The World's Largest Ponzi Scheme

There has been a lot in the news lately about the Bernard Madoff (pronounced made off?) Ponzi scheme. Now a lot of you might not know what a Ponzi scheme is, so I’ll explain it briefly. Ponzi schemes have been around a while, but they got their name from Charles Ponzi, the first guy to make it famous because his grew to be so large during the 1920’s. Put simply, a Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from the profit from any real business.

Suppose an advertisement is placed promising extraordinary returns on an investment—for example 20% for a 30 day contract. The golden key is to bamboozle ordinary people who have no in-depth knowledge of finance or financial terms. High flown terms that sound impressive but are essentially meaningless will be used to dazzle investors. Terms such as "global currency arbitrage", "hedge futures trading", "high-yield investment programs", "offshore investment". Taking advantage of the lack of investor financial sophistication, the promoter will then proceed to sell them a stake in his pot of gold.

With no proven track record for the investors, only a few investors are tempted, usually for smaller sums. Sure enough, 30 days later the investor receives the original capital plus the 20% return. At this point, the investor will have more incentive to put in additional money and, as word begins to spread, other investors grab the "opportunity" to participate. More and more people invest, and see their investments return the promised large returns.

The reality of the scheme is that the "return" to the initial investors is being paid out of the new, incoming investment money, not out of profits. No "global currency arbitrage", "hedge futures trading" or "high yield investment program" is actually taking place. Instead, when investor D puts in money, that money becomes available to pay out "profits" to investors A, B, and C. When investors X, Y, and Z put in money, that money is available to pay “profits” to investors A through W.

The catch is that at some point one of three things will happen:
1. the promoters will vanish, taking all the investment money (less payouts) with them;
2. the scheme will collapse under its own weight, as investment slows and the promoters start having problems paying out the promised returns. When the promoters start having problems, the word spreads and more people start asking for their money, similar to a bank run;
3. the scheme is exposed, because when legal authorities begin examining accounting records of the so-called enterprise they find that many of the "assets" that should exist do not.

Hmmm… sounds eerily like Social Security… Our parents and grandparents are being paid by the money we put in, but eventually it will collapse under its own wait, and some unfortunate generation will not get paid.

Oh. I forgot. The government can just print the money. I guess that’s the only thing Mr. Madoff didn’t take into account. If he could have simply printed the money he would have been all set when his investors cashed in.

The ironic thing is that Mr. Madoff is made out to be a bad guy, while politicians on Capitol Hill are heroes for doing the very same thing only on a much larger scale. Mr. Madoff’s little $50 billion Ponzi scheme is chump change compared the trillions we have dumped into the bottomless pit of Social Security, the world’s largest Ponzi scheme.

Reagan Reborn

I just came across this article by Michael Reagan, written the day after Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convenetion earlier this year. He says everything that I felt, so I figured I'd share it with you all.

Welcome Back Dad
By Michael Reagan September 4, 2008

I've been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we'd never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

I was wrong!

Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she.

And what a she!

In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my Dad's indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media's assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven't heard since my Dad left the scene.

This was Ronald Reagan at his best -- the same Ronald Reagan who made the address known now solely as "The Speech," which during the Goldwater campaign set the tone and the agenda for the rebirth of the traditional conservative movement that later sent him to the White House for eight years and revived the moribund GOP.

Last night was an extraordinary event. Widely seen beforehand as a make-or-break effort -- either an opportunity for Sarah Palin to show that she was the happy warrior that John McCain assured us she was, or a disaster that would dash McCain's presidential hopes and send her back to Alaska, sadder but wiser.

Obviously un-intimidated by either the savage onslaught to which the left-leaning media had subjected her, or the incredible challenge she faced -- and oozing with confidence -- she strode defiantly to the podium and proved she was everything and even more than John McCain told us.

Much has been made of the fact that she is a woman. What we saw last night, however, was something much more than a just a woman accomplishing something no Republican woman has ever achieved. What we saw was a red-blooded American with that rare, God-given ability to rally her dispirited fellow Republicans and take up the daunting task of leading them -- and all her fellow Americans -- on a pilgrimage to that shining city on the hill my father envisioned as our nation's real destination.

In a few words she managed to rip the mask from the faces of her Democratic rivals and reveal them for what they are -- a pair of old-fashioned liberals making promises that cannot be kept without bankrupting the nation and reducing most Americans to the status of mendicants begging for their daily bread at the feet of an all-powerful government.

Most important, by comparing her own stunning record of achievement with his, she showed Barack Obama for the sham that he is, a man without any solid accomplishments beyond conspicuous self-aggrandizement.

