We all have seen the video or heard about KONY 12. Launched just two weeks ago, KONY 12 was/is a viral campaign who's sole goal is to not put an end to the Lord’s
Resistance Army, who operate in Uganda. No, the goal is to gain awareness, so much so, that by the end of 2012, we will have seen the arrest of one Joseph Kony, head of the LRA.
Now, as we all have heard by now, the creator of KONY 12, Jason Russell, has apparently left the reservation. According to multiple reports (well basically police reports) he was arrested for not only stripping in public but for also "having a go" in the solitary sense, in public (think Pee-Wee Herman)...while screaming. Whoa. So needless to say, its rather amusing, the irony of the situation. Not that anyone is keeping score, but lets suppose we are, what would it look like so far?
At first glance, I thought this was a fake. It however seems to be all too
real, as there are plenty of signs like this, all across the United
States. Then I started out to post some
nifty words with similes and analogizes relating to Santorum's disdain for
universities or his desire for "I.D." to be taught alongside
evolution. I was well into my twentieth or so minute of pondering all the tasty
possibilities, before it dawned on me. Pictures are often said to be worth a
1,000 words, so, here you go. Its 7:49pm,
61 degrees, in the middle of March, in NW Pennsylvania. This, is the
definition of a win-win. Enjoy my fellow demons in bondage.
As some of you may or may not know, Pennsylvania
this year actually passed a bill that declared 2012: the Year of the Bible. I
have no idea what that means, seems to me, 2012's year after the persecution and
death of Jesus is a rather ambiguous point to set something as important as “the
year” of the Bible, but this state and country “continues to face great tests
and challenges” according to the author of the bill, Rep Rick Saccone (R). Thus
it was said… 2012: The year of the Bible. It was also a total whitewash in support as the bill passed by a whopping 193-0 vote in the
state assembly too! And who said there was no longer any bi-partisanship?
Well, if you were like me, you didn’t pay anymore attention
to this piece of news then did the 193 people who glossed over the five-billion dollar
state deficit did. Obviously, within the first few weeks of the new year, this crucial piece of
legislation had to go through. I mean, what would we have done without our state rep's branding the Bible as the book of the year? Funny, 193 elected officials sitting around declaring 2012:
the Year of the Bible, while authorizing the purchasing of a 100 million dollar building in Harrisburg even as the state is drowning in again, 5 Billion dollars of red ink this year. I have no idea why government is so ineffective?
Now, what gets me, is
that here you have 2012 being passed into law as the Year of the Bible. And
this isn’t a partisan issue, again, 193 elected officials for it, none against
it. So you have all this overwhelming support and an organization, who opposed
the bill decided to put up a quote from the Bible entitled: “Slaves, obey your
masters." Biblically speaking, its accurate… but yet you have that
organization chastised by some of the 193 for it? Seems, kind of strange, I thought
2012 was: the Year of the Bible?
And that’s where the humor comes in. It is the Year of the Bible,
its just not part of the Bible… the 193 like. Typical really…but hypocritical
and hilarious at the same time? You betcha’.
State Rep. Ronald G. Waters, chairman of the Pennsylvania
Legislative Black Caucus wrote a letter condemning the billboard company (Lamar) for
putting up the message from the Bible with an African man in bondage. Mr Waters
went on to say "This image and mere reminder of slavery are offensive to
minority citizens in the city of Harrisburg”.
Fair enough, but is the billboard not truthful?
Were black folks not slaves at one point here in this
nation? Obviously, the Bible was talking about the plight of Jews and Jewish law, but the word "slavery" here in this nation, does not make one think of slaves from 3k years ago Because we have a rather recent and dubious history with the word here. Does the Bible have a verse that commands slaves to “Obey your masters?
If this is truly the: Year of the Bible, I suppose we ought to consider actually
celebrating all of it, not just the parts that we don’t like or choose to ignore. After all, its not Year of the Bible chapters that aren't offensive, is it? Although, that would be the logical thing to do, in this context, logic isn’t useful when discussing the book of the year.
Maybe, just maybe, Mr Waters ought to consider the minority
of people who didn’t want 2012 to be the Year of the Bible and used a billboard
to demonstrate that. He had no problem passing this bill, which clearly would/could
be found to be offensive by another type of minority as well. And therein lies the
problem.
