Republican Family Values

It is primary time in Warren County and that means it might as well be November. I believe that Warren County has more registered Republicans per capita than any county in the United States. Democrats have about as much chance of being elected as someone with the last name Huckabee. The primary races basically decide who gets elected in November. Democrats sometimes send a "lamb to the slaughter", but many offices go unchallenged in the general election.

I am a registered Republican only because I am too busy to go to the board of elections and switch to independent. Republican rule has ruined my beloved State of Ohio. Ten years ago, I was screaming to everyone who would listen that Bob Taft would be the worst governor we could possibly elect. One of my father's friends is a big wig in the Ohio Republican Party and was behind Taft ten years ago. Every time I see him, I remind him what the Good Ole Boy network did for our state.

As a registered Republican, I get literature from everyone running in the primary. Because I have a history of voting in primaries, I get more than most Republicans. This year, we get to elect a new State Representative. I had narrowed my choice to two candidates and decided to dig a little deeper to finalize my choice. What I found shocked me!

Based on campaign literature, I had selected a young guy named John Rabenold for my top two. This morning, I learned that this guy has been an executive, spokesman, and lobbyist for Check-N-Go Corporation for the past several years. This is one of these payday loan outfits that prey on the poor, the elderly, the military, and college students. They try to get their "customers" in a cycle of past due payments and outrageous interest rates that can be described as nothing more than legal slavery. This is how the guy affords a $600,000 home in Indian Hill, Cincinnati's priciest neighborhood.

Every day, the Dave Ramsey show has someone who is enslaved to a predatory lender like this. They lend money to desperate people knowing full well the borrower has no possible way of paying it back on time. Then they charge interest rates and fees that quickly escalate beyond the original amount borrowed. Since they helped the Republican Congress rewrite the bankruptcy law, the borrower is stuck in a vicious cycle and cannot break free. Many times, family members bail out the borrower and the lender makes out like a bandit. But even if the person defaults on the loan, they have usually paid enough fees and interest that there is still a tidy profit for the predatory lender. This used to be called loan sharking and was illegal. But now, organized crime has been run out of this business because it has been made legal.

Nearly every military base in the country has several payday loan places in the strip mall nearest the front gate. Military leaders have pleaded with Congress to stop them from loaning money to our armed forces and their spouses. Many have become so far in debt that they have lost their security clearances required for sensitive military work. Many have lost out on promotions due to their indebtedness.

This kind of Republican makes me want to vomit. John Rabenold can take his "family values" and stuff them up his ass. I fear the general craziness that goes with Democratic control of the Federal government. But the idiot Republicans have swung the pendulum so far that I am beginning to believe a correction is in order.

Mr. Rabenold's campaign literature talks about family values. But people like this have NO VALUES.

Bush's Ugly Legacy

Writing about the Iraq War is difficult for me. I have relatives serving there and sons of friends, one who gave his life. My daughter’s ex-boyfriend is a Marine currently doing his second tour. I think about him every day. He comes to see me whenever he is home. My son, Adam, is in the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian training organization staffed by former Air Force officers. He plans to join R.O.T.C. in college and will likely become a pilot in the Air Force at some point.

My objections to the war are not born of naïve liberal pacifism or a loathing of our military. In fact, I am profoundly respectful of those who serve in the armed forces. I believe they are the best of the best and many in our nation are unworthy of their sacrifice. My objections to the war are aimed squarely at George W. Bush and his close advisors. They have put the United States in an unwinnable situation where long-term commitment of our military forces is inevitable. The deployment will exacerbate our deficit problems, further weakening the Dollar. And most importantly, it will provide additional fodder for Islamic extremists, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists and strengthening the grip of radical clerics on the region.

In retrospect, Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship served as a stabilizing presence in the Middle East. Of course, that sounds callous, even cruel. But this post is discussing war, where truth and reality must be respected above our idealism regarding the dignity of humanity and our inane desires to speak in politically correct terms. Saddam’s reign of terror kept rival tribal and religious factions under constant fear, thereby limiting most of the civil conflict now plaguing the nation. Iraq is surrounded by nations with brutal dictators, tyrannical kingdoms, and pseudo-democratic theocracies. Saddam’s military, although inept against our superior forces, was sufficient to keep at bay those in the region posing a threat to Iraq.

