The End of Talk Radio

Tuesday I effectively swore off talk radio, if not for the rest of my life, at least until early November 2008.

I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, or J.D. Hayworth, or Bill O'Reilly. Yet, while driving the automobile-supersaturated freeways of Phoenix, I find myself needing to be entertained - so I flip them on. And I listen. And it is all sort of hypnotic. And I listen way longer than I intended.

Maybe there's a caller making some inane argument about how the U.S. flag is the coolest, or maybe I get sucked in by the ever-so-seductive hook: "When we come back, we'll talk about...." which is repeated for three to four segments before the material is actually addressed. So when I say what I am about to say, I do not mean to extend the situation to all of you faithful dittoheads (ah, the disclaimer). But in the word of O'Reilly, "with all due respect," talk radio makes me a stupid, robotic, brainless, intelligence-starved, moron.

I've thought these things before, but who would have thought a meaningless incident involving some less-than-thoughtful observations by Michelle Obama, wife of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, would push me over the edge.

No, I am not going to go into the details of the matter. That can be accomplished by you turning on 550 KFYI, or the equivalent right-wing trash station you can find on your dial in your hometown. No, I am not a fan of Obama, not even close. In fact, I think electing Obama would be more of a mistake than electing Hillary Clinton.

But the Michelle Obama situation is emblematic of what talk radio really is: entertaining people with news that is not news, with information that is not important. While turning a blind eye to everything that could undermine their purpose, these jockeys pick up bits (ants, if you will) of information and blow them into veritable anthills.

Want to spend your time more wisely? I suggest doing anything else BUT listen to those clowns. Listen to some music on the radio (although that is almost as disgusting most of the time). Listen to an audiobook. Listen to your air conditioner blowing. Don't waste your life enriching the dregs of society.

Oh, yes, I am still talking to myself. And myself says TURN IT OFF!

Mitt Romney: The Sellout I Thought He Was

I was never a Mitt Romney supporter, but for some reason when I learned today that the expected happened: he will endorse John McCain for president, I felt my blood boiling a little more than usual.

While I never "endorsed" Romney, I was at the point of actually believing he might be our best presidential candidate who had a shot at winning. I liked his ideas and his background and leadership skills. Literally, the next day or so, he dropped out of the race. Now, just a week later, he is endorsing McCain.

It upsets me that I even came close to supporting this sellout candidate. The reason why it took me so long to warm up to him - his convenient changing from a liberal Massachusetts politician to a republican presidential candidate - ends up being the reason why he lost the race, and why I couldn't support him whole-heartedly. Put succinctly, you can't trust what Romney says.

He talked all the talk - Washington is broken, McCain is a liberal, we won't solve our problems by sending people who already work in Washington back to Washington, and so on. All of them sounded like reasonably sound and reasoned arguments. So what does the sellout do one week after he betrayed his entire support base? He tosses out all of his "principles" and supports a man who has none.

Just like he did to become a nominee.

I thought he was different, but unfortunately, Mitt Romney is no different, no better, than any of the other hypocritical, self-serving, special-interest-protecting Washington politicians. They have no principles, and neither does he. If he does, he values them as much as the average politician, only as much as it benefits him popularly and politically.

Recall the South Carolina Presidential Debate, if I am not mistaken, when there was a conversation between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul about fixing what one has broken. Well, Romney has said time and time again that Washington was broken, and yet one week after he bailed on his principles, he turned against them completely and fell in line with the "broken" establishment. Nice job, buddy. Turns out he's just another one of talking heads that really has not the slightest intention of turning things around for our great nation.

I can only sympathize with his supporters. They must feel stabbed in the back. But many of them will still follow Romney blindly, just like they did before. Who cares what he said in the past, he's Mitt Romney, and if McCain is good enough for him, he's good enough for us.

Not that we can be surprised. Another flop for flipping Mitt. Another sellout endorsing the sellout candidate.

Why would he do this so readily? The answer is simple: another victory for the failed "war on terror." We will have to visit this subject later, but it seems any principles you might have should be suspended in order to win against "the bad guys." This is no surprise - the current administration has continually eroded our freedoms to "protect us." So the final lesson is, no sellout is too costly when you can use terrorism and terrorists to help your party's chances of winning the White House in the election. And in the world of Romney, death by terrorists is synonymous with Democrat in the White House.

Thank goodness for the conservatives, the principled ones, the republicans, who sacrifice so much so that we can live a life free of say....the hell that people live through in a place like Iraq.

