The New Testament, AWS!

Those were heady times. Christians secretly recounting the works of Christ to teach that a society of values is the future. The New Testament of the Bible recounts those days and years. The Gospels and Acts and Epistles all embraced that values will save our world and each of our souls. So it's little wonder that the atheist secular-progressive-socialist movement seeks to copy the New Testament to create it's big government church.

The New Testament is necessary because the world socialist movement imploded with the end of the Soviets and with the economic globalization of China. Today only Fidel's Cuba stands alone against the advances of a value driven capitalist world. The worship of this last bastion of the Old Testament can't be overstated. On his return from a recent visit to Havana, Steven Spielberg told the LA Times that he spent his life's most important 6 hours meeting with Fidel Castro. Imagine, Spielberg, the director of some of America's most influential films feels that chit-chatting with Fidel is his life's most important moment? Maybe Spielberg's Jewish background weighs his respect for the Old Testament of Jewish power and points to his respect for Fidel, the Old Testament progressive.

The New Testament started circa 1990. The Soviets were in retreat, the Old Europe was imploding, and Asia began to taste Reagan economic and social freedoms. More than 150 years of socialist thinking seemed doomed to the ash-heap of failed ideology. The progressive coalition had several commonalities that seemed easy to exploit. Enviro-extremists joined with union-extremists to craft the New Testament. As with the birth of the "Superbowl" for professional football's annual party, the progressive coalition coined "Global Warming" as it's New Testament. The old coalition re-coalesced itself around it's Old Testament values of hate and envy for others; denying freedoms of choice and speech; driving a car; living in a house; and owning property. And they wholeheartedly embraced abortion; drug use; excused crimes and murder; and reinvigorated the Nazi progressives' human experimentation.

The New Testament, After World Socialism (AWS), was born..

It's Still the Economy, Stupid!

Nineteen days and counting. That's to election day when Democrats and the media tell us they will control the House and the Senate. And the sky is the limit. There will be higher taxes and an increase in minimum wage and socialized health-care and a cut and run retreat from Iraq.

Internationally we hear that China and the Petro-countries need to worry because Democrats will teach them a lesson about trade and energy. So who is celebrating the Democrats' "landslide" invasion? Let's see. North Korea for one will get it's usual $5 billion or so a year it got from Clinton/Carter. And Iran and Venezuela are rubbing their hands because Chavez and the Mullahs will get the respect and financial support they got from Clinton but missed desperately from Bush. Better yet is the Chinese Army will again be a major contributor to Democrats. And even Fidel Castro will be honored by several Democrat and Black-Caucus/Democrat delegations when he dies. After all he only killed those that "had it cummin."

Economic impression is that a Washington Post opinion by David S Broder tells us that the National Journal recently asked 11 "distinguished, non-aligned economists" to grade this Republican Congress. Their conclusion is "average." Yet Broder, a self appointed intellect, ends his rant by comparing the personal income results after 5 1/2 years of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. He says: "Personal income after inflation and taxes rose 22.7 percent under Reagan, 20.4 percent under Clinton and only 14.1 percent under Bush. That's certainly not a C, and it may not even be a passing grade."


Problem with Broder's unintelligent comparison is that Reagan inherited 14% inflation and 22% interest rates. Clinton inherited a 4% booming economy which was bolstered by the computer productivity explosion and Y2K of almost a trillion spending and the stock market run up. Bush 43 on the other hand inherited the Clinton market crash that erased over $11 trillion and over 3.5 million jobs. Then the Clinton recession hit and Clinton's 9/11 happened. It's estimated that erased another $8 trillion in wealth and cut another 4 million jobs. Yet the Bush economy that started in late 2003 when the Clinton mess bottomed out, has performed above any reasonable expectation.

So I wonder what grade brother Broder might give using real facts? Reagan surely gets an A, while Clinton botched a strong economy and failed to protect it and America, loosing about $20 trillion in wealth and as many as 8 million jobs from 2000-03. That's an F!!! Bush 43 on the other hand earns extra credit for seeing the looming mess in 2000, when Clinton/Gore and their crowd were celebrating an estimated "$11 surplus as far as the eye could see." So let's give Bush his very deserved B+.

On another political note, Radar magazine tells America who are the dumbest of the dumb in Congress. And it's Katherine Harris Republican, Florida, that gets the nod. Why? Well the so called "I can't say there was any scientific criteria," is actually that Harris, as Secretary of State, didn't give Gore the presidency in Florida in 2000, and worse, "and some of the allegations concerning how she treats her staff. Sound like enough?" Seems to me that this is further proof that facts and science might also be outlawed if the Democrats take the House and Senate in 2006.

Can Liberals Protect America?

