95_Theses

It’s About the Future

why I’ll vote for Thompson

Posted by Citizen on October 6, 2007

I’ll get the easy shot out of the way first: I’ll vote for Thompson because he is NOT McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. That’s the easy part, but it’s not the real reason I’ll vote for Thompson.

J. Peter Mulhern has admirably framed the topic and lays out the best analysis I’ve read yet. I recommend you read the whole thing so you can see what I’m leaving out. This pull quote explains why I’ll vote Thompson:

Fred Thompson is quite different from the other candidates. The conventional critiques of his candidacy all say much more about his strengths than his weaknesses.
Dick Morris complains that he is too lazy to prepare well-scripted answers to questions about local issues. In Florida, for example he deflected a question about the Terri Schiavo case saying he wasn’t familiar with the details but in general he preferred local answers to local questions. To a question about oil drilling in the Everglades he said that he wasn’t aware of major oil resources there but that we couldn’t be in the business of putting energy resources off limits.
Each of these answers was perfectly reasonable and part of a package that is likely to have broad appeal. Neither shows a lazy candidate. They both show a mature and sensible candidate who isn’t willing to pander. Thompson, unlike all the others, has important themes to project and can’t be bothered to pick up a few supporters here and there by promising to serve the interests of those few at the expense of the many.
This isn’t politics as usual in 21st Century America, but it is likely to sell. When it does, it will make a mockery of Dick Morris’s entire career, which was grounded on the idea that pandering conquers all.
What about Thompson’s experience? He never ran anything. Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts and a successful business executive. Rudy was Mayor of New York. Shouldn’t those qualifications trump a lawyer who is also an actor and used to be a senator? They would if we were hiring a manager in chief, but we aren’t.
We have gotten so used to speaking of the President of the United States “running the country” that most of us no longer notice how unrealistic and unAmerican that expression is. The whole point of the American Revolution was to establish a country without anyone to run it. We don’t want or need a president who is inclined to run things. We need a President who leads and inspires. Fred, with his non-managerial background, is the only candidate of either party who seems to get this.
Much ink has been wasted making the obvious point that Thompson is not an “outsider.” After a long career in Washington as a staffer and Senator, as a lawyer and a lobbyist Fred Thompson is as well connected as any “insider” here. But for his entire career Thompson has stood outside the bipartisan consensus that, when it comes to government activity, more is better. His commitment to governmental modesty is most often expressed as concern for the principle of federalism. That commitment put him on the short end of some very lopsided votes as a Senator…

