Conscious Conservative Book Review--American Theocracy

     In the book American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, Kevin Phillips puts forward the proposition that the United States is headed for a perfect storm that may end the country as it currently exists.  He believes that the current peril is created by energy (especially oil) interests, undue influence of end times theologians and runaway personal and public debt.  He compares the United States to other empires (including the British, Dutch and Hapsburg empires) which he states failed for similar reasons.   
     American Theocracy gives a detailed description of the history of oil production.  It does a decent job of showing how energy supremacy relates to world supremacy by comparing Dutch wind technology to British coal technology to American oil technology.  The book also discusses how oil interests affect both military and economic policy in the United States and Britain.
     As the title American Theocracy suggests, a major part of the book concerns a turn towards dogmatic religious beliefs at the end of many empires.  Although the book provides plenty of data, it does not make a strong enough argument to show a causative effect.  It may be that people reach for their religion of choice when they sense a decline in lifestyle.  It may also be that when a country can no longer show superiority by economic or military might, politicians still try to assert that their government is superior because, "God said so."  One important point the book makes is how the peculiar breed of "end times theology" popular in the United States and Britain affects both  environmental policy and foreign policy decisions about the middle east.
     Mr. Phillips appears especially concerned about the Bush dynasty.  I like his references to "Bush the Elder" and "Bush the Younger."  I have the advantage of reading this book several years after it was published and of seeing how some of the books predictions have played out and how the world looks since Bush the Younger has left office.  America's credit problems actually turned out worse than predicted by Phillips.  As I write this, the credit crunch that American Theocracy warns about has happened and we are in the middle (hopefully) of a "lost decade" of economic stagnation.  However, there is still ever increasing public debt and the "lost decade" threatens to continue to 15 years or longer.  Bush the Younger has been replaced by Barack Obama.  President Obama has continued the economic and military policies of Bush despite Candidate Obama's campaign pledges.  Mr. Phillips may be correct that there are interests more powerful than the Presidency at work.
    American Theocracy is not light reading.  It is full of complex arguments and loaded with statistics to back those arguments.  It compares current conditions in the United States to those at the end of other empires.  I believe it is required reading for those who wish to go beyond the simple "Democrats vs. Republicans," or "Big Oil Bad," sound bite arguments and truly want to learn some of the subtle yet powerful forces and belief systems that guide policy decisions in the United States.  

Conservative Question -- Why Does the Department of Education Have a S.W.A.T. Team?

     

     KXTV, Sacramento, CA reported last week that the home of Kenneth Wright in Stockton was raided by a S.W.A.T. team from the United States Department of Education Office of the Inspector General (OIG).  KXTV Reporters followed all of the standard TV journalism procedures, such as interviewing Mr. Wright, and getting an official statement from U.S. Department of Education spokesman, Justin Hamilton.  In my mind, they missed one important question.  Why does the U.S. Department of Education have a S.W.A.T. team?  In fairness, I don't think the Department of Education calls their armed unit a "S.W.A.T." team but why have an armed unit at all?  

     The "mission statement' of the U.S. Department of Education is almost a full page long but the first statement is "Strengthen the Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual..."  In this line or any other in the mission statement is there any sentence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the Department needs a traveling armed unit to bust down the doors of United States citizens.
     How far have we come in the last hundred years?  When the FBI was established about 100 years ago, it was questioned as to whether the Federal Government was overstepping its authority.  In 1908, people worried that the Justice Department would have too much power if it had armed officers.  Now, trained journalists don't seem concerned that the Department of Education has and armed unit.  What other government agencies have this capability?  Does the Department of Agriculture have S.W.A.T. capabilities?  If I switch my ham radio to the wrong frequency, will FCC, S.W.A.T. attack my house?  Does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have S.W.A.T. Meteorologists?  It feels bizarre that I even have to ask these questions.  The main question still remains:

WHY DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAVE A S.W.A.T. TEAM?

