The U.S. and Soviet Union Once Sold Weapons to the Middle East

According to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), The imperial federal beast, which has been allying itself with Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia by selling them arms to help them fight the Iranians and the Iraqi "insurgents," has been revealed to have once allied itself with its old enemy the USSR by selling weaspons to them, Syria, Iraq, and post-1979 Iran in the Middle East during the Cold War.

With the release of this report by JINSA, should we really be surprised by all of this? With this revelation coming out of the woodwork, isn't this all the more reason to abolish our foreign policy of interventionism and return to a foreign policy of non-interventionism? Isn't this all the more reason to abandon our limitless, maximum, ever-growing Leviathan with an ever-expanding welfare-warfare state to a small, limited, ever-restricted government that embraces a respect for individual rights, free markets, and the rule of law?

The Leviathan's Case Against Michael Vick

The U.S. federal government's criminal case against Atlanta Falcons quarterback star Michael Vick for his purported involvement in the most recent dog fighting scandal is heating up as ever. At the same time, the Leviathan, which has confiscated 54 pit bulls that were allegedly used in the dog fighting, is holding them as evidence to be used against Vick and the other three men suspected of ties to the operation.

According to the New York Times, Vick and the other three men -- Tony Taylor, Purnell A. Peace, and Quanis L. Phillips -- plead not guilty last week "to charges related to a dogfighting operation that the authorities said was called Bad Newz Kennels."

Here's an excerpt of the Times today:

On Monday, Taylor pleaded guilty and agreed to help prosecutors make their case. He signed a 13-page statement confirming much of what the government stated when it indicted the four men July 17. The 18-page indictment uses graphic detail in describing the animal cruelty the men are accused of. It states that during a search of Vick’s property in Surry County in April, 54 pit bulls were recovered, along with a so-called rape stand used to hold dogs for mating, and a treadmill modified for dogs.

More charges are expected in the case, and a trial has been scheduled for November. Vick, the star quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, has been suspended indefinitely by the National Football League.

Now I'm the last person in the world to endorse or give any moral, financial, and emotional support to any underground operation that employs dogs to attack and kill other dogs as a sport and for entertainment. I think it is a disgusting and terrible practice to begin with. But do these men really deserve jail time for a "crime" that did not involve violence against "victims" in any way, especially when those "victims" were dogs and not humans?

The collectivists are using laws against animal cruelty to prosecute a group of individuals who used animals in a sport that society on the whole has otherwise condemned and utterly rejected. The laws, while written with the best of intentions in mind, are being used to protect "victims" where there are none. Victims only apply to humans, not animals.

And how is this any different from cockfighting? Cockfighting is a sport that has been made illegal in many states, although it was a strong, common practice in the United States from the late 1700s to most of the 20th century. Even the Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were avid fans of cockfighting. However, over time, the sport has been, on a one-by-one basis, illegalized at the state level, with Louisiana being the last state to ban the event.

It is interesting to note that dog fighting had once been a legal practice from the 15th century to the early part of the 20 century, although in recent decades, it has been outlawed in many states due to society's increasing contempt for and opposition to animal cruelty. However, the biggest reason for the bans is the rise of radical leftist-socialist organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The cardinal legal argument against dog fighting (and even cockfighting) by PETA, the Humane Society, and other organizations like them is that it is wrong to harm animals for the purpose of providing a blood sport for people who desire that form of entertainment. But the real legal argument I get from these groups is that animals who are "harmed" and "tortured" by those involved in the practice are "victims" of violent crimes aggressed against them.

The reason for this mentality is that animals are viewed by PETA, HSUS, and other shrill "animal rights" organizations is that animals have "rights" comparable to humans, which is false. Animals do not have rights. They are neither capable of possessing rights nor have the need for them to begin with. What is the rationale for this argument, you ask? It is simple for three distinct reasons:

• Animals do not have and are not capable of having a system of morality. Animals have no need for morality. They neither have the competence nor the will to possess nor even the understanding of the concept of morality. Morality means nothing to them. That is what distinguishes humans from animals. We humans are capable of having a system of morality, whereas animals do not. Animals, from a utilitarian and ethical standpoint, are amoral. Humans can be either moral or immoral ("immoral" meaning having a set of bad moral principles), but at least they have a system of morality that strings together their ideas of right and wrong. Animals, on the other hand, simply lack that ability.
  
