Get US out of the UN!

The urge to impose democracy on the unwilling world has really gotten us into trouble again. Like all UN sanctified wars (Korea,Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) , the Iraq war is now out of control and we are planning withdrawal without fixing the problems. And I'll bet you didn't even notice the brief UN Security Council Vote to keep us in Iraq.

The same countries that complain about US "imperialism" want us there to stabilize the area.

But what this mess points out most strongly is that the UN has to go.

First of all, if you have any feelings of fairness or democracy, the UN is the agency that least represents these values. The balance of power is held by countries in Africa and Asia that are not even viable. Basically they are corrupt kleptocracies designed to enrich the ruler, the rulers' family and a select few elite. These same elite send a representative to the UN where they can live high on the hog and spend American money (since we pay most of the operating expenses). This group of crooks are the least democratic group of people you could ever imagine. And they hold all the power, and this will never change.

Therefore, along with getting out of Iraq since winning is not something that will happen with the liberals controlling Congress, we also need to get out of the UN and stop giving it money. This is the only right thing to do to help the oppressed masses that are misruled by these criminals.

Second, notice the votes about Israel - labelling them aggressors, ordering them to surrender, and never even mentioning that daily rocket attacks from a neighbor is an act of war that the Israelis have a perfect right to go to war over. Usually only the US votes against these. Israel doesn't even get to vote. (How democratic is that?) Australia, which currently has a conservative government usually supports us. And that's it. None of the African countries, none of the Europeans (some of whom bravely abstain), none of the Pacific Islanders whose very existence depends on our aid. Not Germany, not Japan, not Korea, not Haiti, not El Salvador, not Chile, not Mexico, not Panama, not Costa Rica, not any one of a hundred countries who owe their very existence to the US. What kind of democratic assemblage ever votes 200 to 2 on some controversial issue? Further evidence of the lack of morality, and lack of fairness at the UN.

The John Birch Society, a non-political organization of patriots and of which I am a proud member, has for years pushed the slogan "Get US out of the UN" and "Get the UN out of the US" has been right all along.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

How to win in Iraq

Although I spent 9 years in the military as a Captain in the Air Force, I have no special knowledge on war-mongering. I did attend and read the usual military courses and schools through the War College and such. For those of you that don't know it, the military (all branches) has courses in various big-picture subjects through what they call the war college. These courses can either be done at a military facility (less common now because of the cost) or through a correspondence course. So every officer has a basic training in strategy, history and tactics to some degree. Of course, as a physician, I had no opportunity to use such knowledge. But I am a long-time student of military history and I know how to win the war in Iraq (if we really want to). These ideas are not original to myself, but since they are politically incorrect, you won't hear any military person say them publicly. So in behalf of those in harm's way who can't say what they know to be true because of the overwhelming liberal bias in the media and culture, here goes.

1. Close down every Muslim church, mosque and facility in Iraq today. The reasons for this have nothing to do with religion. When the US took over Germany in World War II, how much sense would it have made to declare National Socialism (Nazi is just the abbreviation of the starting letters of the official party name. So Nazis are a kind of socialist - not a right-wing faction at all. (Just another left-wing lie where by repeating the fiction that Nazi's are right-wingers rather than left-wingers often enough, they have changed a fact into a lie.)) a protected entity and allowed Nazi organizing to go on? Well, political parties in Iraq are not how things are done. The Baathists were just Sunnis loyal to Hussein. The real organization in Iraq is done through the mosques and the schools associated with them. We need to close them all down now. This will dishearten the enemy, take away their organization, prevent the spread of their evil propaganda, and get the rising generation away from terrorist inoculation. Any mosque found to harbor terrorists or weapons should be bulldozed.

2. We need to take control of schools and see that only approved teachers and topics are taught.

3. We need to take control of all media now and keep control for years. (Yes years, if we are really serious. Remember that the pacification of Germany and Japan took a generation - and by the way, we still have troops in both countries more than 50 years later)

4. Propaganda must be rigidly controlled. All Iraqis must be educated forcibly to hear the proper kinds of news. Casualty reports and American losses must be hidden. In World War II, the Germans almost won the war in the first few years. They did this by sinking more ships than we could build. We therefore couldn't supply our troops, nor our allies. I bet most of you don't know that the Nazi's sank about 2,000 US ships in the war. Yes, 2,000. The US Merchant Marine lost 1 in 26 members in the war - a much higher casualty rate than any other service. The government censored this information heavily to keep our spirits up and enlistments up in the Merchant Marine. We need to do this in Iraq. This would dishearten the enemy and help our troops morale.

5. Break off Northern Iraq and make a Kurdistan. The Kurds will never assimilate and having a part of Iraq that will oppose the terrorists (and Iran) will help balance the region. This strategy is not without risk. Kurds make up a high proportion of neighboring Turkey. Perhaps this will cause problems in Turkey. Good. The Turks refused to let us attack Iraq from the north, if you remember and are directly responsible for increasing our battle casualties, so tough for them.

6. Fragment Iraqi society by establishing total freedom of religion. The more Christians, Zoroastrians and the like there are, the better. Give these people preference in jobs and government positions.

7. Kill several hundred known trouble makers from al-sadr to several Imams. Try them in a military tribunal (not a civilian one) and then hang them publicly. These trials should be done simultaneously and over a a very short time frame (days) to decrease resistance.

8. Allow a small number of rallies against "harsh American rule". Pick one city at a time and allow a rally. Arrest and kill the leaders. Then allow a protest in another city. Arrest and kill the leaders. Etc.

