Big Government Scares More Americans

Gallup just released a poll asking Americans who they fear most: big government, big business or big labor. Government terrifies more Americans than the other two combined, by a two-to-one margin.

Sorry, Occupy Wall Street but fear of big business has been declining, not increasing. Sorry, conservatives, its not the unions that scare people but government.

Now, I should note that the main threat that unions and big business pose to Americans is that they have access to big government. Each of the other two "threats" gain their powers primarily because of their access to political power. And big labor, these days, is heavily about government. The unions don't represent most workers anymore, except when it comes to government workers. Unions are now cartels for bureaucrats. The New York Times wrote: "For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees." In fact, there were 500,000 more unionized government employees that unionized private employees.

Considering that the unions used to represent the taxpaying workers of the country, it is interesting to see they now primarily represent the tax consuming bureaucrats of the country. Without big government union memberships would be half what they are. Today, union officials are heavily reliant on the people who want to tax working people even more to sustain the programs that most people don't want.

And this just isn't libertarians concerned about big government. More Democrats now say they fear big government than fear big business. Gallup says that the numbers of Democrats concerned about big government was high during the Bush years and dropped after Obama took office but has been increasing. In other words, Democrats who lost their fear of government after Bush was out of office, have regained that fear with Obama in power. After Obama took office only 32% of Democrats said they were more worried about big government. After three years of Obama that number has risen to 48%. This means that the numbers of Democrats concerned about overreaching government has increased by 50% while a Democrat has been in office. And it doesn't have far to go, just 8 points, until it reaches the levels of concern under George Bush.

Among key independent voters more of them are concerning about Obama's big government than were actually afraid of it under Bush. In 2006, 60% of independents said they worried about big government more. It declines slightly by 2009, to 59%, but has since risen to 64%

The reality is, that most Americans are not in tune with Obama's attempts to centralize power in Washington. Yet, he does well in head to head polls against Republican contenders. The reason for that is simple—people don't like the Republicans either.

The Republicans who have staked their future on moralistic platitudes, religion and gay hating (Bachmann, Santorum and Perry) are doing poorly in the polls. The candidates who are doing better have emphasized other issues, even if they share the small-minded prejudices that now run the Republican Party.

What neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats, get is that voters don't like either one of them. The landslide for Obama wasn't the public embracing his elitist views about centralized power, preferably in himself. It was a vote against two terms of Bush. And, when November comes around, and asshole Republicans are swept into office, it won't be voters suddenly embracing the Republican's theocratic tendencies. It will be disgust at the first term of Obama rule.

The number of voters who identify as Republican or Democrat are diminishing. More and more are saying they are independent. And this voting group shows mushy libertarian sentiments that neither party represents. The one candidate who comes closest to that sentiment is Gov. Gary Johnson, but the Republicans and the media have worked together to make sure Johnson is excluded from the debates. Even when he's qualified the rules were changed in order to disqualify him again. Big government Republicans (which is most of them in Washington), and big government Democrats (ditto) are allies not enemies and they will close ranks on the likes of Johnson precisely because his values do resonate with a large percentage of voters, especially the growing body of independents.

Thoughts on the election (yawn).

I realize I've really not blogged anything about the election in general. Perhaps that is because there is nothing to get excited about—absolutely nothing.

Obama has alienated a huge percentage of voters. Even those individuals who are voting Democrat aren't excited about the man. He has failed to perform almost completely in any area where his campaign promises were good and decent. Where he promised bad things he has delivered and then some. This blogger considers Obama worse than President Shrub, and that says a lot.

Just as Geogie Jr. horrified the majority of voters and drove them into the Democratic camp last time around, Obama is driving them right back to the Republicans. Yet, the voters are not happy with the Republicans which doesn't mean they are happy with the Republicans either. And believe me, the system is so rigged by all this so-called "campaign finance reform" and other election laws that it is virtually impossible for anyone to challenge the two-party duopoly. Given how each screws over the public for special interests we may as well assume we live in a one-party state. Regardless of which party is in the White House the occupant of that building will be more like Mugabe than like Jefferson.

The one alleged ray of hope, for less intrusive government, was supposed to be the misnamed Tea Party. But look at the sort of creeps that are considered the leading TP candidates: Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Carl Paladino, Ken Buck, Joel Miller or even Randal Paul.

Not a one of them actually wants to get government intrusion into the personal lives of people reduced. If anything these clowns want more religion-based policies to control how you live your life. We were told that the Tea Party had a "libertarian" bent to it. Right, these guys were so libertarian (NOT) that they managed to make Wayne Root even look libertarian in comparison—and believe me, Root is no libertarian.

Angel, O'Donnell and Paladino are complete whackjobs, but then so is Miller. Randal Paul is just another power-hungry politicians who sees principles as bargaining chips, something that can be traded away when power is at stake. He is as bad as his father, on those issues where Daddy Paul is bad, and where Daddy Paul is good, junior falls to perform. Daddy went over to the lunatic Religious-Right some years ago and Randal is sucking up to these theocratic creeps even more. Randal will win, in my opinion, but then his opponent actually managed to look ever more crazed with his "aqua Buddha" commercials.

My guess is that the Tea Party candidates won't do as well as people assume they will. And I actually think they gave the Democrats more than they took from them. People are disgusted with the fake in the White House and his party but the Tea Party fringes are making a lot of voters think twice about voting Republican.

Certainly the Republicans had a shoo-in seat in Delaware before Christine O'Donnell won the Republican nomination. What was a safe Republican seat looks to me as one that the Democrats will pick up. The Democrat, Chris Coons, has had a steady and healthy lead over O'Donnell from the beginning.

California's Barbara Boxer was vulnerable, and with good reason. Sure the Democrats have been advertising heavily against Republican Carly Fiorina. But from what I've seen of the ads, which have been pretty brutal and, in my opinion, dishonest, the most effective strategy the Democrats have is the Tea Party. They are trying to paint Fiorina as "too extreme for California." But this "too extreme" campaign is one the Democrats are playing around the country.

They are doing so because the Tea Party types that did win Republican nominations are actually rather extreme whackjobs. The TP gave the Democrats about the only strategy that would work for them in this election.

