Oppose Obama's National Service Scheme

Most government jobs are not "public service."

There is a lot of talk about the idealism of "public service," especially after Obama became president-select in November. There has been endless columns about how wonderful public service is, how it will make America stronger, how it is so necessary, and also, that there is some sort of untapped need for service. But what is "public service"?

First, we need to remember the answer to the question of, why do we have a government in the first place? The main reason we have a government is to protect individual rights (especially the right to life and the right to personal property). Thus, the purpose of the government is to prevent force between relationships of individuals within a civil society. That is why we have the police and other law-enforcement agencies. They are there to ensure that the strong members of society are not able to harm or steal from the weaker members of society. Secondly, we have a military to protect us from the threats of foreign invaders who would be quite willing to subject us to the will of another nation. Without a military, any nation with evil aims would have the opportunity to subject all Americans to the power of a foreign nation. We have a military to prevent such a threat from being realized. Thirdly, we have the civil court system to ensure that individuals can resolve disputes under objectively created laws. This ensures that the whims, or violence, of one person, or that of a group, are not the deciding factors in terms of the rights, duties, responsibilities, and claims by one person to another; rather, the deciding factor is a combination of facts applied to objectively created laws. That is the nature of government in a nutshell. Thus, to the extent that one wants to participate in a necessary governmental service, one should consider joining their local police force, the fire department, the national guard, the United States Military (which consists of five branches: the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Coast Guard, and Air Force), an attorney (to argue the facts and the law on behalf of one's client in a civil dispute), and for attorneys, they should consider working as a state or federal judge.

Of course, the government does a lot of other things that are not necessary and are actually rather harmful to our republic, including farm subsidies, creating and managing re-education camps known as public schools (or as I call it, 'government-run schools'), bailout of financial institutions, rent/housing subsidies, the payment of tax dollars for health care services, wasteful subsidies to so-called "clean" but inefficient forms of energy, as well as staffing agencies that few people can understand--such as commissions on "aging" Americans, etc, etc.

The newest government scheme that the incoming Obama administration is proposing is this misguided notion of youths performing "public service." To the liberals, public service amounts to doing that which government officials dictate as "public service." The term that politicians have been using--"public service"--is misleadingly vague because it enables citizens to craft their own impression of "public service" that is likely benevolent, exciting, and benefiting a large number of individuals. However, these impressions would be quite wrong. "Public service" serves a variety of purposes to politicians: it conditions citizens to become mere subjects, willing to listen to the dictates of government officials, rather than acting according to their own self-interest. Secondly, rather than serving the interests of many of the individuals within a geographical boundary, it is most likely designed to ensure that a politician, or a group of politicians, will win re-election. (Politicians are always focused on the next election). Thirdly, what about the interests of the young citizen? Why should they be conditioned to think about the interests of others instead of their own interests? It is through entrepreneurship and through exercising their rational faculties towards profit-oriented enterprises such as Google that these individuals truly benefit not only themselves, but others. Thus, capitalism itself serves as a check on whether one's activities truly have "value." The fact that people are willing to voluntarily enter into a contract with them and pay for their services is the strongest indication that their labor has real value. When the government creates make-work "public service" jobs, the young citizens are not aware of whether there is any true objective value to their work since the people paying for the young citizen's services--the wealth creating tax-payer--were forced to pay for services that they may or may want.

Further, there are more than enough opportunities for someone to volunteer their time, money, and motivation to causes that they support. There are no legal constraints that stop a young citizen from donating their time or money to such causes. America is the most generous nation on the face of the planet. If a young citizen wants to volunteer, what is stopping them? Do they need a politician's call to service? Why? If one wants to volunteer, they should do so based upon their own desire and interest, and not from the call of a politician trying to enlarge their own source of power. Thus, the idea that the government should compel them them to perform certain tasks sounds anti-American in this land of liberty. For these reasons, Obama's proposed "national service" scheme ought to be vigorously opposed and defeated.

Obama to create millions of jobs for morons to change light bulbs. This is not satire!

The following is not satire. Even though it appears like satire, it really is not!

Excerpt from President-Select Obama's speech on Sunday, December 7, 2008:

"Today, I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work."

Apparently Obama's plan on creating new jobs is to hire a bunch of morons to change the light bulbs in federal buildings. This is not the path towards economic growth. These are make-work jobs. This is taking away wealth from those who create it and spending it on jobs that do not create any new wealth and have no economic value whatsoever.

Illegal alien UCLA student protests budget cuts. This is not a story from the Onion, but rather in the LA Times.

There's a funny story in the LA Times. But not for the reasons that one typically considers a story funny. The story is about UC funding cuts to education. It quotes an 18-year-old "undocumented student from Peru" (in other words, an illegal alien, one who is not authorized to be in the nation) who "asked how she was supposed to finish her studies if tuition keeps rising." She's quoted as saying, ""Tell me," she said, "how I'm supposed to do that. Please!"

Yes, I will tell you, Sofia Campos. First, as the story says, you're an undocumented student--in other words, an illegal alien. You are not supposed to be here, so I highly recommend that you leave. Go back to Peru, and then apply to come back to the US legally (although I would prefer that you remain in Peru: your habits are certainly not in keeping with the American spirit). Second, you are living in a free country: perhaps if you spent less time protesting, you would go out and find a way to earn a living. Do something. Stop complaining.