Thompson’s commitment to governmental modesty makes him the only serious candidate for president who isn’t part of the bipartisan Party of Government. He is the only candidate qualified to build on the success of Ronald Reagan and the only candidate who can counter the Democrat drive for more socialism, particularly as it applies to health care.
Reagan turned America away from the socialist morass of the 1930’s and reconnected us with our deepest political traditions. He reminded us that we don’t want a government, let alone a President, to run the country. Unfortunately, his successors never understood this essential pillar of Reagan’s success. When George W. Bush perpetrated the atrocious statement that “when somebody hurts government has got to move,” the Republican break with Reagan was complete.
Fred Thompson isn’t Ronald Reagan. But he can restore the Republican Party to Reagan’s default settings. He can make the GOP once again the party of the American Revolution and distinguish it sharply from the party of the French, Russian, Chinese, and Cuban Revolutions.
Does Thompson have the rhetorical skills to be the leader we need? Let’s put him to the same test both Romney and Giuliani just flunked. Does Thompson understand that our problem with terrorism is now primarily an Iranian problem? Can he face that problem and discuss it in terms most Americans will understand?
Thompson’s reaction to General Petraeus’ recent testimony before Congress suggests that he can. Before Petraeus said a word everyone knew that our efforts in Iraq have become vastly more successful under his command. Everyone understood that Al Qaeda and Iran’s proxies will probably be humiliated in Iraq unless they can adjust to the tactics we are now using with such success. The $64,000 question was this: What is Iran doing to forestall humiliation in Iraq and what will we do to stop them?
General Petraeus dropped some very interesting hints on this subject and Thompson zeroed in on them. His statement on the subject was simple and direct: “Gen. Petraeus’ report also leaves me even more concerned about Iran’s role in Iraq. Iran is headed down a dangerous path, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must understand that.”
Thompson reinforced this barely veiled threat with his reaction to a controversy over Ahmadinejad’s request to visit Ground Zero while he is in New York to address the UN. He said “I wouldn’t let him in the country.” He went on to say , according to the Dallas Morning News, that “the Iranian regime was a threat to Americans and should be dealt with accordingly.”
At last a candidate who understands that Iran is at war with us and who is willing to speak as though we are at war with Iran. It’s a bonus that he speaks in clear declarative sentences and that everything in his manner and appearance demands that you take him seriously.
When Thompson speaks the chattering class often sputters that he is too laid back, even soporific. People who have never seen him speak themselves often adopt this critique and endlessly repeat the same clichés on various conservative websites – “lackluster,” “underwhelming,” “tired,” “old,” “no fire in the belly.” Conservatives are hungry for a Hillary slayer and many of them fear that a thoughtful, deliberate senior statesman can’t possibly play that role. They are wrong.
Watch a Thompson speech that was widely panned as dull. Just because Fred talks slowly doesn’t mean he’s stupid, or uninspiring. Notice that he is saying important things and saying them well. How many politicians can talk about Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind in terms which indicate that he has both read and understood it?
Consider that Fred’s calm, sensible demeanor permits him to say things that would terrify many ordinary voters coming from someone who seemed less steady. Thompson can say radical things and nobody turns a hair. If any other candidate talked about overhauling social security and the tax code while we fight a global war of which Iraq and Afghanistan are mere outcroppings, a substantial part of the electorate would faint dead away. Try to wrap your mind around the reality that coming off like an old coot having a conversation as he whittles next to the pot-bellied stove down at the country store is an excellent way to attract most American voters.
… The best way for a Republican to beat Hillary is to talk to the American people calmly, simply and sensibly, and let her be the poster child for all the bitterness and anger of the last decade.
After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: “Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom.” Thompson replied “you just summed up my whole speech.”
No other candidate could have carried off that quip because no other candidate is capable of delivering a convincing speech focused on those powerful themes.

This is my point too. Fred is the right guy at the right time for the right reasons. The proof? Watch the midget minded bm.org patsies get shrieking louder and louder as the election nears. Every inconceivable smear by every lying leftist out there will sound a cacophony of shrill groans, allied closely with warnings from ubl, akman, and the rest of their terrified cohorts.

My point? The one that the muslim/democrat defeat America first coalition fears most is the one I’ll vote for. Join up, America is worthy of preservation for a few more centuries, know what I mean?

Advertisements

Posted in conservatism, GOP, politics, republican | Leave a Comment »

Rudy is NOT a Republican

Posted by Citizen on October 6, 2007

It is not true that Giuliani is the only candidate who can defeat Clinton. Heaven knows that Clinton would be a unmitigated disaster for America. Giuliani runs a close second. Rather than bore you with my own prose, I propose the following excerpt to explain my position against Giuliani’s positions:

What about America’s Mayor? After the McCain campaign went on life support, conventional wisdom converted from the belief that Republicans would anoint McCain because it was “his turn” to a new and equally irrational faith. The catechism goes something like this: Republicans are probably doomed in 2008. Their only chance lies in swallowing hard and nominating Rudy Giuliani who can, supposedly, compete with Hillary for votes in left-leaning states like New Jersey , New York, Pennsylvania and California.
This argument is a hardy perennial of conventional commentary, and it is utterly inane. You can’t win by appealing to people who won’t vote for you under any imaginable circumstances at the cost of alienating your core supporters. Trading a perfectly good cow for a handful of beans only makes sense in fairy tales.
The Democrat Party was once the dominant political force in American life. It lost that position for two reasons. First, because the electorate discovered that Democrats, beholden as they are to leftist, anti-American supporters, can’t be trusted to defend the country. Second, because voters also discovered that Democrats lacked the strength and the wisdom to defend our culture against all sorts of bizarre social experiment.
Democrats have worked very hard to draw the camouflage nets over their irresponsible attitude toward national defense. Republicans have been extremely timid about exposing it. The point of distinction between Republicans and Democrats which works most strongly in the GOP’s favor is that Republicans fight back when vandals try to deface fundamental social institutions and Democrats stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the vandals. Nominating Rudy Giuliani would neutralize this advantage.
With Rudy on the ballot millions of “values voters” would stay home. Millions more who are beguiled by socialism’s promise of something for nothing but often vote for Republicans anyway because Democrats are just too weird, would vote for the Dem. With Giuliani as the candidate Republicans would limp into the fall of 2008, both feet riddled with self-inflicted bullet wounds.
Giuliani’s supporters like to complain about the petulance of “single issue” voters who would ignore their man’s many sterling qualities and help elect Hillary merely because they have some serious disagreements with the former Mayor. This complaint is a waste of time and energy. A Giulliani nomination would hurt Republican prospects. This is as predictable as the tide and just as impervious to argument. If Giuliani’s supporters insist on shattering the Republican coalition and, as a result, Hillary wins, they should blame their own arrogance not the petulance of others.
Giuliani had a clear chance to unify the Republican coalition and step forward as it’s natural leader. If, at the outset of his campaign he argued forcefully that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, Republicans could have had confidence that he would stand with society’s defenders and against the vandals.
Henry Clay once said he would rather be right than President. Giuliani would rather be wrong about Roe than President and by now his choice is irrevocable. Apparently Rudy doesn’t understand that Roe is a travesty, which puts him squarely on the wrong side of the culture war. For both moral and political reasons, Republicans can’t choose him as their nominee.
But isn’t Rudy so tough on terrorism that voters will flock to him? No, he isn’t. Giuliani has given no indication on the campaign trail that he has an especially clear understanding of our strategic situation. Nor has he given any indication that he will be particularly forceful in dealing with our enemies. Once again, the acid test is what he has to say about dealing with Iran. Rudy flunks that test even more dramatically than Romney does. At least Romney is talking about the subject, however ineptly.
When Giuliani talks about the “War on Terror” he says we need to “stay on offense,” which presupposes that we have been on offense. We haven’t. We have been trying to fight a limited proxy war in Iraq and avoid taking the fight directly to the enemy’s center of gravity. That isn’t offense. It isn’t smart either but that’s another subject for another time.
When Rudy mentions Iran at all he gives no hint that he understands that, one way or another, the road to victory leads through Tehran. He says, as does George W. Bush, that Iran can’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Like the President, he never says how we are going to stop Iran from getting them.
Giuliani has very little foreign policy experience and he seems to be in thrall to the same establishment groupthink on the subject that has largely paralyzed the Bush administration. Giuliani was level-headed on September 11. That doesn’t make him a latter-day Patton, or LeMay.

While I can’t equal Mr. Mulhern’s great prose, I can comment that Giuliani is a wolf in a republican toga. Here’s what you get when the toga is misplaced:

  When a National Rifle Association member opposed a ban on assault rifles in 1994, Mr. Giuliani really got annoyed.

“Now the reason why the N.R.A. has lost all credibility is statements like that,” he said. “By definition these are attack weapons. They are used for offense. It really is absolutely astounding that the N.R.A. continues to have influence in areas in which they make no sense at all.”

In 1994, Mr. Giuliani applauded President Bill Clinton for banning assault rifles and urged Congress to enact physical and written tests and stringent background checks for prospective handgun owners. He also saluted the Clinton health care plan as “doing some pretty good things” and boasted that New York offered “universal health care,” not least for illegal immigrants.

“Isn’t it better they get some humane treatment for themselves?” Mr. Giuliani told a caller.

This is the real deal here, the condescension of Clinton bared beneath the roman repubican toga. [easy there big boy, that’s not a misspelling] Giuliani is on the same side as Clinton regarding my guns, abortions, and illegal aliens. To make matters worse, he’s essentially on the same page with Clinton regarding terrorists. Neither one has proffered a policy concept that assures me that the problem will be dealt with correctly FOR AMERICA in the next presidential cycle. Both Clinton and Giuliani are willing to offer the same lies about what they really think to get elected. What’s Republican about that? Yup, I just painted them with the same brush for this very simple reason: I don’t trust either one of them, and I don’t believe either one of them, and I won’t vote for either one of them.

