NavigationRandom ImageDeep ThoughtI wouldn't be surprised if someday some fishermen caught a big shark and cut it open, and there inside was a whole person. Then they cut the person open, and in him is a little baby shark. And in the baby shark there isn't a person, because it would be too small. But there's a little doll or something, like a Johnny Combat little toy guy---something like that. Browse archives
User loginSyndicate |
blogsOn the Washington State GOP ConventionSubmitted by matt on Thu, 2008-06-05 12:46.
My wife and I, and some friends of ours, were delegates to the state GOP convention in Spokane last weekend. We went to represent liberty, constitutionality, conservative Republican values, and the man who has best embodied them in our lifetimes: Ron Paul. He gave us hope for America and the Republican party. I'll be honest, if it weren't for Ron Paul's convincing, our youth and talents would be anywhere but the GOP. But Ron Paul is right: we are Republicans and we need to stay Republicans. I haven't read any media coverage that was even remotely realistic, but I suppose that's to be expected. Politics is indeed a dirty business! I promise you have no idea exactly how dirty until you attend a hotly-contested convention. But I want to relate some of the positive moments. The first occurred Thursday night at our Ron Paul delegate meeting. We sang a hymn, "Amazing Grace." All 550 people crammed into that small stuffy room rose, and the passion rang as loud as the words. Next a gentleman offered a prayer of invocation. Not a generic, scripted formality as we often hear, but a desperate plea to Almighty God from Americans united in love of liberty and country. It was a beautiful thing. The second happened during the district caucus Friday afternoon. Ron Averill was beaten in the election for chair. Without a second thought, he headed up front and rendered gracious assistance to the younger, less experienced chairman. I have no doubt things may have gone smoother had Mr. Averill been elected. But he obviously understood the value of letting somebody else have the experience. Thank you, sir! The third was Saturday after lunch, after all the divisive vote signaling signs were put away. Votes no longer delineated so strictly along presidential candidate lines. Folks voted as Republicans and individuals, not supporters of one candidate or another. Very refreshing! ( categories: Politics )
Lessons from the Lewis County GOP ConventionSubmitted by matt on Fri, 2008-04-11 20:32.
I attended the Lewis County Republican Convention last weekend. It was a great experience for a young person who'd never done anything like that before. I was honored and a bit surprised to be elected to the state GOP convention, and I even got a funky-looking picture of myself in the Chronicle! Here's what I learned. First the good: * The level of involvement afforded to average individuals during the process is remarkable. This is representative democracy in action. Politics really does begin at the grassroots and filters up. Don't underestimate your role as an individual citizen! * I got the impression this process hasn't seen such vigor in a long time. Among Republicans there is some debate as to following the traditional conservatism of Reagan, Goldwater, and even Jefferson, or the "neo-conservatism" of late; but the benefit is in the dialogue. That's why I went. I could tell some of the "old guard" appreciated this as well. I want to especially recognize Lewis County Republican chair Mark Anders for his friendly, helpful attitude. * There's a fantastic Republican named Michael Delavar running for the 3rd congressional district against Democrat Brian Baird! I'm really impressed with this guy. Check him out at www.delavarforcongress.com. * Parliamentary procedure isn't as scary as it sounds. In fact I rather enjoyed it. Now the not-so-good, and I count myself foremost of offenders: * It's apparent we care more about personalities and promises than character and results. And party loyalty trumps principle any day. Because we're not willing to consider short-term losses, we settle for merely slowing what we ourselves make inevitable. Unfortunately, no net gain can be made if we keep voting for the lesser of evils. * We will sell our very souls to feel safe. I listened to reluctant McCain supporters dismiss his spurious conservative credentials and abject character defects, up to and including adultery and murder of the unborn, because he promises we'll be safer with a little more war. ( categories: Politics )
It is not Enough to Simply BreatheSubmitted by matt on Wed, 2008-04-09 08:49.