9. Propagandize heavily against Iran. Remember that Iraq has been at war with Iran for a generation. The Iraqis have suffered many more casualties at their hands than ours. We need to foster hatred of Iran and blame them for every evil in the country. Easy to do since they are the source of much of what is wrong in Iraq today.

10. We must set up a party that will be for us without being pro-American. When we leave Iraq, there will be a natural back-lash against anyone that worked with the Americans. We must be very careful to make it seem like the people we really like, are not liked by us because they are so pro-Iraqi.

11. Give our troops the green-light to kill terrorists. Anyone found using arms against us or having bomb-making equipment should be killed in the field. No imprisonment, no trial, just kill them in the field. Patton's solution to Nazi Germany was to "kill Germans. Kill more Germans". This is the solution to terrorism. Not let them share power, not forgive them. Kill them. They are like rabid dogs and can't be cured. And their disease spreads if they are not removed from the population.

12. Use captured Iraqis to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq.

13. Invade Pakistan and get Osama. Never mind what they Pakistanis say. They have surrendered that part of the country anyway. And they would be secretly relieved because this part of Pakistan is anti-government anyway.

We could fix Iraq in a decade. Nothing else would do the job.

Do you think any of the above will happen? Such an occupation would be distasteful. And if we didn't do it when we had high public support, what makes you think we'll do it now?

I am as anti-war as you can get. I opposed the first Gulf War because I know how horrible war is. I've treated veterans, remember? And I realize that the innocent Iraqi soldiers had it lots worse than we did. I cringed when I saw footage of destroyed Iraqi columns. Most of their dead were as innocent as our dead. They were just doing what they were told.

Iraq was never a direct US threat, even though they did have WMD's (weapons of mass destruction). I never understood the distinction between weapons of mass destruction and other weapons. As near as I can tell, the more people a weapon kills, the better a weapon it is. Isn't that what a weapon is for? I know Hussein is a murderer. But I'm not willing to send my son to die for a free Kuwait. Let the Arabs send their sons to war and use their money. I personally don't care who sells the oil. If the Arabs aren't willing to fight for their own freedom, why should we?

War kills innocent people. Lots of them. It brutalizes even the best of people. I would never have gotten in Iraq either time. I enlisted because I felt I owed something to this country and wanted to give something back. Even though against the gulf wars, I enlisted because it was my duty to support my country, even if I disagreed with its policies. The time and place to resist policies is at the ballot box, not when we're at war.

But nation-building is not the purpose of the military. It's for defense, nothing more. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the President or Congress to be the world's policemen. After 9/11, we should have destroyed al-queda wherever it was found. We should have brought down the Taliban, the ally of al-queda. This we did. If we felt Hussein, was bad, we should have waited until he felt safe, and then sent a few cruise missiles after him - not invaded the country. Then we should have left Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Let them kill each other or not as they wished. If another government that supported al-queda came into power, then assassinate them also.

And so back to the Iraq war. We could easily "win" it, even today. But what do you think the odds are that the liberals in control of our government, media and culture would let the above things happen? Impossible, and you know it.

In which case, we should get out of Iraq now. Today. Without suffering even one more casualty. Because it's morally wrong to kill our troops in a war we don't have the will to win.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Rangel and the draft

At first listen, this is just a crazy liberal trying to offend. Rangel uses the old liberal complaint of minorities in the military.

Problem is, the military is an all volunteer force. And the demographics are fairly representative of the country as a whole. And the military is an excellent way to take a poor minority out of the repression of minority cultures where any black child that does well academically is called an "Uncle Tom". And the ratio of those in harm's way, that is front line troops, is way over-represented by whites. So Rangel is just another chip-on-the-shoulder minority.

But does the idea have some merit? Would we be nation-building in some hellhole if the Kennedy's and the Clinton's children could be drafted as cannon fodder to drive up and down mined roads? I don't think so. (Could you imagine Chelsea Clinton in the army? Wouldn't that be fun? I knew a guy in the military who was based in Washington. He was some kind of White House liaison in the Clinton years. He tells a fair number of incidents when a bratty teen-age Chelsea would remark to some military guy that her daddy hated the military and thought they were all fairies.)

I enlisted in the military myself out of a sense of owing something back to this country that has given me so much. But I see less and less people with this attitude. What I see are more and more people looking at the country and government as nothing more than a source for welfare, whether it be elderly on medicare and social security or younger people on medicaid and disability. I think a draft, with no exemptions for marriage, college or being rich, would get people to pay more attention to what their government is doing, and would instill patriotism in a lost generation. (Look at the demographics of the under-30 crowd).

Rangel quickly removed any thought that he actually supported the military by quickly saying that draftees wouldn't have to be in the military, but could be part of a giant new Public Works boondoggle. In which case, I would be against this as the government would take tax money to fund liberal social causes.

But still, wouldn't it be nice to have a draft that would take just enough people to fill the present manpower needs without having to recruit? And wouldn't a new GI bill that would send these people to college after their 2 to 4 years change the liberal bastions of education? I mean, do you think someone who has been shot at by people he's trying to save would listen very long to some nut-case liberal rant about how evil the US is? I think a few hard rights to the chin would patriotize even the most inveterate liberal professor with tenure.

But then with socialists controlling the house, and a President doing all he can to turn the US military into the world's policemen, dissolve our borders with corrupt kleptocracies like Mexico and allow criminal aliens to destroy our middle class and export our manufacturing base, I suppose we shouldn't dare let these Republicrat crooks in office have such a power.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

They still don't get it

I note Dick Armey, former Republican speaker of the house, who quit in 2002 has caused a firestorm criticizing the Religious Right. As member of the Church of Jesus Christ, who is considered non-Christian by James Dobson and other political religious leaders, I can understand where Armey is coming from. The religious right is intolerant to some degree, going out of their way to marginalize natural allies like the Mormons. But rather than just stating what is obvious to most, Armey had to throw in a few specifics that show that he, like the rest of the current Republican leadership, still doesn't get it.

