourning is that they want to set the agenda for an entire nation. How god damn obnoxious do you get, it's gotten to where I don't even feel sorry for their losses. But what are you saying reader? You're saying that I'm a monster? Surely you don't read this blog of mine only to call me names, I'll give you a second to form a rational argument... okay are you ready, then have at it. Ah I see so you think that by banning guns or making it harder to get weapons that we will be safer. But reader please recall that in 2001 over 3000 Americans were killed and not a single shot was fired nor gun pointed.  And if that wasn't enough then how dare you reader, how dare you forget the hard workings of Mr. Andrew Kehoe who even to this day holds the record for the most kids killed while they were in school, he didn't even hold a gun through the entire ordeal and had planned the whole thing months in advance.

For the record Mr. Kehoe didn't play video games since that was in 1927, yes school killings have been around for quite some time.

But let's say that we had right next to Michele Bachman, and that black guy who kept going on about simplifying taxes, the almost about to kick the bucket doctor, oh and the Mormon a Ms. Ann Coulter in the 2012 election race. Wouldn't the most sensible person in the world look to pick for President the only person who has stood up to the craziness of Mr. Bashir to this date as the GOP nominee or whatever party she would run for? I mean you'd have to actually listen to what Ms. Coulter says -though I'm sure she would prefer you buy her books- to understand her position on other topics.

But if she had run, and her character was this clear to us, it would only make sense that now we could say on grounds of morality "This person stands above the rest!"

For the record I'm not on the right which means by default I'm not a conservative, but I do like Ms. Coulter's machismo and I do respect her drive to push the perspective most others seem too afraid to evaluate.

Conservative Melt Down

After the 2012 elections were... no they aren't over yet even in the middle of December actually so it would be more accurate to say after the President was decided on by the 51% well 52% of Americans it was clear that every high hope for the conservative side went out the window. The meltdown began and I watched as conservative pundits took off the gloves and folks I knew also took off the gloves and threw them to the ground. The progressives I know were nothing but smiles though, hey after all they knew who they were voting for and so the question is one of perception; what makes this election any different for the conservatives?

Well to be fair Bush Jr. was seen as the Satan by most left wing pundits and never even got credit for his humanity in the aids research work he did. But never did I get the feeling that the losing party of 2004 and 2000 thought America would literally end under a Bush presidency. In fact quite the opposite I felt several things that gave me the impression that America was very strong moving to just strong as we wages two wars. The same can't be said of Obama's America from the conservative perspective.

So let's get this clear first: Barack Obama is ideologically attuned to third world perspectives of the United States, the reason why probably has something to do with where he was from fine but I don't think that's really the case. There is an argument I've encountered before from the far left that America has been a negative force on the world at large and especially in the third world. My dear friend tells me that essentially the US uses the IMF to keep a good country down.

In life there are winners and losers, it's not the way we like it or want it but that's how it works and if you are not winning then you are losing and I think Barack Obama uses the leftist idea that there is a middle ground, which is if memory serves the foundation of the redistribution position. Except it isn't just Obama but the idea the left has about how to square things in the world, the idea that America has enough to actually level the playing field globally. This socialistic twist globalism has none of the markings of capitalism except to domestically incorporate a crony form of capitalism regulated by an elite group of politicians.

The conservative melt down isn't so much that a democratic president got elected twice since Clinton was also elected twice, it isn't that Barack Obama has a browner skin shade than the average president since the GOP was pushing to replace him with an even browner alternative. The reason for the meltdown might just be something I'm familiar with as a business guy, the ticking clock on the American welfare state. To put it simply America is 80 years too young to run some of the programs it's currently running, it could do it in another 80 years but for not the technology isn't here that would allow for a socialism to work without the classical showing of collectivism.

It's more than just financial ruin and through political diffuse that awaits America to the conservatives, also ideologically the Humes definition of conservatism is no longer of import and so they know that Mr. Obama will be working this year to lean the courts to a more progressive cast and then for the 2nd time in American history he will attempt to augment the Bill of Rights. A change like this to the constitution is only ever attempted by dictators of the constitution of other countries, so this will be interesting for me to see if the courts can resist the temptation to make political a document about restricting future government from messing with basic human rights. So also ideologically conservatives are desperate.

I've got my popcorn for this one,.