I see poll after poll telling me that Democrats and their secular progressive masters are better at protecting America. That's protecting the people from criminals; from sexual molesters; from an illegal invasion; and from terrorists. These polls tell us nothing about the people's opinion about the Democrats, but rather tell us that they perceive (after 6 years of daily media onslaught) that Republicans are not up to the job.

It's not that Clinton invited 9/11 by having his administration build new and taller walls between foreign intelligence gatherers and the FBI and then especially between them and local cops and prosecutors. This is the liberal game of gotcha that favors criminals and dismisses and disrespects victims, their rights to justice, and their knowledge that a criminal is punished and no longer walking the streets. But it's not about the Democrats.

The game gets more complicated when search is involved. The police and prosecutors are punished for often innocent mistakes by giving the felon a get-out-of-jail-free card. This might be fun, if it wasn't the result of a rape; murder; and other violent crimes. It's called the 'fruit of a poisoned tree" game. Don't even ask about wire taps. There the game gets very intense. The cops and the FBI and the president can get a wire tap approved if they can show "probable cause" that the person being taped is a felon or terrorist. The rest of the world that liberals use for their standard of behavior says that "reasonable suspicion" is good enough. Yet it's not about the Democrats.

But the game really starts when after a time certain, the subject is either charged or they must be told they are being surveilled. Now that means no terrorist activity can be followed under these rules because terrorists are planning a crime, while felons are being hunted because somebody committed a crime. Republicans are proactive while Democrats are reactive. And that's why Democrats can never protect America, it's institutions, and especially its people. They believe that every terrorist should have the right to do their handy work, only then can Democrats try to convict them, using their games of respect and protections, of course. So how can this be about the Democrats?

Today another liberal judge announced to the world that America still doesn't get it. Why shouldn't they already know that when our mainstream media trumpets that Bush is a war criminal while moderate mass murderer Saddam and multi-million mass murderer Ill are the victims of his mean-spirited attacks. Judge John G. Koeltl of Federal District Court in Manhattan today said that Lynne F. Stewart, convicted of transmitting orders from Ohmar Abdel Rahman, the convicted terrorist, to his followers. Stewart was unrepentant then saying that she was only helping freedom fighters. These are the freedoms fighters that bombed the World Trade Center killing 8. They failed to bring them down so Osama ordered a second attack. Ooops, Clinton was the Democrat and Congress and the Senate were overwhelmingly Democrat protecting us at that time

Today Judge Koeltl made a mockery of justice and law and our counter terrorism efforts by telling a crowded court that there was no proof that Rahman's order killed any Americans. Koeltl is one of the few honest liberal Democrats. He tells us that without clear proof that Stewart actually passed orders that killed an American, she is just being attacked by, in Hillary's words, the "vast right-wing conspiracy." So he says that the fact that our counter-intelligence workers caught the messages before they could be implemented means she gets a get-out-of-jail-free pass too. That's Democrat justice!

At least Koeltl is much more honest than Kerry or Hillary or Dean or Joe Biden. These children hide their feelings and sentiments when it comes to crime and punishment among a hundred other political positions.

Lies and Liars!

It headlines: "It's time for governmental truth-no lie. " This is the weekly comment from Mark Trahant, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's editorial page editor. It's his opinion that differences of opinion are lies. Now isn't untruthful name-calling the realm of the political parties and the elected, not newspapers' editors with special constitutional protections, you might ask? Not today when America's newspapers are the breeding ground for hate and envy gorged writers that seek to end America as we know it.

What these opinions always seem to wallow in is Bush bashing. The hate for the president overshadows any sense of honesty or integrity that once seemed to define Trahant's and others' moral and ethical fabric. Dismissing lying by Clinton was fine while lying to disparage Bush is just as comfortable. Situational ethics and relative morality are the cornerstone of secular progressive thinking.

It seems irrational to answer irrationality, but let's go through the exercise. The mantra is that Bush lied because he attacked Iraq for reasons other than the "made up" weapons of mass destruction. Facts always get in the way of situational make-believe. Every major intelligence organization stated there were WMD. In fact, our CIA had missed the weapons before Desert Storm which exposed the Iraqi nuclear program.

Clinton didn't meet with any CIA officials directly during his 8 years in the White house. Why? Because he didn't like nor trusted them. So why would Bush trust a few of the more liberal agents when they said that there is scant evidence that Saddam has continued his WMD programs after the early 1990s? He and his administration rightly distrust the CIA because of their history of getting "IT" wrong. No matter what the "IT" was. They told Reagan that the Soviets were a "fast rising economic power" right up to the day the Soviets imploded.

