Ron Paul's extreme domestic policies would impoverish many - Ed-Op

Ron Paul's extreme domestic policies would impoverish many - Ed-Op

It was only a matter of time before the American Socialists realized the danger they are in. Socialism is dependent on politicians continuing to violate the Constitution (read break the law). There are no Rights in the Amendments to the Constitution that will allow a group or the government to take another persons money for the purposes outlined in the above opinion piece. The country was founded on property rights, and individual freedom. The Constitution protects them from Kings and socialists alike. Article 1, Section 8, does not grant the power to Congress to provide Health Care, or Education. You need an Amendment to the Constitution. And here’s the rub, American Socialism is so unpopular it cannot be instituted by Constitutional Amendment.

H.L. Mencken on lawyers

..."are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizen has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow . . . we’d all be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half."

Is Islamofacsim just pro-war propaganda?

Is the word Islamofascism a textbook definition of propaganda? That is what I wanted to see so I did a little digging into the Merriam Webster dictionary for the basic definition to see what I could find.

From www.m-w.com is the definition of propaganda:

1 capitalized: a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect

We'll ignore the first definition as irrelevant to the modern definition of the word. However let's look at the 2nd and 3rd definition. There is know doubt whatsoever, in my mind, that the use of the word Islamofascism buy those that support military action throughout the middle east to limit the influence of extremist Islamic governments is an example of the definition of the word propaganda as given by the 3rd definition above. By identifying the radical Islamic governments of places like Iran and the Taliban of Afghanistan as well as radical movements such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and others with the word "fascist" the users of the term are trying to identify these Islamic movements with the truly fascist movements of Hitler's National Socialist Party of Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Part of Italy. Once that identification is made it becomes difficult to oppose the use of force against regimes that are compared to the horrible regimes of Hitler and Mussolini. Who wouldn't fight Hitler if he had the chance?

But are these regimes "fascist" in the technical sense?

Here is the definition of fascism from www.m-w.com:

1 often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

At a glance the first definition would seem accurate however Islam in general and radical Islam specifically is a movement that expands beyond the boundaries of any single nation or race. The "radical Islamists" who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 were Arab, most of which were from Saudi Arabia, however in indirect response to these attacks we invaded and overthrew the secular government of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq, according to Wikipedia from the CIA World book has a population that is 75-80% Arab, 15-20 Kurdish, and the balance being Assyrian, Iraqi Turkmen and others. Saddam was notoriously a secular ruler and that while the majority of his people were Muslims he himself used religion as just another tool to secure his power.

The current enemy of those who favor using our military to shape and mold the Middle East is Iran. According to the same source the peoples of Iran are made up of the following groups: 51% Persians, 24% Azeris, 8% Gilaki-Mazandarani, 7% Kurds, 3% Arabs, 2% Baloch, 2% Turkmen, 2% Lurs, and 1% others. While it is just a simple majority, the majority of the Iranian peoples are ethnic Persians and Arabs in Iran are a small single digit minority. The peoples of Saudi Arabia are: 90% Arab and 10% other. So if we stick to the strict wording of the first definition then the first part of said definition does not fit. Islamofascism exalts no singular nation or race; however it does exalt the word and power of God, Allah, over all other interests. But the exaltation of God as government is not fascism, by definition. Such a government is described as a Theocracy.

Per www.m-w.com here is the definition of Theocracy:

1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2: a state governed by a theocracy

The Mullahs who are the ruling powers of the Iranian government I'm sure see themselves as guided by the divine word of Allah as set down in the Koran. This is not perhaps a perfect definition, but in my eye is more accurate a description than "fascism" fore these same Mullahs are seeking to exalt the word of God not there Persian race or their Iranian nation. So why is it that these people use of the word fascist to describe this movement that has expanded well beyond the borders of a single nation and incorporates many different races when the definition itself implies the exaltation of a singular race or nation? Perhaps it's just a bit of laziness that also allows the common man to tie these Islamic militants to the most evil peoples of the 20th century, Hitler and his Nazi's.