Armey, in a pre-election op-ed in the Washington Post, said Republicans were going to lose because they wasted time and political capital on things like defending the family and marriage, and pro-life battles like protecting disabled people like Terri Schiavo. Now family values, life, and liberty are the very issues this government was formed on. (Note to Armey: Read the Declaration of Independence which states the reasons to even have a government are to protect life and liberty)

And this shows those who control the Republican party still don't get it. Armey notes smaller government and lower taxes are the really important principles. These are important principles, but they are not as important as life and liberty. And though I agree that smaller government (PC code for less spending) and lower taxes are important, Americans don't believe this as demonstrated by boondoggles like public funding of fetal stem-cell research (which has never shown any results, causes tumors when used, and is unfunded by private research and drug companies precisely because it has no potential), 100 billion in bonds approved in bankrupt California, and medical welfare for the rich elderly. And I blame Armey for this as much as anyone in America. Instead of arranging private deals, Armey, a full-time paid legislator, should have been using his power to educate a new generation of conservatives. If you look at the political leanings of the under 30 crowd, you will see how utterly Armey failed. President Bush is the other prime architect of the Conservative failure.

These guys had control of the government and they failed to train a new conservative generation. They should have appointed conservative judges by the 1000's. They should have given every conservative a government position, even if they did oppose Bush or Armey. They should have done so many things they didn't, and now it will require starting over again. And now conservatives have even less influence in the cultural institutions that shape public opinion like media, arts, and education.

I think there should be a law that any purported political leader who runs a think-tank, like Armey now does, needs to list his salary and where the money in his think-tank comes from and goes. And if he doesn't, then he should be imprisoned if he opens his mouth.

Regarding marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion ( my preferred term for same-sex marriage), this issue is a cultural watershed. If the power of government is used as it increasingly is to promote an immoral lifestyle, then there is really no reason to even have a government. And it's as simple as that. If my children will be indoctrinated about perversion in school, and if my tax dollars are used to establish pro- immoral behaviors and institutions and fund government agencies preventing free expression of religion, then time for the government to go. By whatever means necessary.

Now that is not a call for armed revolution. But neither is it a prohibition of revolution. In almost all cases, it is better to support a government than to take up arms against it. If there is a critical mass of people who believe as you do, eventually you will be able to change the government without violence. Innocent people get hurt, society is damaged, and there is little chance that the next government will be any better. And usually, the only persons to get hurt are the innocents and the revolutionary and his family.

But really, how long should we put up with this loss of freedom that is happening all around us? If marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion is legalized then the whole weight of government will be twisted to protecting what is an immoral and physically-damaging life-style. Kind of like the movie Life of Brian where the revolutionaries decide that fighting for a man's right to have babies (even if he doesn't have a uterus) is now a reason for revolution. The immoral lobby aren't content with having their perversions legalized (which they recently were in the Supreme Court decision to void all sexual behavior laws like sodomy). They want to force the public to support their immoral life-style - nothing else will suffice. And when an illogical, stupid thing like homosexual behavior becomes reason for a government-sanctioned union, then government really has no purpose at all. I mean, exactly how would you define such a union logically?

Would kissing my shiftless roommate on the cheek mean I could sign him up for health benefits and tax benefits? How about kissing him on the mouth? How about a little tongue and a good grope? (Yes, this is offensive but so is marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion and it's time we said right out loud what such stupid ideas mean) Would I have to do this in public somewhere, or could I just check off a box on some form? Maybe a good vigorous hug? Maybe submitting naked pictures would be more fair to assure that only true pervert couples were given all the benefits of marriage.? Do you see how this stands reason on its head? How can you even talk about a moral concept like the fairness of giving health benefits to your roommate if he has sex with you but not if he doesn't, if there are no morals, and no guide to what fairness even is?

And regarding Schiavo, murdered by her husband through neglect and a court order by Judge George Greer ( who ought to be executed - both for murder and presuming that a judge has the power to over-rule the people, their morals, their government and their religion), I like a quote from Ilana Mercer on World Net Daily. She noted that a Dr. Szasz had compared the case to the decision of King Solomon in the Bible between 2 women who both claimed a child. Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half and giving each mother a half. (This would, of course, have been fair in the same sense that marriage based on nothing more than a perversion would be fair) The true mother, being concerned more with the baby's welfare than her own wishes, then offered to let the false mother have the baby rather than kill it. "In Schiavo vs. Schindler, the judge lacking Solomonic wisdom, gave the proverbial baby to the party that had vowed to have her killed." Did you ever think of it that way? I hadn't.

But I expect nothing to change in the Republican party. Even here in "conservative" Utah, I leave the Republican gatherings having been insulted, called extremist, and marginalized if I try to get the party and its hacks to support the platform. I've been banned from a website called Free Republic (may it fail, burn in Hell, and get sued by the ACLU) some time ago for opposing the war in Iraq because it was not needed for national defense. So much for "conservatism". Armey perfectly represents the current republican leadership - trying to blame the exhausted, battered and bleeding troops amid the smoking ruins of their civilization, all the while being fed grapes and being fanned gently by servants, while he's making deals with the enemy so he can keep his riches and power. (Note Armey is accused of being in bed with the ACLU lately)

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Liberals shedding their sheep's clothing

In just the few days since the election, the gloves have come off and the democrats aren't even bothering to pretend they are conservative. Unlike the Republicans who were so reticent about using their power, the Democrats have no such compunction.

