BLOG
ARCHIVES

MAY 2008
APR. 2008
MAR. 2008
JAN-FEB. 2008
JUL-DEC. 2007
JUN. 2007
MAY 2007
APR. 2007
MAR. 2007
FEB. 2007
JAN. 2007

DEC.  2006
NOV. 2006
OCT. 2006
SEP. 2006
AUG. 2006
JUL. 2006
JUN. 2006
MAY  2006
APR. 2006
JAN-MAR. 2006

JUN-DEC. 2005
MAY-JUN. 2005

APR. 2004
MAR. 2004
FEB. 2004

BACKLOG
Of Unorganized
Diatribes

Thursday, 26 June, 2008

SECOND AMENDMENT

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Amazingly, the Supreme Court has finally interpreted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed!" to mean, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." They finally ruled on it and got it right!

The scary thing, however, is the fact that the ruling hinged on only a five to four majority. The dissenting justices only needed one vote to redefine the Second Amendment out of effective existence. Had there been a Clinton or Obama appointee on the court replacing one of the majority justices, chances are our Second Amendment rights would have just become history.

Their contention is that "government" rightfully has a monopoly on firepower, and that the role of the "citizens' militia" has been rightfully preempted by the standing army, National Guards, and police powers of the several States. 

Thankfully, the majority ruled correctly. It took long enough (since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791), and it's nice to know that sometimes the Supreme Court can still make a ruling based on original intent without referring to such things as "but it's a new era," "international law," or citing some World Court ruling or a United Nations Covenant. This is definitely a good sign.

The court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right – one that pre-existed the founding of the nation. And, most significantly, that the primary purpose and effect of the Second Amendment was to prevent Congress from depriving "We the People" of that right.

For so long, "lawmakers," "control people," and the proponents of the authoritarian, omnipotent, nanny State, had been hung up on the "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," clause – reading all sorts of nefarious meanings and intents into it.

Most of us have always known what the Supreme Court has now put down in its majority ruling:

"...The 'militia' (was and is) comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved..."

In other words, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent Congress or the federal government, or any subsidiary government, from disarming the people, who are "the militia" – whether organized or well regulated or not. The citizens' militia is the nation's core armed might – it's people power with arms.

This ruling goes far beyond the issue of bearing arms. It literally reaffirms that the government of the United States of America is subservient to the people – an armed people that reserves the right and spirit of resistance to tyranny – and that this was (and should continue to be), a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It reaffirms that the standing army of the United States cannot, and should not be, trusted to be the sole armed force of the nation. The standing army is not a replacement for the citizens' militia.

The standing army, which now includes State National Guards, is a pure instrument of the Federal government or the several States. Their purpose is "national defense," but they cannot be expected, or trusted, to preserve our freedom. Only the people themselves can do that.

Proponents of gun control have always claimed (or wishfully thought), that the State National Guards are the "modern version" of the "well regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment. They claimed the right to keep and bear arms applied only to members of the "armed forces." But this is preposterous on the face of it – totally negating the obvious purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment to preserve the right of members of the armed forces to keep and bear arms would be ludicrous. And the majority Ruling of the Court has come out and said as much.

The State National Guards, though referred to as "State militias" are, in fact auxiliaries of the "standing army." They are armed instruments of the State. No Second Amendment would be necessary to preserve the right of the standing army, to keep and bear arms.

Unlike the people's militia, the standing army is subject to the control of a governing establishment at all times, and that establishment could conceivably cease to be representative of the will of the people, and become the author of tyranny and oppression. Under the standing army, government could all too easily become a military dictatorship.

It's really very simple to understand that the standing army can be turned, and used, against the people. The militia, on the other hand, cannot be turned against the people – simply because it is the people. And it was the purpose of the founders to make sure the people would never find themselves disarmed and powerless against encroaching oppression and tyranny – enemies from within or without.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to call up and organize the militia in times of need, but the Second Amendment makes it clear that Congress does not have the right to disarm the unorganized militia, i.e., the people.

The proponents of gun control view "the people" in two general categories (1) meek subjects, incapable of defending themselves, and (2) rabble – not to be trusted with guns. They view the armed State as the only force capable of, or intended to, preserving freedom, liberty, and order.

It was not without cause that our founders viewed standing armies with a great deal of distrust. Standing armies had often (indeed, traditionally), been used to protect oppressive rulers from their subjects. Our founders were of the opinion that a free people needed the wherewithal to protect themselves not only against foreign invasion, but potentially against their own government.

It was said that where the government fears the people, the people can enjoy freedom. But if the people have to fear their government, there can be no freedom. Thomas Jefferson said:

"I am for relying, for internal defense, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors... and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment..."

"I will now tell you what I do not like (in the proposed Constitution)... the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for... protection against standing armies..."

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

And how better to warn our rulers that "this people preserve the spirit of resistance" to tyranny, than by resisting being disarmed, and retaining the ability to take up arms at a moment's notice?

One reason the founders feared a standing army is that a standing army and large navy would always constitute armed might looking for justification for their existence. During times of peace, a nation with a large standing army is likely to seek conflict where none would exist otherwise.

Today we can see that principle at work. Impotent to fight for freedom and liberty in a nation at peace with itself, our standing army fights for freedom and liberty for others elsewhere, or against potential enemies that might at some future time be capable of threatening our security or peace of mind. The ability to wage war anywhere in the world, makes it easy to wage war both when and where no war is necessary.

For example, because we have such a huge super-power defense establishment, a very small rag-tag bunch of stateless Islamic extremists was able to provoke us into an open-ended global "war on terror." These wars are now costing us billions, if not trillions, of dollars we cannot afford. Thousands of lives have been lost because our leaders couldn't resist putting our standing army to use, though the War on Terror (a war against a tactic rather than a nation), is like an armored brigade of Goliaths swatting at scattered gnats with huge battle-axes. The collateral damage to innocent bystanders is always much worse than the damage done to the elusive and flighty enemy.

Be this as it may, it's extraordinarily refreshing to think the Supreme Court has come down on the side of denying Congress power to abridge "the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms," and that the "ideal of a citizens' militia" has (at least for the time being), become "settled" Constitutional law.

Even now Pridger finds it difficult to believe the highest court in the land has actually come right out and reaffirmed the true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. With the court's history of bending and skewing meanings of what has often been described as a malleable, "living," Constitution, restating essential truths, is nothing short of amazing.

It has correctly been said that the Second Amendment is the peoples' insurance policy on the entire Bill of Rights, constitutional government itself, and (in the end), national independence.

The citizens' militia is neither organized nor well regulated at this time, because the State has effectively taken over the responsibilities of the citizen in this regard. But this does not negate the importance of retaining an armed citizenry and the citizens' militia. In fact, it makes it all the more important to preserve it. The citizens' militia lives on as a sleeping giant – and a giant it is. The State cannot secure or preserve our freedoms. Rather, it makes it its "duty" to limit them. Only the people can preserve them.

An armed citizenry has the tools to both restore and preserve their own liberty. It remains to be seen whether this preparedness will have a positive effect. With the nation currently entangled in perpetual foreign wars, and effectively under the control of the proponents of an powerful standing army (fighting for freedom and liberty in Iraq and elsewhere), liberty and justice may yet be totally outmaneuvered at home. Yet hope remains as long as the citizenry is capable of self-defense and, potentially, active defense of freedom and liberty.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The Court did not seem to pick up on this small item, but the "free State" mentioned in the Second Amendment probably did not refer to the "Federal State" itself, nor any of the several "States." The words "free State" (as Pridger sees it), could refer to the "State of freedom" of the people.

During extended periods of domestic tranquility, the organization and drilling or the militia is unnecessary, and tends to lapse – especially when a large standing army is maintained. But the need to maintain the citizen's militia never expires because the threat of tyranny is ever-present – most especially when a large standing army is maintained. So the Second Amendment might have been written:

"A citizens' militia, being necessary to the preservation of the free State of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday 24 June, 2008

DON IMUS IS IN TROUBLE AGAIN!

Didn't Imus get the hint the first time around? There is simply no free speech in this country – not for white media personalities anyway – when it comes to snide comments about African Americans. Once again, Imus meant no harm, but that doesn't matter. He asked "What color is he?" "African-American" was the answer. When Imus replied, "There you go. Now we know." Whamo! Foot in mouth! Bullet impales foot! You just can't get away with it. Imus, you're a racist!

It's like presidential hopeful Ross Perot (a few elections ago), addressing a group of African-Americans and inadvertently calling them "you people" – implying a separate group identity. Whamo! Foot in mouth! Bullet impales foot! You just can't get away with it. Ross, you're a racist!

Those words could possibly have had a derogatory connotation – thus, naturally, they did. Imus can't weasel out of it. Apologies didn't work before, so this time he's working on clarifications of his meaning. The system simply picks on blacks, he said, and he was simply sympathizing by stating the simple fact. But that won't work. He's crucified again on the cross of African-American super-duper sensitivities.

This nation is so race conscious and racially charged that such loose language is absolutely suicidal. Such language is received a lot like spewing out all the "Seven Dirty Words" in one breath would have been back in the bigoted, insensitive, 1950s.

As a nation, we've got a sense of humor – but there are certain things white men who are media personalities or politicians simply cannot say. If a white man has anything to say with regard to African-Americans, the script must first be submitted to a series of Civil Rights committees for approval.

Free speech is extends to the "Seven Dirty Words" and their derivatives. It's okay for anybody to lampoon, insult, outrage, offend, white men, of course. They deserve it. It's okay to tell "honky" jokes and "blond" jokes, but not "ethnic" jokes. When it comes to minorities (particularly African-Americans), a slight, insult, or misconstrued innocent statement, carries penalties not seen since god-kings ruled nations.

As Pridger's Old Pappy used to say, "We live in a time when, if a black man bumps into a white man, and knocks him down into the mud, the white man is expected to get up, brush himself off, and apologize for being so clumsy."

Pridger feels sorry for presidential candidate John McCain. He will be walking a shaky tightrope and treading on cracked eggs for the rest of the campaign. One slip or mis-step and Obama wins on the sheer power of racial politics.

John Q. Pridger

THE PASSING OF A COUNTER-CULTURE HERO

The news of George Carlin's passing hit Pridger's inbox yesterday. Had it not been for his skit on the "Seven Words" that can never be said on television (which Pridger had read many years ago), the name wouldn't have rung a bell. Believe it or not, Pridger saw more of George Carlin last night on the local news than he'd ever seen before.

The pop entertainment culture is an arena Pridger has avoided for many years. The reason? Most of it is simply in such bad taste that Pridger is more annoyed than amused. There may be abundant talent, wit, and humor in it, but (to put it simply), Pridger still considers offensive language offensive – no matter how talented or funny the performer.