Face it, the Democrats can't run on keeping campaign promises. The one big promise they kept, the take-over of health care, is the one that has voters infuriated. And the Democrats don't want to bring up campaign promises anyway—since they did so badly on them. Consider various reports that gay voters are now more likely to refuse to vote than ever before because Obama has talked like Lady Gaga but performed like Georgia Jr. on issues that concern the gay community. Given how bigoted the Republicans have been regarding gays, this constituency ought to be safely Democratic. Obama has been so miserable on those issues that he alienated the most secure voting block the Democrats had outside of black voters. Only the hard-core, brain-dead Obamatrons continue to make excuses for the man in this area.

The Tea Party types are scary and certainly not advocates of small government by any means. They are the worst elements in the Republican Party, not the best. About the best Republican around is Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico. I believe Johnson is fundamentally a libertarian—more so that Ron Paul for sure. I've questioned him and listened to him carefully. Even Jon Stewart, when interviewing Johnson, said, "But you're a libertarian?" Johnson smiled and said: "You think!"

I saw Johnson at a huge Tea Party rally trying to interest these Know-Nothings with his libertarian message. The response he got was deadly silence. What did get them salivating, and then foaming at the mouth, was anyone who got up and bashed Mexicans. I swear a heavy insult directed at brown people gave many in that Tea Party crowd the first orgasm they had in about six decades. Just the thought of it sends shivers down my spine. There is one good thing I can say about the Tea Party types I saw: the average age was just shy of death. A good number of them would be lucky to make until Tuesday.

Yes, the Republicans will make gains. And some big gains. But they couldn't help but do that since Obama handed them the election last year. The Tea Party probably dulled those gains somewhat. The TP movement is, in my opinion, a flash-in-the-pan and I doubt it will have any lasting impact.

The voters will continue to move in a mushy libertarian direction. The political system will continue to be "reformed" in order to prevent any real political challenge to the Democrats and Republicans. And that is the central issue in American politics today, one that no one is really talking about. The voters are moving in one direction while both parties are continuing to ignore the sentiments of the voters preferred instead to cater to their core members: left-wing loons and Right-wing bigots. Voter discontent is growing and the major parties have rigged the system so that they keep power in spite of that discontent.

Consider the "campaign reforms" that have been pushed in several places which prohibits any more than two candidates on the general election ballot for any one office. Those laws explicitly ban choice at the polls. Campaign finance reform was geared to protect incumbents from challenges, not to keep elections clean.

So, with rising voter discontent there is almost no way to fix the problem at the ballot box. The Demopublicans have made solutions illegal in order to continue their hold on power. In a third world country that would be a recipe for revolution. What it means in America is any one's guess.

DADT measure takes heat off Obama: nothing to applaud

Don't expect me to cheer the so-called repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which Congress is busy passing. But don't get me wrong either. DADT should be repealed. Today! But this "repeal" doesn't repeal anything. It is an artfully-crafted political maneuver designed to take the heat off the Democrats. It is a fraud.

When all is said and done, and this measure is "law," nothing will change. DADT will still be official policy. All this measure does is pass this political hot potato on to the Pentagon. The politicians can pretend they did something, while the status quo remains until the Pentagon gets off its fat, bureaucratic ass and does something constructive.

This measure basically says that DADT is repealed after the military spends millions to "study" the issue, and takes, well... just about as long as they want. After they take untold amounts of time to "study" the issue, and hold countless meetings, spending millions along the way, then the measure says the Pentagon has to have time to study their studies and see what they conclude. There is no time limit for that either, and no budget cap.

After they spend unspecified, limitless amounts of time studying the issue, and then appraising their studies, they can do the same for drawing up a program of implementation. Again there is no limit to the time period they may take to draw up this third phase. And how repeal is implemented is left entirely up to the Pentagon as well. They can "phase" it in, over years if they want. One military leader mentioned that with racial integration the military took five years. And that was following a presidential order from Truman, as commander-in-chief, to the military to integrate.

By the time the military finishes all the phases of the measure that Congress has given them, Obama will most likely be out of office, perhaps having gone to his reward due to old age. By the time the measure actually comes to any conclusion Congress may be back in the hands of the Party that represents the organized forces of hate in American politics: the Republicans. With almost zero Republican support for even this fraudulent measure, the GOP may well repeal the bogus repeal and mandate continued discriminatory practices—discrimination and the GOP today go together hand-in-glove. Given that this measure actually doesn't accomplish anything even Republicans could have safely voted for the bill.

This was the perfect political measure. It gives the appearance of doing something while doing absolutely nothing. It allows politicians to pass the buck to people who don't run for office and are not subject to the will of the voters—military bureaucrats.

Here is how the typical Congressweasel can deal with the issue. If facing an angry opponent of DADT, he can say: "We passed the measure to repeal DADT in Congress. We feel your pain and share your anger, which is why we did this."

If facing a Right-wing gay hater, the Congressweasel can say: "We didn't repeal DADT, that is a media fallacy. We said that only the military can decide on this matter and we trust them to do the right thing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). This is in the hands of our military leaders and not subject to the whims of organized pressure groups now."

What this measure does is take the heat off the politicians. It effectively kills any chance that real legislation, that will end DADT, will pass anytime soon. This was not the Obama administration fulfilling a promise. This was the Democrats sabotaging any efforts at real reform anytime soon in order to save the sorry ass of Obama—a man who is proving himself to be every bit as bad a leader as George Bush.

There is nothing to applaud in this bill. This was done to kill repeal measures precisely as the Obama administration has been wanting all along. It solves a political problem but doesn't end the discrimination.

Wishful thinking at its best.

The recent off-year elections seemed to favor the Republicans. Of course, the Republicans immediately chimed in that this was approval by the American public for their policies.

Nope. Once again that is wishful thinking.

When Obama won fairly handily it was claimed that this was because Americans wanted a dose of of Big Government policies, as a cure for the Big Government polices of Georgie Boy. Wrong again.

Very few Americans are voting for anyone, or for anything. They are voting against the status quo.

Americans couldn't stomach Georgie, and with good reason, he was repulsive and dangerous. Because they were disgusted with him they fled the party that he represented. The Democrats want to believe it was because everyone is clamoring for socialized medicine, higher taxes, bigger deficits, and lots more regulations. But this was nothing more than scared boys whistling in the graveyard to pretend they aren't afraid. The whistle stops them from thinking about how scared they are and helps cover up any sounds that might send them off in terror. The Democrats whistled their tune to convince themselves that the public really, really, really does love them and wants more of their policies.

But Americans tend not to be masochists. They don't yearn the Democratic leash anymore than they want the Republican one.

The American electoral system is rigged from start to finish to make sure that a duopoly will continue to control the country. Each party stays in, screwing over the public in particular areas until the public, disgusted by them, tosses them out. Then the other party comes in and starts the process all over again.

