Tuesday, August 16, 2016

If your son dies in a war are you beyond reproach? Thomas Woods answers

And no, you are not morally beyond reproach because your son died in war." ~Thomas Woods

Taken from his August 16, 2016 email. Here's the link.

Here's the full context:

Tonight I was taking a glance at my Facebook feed, and I saw Thaddeus Russell had posted something I'd missed.

Remember Khizr Khan, the Muslim man who spoke at the Democratic Convention and whose son died in the Iraq war?

At the time, I remember finding him utterly odious. For the life of me I could not understand people who defended this man.

He exploits the memory of his fallen son on behalf of the Democratic Party, and on behalf of a woman who helped send his son into that ludicrous war?

He urges his son to fight an idiotic -- not to mention grotesquely unjust -- war against a Muslim population, and all the pro-Muslim people flock to him?

Insanity.

If I were ever to exploit the memory of one of my own children on behalf of the Democratic Party, I sure hope everyone reading this would punch me in the face.

If I'd had a chance to speak before the Democratic Party, I would have strayed from my prepared script and appealed to the Bernie supporters in the room by denouncing Hillary and her war.

At any rate, Thaddeus posted a news item I'd missed: Khan's hero is -- wait for it -- John McCain.

I knew my instincts were right about this guy.

"Senator McCain -- he's my hero," Khan told CNN in an interview. "The last book my son read that I sent him was Senator McCain's book about courage: Why Courage Matters. So for me to hear Donald Trump malign my hero -- my son's hero -- it is just mind-boggling."

Senator McCain, who never saw a war he didn't like, and whose foreign policy has spread radical Islam all over the place and caused untold human suffering, is Khan's hero.

Not a good guy.

And no, you are not morally beyond reproach because your son died in war. If anything, Khan is all the more to be condemned for cheering on such a morally depraved course of action.

On this, I can't and won't budge.

Now that that's off my chest: tomorrow on the show I'm discussing the myth of the success of Nordic socialism.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Radical Idea: Break up the military

I have an idea that will increase peace across the globe: Break up the U.S. military. Break it up! Break it up! Break it up ...

... into 50 something fractions.

That is, give each state a military (militia?) of it's own,  under the leadership of the Governor of each state.

Think about it: Every state already has a base of it's own.

Some states naturally will be better suited for some kinds of services (coastal states are bound to have Naval bases and Marines). The states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, may have superior air power.

One thing is for certain: it would be extremely tough to go to war.

(Which is a good thing.)

States would actually have to think long about whether such and such foreign leader in power is a "threat" to "security" -- long before a troop is deployed for a tour ... before a fire is shot.

State senates, state congresses, and state houses would have to determine whether it makes sense to deploy X battalion and Y Squadron overseas.

I almost said "national security" -- but there would be no national security. Rather, they'd have to figure out if so-and-so leader (an Assad, a Putin, a Saddam) was a threat to "state security." 

State governments would have to debate military budgets.

The Pentagon would be no more...

... but all of the Pentagon's secrets and joint secrets with other agencies (such as the CIA) should be released to the public before it shutters its door, and made publicly available on a website (Wikileaks can't do everything).

The police and the military would be separate. The military, by law, should be prohibited from giving military equipment to the police before, during, or after the decentralization of the national military force.  This prevents the militarization of the police.

In the meantime, the military equipment that the police departments currently own should be taken away, in a separate process.

As for overseas bases, close them down permanently.

What about Guantanamo Naval Base? Shut it down, too. We don't even own Cuba but we have a military base there.

I actually thought of this a while ago -- but this week I saw a headline that reminded me of my own idea. So ... I'm posting this now to at least be one of the earliest voices (this is, of course, without doing any research to see if the idea has been put out there before).

I could be very late myself.

UPDATE: I found the piece I referred to above, which was published six days ago. I haven't read it yet it but it is called "Decentralize the Military: Why We Need Independent Militias" by Ryan McMaken. Perhaps McMaken will come to some similar conclusions and share the same line of arguments. 


A list of CNN (TV) Headlines, 8/4/16

This is not scientific in any way, shape or form. But it is an attempt to show what On-Air CNN Television personalities talk about.