Like Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin is one of us. She knows how most of us live because that's the way she lives. She shares our homespun values and our beliefs, and she glories in her status as a small-town woman who put her shoulder to the wheel and made life better for her neighbors.

Her astonishing rise up from the grass-roots, her total lack of self-importance, and her ordinary American values and modest lifestyle reveal her to be the kind of hard-working, optimistic, ordinary American who made this country the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

As hard as you might try, you won't find that kind of plain-spoken, down-to-earth, self-reliant American in the upper ranks of the liberal-infested, elitist Democratic Party, or in the Obama campaign.

Sarah Palin didn't go to Harvard, or fiddle around in urban neighborhood leftist activism while engaging in opportunism within the ranks of one of the nation's most corrupt political machines, never challenging it and going along to get along, like Barack Obama.

Instead she took on the corrupt establishment in Alaska and beat it, rising to the governorship while bringing reforms to every level of government she served in on her way up the ladder.

Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time around.

The Wisdom of Reagan

The era of Reagan will never be over because individual liberty and freedom (conservatism) never goes out of style. Until the Republican Party recognizes this and stops trying to out-Democrat the Democrats, they will not win another national election. Here are some of my favorite quotes from Ronald Reagan.

“Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”
~ Ronald Reagan

“I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” ~ Ronald Reagan

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' ~ Ronald Reagan

“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” ~Ronald Reagan

“Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” ~ Ronald Reagan

“If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” ~Ronald Reagan

Congress Should Be The Ones Answering The Questions

The whole Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac debacle is proof enough that government needs to stay out of the business sector. Most, if not all, of the people on Capitol Hill have never nor ever will run a business, yet they all seem to think they know how. We have seen the results of bad government regulation, mandating that loans be made available to people who could not pay them back. This type of practice was bound to come around and bite us in the back, and now it has. The true travesty in all of this is that the very people who caused the problem are now claiming that they have the solution. And what is their solution? Their solution is more of the same, more of the same government intervention, more of the same ridiculous hearings on Capitol Hill led by Henry “Nostrilitus” Waxman where the people who are asking the questions should be the ones answering questions.

We are now watching as Congress is putting on the necessary show to prove what a tough decision it is to have to bail out the auto industry. Sixty one percent of the American people to not want this bailout to go through (Rooney, December 4, 2008), but we all know it is going to happen. Congress has dragged the auto execs up on Capitol Hill to answer questions, yet it should be Congress answering questions from the auto execs. Here are a few questions that I would like to see members of Congress answering.

What did you think was going to happen to the auto industry when you were continually regulating the types of cars they had to build via emissions standards regulations, fuel economy regulations, etc that change every year? With every new regulation that you passed, did you think about the costs to the auto industry to redesign vehicles that would comply?

What did you think was going to happen to the auto industry when you mandated that auto companies manufacture small, fuel efficient, death-trap cars even if no one wanted them?

Did you consider what the effect on the auto industry, which is geared around the premise of cheap, available fuel, would be when you continually refused to enact policies that would ensure the continual flow of cheap fuel for the American consumer, such as encouraging domestic supplies and lower fuel taxes, and instead did just the opposite?

When you mandated that gasoline has to have at least 10 percent ethanol, did you consider what the effect would be on the auto industry for them to re-engineer engines and parts to run on this type of fuel?

When you mandated that employers have to provide healthcare benefits, did you consider the effect on the Big Three, who has millions of employees and retirees and whose “foreign competitors have no retirees to take care of and received huge subsidies to build Greenfield plants in America to augment their imports to the United States” (Brown, November 24, 2008)?

Have you ever considered how the world’s highest corporate tax rate of thirty five percent might affect domestic automakers?

I would love to see the auto CEOs stand up to Congress and say, “You know what? You have made it virtually impossible to run a successful business here in America, not to mention the extreme costs that the union labor incurs. Therefore, we are rejecting any bailout and instead are going to declare bankruptcy, close all of our plants, move to Mexico where we can build cars people want at a price they can afford, where we don’t have to worry about all your ridiculous regulations, where we won’t have to be dragged before your hearings only to be berated for flying and sent back to complete a homework assignment over Thanksgiving, where we won’t have to worry about labor costs being twice as high as our competitors, where the corporate tax rate is not the highest in the world, and where there isn’t a government and entire side of the political spectrum that sees big business as evil, sees profits and success as obscene windfalls, and wants to tax everything they can get their hands on and regulate everything else. It’s been nice doing business here, but not to nice. See ya.”

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.