The Democrats come in and screw people over with economic regulations galore. They make a lot of noise about civil liberties and war but they never really do anything to turn back Republican regulations they find repulsive. After the voters have stomached as much of this as they can, the Republicans get elected.

They come in and ignore the economic regulations of the Democrats and try to strip away as many civil liberties as possible. Remember when the Democrats started the federalizing of education by creating a Department of Education, during the reign of Jimmy Carter. The Republicans get elected on a platform of repealing the department. That was 30 years ago. It's still there. Even when the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both house of Congress they did nothing to repeal the measure.

The damn department was barely weeks old when Reagan got elected but nothing happened to repeal it. If anything the Republicans ended up using it to further their goals of trying to control the private lives of Americans by pushing "abstinence education."

At best the parties engage in token repeals of legislation passed by their opponents. But most the time they merely use the legislation for their own benefit. But the public gets screwed over.

How Obaman and the Radical Left are creating a Republican resurgance.

The socialist Left, as opposed to the classical liberal Left, is apoplectic about the criticism concerning Obama’s health care power grab. There are two reasons for this. First, they really, really want to nationalize health care so public opposition to their take-over is upsetting to them. Second, they stupidly assumed Obama’s electoral support was support for the candidate’s more authoritarian measures.

This blog argued that Obama was supported by independent voters for one reason: they were sick and tired of Bush and the Republicans. Any right-thinking person was sick and tired of the fumbling Dubya and his Jesus-drunk Amen chorus in the Republican Party. I prevously wrote that the Democrats were being foolish to interpret disgust with Bush as the same thing as support for Obama’s more extreme policies. Democrats don’t listen so they assumed the world was rallying around Obama, as opposed to rejecting Dubya.

When their first big power grab came up they expected it would be a cakewalk. They imagined that most voters worship the water that Obama walks on. That's just not the case. Polls continue to show that the bulk of the voters are NOT supporters of Obama’s health care legislation—whichever version of it may be current at the time.

So the statist Left has been foaming at the mouth and screaming that opposition to Obama is a “fringe” movement. To them it has to be “fringe” since they remain convinced that Obama was elected to expand state control of health care. Their initial error, in assuming that votes for Obama meant support of Obamacare, is leading to their current error: assuming that only “fringe” nut cases can oppose their regulatory orgy. That is leading to a second error in tactics.

Because the statist Left assumes the opposition is just the fringe, they are insulting the opponents of Obamacare. Instead of grappling with the concerns of the majority of the public the Left is attacking them. But, opposition to Obamacare wouldn’t go anywhere it if were limited to Republicans. The bulk of American voters see themselves as independents and the independents, by the standards of the classical liberal, are pretty decent folk.

When polls investigate the independent voter certain things stand out. They do tend to like low taxes and don’t want big government. They sound pretty conservative. But they also tend to support marriage equality and don’t want to enforce Biblical law, unlike the theopublicans. In other words, the independent voters tend to drift in a libertarian direction, and not toward either the authoritarian Left or the authoritarian Right.

The strategic error the Democrats are committing is that in insulting and attacking these people they are laying the groundwork for a Republican resurgence in next year’s Congressional election. Independent voters are not pleased by either the socialist Democrats or the theocratic Republicans. They aren’t drawn to either party. But they still vote, so they tend to look at which party disgusts them the most, and then vote for the other one. Bushian Republicanism absolutely nauseated them, so they voted Democrat. But now the Democrats are attacking them for not supporting Obamacare. My prediction is that this desperate strategy to save socialized medicine will push the independent voters back to the Republican Party. How long they stay there will depend on whether the Republicans are stupid enough to take that resurgence as support for their campaign to Christianize America.

One of the methods used to demonize opponents of Obamacare has been to not just insult the opponents to this care but to claim that they have been violent. Mary Katharine Ham, at The Weekly Standard, investigated these claims. She notes that there were more than 400 town hall meetings in August. Yes, there was violence in a only handful of these meetings. But most of that came from the statist Left, not from critics of Obama. Ham writes of one incident:

In St. Louis, several video cameras captured an altercation between Kenneth Gladney, who was selling "Don't Tread on Me" flags and buttons outside, and several purple-shirted SEIUGladney, who is black, was addressed by an SEIU member using the "n-word," who then assaulted him. Gladney went to the hospital with minor injuries, and two SEIU members, including the local SEIU public service director Elston McCowan, were among the six people arrested in St. Louis that night. An unidentified female was arrested in connection with the same altercation. A video of the event shows her approach an Obama critic filming the Gladney incident, and then smash the camera into the filmer's face. The female assailant was later cuffed by police at the scene, also on tape. The SEIU later claimed that Gladney was the aggressor, but a video shows a different picture. Gladney is outnumbered and visibly shaken as one SEIU member yells on tape, "He attacked America!" before challenging Gladney's defenders to a fight and hurling profanities at the filmer.

Ham itemized other such incidents. At a Pelosi meeting: “A Denver Post photographer caught one of those sign-bearers, a grim-faced woman in a "HOPE" Obama shirt, ripping a homemade anti-Pelosi sign from Obama critic Kris McLay's hands as she yelled in protest. The Obama supporter declined to be identified for the photo.” In Durham, NC, an Obama opponent was punched in the face for speaking against Obamacare. His attacker was from the local union.
Ham outlined all the documented cases of violence at these town hall meetings:

That's the full list of documented violence from the August meetings. In more than 400 events: one slap, one shove, three punches, two signs grabbed, one self-inflicted vandalism incident by a liberal, one unsolved vandalism incident, and one serious assault. Despite the left's insistence on the essentially barbaric nature of Obamacare critics, the video, photographic, and police report evidence is fairly clear in showing that 7 of the 10 incidents were perpetrated by Obama supporters and union members on Obama critics. If you add a phoned death threat to Democrat representative Brad Miller of N.C., from an Obama-care critic, the tally is 7 of 11.

To mischaracterize these few incidents as part of the strategy of Obama critics, and to attack those unhappy with the so-called “reforms” of health care as extremists, only strengthens the Republican Party. The far Left in the Democratic Party is doing what the Far Right in the Republican Party did – drive the great middle of American voters into the arms of the other guy.

One year after Obama’s election, let me quote this blog to remind you of my predictions regarding Obama’s performance in office.