Pridger's not exactly a prude. He can laugh at off-color jokes along with the next man (or woman). There's a place for it, perhaps, but it isn't the family circle or family entertainment center. Nor does Pridger consider it a particularly good thing that most of the kids can now make sailors blush when it come to the use of raw language. When the off-color joke, and offensive language, defines the mass entertainment culture – and, by extension, the national culture itself – something has gone sorely amiss.

One reason Pridger isn't amused is because he recognizes this drift in media entertainment as a major "educational front" in the ongoing Culture Wars – aimed at ridiculing, lampooning, undermining, and ultimately overturning, all traditional concepts of religion, morality, and common decency.

Ordinarily, it isn't the performers that Pridger resents, it's the fact that bad taste has become so pervasive in the mass entertainment media – actively promoted by it.

The Counter-cultural movement, in which Carlin is an acknowledged super-hero, was only one of the major battle fronts of a larger Culture War. The Culture War itself is merely one of the fronts in a larger ideological war which has one of its tap roots in Marxist-Leninism, and the Frankfort School.

The general public (in spite of the professed religion of most of it), seems to love social debauchery, and it's that general public – that is, the propensity of the general public to "backslide" on moral issues – that the media moguls and our entertainment icons aim to satisfy and "please." Unfortunately, as H. L. Mencken once said, "Never overestimate the tastes of the American people" – and he said that a long time before our generalized social backsliding commenced in earnest.

The entertainment industry claims it is merely giving the public what it wants. And what a lot of it has secretly wanted was to be released from restrictive standards of common decency, good manners, and religious morals. To speak in religious metaphoric terms, very man (and woman), has the seed of the Devil in him. The only thing that keeps that Devil in check are the restrictive bonds imposed on society by the widespread profession of religious faith, principle, and scruples, as well as some "rules" that tend to reinforce them.

Cut those restrictive bonds that once kept society civil, and you have "liberation" of various kinds. License becomes confused with liberation, and there is a slippery slope that leads unerringly downward. It's fairly obvious.

Many have felt this liberation from traditional morality exhilarating – but there are consequences. The drug, crime, and prison culture, for instance. The decline of civility and "consideration" for women and children. The decline of the nuclear family. School and college shootings, perhaps.

And finally, as the result to too much liberation – the authoritarian state comes into being. The police state gradually becomes a necessary (even demanded by the people), to keep social order and protect morally liberated citizens from the other, perhaps too morally liberated, citizens.

We've come a long way with our liberation. Some would say too far. But entertainers and the media, and other Crusaders in the Culture Wars, are eager to prove that we haven't seen anything yet, and continue to push the envelope of what is acceptable entertainment.

Carlin's jokes constantly breached the accepted boundaries of comedy and language, particularly with his routine on the "Seven Words" — all of which are taboo on broadcast TV and radio to this day.
     When he uttered all seven at a show in Milwaukee in 1972, he was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace, freed on $150 bail and exonerated when a Wisconsin judge dismissed the case, saying it was indecent but citing free speech and the lack of any disturbance.
     When the words were later played on a New York radio station, they resulted in a 1978 Supreme Court ruling upholding the government's authority to sanction stations for broadcasting offensive language during hours when children might be listening.
     "So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I'm perversely kind of proud of," he told The Associated Press earlier this year.
     Despite his reputation as unapologetically irreverent, Carlin was a television staple through the decades, serving as host of the "Saturday Night Live" debut in 1975 — noting on his Web site that he was "loaded on cocaine all week long" — and appearing some 130 times on "The Tonight Show."
     He produced 23 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, three books, a couple of TV shows and appeared in several movies, from his own comedy specials to "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" in 1989 — a testament to his range from cerebral satire and cultural commentary to downright silliness (and sometimes hitting all points in one stroke)...
     He won four Grammy Awards, each for best spoken comedy album, and was nominated for five Emmy awards. On Tuesday, it was announced that Carlin was being awarded the 11th annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which will be presented Nov. 10 in Washington and broadcast on PBS.
     Carlin started his career on the traditional nightclub circuit in a coat and tie, pairing with Burns to spoof TV game shows, news and movies. Perhaps in spite of the outlaw soul, "George was fairly conservative when I met him," said Burns, describing himself as the more left-leaning of the two. It was a degree of separation that would reverse when they came upon Lenny Bruce, the original shock comic, in the early '60s.
     "We were working in Chicago, and we went to see Lenny, and we were both blown away," (Jack) Burns said, recalling the moment as the beginning of the end for their collaboration if not their close friendship. "It was an epiphany for George. "...The comedy we were doing at the time wasn't exactly groundbreaking, and George knew then that he wanted to go in a different direction."
     That direction would make Carlin as much a social commentator and philosopher as comedian, a position he would relish through the years.
     "The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
(Excepted from news article by Keith St. Clair, Associated Press Writer)

All of the above was written in celebration of what is considered a great man by modern standards. George Carlin was obviously a man of great accomplishments, and won many awards. His work made him into a national entertainment icon – even made him more – an acknowledged philosopher. A teacher – a national cultural guru.

He was able to transcend our former societal prejudices against entertainers who "talked dirty" and might brag about being "loaded with cocaine all week long" (even as the nation wages global war against drugs, and hundreds of thousands of poor [un-favored], druggies do long, hard, prison time). As a cultural icon, he could express himself in any manner he wanted. He could encourage the drug culture and remain a cultural icon.

He disparaged his own race and country with impunity, but apparently carefully avoided offending the touchy ones. He took care never to run on his own sword like Imus. 

Carlin, like our presidential candidates, was of the privileged class. And, like them, he stood for change. But the change we have seen in the name of liberation has not all been good. 

Religious superstition was one of the sicknesses Carlin worked to cure. Common decency in language, and sexual morality, were religious hang-ups, born of senseless superstition. And "Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body," he said, and he obviously hoped to change that.

Carlin thought it his duty to change the way we look at ourselves as a nation. His efforts are being acclaimed as brilliant. He was considered a genius by his peers. He joked that our founders were rich white slave owners who wanted "freedom" and "liberty" – and nothing more.

True enough perhaps, as far as it goes, but hardly a productive focal point for a proud, and once very successful, nation – one that has demonstrably actually produced a great deal of freedom, liberty, and prosperity for its people.  Lacking any redeeming counterpoints, such enlightening evangelizing is conductive of little more than national self-loathing, and national decline.

Say what you may about the founders of this nation – they got a lot of things right, in spite of themselves. Of course, people like Carlin seem to think that the conquest of North America by our ancestors was a dreadful mistake and shouldn't have happened. It was injustice that explored and settled the frontier. Injustice built the nation. And, by extension, injustice that makes it possible for people like George Carlin to make a very good living telling jokes.

But as bad as the injustice has been, immigrants eagerly sought to come to our shores, and still do. Even George Carlin, who must have amassed quite a fortune, chose to stay here when he could have chosen to live almost anywhere else in the world.

His barbed humor pointed out our political and religious hypocrisy. But he would replace that hypocrisy with invective, guilt, and offensive language. He could make people laugh at everything they thought they believed in. His humor also lambasted what most of them still believe in unequivocally – the materialistic, consumptive, and wasteful orgy we call the "American way of life."

There was an awful lot of truth embedded in his humorous take on things, and truth is always good though sometimes it hurts a little. Just a whole lot of his barbed shafts hit home, wounding those who deserved shafting – needed it bad, in fact. But teaching truth in a manner that aggressively undermines core values, and pride in nation and self, could hardly be considered productive.    

George Carlin and his counter-cultural fellow travelers have done a pretty good job of changing this nation over the last several decades. But their particular type of reform tended to cast the baby out and keep the dirtied bath water.

Undoubtedly, he had many redeeming values. He probably meant well, and just wanted to make us laugh. As Christians, we "forgive him, for he knows not what he does." May his soul rest in peace. 

John Q. Pridger

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

The debate over capital punishment goes on. Pridger doesn't consider the death penalty itself cruel or unusual. After all, everybody is destined to die in the end anyway. The means of putting the condemned to death might be cruel or unusual. But that's a technical problem we should be able to solve in this day an age.

The only problem Pridger has with the death penalty is the number of innocent people that are convicted, condemned, and executed, in spite of lengthy appeals processes. Often defendants have been framed by circumstance or authorities. This is a very troubling factor.

Another problem is that it seems many juries simply don't know what a "shadow of doubt" means, and apparently many judges don't go out of their way to make it clear.

One of the major problems is that prosecutors work for prosecution only rather than justice. Yet "Justice" is supposed to be part of the job description. Once they decide a suspect is "probably" guilty, and put him on trial, they work tooth and nail for conviction – period. They no longer seem to care about any shadows of any doubts that may be apparent to others. They want a conviction, pure and simple. Convictions are feathers in their caps, while acquittals are black marks on their record.

We have come to consider corporal punishment cruel and unusual. The stocks have fallen into disrepute as being cruel and unusual. But in Pridger's book, there's nothing more cruel (but now usual), than lengthy prison terms – especially long terms without the possibility of parole. Even more especially, long terms for victimless crimes.

Life without the possibility of parole is much more cruel than a brief death sentence. But nobody should be put to death for anything but the most heinous of violent crimes that result in the intended death of the victim of the crime. And nobody should be convicted and sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence. No matter how convincing the evidence, there is always "a shadow of doubt."

Convicted murderers, or confessed murderers, who would get life without the possibility of parole, should be given the choice of being executed. There would be few takers, but at least those who did make the fateful choice would save the taxpayers considerable amounts of money.

Relatively short prison terms, with restitution to victims, plus interest, should be the general rule for simple theft and white collar crimes. Simple restitution and additional financial penalties and court costs should serve in the case of most white collar crimes.

In more serious crimes against persons, ten, twenty, or fifty lashes, plus restitution and court costs, ought to be considered much less cruel and unusual than long prison terms. And prison terms are much more expensive than a brief painful corporal lashing.

At least give the convicted a choice – fifty lashes or twenty years! – and see which they consider the most cruel and unusual alternative.

To quote Brann The Iconoclast:

"...When those who vote fully understand that every dollar expended by government, federal, state or municipal, must be created by the common people—that first or last, labor must furnish it forth— ... we'll cease making so many needless laws and paying aspiring patriots fat salaries to harass us with their enforcement; ...we'll cease building so many palatial prisons where thieves and thugs may be cared for at the expense of honest people, but will divide criminals into classes—those who should be peremptorily hanged, and those who should be whipped and turned loose to hustle their own hash. Nothing knocks the sawdust out of false sentiment so quickly as the realization that it's an expensive luxury and that we must pay the freight."