Third, why do you think it is up to other individuals within the nation to pay your tuition? They don't care about your education: but you do. You're the one who benefits, so you should pay for it. It is time to show some independence and find a way to pay for things on your own. Grow up--and stop being a whiner. Fourth, tell me, Sofia Campos, how can the taxpayers of California continue to fund more and more demands for government, to the point in which the state is nearly bankrupt trying to fulfill your requests (the state budget deficit is now $24 billion)? Where are you when taxes go up? You probably are not among those who are screaming about how costs are going up. Stop being selfish, Sofia Campos of the world, and look out for yourself, and stop demanding that another person live for your sake. No one wants to be your slave.

Struggling typewriter manufacturers to ask for a federal bailout.

Please note: The following is satire.

Congress recently passed the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to help struggling financial firms. Recent lobbyists have asked that this program be extended to state and local governments, as well as the automobile industry. And now there is another political player asking for a bailout: The Typewriter Manufacturers Association of America. Steve Oldkey, the spokesman for the Typewriter Manufacturers Association of America, recently said that "it is only fair that if Congress allocate funds to failing enterprises that it also subsidize an industry that has been failing for a longer period of time than AIG or GM."

Steve Oldkey believes that the typewriter manufacturers within the United States should receive $5 billion from taxpayers to keep the manufacturing plants churning out typewriters that no one is eager to buy. "Unlike Ford, our labor costs are rather low. The only problem is that no one is buying our products. However, with a federal bailout, we can continue to manufacture millions of beautiful typewriters that are made with the highest of quality."

Congress is having a difficult time deciding the issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that several of her San Francisco constituents have asked that the typewriter industry receive a federal bailout, especially the non-electric ones. "We all know that we must do our part to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, it only makes sense that we bailout the struggling typewriter manufacturers, especially the non-electric ones, since this will help to reduce global warming through reducing electrical usage," Speaker Pelosi said. Privately, Pelosi also added that she likes failing companies like the typewriter manufacturers precisely because it gives her "a sense of power, the feeling that I am actually in charge of an industry and contributing to their success" even though all she has done is shift money from the productive sector of the economy to the failing part.

Democrats fail at running government-run education bureacracy in LA.

Government-run LAUSD is by far one of the largest failures in government enterprises. According to the nonpartisan publication education week, the graduation rate at LAUSD is less than 44% after four years! This means that a majority of students do not graduate from LAUSD! Have you ever heard of a business that has a failure rate of more than 50%? Most businesses have a failure rate less significantly less than 1%!

As a result, I was pleased to hear that government-run LAUSD will have budget cuts possibly in the amount of $400 million. Why? Well, where does that $400 million come from? It comes from the private efforts of those within the productive and successful parts of the economy, who are forced, through the point of a gun, to turn over their earnings to the failed enterprise known as LAUSD.

It will be a good day in America when the government finally accepts defeat and withdraws from the business of indoctrinating (err-educating) America's school children. To improve education, government support for education must end so that the private sector can work.

Democrats want to steal your 401(k).

I just read a story that was quite troubling. As many of you know, this current financial crisis is one that has been largely created through poor and incompetent government policies, including (but not limited to): the Federal Reserve, under Alan Greenspan, holding interest rates at a fairly low level for an extended period of time; rules that required banks to suspend normal lending practices that required the bank to lend money to borrowers who have the ability to pay, and instead replacing it with a government edict that those who could not possibly pay their mortgage back receive mortgages as well; then, there is the creation of the government enterprises--Freddie and Frannie Mae, which would buy the bad mortgages from the banks and securitize them (and thus, sell them all over the world); and, last but not least, the government also had a list of "approved" credit agencies who would then rate the credit worthiness of these bad mortgages, which meant that the supply of useful information related to these mortgages was rationed and restricted by the government.

OK. So the government created this mess, and the stock market has obviously taken a hit due to the uncertainty that this has brought. But never fear, for the government has more ideas on how to wreck your life.

Now, the government is looking at your 401(k) plan, and they are thinking about ways that they can take over and control your 401(k) plan because you are not managing it as well as the government could. Yes, everyone's 401(k) is quite low at this point in time. However, anyone who is invested in the market should realize that wild swings are a normal part of market participation. There are a great deal of benefits to waiting if you're presently invested. Those who hold their equities for the long-term can expect returns of 7-8% per year, adjusted for inflation. As everyone knows by now, the Social Security system has guaranteed far more than it can ever possibly expect to pay in the future. In other words, Social Security is going to go broke at some point in the future. However, not to fear, as the government actually wants to take over your 401(k) and convert it into a government-managed system. What would be the great benefit from such a deal? Well, according to the article I just read in the LA Times (available here), you would be guaranteed an "inflation-adjusted 3%" return. Wow! Now that is a wonderful deal, isn't it? You hand over all of your life savings to the government in exchange for an "inflation-adjusted 3% return." Sounds like socialism to me. If you hand it over to the government, though, don't expect them to hold your money. More likely than not, they would take your loot, and spend it, which is exactly what Congress has done with the Social Security surplus.