I don’t expect Obama to make any major withdrawal from Iraq. In other words, I don’t expect he will end this illegal and unconstitutional war. Equally disastrous will be the likely “reluctant” support he will give to keeping the authoritarian Patriot Act in place. Do not expect Obama to do much to protect civil liberties, or to reclaim those stolen by the Bush Administration. What you can expect is lots of speeches with the same unspecified, vague rhetorical flourishes that Obama loves. What he won’t do is give any substance to them. George Bush was a bumbling speaker who gave specifics -- although his specifics were almost entirely evil. Obama will be a brilliant speaker who will use his florid style to cover up his lack of substance. I do think Obama will try to implement some policies -- all of them bad. I fully expect him to put bureaucrats and politicians in control of more our medical care than ever before.

So far I have no reason to revise advance estimation regarding Mr. Obama and his disastrous term in office. What has changed has been how badly the White House has bungled things. I expected them to be smoother than they have been. The shrill response from the Democrats has been a godsend for the Republicans.

I will reiterate my view that the Republicans, if they want to be a party of government for the long term, will still have to scuttle their links to the Christian lunatic fringe. Of course, the Democrats could do the same thing if they rejected the old tax, spend, regulate policies of their socialist ideologues. Until one of the two major parties wises up, and abandons the ideological albatross around their neck, the independent voters will swing the elections. But that is not necessarily a bad thing since these are people who tend to want sound economics, aren’t interested in Christian moralism, and aren’t too keen to police the world.

The real class warfare: responsible vs irresponsible

The U.S. Congress is about to pass new legislation, the effect of which is to punish anyone who has credit cards and uses them responsibly. If you pay your bills on time you will be hurt. If you are irresponsible, or perhaps even intentionally dishonest, you will be rewarded.

Congress, in its infinite wisdom (read loads of sarcasm into that statement) wants to limit the penalties on irresponsible credit card users. The New York Times reports that one result of the legislation will be the “reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.”

One official of the American Bankers Association said: “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Lest you think the Times has sympathy for responsible people, worry not. They have not given up their political bias in favor of irresponsibility and profligacy. In the sidebar they even have a section called “Room for Debate” which invites readers to debate the issue of “Should responsible card users be penalized for paying off their monthly balance?” That the Times even thinks there is “room for debate” on that issue speaks volumes.

The paper also quotes a “consultant” who claims that responsible cardholders were “making out like a bandit” because they didn’t pay annual fees and collect points for travel and other perks.

Remember that each time you use the card with a company that company pays a percentage to the bank for the privilege of having your credit backed by the bank. Individuals who don’t pay their debts on time actually take money from card companies. So, of course, banks charge them more.

But in the world of the perverted morality of politics responsibility has to be punished and irresponsibility has to be rewarded. If you think the Obama/Democratic government is waging war on the rich think again. They don’t give a damn if you are rich or poor. They merely care if you are responsible or irresponsible.

If you are irresponsible you will be favored no matter your level of income. Obama proved that by pouring trillions of dollars into the coffers of some of the wealthiest corporations in America but only if they had proven to be irresponsible. In fact, the more irresponsible they were, the more they were rewarded. Under Obama’s bailout schemes the only people punished were the responsible corporations.

Why is this sort of perverse politics so popular with the ruling elite? I suspect there are two reasons.

First, most of these clowns have never run businesses or, if they had, they ran them badly. George Bush was a lifelong failure in business; Obama has never been in business. He never paid out a salary to another person with his own money. This is sadly true from many politicians.

Second, politicians identify with irresponsible financial management. They understand it; they practice it on a daily basis when they draw up the budget. They understand spending more than you have, wasting money in irresponsible ways, lying to creditors, and cheating people out of the money they have earned. That’s how they run the country and they simply can’t conceive of any other way of managing things.

Secession or not?

Rasmussen polls has asked the American public what they think of the right of states to secede from the union and whether they would support their state doing so. I was a bit surprised, to be honest. Support for secession was higher than I had anticipated——although it was still relatively low.

Eleven percent of the public said they would support their state leaving the union. I wonder what percentage would support other states leaving the union? One of my regrets about Norther victory in the Civil War is that it kept the Southern states in the union. In my opinion, looking at history since the end of the war to today, the American nation would have been much better off without the South. Historically it has been an economic drag. It has been a hot-bed of oppression and a cultural wasteland. Certainly it has been the main center against extending equality of rights to the various races, to women and to gay people. On balance I think the rest of the union would have been better off without the South dragging the country down in almost every sense of the word. (None of which means I have any admiration for Lincoln, I don't.)

Of course, six percent of the public has no idea what they think. And 83 percent say they would support secession.

Whether or not I'd support secession depends entirely on which state I'm living in. For my current state of abode I would support secession. Getting out of the US would be a good thing here. If I lived in the American South (God forbid!) I would oppose it. The union civilizes the South. Left to its own devices it would be a theocratic cesspool.

Texas were more supportive of secession with 18 percent wanted to leave the union. In light of the silly theocratic laws the Southern Baptists have inflicted on Texas, and in light of their contributions of Lydon Johnson and George W. Bush, Jr. to the White House, I regret them ever joining the union.

But then I think that the growth of the United States, into the gigantic country it has become, has been one of the main reasons that government has become so intrusive and oppressive. The more distant government becomes from the people the worse off we are. Ever since the Progressives rigged the Constitution with the 17th Amendment power has become more and more centralized in Washington—and that has been almost wholly a negative.

My guess would be that we'd be better off with around ten or twelve separate nations provided they had a free trade zone. I personally think Texas, California and Alaska would be best off as independent nations, and Hawaii as well. Places like Oregon, Washington and Idaho might be better off together. The rest of the West might make a good separate nation though I'm not sure what to do with Utah. The idea of having a border crossing making it harder for Mormons to spread around does have some appeal.

The Midwest would make sense as their own nation though I suspect that places like Minnesota and Wisconsin may merge separately having their own rather unique political views over the years. New England would be a separate nation in my world but without New York State. If they allowed New York in they would be dominated completely and New York would use its power to plunder the other states for their benefit.

Generally I think each individual nation would have been freer than they are today with the probably exception of the South, which clearly would be more oppressive. It is hard to judge what Texas would be like. The main detrimental influence in Texas is the moronic Southern Baptist Church which gained influence in Texas because of the migration of Southerners to Texas. Had Texas retained independent status it is hard to predict whether Southerners would have migrated there as easily.

California, I suspect, would not be freer than today, but then neither do I think it would be any more oppressive. It would probably be pretty similar to what it is now. But, in general, I think most regions would be better off in terms of individual rights, economic freedom and limited government.