Mr Waters does not seem to care about the minority offended by
this bill. However, he does care for the minority (his minority) that might be offended for displaying our history and quoting
the book…that has been passed into law (by his own vote) as the: Book of the Year? There is a lesson to be learned from this and its one most people don't do enough of. That is, thinking for oneself. From political parties,
caucuses inside those political parties, hate groups, religions etc etc… collectivism
is a dangerous ideal that relies on double standards, ignorance and division. Don't be a slave to it.
Think for yourself and question authority – Timothy Leary
When I was working on my last entry concerning FEMA and Ron Paul, I started to get into a bit of a tirade concerning the debt. This, in this writers opinion, is the United States greatest threat, not some foreign enemy. With most people showing no interest or regard for it, its up to those of us who do hold these truths to be evident, to keep putting that word out there... and that word is debt (specifically insurmountable debt) is slavery and nothing more then a transfer of wealth; from the many to the few.
In this article I want to tackle two situations that I see problematic and the key cogs to insurmountable debt. First, there is the federal government and our elected "leaders" role in this failure to be reasponsible. Secondly, is the Federal Reserve and its banks, that have been culpable in allowing (through the manipulation of interest rates) this economy to take a path that will see it fall off a cliff. What the recoil will be from QE 2,3,4,5,6,7 bailouts and stimulus remains to be seen, but there can be only one thing we know for sure.
That is, we are accumulating debt. And vast amounts of it. The implication of compound interest makes these actions basically treasonous by our elected leaders and criminal by the FED. How can Congress and the executive branch both complicity push the cost of running the government so far out of the realm of practicality? How is it legal for the FED to lend huge sums at what amounts to no interest to those banks that were all considered "too big to fail" who then take that liquidity and invest in T-Bills that will actually yield a 2-3% interest? These practices destroy existing savings and the incentive to save; thus creating only one desired effect - consumption.
Because, without people borrowing and spending the whole thing blows up. Money = debt, debt = money. The biggest problem is that the American population are over saturated in debt thus why the sub-prime in housing was needed. Like its population, the US government, is over saturated as well. They, unlike you and I, have no limits and that defies logic. Lets look at the executive's role.
The Interest payment is the only debt payment required by
the Constitution that must be accounted for in the budget each year to be paid.
With that said, every President hopeful on the Republican
side and President Obama have all released a budget or a proposed budget.
Not one of them have a plan to balance the budget next year,
neither will any one of them do so in four years either (with the exception of
Ron Paul). We will without a doubt have continuous mounting
deficits that will probably be in the 1-2 Trillion mark annually regardless of
who is in office (with the exception of Ron Paul). Starting to notice a trend here?
Mitt Romney wants to increase defense spending by putting 100k
more troops on the ground and rebuild parts of the Navy and Air Force. He would not have left Iraq,
appears to have an itch to scratch in Iran
and will not leave Afghanistan
until its won (the forever war) or at least until his generals say to leave??? His budget has the wealthiest Americans (who
pay the most income taxes) getting a significant tax cut on top of the existing
tax cuts that are already in place.
Romney has no plans to offset the lost revenue that will
surly happen when these cuts take place, nor does he have any plans to make any
significant cuts in existing outlays to recoup the ramped up defense spending. This
defines logic. Mitt Romney's plans are contrary to anything sane in regards to
the federal government living within its means. He’s fiscal policy’s will be train-wreck
like.
That however, is not how Romney sees it. He thinks if he
cuts taxes the gains in receipts will pay for this increase in spending. The
problem with that is that the FED doesn’t think the economy is going to grow by
all that much… and they control the money supply. This leads us into the second part of the equation: the insurmountable tag team.
The FED’s long term forecast is a relatively weak one going
forward with long term GDP growth outlook being in the 2.3 to 2.6 percent ranges.
The FED has also said it will not look to raise interest rates until, at the earliest, 2014. Here you have the economy just barley keeping its head above
water for the foreseeable future, the FED continuing its non-stop intravenous liquidity
therapy into bank’s reserves creating a soon to be inflation tsunami all the
while our elected representatives continue to show no regard for the situation.
