The Uncomfortable Truth

I have written many times on the foolishness of single-issue voting. Yet, on the other hand, a single issue can sometimes be used as a litmus test of a politician's attitude.
I think it's pretty clear now on how well President Obama will "preserve, protect, and defend . . . "
According to TheHill.com, when President Obama signed the 106 billion dollar war spending bill, he issued a "Signing Statement" along with it.
For those who don't know what a signing statement is, it means the president can ignore any part of the bill he wants to if he doesn't like it. The article notes this is the sixth time Obama has done it.
In the old days--before The Constitution was trashed--the President simply vetoed a bill he couldn't live with.
Nowadays?
Eh?
Who gives a damn?
Seriously, there is nothing new about signing statements, they go back 150 years. They used to be rare. However, the practice ramped up steeply under President Bush--he issued more than 750 of them, for which he caught a lot of well-deserved criticism.
I note even the so-called conservatives are quiet on this, now. I have to point out it was that leftist, communist, GODless blog, The Huffington Post, that informed me of the story!
For those of who asked why the Democratic leadership stood mute while Bush was pulling this sort of nonsense, it should be coming clear, now.
For those of who though Obama was going to be different, well, I wanted him to be different, too.
Actually, there are two lessons to be learned here: the 106 billion for the war is just like Bush. And the complete disregard for The Constitution is just like Bush.

It seems that an Ivy-League university just conducted a survey of people who speak out against homosexuality.
When asked if they had ever had a homosexual encounter, and if "feeling guilt" was the reason for their opposition to gays, ninety-seven percent said yes.
The other three percent lied.

(Due to the recent changes here at NorCal Blogs, I have had to re-post this essay from May.)
I have been going over some ancient Judaic texts lately. Specifically, the first five books of the Bible, known collectively as The Pentateuch, or Torah.
Some people believe these books to be the absolute word of God.
I am not one of them.
These books contain--along with an early history of the Jews--613 commandments, or mitzvot which describe how the ancients were to live every aspect of their lives.
I got this list from Wiki.
(I suppose the most famous mitzvot--other than the Ten Commandments--is Leviticus 18:22. That's the one that "Christians" use to condemn homosexuality; the subject of a future essay.)
Some make a lot of sense when you get right down to it.
Some examples:
Anybody who knows evidence must testify in court.
Judges must not accept bribes.
Testimony is not to be taken from a single witness.
Judges must not accept testimony unless both parties are present.
All soldiers should have a shovel.
Latrines should be dug outside of the camp.
Don't overwork your slave.
Consider the rules of Kashrut, or 'keeping kosher.' Most of them are common-sense rules about cleanliness. Good thing, the USDA wasn't around thirty-five centuries ago.
Even the rite of circumcision on the eighth day is based on common sense. Blood did not clot reliably before a child was eight days old.
One of the more interesting mitzvot says not to charge interest of your countrymen. (Deuteronomy 23:20)
This makes, perhaps, the most sense of all.
I have written in this space that I am no economist. However, I do know a few things about money.
Think about this for a moment.
What is the "value" of interest?
How much concrete is poured; how many nails are driven by the money spent on interest?
Conversely, how much money isn't spent on real products because it has to go for interest if enough money isn't printed to cover the price of the interest? (What happens to inflation when enough money is printed to cover interest?) How many people are working simply to pay interest?
With no absolute value to it, interest will eventually destroy an economy.
The ancients knew that 3,500 years ago.
We are discovering that right now.
Maybe we should have listened to them . . . . . . .

I am not suggesting that we could run a worldwide economy without charging people interest. But, until the 1920s, America was pretty much a cash-and-carry society.
Why?
Christian values were part of it! Usury--interest--was a sin!

Of course, in 1913, congress violated the Constitution and created the Federal Reserve. The resulting need for more money for the bankers created a massive PR drive to borrow, borrow, borrow! To indebt yourself to the bank. To indebt your children to the bank.
For years, California had the nation's lowest interest rates--12%. When I first started voting in the 70s, every damned election, there was a proposition to end California's "antiquated" laws regarding usury. It finally passed, of course. Why people voted to short themselves was beyond me then, but I see it often enough now. After all, by not calling for an end to the Federal Reserve, we still short ourselves.

For centuries, interest has led to the downfall of civilizations.
The Federal Reserve system is leading to the downfall of the United States.
It is time we took that threat seriously.

If Universal Health Care is designed to cover everybody, why do we need insurance?