The most libertarian regions, I suspect, would be New England and the Western region. Alaska would probably be fairly free as well. Texas, absent the negative influence of fundamentalism, would probably be quite free. But if they had become infested with the born again crowd then chances are fairly good it would be socially oppressive.

I personally doubt that there would have been a culture war had the US developed in several nations instead of one monolithic monstrosity. Most the culture war was American fundamentalist versus everybody else and fundamentalism was primarily a Southern phenomenon. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the poverty in the South forced many of these fundamentalist yokels into migrating to the civilized parts of the nation to seek employment and prosperity. To the detriment of everyone else and liberty, they brought their backwater religious values with them.

While 11 percent of the public prefers that their state secede from the union the numbers who believe states have that right is even higher (22 percent). What is interesting is that political independents are more pro-secession than Republicans and Democrats. Democrats love centralized power, 72 percent say "states do not have the right leave the United States" while only 54 percent of Republicans are so imperialistic. Among independents 50% are so inclined.

This continues an interesting trend that I have noticed. Independent voters seem to be more libertarian inclined than either Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats would destroy economic freedom while Republicans never met a civil liberty that they didn't despise. Independents seem to do better across the board. Ninety percent of Democrats would support their state staying in the union while 83 percent of Republicans would and 72 percent of independents would.

Meanwhile, concern about the growth of the Federal Leviathan is growing rapidly. Rasmussen also found that 52 percent of all Americans feel the federal government is doing too much. Rasmussen says this is "up from 50% a month ago and 43% in mid-February." Those who think the government will do too little stands at 31 percent.

I should mention one previous Rasmussen poll which showed support for capitalism, as being better than socialism, at only 53 percent. An amazing 27 percent of the public had no opinion. Rasmussen, however, notes that previous surveys they have done show much higher support (70 percent) for free markets. I can understand this completely. State capitalism is not about free markets but about regulated markets to redistribute wealth to the businesses associated with the political class. Libertarians have been noting the evil alliance of big business and the political classes for a very, very long time. Amazingly socialists still quite stupidly refer to libertarianism as being the philosophy of big business -- when in practice big business has embraced regulated markets, as pushed by the socialists, repeatedly.

Rasmussen says that their polls show "skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets." They write:

Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. Only 15 percent prefer "a government-managed economy."

I am convinced that there is a much stronger sentiment for libertarianism among the American public than at any time in recent history. Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is almost totally useless at taping that sentiment and the political system is rigged against them. Ron Paul almost tapped into that sentiment. He'd attract people with his libertarian ideas and then run off into loony land with his John Birch Society conspiracy theories and obsessions. That turned off a lot of people who found him attractive. And if that wasn't enough, then Paul would leap into his anti-libertarian positions on social issues to complete the turn-off process. Even those Rondroids who stayed with Paul to the bitter end tended to be more libertarian than their guru.

I also suspect that the party faithful within the Democrats and Republicans are more libertarian than either of their parties. The Republican Party leadership is beholden to the American Taliban while the Democratic Party is controlled by people who are practically fascists in economic theory. One party promises to plunder your wallet and the other to police your bedroom. Each of those parties is dominated hard-core statists with anti-freedom agendas and their idea of choice is picking between a theocracy and socialism. No wonder record numbers of Americas don't affiliate with either party.

The Libertarians still have options but I suspect the LP is too dominated by closet conservatives to be of any fucking use at all. The recruiting of Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root into the party shows how strong the anti-libertarian caucus of the Libertarian Party is. The so-called moderates in the party thought that gutting the platform would be the solution for the party, all it did was make it easier for the likes of Barr and Root to infest libertarianism with another version of right-wing populism.

I believe that a Democratic candidate who pushes hard for things like gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, while supporting cutting taxes and flattening the tax system, could go far. I believe the same is true for a Republican doing the same thing. I doubt that voters are ready for a candidate who tries to market a pure libertarian platform but candidates who push in that direction, and can do so without looking like religious-lunatics or Bircher crazies, would go a lot farther than they think.

For Democrats who think in pro-freedom direction I would recommend Freedom Democrats. For libertarian inclined Republicans, I'm not so sure. So-called "libertarian" Republicans tend to be conservatives not libertarians. I'm not sure the Republican Party has any hope as long as they remained chained to the Theopublican Right.

Time vs. the Times.

Time magazine has an interesting account of the small role that the “prosperity gospel” played in the housing debacle. The “prosperity gospel” tends to be associated with fundamentalist churches, typically of the Pentecostal variety, often predominantly black churches.

The basic premise of this theology is that God doesn’t just want to “save sinners” but bless them as well. Often these advocates of divine healing see wealth as another form of health -- it is financial health. And if God wants believers to prosper in all things then he is going to bless them financially.

The Time article quotes various experts on Pentecostalism all saying that these doctrines encouraged poor believers to go out and get the house that God wanted them to have regardless of their credit rating. So they did. The article said that “native-born faith built partially on American economic optimism entered into a toxic symbiosis with a pathological market.” One professor of religion said the doctrine made believers vulnerable to “greedy brokers.”

While I think they touch on a small aspect of the crisis, the way theology impacted actions and encouraged poor people to apply for loans they couldn’t afford, it is clear they know nothing about economics or politics.

Consider the “greedy brokers” for an instant. I would think that a truly greedy broker wouldn’t lend money to people who can’t pay back the loan. And what makes the market pathological?

While this article is happy to look at a very tiny role that religion played in the problem it implies the entire debacle was caused by “pathological markets” and “greedy brokers”. That view is wrong and another journal of record shows how it is wrong -- the New York Times.

The Times has run an article which more clearly shows how altruism, in contrast to greed, played a major role in the crisis. And it showed how markets weren’t allowed to operate and that the crisis was politically created by “caring” politicians.

The Times article mentions the CEO of Fannie Mae, Daniel Mudd, as someone who “wanted to work for an altruistic business”. He was happy to work with Fannie Mae which is “a government-sponsored company” that “helped Americans get cheaper home loans”. This was government “helping” people not markets acting in a greedy manner.

And remember those “greedy” individuals helping lend money to people? The article also reveals why this was happening -- and it wasn’t greed, it was politics. “Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers.” In fact, Mudd’s own managers told warned he was “making too many loans that would never be repaid.” But Mudd was an “altruist” wanting to “help” people.