Then Trahant wallows deeper into the sty of media lying. He attacks the Bush economic policies as lies. Why? Because they are working. Tax cuts work, which distresses the hate and envy crowd that seeks to keep wealth from others. President Bush said that his "pro-growth" policies are "proof" that tax cuts work. Trahant lies by calling Bush a liar due to his claims. Trahant says that: "The message is that the federal deficit is below projection (Fact), the trend is in the right direction (Fact), and the fiscal house is in order (Fact).

Then Trahant used the General Accounting Office, the oft wrong and never right tea leaf readers of the left of center bureaucrats in government to make his case. The GAO delivered projections of $10 trillion in surplus tax collections to the Bush administration in January 2001. Those projections were based on static dreams of tax collections and expenditures based on the late 1990s. We all know that the Tech-Bubble burst in 2000 costing Americans over $11 trillion in wealth and eventually reducing employment by an estimated 3.5 million. Then the recession caused by the bubble crash and the Clinton tax collections began. Then we had the Clinton 9/11 attacks. That reduced our economic activity by several percentage points.

Yet Trahant merrily stumbles along with the GAO projections of 2000 that have been proven wrong and "dumb and dumberer." In fact, dynamic projections using the Clinton delivered Tech-crash and the recession and 9/11 predict over $10 trillion in deficits by 2008. Yet it seems that it will be closer to $1.5 trillion even when Iraq is included (about 1/3 of the deficit). A Bush supported would say that his policy is 10 times better than Clinton using the $1 trillion governmental deficit rather than the $10 trillion expected deficit.

The lying charge comes at a most inopportune time for Trahant and his secular progressive push. The Swedes have given the Nobel Prize for Economics to a anti-big-government scholar and worse they gave the Peace Prize to a Reagan/conservative style individual empowerment guru. Both prizes are proof that secular socialism is dead man walking. So Trahant goes back to the bread & butter "Bush lied" (lying) bash to use smoke and mirrors to hide the sad news.

Worse is that Trahant demagogues and dismisses the Bush effort to correct the miserably failing New Deal Social Security and New Deal style Medicare and Medicaid programs. Why? Because they are all that's left of the secular progressive push to mold America in the image of the economically failing, morally bankrupt, and ethically challenged "Old Europe."

.

Another Nail in the Secular Socialist Coffin!

The silence from progressives is deafening in response to nails being pounded into the secular socialist coffin. Clinton said it: "Big government is over." He didn't believe it but his political instincts revealed the truth. In a week's time fourteen years after that statement, the Nobel Prize for Economics and for Peace were awarded to private enterprise researchers. Fact is that neither of the awarded plow new ground. What's unique and record breaking is that the extremely liberal Swedes are now recognizing that the socialist "government is the answer" political foundation is crumbling.

The Prize for Economics was awarded to Edmund Phelps. Phelps is a professor of economics at Columbia University in New York City. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences honored professor Phelps for his work in macroeconomics. That is the study of large forces that affect economies at the national or international level.

Phelps correctly identified the relationship between unemployment and inflation. Since the nineteen thirties, policymakers in many nations dealt with unemployment in the same way. They would let inflation increase to create jobs. Policymakers accepted that reducing unemployment required higher inflation for most of the 20th century. But he discovered that inflation hurt job creation, over the long term.

The fact that the Royals are publicly accepting that productivity and innovation are the job creators, not government actions, might just be America's progressives' most damaging moment. Imagine that America's over 30 million government workers are employed, compensated, and promised unfunded retirement and health-care riches based on inflation, not on real work. No wonder the silence.

Worse news for secular progressives is the just awarded Nobel Peace Prize to Muhammad Yunus for organizing Grameen Bank. Professor Yunus decided that government programs for the poor were not benefiting the needy, rather these programs employed the educated with jobs for life. The bank was formally established in 1983 and exploded in the early 1990s when the UN provided data that showed that "President Reagan tax cuts and his concept of economic globalization had lifted more poor than all government programs combined." It was commerce and working that offered hope and opportunity to the poor everywhere.

John F Kennedy is worshiped for saying among other things something like: "giving a fish to a poor person feeds him but teaching him how to fish sustains his life." Further, JFK demanded in his inauguration: "Ask not what your government can do for you, ask what you can do for your government?" Yet his adherents and worshipers didn't hear the call. Yunus did. By May, 2006, over 6 million micro-credit loans have been made to the very poor and very needy worldwide through Grameen. And dozens of Grameen-like micro-lenders are now plying their trade among the world's NGOs. Today more than 20 million micro-loan funded free-enterprise companies are providing an income for their owners and employment for another 250 million more. Today big government taxation is their oppressor not their savior.

I wonder how much Kool-Aid needs to be dispensed to keep secular progressives and their followers thinking that destroying capitalism will cure all the world's ills? Seems reasonable that progressives' hate and envy are negatives, not a foundation for a world movement.