And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

The Sarah Palin Chronicles Begin

I, for one, am getting sick of these gutless wonders, the so called moderates, in the Republican Party. They were the ones who designed and ran a campaign that was destined to fail by trying to out-democrat the Democrats. And now, these spineless, hopeless, pieces of human garbage are out there trying to destroy Sarah Palin, the one person who brought energy, enthusiasm, and an actual chance of winning to this campaign. They are trying to destroy Sarah Palin because they are threatened by her and what she stands for. These architects of defeat are doing everything they can to keep their jobs, Palin, Conservatism, and the Republican Party be damned, by blaming anyone but themselves. For crying out loud! At least grow a set and appear before the cameras, instead of leaking falsities to the press! Like a bunch of Grima Wormtongues, they sulk in shadowy corners, their dark hearts filled with deceit, their treasonous eyes betraying what their venomous mouths do not.

They saw the huge crowds she drew during the campaign. They witnessed the excitement she stirred up. They are scared. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 91% of Republicans have a favorable view of Gov. Palin. If the 2012 primaries were held today, she would have a 52 point lead over anyone. They are scared of Sarah and they are scared of the sleeping giant she has awoken. I sense a Palin Revolution in the air. After all, history tends to repeat itself. The ineptitude and terrible policies of Jimmy Carter lead to two Reagan landslides, ushering in an era of peace and prosperity. If we were to compare Obama to anyone, besides Karl Marx of course, it would be Carter. Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator", Sarah Palin will give birth to a new movement. Conservatism isn't going away, folks, because it works every time it is tried. Real change wears lipstick. Palin in 2012? You Betcha

For the Undecided...

I asked a friend of mine, who is a conservative, pro-life, Christian why he is supporting Barak Obama. The following is his letter explaining why and my response to him addressing his concerns. I am sure there are others out there who are torn, so I am posting this to help you all get the information you need. This is part one of a two part series. Names have been removed to protect identity.

Well Josh, it's great to hear from you!

I appreciate your compliments and I'll be frank. There are two basic reasons that I feel so strongly in favor of Barack Obama. Number one, when I read his book, I sincerely felt the power of the Holy Spirit. Now that doesn't happen with any other candidate in any other election I've ever experienced. I sincerely believe that his vision for America is God's will. I don't know why God would grant me that peace and that amazing blessing if it was not meant to be...

But secondly, the war is an important argument. See, I'm not PRO abortion, and neither is Barack. That's the biggest issue Obama and I differ on, because I'm Pro Life and he's Pro Choice. NEITHER of us are pro abortion. If you listen to his speech (or read his book) the point is that he wants Americans to change their attitude about abortion. Instead of providing it as an option for unwanted pregnancy, he wants parents to own up and teach their children about safe sex practices. He wants men to take care of their children, even if it's a difficult choice. The argument that Obama is PRO ABORTION is rhetoric from the enemy and a misunderstanding of his stance.

Aside from that, Obama believes in protecting America. He does NOT believe in preemptive strikes around the world. He said himself we should have finished the job in Afghanistan where the terrorists who actually ATTACKED US are still hiding. I think he's 100% correct on that. We should not have been in Iraq. I said it then, at the same time Obama did. Honestly, I couldn't agree more with him on so many of these issues. Why send American boys off to die?

I realize as a vet you might have a different opinion on the war. My dad is a Vietnam Vet and is NOT happy with my politics right now. I sincerely feel convicted about the war... and I don't believe in stopping the terrorrists like this any more than I think "the domino effect" was a reality in Vietnam. I don't intend to spit on the graves of your comrades, or even your sacrifice either. I think what you all do and did is BRAVE and true American patriotism, but I'm not sure I think the war should go on... as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it needs to stop. We will not FORCE the people of Iraq to democracy. If they want it, they will adopt it.

So many people on the right will vote McCain/Pallin for the simple reason that they think Obama kills babies. That grieves my heart, honestly, because that is NOT AT ALL his point. So many more American teenage men will die fighting a war that was over two years ago, to cowards who blow themselves up in their cars. So many more Americans will struggle to survive in world of twisted an inefficient bureaucracy, instead of electing Obama/Biden, who have a plan to repair those problems. In this day and age, we should be helping one another.

This probably isn't enough to change your mind and I understand that. Most Christians I talk to don't even give Obama the time to listen to him for a second. Most Christians I know might as well live in a bubble for the next three weeks, because they've been voting straight ticket Republican since Lincoln was assassinated.

People make an argument "oh, he's a good speaker, but he won't really do much to help America." If I'm going to elect someone to represent America on the global stage, I'd appreciate if he can pronounce words correctly and doesn't make new words up when he gets confused. I'm appalled and ashamed that I voted for Bush. I'm not making that mistake again.