Congress was whining that the markets, left to their natural inclinations, wouldn’t make loans to people who can’t afford them. This, no doubt, is pretty much true. So Congress used this “government-sponsored company” to ignore “greed” and act “altruistically” by “helping” poor people borrow money. Between 2005 and 2008 “Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers -- more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined...” Mudd admits he that he feared “Congress would feel like we weren’t fulfilling our mission” and that is why he followed the policies that are causing so much misery.

Just a few years ago it was “greedy” not to loan money to high risk individuals. Now, when the shit hits the fan, the same moaners claim that loaning the money was inspired by greed. So not loaning the money is greedy and loaning the money is greedy. What they can’t accept is that it was altruistic impulses that helped cause this problem. In 2000, Fannie Mae announced “it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010.” Fannie Mae wasn’t being greedy at all -- it was being generous. It was following orders from politicians in Washington to loan out money to the poor.

And at the time, when this started, various critics warned of a crisis that could result from such reckless lending. Congressmen like Barney Frank dismissed the warnings and announced that the government-sponsored program was sound and should keep doing what it was doing. Of course Congressman Frank now blames the problem on markets and not on his own interventionist policies. The Times reports that “Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. ...regulators sharply increased Fannie’s affordable-housing goals. Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers.”

Democratic Senator Jack Reed told Mudd at a 2006 Congressional hearing: “In fact, Fannie and Freddie can do more, a lot more.” One Fannie executive said “our mandate was to stay relevant and to serve low-income borrowers. So that’s what we did.” But who issued this mandate? Congress, that’s who. This was politics at work not the market.

With the government’s Fannie-monster guaranteeing loans to borrowers lenders did precisely what the politicians wanted and started lending money to high risk borrowers. Between 2001 and 2004 the money these lenders lent to high risk clients increased from $160 billion to $540 billion.

The Times makes it quite clear that it wasn’t the free market that caused this crisis but government meddling especially meddling inspired by Democratic members of Congress. They wrote:

Had Fannie been a private entity, its comeuppance might have happened a year ago. But the White House, Wall Street and Capitol Hill were more concerned about the trillions of dollars in other loans that were poisoning financial institutions and banks.

Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, leaned on Fannie and Freddie to buy and hold those troubled debts, hoping that removing them from the system would help the economy recover. The companies, eager to regain market share and buy what they thought were undervalued loans, rushed to comply.

The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans. Some in Congress praised the move.

“I’m not worried about Fannie and Freddie’s health, I’m worried that they won’t do enough to help out the economy,” the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at the time. “That’s why I’ve supported them all these years — so that they can help at a time like this.”

While I support Barney Frank’s position on civil liberties the man is a moron when it comes to economics. Mr. Frank pushed the very policies that caused poor people to get screwed over in this crisis. And he doesn’t even have the character to admit his own role. Instead he scapegoats free markets while knowing full well that he and his fellow politicians were distorting the market.

Statist liberals (as opposed to classical liberals) helped create this crisis with their lack of understanding of basic economics. They won't admit it. And to appear concerned they voted for a massive bail out of various corporate interests. It doesn't matter how much Barney Frank and the Left want to help the poor. Motives are not important. Their stupid policies screwed the poor in the crisis and to appear "concerned" they rushed to pass legislation that will screw the poor even more. With friends like this the poor don't need enemies.

McCain's age is a point in favor of Palin.

Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, John McCain certainly took a lot of attention away from Obama. If Obama was thinking he’d bask in the “glory” of his nomination, with a media already prone to proclaim him the new messiah, he is surely fuming with disappointment.

And some of the really slimy Democrats are slithering out from under their rocks to hiss and strike. One of the most disgusting of the Congressvermin is Robert Wexler of Florida and he is trying to raise the cry that Palin hates Jews. He is claiming that Palin was a supporter of paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. And Wexler claims that Buchanan is a sympathizer with the Nazis. Wexler does get rather rabid when he’s off his medication. Unfortunately he never takes his meds.

While I happen to think Buchanan is a very odious fellow, and probably a closet anti-Semite, I think calling him a sympathizer for the Nazis indicates that Wexler is just as venial as Buchanan, just in different ways. Apparently when Palin was a mayor of a small town in Alaska, Buchanan came through on a campaign visit. She attended a fundraiser for another local Republican where Buchanan spoke and was seen wearing a Buchanan button.

Is that proof? Well, unfortunately for the smearbund, Palin was actually on record as endorsing Steve Forbes in that election. Apparently she attended the local rally in her official capacity and wore the button as a courtesy. I also understand that when a local newspaper wrote that button incident might mean she was endorsing Buchanan she actually wrote a letter to the paper making it clear that she was NOT a Buchanan supporter.

However, don’t expect that smear to disappear. The more radical elements in the Democratic Party will go full hog to try to paint Palin with the worst sort of viewpoints. No surprises there, they have all the honesty and fanaticism of the Religious Right. Personally, when I see creeps of the Wexler variety going after real creeps in the Religious Right, I enjoy the fight no matter who wins. It’s like watching Stalin and Hitler going to war -- you hope they destroy each other.

As I see it, the Far Left and the Religious Right are both immoral, vile, hypocrites and a danger to the country. But the hypocrisy of the Left in regards to Palin is staggering. She sat in on one local fundraiser where Buchanan spoke while the Mayor of her town. Suddenly Wexler is invoking the Holocaust and trying to paint images of Palin pushing Jews into gas chambers.

Meanwhile, when Obama’s long time association with the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright was revealed we were told it meant nothing. Attending what amounted to be a big political event as Mayor is endowed with great meaning while a long term personal relationship is supposed to mean nothing.

We are also hearing that Palin has no experience. Up until last week, that was one of Obama’s selling points. He was the “outsider” who wasn’t part of the Beltway crowd. So he was going to be a fresh breeze in politics. Damn, trumped again, since Alaska is even more outside the Beltway. And you can’t exactly say that a couple of years in the Senate gives one executive abilities. If anything, a governor is more used to the executive office than a legislator. If anything former Senators have a tendency to think it is the president’s job to pass legislation instead of veto it.

What about foreign policy? Obama’s entire experience on foreign policy is running off to Berlin to give a speech to local adoring socialists. Giving a speech to Berliners is not exactly foreign policy experience. It’s barely more than a tourist trip.

I happen to think that the Republican Party is pretty much a cesspool. So what does concern me about Palin is that McCain found one of the least noxious politicians in his party. That bothers me because she will only make him look better by her presence.

I’m not anxious to put Palin in the White House, with or without McCain. But I know I don’t want Obama there either -- especially with Joe Biden.