Neither will millions of other right-thinking Americans. We want a real Republican and more, we want a real Conservative too. Believe it..,

citizen

Posted in elections, GOP, politics, republican | Leave a Comment »

the new happy hour

Posted by Citizen on September 1, 2007

Now that tobacco smoke is just used to annoy non-smokers on sidewalks everywhere, is there an alternative use that could help revive the moribund tobacco industry? In particular, where have all the farmers gone? Are they planting corn to sell into the ethanol scam? Maybe, but how about some new markets that aren’t yet regulated to death?

For example, how about tobacco smoked ham? Since society has already accepted the logic that every non-smoker should be subjected to second hand smoke by exiling the smokers from their haunts out into the streets, there should be no objection to barns full of hanging pork slowly transmorgifying in clouds of tobacco smoke. It should be cheaper for the smokers than hickory chips, and it would have that good old pub flavor charred right in.

Another area would be smoked salmon. This is something I know a little something about and let me say this, the depths of the uses for salmon are far from sounded. The state of Alaska is desperate for ways to trick out its over supply of salmon to enlarge the markets. It’s consider much nicer that hauling tons of rotten humpies out into the ocean and dumping them to prevent them from going upstream and making more of their kind. What could be niftier than the convergence of lox and tobacco smoke? Instead of killing alder trees and chopping them into itty bits to feed the smoke house, it would be symbiotic to get the dried crushed tobacco leaves smoldering under the refrigerator-cum-smokehouse that’s ubiquitous in the Alaska bush.

By extension this would be great for curing venison back straps, feral hogs, ducks, geese, and the Christmas turkey. All glazed to perfection by that most ancient indigenous American money crop, tobacco.

It’s the win, win, win solution when you think of all the pubs and common meeting houses and offices in American where smoking tobacco is already outlawed. There’s no law against jerky made with tobacco flavoring, wrapped in tobacco leaves, and spiced with a touch of another American great condiment, Tabasco sauce. Imagine the large art glass jar on the conference table full of the delightful treat, everyone in harmonious intake of pre-smoked, and therefore legal tobacco smoke. Can Tobacco Sauce be too far from your closest grocer’s shelves?

Oh happy hour. The air-born tobacco cleverly applied to the ingested item, making something that is much more than the sum of its two parts.

This would be the quintessential American solution to one of the quintessential American phobias. Power to the people indeed.

Posted in life | Leave a Comment »

will the real environmentalist please stand up?

Posted by Citizen on August 31, 2007

House #1 is compared fair and square to house #2. House #1 belongs to a cult leader who has deceived millions. House #2 belongs to a man who has liberated 50 million from tyranny. Which one is the true environmentalist? RTWT.

Posted in climate, climate change, global warming, junk science, truth | Leave a Comment »

will you listen to Cal?

Posted by Citizen on August 23, 2007

OK, maybe you don’t want to believe my take on the climate change scam being run by junk scientests and algore, FINE. But how about Cal Thomas? A real journalist. A real writer. And not a blogger. Will you listen to Cal?

… global warming fundamentalists are pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud.

There are at least two characteristics all fundamentalists share. One is the exclusion and sometimes suppression of any and all information that challenges or contradicts the belief one wishes to impose on all. The other is the use of the state in pursuit of their objectives, overriding the majority’s will.

I’m just saying, give truth a chance..,

Posted in climate, climate change, fraud, junk science, life, politics, ponzi, scams, scandals | Leave a Comment »

climate lies discovered

Posted by Citizen on August 11, 2007

There are scandals upon scandals in climate politics. There are “scientists” who’ve given up scientific inquiry and completely sold out to the nuttiest fringe of the issue. More’s the pity because there are actual benefits to ascertaining the evidential truth of the matter. Lying on purpose and covering up the lies and lying about the cover-up doesn’t contribute to facts supported by evidence.