I want to take a look at two charts that really speak
volumes for what is going on and what we will being seeing soon enough in our
own backyards. Lets start at 2006, when the FED stopped tracking M3. As you can
see below, when Shadowstats picked up the tab of tracking M3, the growth in
money supply was steadily rising until early 2008. As the recession came, the
Fed lowered interest rates to avoid the fire of deflation but banks weren’t loaning,
so the money supply dropped with it.
A curious situation started occurring by the middle of 2010.
M3 started to rise and its rising still as of now. Meanwhile, Interest rates from 2009 on have stayed basically at zero and as we’ve already heard from the FED,
they will remain that way for years. This does not bode well for the dollar or
anything equity wise going forward in my opinion. If the economy continues its "recovery” like so many in the media says it is, the eventual outcome will be a
pretty substantial increase in inflation. This would, by default, put relatively
the majority of commodities into buy, buy and buy more mode. Most specifically gold and silver.
Equally alarming will be the federal governments penchant
for debt as we have also seen, they will not live within our means, thus piling
more debt on to the insurmountable existing amount. What happens when the FED
has to raise interest rates? If we are seeing 450 Billion interest payments
already (Intragovernmental and Public) imagine what will happen to those when
interest rates go up? They could look something like this:
Just for a little perspective. In 1988, the national Debt
was 2.6 Trillion. The interest payment on that in the budget was 214 Billion. The
interest payment in 2011 was 450 Billion, roughly double. The principal, as we
know, was 14+ Trillion.
The US
government will not cut spending and we will continue to finance the
welfare/warfare system. What happens in 10 years from now will be interesting
thou. Can the FED really raise rates, without completely tanking the economy?
And if they did, what would happen to the interest payment on the debt
outstanding (besides sky rocketing into the trillion dollar mark). If the FED does
not raise rates out of the fear of deflation, isn’t massive inflation the only
alternative?
George Carlin said it best:
When you're born you get a ticket to the
freak show. When you're born in America,
you get a front row seat.
As we all know by now, unfortunately, we had another unexpected natural
disaster last week, this time in a vast multi-state reach, covering much of the
Midwest and into parts of Tennessee. This was a deadly storm that took many
lives resulting in tear jerking tragedies.
Like this heart wrenching story, where a 15th month old survived
the initial trauma from being thrown by a twister into a nearby field. Her
entire family perished that day; both parents and two siblings. Sadly, she
suffered the same fate just a few days later. Or like
this 36-year old mother, who lost both of her legs; in order to protect her
children.
The economic impact of this storm will be in the hundreds of millions, if
not approaching the billion dollar range when its all said and done. This will
require all hands on deck including those at FEMA. With that said, it appears,
like every Tornado and Hurricane season, a
reporter (or
I should say reporters), tap Congressman Dr Ron Paul on the shoulder to ask
him his view on the role of government in the event of natural disasters. This
is by no accident.
Dr Paul's response was already prerecorded and written on their notepad, all
the crossing of the t’s and dotting of the I’s was already done. That is
because Dr Paul’s consistency, can and will always allow, a lazy reporter to
get a cheap story that will attract buzz, with little effort in terms of leg
work. All they need him to do is go on record and their story is complete, a
Presidential candidate says something off the beaten path; It’s a win-win for
the reporter and his publisher.
Here is the problem with this.
Does Ron Paul believe FEMA should exist? No. Does he believe in the federal government having a hands on role in natural
disasters? No. Is FEMA one of the worst bureaucracies in government in terms of lack of
accountability and waste? YES.
Why does Dr Paul feel this way? Its because the constitution doesn’t
specifically allow for it to be funded… period. It’s that simple. So why do
they cherry pick this story? Because, asking him what role we have in building
up an empire then the subsequent invading of other country’s or
allowing the FED Reserve to manipulate interest rates, creating bubbles, isn’t a
story. Even though the amount of wealth, blood and treasure those “programs”
waste are astronomically higher and oh yeah; neither are written in the
constitution either (sorry neo-conservatives, what we have isn’t a defense, its
clearly offense).
Now, as Ron Paul has said many times, he has a prioritized pecking order in
which he would see programs and departments eliminated and/or trimmed down;
specifically aiming at the most costly and unconstitutional programs or
agencies we have. Do you know where FEMA would rank on that list?