I allowed Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike McConnell, Bill Cunningham, and others to sell me on the necessity of taking out Saddam Hussein. But I am a real estate appraiser with no training or expertise in foreign policy. I deeply regret that I allowed those people to paint Democrats opposing the war with the broad brush of cowardice and anti-patriotism. Bush’s advisors were paid to be expert on foreign relations and should have known that removing Saddam would create a dangerous vacuum of power in the region. I think they did know. I believe that neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz wanted to create a situation where we would have to maintain a military presence in Iraq indefinitely. And the purpose of this military presence is two-fold: the free-flow of oil and the protection of Israel. It should be noted that I like inexpensive gasoline and I wholeheartedly support Israel's right to exist, but not at the expense of our nation's future.

It is obvious, even to those opposed to the war, that we can never leave Iraq. The day we leave, be it tomorrow or fifty years from now, Iraq will see a bloodbath and violent conflict for control of the country. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey will all choose different factions to support and provide arms to those groups. The resulting chaos and violence will make Saddam’s brutality pale in comparison. Iran would support the majority Shiite population. Saudi Arabia, fearing a next-door neighbor controlled by Iran, would support the Sunni population. Turkey would likely go to war with the Kurds in the north.

Scott Ritter, the U.N. Weapons Inspector in Iraq, was the number one thorn in the Bush Administration’s side before the war began. Ritter claimed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration went to great lengths to refute Ritter’s expert opinion with limited success. Mysteriously, Ritter was charged with trying to meet a fourteen-year-old girl for sex by Albany police and was branded a sex offender. I have always questioned the bizarre coincidence and timing of Ritter’s arrest. And conservatives instantly jumped on this to discredit him. Suddenly, Ritter became irrelevant. Of course, even if he was guilty, his expert opinions about Iraq’s weapons programs should not have been ignored. But there was no fourteen-year-old girl. And the simplicity with which the CIA could fake a computer IP address should make all of us at least consider that Ritter may have been set up. But I digress.

The fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was insufficient reason to remove him from power. If it were, we must question why all of the other brutal dictators plaguing the world are not targeted. Of course, we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam probably had chemical weapons. (He had gassed the Kurds to squelch an earlier uprising.) But chemical weapons without the means to deliver them, en masse, to Israel should have been none of our concern. And Saddam was smart enough to know that Israel would respond to such an attack with overwhelming force. Even a nuclear response was not off the table.

So we went to war and within days, our finest men and women had militarily taken the country. But then the internal violence began, foreshadowing the bloodbath to come. General Patreas’ expert leadership has finally reduced most of the violence with a surge of additional troops and a get-tough policy that does not concede any area to the insurgents. But the success of the surge only proves my point. Only the ever-present power of the United States military can keep the internal violence to a minimum. A troop draw-down will only result in more violence and instability. We must remain in Iraq forever. Paul Wolfowitz got what he wanted: indefinite protection of his beloved Israel at the cost of our economy and our influence in the world.

Hillary Clinton has acknowledged that immediately leaving Iraq is not an option. Barak Obama, in an effort to get the Democratic Presidential nomination, has suggested we could immediately begin leaving Iraq. But he is a smart man. He knows a full withdrawal will only appear to put the blood of millions of Iraqis on his hands.

George Bush has created a foreign policy nightmare for every President for the next fifty years. He has greatly strengthened the position of his good buddies, the Saudi Royal Family, allowing them to spread Wahhabism throughout the world and enrich themselves while denying basic human rights to women and non-Muslims. And I voted for him twice. What was I thinking?