Another means of punishment might be another old idea – indentured servitude for a matter of years rather than prison time, to make sure restitution is paid.

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 20 June, 2008

THE CULTURE WARS – CALIFORNIA DREAMING

It seems the California Supreme Court sees things from a rather cheerful perspective. Not to appear homophobic, but Pridger thinks the whole passel of those who ruled in favor of such a travesty ought to be taken out and shot – or at least put in the stocks for a couple of days.

Shame on them! Something as important as totally overturning human culture should be decided by the people (or their representatives), rather than the court. But the Court couldn't wait. It's in a hurry to see as many same sex marriages as possible before the people have a chance to speak.

Of course, they tell us that California public opinion polls now favor allowing same sex marriage. Pridger finds that a little difficult to believe. Who did they poll? Democrats, homosexuals, and "debauch and let debauch" liberals? Polls cannot be taken as the will of the people.

Until the people as a whole speak, it is far better for government courts to err on the side of conservatism rather than what they may consider "progressive activism." That's only common sense.

Pridger is beginning to fear the scriptures are right – and the dooms-dayers and doomsayers, too. The moral fabric of the nation is in tatters – and is being further rent with every passing day. We've literally given up our most precious national advantages, from our moral foundation base to our economic independence. Natural and manmade disasters are on the increase. Economic melt-down is threatening. We could be headed for a little comeuppance – a lesson in national humility.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday, 17 June, 2008

ANTI COMMUNISTS VS. THE VIRTUOUS

Pridger happened to see part of the movie One of the Hollywood Ten the other night. It was based on truth – presumably with a great deal of attention to historical veracity. The "One" the movie was primarily about was Herbert J. Biberman, a Hollywood movie director who was "blacklisted" by Warner Brothers Studios for his tenacious affiliation with, and devotion to, the Communist Party. 

It was a pretty good movie – both about injustice and change – and how we have finally evolved into a much higher, more just, and tolerant, society than we were back in the 1950s. Unfortunately, Pridger didn't get to see the whole movie. It went on considerably passed his bed time, so this will not be a comprehensive review.

The movie was PG-13 rated with no "Language" warning. Had it been properly R-rated (as adult fare), Pridger would have passed it by and been the poorer for educational experience. But since it was educational, and essentially about diversity and tolerance, the rating people must have thought it had far too much redeeming literary value to scare off parents with an R-rating or language warning.

What's with this rating system? It seems to have no fixed meaning. It's almost as slippery as the dollar bill. By contrast, some time ago, Pridger saw a documentary on the life of William Boyd, the super-wholesome actor who "became" Hopalong Cassidy of the big screen and early TV. Ironically, this educational film was R-rated.

While Pridger generally avoids R-rated movies, he was very curious as to how a documentary about William Boyd could be R-rated. Apparently it was because of some slightly politically incorrect content. Boyd, and his Hopalong Cassidy persona, stood (with six-guns in hand), for truth, justice, and the American way. He also stood for disciplined children, women in traditional roles, and wholesome social standards, thus (it seems), the content was deemed inappropriate for children.

The only thing that Pridger found objectionable in One of the Hollywood Ten, was the language. Like so many otherwise good movies, it was liberally laced with various renditions of the "F" word – a word that some people still find rather offensive.

Many of us still call it an obscene and offensive word that should be avoided like the plague in entertainment media. However, Hollywood now instructs our youth that it is simply an "adult" word, and very chick.

But why would anybody want to make it "adult" and popular? The word has a meaning – as we all know, it's a crude word for "sexual intercourse." It's actually closer to "rape." It's something one (usually a man), does to another person, whether they like it or not – as in being screwed, cheated, or otherwise molested or "messed with," or being told to "go to Hell" in the most offensive way. But in this age of "Newspeak" they tell us the word is little more than a synonym for "making love." 

This use of adult language in the subject movie was just to show today's youth that even back in the 1940s and 50s, the really good guys (even in "good taste," Hollywood), used the "F" word in "real life" just as profusely as we're expected to use it in liberalized, tolerant, 2008. At least we're expected to grin and bear it (or change the channel), even if we don't particularly like it.

The only difference between now and those bad old days is that Hollywood paid respect to what was considered "common decency" back in that unenlightened and bigoted era. The production companies used to carefully keep the "seven dirty words" out of their entertainment media, especially in TV fair. Later we learned that government required this in an attempt to deprive Hollywood and the rest of us of our full constitutional rights to free speech, "realism" and "truth" in the media.

The people want realism, Hollywood tells us. The don't want to hear G-men, G.I.s, cowboys, sports stars, movie stars and other role models to exclaim, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" or "Whoa!!! Gol darn it boys, get them heifers cut out of there! Right now!" They want us to hear it like it was: "Frankly my dear, you can go (bleep) yourself!" or, "(Bleep)!!! G-- damn you (bleepers)! Get them (bleeping) b-----s the (bleep) out of there! (Bleeping) now!" 

Now that's real adult Americana! There's a lot of love there! Or so we, and the rest of the world, have been taught over the last two generations. The other six "dirty words" are hardly even considered any more. The F-word defines our culture. Even the British, who used to say, "bloody" this, and "bloody" that (in real life), have adopted it. The "F-word" is king!

The movie was about what we call the McCarthy era, when we thought Communism and Marxist-Leninism were bad – and it had been discovered that Hollywood had much more than its fair share of Communist Party members. Naturally, there was a lot of anti-Semitism back then too. Only thirty years before, the publication of The Protocols of Zion, and Henry Ford's The International Jew had been published – alerting people to the idea that there was an international Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christendom and set up a world Zionist government. Communism was considered part of the program.

Because Hollywood just happened to have more than it's fair share of Jews. And, just by coincidence, it happened that most of the Communists were also Jews, the government put two and two together and thought they'd come up with four – that communists Jews were a threat to national security.

Unfortunately, J. Edgar Hoover, and a host of our elected officials, felt that the Soviet Union, in spite of having been a staunch ally during the Second World War, was also a threat to world peace and national security. Perhaps it was because they had vowed to bury us, and our capitalist system, and deliver the benefits of Marxist-Stalinism to all of the struggling workers of the entire world.

Now, of course, we know differently – that the USSR never really posed a serious threat, and (now that reference to God is being purged from the national lexicon), that Jews really are God's chosen people. It's Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and radical Moslems that pose the real threat to world peace. They hate our porn and standards of common decency, for starters – not to mention our attempts, by force of arms, to transform their world into something more like California.

In any case, back in the 1940s and 50s, membership in the Communist Party U.S.A. was considered an active endorsement of the Soviet plan for global revolutionary activities. Since the USSR was the major financial backer and ideological inspiration of the American Communist Party (albeit, clandestinely), Communist Party membership was still considered politically incorrect by the Washington establishment.

In fact, those hair-brained politicians and their FBI, considered it an active endorsement for the violent overthrow of our government – just as the Supreme Court today considers the official recognition of God a de facto attempt at the establishment of a state religion.

It's a great movie, showing how badly we treated those idealistic Hollywood communists. They didn't mean any harm. They just thought communism was better than American style government – a government that persecuted innocent dissidents working for a better world. They didn't know there was anything wrong with the way the Soviets governed their people. They thought it was a workers' paradise – unlike the United States where workers were sometimes exploited, Blacks had to have their own facilities, and women were kept barefooted and pregnant.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, were about as bad as Hitler. We can see that in retrospect now. Had McCarthy not finally been humiliated and brought down, adult language might still be in the closet, and so would pornography and open homosexuality. Chances are, same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday, 10 June, 2008

INTELLIGENT DESIGN DENIED

"Intelligent design is just creationism with aluminum siding slapped on it." A stab at "enlightened humor," by Will Durst, writing in a The Progressive, some time ago. 

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution seems to be a case of creationism with a lot of broken chains detached." John Q. Pridger

But, "If Darwinism is true, it is nothing more or less than further evidence of Intelligent Design." John Q. Pridger

But what would evolutionary science be without plaster, glue, and plenty of creative imagination pinch-hitting for aluminum siding? The truth is, evolution is little more than a rationalized alternative to Biblical mythology. This isn't saying much. Though scientifically rational, most of the hard evidence is still missing. The missing part is a lot more than "a" missing link.

There's a lot to be said for both evolution and "survival of the fittest." What are they but growth, development, and dog eat dog? The proposition makes a lot of sense, and there's undoubtedly a whole lot of truth in it. After all, we can see growth, development, and dog eat dog, with our own eyes. And science supports it. But, insofar as it is true, Pridger would consider it further evidence of very Intelligent Design.

Pridger is a True Believer – in Truth. But he admits he hasn't got a very good handle on much of it. Evolution sounds pretty good, as far as it goes. Trouble is, though it makes for a rational theory, the so-called "record" seems to have a lot more detached links than unbroken evolutionary chains. It leaves far too many unanswered questions to be considered "the" answer.

In fact, Pridger has only learned of one convincingly complete evolutionary chain connecting human kind to single cell organisms. This is the one that goes: (1) god is intimate with goddess. (2) Goddess conceives. (3) An embryo develops from a single fertilized cell, growing through several evolutionary stages over a period of nine months, i.e., from protozoan to fish-like gilled critter, to tailed humanoid, and finally to fully found infant – expelled from the body and breathing on its own. Then evolution continues through growth and development. Childhood, adolescence, education, adulthood, and maybe some dog eat dog and survival of the fittest – right up to old age and death (barring earlier disease and accidents). The perfect microcosmic evolutionary chain. But, unfortunately, it did require the god and goddess to kick it off.

But before that chain, there were the father and the mother – and the chain is linked back through uncounted generations. Somewhere, closer to "The Beginning," such evolutionary changes may have linked to primordial evolutionary processes. But somewhere there must have been a spontaneous "happenstance" that set the process into motion. If you don't want to call it Creation, you can call it "unknowable." That's still about the best science can come up with. For us "believers" we call it Creation – an act of God (just as we call the destruction wrought by a tornado or earthquake an act of God).

Some might simply call it nature. But Nature capitalized, is only a few letters removed from a capitalized "god." And, in the overall scheme of things, what's the difference? Belief in God and belief in no God – what's all the hoopla about? It makes no difference at all in the creative and growth processes that we observe and do believe in.

As Pridger's Old Pappy used to say, "A believer believes in a Universe created by an apparently self-created God. An atheist apparently believes in a self-created Universe." In either case, things keep perking, and continue to happen as if by magic.

Now Pridger isn't much on literal translation of Genesis. If those seven days of creation were calculated in galaxy-years or some other exotic epochs, rather than mere solar days, so be it. After all, God (even if one doesn't believe in Him), would likely have worked on a slightly different scale and time frame than most of us are equipped to deal with.