Compulsory Military Training

I found the following text on the awakeandarise.org website, on one of their blog pages. I would like to insert it here. This is the road we are on right now if we continue our confrontational foreign policy in the world: 18 to 42 year-old men will be drafted into duty. The funny thing is the proponents of this new bill didn't use the term "draft." Read on. Look it up for yourself. The "War on Terror" will be the perfect pretext for President Bush or his successor to implement these policies.

See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-393

James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 6:, p.239-242

STATEMENT BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY REGARDING UNIVERSAL COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING

We print below a letter dated December 14, 1945, addressed by the First Presidency of the Church to each member of the Utah Congressional Delegation-Senators Thomas and Murdock and Congressmen Granger and Robinson. Word has now been received by the First Presidency from both Senators and both Congressmen expressing their approval of and belief in the sentiments, reasons, and conclusions set forth in the letter. The letter follows:

"Press reports have for some months indicated that a determined effort is in the making to establish in this country a compulsory universal military training designed to draw into military training and service the entire youth of the nation. We had hoped that mature reflection might lead the proponents of such a policy to abandon it. We have felt and still feel that such a policy would carry with it the gravest dangers to our Republic.

"It now appears that the proponents of the policy have persuaded the Administration to adopt it, in what on its face is a modified form. We deeply regret this, because we dislike to find ourselves under the necessity of opposing any policy so sponsored. However, we are so persuaded of the rightfulness of our position, and we regard the policy so threatening to the true purposes for which this Government was set up, as set forth in the great Preamble to the Constitution, that we are constrained respectfully to invite your attention to the following considerations:

"1. By taking our sons at the most impressionable age of their adolescence and putting them into army camps under rigorous military discipline, we shall seriously endanger their initiative thereby impairing one of the essential elements of American citizenship. While on its face the suggested plan might not seem to visualize the army camp training, yet there seems little doubt that our military leaders contemplate such a period, with similar recurring periods after the boys are placed in the reserves.
"2. By taking our boys from their homes, we shall deprive them of parental guidance and control at this important period of their youth, and there is no substitute for the care and love of a mother for a young son.
"3. We shall take them out of school and suffer their minds to be directed in other channels, so that very many of them after leaving the army, will never return to finish their schooling, thus over a few years materially reducing the literacy of the whole nation.
"4. We shall give opportunity to teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder to the consequent upsetting of the stability of our national society. God said at Sinai, "Thou shalt not kill."
"5. We shall take them from the refining, ennobling, character-building atmosphere of the home, and place them under a drastic discipline in an environment that is hostile to most of the finer and nobler things of home and of life.
"6. We shall make our sons the victims of systematized allurements to gamble, to drink, to smoke, to swear, to associate with lewd women, to be selfish, idle, irresponsible save under restraint of force, to be common, coarse, and vulgar, all contrary to and destructive of the American home.
"7. We shall deprive our sons of any adequate religious training and activity during their training years, for the religious element of army life is both inadequate and ineffective.
"8. We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war.
"9. We shall take them away from all participation in the means and measures of production to the economic loss of the whole nation.
"10. We shall lay them open to wholly erroneous ideas of their duties to themselves, to their family, and to society in the matter of independence, self-sufficiency, individual initiative, and what we have come to call American manhood.
"11. We shall subject them to encouragement in a belief that they can always live off the labors of others through the government or otherwise.
"12. We shall make possible their building into a military caste which from all human experience bodes ill for that equality and unity which must always characterize the citizenry of a republic.
"13. By creating an immense standing army, we shall create to our liberties and free institutions a threat foreseen and condemned by the founders of the Republic, and by the people of this country from that time till now. Great standing armies have always been the tools of ambitious dictators to the destruction of freedom.
"14. By the creation of a great war machine, we shall invite and tempt the waging of war against foreign countries, upon little or no provocation; for the possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire, and for a rule by might not right.
"15. By building a huge armed establishment, we shall belie our protestations of peace and peaceful intent and force other nations to a like course of militarism, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social, economic, and governmental systems.
"16. We shall make of the whole earth one great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another's throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen.
"17. All the advantages for the protection of the country offered by a standing army may be obtained by the National Guard system which has proved so effective in the past and which is unattended by the evils of entire mobilization.
"Responsive to the ancient wisdom, 'Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it,' obedient to the divine message that heralded the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, '. . . on earth peace, good will toward men,' and knowing that our Constitution and the Government set up under it were inspired of God and should be preserved to the blessing not only of our own citizenry but, as an example, to the blessing of all the world, we have the honor respectfully to urge that you do your utmost to defeat any plan designed to bring about the compulsory military service of our citizenry. Should it be urged that our complete armament is necessary for our safety, it may be confidently replied that a proper foreign policy, implemented by an effective diplomacy, can avert the dangers that are feared. What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war. God will help our efforts to bring this about.
"Respectfully submitted, GEO. ALBERT SMITH, J. REUBEN CLARK, JR., DAVID O. MCKAY, First Presidency."