For the record I think there are cycles of climate change with ample evidence to support that view. I don’t think there is one bit of conclusive evidence that human activity is responsible for altering those cycles, and I am sceptical enough to doubt that humans have the capability of altering and managing the climate changes we observe. Enough about me, how about some facts for a change?

 Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh. NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place.  1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.  Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

Honest people will take note of the details that are highlighted in the pull quote and then read the original and then read the supporting evidence and come to their own conclusions about who the liars are.

The believers, the algoreites and their ilk, will obfuscate, or just scream and lie. Perhaps an honest handful will reassess the noise and see through the scam. Reality is both simpler and more complex than most pundits let on.

In case you suspect me of exaggerating claims, this spot provides a good follow up on the cover ups. It’s positively shameful that junk science is so cheap and common, and it’s stupefying how sheepish their followers actually are..,

citizen

Posted in climate, climate change, fraud, global warming, junk science, politics, scams, scandals | Leave a Comment »

gumballs anyone?

Posted by Citizen on July 24, 2007

Here is the consequence of immigration into America limited only to the intake levels currently imposed on us. This is the way it is right now, and this is how it is going to be. I hope you watch it all the way through. And I hope you make sure a few of your friends see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ 

Posted in borderlines, immigration, shamnesty | Leave a Comment »

a thing about Hugh Hewitt

Posted by Citizen on July 22, 2007

I listen to Hewitt’s show occasionally. Occasionally he’s brilliant. When his brilliance renders him obtuse I want to call the show and say so. I never get through, shouting at the radio is obtuse, so now I am blogging Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. I would email his web site, but I have to ‘join’ or ‘log in’ to do so. That’s lame, isn’t it? Hewitt doesn’t have to log in to comment on this blog. Is it a lawyer thing?

A thing about Hugh Hewitt. Wickipedia identifies him as a conservative radio talk show host. So far, other than the war hawk position, I have not heard a conservative breath escape his lips. I guess it takes one to know one, because Hewitt doesn’t know he isn’t conservative.

Do you recall that Hewitt wrote a book about Mormonism and Mitt? That was discussed on his show and some Christians called to say “hey, mormonism is a cult, it’s different than Christianity”, or something to that effect. Hewitt called them bigots to their face and refused to listen to their views. If you’re brilliant, or if you think you are, then simple believers who know what they believe and why they believe that way are threatening and must be squished with the bigot card. Why is that? Is it a lawyer thing?

<thought-balloon>”I am so brilliant. I’m an educated man. I am a Pharisee, uh, er, I am a lawyer. I am so brilliant that I wrote a book [ISBN 1-59698-502-X] about mormonism. Everybody who disagrees with me is less educated than I am and additionally is a bigot.</thought-balloon>

This cracked me up. Whatever Hewitt believes, it apparently doesn’t depend on divine revelation. Perhaps Hewitt thinks he is so brilliant that he believes he is the source of truth, eh? It was obvious from everything he said that he has no need to examine himself.

I could go off on a tangent and explain how, in the context of saving faith, being a bigot is the only viable alternative, but of course this would go over Hugh’s head. Or get the bigot rejoinder. At the very least it appears that Hewitt is in no need of any external sources to inform his opinion.

Being a lawyer helps him in dealing with callers because he has a quick caustic tongue and can repartee with the best of them. He does this by cutting off the caller and pontificating on what a bigot the caller is, and why of course mormons are Christians, because he says so. He cannot say WHY it’s so, he can only say that he says so. It’s his show and he’s entitled to his opinions and he’s entitled to distort and disrespect the caller’s opinions. That’s what he gets paid the big bucks for, besides the allure of his brilliance.

