A call to Illinois voters, and any others in non-swing states

Let's face it, Illinois is a lock. If you like McCain, you're opinion doesn't count. If you like 3rd party candidates your opinion counts even less. Now, I've been set in my vote for a while, but let me present something to you. If a candidate reaches 5 percent for a state-wide or federal seat, that party achieves major party status. Since your opinion truly won't count in Illinois, why not vote for a third party candidate, and help one of those parties have an easier time on getting on the ballot? And if they are getting easier ballot access, they should also gain easier entry into debates.

If you truly care about democracy, help the 3rd parties gain major party status. Encourage the exchange of ideas. Make the parties listen, instead of telling us what to believe. Help people understand that there are more than two options come this election, or next.

Between Distributism and Capitalism

Many people have a misunderstanding of what capitalism really is and says as an economic system. Within the United States, for instance, there has never actually been capitalism. Early monetary scandals are exemplified by the Yazoo land incident in Georgia. Political favors were used to buy land unscrupulously, and then it was divided into lots that at times overlapped each other. Was this capitalism? No, it was fraud, deceit, and use of networking and influence to steal money from others. Capitalism, as a system, thrives on competition. For instance, two businesses competing against each other actually make more money in the long term than a single one in the business would.

That said, capitalism does lack morals. It is an impersonal system that does not care about just treatment of workers. It does not bother with the idea of very small businesses. Capitalism truly does try to get the most for the least, and forgets about your neighbors. Which leads us to Distributism, the system idealized by G. K. and Cecil Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Father Vincent McNabb, and Arthur Penty. This system, like capitalism, respects private property. But, this system is designed for people, not for numbers or efficiency. Co-ops and family businesses and farms, while great things, and well worth supporting and advocating, generally do not work with the scales that give us most modern efficiency. But is efficiency really what we have need of?

Of course, the Distributists seem to have a few things they don't understand. The role, function, and concept of money seems to elude their understanding. Some Distributist articles advocate governments printing money, saying it wouldn't be more inflationary than that printed by the banks. But the fact is, such printing is automatically inflationary. This also ignores the commands in the Bible for honest weights and measures. Some would say that this only applies to business practices, but that doesn't make complete sense. During the writing of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson made not that if the dollar was to be the money of the land, it need to be defined what a dollar was. Thus, it was a specific weight of gold or silver. This definition requires an honest definition, honest scales, and honest standards of measure. Paper money does not have any such scruples, and the printing of more money at will simply results in theft from those who have saved.

What should we take from this? Capitalism, while an impersonal system, does not show mercy, or have room for charity, both commanded in the Bible. But is the Distributist ideal exclusive of capitalism? I don't believe so; capitalism is only an economic system, while Distributism espouses a whole life philosophy: governance at the smallest level possible, private property and land ownership widespread, and small businesses and farms. Distributism also espouses charity, something that Capitalism does not consider with its theories of “economic man”. Distributism can fit within Capitalism, but not within Capitalism's espoused opponent, Socialism. Socialism has no room for private property; ownership is only “widespread” in that nobody owns things, only the governments. Socialist governments also have no mercy, and leave no room for dissent. Vladamir Lenin said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” If this is so, why would we wish to resurrect that oppressive and evil system? Let us work toward Distributist lives within a Capitalist framework.

Well, it's time we quit pretending to be a capitalist nation...

After all the federal reserve owns most of the nation's mortgages now. Oh, and most of the insurance policies. So let's admit that the federal reserve, a private bank(yes, it is), now has near absolute control over the economy. Why don't we just say,"Mr. Rockefeller, can I get food today?" I mean, they are one of the families with ownership in the fed, with the Morgans and some others. The federal government is allowing them to gain control, at least in part because they don't understand how the system works. They seem to think the government owns the fed. Nope.

Of course, right now, we're in a race to see which will collapse first: the Euro or the US dollar. The German economy, which give the Euro most of its strength has been faltering. France has had double digit unemployment for ages, and Britain has refused to abandon the Pound. Of course, China's propping up the dollar now, because they have so much invested in the worth of the dollar.

The real question they aren't asking is: What is money? It is a store of value, which is why unbacked or fractional paper systems don't work. Any semiprecious metal will do, because the value is stored in the fact that it is difficult to increase the supply. Silver, gold, and copper would all work fairly well at this. Yes, copper oxidizes, but look at older (wheat) pennies, and they look less aged than "new" pennies. At any rate, point is that they hold value because they cost in time and effort to produce. Paper doesn't. Electrons certainly don't.