.

The Fossil fuel Myth: Again or Still?

Oil prices are falling. Falling prices proves the conspiracy paranoids wrong again. Democrats and their radical secular progressive told us day in and day out in the liberal media, that the days of cheap oil were gone. In fact, left thinkers that manage trillions on Wall Street predicted $200 a barrel cost within a few month's time. They were wrong. And it has caused the demise of at least one if not two major hedge funds.

Today along comes the Washington Post staying the coarse of yelping that oil is more evil than even grubby money and wealth. The Post laments the decline in barrel cost to less than $60 by telling us in its editorial comment that using less oil will defuse world tensions. Tensions they say, are caused by lots of dough flowing to Venezuela, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia. Does the Washington Post really feel that keeping petro-nations poor will stabilize the world?

The argument is still over the myth that petroleum supply is decreasing. There's little question that the easy to produce petroleum, that just under the surface of the earth, is produced faster than it is replaced with new finds. But new finds are now announced with regularity because technology allows for drilling deeper in more inaccessible places. These technological advances might otherwise end the Carter style malaise of "The end is near," but it doesn't because politics skews science.

In reality today's Post comment starts the Euro-push for high taxes on fossil fuels to reduce their use. We all know that this strategy doesn't just reduce petroleum use, it also starves the world economy driving most developing countries back to poverty and guarantees to drop the United States into the slow European economic death spiral now under way. Seems to me that liberal thinkers actually have no solution to their straw man problem: Fossil fuel consumption.

Inter-Religious Strife!

It's argued that "mission creep" is an ever present assault on initially well designed and executed projects and programs. Two landscapes are extremely susceptible to "mission creep." Military adventures often respond to changes on the ground that can blurr the initial task's boundaries. A good example can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan where initial removal of despot and terrorist supporting regimes has led to the need to employ elements of "nation building" to create and maintain political and social stability. Winning the war can be much easier than the "mission creep" of winning the peace.

The other arena of "mission creep" is, of course, government. Government's "mission creep" is as intrusive and as deadly to a cause as the military can be to the death of a murderous and abusive regime. We read about and experience government's pernicious reach daily. In fact, what some call forward progress is actually government's often unconstitutional intrusion into personal and religious rights, privacy, and freedoms. Can you spell educational intrusions? Or what about transportation restrictions? Or often unscientific environmental restrictions? Yes, many might wonder how government that self-describes its search and defense of rights and uber-privacy, can be so threatening of the same? Don't ask!

Today's NY Times tells us in an article by Diana Henriques, that churches are fighting the 'government's mandate" to protect the rights of employees in the workplace. Of course this workplace is religious. Seems that secular socialists and progressives in government and the judiciary want nothing more that to intrude into the daily activities, values, morals, ethics, and management decisions of their religious competitors.

This begs the question: "What if a religious person works for the government and demands religious rights, religious privacy, and especially religious freedoms? We know that answer. No rights! No freedoms! No way! No how! No where! No when! If you are Christian that is. Muslims can use their rug anywhere. Others are given wide discretion to practice religions even though they must be unionized and labor law adherent.

For me it's clear that the government's intrusive and oppressive reach will continue and even accelerate unless the people say enough! Merry Christmas is still a legal greeting only because some stood up to hate driven secular progressives eager to erase their religious competition from the public square. Not then, not now, and not tomorrow.
.

Inclusive or Illegal, Unconstitutional, Un-American?

An almost equally divided electorate can energize fierce efforts by some to convince illegal aliens and felons to vote. Others encourage double voting and even help the dead vote. Moral and ethical persons try establish that all votes cast are legal and fair. Problem with this process isn't that it's as important to establish that a vote is legal as voting itself, the problem is that many in the media and radical extremists attack anyone that tries to keep voting legal. The usual suspects are race baiters, democracy haters, and often radical left wing-nuts. Their sentiments are that any attempt to qualify or verify someone's identity and their legal right to vote is racist, abusive, and exclusionary. Say what?

Accusations vary such as some in Ohio where the police were called to a murder a block from a polling place. Race exploiters then claimed that the presence of the police intimidated voters.

Today's N Y Times leads again with its constant effort to attack those that follow the law as anti-democrats and racists. This time the opinion is written by Adam Cohen, a card-carrying, bomb throwing, anti-democracy basher. For Cohen, 'disenfranchisement' is the code word for the result of obeying the law. As obeying immigration laws is anti-immigrant bashing for the same dirt dishers.

America is a nation of lawful behavior that encourages opportunity for all. When a political movement frames it's values by encouraging lawless and illegal behavior, chaos and anarchy result. Shame on the perverse, dishonest, ill-informed, and abusive spewed by Adam Cohen.