Mormons differentiate themselves from Scriptural Christianity by calling themselves “latter-day” somethings. That in itself will tip off any but the most brilliant that there is some kind of difference between the two deals. It comes from the mormons themselves. I suppose he could call them bigots then, eh? Mormon apologists don’t have any difficulty enumerating the differences when given an opportunity. Consider for a moment the following blog exchange with a mormon:

practicalreasoning

July 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am

“Read the Bible…”

Yeah, read it. I’ve also talked to about a hundred different people about a hundred different scriptures – including the one in Galatians – and they all have a hundred different interpretations. That’s the beauty of religions. If every person looked at the Bible and came to the same interpretations, there would be one Christian Church. Do Mormon’s believe in “another gospel?” Well, hard to say. They certainly don’t believe in your gospel – or else they’d go to whatever church you do. But I’m willing to bet there are at least 100 other Christian denominations who also don’t subscribe to your gospel. The question is, where do we draw the line of what is Christian? Al Mohler, and presumaby you, too, would draw the line in such a way as to exclude Mormons, becasue they don’t subscribe to some Roman creeds enacted by Constantine.

I certainly don’t subscribe to Al Mohler’s gospel, and he doesn’t subscribe to mine – but we both say we have the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here, we have a problem with labeling. Mohler wants to be able to label Mormons non-Christian. Why? I don’t know, maybe just for kicks, or maybe he truly doesn’t like Mormons. Perhaps a Mormon bully beat him up and stole his lunch money as a kid – it’s not my job to speculate. The point is, Mohler has an agenda: exclude Mormons at all costs. Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, all fine. Mormons, bad. If I had to guess, I’d say Mohler, and his Evangelical buddies, might be worried at the explosive growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – and about the diminishing returns of parish-going tithe payers.

I’ve never understood why people do this. Go to your church, teach what you believe, and leave everybody else the heck alone.

Do I believe Christ was the “half-brother” of Satan? No, I believe he was the full brother of Satan. God created everything, right, including both Jesus and Satan. The are brothers the say way you and I are brothers (assuming you’re a dude). There’s a reason we call him the Heavenly Father – he’s the Father of all things, and the creator of our spirits.

Of course, this is not a blog on Mormon apologetics. If I wanted to argue about Mormonism with anti-Mormons, I would find myself doing that all day and nothing else – those folks are particularly rabid. But I have other things to do, including making fun of Al Gore, watching TV, and washing my hair.

You want to split hairs about Mormonism, go to this site: http://www.romneyexperience.com – but I know better than to let this site (which no one should ever really take seriously, anyway) devolve into religous squabbling. If you’re looking for a fight, I’m sure you’ll find one – just not here.

There you have it then. Straight from the horse’s lips: “Do I believe Christ was the “half-brother” of Satan? No, I believe he was the full brother of Satan. God created everything, right, including both Jesus and Satan. The are brothers the say way you and I are brothers …”

You have to be blinded by your own brilliance not to know that NO CHRISTIANS believe that Christ was created by anybody. Christ is uncreated because CHRIST IS GOD. Christ in the flesh died because “he made himself equal to God” by saying “I and the Father are One.” This could not be more diametrically opposed to “…God created everything, right, including both Jesus and satan.” If this is so then Christ CANNOT HAVE ATONED FOR ANYONE’S SIN, and therefore there is no Salvation. Thus, even for the brilliantly blinded, mormonism is not the same as Christianity. It cannot be. The only way mormons can believe they are Christians is by altering the Truth about Christ. The Christ they believe in is a created being, no different than satan really. Theirs is a religion of works that CANNOT include the atoning work of Christ on Calvary’s Cross. Why not? Because no created being can atone for his own sin, much less the sins of the world. The supernatural nature of Christ’s sacrifice is absent from the mormon story. When you have to redefine basic terms to win adherents you’re not able to claim to be the genuine thing. It’s a distinction with a difference. A latter day anything isn’t Christianity, it’s an amendment.

This is the little thing that Hewitt’s callers wanted him to get, but he refused instruction from the obviously less than brilliant telephone fodder.

These few words bring me to the current events point I want to ask Hewitt about. Here’s a burning (pun intended) question: is that pope a bigot by Hewitt’s reckoning? Who is the bigot Hugh? Is turn-about fair play? Is Hewitt as incensed about the pope’s claim as he is about the callers’ claims? The real crackup is that the pope is as wrong as Hewitt is, for the same reason the reluctant mormon apologist quoted above is wrong.

In case someone thinks I am alone in my point of view, and therefore automatically wrong, this writer has examined more of the differences with distinctions that apply directly to this subject.