Quite a few Republican commentators are blathering about how Americans are still conservative. Oh yeah? Says who? They voted in a rogues gallery of committee chairmen from Rangel to Waters to Conyers. They rejected marriage protection in "conservative" Arizona and barely passed it in other states. They lost abortion restrictions in South Dakota. They lost Missouri's cloning/stem-cell debacle. Even attorney generals like the one in Kansas who actually came out publicly with a conservative stand went down in flames. And haven't school boards who were for intelligent design all lost? I could go on and on. How can the same commentators who thought the Republicans would do ok, continue to keep their heads in the sand and pretend that there is not an on-going shift in demographics?

The only thing they can turn to are polls which are notoriously easy to bias just by how you ask or preface a question. In an America where real freedom of speech has gone the way of the dodo (Did you ever hear a single Republican candidate point out that homosexual behavior is wrong, immoral, or perverted?), people often answer polling questions based on how they wish to be perceived, not how they truly believe. Take the black exit polls for example. Almost 100% claim to vote Democratic but 15-20% actually vote Republican in black districts. But you would never know by asking. The reason is the conservative blacks have (correctly) observed that saying they voted Republican and being found out or overheard will lead to persecution for them and their families.

Well that same principle works in reverse. People recognize that conservative positions are inherently fair and moral. It is wrong, for example, to steal - even if such theft comes by government forced legal plunder and taxation. They know this deep in their waffling hearts. And so they will all claim to be for lower spending. But when it comes time to actually say that less money needs to be spent on welfare, they run screaming from the camera that they are "compassionate" conservatives (a la GWB- thanks a lot for nothing.) and really have no intention of cutting spending. And we will see more and more of this as the liberals consolidate their power. The liberals have controlled the cultural institutions of this country for way too long to expect anything different in the future. Have you seen the numbers on conservative versus liberal in the under 30 crowd? Shudder if you haven't, because they look really, really bad. With liberals in control of print and television media, arts, literature, education of all levels, main-stream religion and almost everything else you can think of, there is no source for people to learn conservatism. Do you really think your average 18 year old listens to talk radio? So there is no prospect for change and the Republicans utterly failed to advance conservative ideas, being too caught up in molesting boys, spending money, and making crooked deals to actually try and educate the public. And so the self-labelling polls where more voters call themselves "conservative" than "liberal" are really meaningless.

And to return to the true colors of the Democrats: 1) Hillary has restored socialized medicine 2) Democrats are already talking of raising taxes (under the guise of fiscal responsibility) 3)Pelosi's constituents are already drooling over impeachment prospects 4) Iraq being abandoned is just a matter of when - not if (And I agree on this point. No reason to waste american lives if we're not going to fix the problem which would require some really heavy fighting and casualties. I just point this out to show that the Democrats are liars who just pretended they weren't going to surrender in Iraq) 5)Unindicted Abscam co-conspirator Murtha is being pushed for head of Heimatland Sicherheit (homeland security in German) - and so much for the 'fight corruption' lies of the Democrats. 6) Any conservative like Bolton will never be confirmed. And the list goes on and on.

And just a word on spineless republicans - They still control both houses. Why don't they confirm Bolton and about 10,000 ultra-conservative judges? What do they have to lose? They've already lost their jobs, their political power and their souls. Satan's hellfire awaits and the flames are growing higher. Why not go out with a bang? But you know and I know that they are morally bankrupt and fit only for being opposing political commentators on some political show that comes on at 2 AM.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Part III - Speaking your mind may well lose your job

Not too long ago, I responded to an on-line question from someone who wanted information to counter claims that homosexual behavior is genetically determined. I wrote an answer complete with footnotes refuting this view. (To this day, there is almost no evidence that this is the case) Now in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not there is a genetic component to such behaviors - it doesn't matter if you are pre-disposed to alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, violence, child abuse, child molestation, theft or any other sin - these actions are still morally wrong.

But there is little evidence that there is a genetic component to any of these behaviors. Twin studies for example have never found more than a 50% concordance for any of the above behaviors - and many are much less - indicating that choice and environment are probably the greatest determinants. There have been many attempts to link genetics to homosexual behavior. The reason you don't see any of these studies is that they are all unable to find this link. For a while, there were 2 or 3 studies that have been refuted. One was done by someone who practiced homosexual behavior and found an obscure part of the brain was smaller in men who practiced homosexual behavior. Others who studied the same thing later found this not to be true and the researcher used bias, subjects who had died of AIDS (wouldn't be all that surprising that such a devastating illness might also affect the brain), and non-random selection. Another study had some of the main researchers charge each other with fraud and lying about the data. Anyway, there still isn't any evidence. An editorial in Scientific American pointed this out not long ago. And there are lots of papers showing that homosexual behavior is mostly or completely learned.

Now, anyone reading this may disagree with me. They may point out one of the refuted papers. Or bring up evidence they feel shows things differently. Or (and this is the most common liberal reasoning) because they feel something really, really, really strongly, then it must be true. All of that is just fine with a conservative. A conservative would not for a moment consider doing you harm because you disagreed.

And by the way, I refuse to use the word "gay" to label those who practice homosexual behavior. Gay means happy - not perverted. Interestingly, I note that teens use the word "gay" to mean stupid - which I think is only fair since those who practice homosexual behavior twisted a nice word to their purposes. I feel that people are more than their sexual behavior - for good or ill. I refuse to label other people this way. We're all people - begotten sons and daughters of Deity (if you believe that kind of thing), and we all have divine potential.