Agitation continued regarding universal compulsory military training into the year 1946. Rather than have Stake Presidents issue subsequent statements representing the views of their stake organizations in the matter, the First Presidency suggested in a letter to all Stake Presidents dated June 28, 1946, that the letter of the First Presidency of December 14, 1945, be reissued, where necessary and advisable, and sent to congressmen or senators "as indicating the views of the voters of the ward or stake involved."

Freedom: Drawing the Line in the Sand

Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has shed light on a lot of issues facing the American people today. Of all the pressing matters in front of the people, the starkest is the fact that many Americans do not really understand or know what the meaning of freedom really actually is.

This can be attributed to a number of factors, including our lack of knowledge about our own history, our mental amnesia in connection with any world events preceding 9/11/2001, and our stubborn (arrogant) claim that we are the greatest nation in the world - not arrogant, just the greatest - and think the rest of the world should follow and be replicas of our government and system.

As stated, there are many other factors, but simple observation shows that those in control of the information and power channels in this country have gone out of their way to make sure our brains tend to function along the lines of the person or people just described above. If anyone criticizes America or its policies, they are "anti-American," "far left," etc., etc.

Author Naomi Klein puts it this way:

that shock came after "September 11, which, for millions of people, exploded 'the world that is familiar' and opened up a period of deep disorientation and regression that the Bush administration expertly exploited. Suddenly we found ourselves living in a kind of Year Zero, in which everything we knew of the world before could now be dismissed as 'pre-9/11 thinking.' Never strong in our knowledge of history, North Americans had become a blank slate - 'a clean sheet of paper' on which 'the newest and most beautiful words can be written' as Mao said of his people. A new army of experts instantly materialized to write new and beautiful words on the receptive canvas of our posttrauma consciousness: 'clash of civilizations,' they inscribed. 'Axis of evil,' 'Islamo-fascim,' 'homeland security.' With everyone preoccupied by the deadly new culture wars, the Bush administration was able to pull off what it could only have dreamed of doing before 9/11: wage privatized wars abroad and build a corporate security complex at home."
The Shock Doctrine (2007), p. 16

Repeated: we do not understand freedom. Thus the media continue to puzzle over the campaign of Ron Paul. He has no lobbyists breaking down his office door. He does not agree with most of the Republican party agenda. He does not have billion-dollar corporate donors padding his pockets. He has little chance to participate in the debates, and gets relatively little news coverage compared to the "legitimate" presidential candidates.

And yet the fact remains: supporters continue to flock to him by the thousands and dollars by the millions continue to amass without any real mechanism to drive the fundraising except Paul's followers at the grassroots level.

While they can't explain it, Ron Paul's opponents generally find ways to demean and mock his messengers. This obvious notion reinforces the greater truth: they do not understand freedom.

They do not understand the blessing of being free to read and learn without worrying about being eavesdropped upon. They do not understand the meaning of freedom as pertaining to talking on the phone without being spied upon. They do not understand the freedom, privilege and honor very few other people in the world have to be suspicious and fearful of large government and excesses of power. They do not understand the importance to citizens of the whole world to be free from torture. They do not understand that freedom is not expecting our president to "fix Washington" or "fix the country." They do not understand that freedom is getting out of the way to the greatest extent possible and letting the people participate in the remediation.

They just do not understand.

This is not really written to help them understand. For that which might have been incredible to the founders of our great nation is too common today: we don't understand, we don't know, and we don't care that we don't understand and don't know. After all, we have the freedom to be arrogant, and pride doesn't really walk hand-in-hand with seeing things from a different perspective.

Some of the "mainstream" say they agree with just about everything Ron Paul is saying. They know in their hearts that the "legitimate" candidates are nothing more than what continues to emerge in election after election as picking the lesser of two evils because we don't believe most of what any of them say. Yet they say they will not support Ron Paul because he has no chance of winning. Still just another show of the of the lack of appreciation they feel for the freedoms they enjoy.