Redefining basic terms and understandings and claiming that verily verily they mean something different today than they meant in Christ’s day is a simple and effective trick for damning everyone involved. It’s not enlightenment, it’s obfuscation so you can gain adherents that you can control. Every religion operates the same way with the same defect. But child-simple-faith in the work Christ accomplished on Calvary’s Cross and child-simple-faith that what God said is true is the only promised gate to heaven, and the only impediment to getting there. All the rest is WRONG, regardless of how impressed the purveyors are with their own brilliance.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

It’s not the latter-day one, but the ONCE-DELIVERED faith that we are exhorted to earnestly contend for. For the brilliant who might miss the import of this, note that Jude did not exhort Christians to earnestly contend for mormonism or any other …ism. We are exhorted to earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints. The once delivered one is the one we are to earnestly contend for. It’s pretty simple, really.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

aye aye Sir,

citizen

Posted in back-talk, belief, believers, cults, faith, life, paid for, radio, truth | 2 Comments »

whosoever signs the check is the tax payer

Posted by Citizen on July 21, 2007

My favorite site has another dose of right thinking common sense. This brings up one of my favorite methods to raise howls of disbelief. Buckle up, this requires an open mind and clear thinking. Ready?

The entire US tax code is a ponzi scheme. It has wage earning Americans believing that they pay their own tax bills and social security/ medicare costs. Right? Answer this: do they write a check every pay period and send the monies to the appropriate appropriating agencies? They think so. Their check stubs show all the ‘deductions’ that they’ve ‘paid’, right?

Is that true though? Believing something doesn’t make it true. What’s really going on? Most employees have probably never paid someone else’s wages. But if they had been an employer they would know that it’s the employer who pays the taxes, and the risky IRS reporting scheme  fools the wage earner into believing that he actually paid those taxes, when in fact the employer paid them.

Well, you say, if the employer had paid all that revenue to the employee, and the employee had sent the money in, it would be the same thing, a wash, right? NOT REALLY.

Say that the payroll is a big bowl of jelly beans. The contract states that every week you get 327 jelly beans, except that the JBS (jelly_bean_service) demands that the employer send it 49 jelly beans for one item, and 22 jelly beans for another, and 11 for yet another category of ‘deduction’. So your compensation for the week is actually 245 jelly beans. And the JBS compensation for allowing the employer to employ you is 82 jelly beans.

POP QUIZ  Here’s the trick question, pay attention: who paid the beans to the JBS?

BINGO !!  It could not possibly be you, because you never had 327 jelly beans. You only got 245 jelly beans. That’s all there ever was. The rest of it is accounting smoke and mirrors. You got the smoke and the employer paid the beans to be able to remain in business.

How would I know this? I was self employed most of my life. I wrote the checks to the IRS and filed all the paperwork so I could remain in business. Ergo:

The person who signs the check is the person who pays the taxes, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CHECK STUB SAYS. The check stub lies to you. It’s just amazing that so many millions of Americans blindly believe this accounting trick. I think even the overclass has come to believe it, and they should know better.

You didn’t pay anything if you didn’t have it in the first place. The taxpayer is whoever signs the check to the IRS. If you didn’t cut the check, you didn’t pay the taxes.

Posted in accounting, government, ponzi, scams, taxes, taxpayer, truth | Leave a Comment »

commies

Posted by Citizen on July 19, 2007

Well, ya gotta see this if you love America, ’cause it’s a sure bet that hclinton does not. She wants to ride ya, she means to ride ya down, she’s out to get you. Like al gore, there seems to be no controlling legal authority. WHAT THE HEY!?!

Trust me, SHE IS OUT TO GET YOU. And the entire corrupt judiciary is aiding and abetting. Pssst, she is a commie, pass it on.

Someone should raise a huge stink over this. This should be thoroughly invested by the controlling legal authority, eh? Be sure to watch the whole flic before joogle pulls it, to aid and abett her crimes..,

Posted in blood-sucking parasites, clinton, commies, communists, elections, hillary, politics, scandals | Leave a Comment »