This article was adapted from a post on opencarry.org's forums by user "swilden". The original topic was an article about a college student who was detained, questioned, temporarily hospitalized, had his property confiscated, and was eventualy expelled. Even though he was released without conviction and determined to be sane and safe, his record and name have been permanently besmirched. His student loans became immediately due upon his expulsion -- a financial disaster which may force him to re-enlist in the Army. His crime? An overly-dark fictional story in a creative writing class. Look out, Stephen King, or anyone with an imagination for that matter! Interestingly, the student found the forum and joined the discussion. It turns out he's an Iraq war vet and a pretty average/responsible/intelligent individual. But that didn't much matter to the "thought police" who destroyed his education, reputation, and finances. The original posting and opencarry.org thread are here, and the adapted article is below: Let's think about it logically. Supposing these were the only choices: either lock-up everyone who might have a problem, or accept that tragedies like the VA Tech massacre will occasionally happen. Which is worse, really? I strongly suspect if you compare person-years wasted in hospitals by people who would have never actually become mass-murderers to person-years of life lost by those killed by cases like [VA Tech shooter Seung-Hui] Cho, locking up all of the “maybe-Chos” is orders of magnitude worse, especially if the policy is extrapolated nationwide. This goes back to a big problem I have with our nation today. We value breathing above life. By that I mean we're willing reduce the quality of life of millions for the potentiality of keeping one person alive -- not necessarily the guaranteed or even likely REALITY of saving life, but often just a nebulous PROMISE or PERCEPTION of it. The great men who declared United States independence saw exactly the opposite. Patrick Henry was perhaps a little louder than most, but he captured the basic sentiment well, "Give me liberty or give me death!" ( categories: Politics )
Principle above Party: I'll Never Vote for McCainSubmitted by matt on Mon, 2008-02-11 14:05.
To my fellow Republicans: I'm a life-long Republican. I've never missed a vote, and I've never But more than that, I'm a CONSERVATIVE! As a conservative, I will NEVER vote for John McCain. I'm not the only You can't sell me ground beef and tell me it's filet mignon. I would At the very least, my hope is our Party will wake up and take this ( categories: Politics )
IngsocSubmitted by matt on Sun, 2008-02-10 04:25.
It's 3:30am and I'm re-thinking a discussion at the caucus yesterday with a nice guy named Jeff. The subject matter swirled around the Iraq war. What occurred to me is I'd had that conversation before -- only I was Jeff! Having myself voted for Bush both times, supported the war, and wholeheartedly subscribed to the whole neocon shtick like a good little Republican, I feel perhaps uniquely qualified to analyze these conflicting mindsets. So what does it it really come down to? What reasoning can make us such staunch believers in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
In this case fiction is still stranger than truth, but not by much. The article Orwell's Oceania and Bush's America captures it well. I also picked up strong themes of "might makes right" and "the end justifies the means" from my conversation with Jeff (or any "whack 'em with the freedom stick" neocon-type). Pick your cliche and we've bought it. ( categories: Politics )
Mike Huckabee is no ConservativeSubmitted by matt on Thu, 2008-02-07 20:16.
Mike Huckabee, the non-conservative: Mike Huckabee, personally: Sources: ( categories: Politics )
John McCain is no ConservativeSubmitted by matt on Thu, 2008-02-07 18:08.
John McCain, the anti-conservative: John McCain, personally: Sources: ( categories: Politics )
Caucus Speech for Ron PaulSubmitted by matt on Mon, 2008-02-04 16:37.
Hi, my name is X. I live on X St. with my wife X and our child X. This is my first caucus! I've voted Republican every election since I was old enough. But I'd became pretty apathetic toward the whole thing. Every few years the names changed but the results didn't. Today I want to tell you about the doctor who cured my apathy and renewed my hope for America. He's a man of principle, integrity, and consistency. His name is RON PAUL -- a 10-term Republican Congressman, medical doctor, husband of 51 years, father of 5, and grandfather of 18. As conservatives and Republicans we believe in: * Individual freedom and limited government. RON PAUL has NEVER voted to increase the size of government or raise taxes. They call him "Dr. No" for his strict Constitutional voting record. He is the only candidate committed to protecting individual liberty and respecting our Constitution. * A strong economy through free markets, responsible spending, and lower taxes. RON PAUL is the only fiscal conservative in the race, period. He's the only candidate really talking about monetary policy, inflation, and the spending/printing/borrowing that's debasing our dollar, lowering our standards of living, increasing gas prices, and leaving a mountain of debt to our children. Only RON PAUL's platform would result in lower federal spending. *Every* *other* *candidate* wants to SPEND MORE MONEY WE **DON'T** HAVE. What's conservative about that? * Strong national defense. RON PAUL believes in keeping America safe by maintaining the best military in the world, fighting to win, and SECURING OUR BORDERS. RON PAUL is the ONLY candidate with a flawless record of fighting illegal immigration. As a veteran himself, RON PAUL is committed to taking care of our veterans. Maybe that's why he's received more donations from the military than all of the other Republican candidates COMBINED. RON PAUL supports our troops, and they support him. ( categories: Politics )
Found on the Internets: "I am Ron Paul"Submitted by matt on Sun, 2008-02-03 07:38.