If Adam and Eve were protozoan, so be that too. And whether the gestation period was nine months or nine million earthly millennium, it hardly makes a whole lot of difference to us today. After all is said and done, anyone at our stage of evolution would have to consider the the whole process rather remarkable. Intelligent Design is an apt term, however the processes of Creation worked. Fortunately for us, those processes are still working today.

Whoever wrote Genesis wasn't a twenty-first century rocket scientist, nuclear physicist, astronomer, geologist, or biologist. And he wasn't writing for a Harvard astrophysics class (if they have such classes). Chances are, the writer didn't even have his GED. Maybe he had no more than a Tree of Knowledge degree. Who knows? In any case, he did the best he could. Even if he had a PhD in exotic space, earth, and life sciences, it would have done little good to write everything down in minute scientific detail. Who would have read it even if they could have understood it?

The Bible said God rested on the Seventh day. We're told that he was pleased with his work. But he didn't quit then. He's still working – and He's probably still only on "His" Eighth day. Though unlikely, let's hope mankind is destined to make it through that day. George Bush help us if God ever becomes annoyed at His work and decides to upgrade Creation to better platform and operating system.

Pridger has a lot of faith in modern science and technology, but gets slightly annoyed and impatient when our best and brightest presume that man alone (and they in particular), have a universal monopoly on "intelligent design." The Bible said man was created in God's own image, and scientific man is doing his utmost to fulfill that iteration in the most literal sense while denying that God has ever been a factor.

Yet, science is so far behind the Creator that it has only recently begun to reverse engineer the secrets of life and the Universe. Propounding on Darwinism, cracking genetics and DNA code, bioengineering life forms, and sending probes into space are a good start, but we've got a long way to go to unlock what Pridger calls "The Universal Living Truth."

The Commandments say God "is a jealous God." Let us hope He displays some heavenly compassion, for science PhDs and other modern day lawgivers, and for those who place their unmitigated faith in them. 

John Q. Pridger

Thursday, 5 June, 2008

GLOBALISM = ECONOMIC INSTABILITY

There are three main requisites to economic stability. (1) A definable economic playing field, i.e., knowing where the national borders are, (2) a stable currency, and (3) a plan, i.e., an idea as to what a nation's economic goals should be.

1. We know where our borders are, and we know that within those borders we have the natural resources available to enable us to be largely economically independent. And economic independence, to the degree reasonably possible, should be the main goal of national economic planning. But the leadership has decided that our economic model is global and planned global interdependence has trumped national economic independence.
   
2. We have a national currency which is neither stable nor any longer "national." When the dollar was released from gold it became an unstable currency. And when the dollar became the world's reserve currency, we lost the ability to control it as a national currency tailored to the needs of the nation.
   
3. We have no "national" economic plan. A national economy requires national protection from foreign inroads into the domestic marketplace. We only have a plan for globalism, which, by definition, cannot be effectively controlled by our national government.   

It has become increasingly obvious that the global economy has been destructive to our domestic economy. Our own economy is becoming increasingly unworkable as we become more and more dependent on foreign imports and foreign credit. Other nations, many of which retain a focus on their own national economic interests, will increasingly render the United States economically impotent.

When we had a protected national economy – a protected market – American industry paid the way for the the American life-style that was concurrently developing. It paid the wages, benefits, health insurance, and retirement benefits, all based on a high American living standard.

When our government started opening the American market to foreign producers, the inevitable results happened. The extraordinarily successful American economy began to falter by degrees. The answers to accumulating economic dislocations and various red lights was never to "correct" errors, but pile on more destructive trade policy via free trade agreements which favored foreign production over American production.

The national plan (such as it was), was to "give the consumer" the fullest array of choices available in the marketplace – the global marketplace. This was considered enlightened policy, though the consequences were obvious from the very beginning. But the consequences were not considered important – they served the bottom line of large multi-national corporations. The Stock Market and GDP were the gauges of national success. Since they were up, all systems were go, and globalism was pronounced a success.

When protection was withdrawn from domestic markets and industries, business was not only encouraged to move production offshore so they could increase profits, but the national government subsidized the move. American government had betrayed American workers. There was no rioting in the streets, so the policy was proclaimed a success.

The consumer (which included all American workers), was rewarded amply with cheap imports – which served as the carrot on the end of the stick. The consumer loved it – globalism was again proclaimed a success. Nobody was about to riot in the streets.

The choices American consumers first saw were the opportunities to buy neat little Japanese made cars. They were wonderful! They were quality products with a much cheaper price tags than American cars, and the got better gas mileage. Naturally nobody rioted in the streets – not even Ford or General Motors employees. In fact, Ford and General Motors employees liked Japanese cars as much as anybody else.

When the Toyotas and other imports started gaining a significant American market share, this was the choice American car buyers had: They could buy a nice big American car with fins, or they could buy a Japanese car without fins, that did not pay American worker wages or benefits, did not pay for any American health insurance, and did not promise anybody a generous retirement package.

In 1973 the OPEC oil embargo was a wake-up call to Detroit automakers, just like it was a wake-up call to our government telling that we needed a national energy policy. A lot of Americans wanted smaller, more fuel efficient automobiles. Japan was already providing them at prices Detroit could not compete with. So, American car manufacturers were forced to concentrate on the upscale market for standard American style cars and light trucks. For this reason, Toyota and a host of other foreign car makers, were able to gain a larger and larger share of the American car market.

Nobody in Washington ever thought it might be a good idea to encourage American automakers to make the cars increasing numbers of Americans wanted. That would be too much like "helping American business" remain predominate in American markets – free trade heresy. It was enough to mandate better fuel economy in the big cars they were forced to make. Helping them would require protectionism – and we couldn't allow that! Let the "global marketplace" rule. It if favored Japanese, Korean, and other foreign car manufacturers, so be it!

When the competition from abroad became a little too much for even government to ignore, foreign companies were encouraged to set up plants in the United States. They would be non-union shops, of course. The pay, benefits, and retirement, weren't quite up to American standards, but they did provide good jobs for Americans far from the industrial car making areas of the north. They built nice, new, state of the arts, car manufacturing – or assembly – plants. Nobody rioted in the streets, though most parts were still imported and the profits were shipped to Japan or elsewhere. 

American car manufacturers are now struggling with huge annual losses, and huge ongoing pension commitments. Workers are continuing to be laid off, and plant after plant is being shut down. Toyota and other foreign car manufacturers have over half of the American automobile market and are doing very well.

The same scenario has been encouraged in every other manufacturing field. Workers and ex-workers are suffering for it. Good manufacturing jobs are scarce and people are hurting, but nobody is rioting in the streets. The global free market has been proclaimed a great success! Americans have choices.

But the American economy – once so strong and robust – is no longer able to pay its own way. And the entire population has learned to cope somehow, and wouldn't have it any other way. "Thank God for Wal-Mart and Harbor Freight!" goes the chorus. But, in spite of all the cheap imports in our stores, many Americans are "being forced" to live beyond their means. The affluent American life-style is increasingly purchased on credit. American home owners were encouraged (by the tax code, no less!), to borrow on, and spend, their home equity.

The American economy is now on the brink of a catastrophic collapse. The signs are everywhere, and can no longer be ignored. But, not only are there no solutions, there are no riots in the streets – yet. But there should be, because our American government betrayed its people a long time ago. However, the betrayal known as globalism has been proclaimed the most wonderful thing in the history of mankind. That is still the chorus. The popularity of globalism is unassailable! We are told it's nothing less than inevitable – and nobody will stand in the way of progress.

SO LET'S HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Nobody is willing to talk about reforming globalism. Globalism is loudly proclaimed to be good. So, with all of this success, what is the greatest domestic concern in the present presidential elections? Universal health care! This is where our focus in centered.

Now, ironically, the health care industry still operates on the basis of American costs and American profit levels, and these costs and profits have been rising steadily as everything else, of a productive nature, has been going down. The health care industry is essentially a service industry, and an essential one at that. Yet it produces no tangible wealth at all – like government itself, it consumes huge amounts of wealth. Unlike declining "wealth producing industries," the insurance and health care industries continue to be increasingly profitable.

Industry once assumed responsibility for the health of its workers, but this is no longer possible. Like American wages themselves, providing employee health care insurance puts them at a competitive disadvantage in the globalized economy. American industries want to shed themselves of the antiquated idea that they have a responsibility to their workers' health. The time for this once "enlightened" idea, has passed.

The answer seems to be some sort of "mandated" universal health care for all Americans. But we are not yet a totally socialized country – and, besides, our government is already so far in the red that it simply can't entertain the thought of providing socialized universal health care – certainly not at American prices.

So they are toying around with "mandating" private health care coverage. In other words, forcing American workers to buy their own health care coverage from private insurance companies – something like the way states now "mandate" automobile liability insurance.

Such mandates would be worse than socialism – they amount to a form of outright tyranny. Such a system would effectively garnish wages of workers for the benefit of private insurance companies and the health care industry. Somehow this is considered more "free market" than a pure system of socialized health care. There are big profits in it for "those who count."

That's the way the political winds are blowing at the moment. People are desperate for "affordable" health care – free or otherwise – and they'll agree with just about anything the government decides is best for them. Only private insurance, and private health care facilities, can guarantee the full range of choices that the public expects.

The best possible level of health care for every American (and particularly children), is what everybody wants, of course. Since everybody wants it, and there is a health care crises, the government has to do something – even if it is wrong.

TWO CENT BAND-AIDS VS. TWO DOLLAR BAND-AIDS

As a union man in a heavily unionized industry, Pridger was fortunate enough during his working career to have employer paid health care insurance. Fortunately for the employer's health care plan, Pridger seldom cost it anything (knocking on wood). His wife made up for that, however, so Pridger has been plenty glad it was there. And his son once had to have a minor operation that required a two day hospital stay.

When the amazing hospital bill arrived (though mostly paid by insurance), Pridger asked for, and obtained, a detailed itemized version. It was there he noticed the $1.50 charge for a Band-Aid. If a Band-Aid's price was inflated from a fraction of a penny to $1.50, what about all the other charges? Undoubtedly, they were similarly inflated. That's how the system works. And everybody is happy, as long as the bills are paid.

That, of course, was about a quarter of a century ago. Chances are that Band-Aid would demand much more than $1.50 today. Mere inflation would say it would be more like a $10.00 Band-Aid. More likely the Band-Aid is still only billed at a dollar or two (though likely it will be called something much more impressive than a Band-Aid) – but everything else is undoubtedly inflated out of all proportion to work-a-day inflation.

A pure socialized system would make more sense than an insurance industry driven system. At least spectacular profits could be eliminated from the mix. Government hospitals and clinics, operated and manned by civil servants – like the Public Health Hospital system we once had, and the veteran and military systems the government still operates, would be better than a system that supports an entire nationwide insurance industry, plus the extraordinarily profitable private health care industry.