Bringing Back a Popular Saying

I am going to use my powerful influence in the blogosphere to push for the resurgence of an old catch phrase. This is a phrase taught to me by my father. Its meaning became significant to me as I read books by the founding fathers and champions of liberty who came after them. Men like Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson wrote articulately what can be summed up in this simple phrase.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

The beauty of the phrase is that it plainly says something very powerful and equally infers something just as important. The simple wording tells the hearer to take care of himself, to think about things relevant to him, and to hold himself to a high standard. It infers that one should allow others the same privilege and respect their right to do so. But it implies that when you are taking care of yourself, you have no time to stick your nose into the business of others.

America has become the Land of the Freeloader and the Home of those Brave Enough to Meddle in the Affairs of Others. (That used to get one shot.) We are bombarded each day with news of a meddling legislator or pathetic soccer mom trying to come up with a law that encroaches on rights we have held for over two hundred years. It has become quite unfashionable for candidates to proclaim that they will go to Washington and work hard to defend the constitution and at least stand firm against future government encroachment on our rights. Ron Paul is the only elected official I know of in Washington who makes this claim.

Years ago, we decided to buy the argument that if someone’s choice costs the government or an insurance company money, that choice should be taken away. Now come on! Did we actually think that if people stopped smoking or eating red meat that insurance companies were going to lower our premiums or that the government was going to lower our taxes? If you say yes, you are a fool. Yet we bought that argument and are now applying it to everything the do-gooders can possibly identify as bringing pleasure or thrill to life.

MADD founder Candy Lightner has distanced herself from the organization because they have become a prohibitionist group. They accomplished their original goals of toughening DUI laws and raising national awareness about the problem. But do-gooders can never just claim victory and move on with their lives. And this is the problem with every group in America that seeks to “raise awareness” about an issue. They will never stop until the strong arm of government helps them stop an activity they see as bad.

In Ohio, we have an organization called Citizens for Community Values. It is headed by Phil Burress, a former union thug and self-described former porn addict. Phil makes hundreds of thousands of dollars each year strong-arming politicians into enacting his Puritanical views into law. Burress is twice bankrupt and twice divorced, once while President of Citizens for Community Values. He is married to wife number three, also a values activist who makes quite a hefty salary bullying Indiana politicians.

Conservative Christians blindly follow this pathetic loser. Republicans are so indebted to him that they dare not question his financial motive or his past moral failures. I am researching information for a post on Burress. It will blow your mind. My interest in his business stems only from the fact that he pokes his nose into everyone else’s. I, along with many of my friends, have moral failings that rival those of Phil Burress. I am not condemning him for his failures, only for the fact that he is so judgmental of others while making big bucks doing it.

But my point is that we have lost the ability to take care of ourselves and allow others to do the same. Today, I am going to work hard at MY business. That should be enough to keep me busy all day.

Bush Leaves Legacy of Orwellianism

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
Olmstead vs. United States,
United States Supreme Court, 1928
Justice Louis Brandeis

Since the founding of the United States, government officials have been seeking to get around that darn Bill of Rights. "Think how much good we could do, how much crime we could eliminate, how much tax money we could generate, if only we were allowed to spy on regular citizens without search warrants and court approval." "We don't want to by-pass the Constitution for regular citizens, just for criminals."

On September 11, 2001, a group of towel-heads caught us with our pants down and pulled off a brilliantly conceived plan, shocking our nation. Less than 3,000 deaths made us so afraid that we decided to disregard the sacrifice of millions of military men who died to protect our freedom. Congress and the Bush Administration saw an opening and they charged through it, blasting a hole in our Bill of Rights that will never be repaired. They rammed the Patriot Act through the legislative process in record time.

I am sure the Patriot Act has helped stop a few terrorists. But the Patriot Act has accomplished what Osama Bin Laden never could have. It has poured a truckload of K Y Jelly on the slippery slope. The first "terrorist" caught using Patriot Act shortcuts was Las Vegas strip club owner Michael Gilardi. Then they caught a few kiddie porn distributors. Surely no one could argue that the Patriot Act should not be used to shut down this evil. The precedent was set. If the Feds use the Patriot Act to bypass the fourth amendment and they find evidence of a crime, then they are going forward with prosecution and the courts are going to support them.

