The Mist and the Upright Monkeys

So I just finished watching the movie “The Mist” (it was good, and the novella by Stephen King was awesome) and I open up the computer to read some feeds (I’m behind on my reading). On the Consumerist feed I see (not more than 3 minutes after I finished the movie) “Facing Foreclosure Some Owners Trash The House Before Leaving“.

The Mist involves, in part, the frailty and façade of our individual security. To paraphrase a line from the movie: as long as the machines and 911 are working, we’re civil; take them away, and the rules don’t apply. This reaction to a seemingly unbeatable threat is very real, and it’s proven even today when the relative security of a home is lost. Our base reactions are still with us, even with the beautiful Republic of the American society.

Another thing I noticed in the movie is the people have a decent amount of knives, but only a couple of guns (a shotgun in a truck, a pistol apologetically carried by a woman in her purse at the silly insistence of her husband). While the chance of an interdimensional rift being torn open in a military lab is… remote, our ability to deal with threats as individuals is always important, and it reminds me of why I support the individual right of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms (ALL weapons) is important, it’ll never be unimportant, and it should forever be left to the individual and not relegated to the the state to determine who can defend themselves and with what kind of weapon.

My observations on the human condition and civil rights are over; carry on.

History Lessons

Amazon

Guess what? The Indians didn’t save the Pilgrims from starvation by
teaching them to grow corn. Thomas Jefferson thought states’ rights—an
idea reviled today—were even more important than the Constitution’s
checks and balances. The “Wild” West was more peaceful and a lot safer
than most modern cities. And the biggest scandal of the Clinton years
didn’t involve an intern in a blue dress.

Surprised?
Don’t be. In America, where history is riddled with misrepresentations,
misunderstandings, and flat-out lies about the people and events that
have shaped the nation, there’s the history you know and then there’s
the truth.

In 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask, Thomas E. Woods Jr., the New York Times bestselling author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History,
sets the record straight with a provocative look at the hidden truths
about our nation’s history—the ones that have been buried because
they’re too politically incorrect to discuss. Woods draws on real
scholarship—as opposed to the myths, platitudes, and slogans so many
other “history” books are based on—to ask and answer tough questions
about American history, including:

- Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?
- Was the Civil War all about slavery?
- Did the Framers really look to the American Indians as the model for the U.S. political system?
-
Was the U.S. Constitution meant to be a “living, breathing”
document—and does it grant the federal government wide latitude to
operateas it pleases?
- Did Bill Clinton actually stop a genocide, as we’re told?

You’d never know it from the history that’s been handed down to us, but the answer to all those questions is no.

Woods’s
eye-opening exploration reveals how much has been whitewashed from the
historical record, overlooked, and skewed beyond recognition. More
informative than your last U.S. history class, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask will have you wondering just how much about your nation’s past you haven’t been told.

No Amnesty, No National ID

I’m against the Immigration bill that was recently defeated but will soon be resurrected.  It does offer basic amnesty to people who have entered the country illegally.  It’s a law issue.

The people screaming about illegal immigration and amnesty, though, seem to have a basic expectation of how things need to be: all citizens need to have proof of citizenship.  This means a national ID.

The root problem here is the value of governmental identification.  Sure it helps to catch people who break the law, forces some responsible action on others who wouldn’t otherwise act responsibly, but at what cost to everyone else?  Identity theft is big business, and the more we rely on government identity, the more valuable these identities become.

But why are they valuable at all?

Our whole system of services is based on being who you say you are.  From opening a bank account (FDIC insured), to applying for a job (employers pay the income taxes), being you is a trillion dollar a year business (ballpark).

The only way to get out of this sputtering Cessna spiral is to eliminate governmental services.

This would be the hardest thing for America, like heroin withdrawal.  We’re so used to having these backups, it’s like they’ve always existed.  They haven’t.  It’s compassion and greed that created these programs, these ubiquitous services, but they are almost all unconstitutional.  We all want to help each other out, it’s part of our nature, the very being of our societies, coming from family, up to community, then expanding that community to encompass our States, our Nation, and our planet.  We all want to help, and sometimes the fastest way — or even the only way — is to use the enormous tax coffers as charity.

Good intentions aside, this leads to horrible things.  We all pay for some things, different things, we don’t want.  With higher taxes we pay for services and institutions that we find intellectually or morally repulsive.  With my taxes, I help to pay for Islamic military campaigns against my fellow countrymen.  We all do.  From Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Gaza, and many other places inbetween, money that the U.S. government has collected in taxes has helped to fund the expansion of ideals held by people that consider me, my family, my friends, neighbors and fellow citizens as mortal enemies.  It galls me.  This fact alone should stick right in your throat and cause you to question the rationale of anything for which our government pays our hard-earned tax dollars.

Republicans couldn’t control themselves, Democrats have shown they can’t control themselves, it’s just one big spending party once you get elected to office.  This kind of thing should be stopped immediately, and with the harshest of punishments for those who think they are above the rules.

Isn’t it treason to go against the Constitution of the United states of America?  What’s the punishment for treason?