Dear young Obama voter: you're drafted. Ha! Serves you right!

Dear Young Obama voters: I know you were very excited about Obama during the election season. Turns out, Obama has plans for you, young voter. Yes! His plan is to draft you into compulsory "national service"--like taking out the trash in your local area and working with stinky homeless bums. I'm not joking at al! If you're between the ages of 18-26, Obama will draft you. You can read all about it here.

American people elect Hussein Obama to Presidency. We will provide consistant, principled opposition to this dangerous man.

Sadly, the American people voted for an unqualified and deeply flawed man with the worst associations imaginable. B. Hussein Osama Obama will be the 44th President for one-term. In the mean time, we need to provide articulate conservative arguments in opposition to the socialist agenda that he will advance. We will stand on the side of liberty, while Obama can take the side of a crushing state that will try to take as much of your income, limit the options of consumers to buy the car that they prefer, whether you should join a labor union, and even what type of job that you take on. We will oppose all of this. And liberty will win.

Obama wants to bankrupt your industry. He hates American energy companies.

In this sound clip, you can see that Obama wants to literally bankrupt a particular sector of the American economy--coal. The cavalier manner in which he states that he will impose such tough regulations that it will literally "bankrupt" an American industry shows that he truly has contempt for a large number of Americans. As we have always said here, it is literally true that Democrats hate America, and here is just more proof.

When Obama is done bankrupting coal, he is going to come after your industry and bankrupt that one as well. This man will not be done until he bankrupts every industry and forces them to become slaves to the federal government.

Obama hates the US Constitution

Americans reject socialism. Americans revere and truly love the United States Constitution, which subordinates society to the role of the individual. The United States Constitution places substantial restrictions upon the government, with the aim of freeing the individual to pursue liberty and, by virtue of this, happiness.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states specifically what the government is to do:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution states that there are only three legitimate purposes by which the government is to act: a) to ensure domestic tranquility through having laws to protect individuals from criminals; b) to have a defense to protect individuals from foreign invaders; c) and to protect individuals from the whims of the mob by having a judicial system based upon objective laws to decide controversies between individuals. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that socialism is acceptable at all.

In fact, it was none other than socialist Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez who said that the United States Constitution is too individualistic and ought to be reformed to be more socialist. Further, US Presidential candidate Barack Obama, parroting the same words as a third-world dictator, has lamented -- literally, has been complaining that the Constitution prevents the government from doing more things to the population.

Barack Obama wants to reorder American society such that you will no longer be in charge of your own life. Rather, he wants you to take orders from the government. He wants to coerce you into using less energy, and thus, as a consequence, your lifestyle will decrease (imagine getting around in Los Angeles without a car! Obama declares that you ought to get on the bus!) He wants to impose significantly higher tax rates on the most successful individuals and companies in America, thus creating incentives for them to work less or shift their activities abroad. This is a recipe for decline in America.

It gets worse. Obama's effort to impose a judicial dictatorship could make it literally impossible to reverse many of his poor policies.

In a video (posted below), Barack Obama lamented that the Warren Court did not create a right to redistributive economic policies. Let us make that clear. What Obama has wanted is for the courts to impose a "right" to welfare, even absent a clear law from Congress. Obama believes that some individuals' productive efforts can be taken away on a whim and transferred to non-producers. He wants to create a permanent parasitic class that will continue to ask for more and more handouts (without lifting a finger to create wealth), while the producers will be overtaxed and exhausted from excessive taxation. The end result is obvious: the brilliant minds--the ones who create the services and the goods that we so depend upon, will work less, flee to another land (perhaps Ireland or Australia or Hong Kong), while the parasitic class will whine and ask for more, but the wealth will have fled to more hospitable locations. We're on the road to serfdom. Undecided voters--you can stop the road to serfdom by voting for John McCain next Tuesday.

"Joe the Plumber" shows the immorality of the Obama socialists.

Barack Obama has taken a new low: he is attacking a citizen for daring to question one of his socialist policy proposals. Obama's campaign has rapidly gone after Joe, digging up dirt, and trying to disparage this ordinary citizen just for daring to ask why Obama wants to tax him more "just for being successful." "Joe the Plumber's" real name is Joe Wurzelbacher. By asking how it is moral to tax Wurzelbacher more if he happened to make more than $250,000, "Joe the Plumber" was wondering how government confiscation of his wealth would be helpful to him. Joe the Plumber was showing that it is not moral to take away more of one's earned property just because they happened to be more successful.

In a capitalist society, the rewards for one's labor should increase as one is far more successful.

Thus, this is precisely what encourages a person to try to raise their productivity, whether it is through education, capital infusion (such as technology), experience, or through a variety of all of these factors. What Obama proposes, however, is to lessen the incentives to work harder, save, invest, receive an education, and to start a business. Obama and the socialist Democrats hate the "Joe the Plumbers" of the world because these men and women derive happiness from pursuing their own self-interest, using their talents and their minds to engage in voluntary exchanges with others. This is the moral system we call capitalism, a system that the Obama socialist Democrats strongly oppose. They do not want people to pursue their own interest because it means that they do not derive their happiness from the whims and favors of elected thugs like Obama. Rather, what Obama wants is to tax the "Joe the Plumbers" to the point in which they are no longer wealthy, at which point they will then be subject to whatever the Obama socialists choose to hang out among the crums at their disposal. This is what is considered "moral" in the Obama view. It is moral because, under the Obama perspective, it gives him more authority over Joe's life.