Debt Limit -- A Conscious Conservative View

     

     In reality, the limit on United States debt obligations will have to be raised.  Conservatives like myself would love to see the Visa card of the United States cut up and thrown in the trash.  However, Congress and the President of the United States agreed to spend this money when they voted on the budget.  The full faith and credit of the United States must be maintained in all dealings.  John Boehner and his colleagues in the House of Representatives can refuse to raise the Debt Limit temporarily and use this time to educate the American public, but only if they do it wisely.  If standing firm on the Debt Limit has the image of a cheap political trick,  the American public will be less informed.  Republicans will end up looking like a political version of the Usual Suspects.   
     As I write this, the Debt Limit has not been raised and Boehner is saying it won't be raised without, "budget cuts."  Unfortunately, he is not being specific, so the Liberals among us say that "budget cuts" are a euphemism for taking away Medicare and other social programs.  On the face, the "budget cuts" seem to be those outlined in the Ryan budget proposal.  Republicans have done a poor job of educating the public on this proposal.  If you only read the popular press, it sounds like a "Medicare Voucher" proposal and nothing more.
     Boehner and his colleagues could remedy this situation if he drops the Republican politics and call for sweeping and equal budget cuts.  The United States is spending more than we can afford on Medicare, Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, but we also spending more than we can afford on Defense, Homeland Security and Farm Subsidies.  Boehner can seize this moment by shouting,
"No More Politics, Fair and Balanced Cuts Across the Board!!" and dare President Obama to justify another plan.  He can also pander to special interests, corporations and the military and end up being a Usual Suspect.

A Conscious Conservative Memorial Day

     Let's take a moment on this Memorial Day to celebrate the true meaning of the holiday.  Let's take a moment away from the cable TV marathons, the shopping mall sales and the BBQ parties and remember a fallen loved one or ancestor.  If you can, honor the tradition of placing flowers on the grave of one who gave their all for our country.  So many have given much so that we can live as we do today.  God Bless All of Them and God Bless The United States of America.

A Conservative Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged: Part I

     I once anticipated the release of The Informant!, a movie based on a book by Kurt Eichenwald (Serpent on the Rock, Conspiracy of Fools).  The book is a riveting story about how Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) colludes with other large agri-businesses to control the prices of corn, animal feed and basically everything we buy in grocery stores.  A funny thing happened during the making of the movie.  Somebody at the studio decided that the movie did not have enough action scenes.  They re-edited the movie, added light- hearted music, and turned a smart, complex drama into a comedy.  Luckily there was no big studio involved in the making of Atlas Shrugged:  Part I.

     My companion at the movie remarked about how the movie was "dark," both in tone and setting.  I don't know how intentional this was, but it matched how I envision Rand's work when I read it.  I think that the makers of this movie did a very good job of conveying Rand's tone.  That being said, although I find Rand thought provoking, I also find Rand wordy at times.  The movie also captured this feature well.  I am personally annoyed by the trend of stretching movies and creating unnecessary sequels to get more ticket money (Kill Bill, The Matrix, etc.).  Although I don't think more ticket money is Mr. Aglialoro’s motive, I feel that one good, long movie could have been more satisfying than a trilogy.  Gone With the Wind comes to mind.
     In Atlas Shrugged: Part I, Dagny Taggart runs the largest railroad company in America.  Her best and most competent workers start to disappear. She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden. Together, using the untested Rearden Metal, they rebuild the critical Taggart rail line in Colorado.  Viewers are left wondering why all the best minds are disappearing and of course, Who Is John Galt?   
     I definitely enjoyed this movie and feel it was not the waste of time that most movies appear to be.  The people who made this movie definitely did more justice to Ayn Rand than the makers of The Informant! did to Kurt Eichenwald.  Atlas Shrugged is not an action movie, except for very fast trains.  It is not a comedy, either.  It is one of the most thought provoking movies of recent years.  I enjoyed the movie and my companion who is not a fan of Rand stated that they wished they didn't have to wait for Atlas Shrugged: Part II.  Be forewarned that the dialogue in this movie is reminiscent of the banter in 1940's films and that some of the characters will seem long winded by modern standards.  Conscious Conservatives, fans of Ayn Rand, libertarians and people who enjoy older movies like 12 Angry Men, Death of a Salesman or Double Indemnity should like Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Tax Day Reminder -- Income Taxes Are Evil

END TAXATION!!!