Are they critical of the President? Or only of Trump? Is it critical of government? Or are the headlines mainly approving of government? Or -- are the headlines deflective of government malfeasance? Does it omit stories critical of those in power? Do the headlines tend to come from a liberal angle, conservative angle, a libertarian angle, a communist angle, or is it balanced? Are they critical of mostly Republicans? Or are they critical of mostly Democrats? Is the channel generally pro-religion or anti-religion? Pro-Christianity or anti-Christianity? Pro-Islam or anti-Islam? Pro-atheist or anti-atheist?

I want to know.

Given that I was creating this list while busy, I couldn't catch every single headline that flashed across the TV screen. However, I do think it is very representative as I probably looked at the television screen every other minute or so from about 12 PM to 4 PM.

What I found is that CNN focused on Trump at least 22 times; President Barack Obama 10 times; House Speaker Paul Ryan 10 times; and Hillary 2 times.

Now, as I said, this wasn't scientific. However, I did look at the screen a lot from that time. I did not keep my eyes glued to the screen....

...but I really don't think I missed Hillary Clinton that many times.

Looking at the headlines we see that....


  1. RYAN NOT READY TO PULL TRUMP ENDORSEMENT
  2. RUSSIA: WE BELIEVE 270 OF OUR ATHLETES CLEARED TO COMPETE
  3. NEW BATTLEGROUND STATE POLLS GIVE CLINTON THE EDGE
  4. CNN/ORC POLL SHOWS OBAMA WITH 54% JOB APPROVAL
  5. POLL: OBAMA APPROVAL RATING ON THE RISE
  6. NEW BATTLEGROUND STATE POLLS GIVE CLINTON THE EDGE
  7. NORTH CAROLINA MAN ACCUSED OF SUPPORTING ISIS
  8. TRUMP MEETS WITH FAMILIES OF 6 FALLEN SOLDIERS
  9. OP-ED: TRUMP SUPPORTING IS "INDEFENSIBLE"
  10. CLINT EASTWOOD TALKS RACISM AND TRUMP
  11. SOON: OBAMA FACES QUESTIONS ON $400 IRAN PAYMENT
  12. WHITE HOUSE: $400M CASH TO IR
  13. OBAMA GETS POST-CONVENTION BUMP IN POLLS
  14. CAN A RISING OBAMA HELP HILLARY CLINTON?
  15. EASTWOOD: 2012 "EMPTY CHAIR" STUNT "WAS SILLY"
  16. CLINT EASTWOOD APPLAUDS TRUMP'S RHETORIC
  17. PREGNANT WOMEN IN MIAMI RUSH TO GET ZIKA TESTS
  18. EXPECTANT MOTHERS IN MIAMI SCRAMBLE TO GET ZIKA TESTS
  19. SOON: DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS LIVE AT RALLY SOON (?)
  20. CHARLESTON CHURCH SUSPECT ASSAULTED IN JAIL
  21. YOUNG GYMNAST RETURNS TO SPORT AFTER LEUKEMIA
  22. GYMNAST CONTRACTS LEUKEMIA, FACES COMPLICATIONS
  23. ANY MOMENT: TRUMP SPEAKS AFTER RYAN RETURNS FIRE
  24. RYAN WON'T RULE OUT YANKING TRUMP ENDORSEMENT
  25. PAUL RYAN ON TRUMP: MY "DUTY" TO DEFEND GOP
  26. NEW POLL: CLINTON TOPS TRUMP IN 3 KEY STATES
  27. SOON: HILLARY CLINTON HOLDS RALLY IN LAS VEGAS ***
  28. CLINTON SLAMS TRUMP DURING TOUR IN LAS VEGAS
  29. NEW POLL: CLINTON TOPS TRUMP IN 3 KEY STATES
  30. RYAN WON'T RULE OUT YANKING TRUMP ENDORSEMENT
  31. POLLS: CLINTON TOPS TRUMP IN THREE KEY STATES
  32. ANY MOMENT: TRUMP SPEAKS AFTER RYAN RETURNS FIRE
  33. RYAN (AGAIN) USES “BEYOND THE PALE” REACTING TO TRUMP
  34. OBAMA GETS POST-CONVENTION BUMP IN POLLS
  35. SOON: TRUMP, CLINTON HOLD COMPETING EVENTS
  36. U.S. OFFICIALS: NO IRAN “ULTIMATUM” TO SEND $400M CASH
  37. TRUMP COMMENTS ON U.S. PAYMENT TO IRAN
  38. TRUMP AGAIN CLAIMS HE SAW VIDEO OF IRAN PAYMENT
  39. TRUMP SPEAKS AFTER RYAN SLAM POST-RNC CAMPAIGN
  40. TRUMP: “HOW STUPID ARE WE” TO PAY IRAN
  41. BRAZILIAN COUPLES DELAY PREGNANCY DUE TO ZIKA
  42. OBAMA: MY DAUGHTERS DESERVE A FEMINIST DAD
  43. CLINTON REPEATS FALSE CLAIM FBI DIRECTOR SAID SHE WAS “TRUTHFUL”
  44. OBAMA: IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT IS WORKING
  45. OBAMA: WE DO NOT PAY RANSOM FOR HOSTAGES
  46. OBAMA UPS ATTACK ON TRUMP AS APPROVAL RATING RISES