Maybe Pridger is kidding himself. Government doesn't work like it used to. We've all heard about two hundred dollar hammers and six hundred dollar toilet seats the the Defense Department and NASA buys. But Pridger still believes that a government clinic could procure Band-Aids in bulk for a fraction of a penny each, and dispense them for free – whereas our private hospitals procure them in bulk for a fraction of a penny and dispenses them for a dollar or two.

Private hospitals can charge a dollar or two for a Band-Aid because the insurance companies, Medicaid, or Medicare will pay the bill. And all of the insurance and health care companies are in business to make a lot of money. Everybody is happy, except for the poor working man who must pay his own insurance premiums or do without health care.

Of course, the Band-Aid provided by a government clinic or hospital wouldn't be free. A fraction of a penny would have to be added to the tax bill next April 15th. But with the mandated health care insurance, the Band-Aid is going to cost the insurance company a dollar or two. And the insurance premium will provide for the dollar or two with another few cents added on to allow for its own profit.

Those most direly in need of health care coverage are the poor who will not be able to pay for health care insurance at all, mandated or otherwise. They wouldn't be left out, of course. If they were, it wouldn't be universal health care. The government will presumably pay the insurance premiums directly to insurers – allowing them to foot the bill on Band-Aids. In this case, perhaps five dollars will have to be added to somebody else's tax bill – somebody fortunate enough to have a job.

If the government mandates private health insurance, they will merely be perpetuating what we already know is a overly profitable business machine preying on desperate people in need of care.

States would probably make better candidates for public health clinics than the federal government. Most states already have health care facilities for the poor.

DOLLAR WOES

Speaking of one and two dollar Band-Aids, we've seen gasoline go from forty cents a gallon to four dollars a gallon in about forty years. Most of that jump in the value of a gallon of gas has been during the last five years – the "War on Terror" years. Gas is getting dearer because the dollar is quickly becoming worthless. The dollar is becoming worthless simply because the pressure is on to create so many of them that the process is both profuse and unstoppable.

For a long time, everybody wanted more dollars. So they got them – lots and lots of them, in increasing layers. OPEC nations are so full of dollars than. Now many of them would rather have Euros (a newbee currency), than good old Yankee Dollars. Who can blame them? And you can bet that the OPEC nations are carefully increasing their gold stocks.

The dollar continues to leak value like a stuck pig, and balance of payments and trade deficits continue to rise into the stratosphere. Price stability in most things is out the window. All prices have become perpetually upwardly mobile. But gas changes price, sometime radically, on a daily basis without any real discernable rhyme or reason. The dollar flow isn't ebbing and flowing by spurt. Inflation can't explain volatile commodity prices.

These gyrations and increases can't be caused by forces of supply and demand. Supply and demand simply don't change on a daily basis. The flow from the wells to refineries are continuous and relatively steady – like the flow of dollars coming out of the Fed. Refining capacity doesn't change on a daily or weekly basis. So the ups and downs – ups and ups, ups and downs in prices – are the result of something else. The "gaming nature" of the "markets" in the global economy is the problem. The oil flows steadily. Supply is essentially steady. Demand is steadily increasing. But the speculative, gambling house, nature of "markets" actively thwarts anything like stability of pricing. A word or rumor can cause spikes and plunges in any market price.

The global marketplace, the Stock Markets, and Futures markets, are places where speculators reign – and where speculators rule, stability is impossible. Volatility is the name of the game.

If rational market forces were at work, there would merely be a slow increase in price, as supplies are gradually stressed by steadily increasing demand.

Gold is another commodity that defies rational market force pricing. Gold goes up and down with daily jumps that exceed the last official value of the metal – which (if Pridger remembers correctly, was about $42.00 an ounce).

Gold was once the sheet anchor of our currency, and once delivered price stability. The gold monetary system could not be manipulated like a puppet on strings. Now that stability is gone, and it's essentially been gone since 1971 – a period of 37 years. Just look at the history of gold prices in terms of the U.S. dollar:

1793 - 1833 Gold was $19.39 an ounce.
1834 - 1877 Gold varied between $20.68 to $27.99 an ounce
1878 - 1932 Gold was officially pegged at $20.67 an ounce
1933 - 1972 Gold was officially pegged at $35.00 an ounce
1973 to today, Gold has gone from $42.00 to over $1,000.00 an ounce

The price of gold hasn't stabilized. Nor does it merely go up. It had been rising steadily, with some big bumps and dips, since 1973. Then it began a steadier rise with our markedly increased deficit spending and deficit trading in conjunction with our national commitment to perpetual war.

Today the price of gold is about $900.00 an ounce, down $100.00 from its recent high. It's difficult for us old codgers to invest in $900.00 gold since we know that gold is only worth $35.00 an ounce (that is, we have this mental block that denies that the dollar has changed). It was difficult to invest in $200.00 gold for the same reason, a few years back.

In light of this mental condition, most of us retired guys stay with the good old U.S. dollar. But the purchasing power of Pridger's "fixed retirement" income has declined by at least a third since he retired just three years ago. What initially appeared to be a "sufficient" income with a margin of safety, is now a barely adequate income. In a couple more years, Pridger will either be looking for a job or downsizing modern conveniences, or both. 

Monetary stability ended in 1933, though the gold standard remained in force to 1972, during which period the official exchanged rate for dollars remained fixed at $35.00 an ounce, though American citizens had lost their "personal right" to own gold.

From 1933 through the end of World War Two Keynesian deficit spending became the economic model. Yet the economy remained anemic throughout the Depression years, because Congress retained some scruples with regard to deficit spending. The dollar remained tied to gold – and with a dollar that was "as good as gold," running up the public debt clearly had consequences that would have to be dealt with in the fullness of time.

War mobilization and spending perked up the economy from 1939 through 1945. With the "temporary" war time payroll withholding tax in place, revenues increased dramatically and the nation seemed well on its way to curing it's economic problems.

By 1972, however, Congress had thrown fiscal responsibility out the window. The primary fiscal role of Congress became "raising the debt ceiling" rather than balancing the budget. The "War on Poverty" and the Vietnam War destroyed all hope for "balanced budgets" and the redeem-ability of dollars in gold. The world was being flooded with American dollars in such vast quantities that it soon became clear the Treasury could no longer afford to redeem them with gold. 

When the dollar replaced gold as the predominate international reserve currency, Congress, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve, lost effective control of the nation's currency. It was no longer just U.S. Currency. It was the world's currency. Rather than have a monetary policy, and money supply, tailored to the needs of the nation, it was now necessary to have a monetary policy and money supply to fit the world. As president Nixon said after closing the gold window, "We're all Keynesians now."

There was method to the madness, however. Money men had always known that to control the money supply was to control the nation. During the Cold War, the same rationale was applied by Washington insiders to harness and control the Free World. With gold out of the picture, "controlling money" (and the Free World), became a game of manipulating pure credit and indebtedness – a infinitely flexible Utopia for the money changers. And, at the price of massive debt, our government was able to embark on a plan aimed at global empire – financed through debt.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the target of control was nothing less than the entire world. And, it was rationalized, it could be done by simply, "sharing our wealth" and manipulating international credit markets. Entire nations could be controlled by effectively making debt slaves of them.

The United States itself crossed the debtor threshold early in the Reagan administration when we went from being the world's larges creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation. We no longer owed our national debt to ourselves (as economists had assured us was the "positive" aspect of deficit spending and the national debt) – we were becoming entangled in a debtor web of our own making, increasingly beholden to "others elsewhere" to finance the "richest economy" in the world.

When we became the world's largest debtor nation, Reagan also informed us that we were entering a "post industrial" era. The American economy, he said, was to become a "service economy." We were on the leading edge of a "new international economic order." Reagan tried to make it sound like an extraordinarily good deal. But while we were increasing our debt, we were throttling and killing the goose that had been laying the golden eggs. Those eggs would henceforth be laid elsewhere.

But, never mind, the wealth would still be there as the global economy took root. Never mind that it would be elsewhere. Trickle down would satisfy the needs of the increasingly disenfranchised masses.

The dollar was no longer as good as gold. It had become a "faith dollar." And, of course, as the nation's indebtedness grew, and trade policy made the nation a net importer of most of the things we need for economic survival, we quickly transcended from independence to a dependent nation.

Now we are more dependent on a former avowed enemy (China), than the colonies were on the mother country on the brink of the American revolution. In 1776 we could boldly cut the ties to mother England, but today a significant interruption of trade with China would spell swift and total economic disaster.

THE NEW WORLD ORDER

A "New World Order" had been in the hopper for a long time. "One World" had always been the dream of conquerors and empire builders. Enlightened schemers, bent on Utopia, entered the game in the eighteenth century. They were eventually joined by the money men. Then there were the communist and socialist utopians. They joined the game. Then the humanitarians and rich philanthropists joined in.

Beginning in the World War One era, the United States government began to take an interest. The League of Nations didn't quite fly, however, because we still had too much "national representation" in Congress. 

But when we immerged victorious and militarily unassailable from World War Two, the idea of global empire began to take seed in the American Congress. The United Nations was the new vehicle by which One World might be attained. Though Congress signed on with great enthusiasm and fanfare (after all, it was said, the "UN was an American product"), Congress was initially very careful to leave our national sovereignty wholly intact.

Our WWII co-victor, the Soviet Union (with their Marxist Leninist New World Order vision, which was at odds with our capitalist dream), was a thorn in our side – but in the end provided a wonderful rationale for defending, and dominating, the "Free World." We did this through a combination of monetary bribery and military and economic intimidation. 

American money and goods flowed freely throughout the Free World. With the Soviet block refraining from most crucial United Nations business, the UN became little more than the tail by which we were able to wag the world. The UN is essentially ruled by the Security Council, which at that time was comprised of our major WWII allies.

Though the USSR was a member of the Security Council, it chose not to cooperate or exercise its veto power. So, ironically, our two big Cold War heated flare-ups, Korea and Vietnam, were both United Nations "police actions" – actions whereby we were able to wage war in the name of the "World Community" through the United Nations – even though the "enemies" in those wars were proxies for the Soviet Union, our fellow UN Security Council member and former staunch ally.

Its not that the Soviets weren't doing themselves a favor, of course. In reality, they cared very little for their Korean, Vietnamese, and Communist Chinese friends. They were very happy to see us expend our national wealth and blood in distant Asian wars. The way they saw it, those wars would weaken us, whether we won or lost – and it would strengthen them whether their Asian clients won or lost. If their clients won, it would be because of their support and assistance, and they would gain great influence in Asia. If their clients lost, it would be no big loss for the Soviets (for their Marxist-Leninist revolutionary eyes were firmly focused on the West), but the United States would have been weakened through wars that would cost us plenty, but could never benefit us much materially.