But there might be a reason to wish that a McCain/Palin ticket wins. One reason, of course, is that a Democratic legislature will be a war with the president and that means gridlock. The country is safer with gridlock. The less they do, the less they damage. But that isn’t the most appealing feature of having Palin on the ticket. It’s McCain’s age that is most appealing.

Let’s face it: the dude is old. And he could keel over any day. Out of the power-hungry jackals that infest politics, from what I can see, Palin is one of the least offensive. She has stood up to corruption local pork-barrel politics in Alaska and might be willing to resist it in Washington. She is not nearly as extreme in her social conservative views as most Republicans. She is not our savior by any means, probably barely tolerable. But in the political swamp, barely tolerable is often a big improvement.

She is tolerable enough that she could never actually win the presidency on her own. And about the only way to get someone, who isn’t entirely noxious, into the presidency these days is get them in as vice president and then have the president die. Certainly Bush knew that and hence one reason he had Cheney as vice president -- assassination insurance.

If a McCain/Palin ticket carries the day in November, and I suspect it will, then I would encourage decent Americans to shower McCain with gifts -- rich foods, with lots of salt, grease and fat. Every campaign stop ought to have an obligatory photo op of him chowing down on some artery clogging morsel.

I know that scoundrels, creeps and closet authoritarians tend to win the White House these days. And whoever wins the White House in November will be no cause to celebrate. But McCain’s age is certainly one reason to hope he wins. At worst he’d be a typical politician and at best he might not make it through the first term. Obama will be a disaster no matter how long he stays and, if he goes home to Jesus a tad bit early, he’ll leave us with Biden.

If the vice president is basically someone who waits around to take over when the president dies, then I think I’d rather have Palin than Biden. On the other hand, I don’t find her so appealing as to actually bother voting.

Democratic pot attacks Republican kettle.

When it comes to the election I don’t have a horse in the race. I am equally disgusted with McCain as I am with Obama, and when it comes the two major parties, both turn my stomach. As for third parties, please! Bob Barr is besmirching the libertarian label and the theocrat from the Constitution Party is about as appealing as Torquemada. In other words, I’m not voting for any of them.

Democrats broke ground by nominating a black man for president -- sort of. I say sort of because, in all truth Obama is also half white. But apparently “black” blood trumps “white” blood in this sort of catergorization that some people find so important. McCain decided to go the identity politics route and wants a woman, Gov. Sarah Palin, as his vice presidential candidate. Neither the race, nor the gender of a candidate, is an issue to me. I can think of some black men I’d be happy to see in the White House and lots of white men who should be shot if they get within 100 miles of Washington. I’ve worked on the staff of female candidates in the past and promoted several over the years. I have absolutely no problem with female presidents.

Over at the New York Times they published a commentary on the situation by Gail Collins, which, if it isn’t PC to say it, was especially bitchy and sarcastic. Apparently Ms. Collins, failing to have real ammunition for her viewpoint, resorted to put-downs, sarcasm and sneering instead. It makes me wonder, while I have no problem with female presidents per se, I might be not so generous when it comes to female columnists. At least not to female columnists named Gail Collins.

Collins main point is to rattle McCain’s chain for jumping in on the identity politics bandwagon. She writes: “The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong. “

Pardon me! That was precisely what was behind the hoards of women lining up behind Hillary as opposed to Obama. Hillary was the “woman’s” candidate merely because she was a woman. Of course Collins claims the real reason for this was that she the “best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack.” In comparison having a female run in the Republican Party for vice president is “like a step back.”

What a trite and absurd comment on her part. Hillary was not the best by any means. In American politics I can assure the best get nowhere near the top. Her major reason for being a strong candidate was two things: her husband’s career and influence, and being a woman. Hillary had little responsibility for either. She was someone who held no elective office until she moved to New York and used the massive funds her husband could raise for her to win a Senate seat.

Then with very little experience in the Senate she turned around and suddenly decided she could be president. And the Democrats, who have monopolized identity politics for decades found it difficult to know what do do. She had almost no experience at all and was widely disliked as a person, both in and out of the Democratic Party. But she was a WOMAN!! And being a WOMAN raised her several levels in the hierarchy of identity politics. Pity she was white but there was little they could do about that -- without people noticing.

What could trump the identity politics of being a WOMAN in the Democratic Party. One thing could --- being BLACK. Obama comes into the race with about as much experience as Hillary -- in other words almost none. He does trump her in education and job experience. And he did it without sleeping with Bill --- although it is clear that Bill did not find the idea of sleeping with Hillary satisfying enough. Obama doesn’t have the experience either.

The Democrats have let identity politics run their 2008 campaign. Experience is weak but being a WOMAN or being BLACK has been a major issue for Democrats.

Collins says that it is “offensive” to think women will vote for Palin. Why? Is it also equally “offensive” to think blacks will turnout to vote for Obama? Apparently not. That’s different -- somehow, really, it is, somehow. Polls in various states showed that Obama came out ahead of Hillary because of race loyalty. Black voters were happy to vote for a BLACK man over a WHITE WOMAN. Even black women were inclined to vote for someone of the same race before voting for someone of the same sex. And you can’t blame the vote difference on the positions the candidates took. They were never that far apart on the issues.

The idea of women voting for Palin because she is a woman offends Ms. Collins. But she is apparently unfazed on blacks voting for Obama because of his race. To condemn the Republicans because McCain played the game of identity politics might be warranted. But supporters of the Democratic Party are in no position to do the condemning.

The bipartisan war on liberty.

So, some people think there will be major changes when the Democrats take power. Some people are fools. Lets take the legislation to EXPAND the powers of the Bush administration to conduct wiretaps -- as if those powers are not too overly broad already. The International Herald Tribune reports:

A furious push by the White House to broaden its wiretapping authority appeared on the verge of victory Saturday as a bill advanced in Congress to give the Bush administration more latitude temporarily to eavesdrop without court warrants on foreign communications that it suspects may be tied to terrorism. The Senate passed the measure Friday night and sent it to the House for its consideration, where Democratic leaders acknowledged that it would probably pass.

Remember the Democrats control the Senate and they control the House. These measures couldn’t pass with out Democratic support. Caroline Frederickson, of the ACLU, said: “The Democrats caved in to the politics of fear we’re seeing from this administration. They didn’t want to be depicted as soft on terrorism. But this measure removes any court oversight from surveillance on Americans in a large number of cases.”