Anyway, after I posted an answer to that comment I got a summons from the legal department of the company I worked with. Apparently, those who practice homosexual behavior have a network that monitors print and internet media for material damaging their cause. They respond to it in a variety of ways -letters to the editors, anonymous threats, and complaints to local discrimination agencies and employers. It turns out this large company that bought my little company (Phycor) had some kind of lawyers who ran a department that somehow felt it had power to tell employees what to think, say and write about moral, religious and scientific matters - even if your expressions were done on your time, at home, and on your own equipment. And even though this company would shortly go bankrupt, destroying millions of investors dollars, they still had time to investigate an anonymous complaint made by some cowardly little puke who practiced homosexual behavior. Now, I went to this meeting loaded for bear. The 2 administrators who read the post laughed at the whole mess and that was that. But that I had to even respond to such crap shows that this homo lobby has way too much respect and power. To think, an anonymous claim, where the motivation of the claimant is unknown could cause me trouble. And what if the administrator who fielded the complaint had practiced homosexual behavior? Would I have been fired, disciplined or worse - sent to sensitivity training - a kind of moral brainwashing? Just because I noted there is no proof of genetic links to immoral behavior of any kind?

One more example of the coming totalitarian state. You know and I know this will just get worse. In Canada, saying that the Bible preaches homosexual behavior is wrong can get you imprisoned and fined. It's just a matter of time before it comes here. I note that 7 of the 8 states who tried to make marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion (the proper label for "gay" marriage) succeeded in protecting marriage for now. But in none of them was the margin very large. Arizona actually defeated marriage laws. Only 2 years ago, such laws passed by large margins in even Massachusetts and California. The handwriting is on the wall. Mene, mene, tekel upharsin. (We are being weighed, and are found wanting, and our kingdom will be taken from us) Faggot is treated like the n-word. Anyone who points out homosexual behavior is wrong is labelled fascist or racist.

Not long after my internet comment, I wrote an editorial in the local paper outlining these same points. I received so much opposing mail - much of it hate mail calling me names - that the paper printed a letter saying no more responses to my editorial would be printed. Also, they never printed even one letter in my support, even though several people mailed me copies of these letters - so I know they were sent. Again, this group of people supporting immoral behavior monitors all the media. So if you are thinking of speaking out against them, be warned, you'll be made to pay for it. Worse, your children will be made to pay for it when closeted teachers insult your children or "friends" no longer talk to you or your spouse. But don't think I'm discouraging you. I encourage getting the truth out there. If we allow the liars to repeat their same lies over and over without opposition, some will believe what they say is true. Goebbels learned this lesson well and the immoral lobby has learned it well. (Isn't it interesting that the Nazis like Goering and Goebbels who came up with this concept of repeating lies over and over until they were accepted reportedly practiced homosexual behavior themselves? But I digress)

And a word to those unfortunate individuals who find themselves practicing these behaviors or even tempted by these behaviors. These behaviors are wrong. They are damaging mentally, physically, morally, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. You can act morally by not succumbing to these behaviors. God will help you if you ask. Your loved ones will help you if you ask. Pastors, priests and counselors will help you if you ask. God guarantees in the Bible (1 Corinthians 10.13) that he will not give any of us a temptation that we can't overcome. Please realize that pointing out your behavior is wrong is actually the nicest, most respectful thing that can be done. Letting wrong behavior go uncorrected would be like letting a 2 year old play in a busy street because he wants to and gets mad if we try and stop him. (Not that you are 2 year old's - but I think you get my point)

Anyway, just another example of how free speech is being stamped out it America

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Part 2: San Francisco and the meaning of tolerance

Another learning experience was as a teenager in San Francisco. I had gone with a friend to a music store in South San Francisco that sold dozens of kinds of drumsticks. My friend (now a studio musician in LA) wanted to try some new sticks out.

Then as now, tolerance was a word that got lots of play. In San Francisco, you could do and say lots of things that would get you arrested anywhere else. You could pee, take a dump or drop your pants in public. You could yell obscenities. In San Francisco of the 70's, all you had to do to get a cheer was yell loudly, "**** Nixon". You could dress up like a nun, yell obscenities about religion and drop your pants in the middle of a parade. (You still can for that matter) Hookers and drug dealers were everywhere in the parts of town that attracted wayward teens. I remember waiting in line to get into the massive Rock Concerts they held in the Oakland Coliseum called "Day on the Green" and being amazed at the amounts and types of drugs being publicly used and sold. A van tried to get through this line of dazed concert-goers (this was an hour before the concert even started) and no one moved to open a space for the van to get out. One entrepreneur in line who couldn't afford enough weed to get blasted offered to open a space in exchange for a giant "doobie". (Appropriately, the Doobie Brothers were one of the 3 groups playing that day, along with Gary Wright and Fleetwood Mac - great concert by the way) He cajoled and pushed a space for the van to get through and was rewarded by a giant doobie the size of a small football. Anyway, almost anything went.

Except morality. A common teen word in that time was to call someone "homo" if they did anything nice - or just if you felt like it. My friend and I were horsing around and calling each other various names - one of which was homo. Some guy came up and started telling us how evil we were. We were puzzled and didn't get what great sin we had done. Anyway, this was the first time I noticed this California attitude of anything being ok unless it made a moral judgement. Over and over, friends who went to San Francisco began to notice that they were treated rudely, sworn at, given the finger and even spit on if they were even overheard in a private conversation to comment on things like the streets smelling like urine from all the bums (oops, homeless) or wondering why the police didn't do something about the hookers and drug dealers.