So now I come back to — and sum up — my original point.  Illegal immigration wouldn’t be an issue if there wasn’t a government service industry to protect from fraudulent use.  If you feel you need to keep these services as-is, then we’ll all need a National ID card so anyone can know who is a citizen and who isn’t.  These cards would be tremendously valuable because of the amount of services offered to citizens already, so theft of these cards, a.k.a. identity theft, would rise farther and faster than it does at present, forcing more restrictions on citizens, more biometric information to be handed over, compulsory DNA samples from birth, etc.  Think you could opt out?  Nope.  They’re already doing that in England.  You can’t leave the country legally — get a passport — unless you submit your biometric samples to the government.  And why is all this so important?  Because of the trillions of dollars of services offered by the U.S. government, via YOUR taxes.

Can you muster ANY ire yet?  Are you disgusted with the inevitable future that’s being mapped out at this moment?  It’s not fantasy, it’s actually happening.  It’s not paranoia, or a sci-fi fantasy, it’s being done as I type.

The only way to stop this seeming juggernaut that our good intentions have created is to eliminate the services we let be enacted by our congressional representatives.  Most were certainly done from compassion, but we must always remember that the government — at any level — is not there to be compassionate.  Government is an administration of laws based on the principles set out in the constitutions of the nation and the states within the nation.  Laws enacted that go against the principles set forth should have real consequences to those who try to undermine these principles.

So in my happy world, illegal immigration isn’t an issue if we just eliminate the money element.

This country was founded, and survived well for many, many years, without social services and intercontinental bribery on a leviathanical scale (that’s my word).  We prospered, we traded, we fought against those who transgressed against us.  We won sometimes, we lost sometimes, but never did we say, “You can’t come here unless you’re smart or have something to offer us that we can measure because we can’t afford you.”  Such an idea only 100 years ago would’ve been considered by most to be preposterous.  Today, it’s becoming a legitimate argument.  That argument needs to be delegitimized immediately.

The New Colossus


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch whose flame
Is imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep ancient lands your storied pomp!” cries she with silent lips.

“Give me your tired your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”


Emma Lazarus (1849-1887)

Seems to me that Giuliani is a Moron

“That’s really an extraordinary statement, an extraordinary statement, that as someone who lived through the attack on September 11th, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before.”  — Rudy Giuliani, May 15, 2007

Seriously?  Ron Paul was talking about American foreign policy in general, and mentioned how we were bombing Iraq for 10 years (yes, we did) prior to 9/11.  Some people might be angry about our military intervention.  Some might plan to strike back.  This is something Giuliani has never heard before?  How can you trust someone who would play with facts like that?  Giuliani needs some schooling.  Or maybe he doesn’t… the audience reaction was justification enough for his stance.

Most people don’t know about what our American government does around the world.

“We bombed Iraq throughout the ’90s?”

“Yup.”

“Oh… well they probably deserved it.”

D’oh!

LGF is giving shit to Ron Paul and his anti-war stance, but I think he makes some legitimate points (not all).  Ron Paul doesn’t seem like a strong leader, but the “wackiness” of his concepts seem very constitutional… they just seem odd to us, we who have lived in this semi-constitutional society for so long.

As for Rudy Giuliani, I wouldn’t trust him with anything of value, let alone my Country.

Iraq Was Being Bombed During 12 Years of Sanctions

On Virgil Goode’s Letter

My response to a post on The Jawa Report:

“As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.”

If there are any Muslims in his district, he’s not representing their religious beliefs in his government office (I assume it’s his gov’t office). If he was merely representing his own religious beliefs, this would just be an inelegant letter (though as a politician, he should be more politically savvy with his words), but he’s saying this as a Representative of “the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia”.

If his Judeo-Christian display — and disregard of any other religion — is only as a Representative of Virginia, then he’s wrong.

I’d bet money that the stuff on the wall is up there because he’s down with Buddy Christ, and that’s fine by me, but his letter is puerile because of its implications that swearing in with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu’ran.

“When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand.”

As opposed to that OTHER book.

Adding to that the xenophobic undertones of anti-Muslim sentiments on immigration and religious displays in his office, you just have someone who appears to be more of a hick than a thoughtful politician.

Virgil Goode may be a great guy, but he comes off as a blustering simp in his letter.

More:

In my opinion, Muslims who come to the U.S. seem to assimilate quite well. We have hardly any daily Muslim violence here compared to what many European countries face on a daily basis. I like to think it’s the lack of Socialistic programs — compared to the scale of European Socialism — that allows people of other cultures to integrate more thoroughly to “America: The Concept”.

Rep. Goode did mention a drain on our social services as one of the reasons he’d like to curtail Muslim immigration. Maybe an inability to utilize U.S. social services by anyone who isn’t a citizen would allow all immigrants who come here to be of a more desirable stripe. After all, when you have to hustle to put food on the table, and see the success of others in your peer group, you have less time and tolerance for radicals.

This is not to say we don’t get radicals, or that more radicals won’t come to the U.S., but it seems to me the vast majority of Muslims in this country are not radicals, and assimilation into our American culture is what most of the Muslim immigrants want.

As for Rep. Goode’s office wall, I don’t really care what he puts on it. However, he gives no explanation why he wouldn’t put a Qu’ran on his wall when asked about it by the Muslim student. From the tone of the letter, I interpreted his rejection not to his not being Muslim, but to his seeming general dislike of anything Muslim.

I personally have not read the Qu’ran, but I do read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch blog every day. I highly recommend it.

Thank you for your questions and comments, MCPO Airdale.