Let's review the 2nd definition of fascism from above:

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

let's also compare this definition to two other words: tyranny and dictatorship. Here is the definition of tyranny according to www.m-w.com:

1:oppressive power tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government tyranny of a police state>
2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4: a tyrannical act tyrannies>

According to the first definition tyranny is oppressive power exerted by government. Certainly living under a government run by Sharia Law would seem oppressive to anyone whose cultural heritage is the European Enlightenment; people such as Americans and most Europeans. Saddam Hussein's picture could have been place next to the second definition as a visual example of a tyrant. If the reports of his power are to be believed he was the absolute power of Iraq. I'm not sure that the ruling elite of Iran fits this description however. While the true power lies with the Mullahs, the Iranian people do have a limited representative power and there are regular national and local elections. One of my thoughts was that perhaps the users of the term Islamofacism were more accurately describing an Islamic tyranny, but after analyzing the meaning of tyranny, it is far too vague to be a truly accurate description. How about autocracy or dictatorship?

Well according to www.m-w.com an autocracy is:

1: the authority or rule of an autocrat
2: government in which one person possesses unlimited power
3: a community or state governed by autocracy

And dictatorship is:

1: the office of dictator
2: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c: a despotic state

Looking at these definitions we see an emphasis on the rule of a single leader, dictator, or autocrat. While I'm sure that these definitions do accurately identify the leadership of many Islamic nations it would be hard to use them to describe the movement as a whole. So is fascism the correct label? This question takes us back to the second definition of fascism which is "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." This is interesting because it shows that the word fascism is synonymous with absolute or concentrated power in the hands of one person or a few persons.

While semantically fascism may be an appropriately applied word to the spread of radical Islam, it is so only in the most general sense. The most accurate label would be an Islamic Theocracy because it is the Koran and the word of god that is driving and inspiring these people. Even if you look at recent elections in the region you will find that it is the radicalized parties that are growing in power and popular support and that is true in non-Arab Muslim countries as well.

So it seems that the users of word Islamofascism get the best of both worlds because they are accurately describing most of the governments of the Middle East and get to raise the specter of the return of an evil that was last seen over Berlin of the late 1930's and early 1940's. This evil was battled by our fathers and grandfather in a manner that deserved our utmost respect. Should we not respect the combatants in this battle of evil in the same manner? In my mind the answer to that question is moot because that question shows the propagandizing label of Islamofascism.

Food for thought...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

Please read, and then talk amongst yourselves...

A True Must Read!

Read... Read... Read, Read, Read!

The following essay by Shelby Steele: White Guilt and the Western Past

To be honest, Rush Limbaugh spent a good portion of his program Tuesday reading and talking about this essay. It is a marvelous piece of work and needs to be read and understood by all. The picture it paints of our country is a poor one. A picture of a country so weighed down by it's past sins and regrets that it can't do the right thing. If any of us we knew an individual who lived with such regrets we would encourage them to look at their life as a whole and judge it in it's entirety.

The amazing thing about our system and our Consititution is that during slavery we were violating our own laws. The injustice of slavery, on a national level was never codefied into our system. It had to occur outside of it. We as an American society had to strive to meet our own system's ideals. That was the true magic of the Founding Fathers. They created, not a system for their age, but one for an age to come. Despite their virtues and wisdom they could not meet the higher ideals of their own system, that was a quest for later generations. So never sit by while the ignorant and misguided label them as hypocrites. The Founding Fathers, warts and all, were visonaries. They were creating a system of government for another time. And 230 years later we are still living under that frame work.

Long live the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and long live America.

Ickybod

BIDEN for president;

Forces out of Iraq;

Well the race for the presidency is on, and I have to hand it to Biden for having an Idea, a Direction, and an Opinion. Unfortunately it’s a horrible Idea, disastrous Direction, and a tired old Opinion. It is different than his party’s line, and to his credit not poll tested.

But, splitting up Iraq has same result as if the US forces had entered Iraq with the intent to destroying everything and then leave immediately when the Iraqi army and government there had fully toppled; civil war would have ensued and the three sects (Sunni, Shi'a, and Curd) would each go to their own corners and fight the battle of determining borders. The Shi'a portion of the country then left to fall directly into Iran’s sphere of influence.

The current Administration thought about this possibly and that why we are locked into a nation building effort. The net result of Biden’s plan would be disastrous for America.