And further, this socialist intention is truly to ensure that Joe the Plumber works far less than he does.

If the "Joe the Plumber's" of the world are going to pay significantly higher taxes once he makes $250,000, is there a good reason to try to establish a world class, successful, and dynamic company? Obama sees fit to destroy Joe's dream of having a company that makes more than $250,000 a year. This is not entirely unheard of in America. After all, this is the land of promising capitalistic potential. What is interesting is that it is a foreigner, French President Sarkozy, who best explained the capitalist ideal. I quote:

"America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

"Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible."

The other thing that is not mentioned is how imposing significantly higher taxes has the effect of "freezing" companies where they already are. Since income and corporate taxes would go up significantly, this would serve as a natural barrier for already established, large companies who would not have to face the potential competition of a small upstart, and more efficient company. A company like Microsoft or Google may even welcome such higher taxes because it would mean that their potential competitors will be "frozen" out because the entrepreneurs who would otherwise be working hard to challenge them will instead think that spending time on a California beach is a better use of their time than paying 70% of their income in taxes. Even if such an entrepreneur wanted to try to compete in this playing field, it would take much longer to establish a large company when a significant share of his income will be confiscated by taxes.

Thus, let it be known, from Florida to Alaska, from Hawaii to Maine, that the real intention of the Obama socialists is to destroy the entrepreneurial class--the "Joe the Plumber's"--by taking away their hopes and dreams, demoralizing them, subjecting these citizens to government confiscation of their earned rewards, and providing unearned benefits on those who have not created any wealth. As Sen. McCain so eloquently stated, "Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes." That's the plan--take away from those who create the wealth and give it away to those who have created nothing. Soon the country will run like Cuba since the talented will produce nothing while the parasitic class will still be asking for more unearned benefits, which will not arise because the productive class will have given up on giving more and more of their wealth.

It's time for the federal government to "sacrifice."

During last night's debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked John McCain and Barack Obama how they would encourage "sacrifice" on the part of the American people. I like John McCain's answer, in which he said that the time has come in which government programs should be shrunk and, in some cases, completely abolished.

I also think that the other following policies should be enacted in order to encourage sacrifice on the part of the federal government.

• All federal salaries, except for employees of the federal judiciary, members of the military, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and any other department related to protecting individual rights, will receive a 25% across-the-board wage cut, and their salaries will be frozen for a period of 10 years.
• Impose a special windfall profits tax on government employees. After all, government employees are protected for life. Their pay is higher than many civilian positions. They ought to pay for this privilage of remaining on the job.
• Fire half the federal workforce. Most federal employees are completely useless. It's time we fire most of them.
• Prohibit any fun at federal workforces in order to encourage more federal employees to retire. Eliminate all internet access at federal workplaces.
• Cut the federal budget from $3.1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.

Now that's the type of sacrifice I would support.

Sarah Palin has won the debate against Joe Biden.

I am watching the debate between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden. What is clear from this debate is that Sarah Palin is clearly cleaning up the house. She is arguing based upon the facts and offering a very articulate conservative political philosophy. Biden looks defensive and confused, and he has resorted to bring up tired-old liberal philosophies that are intended to scare people. Sarah Palin looks confident, assertive, in command of the facts, whereas Biden looks and sounds like a tired liberal hack.

Application of Animal Farm to the Obama Democrats

2008 is the ideal time to apply the principles that we have learned from Animal Farm and apply them to November's 2008 Presidential election. Just as Napolean, the pig, instigated a rebellion against the owner of the farm (Jones) by talking about how great things will be once the animals ruled the farm, today we are told by the Obama Democrats that once Bush and the Republicans are thrown off the farm (Washington), that all will be well, that things will look wonderful, and that none of us will ever be hungry again. In Animal Farm, though, the animals were far worse off after Mr. Jones was kicked off the farm. Like Obama, Napolean also did not have any experience in running a farm, but this did not stop him from stating that he would be more competent and able to handle the farm. Further, once Napolean took charge of the farm, the interests of the other animals started to decline more and more. He started to remove any sense of democratic principles by eliminating the need for public comment and strongly took action against any potential dissent. This is exactly where the Obama Democrats want to take our country--first, by stating that they (and he alone) can manage the country -- even though there is no experience to suggest that he ought to, and secondly, by eliminating any form of dissent by destroying talk radio and also by heavily regulating and taxing the internet in order to suppress the one free and open medium that is available to counter their message. The lesson of Animal Farm is clear: those who claim to provide us with utopia on earth often will create hell instead through dictatorship, centralization of authority, and a desire to obtain power for power's sake. If we learn the lessons of Animal Farm, our nation will be far better off.

President Bush deserves credit for keeping us safe.

America must never forget September 11, 2001. This was not the beginning of a war against radical Islam, but rather, a long continuation of a war by radical Islamists against the West. As much as Bill Clinton claims that the 1990s were a time period of "peace," in reality, it was a time of war, but one in which we were continously hit and failed to respond. This only further emboldened our enemies.