Feel free to reply, ask questions, or think I'm a lefty. I'm really not a lefty. I'm actually still conservative, but I'm tired of seeing the inefficiency of the open economy and what it does to people. We need better access to healthcare and education. This is not a Spencerian world... because God calls us to love our neighbors, not defeat them for survival.

Here is my response:

Great to hear from you too, man! First of all, I know you aren't a lefty. It is good to be able to have an open and honest dialogue about where we stand in this Presidential election, which is, I believe, the most important one of our time. To often when I try to talk to people they refuse to listen, so this is great!

I want to address the points you brought up and then bring up some points of my own for you to consider as well. Now, I realize that you seem very firm in your convictions, which is a good place to be. I am also very firm in mine; but, as I am sure you are, I am open to listening to what you have to say and willing to consider its merit. This letter is probably going to be quite long, so I warn you now.

One of the biggest issues that you brought up for me is the abortion issue. You stated that Obama is not pro abortion, but rather pro choice. Ok. What would you say to the fact that Obama voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that recognized that a baby born alive during a botched abortion attempt has the same rights as every other human being? He voted against that bill three times, even after the provisions that he asked for were instated. This was not voting to keep abortion legal; this was a vote to keep infanticide legal. An exact federal version of the bill was supported by many pro-choice Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. He also does not support a ban on partial birth abortion, which the American people, including many on the pro-choice side, overwhelmingly support.

To me, Obama seems about as pro-abortion as you can get. He is willing to go so far as to allow infanticide in order to protect this leftist sacrament. Anyone can say anything in a speech or a book. Look at their record to see where they really stand. It takes a cold heart to vote against medical attention for a dying infant. I am not trying to get emotional here. Emotion is what the left often bases their arguments on rather than reason or logic. I am stating the facts and coming to a logical conclusion. Obama has an extreme pro-abortion record. Therefore, Obama is pro-abortion.

From reading some of what you had to say, I take it that you are not in favor of legislating morality, such as laws against abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. What do you say to all the laws on the books that address immoral behavior such as murder, rape, perjury, and theft? A law that protects someone's unalienable individual liberties, such as Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness, is not unconstitutional. The Constitution was founded to protect those individual liberties above all else, even from the masses. This is why the Constitution recognizes rather than grants rights. This is a very important distinction. These rights that all humans have are not granted by government, they are endowed by our Creator. Thus, government is established to protect these individual rights.

The Founding Fathers were more concerned about a tyranny of the many than they were about a tyranny of one. This is amazing considering they had just come out from under a tyranny of one under King George III! They brilliantly recognized that individual liberties trump a vote from the masses. Alexander Hamilton declared that in "republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."[1] James Madison talked about "the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations."[2] In other words, in a republic, the tyranny of the masses is just as likely, if not more, than a tyranny of one. That is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers were so adamant on checks and balances. Another was that they understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I digress.

Are laws restricting abortion Constitutional? Absolutely! Such laws would be protecting an individual's unalienable right to Life. Are laws defining marriage as only between one man and one woman unconstitutional? Absolutely not! They do not infringe on anyone's individual liberties. The homosexual community is not asking for a right that everyone has except for them; they are asking for a special right. They have the same right that anyone else has to marry one person at a time of the opposite sex. I do not have a right to have multiple wives or marry my sister. I do not have a right to marry my dog. Neither do I have a right to marry someone of the same sex. To demand that I be able to do any of the above is to demand a special right. Where does it end?

Now, lets move on to the War. Radical Islamic Terrorism is a very different enemy than what America is used to facing. They have been waging a war on us for over 30 years. For over two decades, we did nothing. We did not retaliate, except perhaps to blow up an aspirin factory to divert attention from a White House intern or try a few of them in US criminal court ('93 WTC bombing). Yet the attacks continued and they steadily got worse and worse until that fateful day on September 11, 2001. We are now taking the fight to the enemy where ever they are, and we have not been attacked since. This is not a coincidence. So my first point is we must wage a military campaign against the enemy. A police action is reactive rather than proactive. When you react to terrorism rather than prevent it, you lose. If you react to a dirty bomb in DC, you have already lost. Millions are now dead. For the first two decades, we reacted to the threat from radical Islamic Terrorism. Now, we are actively preventing it by taking the fight to the enemy.