Another valuable lesson for modern American Society - tolerance only works one way. It means that you must tolerate every kind of sick and twisted behavior even though it is obviously harmful to practitioners themselves - and that no one need tolerate decent views. I remember my church urging its members oppose a law legalizing bestiality in the early 70's - it passed anyway of course.

Anyway, freedom of speech is long gone in California. You don't dare speak out there about religion, morality or conservative principles. And this is coming to the rest of the US too. These last elections were a big jump toward a future where you can speak of anything except God and morality.

Next blog - Closing In: Part III Loss of freedom of speech continued

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Do you get the feeling your freedoms are slipping away? The world is closing in and there's no place left to go.

I first felt this way growing up in Northern California in the early 1970's. Several specific instances follow.

I took a class at Fred C. Beyer High School in Modesto California in 1974 called "Rise of Red China". I was interested in history and there was (and is) a fairly high Asian segment of the population. Kung Fu was the hit on TV. A fair number of people were taking martial arts training and it wasn't unusual to see guys with numchuks whacking themselves in the 'nads during lunch hour.

Anyway, the teacher was Mr. Chan and he was even a fellow Mormon (though lapsed). He was personable and the subject seemed fun. I did well in the class, scored the highest grade in the class, did extra-credit news projects etc. One of the class handouts started something like "Mao Tse-tung came to power in China because he was exactly what the people wanted and needed."
One of the tests asked a question where this was the answer. I, however, wrote "Mao Tse-tung is the world's greatest mass murderer, being responsible for the death of over 100 million of his own people." So what if I missed the question, because there was no way I would fail. And Mr. Chan never gave one hint at his true self.

Well, when grades came out, I got an F. I went to Mr. Chan. He mumbled something about I had never turned in my tests. I was raised where pretty much anything they did at school was deserved. I never complained to my parents because if I got paddled at school (still done in those days) then I would just have got paddled at home if I complained. I had had a few teachers who treated me unfairly but that was just something kids had to put up with. But getting an F for the semester was different than being kept in after-school for "disrespect" for asking questions contrary to the current liberal line. This would affect college.

Eventually I complained to my parents after getting nowhere with Mr. Chan, the school office or my counselor. My father, a lone conservative voice at the Junior College where he taught, then went to the school board. Dad had a history with the local education nazi's. He had been instrumental in starting the first local teacher's union. He went on the radio occasionally and wrote guest editorials and the like for conservative causes. It was actually common to have a swastika spray-painted on our fence or garage by the local "more tolerance" crowd. I just thought that was normal living in California.

The grade was switched back to an A - probably because I had a notebook with the saved tests. No one ever asked me what happened. I never talked to an official. No one ever did the obvious thing - ask me about my knowledge of the course subject. The teacher was not disciplined. Nothing happened except there was a vague undercurrent of treating me like a leper. Friends would tell me of rants from teachers about "nuts like Baxter" (my Dad presumably.) Turns out that a lot of my F was due to my Dad - although I never knew it until then. I never once heard anyone defend me or my Dad. In my last year, there was one other teacher I got to know fairly well. (After the F, I was quite careful about saying anything to a teacher, and the teacher's were likewise careful not to be too friendly with me.) I took several history classes from him and he was new. (I won't use his name in case he's still around and might be punished by the nazi's who run California now.) One time while talking after class, the subject somehow came up and I told him the story (The only other person I ever shared most of the story with - until now. I never shared the whole story with my parents out of concern that my Father would lose his job, and I don't share the whole sordid story now to protect the innocent. And don't you think a 14 year old being scared to tell his parents how he was treated daily out of fear his father would lose his job says volumes about the state of liberty in the USA?) He didn't say a word, but transferred to another school that next year. I saw him once in a bookstore a few years later. He asked me a little about my college studies, seemed uncomfortable, and then moved on. Welcome to the future of America, where innocence is irrelevant, and anyone who stands out or up will be mercilessly crushed.

What I learned was that you had better not rock the boat. Keep your hand down and your mouth shut. The liberals were all powerful - so powerful that they didn't even bother to pretend that they were fair or had any concern with the truth. Useful lessons, learned the hard way.

Next blog: Part II Closing In - San Francisco and the meaning of tolerance.

Senator Specter Just Doesn't Get It

Senator Specter from Pennsylvania added his two cents worth to the post-election hand-wringing. He blamed the Republican fiasco on not being liberal enough.

Could this be true? First of all, exit polls show that a core Republican group only supported Republicans at a 70% level - down from their up to 85% support of the last election. What group? Christian conservatives. They are recognizing that the Republican leadership has been, is now, and will continue to lie to them. So why support them? (I have no response to that question other than the weak "lesser of two evils" wimp-out) So right off the top, 10% of the christian conservatives in Virginia and Missouri would have kept the Senate Republican. So Specter is wrong right off the top (as usual).

But there really seems to be a liberal shift in America. Look at the support numbers for Democrats vs. Republicans. There has been a big shift in these numbers which have been pretty equal for the last 10 years. Bush and the neo-cons have managed to undo a half-century of gains in one fell swoop. But did America really become liberal in just the last few months? Nonsense.