Ironically, we really started "rapprochement" with the USSR during the Vietnam War. We began trading with the enemy on a large scale, with our famous wheat deals – whereby we sold the Soviets huge amounts of wheat. They purchased the wheat quietly in the American market. When the market reacted to such large purchases, the price of wheat shot upward sharply, so when the wheat was delivered to the Soviets, the American taxpayer had to pay the difference in the purchase price and the delivery price.

Undoubtedly, much of that wheat was then shipped to North Vietnam to help feed our enemies – French bread being a staple in that country.

The American dollar, and American industrial production, drove both the United Nations and the wars we were able to fight under UN auspices. This great flow of U.S. dollars and American products into the Free World economy, transformed us from a self-serving nation state into the global monetary and food benefactor – all the while injecting American money into every national economy in the world. This was inflation of a national currency far above and beyond anything that had ever happened before in world history.

The first big monetary shock came when Nixon terminated the gold standard. Immediately, the Yankee dollar lost a lot of its luster, and the world showed that there wasn't a lot of faith in the new international "faith currency." Inflation of a faith-based currency becomes as inevitable as it is easy to accomplish, and the rest of the world braced for what was to come. Faith-based money facilitated smoke and mirror economics – a precursor of what later became known as "Voodoo Economics."

The relatively sound gold dollar had slipped from $20.00 per ounce gold to $35.00 per ounce gold between 1793 and 1971, a period of 178 years.

The faith-based dollar has slipped from $35.00 per ounce gold to our present $900.00 per ounce – in a period of only 37 years – and the slope is getting slipperier with every passing year. During this same period we have transcended from an independent nation to a dependent nation. In other words, the independent Republic only lasted about 178 years – somewhat shy of the 200 some had predicted as the probably life-span of our "democracy."

If the $900.00 gold price holds, we have a four cent dollar in terms of the 1970 dollar – a 96% decline in the value of our currency – and a two cent dollar in terms of the 1913 dollar. The nation has experienced a lot of industrial and technological progress during the past century, but monetarily we have been going backwards during the entire period. What else could you call a 98% loss of purchasing power?

An interesting aside with regard to the soaring price of oil and gasoline. When gold last sold for $35.00 per ounce, gasoline sold for about $.35 a gallon – 1/100th of an ounce of gold. With $900.00 an ounce gold, the corresponding price of gasoline would be $9.00 a gallon. Let's hope gasoline doesn't catch up with gold.

More likely gold will fall back while gasoline continues to increase somewhat. $5.00 gas and $600.00 gold sounds about right. This isn't according to any scientific economic law, it's only Pridger typing to hear his keys click. There's no close correlation between the gold and oil markets. After all, we're talking stable precious metal and a volatile liquid here. Still, it's something to think about because though there may not be any "close" correlation there is a "correlation."

The handwriting was on the wall back in the 1970s. But it didn't matter. The national economy and long-term national survival of the United States was no longer the main focus of the political insiders. There were bigger fish to fry. President Reagan called it the "new international economic order." His successor, George Bush I, came right out and called it the "New World Order."

Wendell L. Willkie published his book, One World, in 1943, while World War Two was still raging. In One World, Willkie referred to the Allies as "the United Nations." And the United Nations became the initial vehicle of the "new" One World movement.

An updated New World Order plan began to jell in the wake of World War Two, when newly independent nations became members of the United Nations. The "Third World," comprised mostly of under-developed former colonies, provided new rationales, why and how, the "One World" dream must be forced.

Elisabeth L. Tamedly wrote of the New World Order vision from the socialist perspective in 1969, in her Socialism and International Economic Order.

Steven E. Ambrose published Rise to Globalism, American Foreign Policy Since 1938 in 1971, making the case for globalism as we have come to know it.

Those rationales came to Pridger's attention in the form of RIO Reshaping the International Order, A Report to The Club of Rome, published in 1976. It's a comprehensive and very enlightening study – one of many. The Club of Rome is one of those elite internationalist clubs in the image of others such as the the famous British "Round Table" group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), and the American Council on Foreign Affairs and Trilateral Commission.

A similar report to that of the Club of Rome, North-South A Program for Survival, The Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the Chairmanship of Willy Brant, was published in 1980. It covers much of the same ground. The rationale for One World Order, is laid out as nothing less than a program for the survival of mankind.

Much background information was provided by Carroll Quigley, in his 1966 Tragedy & Hope, A History Of The World In Our Time. 

These are just a few of the more reputable sources in Pridger's library that tell us something of why our own government would pursue policies that are obviously against the interests of the American people and so detrimental to American workers. In short, there are major unmentionable goals in the current rendition of the New World Order. That is, they aren't about to be brought to the attention of the masses of the American people – for if they were, there would be rioting in the streets and outright revolution threatening from the wings (that is, if there is still that much backbone in the American people, which is doubtful).

The crux of the bad news is that the New World Order is as much about greatly downsizing the "American Way of Life" as it is about sharing American wealth with the Third World. The program is not aimed only at the American life style, of course, but at radically reducing consumption in all the advanced industrialized West. In other words, leveling off human consumption of resources by bringing living standards down in the traditionally advance nations while bringing them up in developing nations – but only far enough to avoid civil unrest in hungry populations.

This is happening today as we wonder at the increasing costs of maintaining the life style we have become accustomed to while loosing the jobs and earned incomes that once made that life style possible. In other words, our present economic problems are actually part of the overall New World Order plan!

Money talks, of course, so the rich must be kept happy. There is no limit on the amount of riches an individual can accumulate. So, naturally, the rich will continue to get richer. The New World Order plan (now that the socialist and communist utopians have been vanquished), is a capitalist plan, capitalist driven. It makes capitalists, and big multi-national corporations, very wealthy and very happy. But the poor – which is to say, the rest of us – are destined to become much poorer than we are today.

They don't want us to be too poor, mind you. We must continue to be consumers. The corporate machinery driving the New World Order requires consumers. We must continue to be able to purchase our every basic need – every consumer item, and every morsel of food – from established corporate sources. The corporate machinery intends to provide for us as long as we remain good corporate citizens, behave ourselves. And there will be corporate solutions for every problem we encounter in the future – from global warming and climate change to mass starvation.

John Q. Pridger

GETTING THINGS EXACTLY BACKWARDS

Somewhat amazingly, our currency still displays the motto, "In God We Trust." Once our trust in God was so unshakable it has become an embarrassment. We had a faith based political system and a dollar as good as gold. Government was secular, of course, but the people who comprised it were overwhelmingly men and women of professed faith. While two thirds of our trusty leaders may have been hypocrites, at least they had to pay lip service to "trusting in God," and following the teachings of Jesus.

Today faith in God is being expunged from the official national character, thanks to the good offices of such organizations as the ACLU and a Hollywood and mass media that have adopted, at best, a humanist anti-faith materialist profile, and a purely hedonistic one at worst.

As we've lost faith in God, we've adopted a faith-based monetary system – and that faith is obviously totally misplaced. It's become a joke – and a bad joke on the American people at that. Ironically, money is about the only thing we are supposed to have faith in these days. This faith is critical. Once faith in the almighty dollar is totally lost, it's value will slip faster than a one legged preacher at a greasy floored revival.

Say what you will, you religion-haters, generally speaking, faith in God (real or pretended), has always tended to keep people and government, if not honest, at least eager to appear both honest and decent. And at least halfway honest people in high office are required in order to have any hope for an honest currency, whether it's backed by gold or merely the "full faith and credit of the government." Of course, the gold backed dollar tended to keep even bankers and religious hypocrites in government honest.

Is it possible to have an honest government without "In God we Trust"? The ACLU and the growing "church of humanism" (the church of anti-religion), say "Yes!" But look at the socioeconomic shambles around us today. Look at the money! If you don't see anything there, look at the price of gas – and the housing mortgage crises. Look and weep. And, as President Reagan used to say, "You ain't seen anything yet!"

You simply can't get things backwards and go in the right direction at the same time.

John Q. Pridger

PRIDGER AS A "DIED IN THE WOOL FUNDAMENTALIST"

If not exactly a religious fundamentalist, at least Pridger is a national fundamentalist. Some brilliant words were written into the Declaration of Independence. And some pretty careful thought was put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Say what you will about our founders and their personal flaws – and the birth defects of the nation they created. Make as much as you like of their human flaws, and of the "crimes of conquest and settlement" of the continent (with it's imperative of Manifest Destiny) – the United States has nonetheless been the greatest success story in the history of nation states, if not in the entire history of mankind.

A measure of that success can be readily seen even today as we continue our downward spiral away from our founding principles. Just compare the number of people hastening to leave this country with the numbers of people still breaking their necks, and risking all, to get in!

The only ones leaving are those seeking an offshore haven for their accumulated wealth, or a change of pace from the increasingly hedonist patterns of what has become the grossly materialistic "American way of live."

Of course, we have a new kind of immigrant today. Increasing a few who come to make their fortune here intend to get out of our race race again as quickly as possible. They hope to make their fortune here and then go back in the homeland where they can live like minor potentates. But even the overwhelming majority of those who come with that intention end up staying. Life can still be good here if you can adjust – and most immigrants do.

Why does this nation continue to be such an immigrant magnet? Because of the magnificent successes we have enjoyed as a nation. Despite the Department of Homeland Security and the necessity for SWAT teams in every city and town of any size, and a whole lot of bellyaching over racial injustice and discrimination against homosexuals who want the benefits of the marriage deduction, and the hoopla over the lack of universal health care, this is still a pretty free country.

Where Pridger lives, in the rural heartland, things are almost as free and civilized as they were fifty years ago. But only as long as you don't cross the property line.

John Q. Pridger   

SEAMLESS SOLUTIONS 

Globalism and the New World Order are supposed to provide seamless solutions for the world's economic woes. But, ultimately, this seamless solution will spell international chaos. The world, and global markets, simply cannot be ruled as if it were a village and a village farmers' market. And to say "the free market" (whether local, national, or global), is self-regulating is like saying Wal-Mart knows what's best for all of us.

Since winning our Cold War contest with international communism, we have become obsessed with the sanctity of "free markets" and abhor anything that smacks of a "command economy" – and economics has become a science totally divorced from "street level." There is no plan for a "national economy." We have sought a global free market system in an attempt to find economic equilibrium in an world that is out of balance to the degree that it is chaotic.