  It goes further than that. Animals have no love for morality. They will kill other forms of species to insure their own survival, even at the expense of those species. A shark, for example, kills a school of fish for food because it is in their nature to kill and is necessary for their survival. Have sharks committed the "crime of murder" against these fish? Of course not. If one were to suggest such a thing, one would receive looks and disgust from animal lovers and other groups of people who would find such a statement ridiculous and laughable on its face. It is all simply part and parcel of the entire food chain. Because they kill other forms of species for that reason, they have no respect for individual rights - a component which is necessary for a species to control their environment that would enable them to control their own lives without doing harm to other species. Ascribing the same rights to animals who lack a moral center and are, by nature's design, functioning to preserve their order within the animal kingdom is nothing more than a mistake, not to mention a joke. To place animals above humans as if animals are higher and better than humans is not only vulgar and offensive, but also illogical and ridiculous. The fact that there is no proof that animals possess such a system goes without saying.



• Because animals have no ability to possess morality, they also neither possess nor believe in the ability of individual rights and free will, unlike their human counterparts. Humans are capable of these things, but animals do not. They have no need for free will and individual rights, since they are governed by the laws of nature and the need to procreate and survive. Human beings are capable of exercising those rights, whereas animals do not. And because they have no desire for free will and indvidualism, they see themselves as an inherent collective for the greater good of their species.



• Because animals have no ability to recognize and respect individual rights and free will, that, in turn, is what makes animals the property of humans. Since animals have no morals and the ability to exercise individual rights and free will, they are, in the eyes of natural law, man's property to do with what he pleases. Since the marketplace allows me to purchase an animal and possess it to do with what I will to it, I can keep it as a pet, sell it in a free market as either a pet or food, or kill it to eat it for my own survival. Since private property rights means that I have the moral and natural right to use the animal any way I see fit, it is my property; therefore, it is my right to do what I want to do to it. To remove a man's ability to protect and preserve his private property and ascribe rights to that property based on some flimsy assumption that an animal is the equivalent of a man is to destroy a man's right to acquire and earn the fruits of his labor and to destroy his ability to engage in freedom of exchange. Animals have no ability to object to them being property, since they neither possess the faculties of a man nor the ability to reason like a human to begin with.

That is not to say that we should condone abuse of an animal or harm to them for no reason at all. It is society's interests to boycott businesses that support such practices and ostracize those who favor them.

When all is said and done, the Michael Vick case will show that it is not an issue of "victimization" that is the problem. It is the violation of private property rights and the inaccurate relegation of morality, individual rights, and free will to a set of species that are not capable of fathoming these concepts at all.

Faith-based foreign policy

What would we call someone who supported the invasion of Iraq and then as the claims made by the war party
were exposed as bogus changed their spin and pretended to be war critics?

What if then, posing as Iraq war critics, now claimed the Bush escalation ["the surge"] was
working? Moreover what if they had been advocates for a "surge" before Bush
had called for the same?

Liars? Lacking integrity?

Read about them here: 

http://www.salon. com/opinion/ greenwald/ 2007/07/30/ brookings/ index.html

What then did the war party do with this story as it went 'round the world?

The claim was taken up that with a little more patience, with the "hopeful signs," and
a "maybe winning," was in the offing.

But let's see: the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff states the war in Iraq won't be won
via military means, but political.

See
http://news. yahoo.com/ s/afp/20070731/ wl_mideast_ afp/usiraqmilita ry_070731184200

How is the political coming along in Iraq?

Their parliament is blowing off August, so NOTHING shall be done of the reforms the Iraqi
government promised the USG.

But there is more: the largest bloc of Sunni supporters for al-Malki's government is bolting his coalition, see http://news. yahoo.com/ s/ap/20070801/ ap_on_re_ mi_ea/iraq

and from within his own Shi'ite party, he faces a revolt, see  

http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 07/31/AR20070731 00312_pf. html

The foreign policy of the Bush administration is taking its' "faith-based" notions and applying them here. Based on hope & faith, George W. Bush "endeavors to persevere."

Iraq Security Is "Better," So Says New Joint Chiefs of Staff Pick

The Wise Great Leader's newly-handpicked Joint Chiefs of Staff is putting a positive spin on the Iraq quagmire by saying that the "security force" in Iraq has improved, but not by much.

Michigan GOP Bill to Stop State's Income Tax Credit

A new piece of legislation by Michigan lawmakers would delay the state's new earned income tax credit unless the state discovered a way to churn out revenues of at least $250 million. In other words, Michigan GOP lawmakers are pulling a bait and switch on taxpayers, businesses, and voters simply by slapping a new tax to raise the $250 million revenue stream in order to pass the new tax subsidy program. To put a fine point on it, it's either their way or the highway.