The Biden solution doesn’t leave the nation better than we found it. People left divided and fighting each other in our wake (read killing each other, Darfur comes to mind). The nation of Iraq was whole when we arrived. It may actually have been better to have left Saddam in power than engage in Biden's chop it up initiative.

The Biden solution doesn’t resolve terror state issues that we went there in the first place to address. The Sunni and Shi'a regions would likely become confirmed terror states almost at the start of any such plan. Or worse, one or both of these thirds could become lawless and a good home for Al-Qeada to restart training programs.

The Biden solution doesn’t unify the people Iraq but encourages segregation, class war, and racism. These systems don’t work, in most of the world you can actively identify on-going wars that have lasted hundreds of years for the same tired story, he doesn’t look like me, he doesn’t worship like me, and he has more than me. This is inhumane, and we should try not to create these conditions when we can (see the Imperial English for some good examples).

America is the right idea, “a melting pot”, a group of different peoples and cultures coming together under one flag, one language, to act as one for the common interest of freedom. Let’s not let Biden trap them in a Separatist system we know will fail. No one likes the fact that our government and military are still there in Iraq, but since we are there then lets take our time and effort to improve their situation, lets at least try to give them the idea that we know works; FREEDOM.

Big Oil or Big Gov't

The following quote I found on The Drudge Report :

NY Sen. Schumer wants probe into 'whether or not we should break up the big oil companies. Enough is enough'...

The probe I'd like to see, Mr. Senator Schumer, is one on "whether or not we should break up big government. Enough is enough"....

The whole situation with switching to Ethanol fuels came from the government. Crazy regulations about formulating gasoline came from the government. The lack of new oil refineries falls on the shoulders of government. The lack of new oil drilling, domestic "non-Islamic" oil drilling is because of the government. It looks like to me that big government is to blame of high gas prices.

"But, that's not true! Oil companies are gouging us for higher profits."

I have no doubt that we as consumers are being hosed by the big oil companies. But, as companies would do, if there is an increased demand, they would increase supply and thus increase profits. But we can't increase the supply of gasoline without new and more refineries and new drilling. The government doesn't want that to happen.

And here is the question you should really ask yourself: How much profit does an oil company average per gallon of gas.

The following statistics came from The American Daily:

Based upon a $3.00 gallon of gasoline, the average break-down is as follows.

Gasoline Retailer $.01 cents per gallon
Oil Company $.08 cents per gallon
Refining $.29 cents per gallon
Marketing/Distribution $.32 cents per gallon
Taxes $.59 cents per gallon
Cost of crude $1.71 per gallon (delivered)


Hmmm... Who is making the real money here? I could not find the origin of the statistics and the following from The Philadelphia Business Journal would seem to contradict The American Daily's statistics.

"In 1999, U.S. oil refiners made 22.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, which by 2004 had increased to 40.8 cents. Last year profit margins soared to 99 cents on each gallon sold, the Governor's Office said."

That would be Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania office quoting those statistics.

The following comes from The Tax Foundation:

"Today, U.S. consumers pay an average of 45.9 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon while the average state and local tax is 27.5 cents. The vast majority of these taxes are levied at a flat rate per gallon—regardless of whether a gallon of gas costs $1.49, $2.49, or $3.49. Thus, the effective rate of these taxes can vary wildly, from roughly 31 percent in the former case to 13 percent in the later."

The one thing I can conclude from all of the above is that the government gets a large part of every $3 bucks I pump into my tank. And so why in the world should they get more of it with a "windfall tax?" What as the federal government done to deserve more of my money? Spend it like a drunken teenager, is what!

It is time to break up the monopoly. Well not actually a monopoly, but an oligarchy. The ruling class in Washington must go. Republicans, bye! Democrats, Adiosamigoss! The courts, see yah later alligatorr! The Media, don't let the door hit yah in the ass on the way out! All of them must go, babies hiding in the bath-waterr included. You don't deserve my money. Not a dime.

So Chucky-Boy remember this, big oil might be a problem, but you are the bigger one. At least Exxon, BP, Shell and all those guys are honest abouttheirr motives. You actually want me to believe you have my best interest at heart. If you really did you'd read the constitution one day are realize you are in violation of that sacred document and step down.