     At 7:00 am on a Tuesday morning, a woman and her ten year old daughter sit at a table enjoying breakfast.  A typical fall day in Midwestern America.  The mother thinks about work and the daughter eagerly awaits seeing her friends at school.

     Doors bust open as a dozen or more armed men wearing body armor fill the house.  "Where's the money!" a gunman shouts, "We want the money!"  The mother and daughter were terrorized.  The mother couldn't handle the trauma.  Three days later she was dead.  She became convinced that she attracted the gunmen, although there is no evidence of that.  She killed herself to keep her children out of harm's way.

     One would hope that local law enforcement would jump on this type of home invasion robbery.  One could hope that senior detectives would labor day and night to bring these perpetrators to justice.  They are not.  Why?  The gunmen that traumatized a family, eventually leading to the mother's death, worked for the Internal Revenue Service.  As of this time, the gunmen have received no known punishment.

     The father, who was away on business at the time of the invasion, filed a wrongful death suit.  The IRS gave it's usual response.  First, it denied all liability.  Then the IRS filed charges of tax fraud against the husband.  The husband now had to fight on two fronts.  One to preserve the memory of his wife and one to keep himself out of prison.

     As Tax Day approaches, we should remember that there was no income tax in the United States of America for the majority of its existence.  The government survived on luxury taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) and import and export tariffs.  The Founding Fathers did not put a general income tax into the Constitution because they were aware of the abuses to which an income tax would lead.  Politicians, whether well-meaning, corrupt or greedy cannot avoid the temptation of taking money from unpopular people to give to popular people.  If the unpopular people complain, they are greeted by gunmen at breakfast.  Why is it wrong for me and my friends to break into a neighbors house to steal their money, but perfectly acceptable for government agents to do it for me? 

     In the case described above, there were no allegations of failure to pay taxes until AFTER a woman was dead, a family was traumatized and a father had fought to get answers.  These incidents are inherent to any system of  Direct Taxation.  All Direct Taxes, including the Income Tax, should be abolished.

TAXES ARE EVIL!!

     

      

Conservatives Should Remember The Good Old Days

1960 Chevy Impala-One Sweet Ride

    One piece of false propaganda that seems to permeate the current federal budget talks is that programs cannot be cut because they have existed forever.  This view is spread by liberals and

conservatives alike.  Agency web sites give false histories that make them seem much older than they truly are.  The Department of Health and Human Services, established in 1980, tells its history as beginning in 1798 with "Passage of an act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen."  This false statement of antiquity is used to make the department seem more vital and indispensable.  In fact, many programs and cabinet level departments did not exist 50 years ago.  Although 50 years may seem like long ago, given that the United States is over 200 years old, it's really not that long ago and definitely not forever.

In 1960, the federal budget was about $92 Billion.  In 2010, the federal government spent about $3.46 Trillion.  Let's look at that.

1960          $92,000,000,000

2010     $3,460,000,000,000

That is a lot more money!!  More than $3.3 trillion more!!  


     The proposed 2012 budget for the Department of Transportation, established 1966, is larger than the ENTIRE federal budget in 1960.   Some programs that didn't exist in 1960 include Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Head Start, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Food Stamps and the DEA.  Some of the cabinet level departments that didn't exist are the Departments of Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development.  Just cutting these historically new departments will save about $1.2 Trillion from the 2012 budget.   

     Was the United States really that bad of place in 1960?  I don't think so.  We should remember the "Good Old Days" and dig into all of these new programs.  There are questions that should be asked.  Did a permanent problem exist? Does this program solve that problem?  Does this program not cause any other problems that are worse than the problem the program solves? Is this program constitutional?  If the answers to all these questions are not a resounding yes, we should abolish the program.
     Remember that almost every program that the politicians say is "sacred" is relatively new when looking at the history of the United States.  Many have not been in existence for 50 years and a lot of programs didn't even exist when you were young.  Life wasn't all that bad then and most government programs don't make things better now.  Remember the "good old days" and educate the Liberals who say,"It's been this way forever."