First, you would have to look to see where FEMA's budget comes from and
that would be none other then Homeland Security. How fitting, an agency that
was created in 2002 overseeing another program that was initially funded and
created in 1979. Hardly constitutional and it fits the exact model and voting
record of the self described “defender of the constitution”, but I don’t want
to defeat my own point before I have even made it, so I will ignore that
tidbit.
Last year, FEMA spent about 13 Billion dollars. That is a big number but it
terms of our budget? Is it? It is roughly 0.003% of our budget. I would assume
clearly, Dr Paul would look elsewhere for the cuts. Why not start with the
national debt? Sure, we couldn’t pay off the 15 Trillion, but what about that
250 Billion interest payment on that debt? Imagine the savings if we actually
started to balance the budget annually?
Why not defense? The funding for defense, as
I have reported numerous times, is outright offensive and hardly a defense
department. Its become a slush fund for big business and a "global force
for good", their words, not mine. There is not any justification i can
understand in fighting rouge terrorists who claim no allegiance to any nation
on principal, let alone for the amount we have spent, and to boot - in this
economic environment. The Department of Defense’s base budget has increased 81% nominally and 43% inflation adjusted
since 9-11. Throw in the Nuclear budget, and that spending itself has
increased 21% (inflation adjusted) since 9-11.
Imagine the savings if we knocked those back to the 2001 levels or at least
cut them in half? Or, what about the 1.3 Trillion spent in endless wars in the Middle
East? Surly we could find savings there. We are talking about
saving TRILLIONS, not to mention lives on both sides and actually using our defense
to I don’t know, maybe even defending our own borders? Now that is a novel
approach, eh? Using the National Guard to actually guard the nation, as opposed
to fighting wars across the globe? Who knows, maybe even providing assistance,
logistics and overall support for natural disasters would be available??
Quit these wars, bring the troops home. Let them spend their money
here. Let’s have a real stimulus package. We are up to our ears in debt.
Trillions and trillions of dollars and no end in sight for these wars. Then we
could take care of our people. Matter of fact, I have even proposed on many of
these programs that I don’t fully endorse because technically they are not
permissible under the constitution. But taking care of sick people and the
elderly and children I have nothing against that… IF YOU CUT THE SPENDING. -
Ron Paul
Those are places where Ron Paul would start. Even though FEMA is one of the worst bureaucracies
in terms of waste and inefficiency, its small potatoes in the grand scheme of
things, it would not be a top priority. Cutting FEMA or asking about the role
of food stamps surly create emotional responses, but in reality these issues
are not what is draining us. In a vacuum, those are philosophical questions
that would make an interesting debate… but we are living in a time where the
stakes couldn’t be higher as we fight to remain solvent, vacuum type thinking
is irrelevant. We need solutions to problems and until we start asking the
right questions, we will never have those debates; thus we will never fix the
real problems.
"Republicans are starting to realize you cant say “oh, lets cut
money for food stamps but not the food stamps for the military industrial
complex” because its just not going to work. - Ron Paul
So, the next time a reporter wants to tap Dr Paul on the shoulder for a
quick story when hurricane or tornado season comes around, he wont be around.
He is retiring form congress at 76 years old. He, as I write this, is well
behind on Super Tuesday; thus he will not be our next President. They will have
to find someone else to do the work for them. Maybe, they could go out and do
actual reporting. Cover the minutes from the FED meetings. Maybe go out and
find Stephanie Decker, the mother who lost her legs and bring her story to the
masses. Or maybe seek out these
heroes from Branson Missouri, who
risked their lives in order to save others in the face of a deadly tornado or
the hundreds of others if not thousands from this past week who saved
lives.
There are plenty of stories waiting to be told, they just need to be reported. If
that’s not juicy enough, cover the destruction of our dollar and our nation
through crony capitalism, fractional reserve banking and a debt driven economy
that results in war and more spending (debt) to finance it. That, however, may
not make it past their publisher or editors desk. We can’t have people actually
learning how bad off things really are, now can we?
It’s been well documented, Obama owns this economy. The DNC Chair Wasserman-Shultz has said as much, VP Joe Biden has also said it and a vast majority of Republicans all say Obama owns the
economy as well. With piling, Trillion
dollar deficits and unemployment having maintained historic levels for extended
periods of time; the economic malaise Obama reigns over, is one that no
President can tout.