The White House knows that Congressvermin want to go home for their August break and figure they can push through new legislation at the last minute that otherwise might get some resistance. Don’t think President Cheney and Vice President Bush (not a typo) are particularly devious. Bill Clinton did the same thing. As CNN reported around this time of the year in 1996: “President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.”

It’s an old trick by politicians to expand their power. Clinton said it was urgent and Bush said “time is short”. Keep the congressvermin in session and watch them pass what you want so they can go on vacation. OOPS, I mean go on “fact finding missions”.

Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid pontificated that “My Republican colleagues chose to rubber-stamp a flawed administration proposal.” Harry! That couldn’t pass the Senate where you are the majority leader without the support of Democrats.

Democratic control of the houses of Congresses don’t appear to be much of a hindrance to the Imperial Presidency. But then why should it? The Democrats figure they will be picking the next Emperor. And then all those lovely little powers will be theirs to use.

The seesaw between Democrats and Republicans is a seesaw between competing tyrannies. The Democrats are not big on religion and spiritual values and tend toward being more materialistic. That means they think the material world is important, far too important to let stupid voters control themselves. Wise, beneficent planners must act in the realm of economics and control man’s material existence.

The Republicans tend to value the spiritual and look with disdain on mere materialism. They are the “values” candidates. So they want wise, beneficent planners to control man’s thoughts and private morals.

In both cases they assume they are wise, beneficent leaders. And it both cases they are only willing to allow freedom in the realm they consider unimportant. Democrats aren’t big into values so what you think or how you live privately is not a major concern to them. But your material existence they will regulate from cradle to grave. Republicans aren’t big on the material world so the economic choices you make are not a major concern to them. But your private morals they will regulate from cradle to grave. “

Here is my prediction. When Bush is evicted from office, and hopefully straight into a courtroom in handcuffs, the Democrats will repeal little of the new powers that the Republicans gave the government. But there will be a flurry of activity pushing for more state control of the economy and social welfare policies. By the time the public is weary of the Democrats, which usually takes no more than one, or two terms at the most, the Republicans will be back.

At the end of the rule of the donkeys the elephants will storm in. They will repeal very little of the measures the Democrats passed in the previous years. Instead they will layer on new controls and regulations.

The reality is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats act as a check on the power of the other. They compliment each other and in the process steal the heritage of America. They engage in a bipartisan war against liberty. A pox on both their houses.

US Senator says end War on Drugs

US Senator Mike Gravel, who is seeking the Democraatic Party nomination for the presidency says it is time to end the war on drugs.



This is one of the more sane statements I've heard come out of candidates for the presidency. Hiliary is frightening. She's still using the tactic she and Bill worked out of seeking power by trying to steal votes from the Right. Bill intentionally supported antigay measures like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell to woe the social authoritarians. Hiliary pretended that Bush's disastrous war on terror is making America safer. Obama isn't a hell of a lot better and wants to turn medical care into one giant post office run by bureaucrats. Bill Richardson is another Democrat who sounds relatively sane.

The Democrats have an opportunity here but I suspect they could well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The radical Left elements in the party are deluded ideologues who believe that disgust over Bush means supports for socialism (it is these people Obama is trying to appeal to which is federal take over of medicine). And the Democrats still rely on these radicals as their base much the way the Republicans are saddled with the theocrats. And both parties are worse because of it.

Which ever of the two parties throws out such malignant forces first will, I believe, become the dominant party in the United States.

Maybe the troops need less support.

With Memorial Day we think of the dead killed in the wars that the United States has been involved in: domestic and international. And that has caused me to ponder the slogan that is used today to cut off debate: “Support the troops.”

Say: “I support the troops” and people will cheer. Even opponents of this godforsaken war “support the troops”. I watched a video about how fans of the show Jericho are flooding CBS with nuts to protest the cancellation of the show (the only CBS show I saw that was even worth bothering with this season). Right on the boxes of nuts being shipped was the slogan “Support the troops.”

You see the bumper sticker on SUVs and pickup trucks from Maine to California. Why is there such universal acceptance of the slogan? Because it doesn’t mean anything in particular. Or perhaps it really means everything.

It’s a bit like the claim by Americans that they believe in a god. No one defines the term when they say it so everybody nods in agreement -- well not everybody thankfully. So one person means Jesus, another Allah, another Jehovah, another worships a “life force”, others speak of a ”divine mind” or some whacked out guru in some palace in India. By using the one word “god” to cover thousands of definitions a general consensus appears to exist when in reality it does not.

So it is with “Support the Troops”. How we support the troops is left unstated. But King George and the war crowd use the slogan to intimidate war opponents.

I use the term “war opponents” advisedly since I mean Democrats and I’m not convinced they actually oppose the war. I suspect they wish to use the war. Congress could have defunded this venture but didn’t. Why? Because they want the war to drag on until the presidential elections. They want the dying to continue and the dissatisfaction to grow.

Bush built his power based on the dead bodies of 9/11 and the Democrats are building theirs on the corpses of American troops killed in Iraq. Politicians are such vile creatures that they will use sorrow and misery to secure power for themselves.

Voters chucked Republicans out of power in the Senate and the House mainly over the war issue. Most voters want a clear cut timetable to leave Iraq or immediate withdrawal. The Democrats control the House and the Senate and cave in at the last minute to King George. They didn’t need to surrender. They could have held to what they pretend are their principles.

But securing the White House, along with the Senate and the House, is far too important. So to “support the troops” they passed another funding bill. Conveniently that keeps the war going and continues the downward slide in the polls of Bush and the Theopublicans. That increases the chances of a Democratic landslide. And those soldiers who keep on dying in the meantime? You have heard of collateral damage haven’t you?

As I see it no one is really supporting the troops at all. The war is a lost venture everyone knows that. Bush won’t acknowledge it but he knows it. It was lost before it started because he rushed in without facts and information. He ignored contrary voices, as he continues to do with his fundamentalist mindset today. From the day the decision was made to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, based on false evidence, the results of this war were determined. Our men and women will keep on dying and nothing will be gained from it.

Bush’s policy is to deny he makes mistakes. God picked him to be president and he has a view similar to the claim of papal infallibility. He’s the “Decider” and when he decides there is no turning back no matter how wrong the decision. But then his decisions are never wrong. Typical fundamentalist. He supports the troops. And they keep on dying.

Now the Democrats support the troops. And the troops keep on dying.

What a strange definition of “support”. Maybe the troops need less support. Maybe that would allow them to come home to their families before they lose a leg or their life. It’s worth considering.