I am Ron Paul. I didn't used to be. I used to believe that the United States was the most infallible country on earth. I used to believe that because we were so free and prosperous, other nations, in their jealousy hated us enough to try and destroy us. I used to think that if an idea was worthy enough to be disseminated through the mass media, and arrived before my eyes through an electronic device, then it had credibility. I used to believe in the inevitability of the establishment, that people in power had good intentions. I used to think that the government was here to protect me. I used to believe that the people in power had the right idea, and with great power comes great responsibility to spread our way of life-- through force if necessary. I believed that we were living in a new era, an era where we were not bound to repeat the mistakes of history. An era of unlimited economic growth-- all you needed was a good credit score. An era where global threats made it necessary for each one of us to sacrifice a bit of personal liberty to ensure that freedom and democracy would survive. I believed it was the only patriotic thing to do. Slowly, I came to realize that all was not well within the matrix. Certain truths I held to be inalienable were... alienated. Politicians who claimed to be conservatives spent money like drunken sailors. A Republican party who claimed to be against welfare and entitlements was welcoming legions of illegal immigrants into the country, showing no respect for the rule of law. Law abiding American citizens were being subject to force and arrest without due process. Students were being tased in public universities for exercising their first amendment rights. Our government was pissing away an accumulated 100 years of good will in foreign relations. American jobs were leaving overseas while our trade deficit ballooned into the hundreds of billions. ( categories: Politics )
On the Separation of War Powers as Defined in the Constitution and Clarified in the Federalist PapersSubmitted by matt on Wed, 2008-01-30 15:26.
I want to address the purpose and rationale behind the separation of war powers in our Constitution. It seems Congress was given the power to declare/enact war and the President the power to manage/execute it. But why? What does it matter who declares war? I'm not really concerned with the historical precedents of following or not following these distinctions, or semantics about what it means to declare war. For example, I've heard it said tacit approval of executively-initiated war through continued funding by Congress may be substituted for a formal declaration. That's an interesting idea, but it's not really relevant to WHY they divided the powers the way they did. What of the wisdom and intent with which the founders assigned and separated these responsibilities? We all know how vital to our system is the separation of powers. In federalist paper #47, James Madison said: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system." He goes on to explain that checks and balances (overlap) between the branches is vitally important, but: " 'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he, 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.' " Enacting war is, by definition, a legislative function. Executing it is an executive function. According to the framers, combining the two in any one person or body amounts to tyranny. The memory of tyranny's yoke was fresh for these men. They designed the Constitution to protect against its return to this land. ( categories: Politics )
Christianity: Religion of War? Part DeuxSubmitted by matt on Wed, 2008-01-30 10:59.
Christians seem to have become one-issue voters. Paradoxically, that issue is war. Why is it that we, who worship the Prince of Peace, are so in love with war? Why will we compromise on or consider *anything* else, but the war? We'll vote for big-government, tax-and-spend, run-our-lives liberals. We'll support someone soft on abortion, immigration/border security, civil rights, and constitutionality. We'll choose adulterers, liars, and overlook all manner of moral and character defects. Just so long as they support the war. Christians look at a candidate like Ron Paul, who represents every bit of the Christian and conservative ideal we hold dear, but discount him offhand because he has ideas about keeping America safe that don't involve this war. I've observed this personally as I talk to Christians about the candidates, and so have many other folks. What strikes me is not so much whether the war is actually justified or merited or not, it's that Christians are completely unwilling to consider it in logical terms or become educated about it in any way. It's a prerequisite, a foregone conclusion, something not open for evaluation whatsoever. As I said, we will literally compromise on ANYTHING but the war when choosing our candidates. I asked my father about this last night. He supports the war. He pondered for a while, then said he thought it came down to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of being the next victim of an attack, fear of not doing enough. I agree. Fear can have the unfortunate effect of overriding logic and moral judgment. It also makes us more willing to sacrifice freedom; just look at the Patriot Act. Benjamin Franklin said, "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." I'm as guilty as anyone. It wasn't so long ago I supported the war. Then I began to inform myself and think logically. All of the sudden I didn't support the war any more. First I learned about Islam, and how the people don't want democracy -- nothing we set up can last. I learned how Muslims are indeed a violent people but are historically quite happy to fight amongst themselves when they don't have a common enemy against which to unite. I learned about the justifications given for this war, and how they either turned out to be false or were accomplished very early on. I learned we currently have no plan, no justification for continued involvement, and no exit strategy. I learned how this war is bankrupting our country and leaving a heritage of debt and economic ruin to our kids. ( categories: Politics )
Christianity: Religion of War?Submitted by matt on Mon, 2008-01-28 08:36.