Republicans who have historically claimed to be anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-welfare state, and pro-free market really have a spotty record when it comes to that rhetoric. They constantly pay lip service to cutting taxes, but in their own deluded way, they can't justifiably make a valid argument to boost spending.

At least Democrats admit that they're socialist. At least they're not arrogant about it...like the Republicans are.

The Vision of Benito Giuliani's Health Care Plan

According to the New York Times' blog, Benito Giuliani, with his new team of sycophants, is publicly noting his "vision" of health care for the U.S. In other words, Giuliani is supporting a Republican-style "universal health care" (a politically correct term for "socialized medicine").

Here's an excerpt of the Times' blog:

LACONIA, N.H. — In preparation for Rudolph W. Giuliani’s speech about health care here in New Hampshire tomorrow, his campaign announced the team of advisers today and made them available to reporters to explain Mr. Giuliani’s vision.

But not to explain it so much so that they stole the former New York City mayor’s thunder.

Mr. Giuliani, who has spoken about how he would change the health care system only in the broadest terms, plans on offering details about how he would try and move America from an employer- and government-based health-care system to a consumer-based system where individuals would take a lot more control over their coverage.

Using mainly a combination of tax breaks and vouchers, Mr. Giuliani plans to tell voters that his plan, by increasing the incentive for individuals to purchase their own insurance, will create greater competition, force down overall rates and improve the quality of care all at the same time.

The plan represents a sharp difference from the various proposals being advanced by Democrats and, depending on the details, could also separate him from another leading Republican contender, Mitt Romney.

Mr. Giuliani has said in the past that he opposes mandates on health insurance, either by the state, like Mr. Romney imposed in Massachusetts, or by the federal government.

Interestingly enough, the blog also pointed out something else:

However, there are many questions about the plan that remain unanswered.

For instance, what assurance is there that people will get the kind of preventative care they need?

Mr. Giuliani often compares health insurance to car insurance and he talks about how the owner of the car will pay for the small stuff like an oil change. So too, he suggests, with health care. A consumer can cover basic routine visits, choosing a package that matches the level of risk they are willing to take.

The big risk here, it seems, is that people will fail to get the kind of preventative care that can prevent bigger, more expensive problems.

Considering Giuliani wants a Republican version of socialized medicine and Hillary wants a Democratic version of the system, which system is most likely going to get an overwhelming amount of support?

Retired and Current Unionized Auto Employees Lament Decline of the Middle Class and Fear the Future

A very short Detroit Free Press piece showcases retired and current unionized employees of the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) who lament the decline of the middle class and the fears of their future, even while the automakers and the UAW remain in contract talks.

Don't these people understand that Big Business, the government, and Big Union, in a collectivistic manner, are the reason why the middle class is dying because government policies have encouraged businesses to relocate to other countries due to the onerous regulations slapped on them? Don't they also understand that these things keep the middle class poor, thanks to the Federal Reserve, the income tax, the welfare-warfare state? Don't they know that these government edicts and decrees are interfering with the free market's natural ability to move them to the top? What will it take for them to understand that, in a laissez faire capitalistic and free society, there are no special rights, no protections, no safety nets, and, more importantly, no job security?

It's always been a known fact that the Big Three and their employees have enjoyed a considerable amount of protectionism and mercantilism, thanks going to the state that afforded such protections from the get-go. It's no secret that the employees of these companies who remained in their jobs for over thirty years have become so accustomed to their cushy jobs that they have professionally stagnated, thus never growing as an individual and never showing any desire and inclination to succeed. As a result, he ends up being dependent on his employer, which is something that auto employees for decades have perceived to be as an entitlement (which never truly exists, by the way).

As much as I sympathize with them, I can't say that I feel sorry for them, considering they've done nothing to take care of themselves. Instead, they have expected their employers and the government to take care of them.

What a sad yet unsurprising unintended consequence of the welfare state indeed!

Pharmacists File Suit Against Washington State Over Abortion Pill

Pharmacists are now suing the State of Washington over a new regulation that strong arms them into selling the abortion pill and other contraceptives to customers despite their moral and religious objections.

So much for freedom of association, economic freedom, and voluntary social cooperation.