Obama and Biden would have us return to the failed policies of the Clinton administration. Clinton was tested time and time again and failed every time. Bush was tested once and passed. We haven't been attacked since. Now, by Biden's own admission, Obama will be tested "within six months" of assuming office. Why elect a man who we know the world is going to test? And we know that Obama would not pass the test. Russia, who has been flexing their muscles, invaded a tiny, innocent democracy. Who does Obama blame? What happens when Russia now decides to flex its muscles in the Ukraine, or decides to place missiles in Venezuela? What happens when Venezuela decides that it wants to take over Cuba when Fidel kicks the bucket? What happens when Iran decides it wants to attack Israel, or take over Iraq when we pull out prematurely? What happens when China decides to finally take over Taiwan? What will North Korea do? We know that the Chamberlain-like policy of unconditional diplomacy, surrender, and appeasement will bring about disastrous consequences. This has been the Obama Biden record. The world leaders know what McCain would do, so they aren't going to test him. The American military does not like to go to war because their inexperienced Commander in Chief invites testing from megalomaniacal dictators.

Now Iraq. First of all Iraq had WMDs and used them on its own people. One of the main things that frustrates me about the Bush administration is why they do not get the truth out there more. We were originally supposed to kick off about a week later than we actually did. Suddenly, our intel reported large military convoys moving material from suspected Iraqi WMD sites into Syria and we were told to move now. Why the Bush administration does not talk about this, I do not know. Perhaps it is to protect sources in the CIA, or other classified material. Maybe it is to keep our fragile relationship with Syria on good terms. But I do know that Iraq had WMDs. Secondly, Iraq had 12 years to comply with over a dozen UN resolutions (the diplomatic method) and failed to do so. Everyone, and I mean everyone said that Hussein had or was seeking WMDs and would use them. Every intelligence community said it. Kerry, Clinton, and nearly every Democrat said it. They said we had to go in now. And they were right. As it turned out, we went in a little too late. Hussein was able to get them out of the country.

So, put yourself in the shoes of the POTUS. You have been hit by a devastating terror attack. A rogue dictator has WMDs and is willing to use them. He has stated that he wants to destroy Israel, one of your allies. Do you sit back and wait for it to happen? Or do you demand that he comply with the more than dozen or so UN resolutions or face the consequences. If President Bush had not acted on Iraq, he would have been labeled, justifiably, as an incompetent idiot. As it turned out, he has been labeled as an incompetent idiot by those who would exploit a war and the lives of our troops for political gain.

The Iraqi people DO WANT democracy. The overwhelming turnout in their elections, despite the threat from terrorists who tried to do everything in their power to stop those elections, proves it. I was there. I saw the people coming out of the voter boothes with their purple fingers held high as they thanked us while tears streamed down their faces. But a democratic government, or any government for that matter, is not possible without security against those who would topple said government. In this case, we are talking about Iran, Al Qaeda, and other Islamo-fascist groups. How anyone can argue that we need to pull out now when we are now finally on the brink of victory is beyond me.

Why send American boys off to die? If America does not stand up for freedom and liberty around the world, who will? With great power comes great responsibility. America is an exceptional nation because we have fought for the freedom and liberty of oppressed people around the world throughout our history. One person's freedom is not any less valuable than another, whether they be Iraqi, European, or American. Those who serve in our military understand this. We have been over there. We see what is happening there. We know that we cannot withdraw prematurely and let our comrades die in vain. We see the people there who thank us every day and beg us not to leave. American boys are willing to die to defend freedom, where ever it is threatened. That is what we sign up for. That spirit is what makes America an exceptional nation. A world without America would be a world of oppression and extermination of peoples on an unimaginable scale. God does call us to love our neighbors, but he also calls us to defeat evil. Remember, evil prevails when good men do nothing.

So, four pages later and I see that I have only addressed a couple of your points! Mercy me! If it is ok with you, I would like to follow up tomorrow with another letter addressing your concerns about the economy, Bush's inability to articulate, and the twisted, inefficient, bureaucratic machine in Washington. I think you will find, my friend (a little McCain lingo there ;-)), that Obama's policies would only add the ever expanding government machine and take our economy from a recession into a depression. The last President to raise taxes on anyone in a recession was Herbert Hoover. Look where that got us. Anyway, till next time, toodles and God Bless!

~Josh

Why I Support John McCain

Yes, he is far from my ideal as well, which is Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, it is pretty hard to live up to those standards. I used to not be able to stand John McCain, but as I watched him more and more, he is starting to grow on me a little. Now I do not agree with many of his positions, such as the false premise of man-made global warming, but there is one thing you can be assured of with John McCain, he will stand by what he believes come hell or high water. When it comes to making decisions, he doesn't stick his finger in the wind to see which way public opinion is blowing.