The response to September 11--against Afghanistan, the sanctuary for Osama bin Ladin, and against Iraq (which has been the cause célèbre for the terrorists), has proven to be a remarkable success. "Success," of course, is defined by an absence of terrorism on U.S. soil. Since September 11, there has not been another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is not due to a conversion of radical Islamists. They still hate us. And they still would do us harm. But the fact that they have been unable to, despite their intentions, suggests that whatever counter measures that President Bush has implemented have served the objective well. President Bush deserves kudos on this seventh anniversary of the radical Islamic war against the West, and specifically, the United States of America.

Democrats hate American Institutions.

When we say that Democrats hate America, it is not as though Democrats hate the people of America. No, it goes deeper than that: when we say that Democrats hate America, it reflects the fact that Democrats do not like the institutions and basis upon which America has been founded. For instance, America was founded as a beacon of liberty, limited government, sovereign and independent of other nations. As the Declaration of Indepence reads, Americans have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

When was the last time a Democrat ever supported any of the above? Perhaps Thomas Jefferson. Democrats today do not believe in liberty. Liberty means to have the power to act in one's own self-interest, so long as one does not harm the liberty of another. That is not what liberals stand for. Liberals today stand for controls, restraints, shackles, regulations, contradictory and subjective laws, and a judicial branch that can change the law as a matter of whim.

Liberals also do not believe in the ability to pursue happiness. Not at all. The liberals are upset with the achievers, the ones who have been able to elevate themselves within society. Instead, the liberals want to punish the achievers through theft and provide it to the incompetent and the lazy. That is not what this country was founded upon on any level. Thus, the Democrat Party is based upon the destruction of American society as it is presently constituted, with a desire to remake it in its own socialist image. That is the truth.

Where are the anti-war protesters?

Now that Russia, headed by KGB man Putin, has started a real 'war for oil,' has sent tanks crossing an international boundary, killed innocent civilians in the process, and is demanding that a democratically elected official resign from his post in Georgia, one wonders, where are the liberals screaming at the top of their lungs in the streets demanding an end to this war? Will Russian children scream, "Putin lied, kids died?"
I don't think so.

Don't hold your breath. This is further evidence that the anti-war protesters are not against war per se, but rather wars against states that are anti-American and are a threat to our security interests. If an anti-American regime attacks a pro-Western nation, they are silent. We know the true colors of the anti-war protesters now.

The left is unpatriotic.

The notion that Democrats, and in particular, the leftist-liberal-collectivist wing of that party, do not like America as it is presently constituted, is starting to gain momentum in the popular press.

In a brilliant article in The American Thinker, Larrey Anderson states that the left is not patriotic, but that even our Founders had the impression that unpatriotic Americans would enter the political scene. The good thing is that the Founders created a set of institutions that made it such that the anti-American Americans would be able to let out some of their irrational sentiments through the political process, but that there would be enough road blocks that would stop their bad ideas from being enacted into law.

Democrats are responsible for the high oil prices.

This chart indicates that Democrats are the reason why gas prices are high. The oil market speculators know that the Democrats are highly resistant towards increasing supply (due to their paranoid, environmental kook fringe supporters); as a result, the futures market for oil is way up precisely because there is no anticipation of new supply coming on board.

So sad. The nutcase "global warming" crowd are literally making some people sick!

I wish I could say that this is a joke. But it isn't. The global warming crowd is literally making some people sick. Some psychologists in Australia have recently noticed that there are some people who have become so engulfed in this global warming propaganda scheme that they are literally becoming sick over it! These people are starting to believe that their actions are causing the deaths of millions of people. This is a mental derangement because it not in keeping with reality. I almost have a hard time believing that some people quite literally become ill over their belief in global warming. Oh well, at least it is fun to poke fun and laugh at these folks.

Happy Independence Day!

Happy America's Independence Day! Today is a wonderful day to celebrate America. This is the best country in the world. We recommend that everyone, including and especially liberals, read the Declaration of Independence. It is posted below.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Proof that Democrats hate America.

Do Democrats hate America? Look at one YouTube video showing Democrat voters booing the national anthem. Also, some of these Democrats create a Nazi salute to the anthem, which suggests that they think that this nation is as bad as Nazi Germany. What insanity.

In Response to Environmental Extremist Letter Writers to the NY Times

I have long held that those on the left appear to suffer from some sort of derangement that paralyzes their mind. Liberals are unable to debate logically based upon scientific facts, historical experience, or economic reality. Instead, liberals have a tendency to debate using emotion (which is not logical or rational by its nature) or to argue based upon mysticism dressed up in the garb of environmentalism. Once such example of where liberals become quite deranged is on the issue of oil drilling. Liberals act like Superman does to kryptonite when discussions turn on whether America should begin to drill for oil.

I will show various examples from recent letters to the New York Times. For instance, letter writer, Paul R. Epstein, from Harvard Medical School, wrote, "Nature is saying stop, while Oil is saying go. Haven’t we learned? For so many reasons, it’s time to leave oil in the ground!"