Where is the focus on the issues? A few comments.

#46 OBAMA UPS ATTACK ON TRUMP AS APPROVAL RATING RISES

First of all. I think this is a made-up connection here. I really don't think Obama is consciously taking advantage of this approval ratings here. But the headline gives the connection that he is.

# 42 OBAMA: MY DAUGHTERS DESERVE A FEMINIST DAD

Why is this national news? This doesn't belong on national television, but on niche sites, cultural sites. 

#14 CAN A RISING OBAMA HELP HILLARY CLINTON?

Can a discussion of the platforms that she and Donald Trump are running on help their campaigns. Can a substantial report on Donald Trump's sane position on Russia hurt Hillary Clinton? Can we discuss their ideas? Can we hold politicians accountable? Can we move away from "He said, She Said" stories? Can we #bringbackjournalism? 

I'm not going to go on. But I am biased towards stories that highlight government corruption, and I really don't like celebrity stories, or stories that advance the "conversation" in a destructive way.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

The similarity between the youth of today and the youth of Ancient Israel

"The young do not know that they have lost their country because they are born into a time when the country is lost. To them that is normalcy." ~Paul Craig Roberts, "America Destroyed."

This is similar to the young people in ancient Israel when the temple was rebuilt. The newer temple was nothing like the old temple. The older people were at least disappointed, if not outright sobbing. I can't quite remember the reaction of the young people. I am going by my recollection of the biblical stories here.

Matt Drudge and I agree: Globalists freak out over Trump

Snapshot of the August 2, 2016 Drudge Report

President Obama is no revolutionary.

Rather he is of the status quo.

Today he played the role of gatekeeper of that status quo: Donald Trump absolutely cannot become president. He is unfit. Blah. Blah. Blah.

This morning when I saw the headlines about President Obama, referencing the above activity, I immediately thought that the globalists were freaking out.

This afternoon I went on the Drudge Report and I found agreement there.

Matt Drudge calls Obama out for his globalist gatekeeping on August 2, 2016.

Media is doing the World a Disservice by ignoring Trump's substantive issues

Courtesy of The Atlantic
Hat tip to Real Clear Politics who published an article called "Russian Expert Stephen Cohen: Trump Wants To Stop The New Cold War, But The American Media Just Doesn't Understand."

Stephen F. Cohen is a contributing editor at the progressive publication The Nation, which also ran the story.

The premise of the story is that Trump's substantive issues get totally ignored because the media focuses on Trump's more colorful sayings.

From the Real Clear Politics article:
Cohen says the media at large is doing a huge disservice to the American people by ignoring the substance of Trump's arguments about NATO and Russia, and buying the Clinton campaign's simplistic smear that Trump is a Russian "Manchurian candidate."
"That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign," Cohen said. "And they really need to stop."
"We're approaching a Cuban Missile Crisis level nuclear confrontation with Russia," he explained. "And there is absolutely no discussion, no debate, about this in the American media."
"Then along comes, unexpectedly, Donald Trump," he continued, "Who says he wants to end the New Cold War, and cooperate with Russia in various places... and --astonishingly-- the media is full of what only can be called neo-McCarthyite charges that he is a Russian agent, that he is a Manchurian candidate, and that he is Putin's client."