This election could turn out to be one of the most important and historical elections in a long, long time. The line is being drawn, and more than ever those who love and embrace freedom are coming out in support of Ron Paul and his message. They are not anti-American. They do not despise freedom or our troops. In fact, it is more likely the other way around. Those who oppose Ron Paul, his message, and his followers, are simply (whether inadvertently or knowingly) displaying their lack of understanding of what freedom is.

Freedom is having a say in what government does. Freedom is speaking out, asking questions, reading, learning, protesting, fighting for the rights of not only men and women of this country, but those in the wide world, our brothers and sisters. Freedom is letting our counterparts in other countries live under the form of government of their choosing. Just as a civil war was necessary to free men from slavery, so it may take another war to tell government leaders to back off and give return our freedom to us. For much of the reason we don't know what freedom really is is due to the fact that we didn't really have as much freedom as we previously assumed. Fortunately, it is our gift and obligation to stand up and defend that which only God can give. It is time the government stepped back and realized that it does not give us our freedom; rather it exists simply to protect our freedom.

Ron Paul and his followers represent the hopes of all men to have freedom and liberty, not just promises and wishful blindness. God willing, the Ron Paul "miracle" may not be as inconceivable as his detractors seem to think. Keep loving America and what it really stands for, and keep cherishing your freedom to fight for what's most important. If you haven't joined the revolution, think about it. Freedom is the most contagious idea around.

Freedom: the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.

Freedom: Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

a. Political independence.

b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.

Ron Paul: Fundamental Questions

It is time to return to the basics for a moment. What is the appeal of Ron Paul, and why does this scare the mainstream to death?

I will only speak for myself, but I imagine there are many out there like me, republican, democrat, libertarian, and so on, who are drawn to the campaign for similar reasons.

The main "problem" with Ron Paul's campaign is he got me asking important questions. I had wondered about some of them before, but he gave a voice and a confirmation to those doubts and concerns. These are questions such as: why do we threaten Iran not to develop nuclear weapons when we refuse to follow non-proliferation ourselves? Is it acceptable to torture a person, no matter how "evil" they may be? Is it acceptable to arrest people without a cause and to hold them in prison indefinitely without formal charges, no matter who the person may be?

Knowing what we know now, why do our leaders not shoulder any responsibility for inadvertently if not purposely leading us into a war in Iraq on cherry-picked intelligence and false claims?

The questions could go on. I will stay away from the ones I've asked about the handling of the 9/11 tragedy. Whether you think it's obvious what happened that day, I do not think we have ever gotten the whole story. One thing is certain: our politicians have very successfully exploited our fear following the tragedy to make cheap political points. So it then follows: did the world really experience marked change on 9/11?

I will not be able to answer all of the questions I have already pronounced, especially since there are hardly easy answers to many of them. The point is more about actually asking the question in the first place, and then looking into the matter further yourself. This is the simple explanation for why the media are frightened by Ron Paul. He is bringing up issues that the mainstream media (MSM) do not want us to think about. These corporate-run institutions along with our paid-for-and-sold politicians want us to accept their words at face value and not question their motives, their intent, or least of all their character. Most if not all of these questions will never be asked to the "legitimate" presidential candidates, and if they were, the candidates would not be able to give a straight answer. This blatant exhibition of mind control has gone on too long, and Ron Paul is jarring people loose of these shackles one by one.

Once you start to awake, you can then ask even more important questions: are we really safer after 9/11? Does killing terrorists (along with an occasional ten or hundred or thousand innocents) abroad stop terrorists from trying to kill us on the domestic front? Is the MSM really slanted by a liberal bias? Are terrorists really born evil and inherently hate freedom and liberty?

If any of these concern you, you are heading in the right direction. I suggest you go to your local library and start looking into these matters. That is unless you are worried about who is looking at your library records, in the which case you may want to go to your nearest Barnes and Noble and buy some of these books with cold hard cash. While I am not that frightened by our monstrous government, I can understand why you might feel that way.

I have been particularly surprised at the amount of information that can be found that actually points to the U.S. being involved in, directly or indirectly, terrorist plots and activities. Not plotting with al-Qaeda of course, but with repressive governments in order to help them limit the amount of national/popular activity in certain countries and regions of the world. This will lead us to the last and probably most fundamental question of all: when you are "good" and they are "evil," is it okay for you to resort to terrorism when it is wrong for them?

To those who will continue to question and learn. The world elite fear you even more than bin Laden.