A letter I wrote to the editor of my local paper was published this morning.
In it, I wrote that elections are too corrupt to make any difference whatsoever in the situation in either Sacramento or Washington. If we are to throw the bums out, we will need to do so literally.
And make no mistake: the bums need throwing out. Unless you enjoy the feeling of helplessness when you vote.
One thing I would like to make clear is that I do not advocate an overthrow of the government.
The government has already been overthrown.
I advocate taking it back.
We are supposed to live in a Democratic Republic. That means simply that we have representatives that are supposed to carry out the will of the majority.
Is the will of the majority the law of the land?
Did a majority ask for the sales tax to be raised thirteen percent?
Is a majority asking that California waste our money by having both a Department of Education and a Board of Education? And then tell us there is not enough money for school programs?
Did we ask that special little jobs be created for termed-out legislators so they can continue nursing at the public teat?
Do a majority of Californians want our budget balanced?
Can our current batch of legislators do the job?
Then why the Hell are they still there?
We all know the answer to that one.
If elections do not work, what are we to do?
Well, we can do one of two things.
We can sit on our asses in front of our computers and pretend to be doing something about it.
Or we can go to Sacramento and ask nicely for two things.
First, an instant runoff election to replace the governor and legislators to be held within four weeks of the second request: their resignations.

You hear a lot of people beating up on Christians these days. Well, you always hear of people beating up on Christians. Some people go so far as to deny the existence of God, usually because they are fed up with the ridiculous claims made by Bible-thumping zealots.
Unfortunately, zealotry can be defined as not listening to reason or common sense, so it is pretty damn hard to talk to those who see themselves, "in Christ." Just this week I read yet another essay defending the practice of slavery.
We all know you can defend any sin against any individual by using The Bible. Normal folk know that to do so is utterly transparent and the mark of a true hypocrite--the ones we were warned of. Yet, every day, someone posts some essay somewhere defending murder; or torture; or war; or any other base act that needs to be defended at the moment. (It's a good thing there's forgiveness--even if some of these folks don't believe in it!)

The Bible was cobbled together in the fourth century under the direction of the world-famous hedonist, Constantine, emperor of Rome
The early Christians, in a deal that was actually quite contrary to the teachings of The Master ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"), entered into what was essentially a power-sharing agreement with Rome.
As part of that "New World Order," a book of rules was needed.
Voila!
The Bible!
1300 years later, King James put his own spin on it.
And every single day, some simpleton lets some evil individual tell him those politically-motivated words are the ABSOLUTE WORD OF GOD! (Amen.)
Good Lord.
But, that is not to say that God is a myth.
Nor His son.
I am not sure I could prove the existence of God to anyone else's satisfaction, but I have witnessed too many "coincidences" to believe otherwise.
And yes, I am educated as a scientist.
But do I believe the Bible as the "Word of God?"
Well . . . . . . . . .
If you talk about what God has to say, wouldn't that mean what His Son, Jesus, has to say? How about we just read the Gospels?
"The authors of the books of the Bible were all inspired by God."
Uh-huh.
So, you think that politicians--guys like Barack Obama and George Bush--when they were having their little committee meetings to decide which writings would be included in their Bible, chose ONLY those books that were inspired by God? And this was because they knew for certain that, say, Isaiah was inspired and Thomas the Apostle was not?
Wow! These were really prescient politicians! So different than the ones we have now.

Seriously, though.
The most important thing anyone needs from the Bible is Matthew, chapters five through seven.
If one is too busy persecuting another to sit down and read three chapters, one can save time by remembering this one line that comes from them:
"Do unto others as you would have it done unto you."
I challenge anyone who claims to be a Christian to say how there is anything more to being a Christian than abiding by that simple dictate.

Recently, another blog here at NorCal Blogs posted an essay decrying homosexuality as a sin. Note I did not say homosexual behavior. No, these folks--who say they follow Christ--say that what you are is a sin. And, of course, they would know. They got it from the Bible, don't you know.
They offer up several Bible references, but not one from Christ. They try to say that Christ didn't mention rape, incest, or pedophilia either, and since these are wrong, being a homosexual is wrong.
I know, I know. Don't try to follow the logic, you will only hurt yourself.
Jesus did mention those other affronts to others though, when He told us to be nice to each other.
Jeez!!
Anyway, while these clowns--and thousands of other clowns across the country--are having hissy fits because some woman has her tongue on another woman's vagina, real sin gets ignored.
If you search the internet for blogs written in April about the "sin" of homosexuality, you will find thousands!
I wrote last time that charging interest on a loan was just as forbidden as a man laying with another man.
Yet a similar search for blogs on the "sin" of usury or interest reveals but a very small fraction of that number.
Hmmmmm.
How many lives were destroyed in the month of April because two men--or two women--slept together? What was the crime?
According to Bloomberg, 342,038 homes were foreclosed on in April.
Over half a million people displaced.
Since the beginning of this mess, tens of millions of jobs have been lost and scores of millions of people put into dire straits.
How many times in the recent past has a guy killed his entire family, and then himself because there was homosexuality in the world?
Excuse me?
You want me to believe WHAT is the sin?
There are some who think the way through the narrow gate is to be of a narrow mind.
I disagree.
I think the way through is to open up, look around for real problems and work to fix those.
We might start with the Federal Reserve.
If all of those "Christians" out there joined with us and contacted Congress, this will be the last downturn in American history.
Talk about a blessing!