Christians are not generally blind pacifists; we claim to believe in just war. Indeed, when required for defense or protection, war is a necessary evil. But our default position is peace. When forced to depart from it, we long for its return. Or should. So what is wrong with Christians in America today? We seem to care little about making informed moral and logical judgments. We'll consider anything but peace. A bloody and expensive war rages, with no plans or goals or justification, and no end in sight. Almost 4000 of our soldiers are dead and so are tens of thousands of Iraqis. Both groups are God's creation, made in His image, and loved. It's a war against a weak, third-world country that never attacked us. A war which has measurably increased and strengthened Islamic extremism globally. We have thrown our country's rich Christian morality and sense of justice to the wind. And for what? We have lost respect among both our friends and enemies on the world stage -- we're isolating ourselves. We continue to provoke and motivate our enemies over there, while our own borders remain wide open -- we're less safe. And we're spending/printing/borrowing to pay for the whole thing, leaving a heritage of debt slavery and lower standards of living for our children. One thing has become apparent as I talk to Christians about the presidential candidates: we'll compromise on anything but this war. We'll vote for big-government, tax-and-spend, run-our-lives liberals. We'll support someone soft on abortion, immigration/border security, civil rights, and constitutionality. We'll choose adulterers, liars, and overlook all manner of moral and character defects. Just so long as they support the war. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. - Romans 12:18 ( categories: Politics )
How to Win in 2008Submitted by matt on Thu, 2008-01-24 11:24.
To my fellow Republicans: a little strategery on winning the Presidency. Put on your thinking caps, here we go. First, how not to win. Let's face facts -- if you want to hand the White House to the Democrats, vote for Romney, McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee. We have to realize none of them have a chance in the general election against a Democrat. Why? Just do the math. 1) The GOP isn't what it used to be. The base is aging. Contributions are down. Numbers are down -- these days it's a 43%/33% percent split in favor of the Dems. And the remaining 24% of independents generally lean Democrat. We're outnumbered, plain and simple. 2) So far this election cycle, Democrats have seen significantly more total participants in primaries and caucuses than Republicans. Caucusing (or even voting in a primary) is not always something "Joe Voter" bothers to do (or even knows about), so it can be an indicator of apathy versus action in the base. The results are in; we're out-motivated. Keep reading to #3 for why. 3) Let's forget for a moment our own opinions, and consider what everybody else thinks. After all, we need a majority to win. Public opinion for the war is very low. Opposition to it is both galvanizing support for the GOP's opponents and causing attrition from within. Three-quarters of Americans think the US is on the wrong track as a nation. 70% disapprove of Bush's job as President. The majority of Americans will not vote for another Bush, period. Think for a moment about who you support, and why. Maybe it's their demeanor or experience? Perhaps one seems more "presidential"? Some of them have flip-flopped less than others, which is nice. But style and personality aside, what about substance? When it comes to foreign policy, Rudy, Mitt, John, and Mike are in lock-step with President Bush. This is why they cannot win the general election against a Democrat. Americans are decidedly against the war and policing the world/nation building in general. If we give them a pro-war candidate, we will lose. End of story. ( categories: Politics )
You Can't Waste Your Vote in the Primaries!Submitted by matt on Thu, 2008-01-17 16:58.
"I like Ron Paul, but I'm not voting for him in my caucus/primary because he doesn't have a chance." I have to comment on this sentiment, because I hear it everywhere. If you dig Ron Paul, vote for him in our caucus and primary. No excuses. The primaries are the time for us to vote our consciences. It's not a direct competition between the two parties. This is an appropriate and "low risk" time to support an underdog if you think he's the best man. Time for a little "straight talk": If you don't vote for the good guy in your primary/caucus because you don't think he stands a chance, you're part of the problem. This is the time when we determine, to a large extent, viability. Republican voters will fall in line with whatever candidate gets the nomination. Winning or loosing the general election hinges not on "the faithful", but on the new voters, the independents, and the cross-over Democrats. And with all due respect to our President, the last thing any of those folks want is another Bush. Ron Paul's simple message of liberty resonates with Democrats and independents as much as Republicans. Our local Ron Paul Meetup group organizer was a lifelong Democrat, as are many members. Other folks have never voted before. It's broad appeal like that, across political boundaries that wins elections. So I think there's a good argument for viability in the general, should he make it that far. But for now, this is the primaries, so please act accordingly! ( categories: Politics )
Oil Expensive or Devalued Dollar?Submitted by matt on Mon, 2008-01-07 12:06.
Did you know the price of oil compared to the price of gold has remained fairly constant? However, compared to the US Dollar, oil prices have steadily increased. So in reality oil costs haven't changed much, it's just that our dollar buys a whole lot less. The United States spends, prints, and borrows like it's going out of style. These behaviors have a natural consequence: inflation. Remember this next time you're pumping gas. The reason we pay more at the pump has more to do with our own monetary policy than Arabian politics. Makes you wonder where our focus should be, doesn't it? I learned this from Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on the recent ABC New Hampshire debate. While the other candidates bickered about who's the biggest flip-flopper, Congressman Paul stood out as the only one with substance. He demonstrated wisdom and understanding about real issues that affect average Americans. I've learned a lot listening to Dr. Paul. It's nice to hear more than rhetoric and political-speak for a change. ( categories: Politics )
|