Since I consider myself, as a human being, as part of nature, I would say that nature is not saying to leave oil in the ground, but rather, that we need more of it! The fact that so many of us humans, who depend upon oil for our high standard of living, are complaining about the high cost of oil shows that nature is not asking that it be "[left] in the ground." Of course, the letter writer was probably saying nature, that is, the non-human world, has been asking us to leave the oil in the ground. This is where liberals bring out their religious mysticism because they are "channeling" nature, stating what nature believes and feels. But nature itself is quite ambivalent about leaving oil in the Earth. Oil is a natural resource that has been waiting for industrious humans to use for our own consumption. Nature has not asked us to save the oil.

The next letter to the editor to the New York Times writes a very complicated argument against drilling by stating that it a) harms the planet, b) gasoline is going through the roof, and c) oil companies are making high profits, d) we should find alternative sources of energy. Here is the sentence in all of its glory:

"Let’s see: our entire planet is in danger because of the burning of fossil fuels, our economy is in the tank because of the rising cost of gasoline and diesel while the oil companies are announcing the biggest profits in the history of the planet, and we are going to open the oceans, our biggest source of both oxygen and food, to further offshore drilling. What could possibly be wrong with this picture?"

The non-genius who wrote this is a Judith Luber-Narod from Mass. Let's take each argument on its own. (Liberals have a tendency to throw a million arguments into one, with the hope that something will stick.)

To the argument that drilling "harms the planet".

The global warming movement is a propaganda movement whose purpose is to directly tax the industrial economies and to roll back the high standard of living in the West. The argument over man-made global warming is not over--despite the fact that liberals have said otherwise. The only reason liberals state that the debate is over is precisely because they do not want to have a debate. Just recently, 31,000 scientists have written in opposition to the view that humans are responsible for global warming.

Liberals, however, believe man-made global warming as a matter of faith, though. They do not care what the evidence is with regard to warming, but, rather like useful idiots, go along on the bandwagon because it makes them feel special to be part of this religious cult. That is why they drive around in those silly looking Prius cars.

To the argument that we should not drill because "gas prices are going through the roof" and "oil companies are making high profits":

• Oil companies are not making "high profits"--or even above-average profits. The reality is quite different. The oil industry, as a whole, makes about 9 cents profit for every dollar in revenue; in contrast, companies in the S&P (which is composed of 500 companies) average around 13 cents on the dollar in profit. In contrast, McDonald makes 16 cents on every dollar in revenue, Wells Fargo around 18 cents on the dollar, and and Google at 25 cents on the dollar. Yet no one has said that Google's profits are outrageous--even though it is more than double the average profits of the oil industry. (In fact, as a disclaimer, I do not invest in the oil industry precisely because the profits tend to be lower than average and also because of the potential adverse legislation that may be aimed at oil companies.)
• Further, drilling for more oil is precisely the method to lower the gas prices at the pump. It is a hard argument to make that we should not drill for oil precisely because gas prices are going through the roof. How is that logical?

To the argument that we should find alternative sources of energy:

The truth is that American companies are already investing in alternative energy resources. However, in the mean time, this does not preclude continuing to explore for the energy resource of today--which is oil--even while finding alternative energy sources. If there are alternative energy sources, private industry will find it and profit from it. The truth is, though, even many liberals realize that alternative energy is a scam. Billions of dollars have been spent on alternative energy, but nothing has been shown for it. Far better to use the money to explore for the proven energy of today--oil.

The Democrats caused these high gas prices. Contact Congress and urge them to fix this!

Are you tired of high oil prices? This is a classic economic question that can be solved by supply and demand. There is a high demand for oil worldwide, but the supply has been artificially limited in the United States due to the environmental lobby. This can change, though! You have the power to influence Congress and change the law. Here is a model letter that you can copy and paste and send it to your Member of Congress.

"As your constituent, I urge you to allow oil companies to drill in ANWR as well as the continental United States. The high oil prices exists because there is a limited supply of oil. If America stated that we will drill for oil all across our nation, the price of oil would drop, which would help consumers. I urge you to ignore the environmental lobby. There is no environmental harm that will arise from drilling for oil. Modern practices are very different from what they were decades ago, and there is no reason to continue the moratorium on oil drilling. As a result, I urge you to allow for oil drilling all across the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR, off the West and East coasts, as well as on federal land.
Drilling is the only solution that will lower the price of oil, and for that reason, I support drilling. This is a very important issue to me."

The time to drill for oil is now.

Americans looking at the high gas prices should start shifting their blame at the Democrats in power. World oil prices work based upon the classical economic idea of supply and demand. Democrats have chosen over the years to substantially reduce the supply of available oil in America by prohibiting oil exploration in the lower 48 states, as well in Alaska at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In America, there is roughly 50 billion barrels of oil -- just within the continental US! Recently, in North Dakota, over 200 billion barrels of oil has been located!

There is more than enough proof that oil prices do not have to be as high as they are now. The Democrats have allowed the radical environmentalists (who are similar to a religious cult) to dictate our energy policy. The time to drill is now. You do not have to suffer from high gas prices. Ask Congress to abolish these onerous rules on oil drilling.

Sowell on Obama.

"There is no question that Barack Obama is a clever and glib fellow. There is also no question that some of the most foolish, dangerous and horrific things done around the world in the past hundred years have been done by clever and glib fellows." -- Thomas Sowell

California's Lawmakers Know how to Create Jobs: in Nevada.