Bush Takes Critical Potshots at Congressional Democrats

The Great Leader has decided to blast congressional Democrats for stonewalling on "defense spending" bills by accusing them of fiscal irresponsibility and delaying the passage of the bills.

The Washington Post noted:

Speaking before conservative state legislators meeting at a convention here, Bush called on Congress to approve a Pentagon spending bill before its August recess and to pass the 11 other appropriations bills in short order.

"They need to exercise their responsibility and get this defense bill passed," Bush said, adding that having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan adds urgency to the matter. "There's time to do it. I'll hang around if they want me to get the bill passed."

The Post further noted:

With his once-ambitious domestic agenda in tatters, his administration facing multiple congressional investigations and his approval ratings at near-historic lows, the president has targeted the one institution that polls show is less popular with the public than he is: Congress.

All this business about Republicans being the poster children for fiscal responsibility and champions of small government, free enterprise, and personal responsibility is what it is -- rhetoric designed to obfuscate their real agenda: to create a military welfare-warfare-loving empire that begets a blend of corporatism, mercantilism, and political and economic fascism.

And Republicans claim to embrace free market capitalism. Yeah, right. Uh huh.

Americans Distrust Politicians, Says New Survey

Americans are now viewing the political establishment -- and the 2008 election -- with an enormous amount of cynicism and skepticism, according to a new survey. In the overall scheme of things, many Americans are expressing a great deal of distrust of the government.

Should we really be surprised with this survey? Let's face it; in light of the Iraq quagmire, Americans need to wake up and realize that the state is the enemy of the people, not their ally. After all, aren't the American people the enemy of the state by now?

Bush to Sell Weapons to Saudi Regimes

The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration is hawking WMDs to Saudi Arabia and its surrounding regions, including Israel and Egypt, for a price tag of $20 billion.

The arms deals, which include the sales of a variety of sophisticated weaponry, would be the largest negotiated by this administration. The military assistance agreements would provide $30 billion in new U.S. aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over 10 years, the officials said. Both figures represent significant increases in military support.

U.S. officials said the arms sales to Saudi Arabia are expected to include air-to-air missiles as well as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which turn standard bombs into "smart" precision-guided bombs. Most, but not all, of the arms sales to the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- will be defensive, the officials said.

The arrogance of our own regime is astonishing: it went to war with Iraq employing a laundry list of bogus claims in defense of its invasion and occupation of the region (finding WMDs that Saddam Hussein purportedly have being one of them). And now the administration, in a sanctimonious fashion, peddling chemical and biological weapons to Israel, Egypt, and a few other nation-states, all in the name of making allies with the Middle East while getting tough with Iran.

In a nutshell, it wasn't okay for Saddam to have WMDs in his own backyard, even if he were to going to sell them to his own allies in the region (which he had done), but it's fine and dandy for Bush and his collectivistic thugs in Israel and Egypt to do the same.

This is pure hypocrisy at its worst. And for good measure, this is a fine epitome of the old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my ally."

Pathetic yet predictable.

Photo of the New Joker Out

I found this photo of the new Joker, who's being played by Heath Ledger in the upcoming Dark Knight film, which is due out in 2008. As a longtime fan of Batman and the world of comic books, the Dark Knight himself has always struck me as a libertarian.

After all, Bruce Wayne is a capitalist and an entrepreneur. Moreover, he has always opposed the state. The Joker, on the other hand, is an evil statist who believes in the power of the state and looks to initiate force on those who don't see things his way.

Isn't that a fair assessment or no?

NASA's Space Station Computer Sabotaged

The socialist government agency is hit with another scandal. This time it involves its own space station's computer being sabotaged.

The interesting part about this latest story is the following:

Space officials announced that NASA had been alerted to the possible sabotage early last week by an unnamed subcontracting company. An employee of the company had apparently purposefully damaged two machines, one due to fly in space and one not.

When the company discovered the problem with the non-flying machine, it alerted NASA, which had already received the other computer: and this too was found to have been meddled with.

The Associated Press quotes Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA space operations head honcho, as saying that his people would have discovered the problem during pre-flight testing even had they not been informed.

"The damage is very obvious, easy to detect," he told reporters. "It's not a mystery to us."

And this is what we get with our tax dollars spent on a socialist money-draining government boondoogle without any real value in return?

(Thanks to Lew for his link to the story.)

The Cost of Higher "Government" Education Continue to Skyrocket

Tuition prices for higher "government" government are going through the roof. This comes in anticipation of Congress boosting government grants and rolling back the costs for college student loans.