The global free market is not ruled by "free market forces" however. It is ruled by the three corporate classes. Financial capital and commercial (or mercantile) class of capital – neither of which has been empowered by anything resembling democratic processes – and industrial capital. The system – i.e., the global economy – is ruled by those three classes. We do have some sort of international economic stability because of their rule, of course, but they rule the global economy rather than the being ruled by "free market forces." Free market forces are not in charge. Capital is – and capital manipulates the so-called "free market" forces to serve its need for perpetually increasing profits.

Financial capital is essentially the "money power" plus the machinery that rules the financial markets. It regulates the international monetary regime and allocates the availability of both money and credit – allocating both according to its own inclinations and whims. Industrial capital, which is dependent on financial capital, produces the goods. Mercantile capital buys, moves, and sells the products of industrial capital

The Federal Reserve and other central and "international" banks (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlements, etc), along with an array of large commercial banking houses, brokerages, and clearinghouses (i.e., stock and bond markets, etc.), comprise financial capital (though some of these may be considered commercial capital).

Industrial capital is essentially comprised of the large corporations that actually produce tangible products, through mining, drilling, construction, manufacturing, processing, etc.

Mercantile capital has come to be best represented by large corporate chains engaged in wholesaling, transportation, and retailing – including such behemoths as Wal-Mart, Kroger, and service industries such as fast food restaurant chains.

John Q. Pridger

THE OBAMA CANDIDACY IS PLAYING WITH FIRE

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on the 22nd of November, 1963, the nation went into a state of shock, and then it went into mourning. Five years later, on this day (5 June, 1968), Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Again the nation was in shock, and the nation mourned.

On April 4th, 1968, just two month prior to Robert Kennedy's assassination, Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King was assassinated. The nation was shocked and the nation mourned then too – but mostly, it girded for riots in the streets.

The big difference in these three tragic events was that when President Kennedy, and Democratic presidential nominee Robert Kennedy were assassinated, the nation mourned and pulled together. But in the case of the assassination of Martin Luther King, massive race riots followed. Cities burned, and the nation began to fracture as it never had before.

The nation has never really recovered from those assassinations. Each has left ugly scars which will never totally heal. But the race riots that followed the King assassination left open sores that continue to fester just under the surface. All that is required to re-ignite the fires is a single incident. The trial that resulted from the Rodney King incident is an example. It doesn't take much – and an assassination of a Black president would be the ultimate incendiary event.

Once again we would be asking, as Rodney King did, "Can't we just get along?"

Heaven forbid that a candidate or President Barack Obama should ever be assassinated. But, clearly, it is a possibility. Hillary Clinton, herself, reminded us of that fact when she cited Robert Kennedy's assassination as a rationale for her to stay the course even though Obama was the nominee apparent.

If racism is as alive and well in our nation as many believe (and it probably is), an Obama assassination would seem much more likely than either Kennedy assassinations did. But it doesn't take a racist nation to assassinate a public figure. It only takes a single deranged individual or a single overzealous political radical.

It would make no difference who committed the crime or why. Black rage would flare up and take its inevitable toll once again. Let us hope that no such individual will be able to plunge the nation into a new period of race riots and death and destruction in our cities.

In catapulting Barack Obama into his present situation, the nation is literally playing with fire. Regardless of our political leanings, let's all keep Barack Obama in our prayers. And perhaps we'd best also pray for a McCain administration, just to play it safe.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday, 3 June, 2008

BIZARRE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, BIZARRE CHOICES

Now we're down to Barack Obama vs. John McCain. As far as the media is concerned, those are the only candidates in the contest (other than Hillary as a possible vice-presidential choice for Obama).

Barack Obama will now be pressured to make Hillary his running mate – thus having a "dream team" ticket in the eyes of many. But chances are Obama has already had enough of Hillary. If she ends up as his vice presidential choice, chances are it will have been the result of forces beyond Obama's control – and we my still have the specter of another Clinton administrations on our hands. 

No other candidates have been able to get any media coverage. Ron Paul is still in the race – and Ralph Nader is running. Bob Barr is out there too. They're all still out there somewhere. The media should keep us posted on such things and let us know what ideas other candidates can bring to the national debate. The front runners should be confronted with some alternative ideas, and forced to address them. They should let the public know why their own ideas and agendas are better than those of the other candidates who are still technically in the race. But that simply isn't happening.

And what are our choices at this stage?

1. Barack Hussein Obama – the man with the rock star appeal. It's as if Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods, and Bobby Kennedy have come together in one "made for the media" personality.  The exotic name literally bespeaks "multi-culturalism," embracing an alien culture, and "change" – change that has obviously already occurred in this formerly politically homogeneous country. There could also be some sort of subconscious Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, appeal due to the name. Though Obama talks exactly like the liberal politician he is, such a name might easily have come up on the list of 9/11/2001 highjackers.
         Though an attractive man, brilliant speaker, and, seemingly, true gentleman, he's still very much a "how in the world did he get there?" candidate. His support base has been "Change" people, including most Blacks and liberals people who hope that the money we're wasting on the Iraq War could be turned into more entitlements for children, women, and minorities..
   
2. John McCain – great guy, war hero, and "stay the course" man. He's the American Empire candidate. He's an elder statesman with much more "elder" than "statesman" or "diplomat" in his rhethoric. 
        The perception is that McCain represents a continuation of the Bush administration – a perception McCain has gone out of his way to encourage. No other administration has done more damage to the Republic during his terms than any other president in the history of the nation. McCain's support base is the red blooded American "bomb the bastards into the stone age" class – and, of course, the entire military-industrial complex, well augmented by Christian Zionists and the "Israeli Lobby." 

Pridger predicts a McCain victory in November. Yet, in Pridger's modest opinion, he's the worst possible candidate of all – the worst of the entire array of both Republican and Democratic candidates. "The Lobby," in combination with Christian Zionists, and the entire military-industrial complex, are a hard team to beat. 

We've finally got a candidate who has gone before AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), and come right out and said that Israeli security is just as important to him as American security – that they are essentially one and the same – and (essentially – though Pridger's words), that he'd sooner bomb Iran into the stone age than carry on any diplomacy with the president of Iran (a man who has expressed politically incorrect views on Israel).

Of course, all the major candidates bow and scrape before AIPAC and the Israel Lobby – and the Democratic party has been favored by Jews for many decades. But, in deference to American public opinion, both Clinton and Obama are for cutting and running from "our commitment" in Iraqi. And both have said they would use diplomacy with Iran in order to avoid another disastrous war. The Israel Lobby, however, expects, a firm commitment that Iran will not only be dealt with, but de-fanged – soon!

As far as Israel is concerned, Iraq has already been satisfactorily de-fanged and fractured. It's no longer a coherent nation with credible offensive capabilities. But it must also be "held" as a base in the transformation of the entire Middle East – for almost the entire Middle East remains a long term threat to Israel.  

This, among other things, is why this year's presidential race must be the most bizarre in American electioneering history. Never before has a major presidential candidate come right out and declared that his loyalty to Israel is as firm and important as his loyalty to the United States of America. Now that's an ally and a "real special relationship" – no other president, or presidential candidate, in the history of the nation would have actually put in the manner McCain did.

McCain has other things going for him too, of course. Most white Americans simply aren't as ready for a Black president as the media would like to make us think – regardless of what they may say out loud. And they are certainly not ready for one named Barack Hussein Obama.

Names like Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Allen Keyes (even a Clarence Page), would have a much better chance to break the racial barrier and make it into the White House. At least they sound like Americans – as if their forefathers might have assimilated into American society – maybe were even proud of, and loyal to, their country.

Not only does Barack Hussein Obama sound foreign, it could have easily have been one of the names listed as 9/11 high-jackers, or one of Osama bin Laden's, or Saddam Hussein's, lieutenants or close kin. And, in fact, it's foreign enough that most of Obama's step-mothers and half brothers and sisters live in Kenya rather than the United States.

This makes one wonder – "What were Democrats thinking?" John Edwards would have had a wonderful chance of winning against McCain. Dennis Kucinich had a better agenda and more profound ideas on the most important issues, but apparently lacked the charismatic charm demanded by today's Democratic voters. But a Clinton or Obama?? Tough, determined, woman. Good, extraordinarily popular, man. But both almost certain to be defeated by McCain. But...

These are weird times, of course. Pridger could be wrong. Bill Clinton and George Bush were both reelected after totally disgracing the presidency and being exposed as being extraordinarily lose with either women, facts, or both. So anything can happen. Since they were re-elected after being exposed as the worst possible people to have in the White House. This tells Pridger that McCain will probably win – but there's no foregone conclusion here.

Now Pridger really doesn't really mean to disparage George Bush. He's a good man too. Truth just naturally looks different to a man sitting in the White House. Probably the biggest reality of all for a newly elected president, is that he quickly finds out what the "new reality" is, and that that reality, and what had seemed reality prior to his election, are two distinctly different things.

As president, he gets his facts and ideas from others upon whom he is obliged to depend for direction. He gets "advice" ("instructions" or "ultimatums"), from quarters he may not have imagined or bargained for. He is driven by forces and powers not readily apparent to those who elect him.

Chances are, all a sitting president can do is try to put the best face on things. Some are better at this than others. George Bush has actually probably done a superb job under the circumstances. Clearly he has made an excellent wartime Commander-In-Chief. Unfortunately, "his war" happened to be the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. This has happened to other presidents before, of course. LBJ was certain that the Vietnam War was a "good war" for a long time. But then another reality imposed itself.

Bush's first major prompting for action came on 9-11-2001. Advice promptly followed, and he promptly followed it – taking the bit firmly into his clinched teeth. He took the wrong path (perhaps not even the path of his own choosing) – and like a good Commander-In-Chief, under orders from someone or some group, posing as God, has never wavered nor waffled in his devotion to the cause.

The next president will find out about those same realities. McCain is making it clear before the election that he is already totally in the loop. So why not elect him and save the time necessary to break in someone who is still miles away from the loop of presidential reality?

Both McCain and Obama have their own particular vulnerabilities and weaknesses. The media, acting on signals from sources they will not cite, will signal which one will be most able to exploit the weaknesses of the other. 

John Q. Pridger

PRIDGER'S ADMISSION

Pridger admits that Barack Obama is probably the "best man standing" in the bi-polar race. Not necessarily the best man in all terms, but the only one who seems to think for himself at this stage. That will probably change somewhat if he gets elected. He's already made his own pilgrimage to speak before AIPAC, to reassure "The Lobby" that Israel's needs will be met under his administration – that Iran won't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons (as Israel was).

Among other things, he reminded "The Lobby" how well Jews and Blacks worked together for Civil Rights. Though the Black Liberation Movement dumped the Jews, he, Barack, is a man of another stripe. He's no Black radical, in spite of his church affiliation. Nor is he a closet Muslim. Like McCain, he's willing to commit to being an "Israeli Firster," rather than an "American Firster."