America's Founders created a federalist, not a national, system of government. By that I mean they created a system in which the states would be autonomous to create and administer their own set of laws and have sovereignty over their own territory. One of the greatest results of such a system is the competition among the many states. Some states don't seem to know how to compete. Take California, for instance. We have many socialistic and outdated laws that make our state unattractive for businesses. Nevada has recognized this and has taken the effort to highlight just how wrongheaded our laws are. Recently the Nevada Development Authority has been running ads in California with a cartoon of a huge bear on top of a businessman, with the label "California taxes." The ad is designed to show that California's government is strangling business development in the state and that Nevada's business climate is much more hospitable. While California's lawmakers are calling for tax increases on everything, Nevada is advertising that it has no income tax on individual income, corporate income, or inventory tax.

California's lawmakers don't seem to realize that California is a high-cost brand, one which is increasingly being deserted for its low-cost rival next door. If a public company refused to lower its cost--and merely criticized its rival--it would probably lose market share and possibly go out of business. California cannot compete by having lawmakers criticize Nevada's efforts to lure businesses out of Nevada. If California is serious about competing with Nevada, then we must actually start passing laws that are far more similar to Nevada--such as eliminating the income and corporate tax systems. That would be a good start at least.

The 14th Amendment should be interpreted to provide more economic liberties.

George F. Will made an interesting point in a recent column. He stated, " The 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process of law should mean that government may interfere with a citizen's economic liberty only to promote important government interests that cannot be advanced through less restrictive means." (emphasis added). What this means is that economic rights would have about the same level of protection that abortion and sodomy have been provided. (Both of which, we assert, we believe are neither founded in the Constitution or the history or customs of the American people. But we digress). Instead, by providing heightened scrutiny over government regulations related to economic rights, this would make it far more difficult for a potential President Obama or President Clinton to impose their harmful, ill-considered economic regulations. They would have to prove that their economic policies were enacted based upon an "important governmental interest," which would be a standard so high that, thankfully, most economic regulations would not be able to meet.

As George F. Will explains, "under today's weak "rational basis" standard, courts validate virtually any abridgement of economic liberty, no matter how tenuous the connection to even a minor public purpose." In other words, under our present jurisprudence, the government can regulate anything, which has resulted in absurdities such as the CAFE fuel economy standards, a ban on the incandescent light bulbs, the low-flush toilets, confiscatory taxes, endangered species legislation aimed at stopping worthless insects, etc.

A columnist asks whether Obama should be judged by his pastor's words.

“Should Mr. Obama be judged because of the acts of his pastor," asks online columnist Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

His answer? "Yes! Pastor Wright’s worldview and his understanding of race, culture, and religion of the bible will in some measure affect how Barak Obama views the world."

Our view is that considering the number of churches that one may attend, the fact that Obama choose this particular racist church speaks volumes about his bad character and willingness to engage in identity politics.

Internet users feel Obama is a liar.

A random search on "Obama's lies" results in 8,900 hits, compared to 1,470 for "McCain's lies." Obviously people on the internet are much more likely to think that Obama is a liar.

Last week Obama made a few lies. Obama said that wealthy people did "not ask" for the tax cuts and "do not need it." Obama is a liar because Americans of all stripes have been demanding tax cuts for a very long time and it is not up to him to decide who is in "need" of a tax cuts. By speaking of needs in this way, he seems to be emulating his fan Karl Marx, who spoke of "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Are you a communist, Obama? If not, why do you speak in the language of a hard-core communist?

Obama attends an anti-American church for 20 years. Obama's lies are exposed.

Obama is anti-American and a liar. He claims that he did not know that his pastor used inflammatory rhetoric.

This is a clear lie. It is not possible to believe that his pastor woke up one morning and began delivering these anti-American sermons. It is clear that these views are based upon long standing beliefs that did not arise out of thin air. The American people would never vote for a president who, on his own, decided to attend for a period of 20 years this anti-American church. Of all the churches that exist in America, Obama choose this anti-American church. What does that say about Obama?

Obama is afraid of ordinary citizens; he advances communist ideas, and he cannot deliver on his "post-partisanship" campaign theme.

John McCain's greatest asset includes his ability to take tough questions from ordinary audience members and provide robust access to the media. This is an area where Obama fails. On one occasion when Obama was asked tough questions by an audience, "Obama whined, 'Guys, I mean come on. I just answered, like, eight questions!'" Looks like McCain will do quite well on that front.

Obama's economic ideas are essentially Marxist in nature. Perhaps we can even say that Obama is a communist since he advances communist ideas.

And Obama's claim that he can eliminate partisanship is essentiall delusional in nature, reflecting the thoughts of a snake oil salesman.

Young people should vote for John McCain, not Obama.

It is, of course, depressing to see the enthusiasm among the youth for Obama. Why? Well, mainly because Obama is attracting the youth vote without trying hard. How does Obama get the youth vote? With endless speeches using empty words like 'change' and 'hope.' Well, I don't need that. And Obama's policies are actually anti-youth. Who works? The young, of course. But Obama intends to increase the tax rate of the young while he intends to decrease the taxes of the elderly! How is that pro-youth? That is insanity! Yet, 71-year old John McCain is far more pro-youth in that he wants to allow us to place our Social Security earnings in a private account and he does not want to increase our taxes. Thus, the youth in America should vote for McCain, not Obama.