I attended a McCain/Palin rally in Sterling, Va and was fortunate enough to be very close. I have heard politicians talk about reform before, but looking at him there, this was the first time I believed one of them. He had this sense about him, an aura that said, "I don't take bull." I think he has demonstrated this with his pick for VP. Everyone thought he was going to pick someone like Lieberman or Ridge. The news media commentators were doing their best to bait him into picking a pro choice candidate, saying things like, "If McCain is truly a Maverick, he will pick a pro choice candidate" and "If McCain picks someone on the far right, it'll just be proof that he is just afraid of Limbaugh." And yet, McCain did the truly maverick thing and picked the candidate conventional wisdom didn't even consider, and in doing so, has electrified the conservative base of the Republican Party.

After learning more about what he went through at Hanoi Hilton, I understand why he was so adamantly apposed to torture. Now, I don't agree with him on this stance. The United States, if we do torture, does not do it for the same reasons that the Vietnamese did. I think , for example, if a nuclear bomb is about to go off, we need to do everything we can to stop it. Often, the threat of torture is more effective than torture itself. Under torture, anyone will say anything, which defeats the point and does not make for good intel. If we take away the threat, then we take away that valuable tool. But I digress. The point is, McCain is not against torture for political reasons. He isn't playing politics with the lives of our people; he firmly believes torture is wrong. He isn't talking about global warming to score political points or to make money off of carbon credit scams (Al Gore). He sincerely believes it is a problem. I can admire and respect a man who stands by what he believes in, even at the expense of bucking one's own party. I cannot admire or respect a man who will do anything to stay in the good graces of the kook fringe left of his own party, the country (or troops) be damned. That is what I see as the fundamental difference between these two candidates.

Palin Power

Memo To Republican Party: Conservatism Works Every Time Its Tried!

The excitement that has literally exploded from the conservative base of the Republican Party over Sarah Palin is just the latest proof that America is overwhelmingly conservative.

A recent bipartisan poll shows that 62% of Americans consider themselves to be somewhat to very conservative.

When conservative values and principles are articulated by political candidates, those values carry them to sweepomg victories time and time again. The Reagan Revolution and The Contract With America are just two recent examples.

Americans haven't been this excited since 1993-94. Look out Washington. Real change is coming and it's wearing lipstick.

Uh...

If any parents out there are thinking about sending their kids to an Ivy League school, perhaps they should think again. Just look at Barack Obama. The Ivy Leagues didn't serve him all that well.

The other day Obama declared that, "We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and -- and -- and getting regular tune-ups, you can actually save just as much."



Change your tires?! This is what Obama has come up with to solve gas prices! This is actually an official policy of the presumed Democrat candidate for President of the United States!

Well... come to think of it most liberal policies come off as not having a lot of thought put into them. For example, they care about the poor (who doesn't). So they tax the rich, putting both large and small businesses in the position of having to lay off people in order to pay the increased taxes, thus hurting the poor the most. They care about animals, especially endangered ones (who doesn't?). So they pass laws which make it illegal for a land owner to use his land if an endangered species is discovered there. Landowners then make the land inhospitable to said species, sometimes even going so far as to kill one should he see it, in order to keep spotted woodpecker out, so as to prevent the feds from kicking him off of his land. Thus, these laws hurt the endangered animals the most.

I could go on for hours. My point is, conservatism requires the application of logic and thought, while liberalism runs on emotion and feelings. Liberalism measures compassion by how many people they can put on welfare. Conservatism measures compassion by how many people no longer need it.

Do you want fries with that?

If you, like I and millions of Americans, value the sanctity of marriage, please read the following:

Recently, the McDonalds Corporation contributed thousands of dollars and joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a radical homosexual activist organization that pushes the homosexual agenda, including calling for legalization of so-called "same-sex marriage." In so doing, McDonalds has publicly sided in the ongoing culture war against the majority of Americans who hold traditional family values. For this reason, AFA called for the boycott against McDonalds.

"Unfortunately, McDonalds has chosen to side with militant homosexualactivists over people with traditional values," said Matt Barber. "The company has further escalated the controversy by lodging a personal attack against the tens of millions of Americans who support traditional sexual morality and legitimate marriage. While referring to Christians and other people with traditional values, McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman arrogantly told the Washington Post that, 'Hatred has no placein our culture,' thereby suggesting that people who support the historical definition of marriage are simply motivated by 'hate.' This insult is highly offensive, and anyone who supports traditional marriage should boycott McDonalds and tell the company why they’re doing so."

Please join me in this boycott McDonalds. Below is an email I sent to them. You can simply copy and send it if you so desire. Here is the link:

http://apps.mcdonalds.com/contactus/navigate.do?link=mcbiz

Here is the letter:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Recently, the McDonalds Corporation contributed thousands of dollars and joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a radical homosexual activist organization that pushes the homosexual agenda, including calling for legalization of so-called "same-sex marriage." In so doing, McDonalds has publicly sided in the ongoing culture war against the majority of Americans who hold traditional family values.