Remember, Clinton's
sign on his desk when he was in the oval office? Contrary to popular belief, it
was not: “The filing cabinet is under the desk, Interns” it was actually: “It’s
about the economy, stupid”.If it is
truly about the economic outlook of this nation; then President Obama is in
trouble come November.
Now personally, I believe the sheer size of the US
economy is so vast and lumbering, that the President gets too much credit when
“his” economy is running on all cylinders just as much he is unfairly ridiculed,
when it’s in the toilet. That however, is not the majority of how Americans
feel or think thou. If they can’t find work, it must be the Presidents fault. The truth of the matter is that the
average American does not have time to research what really are the driving
economic factors behind our economy good or bad; so the person sitting in the oval office is seen as a
personification of the whole economy.
Now, since we are going to use this embodiment to signal a "nay or ya"
regarding the economy, I would like to use this simplistic strategy to point
out something that doesn’t get talked about enough.
President Obama is the first President in 20+ years to see our nation’s top export
be Fuel. He is also the first President since Harry Truman (1949) to oversee
the US being a
net exporter of oil-based fuels. The US
has imported 11% less crude then it did in 2005. Ten years ago, fuel wasn’t or
barley made it in the Top 25 for US exports, but now it stands at #1?
Regardless of how or why, it doesn’t matter. He was the guy in office when
this happened, thus he owns this fast break to energy independence. Never mind
the new developments and discoveries in shale oil/gas or the fact that Obama
inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Let’s, not
let things like mitigating facts get in the way of our thinking. Mr Obama is
set to become one of the greatest achievers in modern presidential history in
our quest for energy independence and for that he will be looked back on as a
rousing success. Its all about perception isn’t it, or is it context?
Its been a rather hot
item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget
proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better)
of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits
then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd,
considering Romney has
said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next
generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.
This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my
hands on Washington". I had
to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in
his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let
alone not balance the budget.
Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be
the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he
built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on
a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the
fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a
budget?
Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We
know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so
hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to
appeal to everyone. That
why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.
With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget
and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense,
he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new
aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the
USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense,
because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would
"add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".
The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.
These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.
So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:
“We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe
that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens
and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our
children,”
In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.
National
defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going
to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size,
leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000
additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote
when he says:
"ensuring that the
world remains safe and free for us"
There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington
not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global
force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is
awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander
whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without
even a deceleration of war from Congress?
"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free"
in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty
safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty
substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can
the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.
Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda
that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is
spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in
an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within
our means. Here is a recent quote
from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US
foreign policy outlook:
"the United States, have
developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours.
The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely
invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and
geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute
invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability
for all others"
I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the
future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that
sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line
with reality than a hopeful for the
Presidency of the United States.
To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it
clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.
With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would
be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed
the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how
apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"We will bankrupt
ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"
I remember people used to steal hood ornaments back in the 90's and wear them as charms on chains. I grew up (pardon the pun) hood (in the suburbs), what can I say. In the last five to ten years I have seen the same hip-hop culture buying gold or silver "grills" for their mouth. Now it appears its has come full circle. The grill has replaced the hood ornament and for actually two reasons. First, car company's caught on and ended that trend by stopping the production of them. Secondly, gold is valuable. Not just more valuable then a hood ornament but more valuable then dollars... so they are shrewd investors, these kids nowadays.
In August of 1971, President Nixon ended Bretton Woods effectively floating our Dollar and subsequently making the dollar the reserve currency of the world, having no longer having to be exchanged for gold. When Bretton Woods ended, one ounce of gold was equal to $35 dollars. Today, gold (even taking a substantial hit) closed at $1,696 dollars. That $35 Dollars? Is worth still $35 nominally, but real purchasing power?