Islam Must Be Stopped

An interesting speech made to the Dutch Parliament regarding why Islam must be stopped.

Obama's tax plan would destroy California.

If Obama's tax plan were to become law, California voters in the highest marginal income tax rate would pay 64.2% of their next dollar of income earned. Ouch. Talk about an incentive to move to Nevada. (Details: Obama wants to lift the cap on Social Security wages that are subject to tax. That would mean a 15.3% tax on each dollar of income earned. Obama wants to raise the top income tax rate to 39.6%. As a result, this would mean 39.6% + 15.3% + California's top rate of 9.3% = 64.2%. Ouch.

California Democrats Want to Pick your Pocket

California Democrats have a new way of attracting votes: they are advertising, before a general election in November, that they want significantly higher taxes to cover their increased spending.

Without realizing what a moron he is, Senate Leader Don Perata answered in a question about how he would deal with the California budget deficit in a blunt manner: "Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes."

California voters should remember this when they had to the polls in November.

In praise of oil companies, and a strong condemnation of government-employed teachers.

I'm rather tired of the annual ritual where politicians grant awards to a particular teacher "of the year." I am not sure why teachers deserve any greater respect than other professionals within society. For one, I personally think (without irony) that oil company executives are in greater need of praise than government-employed teachers. For one thing, oil company executives do the impossible everyday. Oil company executives search throughout the world, sometimes in inhospitable and dangerous locations (think Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan), to find oil, drill for it, and move it halfway around the world back to the United States. From there, their companies refine the oil, comply with complicated and contradictory environmental and tax-regulated regimes, and yet provide a product for which they take a measly 9% profit on their efforts, which is actually less than that which the government earns from taxing just the purchase of the gas (nevermind the corporate income tax). Further, the purchase of gas is also relatively easy and can be deemed a huge success: customers can use their ATM or credit cards or cash -- 24-hours a day. No matter what the circumstances--whether during the heat of a war, or boiling words from Iran--the oil is there, available for customers to purchase it. That's a success in my book. ExxonMobil, in particular, deserves praise for the record profits generated last term. Why? Well, the beneficiaries -- the owners of Exxon Mobil, represent many everyday individuals--mom and pop stockholders, pension funds--including those which fund the retirement of the run of the mill incompetent teacher.

The other great virtue of oil companies is that there greatness is here for everyone to see right now. There is never any discussion that all that is needed is "more money" in order for a gas station to be fully operational. They are all operational right now -- in all 50-states. Gas companies do not beg for more money. They charge and compete with one another, and customers compete for the lowest price. Also, if one happens to choose not to use an automobile (and there are people like that in some cities)--they don't have to pay for Exxon Mobil to stay in business, and they won't be asked to.

A COMPARISON: the parasitic government-run (so-called "public") school: force instead of voluntarism.

Government-run schools fail in literally every city in America. From Detroit, Baltimore, New York, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Denver and Houston, the dropout rate is above 50%! The dropout rate is another way of saying the failure rate. Yet, despite how poor these government-run schools operate, there are always more calls for more funds. Many senior citizens who have homes have to rent out part of their home to strangers -- just so that they can pay the property tax to pay for failing, government-run schools. Thus, in contrast to the oil companies, even if you do not have children, you still have to pay tax dollars to fund failing schools -- even if the students are not citizens or even legally within the United States! Yet, at the same time, every year, politicians always select teachers to "praise" for their remarkable teaching ability. But shouldn't that be standard? We take for granted that every gas station works properly. It would be similar to praise a few gas stations that barely worked -- by giving them an honor -- with more than 50% of them were failing. Can you imagine a politician awarding a particular gas station as one that "barely worked" -- but at least, it is doing "its job" remarkably "well"--at least, in contrast to the others? Hard to imagine, but that's exactly what we do with teachers.

Rather than being a noble profession, teachers are parasitic individuals who must use the resources of the most productive members of society. That is because in order to earn a salary, they must receive tax dollars from the productive class (the taxpayers) in order to work in the unproductive, parasitic sector, which is failing by overwhelming margins (above a 50% failure rate). No private business has anything close to a remarkable 50% failure rate. Pharmaceutical companies would be sued for having an even 1% failure rate.

The time has come in which the government-run schools should be abolished, unleashing the private sector to teach and inform the next generation.

President Clinton argues for an "economic slowdown."

Democrats do want to lower the standard of living among average Americans. Recently, former President Clinton has argued for an "economic slowdown" to fight so-called man-made global warming, which many climatologists have announced is a hoax. Unfortunately, the real truth is that Democrats want to lower the standard of living of average Americans so that Democrats will have greater control to dictate the lives of millions of Americans.

What message are the Democrats sending to our enemies?

“The Democrat Party is telling we-the-people that it will continue to force the U.S. out of Iraq and, presumably, the Middle East as a whole. It is also telling al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations: ‘We’ve got your back, guys, and if we can seize all three branches of government—we’ll give you Iraq and you’ll be home free!”’ —Sher Zieve