But a large number of voters became non-Republicans - and the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. First of all, conservatives are becoming less and less welcome in the Republican party - and the conservatives are recognizing it. The Republicans have taken a more liberal position than the Democrats in several areas - illegal immigration, spending, education, jobs, loss of sovereignty, and health care. In addition, war in Iraq was never a conservative position. All the conservatives I knew opposed the war in Iraq and were against nation-building in Afghanistan. Yes, we were for wiping out the Taliban which supported Al queda, but that was it. Bush managed to put in power the very faction the Russians had tried to put in power in the 80's. As proof, the first thing the Afghani new president did was go to Russia and China. We should have blown up the Taliban and got out of there, leaving it to the Afghanis to fight (or not) amongst themselves. And that war looks more and more like Vietnam all the time, now that Pakistan is providing a guerrilla sanctuary where we can't go right next to Afghanistan. (And yes we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. We're not doing any good in either place. The dominant government in both places is evil. In Iraq, the government has even forced us to leave Sadr city - in essence leaving the terrorists alone and giving them a sanctuary - shades of North Vietnam. And while I sympathize with the view that we would be cutting and running, if we can't even keep the terrorists in Sadr City in control, then there's no reason to be there and may the Iraqi government die a quick and painful death. But in the Iraqi government defense, they've got to realize it's just a matter of time before we cut and run, so they'd better start pretending to be anti-American (a popular position in Iraq) and better start sucking up to powers like Sadr. I don't really blame them - I just realize that they are going to lose anyway unless they kill Sadr and a few thousand others before the Americans leave.)

So what does a voter do when confronted with these new Republican positions? He begins to think of himself as non-Republican. And then there were the never-ending scandals. Abramoff, Foley, Armey, Lott, Gingrich, etc. etc. Now I realize that these scandals also included Democrats. I also realize that none of these are as bad as Bill Clinton's raping women or Barney Frank's gay bordello. But the mainstream media is still king and they never let up on the Republican parts of these scandals. Look at the coverage numbers for the big 3 networks versus other stuff. Like it or not, there is still a liberal media bias and most voters still get their info from the big 3. That means that in this election the "throw the rascals out" sentiment was concentrated on the Republicans.

And whatever you may say about Democrats, they have really got the October Surprise stuff down with Foley and the outing of other Republicans. Wow are they good!

And then there is the fiscal conservative who is culturally liberal - and this group is really growing. The Republicans lost them completely. So Specter's "cure" for the Republicans would really just alienate the groups that the Republicans most need. Now, realize that Specter isn't that stupid. He doesn't care what happens to the Republican party. He's a liberal. But Specter is scared he'll lose like Santorum (and Santorum was a good conservative). Casey would have really whipped Specter's butt. So Specter is trying to go left and pick up liberal's support. Will it work? Not a chance. The liberals will still vote Democratic and liberal and all Specter will do is lose support of the groups I've already mentioned. But Specter has to try something and this is the best he could do. He's doomed. And good riddance. (Specter's only chance, in my opinion, would be if he could get a solid Green Party guy to run in Pennsylvania so that the more-liberal vote would be split. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.)

So, in short the liberal shift isn't as liberal as it seems. But there is a smaller shift in truly liberal support because the Republicans have, since GWB, stopped pushing conservative philosophy, leaving the liberals in control of the playing field. And if you repeat a lie often enough, without hearing a contrary view, eventually the lie will be accepted. Ask Goebbels and the gay lobby if you don't believe me.

In the end a fair number of voters (including myself) threw open their windows, yelled "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" (a reference to the old movie "Network", if you don't know or have forgotten), yawned and went back to sleep.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Former Representative Kolbe of Arizona representative of why Republicans lost

Here's a link to an article about Rep. Kolbe of Arizona in my local newspaper - http://activepaper.olivesoftware.com/daily/Skins/StandardEx/navigator.asp?skin=StandardEx&BP=OK
Go to page 11 for the article.

"In Arizona, retiring GOP Rep. Jim Kolbe said he hopes the Republican losses “cause a serious reexamination of our party’s roots and directions.” Kolbe, who has held his seat for 22 years, will be succeeded by Giffords. “If Republicans are to provide leadership for our country, we must get back to the fundamentals of our party — an emphasis on national security, fiscal discipline, reducing government’s role in our daily lives, embracing immigrants from other parts of the world, and a commitment to economic growth through lower taxes and increased trade,” he said."

Now Kolbe is a perfect example of why Republicans lost. He is a leader in a party of cultural conservatism that is pro-family. And yet he was practicing perversion (homosexual behavior) in the closet. And just as bad, he was corrupt (currently under investigation). No wonder the Republicans lost - they were (and are) a party of hypocrites. Kolbe has a lot of nerve making comments on what Republicans need to do. I have a suggestion for him and others like him - keep your pants on, stay away from boys, and don't be a crook. Now that's not too much to ask, is it?

And even worse, Kolbe is still stirring up trouble by trying to keep the Republicans doing all the things that lost them the election. Yes, "national security" is important. Maybe that's why we should have never gone in Iraq, which was not a threat to the US and the arabs could take care of themselves if Saddam tried invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States. And if they didn't resist, well that's too bad for them, but why should I send my son and my taxes over there if they won't even defend themselves? And from a cynical point of view, who cares which thug sells us oil? Saddam is a mass murderer, no doubt. And an evil man. But why should the US have to do something about it? And Hussein was a counter-balance to worse nut-cases in Iran. Yes, Rep. Kolbe, it is time to care about American Security - not world, not European, not Middle East - but American Security. And Kolbe still doesn't get it.

"Fiscal discipline" is also important. That's why the party that hugely expanded the welfare state through things like buying drugs for the senior crowd (the demographic group with the highest disposable income) paid for by borrowing and taxing young, working families who have the least disposable income deserved to lose. The Republicans actually managed to do worse than the Communists - they didn't take from the haves to give to the have-nots - they took from the have-nots and gave to the rich.

"Reducing government's role" is also a worthy goal. Too bad, Rep. Kolbe didn't practice what he's preaching. He and others like him including GWB have vastly increased government's power. Just look at how much of recent job growth is due to increase in size of government. And all this "growth" is actually a net loss to the economy because government workers produce nothing useful. They only produce paperwork and restrictions on the rest of us.