If I used the latest CPI from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistic, that same $35 dollars would buy you $6 dollars worth of goods today. That is an 82% loss of purchasing power. At the same time, gold has lapped its initial value (in 1971) 48 times. Is there any wonder why people are clamoring to invest in precious medals? Here is a chart of gold in the last 10 years:
So it should not come to a shock when you see stories like this:
Its 1391 in Iran,
you best pass on that grass; if you want to save your ass. It is literally 1391
according to Iran’s
calendar, and here I thought I was always a contrarian? Back in 76' when we were celebrating our bi-centennial the last Shah of Iran (see 1953 US led coup) flipped the calendar from 1355 to 2535... overnight! The
Persians, well, they apparently take contrarianism to another level. Obviously the irony
of that difference in centuries isn’t lost on me when I seen this headline in
the Washington Post last night:
My first thought was “well, Iran
is trying to reduce gasoline usage” but I figured that was even too drastic for
this regime… but not too far off. As I read I was surprised to learn that:
1. The executions are in
public for everyone to see.
2. About 80 percent of
the executions involved drug offenses and many were minors.
3. Iran’s Penal Code
make demonstrations, public debate and the formation of groups deemed a threat to ‘national security’
punishable by prison or death
What jumped off the page was that drug offenses are
the overwhelming majority of the executions. But that doesnt touch the ludicrous notion of sentencing minors to death, i mean wow. I would continue but I think there
isn’t much else to be said. Public debate is one of the many offenses that could be cause for
a stoning or hanging… writing this blog and you reading it could be two acts
that were punishable by death. Does this not seem like something taken out of
the dark ages?? Circa 1391??
It makes sense though. Drugs and public debate (both
offenses) would open up some eyes resulting in a formation of groups (also an
offense) of like minded “awoken” people and before you know it, national security would be threatened. You would have yourselves another Arab spring
uprising. While I don’t agree, I can see the Iranians reasoning. Had anyone
have the insight and organization it would end that theocracy resulting in
public executions of the publicly “elected” leaders. Basically, its a little
C.Y.O.A.
This had me thinking about our nation and it dawned on me that some people would prefer a government that blends their faith here in the states. Take Slick Rick, Santorum actually said this week he doesn't believe in the "absolute separation of church and state". While some might rationalize this or explain it the bottom line is any type of religious beliefs should always be excluded because religion isn't exactly inclusive. Its been the basis for a few conflicts over time. You will always have people that will become disenfranchised and government cannot be in the business of playing favorites or picking winners (hahaha).
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful souls, but there is a small percentage of them and a high percentage of them running entire nations that use pieces of the Koran to justify horrendous acts. There is also rouge groups of men that use the Koran to endorse and carry out terrorist acts. Now, superimpose that here if we didn't have the separation of church and state or if we started chipping way at that now.
The overwhelming majority of Christians are peaceful souls but there is that 800 lb crazy book in the room like the Muslim version, but older... and with a sequel starring a pretty cool hippie with a sandals. Being Slick Rick is Christian; have you ever read Deuteronomy or Exodus? Imagine if someone started bringing those books to capital hill for show n tell? Gee, i hope they wouldn't pick out the parts concerning the murder of unbelievers (yikes). Praise God, we have the separation of church and state.
What does Rick Santorum have in common with Tony Raines; besides both having no shot to win (I couldn't find any on Pinny or 5dimes
for Raines) in their respective races… both are involved with the
Daytona 500 this weekend. Slick Rick has purchased a ride on the hood of Tony
Raines #26 car in hopes for a little recognition. I guess when you are
having trouble piecing together campaign money; a good bang for your
buck strategy would be to spend a little precious cake on the hood of a
car that has no shot in hell to win the race. Who the hell is his
campaign manager? HR Pufnstuf? Maybe, he is hoping for a crash? Wouldn’t that be
ironic? Santorums sponsored ride crashing much like his presidential
hopes will be when people finally start to understand this sociopath.
This poor guy will be the butt of many jokes this week and maybe
that’s a good thing for Santorum. Other then religious zealots and some
backwards Tea Partiers who obviously don’t grasp the economic aspect
(the only aspect) of the Tea Party, Santorum is a laughing stock. A
little time away from some of the monologues each night might not be a bad thing? Slick Rick is a guy who wants to grab the wheel from Tony Raines clutches and
bring our country back to the century it was invented in. So, in reality
it’s actually a good move made by Santorum to side up with some fly by
night driver with no chance like himself. It shows he at least has a
sense of humor.