He won't even say when human life begins...

yet he's running for President of the United States. He stated that it was above his pay grade. This isn't exactly classified information that would be possibly kept from a first term Senator. This is a moral question, answerable by faith, love of life/death, and ethics.

One blog I check has started calling him "Moloch Obama". Some may think that's harsh, but let's take a real look at what we have these days. When they excavate our civilization who know how long hence, what will they find at the abortion clinics? I mean, don't they use incinerators for disposal? So, they'll find great furnaces with the remains of untold numbers of babies. Sounds like a temple to Moloch to me.

Are you going to tell me there's no worship that goes on in these places? Every act we do is an act of worship in some way, but of God, of someone else, of self, animals, life, or death. When we do anything we attach worth to it. Abortion is both a worship of self and a worship of death. In a way it is the Nietzschian ideal: their act declares supremacy of themselves, and that nothing should come after.

The Roman Empire was so repulsed by the Phoenician worship that they obliterated them completely, after being nearly conquered. This same empire that took EVERYONE in, destroyed them. So, who will come and destroy us?

Some questions for Obama supporters

1. He wants to increase the military by 90,000 troops. How? Our military branches are already having recruiting problems. Will he use the draft? Will he grant criminals a pardon in exchange for service? Whose DEATH SENTENCE will he sign?

2. He wants to double foreign aid. Where will the money come from? The budget hasn't been balanced for a long time. Is he going to turn on the printing press, further destroying the dollar? Will he raise taxes to the point where a $10/hour job can't provide for one person anymore?

3. His education reform sounds good, but take a closer look. No Child left behind is a joke because it puts the same standards on all children, not taking into account learning disabilities and different learning styles. Instead, why not advocate for more local control and accountability. We don't need a national test to tell us Billy can't read; we just need to get kids and teachers to take school seriously. In New York City, the firing process for a teacher is 2 pages long... then you're in a lawsuit. Why advocate more big government control?

4. His healthcare plan would drive up costs, drive down quality care, and lessen the number of future doctors. Universal healthcare in Britain has led to women in labor being turned away from hospitals; many Canadians come the US for urgent healthcare, so they can be treated right away. What happened to doctors using a sliding scale? Why is so much drug research done in the US these days, versus other countries?

5. He claims to be against the Iraq war, but he's voted for every bit of funding for it while in office. He also want to put our troops in more countries. Does this sound like a peace candidate? Or are we marching toward either empire or World War III?

Against the seventeenth, and some other ranting...

Now, I know a Ron Paul fan is usually expected to rail against the sixteenth. I do, but there was another harmful amendment passed in 1913. The seventeenth amendment, which created the popular election of senators. Prior to this, the state legislatures selected the state's senators. This made the senator a representative of the state, not the people. Also, given the senate's impeachment hearings and treaty ratification, the senator USED to mean that the states themselves were approving a treaty or trying an official. This is a grave undermining of the state's interests. The other major reason for having the senator selected by the legislature was that the legislators are SUPPOSED to have a longer term view of things than the general populous.
Of course, that isn't really the case these days. Our legislators only try to band-aid problems, at our expense, they won't balance a budget, and they won't stay out of our lives.
You want a real economic stimulus for IL? Balance the budget, repeal the state income and property taxes and leave the sales tax alone. End the state's claim on people's lives and land. Make the departments and bureaus more accountable for their spending, nobody can follow it these days. Leave local and personal issues alone. Oh, and how about a return to Dillon's rule, so our city governments quit trying to make us be better people, and just let things be right and wrong?If Chicago wants home rule, let them cede from the state in accordance with the Constitution.

And then there were four...

Well, that was a long break. Computer access issues.

Guliani's out now, and Ron Paul stays in for the duration. Huh, I remember G. being taken over Ron for the NH debate. I also remember Paul has done better in most states so far than him. Super Tuesday is really a kind of clincher. A poor showing will knock out Huckabee or McCain, they don't have the cash on hand to keep going. Romney is funding his own campaign mostly, but Paul barely even has to ask. His supporters give. They're not rich(mostly), and they give smaller amounts. But they do give. Where's Huckabee's so called supporters? If you really believe in something like this, you have to be willing to pay to see it go the distance. Nobody really believed in Guliani, I mean his campaign higher ups went the last month without pay. Now Huckabee's doing the same. Paul? Oh, he's ADDING staff to help with the needs of the campaign. Does he need more to make the distance? Of course, but he'll ask for and get what is needed. No support doesn't create a growing campaign.