Here's an excerpt of the report filed by USA Today:

Even as tuition increases at public universities are expected to slow, on average, this year, schools in several states are raising tuition by 10% to more than 15%, adding hundreds of dollars to students' costs.

Driving the increases are budget gaps that have cut the amount of money available for higher education in some states. The tuition increases come as Congress is close to adopting legislation to boost federal grants for low-income students and to lower the cost of student loans.

The collectivists in Congress, the higher "government" education establishment, and government college welfare-dependent college students are just fooling themselves, thinking that furthering and even increasing the government's role in public education (especially higher "government" learning) will make it easier for the government welfare-dependent college students to attend college. After all, this is all modeled on the delusion that every teenager and young adult who graduates from the public "government" schools should go to college. We are talking about a group of collectivists who labor under the delusion -- not to mention, mistakenly believe -- that subsidizing college students at the expense of taxpayers will beget a generation of well-educated college graduates who, once they receive that degree of their choice, are guaranteed to find that entry-level job or launch that successful business.

Have these ignoramuses asked themselves why college tuition costs are going up? This is occuring because too many students are GOING to college. When the Leviathan sets up shop to provide public "government" education and higher "government" learning, tuition costs in both areas are going to rise, because the more financial aid that students receive, the greater the influx of students in the system. Once that happens, tuition costs continue to rise. When was the last time tuition costs for any college -- public or private -- have gone down since the government has stuck its nose and remained in the higher "government" learning picture?

Moreover, college professors are forced to tailor their courses to placate their students who remain indifferent and lazy about their work habits and display an expected lack of work ethic, which they will carry with them for life, especially when they enter the workforce. These students feel that they deserve grades that hardly reflect the true quality of their work. Therefore, the professors find that, in order to better their student evaluations and keep their jobs, they must lower their academic standards to accept uninterested students who are just taking the courses to receive passing grades that they have not truly earned. This gives mediocre-performing students a free pass at the expense of serious students who are working hard and reading the materials covered in class. If the students are not pleased with the grades they have earned from professors who choose not to "grade on a bell curve" (which is a government-sanctioned method of distorting grading methods) because it requires a professor to give students grades in relation to how their peers are graded, they will take their complaints to the dean and the administrators who will, in return, see to it that punishment is meted out with the professors. This is because of universal education, and we must thank the state for this nonsense.

Not only that, when you factor in the fact that too many "customers" (the students, that is) are entering the government college system (all of which are part and parcel of the public sector), deterioriating student and academic standards are part of the norm and continue to rise, and lack of quantity and quality being churned out from the students and the instructors, a college student must ask himself or herself this question: are you really getting anything valuable out of your education? Are you REALLY learning anything in that environment? Are you truly getting your money's worth after all the time and effort you may or may not be putting into it?

More importantly, how much of what you've learned at your college or university -- whether public or private -- has been a paramount part of your success in life?

The only way we can solve this problem and all other problems that plague higher "government" education is to abolish the entire system and establish a free market system of education for students in all levels of education, including college. Imagine tuition costs going down for the first time rather than continuing to rise unabated. Such a radical change in the way we think will truly foster a real learning environment for students and instructors abroad.

For this reason, all levels of education are too important to be left in the hands of the state. If we really care about our educational system, it is incumbent upon us to dismantle the public "government" college system and, in its place, erect a true, laissez-faire college system that will work best for every college student's needs.

NASA Astronauts Drinking and Rocketing

A government aviation report found that a number of NASA astronauts were drinking and rocketing while on duty at least twice.

According to the Washington Post:

Agency spokesman David Mould said one of two reviews of the medical and psychological health of astronauts scheduled to be made public today will include secondhand accounts of astronauts drinking before flights. He said the review does not include the reports in its "findings of fact" but relays the information as something for the agency to investigate.

"We take this and other parts of the reports very seriously and will look into it," Mould said. "But we need to verify the facts before we can know what the appropriate action might be."

This is what we get for redistributing wealth from those who rightfully earned the fruits of their labor to those who didn't, even if it's for the "moral good" of society. And what's worse is that this federal agency, whose sole mission is "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research," neither engages in space exploration nor scientific discovery nor aeronautics research, even though that is its mission statement. After all, when was the last time NASA went back to the moon? Better yet, when was the last time NASA made a manned attempt to explore the other planets in our own solar system?

Of course, when you hear something like this, the first question that comes to mind is: "Where is Mothers Against Drunking Rocketing when you need them?"