"Embracing immigrants" is exactly what lost Kolbe's successor the primary election. Is Kolbe mentally deficient? Never mind that the demographics of the criminal aliens are 85% liberal. Kolbe must think Republicans are idiots. (Well, actually he's right, because they kept electing him for 22 years) Americans oppose immigration 2 to 1 right now. How would adopting a position contrary to the wishes of Americans help the Republican party? (And remember this guy was a Republican leader - no wonder they lost)

"Lower taxes" are also a great idea but how about lower spending? Again, Kolbe demonstrates that the Republican leadership just doesn't get it.

And last "increased trade". Kolbe is off base on this one also. What he really means is importing more foreign-made goods and exporting American manufacturing and jobs. And the Republicans should be against this - not for it. If there is any hope for Republicans (and I don't think there is or they would be saying different things) this issue alone may hold promise of wresting control back from the Democrats. If the Republicans would equalize the playing field by imposing hefty tariffs and limiting our balance of trade, they could appeal to the blue-collar Democratic middle class that voted so heavily Democratic. But as long as GWB is President, this won't happen, so I expect a worse loss of Republicans in the house in the next election. Yes, you heard it first from me - I predict the Democratic margin in the House will go up - not down - in the next election because there is no sign that the Republican leadership has learned anything.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Conservative Loser, and proud of it.

The Democrats have kicked Republican butt. No doubt about it. They've taken the House back by pretty much the same margin that the Republicans previously held. It appears that they've taken the Senate or at least tied. That makes GWB a lame duck for the next two years. I don't see any other way to spin it. What does that mean to a conservative?

First of all, conservatism is not the same as republicanism. These two have diverged more widely with each passing year, especially since GWB was elected. Conservatism is for smaller government. Republicanism is not.

How can I say that? Well, actually it's pretty easy to show. Look at the budget for one. It is ballooning worse under Bush than Clinton - even if you subtract out war expenses. Bush removed the conservative plank from the Republican platform about removing the Department of Education first thing. The conservative position on that department, part of the platform since Reagan, was that this kind of fuzzy socialism was wrong, was wasteful, and was not authorized by the Constitution and therefore was un-constitutional

That one action of Bush, accepted by the Republican party hacks, should have forced every conservative to head for the lifeboats and abandon ship (or the Republican party). Because this was a major shift in philosophy. Bush led the Republicans to abandon their strict constitutional constructionism for the vague liberal idea usually described by the politically correct term "living constitution". Living meaning that anyone could interpret the Constitution any way they wanted - basically a moral relativism idea. And once you accept that idea, the floodgates of relativism are opened, the argument of limited government is lost, and the only thing to be settled is how quickly to allow the government to become completely socialized. (Kind of like the old conversation attributed to Churchill or Shaw or others. Churchill asks socialite, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars" Socialite: "I rather think I would" Churchill "Well here's 10 dollars then" Socialite: What kind of woman do you think I am. Churchill: "We've already established that - now, we're just haggling over price.")

And so, as a conservative, I view the loss of the Republicans with mixed emotions. They haven't really represented me for years. But where else does a conservative go?

Well, I threw my vote away this election on the Constitutional Party. Not that it makes a difference in Republican haven Utah. But at least I voted for candidates whose ideas are conservative. I also enjoyed voting no for the retention of every judge - especially the judge caught on a rant against deer hunters here in Utah. (She actually was turned out of office. You can find a video of her on Youtube.) But third parties stand the proverbial snowball-in-hell chance of winning at present.

The only other thing of interest in the election was a state school board race between a give-more-money-to-the-same-people-who-screwed-up-education candidate, and a candidate who at least gave lip service to "new ideas" - which I assume is code for tuition vouchers. He lost.

But, even though I can't bring myself to shed many tears about Republicans losing, the only argument I could see to voting Republican in a race that mattered was the leadership of the Democratic party that would now be in charge of the House as a whole, and the committees. Intelligence will be headed by Alcee Hastings - yes that Alcee Hastings. The impeached former judge who took bribes. Woo hoo! That-a-way Americans who voted Democratic! I have no words to express my disgust for this guy, and worse for the Americans who put him in this position. I can only comment that anything that happens is exactly what we deserve.

And isn't it fascinating that one of the Democrat election tactics was to point out corruption of Republicans? And then you put a convicted criminal in charge of Intelligence. There are two lessons here. 1. Americans are really, really, really stupid. 2. The Republicans hardly uttered a peep against corruption in the Democrats showing that they were morally bankrupt and worn out.

And then there is John Conyers of Michigan. Read some of his trash. If this is a guy that most Americans want in charge then we deserve the coming disasters.

Henry Waxman of California is another Marxist in liberal clothing.

Ditto Charles Rangel of New York. These guys who will head important committees are so ultra-liberal that even if I'm not heartbroken over the loss of the Republicans, I have this sinking pit in my stomach regarding America and its future.

The list goes on and on. And then there is new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi - uber-liberal and head of the socialists in the Congress. She doesn't even hide her socialism as she is head of one of the socialist caucus groups. Who would have thought that a socialist would be third in line for the Presidency of the USA? (Of course, VP Henry Wallace was a socialist under Roosevelt, but that is out of the memory of most Americans.)

And so, just as the Republicans aren't conservatives, the Democrats really aren't Democrats - they're socialists. And for that reason, I have chosen the title "Conservative Loser" because conservatives have lost in such a way that I doubt they will ever, in my lifetime, control all the branches of government (if they ever did in a party with Jeffords, Snow, Collins, and Chafee).

Vincet Veritas (Truth will conquer) MEB