When asked about this, while referring to Christians and other people with traditional values, McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman arrogantly told the Washington Post that, 'Hatred has no place in our culture,' thereby suggesting that people who support the historical definition of marriage are simply motivated by 'hate.'

This insult is highly offensive to me and many others who value the sacred traditions, like marriage, that keep our society together. Since McDonalds supports same sex marriage, perhaps they could also support polygamy, the marriage between a man and his daughter, or perhaps between a person and their pet? Where should we draw the line? Homosexuals have the same right as anyone else, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex! They are demanding a special right and that is wrong.

As such, I and my family are henceforth boycotting McDonalds until they reverse their position and apologize to the millions of Americans whom they have egregiously offended.

Is That a Batman Symbol or a W?

Last Weekend I, along with millions of Americans, during high gas prices and a "recession", drove to the theater, paid $12.00 a pop for tickets, another $15.00 for popcorn and soda, to see Batman, The Dark Knight. Needless to say, it was an amazing film with a very powerful message.

Andrew Klavan is a man who "has won two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America. His new novel, 'Empire of Lies,' is about an ordinary man confronting the war on terror." It is a fascinating piece, and the headline of Mr. Klavan's piece is: "What Bush and Batman Have in Common -- A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . . Oh, wait a minute. That's not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a 'W.' ... "

There seems to me no question that the Batman film 'The Dark Knight,' currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past. And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society ... and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell. "'The Dark Knight,' then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's '300,' 'The Dark Knight' is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Conversely, time after time, left-wing films about the war on terror -- films like 'In The Valley of Elah,' 'Rendition' and 'Redacted' -- which preach moral equivalence and advocate surrender, that disrespect the military and their mission, that seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism, have bombed more spectacularly than Operation Shock and Awe." All these left-wing films bomb. Openly left-wing films about the war in Iraq, bomb. "Why is it...?" asks Andrew Klavan. This is a brilliant question. "Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like '300,' 'Lord of the Rings,' 'Narnia,' 'Spiderman 3' and now 'The Dark Knight'? The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?" Klavan endeavors in the rest of the piece to answer the question.

"The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of 'The Dark Knight' itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one [has even been] crucified. Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms. Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless. The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or," sometimes we must be "hateful in order to defend what we love."

Now, that's a powerful, powerful paragraph. I will guarantee you that if there are leftists reading this, they are having a cow right now because, you see: "We must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness"? Think of this whole business of "torture" that the left has attempted to convince the world that we are profoundly, egregiously guilty of; that torture is the norm in the way we treat prisoners of war. Of course, it's not. Waterboarding? We got everything we needed to know out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about what happened at 9/11. We are trying to defend what's right. We're defending freedom; we're defending liberty. We're defending greatness. Sometimes you have to do what it takes to get what you need. But if you have the underlying moral foundation, you always return to the values that define you, even if you have to abandon them to secure what you need for your own preservation. The left will not do that. They will succumb. They will give up their freedom. They will give up their security. They will give up a lot of these things in order to not violate these precious concepts such as intolerance, bigotry -- except where the right wing is concerned. Then they will be filled with bigotry. They will be filled with intolerance -- i.e., demanding the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio. They will be filled with unkindness toward people that say things they don't like.

So... "When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. "As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, 'He has to run away -- because we have to chase him.' That's real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror. Perhaps that's when Hollywood conservatives will be able to take off their masks and speak plainly in the light of day." They'll stop meeting in attics and private retreats, lest their meeting be discovered.

This is an excellent piece by Andrew Klavan in the Wall Street Journal. As an addendum to this, I'll share a little conversation I had last night. I had a great series of questions from a person close to me. "You know, I hear you talking about Obama and the Democrats and the liberals wanting defeat. I can't put my arms around the concept that they are Americans who want to lose a war. I just can't. I can't grasp that. I don't understand it. I don't want to believe that there are people that want to run this country, who actually don't like this country."

I thought, "Wow, what a great question." So I endeavored to answer it. "They don't think they're hurting the country. They don't like it the way it is. They want to change it. They don't like capitalism; they don't like liberty and freedom. They don't like a number of things. They want to change it. They think they can improve it and perfect it by instituting policies that have been shown to fail around the world: socialism, vast extreme liberalism and so forth and so on."