9-11 was a blip on the radar screen. Yes, it was horrible. But in the end, Bin Laden may have accomplished more destruction than knocking down a few buildings. He succeded in giving the government what it has wanted for over 200 years, a way around the constitution.

Note to Readers: I voted for George Bush twice. I also worked very hard in the 1980's and 1990's to help elect conservative legislators. Sorry 'bout that! Only voting for protectors of liberty from now on. Sorry Democrats.

Top 13 Reasons America is Cool

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I Don't Heart Huckabee!

My registration as a Republican voter is a relic from a time when the Grand Old Party stood for liberty, freedom, self-determination, lower taxes, less government, and respect for the constitution. I rarely vote Republican anymore. I only vote Democratic when the Republican is a lying, two-faced power-whore like Mike Dewine who needs to be sent packing. Though my parents were Democrats, I was a fire-breathing Republican from the time I turned 18. I volunteered to help Congressman Tom Kindness' campaign in 1980. Ronald Reagan got my first two votes for President, the only two I ever cast without holding my nose.

Which brings us to the woeful group of front runners in this year's Republican primary. Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee have already said or done at least one thing that precludes my voting for them under any circumstances, even if it looks like Hillary is going to win. (It is important to remember that we never would have gotten Ronald Reagan if not for four dreadful years of Jimmy Carter.)

But as Duncan Hunter is excluded from the New Hampshire debate so that Fox News can appear "fair and balanced", I feel a special resentment in my heart for the only candidate that can be soundly beaten by Hillary Clinton: Mike Huckabee. One week before the election, Hillary's goons are going to drag out video of the Huckster saying we can take this nation back for Christ. There are hundreds of old sermons on cassette tapes in Arkansas basements just waiting to be discovered by the Clinton machine. Surely, Huckabee's dispensationalist doctrine will be aired for all the world to hear, including his Pat Robertson-style beliefs about the end of the world and Armageddon.

Call me crazy, but I think it is not a good thing for a man to have the power to start Armageddon when that man believes Armageddon is inevitable. That one small detail aside, there are still many reasons to fear a Huckabee presidency. Keep in mind that the legislative branch is controlled by what Ayn Rand would call "looters". So while they might oppose every sensible idea Huckabee might propose, they are certain to rubber stamp all of his bad ones, of which there are many.

Let's focus on Huckabee's call for a national ban on smoking. His flawed logic was on display this week when he said that if smoking were a new product, the FDA would never approve it. Therefore, it must be banned. The Huckster's irresponsible statement demonstrates that he cannot tell he is dumping lubrication on the slippery slope leading to a bottomland of Nanny-State Orwellianism.

Before we discuss the lost tax revenues and the prohibition-style black market that would emerge, let us consider what the Huckster's argument would also ban. Everything common in American life that would not be approved if it were introduced as new would now have the potential of being banned. So just simply think of everything some do-gooder has preached against in the past year. Here is a short list:

Motorcycles, alcohol (Didn't we already....?), football, butter, red meat (Oh heck, all meat!) sugar, fast food, guns, back-yard trampolines, gravy, biscuits, biscuits and gravy, caffeine, helmetless bike riding... and so on.

Everyone in America would live five miserable years longer in a nursing home, exacerbating the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security. The point all do-gooders seem to miss is that all of us are eventually going to die. And before some of us pass, we have a burning desire to actually LIVE. I do not want my obituary to say that I lived to be 109 years old. I want it to say that Greg Amburgy enjoyed life to its fullest and pursued life in a manner no crusading meddler would ever understand.

Smokers carry their weight by paying excessive taxes and taking less in Social Security benefits. So not only would Huckabee and the do-gooders eliminate all the taxes collected from smokers, they would inadvertently create a growth industry in the black market. Imagine the violence that would ensue when cigarette cartels began fighting for territory in the suburbs. If the war on drugs has proven anything, it is that where there is demand for something, a market will emerge to fill that demand. And there would be an insatiable demand for cigarettes. You think we are losing the war on drugs? Wait until the law enforcement tab kicks in for the war on cigarettes.