What Cohen is saying about the media is true.

For instance, as I sit here, less than an hour ago CNN ran a story on television on the fact that Donald Trump eats KFC with a knife and a fork. This is a story that shouldn't make the Food Network. But here we have a channel -- remember, a CNN executive declared that they are "no longer a news network" -- that spends most of the day covering political happenings talking about how Donald eats fast food in his private jet. This is ridiculous.

As I visit Yahoo minutes ago, there the editors published a story called "Trump at rally: ‘Get the baby out of here’" -- and it's the top story when you first get on the page.

It took three words for the mainstream media to use a buzzword to try to scare voters away from Trump. It begins: "In a bizarre..." -- there's really no need to finish the rest of the article, because it focuses on the least serious part of the speech, which I listened to most of, if not its entirety. The Yahoo News article doesn't even focus on any thing else said in the speech.

One hundred and fifty words wasted...

...one hundred and fifty words-sized bullet to try to take down Trump.

Yahoo News leading story. This is serious journalism, folks.
Here's a more serious part of the August 2, 2016 speech in Ashburn, Virginia, that aligns with the topic at hand:

TRUMP:  I want to get along with China. By the way wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia? Wouldn't that be great?
(APPLAUSE)
If we actually had a relationship with Russia, instead of all the fighting and money and the problems and if we could get Russia and others to partner up and go and knock the hell out of ISIS, wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Now, I don't think we should even be getting involved with ISIS in that way. But here we have Donald Trump saying that he wants to get along with China and he wants to restore relations with Russia. "Wouldn't that be great?"

At the August 2 rally in Ashburn, Virginia, Trump also said of Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton will be worse. She'll be worse. OK? Hillary Clinton will be worse.
She has bad relationships with people like Putin. I'll give you an example. She has terrible relationships with Putin. This is a nuclear country we're talking about. Russia, strong nuclear country.
And so are we. But their stuff is newer. Their stuff is newer. So she's looking at -- they have more -- I don't even want to say it -- they have a lot more, OK? So you know, she wants to play the tough one. She's not tough. She's not tough.
I know tough people, she's not tough. I mean she's -- she's just -- she's doing the handlers, they push her from place to place that's all it is. You saw her speech the other night. 
I mean they talk about presidential, do you think she looks presidential? I don't think so.
I don't think so. So -- so you know, she wants to play the role of the tough guy against Putin and Russia and she wants to play not tough, not tough. She should be tough on trade, OK?

Meanwhile, can you guess which Democrat said this about Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump last week at the 2016 Democratic National Convention?

"We cannot elect a man who belittles our closest allies while embracing dictators like Vladimir Putin."

Look who's shooting from the hip now: the man one spot away from the presidency, the #2 man in the Obama administration, Joe Biden, is here recklessly calling "world leaders" dictators, even though his administration won't confirm that designation. Again, if Hillary Clinton is going to "continue Obama's agenda," then we can expect more "fool rush in" status quo foreign policy from Hillary Clinton.

As Donald says in many rallies, the media is totally corrupt. He said it today in Ashburn, Virginia.

I agree with Cohen. As I wrote to a friend recently:

That said, Trump definitely says a lot of interesting and agreeable things on foreign policy. He raises very serious questions about our priorities that gets drowned out because of the media. The media is good at shutting off serious debate whenever they find something disagreeable about him...and there is a lot to disagree.

Additionally, I wrote:

I like the idea of an "America first" foreign policy because we haven't had an America first foreign policy for about 50 years, even though it was our policy at least 150 years, according to one expert .
I meant 60 years, per Ivan Eland's numbers.


WCF Chapter One "Of Holy Scripture" Sunday School (Sept.-Oct. 2021)

Our text for Sunday School (also "The Confession of Faith and Catechisms") Biblical Theology Bites What is "Biblical Theology...