I said, "This is where character comes in when you start assessing these people. This is why associations matter." I said, "Look, you've got Obama out there and he makes a speech that no president would make criticizing his own country, advancing this whole notion that we do nothing but torture, that we are imperfect, that we've got a lot to apologize for, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah," and I said, "Who else does he know that thinks that? Well, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, probably a lot of the Harvard professors who taught him, his wife. Pretty much everybody in his orbit has the same view of America that he does: that it's bad; that it's made a lot of mistakes. We have a lot to apologize for; we have a lot to feel guilty about. He doesn't see American Exceptionalism. He doesn't see any of this. He doesn't see optimism or positive things. He's a post-national 'citizen of the world.'"

Then I said, "Look at the gaffes. He's visited ‘57 states.’ All the errors in the speeches he makes. 'Israel will always be a friend of Israel,' he said." These are legion. The Investor's Business Daily had an editorial list on Friday, July 25, 2008, with all of these gaffes. Some of them are pure ignorance. Some of them are dead wrong. Some of them are just misspoken things, that if any Republican, Dan Quayle or John McCain would say, and they would be all over them.

I'd say, "Here you've got a guy in the White House that you never question his character. You never question his morality. You never question his steadfastness. You know he's not going to change his mind on things when he sets his mind to it. You know he's not going to give up, and you know that he's not going to sell his own country out -- and yet what's thought of him?" The word that came back was "dumb-ass." I said, "Yeah. You think, you think a guy whose character is unassailable, you think a guy whose purpose is known, you think someone who has no moral failures that we know of during his service as president or as governor (he's not flitting around getting caught in a hotel at 2:40 in the morning by Enquirer reporters, none of those things), this guy's lied about, vilified constantly for seven years, 7-1/2 years now. He's the one thing that has taken the defense in this country seriously and you think he's a dumb-ass, and you think Obama's brilliant. When, in fact, it's the other way around. Bush isn't a dumb-ass and Obama is not brilliant." If Obama can't have it explained to him, he can't say it, and yet, why the difference? Why is Bush looked at as a dumb-ass and Obama's brilliant? Stagecraft. It's image, packaging, marketing. Bush didn't care about stagecraft. He should because the presidency is a lot about image and photos and pictures and PR. But he doesn't care about it. He has a job to do. You may not like that he doesn't speak better, but you know that when it comes to pursuing genuine evil, you can go about your business and not worry about it because he's going to take care of it along with his troops: the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

You don't know that about Obama. We don't trust that about Obama. We don't trust that about very many liberals based on what they say. Yet Bush is hated, despised; and Obama is The Messiah, universally loved. Packaging, marketing, stagecraft -- and, of course, ideology with the slavish Disciple Media making Obama into something he's not.

I think this guy, Andrew Klavan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, that Batman is no different than Bush in his views -- it's just amazing. It is amazing how much hatred there is for Bush simply because he doesn't speak well. So people think he's embarrassing us as a country in Europe, when Europe loves Bush! Tony Blair loves Bush. Sarkozy loves Bush. Angela Merkel loves Bush. The Pope loves Bush. None of what is said about Bush is true, and he doesn't refute it -- which is, I think, why his opinion numbers are so low because he doesn't defend himself. It's not because he's hated. That's where the Democrats are making a big mistake, assuming he's hated and the election's going to be an up or down on him. He may be hated by the cook fringe left and terrorists, but he is not hated by the world or even a majority of the American people. President Bush truly is a “Dark Knight.”

Let Us Begin...

There is something exceptional about the individuals that America produces. This should come as no surprise as America is an exceptional nation. One such individual was Admiral David G. Farragut, USN. On April 5, 1864, Farragut led his ships into Mobile Bay, the Confederacy's last major open port on the Gulf of Mexico. The bay was heavily mined (water mines were known as "torpedoes" then). Nevertheless, Farragut ordered his fleet to charge the bay. When the USS Tecumseh struck a mine and sank, the others began to pull back. From high atop his perch on the flagship, USS Hartford, Farragut could see the scene beginning to unfold. "What's the trouble?" he shouted to his men. "Torpedoes!" was the reply. "Damn the torpedoes!" barked Farragut, "Full speed ahead!" The rest is history.

I tell this story to give some background and context to the title of this blog, "Damning Torpedoes." Throughout America's history, American men and women have stood up to obstacles and challenges facing them, and they have triumphed. Not because they depended on others, but because they were driven by a self reliant and independent spirit. Today, as government and the population’s reliance and dependence upon government grow, there are fewer and fewer people who stand up and damn the torpedoes. My goal for this blog is to inspire as many people as I can to become torpedo damners. America is great because of the people in her history who make it a daily habit of damning torpedoes, the backbone, the heart and soul of America. If she is to continue to be a great nation, her fading spirit of independence, entrepreneurialism, responsibility, and self reliance must be re-awakened. Together my friends, we shall do just that.