Billions of untaxed dollars would flow to organized crime. Tobacco sniffing dogs would patrol our neighborhoods. The fact that someone smelled smoke on you would become probable cause for a search of your house. That search would reveal the hidden basement freezer with your stash of illegal red meat. Your canisters of bleached flour, sugar, and coffee would be seized as evidence. The fact that you had more than an ounce of coffee would implicate you with intent to distribute.

I am simply taking Huckabee's thought to its logical conclusion. But this line of thinking, preposterous just ten years ago, is infecting all of America and especially our politicians. Where is the candidate who firmly announces that his presidency will be used to protect liberty and freedom? I want to find a candidate with a sound foreign policy, a sound energy policy, and a hands-off domestic policy.

Can you say Ron Paul?

Empowering Islamic Women

The most glaring example of media bias can be seen in the lack of attention given to abuses of women in the Islamic world. There are literally thousands of horrible examples every year. With the exception of the Internet, these stories are rarely heard. I wonder why. With all the mainstream media outlets heavily staffed by educated and liberated women, why do these abuses go unreported. Except for terrorism, the abuse of Muslim women is the number one reason to strongly oppose Islam at every turn.

Last week, we finally heard the story of the Saudi woman who was kidnapped and brutally raped by seven men. She was given 200 lashes for going out in public unaccompanied by a male family member! The only reason this story made it to the western press was that there were appeals to high courts in Saudi Arabia and even some Muslim men became outraged. (On a side note, I find it strange that it takes this level of abuse to outrage a few Muslim men, but cartoons in a Danish newspaper can turn the whole Islamic world into a riotous mob.)

The fact is that women in the Muslim world are completely subject to their fathers and later, their husbands. They have no self-determination at all. Their husbands are permitted to beat them into submission. They are not allowed to leave their homes without male supervision. They have no part in the political process. In short, they are treated much like women were treated 1,000 years ago.

Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker, produced a documentary film entitled, "Submission". It chronicled the abuses of Muslim women in Europe. Even in the most liberal part of the world, these women were subjected to brutality and lifelong incarceration by their husbands. For exposing this, Van Gogh was brutally executed on a busy street by a Muslim man. A letter was attached to his body predicting chaos in America, Europe, and Holland.

And Muslim men carry these attitudes toward women with them to the United States. My wife had a business deal with a Muslim man a couple of years ago. He refused to shake her hand and would barely speak directly to her. He was offended that, in order to complete the deal, he had to treat a woman as his equal.

A few of the more modern Islamic countries allow women a basic education and the best and brightest are allowed to pursue higher education at university. But for the most part, women are property. They have no opportunity to choose a career or, in many cases, to choose their own husband. And women who speak out or push for reform are not simply shouted down or prohibited from speaking. They are frequently murdered.

Halima Ahmed Hussein al-Juburi was a proponent of women's rights in Iraq. Ten men broke into her home and shot her in front of her three children. This is just one of many examples of women murdered for simply pushing for mild reforms in Islamic law and custom.

If George Bush and future presidents want to have an impact on the Islamic world, they would be best served to support the rights of women and their inclusion in the political process. (Not that kingdoms and brutal dictatorships have much of a political process) And Bush's family is quite friendly with the Saudi Royal Family, one of the worst of the offenders. Surely he has some influence with these tyrants.

Women balance men. They encourage talking when men only think about fighting. Something tells me that women could have a profound influence in the Israel-Palestine conflict. For fifty years, Israel has been making concessions to the Palestinians, hoping for peace. But the Palestinians have yet to make one genuine gesture or keep one peace treaty. Why? Israeli women are an influential part of the political process. Palestinian women are not. Enough said.

If you doubt the extent of the problem, please click on the link above entitled "Muslim Questions and Answers". It is a web site created by Muslim theologians to answer questions on Islamic law for Muslims. Just peruse a few rulings on women.