I couldn’t stop laughing as I stumbled across this little factoid today.
It seems that the more you go to church, the more likely you are to condone torture.
I am not making this up, although the sample size—742—was pretty small, the more devout you are, the more likely you are to be OK with torture.
According to RawStory.com
“White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.”
I have read most of The New Testament—even taught some of it—and I am unable to find where Jesus condoned torture.
I have to wonder how six out of ten White Evangelicals can.

My recent change in employment allows me to listen to the radio a lot lately.
Some days it’s oldies.
Some days it’s hate.
Seriously, I used to find it amusing that there are people out there dumb enough to buy this crap.
I am unable to get another perspective on my radio except for PBS. (The monotonic droning tends to incapacitate me, however.)
Now, I am not laughing as much.
One day last week I was listening to hate and I heard the Fat Bastard say that “If America is attacked, it will be on Obama.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. Later, I checked a transcript, and sure enough, I had heard correctly.
The next day I chose another station.
Tuesday, I was listening to The Bully. (He’s the toady of that foreigner, Rupert Murdoch.) Sure enough, Hannity said the same thing.
This is dangerous. This borders on treason.
These purveyors of hate are not stupid. They carefully craft their statements to later absolve themselves from any responsibility, but the implication is clear: They want their fans to attack us so it will look like it was done by “our enemies” with the blame placed squarely on Obama.
I say they want to because they know many of their fans are stupid enough to do it. After all, if their fans weren’t bereft of gray matter, they wouldn’t have fans. They know it will happen.
I don’t really worry about the fools in the tinfoil hats like the ones I saw last week at the tea party is Sacramento. No, what worries me are the ones who wear the little white pointy hats who can’t stand the fact we have a Black President.
Is it any wonder the director of Homeland Security says we should be wary of these characters? (For the record: since I support States Rights, I am pro-life, pro-gun, AND I voted for Ron Paul, I am at the top of that list.)
What do you bet, we don’t have a grand kleagle or some other white-robed klukker arrested real soon. Or maybe just some good ol’ boy wannabe. Whatever. It won’t be good.
Today, it was announced that The President's popularity is soaring--the Haters will be spewing even more of their bile today. I honestly worry how much violence they will incite.
We ought to have the Fat Bastard and The Bully arrested for treason. Until we can shut them up, prudence demands we treat their fans as armed and dangerous.

I tried to talk sense recently to someone whose mind has been poisoned by those who hate America. As I pointed out his errors in another subject, he changed the topic to health care.
This is a good time for that discussion as Obama wants to “socialize” medicine. However it has got to be an honest discussion. Thanks to foreign-owned media, an honest discussion is yet to be found.
An honest discussion of health care would differentiate between cost and price.
The “cost” of health care is but a miniscule fraction of the “price.”
Go into a drug store a buy box of syringes. It’s fair to say that would be your “cost” for the syringes. A hospital will charge you twenty to thirty times as much.
Why?
Any discussion of health care needs to ask: are we going to subsidize profits?
Are we going to subsidize greed?
Before someone asks if I equate profits and greed, I will say that in my view it is not Christian to profit off the pain and suffering of others. However, in practical terms, what is wrong with a straight 15%?
My favorite example of medical greed is Levamisole.
Levamisole is a drug for intestinal worms. It’s takes a penny a produce a dose. That is, to get one dose to the consumer costs one cent. The price used to be about six cents a dose. Years ago, some curious individual wondered if it might work on colon cancer. After some taxpayer-funded research, the maker discovered it did. It still takes a penny to produce, but now the price is around six dollars per dose. Or 600 times the cost.
So, when we talk about paying for health care, we argue over who should pay the six bucks. Shouldn’t we be talking about one penny instead?
A friend of mine needed a breast biopsy a few years ago. The price was either 400, 800, 1700, or 3800 dollars depending on who was paying for it. The cost was obviously less.
We are constantly hammered on the evils of “socialized” medicine. Indeed, Canada and the UK tax everybody to cover the prices—not the costs. This blatant transference of wealth is where the evil lies. I can’t help but notice that the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world are all located in “socialized” countries.
It stands to reason that we could help 600 times as many people or we could subsidize the profit of one company.
For the record: I am happy to be taxed to help people that suffer. I am not happy to be taxed to pay for private jets.
It has been oft-quoted that up to one-third the costs of health care go to insurance and administration. An honest overhaul of Health Care will cut costs immediately by one-third—that’s obvious. Take out the Godless profits and we could cut the costs by another third--easy.
Whatever happens, I “Hope” we can keep the discussion honest.