The idea of "America First" has been discredited as (at best), a selfish, short sighted thing, or (at worst), sort of an American Neo-Nazi idea, and as backward as isolationism and protectionism. So, it really makes no difference whether Barack Obama or John McCain gets into the White House. Our foreign policy and surge into New World Orderism aren't likely to change.

McCain is just as liberal as Obama on most issues. Both are New World Order men. Both are willing to fight for Israel. But, since McCain (by virtue of the Republican Party), favors a New World Order which is subservient to American business interests and military power, and Obama (by virtue of the Democratic Party), favors an America which is subservient to the United Nations, Pridger would favor a McCain presidency over an Obama presidency.

Pridger is a nationalist. Not the kind that goes off to conquer the world, or weaker nations, for the father country – but the kind that looks after its own interests "at home" first. Pridger is also an isolationist and a protectionist – both in reasoned and enlightened measure – calculated to best protect and serve the best interests of the American people. Pridger's brand of nationalism recognizes that we have a great and richly endowed nation, capable of supporting its own citizens within its own borders – and that the role of our government is to administer to our own national interests right here on our own real estate.

John Q. Pridger   

Friday, 30 May, 2008

SPEAKING OF SEXUAL AND LEGAL ABERRATIONS...

Hurray for the Texas Supreme Court! They did the right thing and, hopefully, have righted a ghastly injustice of monumental proportions. The YFZ Ranch families will be soon be reunited. So maybe there is some hope for the Republic yet. But...

Sodomy and Homosexuality are going main line, and same sex marriages are becoming legally sanctioned (thus encouraged), by some states. On the other hand, the hint of marriage of 14 and 15 year old girls elicit legal outrage and charges of rape and child abuse. Warren Jeffs, the "spiritual leader" and "saint," of the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter-Day Saints, languishes in prison for his conviction for arranging such marriages. He's now doing long consecutive prison terms as an "accomplice to rape" – a particularly despicable sounding crime.

When we think of "child abuse" we think of bruised and battered, or psychologically scared, children. When we think of "rape" we think of a violent crime against a woman. Funny that Pridger also happens to think of Bill Clinton – former president and husband of a current presidential candidate. President Clinton was never charged or prosecuted, of course, but there were plenty of credible accusations and allegations, along with other "bimbo eruptions." Maybe Clinton is totally innocent on all counts – but he never came close to being charged and tried for a crime (other than lying under oath, which is forgivable when it come to politicians).

A single call from an unidentified, and still allusive, complainant was sufficient excuse for the Texas "authorities" to invade a church community and kidnap 555 women and children. They placed over 400 children and young ladies in foster care to protect them from "possible" past, present, and "future" abuse.

Speaking of "alleged" child sexual abuse. Michael Jackson isn't doing hard time. But he, of course, was different.

Of course, "forced" marriage, whether the lady is fourteen, twenty-four, or sixty-four, is despicable and unacceptable. But there is apparently no actual evidence of forced marriages taking place at YFZ ranch.

Unfortunately "laws" are inflexible. They make no allowances for "religious beliefs" or extenuating circumstances – and Texas law says that 16 year old girls are children just like six year olds. Under such laws, sex with a 16 year old consensual "wife" is exactly the same as the violent rape of a three year old lost orphan.

Not that Pridger is all that much of an apologist for Jeffs' rather bizarre sect, but the marriage of 14, 15, and 16 year old women is a lot more "natural" and "traditional" than "same sex" marriage at any age. Yet, as a society, we are increasingly going out of our way to sanction (and thus encourage), sodomy and traditionally taboo sex acts – we even put the whole array of them on the big screen as public entertainment under the protection of the First Amendment and "freedom of speech."

This is bizarre too – though we have come to take it for granted. Professionally produced pornography, and obscene speech, have almost come to define American culture. 

Yet, it wasn't all that long ago that most states allowed marriage of any "grown" girl, with the consent of her parents. Such marriages were rather common – and there is certainly no religious prohibition of young marriages.

There was nothing particularly unusual about a young lady getting married early until relatively recent times. It was better for a young lady to marry early than wait too long and perhaps "go wrong." And it was considered there was no higher calling for a woman than becoming a wife, mother, and homemaker.

For example, Pridger's grandmother was married at the tender age of 13. Of course, Pridger's great grandparents probably were not at all happy about such an early marriage – 13 was undoubtedly considered a little young even in 1903. But it was better to have a wedding at home than risk an elopement. Fortunately, at least we can rest assured that it was not a shotgun wedding. Their first child did not come until the fourth year of the marriage.

Pridger's grandfather was 21 years old when he married his 13 year old bride – and they had children, happiness, sadness, and responsibilities – and both lived long and productive lives.

Such a marriage today, however, would make Pridger's grandfather a child abusing rapist – and probably his great grandparents "accomplices to rape." Grandma, who obviously considered herself a grown woman, would be considered an abused child. She would be taken away by the Department of Child Protective Services and placed in foster care.

Grandpa, of course, would be sent to prison for maybe ten or twenty years or more. Pridger's great grandparents might also be prosecuted and put away for a matter of years as accomplices of the crime. History would have been changed, and Pridger probably wouldn't be here.

Grandma would have been raised up to age eighteen or so in a series of government subsidized foster homes, and released into the cold cruel world at age eighteen. With her abusive parents, and rapist would-be husband, locked up for a good deal more years to come (as menaces to society), she may have found it difficult to navigate the straight and narrow.

These days, missing the straight and narrow would probably mean she would become a single mother. Food stamps, assistance to mothers with dependent children, and federal housing subsidies, would provide her with a fairly "good" and "independent" life – though she would probably prefer to have a proper family. Single mother parenting is a tough job.

Welfare mothers, however (at least the smart ones), tend to be somewhat cautious about marriage. For one thing, it's difficult for women in such a situation to find a good, dependable, man with a decent job. Welfare moms often make good pickings for a certain class of ne'er-do-well men who are eager to enter into a loving relationship – but without the responsibilities of having to support a family.

By marrying, and losing her "single mother status," she would stand to lose her "independent" federal and state provided income, and thus her independence. If the father or fathers were ever around, they'd be cautioned to keep a low profile and take care to be absent when the social workers came calling to inspect the household.

Chances are, Grandma would be encouraged to abort most of her children. But it would be a tough decision to make. She would know her parents would have considered abortion a dreadful sin. On the other hand, though more kids are quite an additional responsibility, they would qualify her for an increase in assistance. So she might not opt for abortions. After all (as they say), three can eat almost as cheaply as two – and the extra "assistance income" would look pretty much like a very welcome, and "well earned," pay raise.

Today, after doing their time, grandpa and the great grandparents would have had to register as sex offenders. As convicted felons, with the added stigma of being "sex offenders," they would have a difficult row to hoe on the outside. Chances are, they would qualify for job training and some sort of state and federal assistance. Social Security might be available to all three. Chances are, they'd spend the rest of their days in impoverished, non-productive, leisure.

Grandpa might have been too young to qualify for SSI when he got out of the big house. But he may have gained valuable friends and outside contacts while in prison. He may have learned bank robbery, or some other lucrative trade or criminal profession – so, possibly, he may have been able to do well in spite of being an ex-con. 

Fortunately, as it turned out in that earlier, more barbaric and unenlightened era, everything turned out fine. All of them lived long, productive, and relatively happy, lives. Not one of them ever had to depend on any state or federal handouts during their lives. Great grandpa retired on a railroad pension, and grandpa retired on a coal miner's pension, savings, and Social Security. Grandma, after her child bearing years, became a beautician and beauty shop owner.

Oh, but today it might have been so very different.

Of course, this is a different day and age. It's appropriate for ladies to avoid early marriage in order to explore their broadening options in life. In a world already suffering from overpopulation, child-bearing and housekeeping is no longer viewed as positively as they once were. Population and birth control are far higher on the agenda than traditional family life. The girls have so many options now that it's a wonder we still have any traditional families at all. It simply isn't cool.

In view of this, maybe same sex marriage does make some sense. Perhaps that should be the only sort of marriage allowed anywhere for about two or three generations. This would solve the population problem.

But Pridger can't help but think something is woefully wrong with our Brave New World as it is presently unfolding. There are a lot of reasons for this assessment. But one salient fact is that the brightest, most productive, and most highly educated, men and women are not reproducing themselves. Their birth rate is way below replacement levels. And this does not bode well for the survival of that particular species.

By far, the highest birth rates are among the poorest, most ill-educated, and least productive, classes of people. They continue to multiply and be plentiful – and an embarrassing percentage of them raise their children in single mother households, largely at the expense of the taxpayer.

Another embarrassing percentage comes from the men and women of that class, (some one percent of the entire population of the nation), are now housed in jails and state and federal penitentiaries 100% at public expense! The overwhelming majority of them are men, and the overwhelming majority of those are men who have effectively been "cast off" by society.

It seems the proper place for traditional men is in the jails and penitentiaries (as guards or inmates) – and, of course, we need lots of police, lawyers, and prosecutors. The proper place for upwardly mobile women is in the various professions – aerospace, the media, corporate board rooms, the armed services, combat, social workers, and the White House, etc..

With so many non-productive, publicly supported, citizens in our nation (with government either paying "entitlements" or wages and salaries) – and in spite of the fact that our population is already higher than it should be – we seem to have a labor shortage. So, we continue to swell our population with immigrants to do both the dirty work and an increasing percentage of the brain work. The lion's share of the hardworking labor is being imported from Mexico. The rest is coming from an array of other Third World countries. Most of the brains are coming from India and other Asian nations. Our "system" has even figured out how to electronically outsource knowledge work.

The YFZ Ranch was a peaceful, productive, highly self-reliant, and totally self-supporting church community of somewhere around 800 men, women, and children. The State of Texas made a concerted attempt to destroy that community and put at least two thirds of them on 100% public assistance, and as many of the residue as possible into the penitentiary (where they, too, would also be 100% supported by the taxpayer). And, of course, the State of Texas was acting with the very best of intentions.

If there isn't "something wrong" with this, then Pridger just doesn't know what "something wrong" is.

Eldorado, Texas law enforcement and its "political establishment" (not to mention Children and Family Services), were firmly behind the raid on YFZ Ranch. To many of the local people, the ranch community was an alien and frightening presence (sort of like the hippies were to many communities back in the 1970s). But the residents of the ranch merely wanted to be left alone. But the Eldoradans may rue the day the raid took place. What they actually accomplished was sort of a declaration of war against the ranch residents. Now the ranch residents are somewhat resentful and angry. It seems the YFZ Ranch community has decided to take part in the political process itself – something they'd never particularly aspired to before. All the adults are registering to vote! Ouch!

John Q. Pridger