If Jerry Falwell's organization is against it, then I'm for it...

Recently I had occasion to read a column by Matt Barber, a constitutional law attorney and vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. Mister Barber dedicated that column to a rant against Ron Paul and the Libertarian viewpoints that define Representative Paul. Particularly, Mister Barber points out that Paul is lax on national defense and believes that Islamic terrorists, "...come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them."

Mister Paul is correct in that statement and you, Mister Barber, are and very far down the ladder of credibility in that you are unaware that the statement is substantively true. These Islamic terrorists 'want to harm us' precisely because we are bombing them...and usurping their sovereignty, and 'dissing' them, to put things in the vernacular of the times.

I will admit that it goes back a ways...at least back to T.E Lawrence but we kicked things off from our side of the bench when we did it to Iran in 1953. That was when the CIA and Britain's MI6 overthrew the government of Mohammed Mossaddegh. Yeah, that's right, Mister Barber, forcible overthrow of a government we had earlier supported so that both we and Britain could reap oil profits from an industry that had been nationalized. I'm pretty sure that the Iranians remember the incident well, even if you have forgotten.

We followed up when we did it to Iraq in 1980 when, after supplying chemical weapons and other means of 'mass destruction' to Iraq, we again changed horses in midstream. Back in the flying 80's, in order to justify our policy, we even removed Iraq from the state department list of 'State Sponsors of Terrorism' over the objection of General Alexander Haig, I might add. (Reagan and Bush#1 did that...unilaterally from the White House.)

We even made Saddam Hussein gifts of Anthrax and thirteen other agents with 'biological warfare significance'. There were also 'Bear Spares' for military equipment then under embargo from the supplier, the USSR. Then there was that award winning gesture of an expensive set of gold spurs from President Reagan, hand delivered by Donald Rumsfeld at the taxpayers expense. All that, as long as Saddam was supporting our cause against the evil Ayatollah in Tehran. Hell, the DIA was even planning daily operations to deliver those chemical weapons on target in Iran.

We turned on Saddam when it became apparent that Iraq would not repay the 14 billion dollars owed to Kuwait and he decided to annex the country instead.

We did it to Afghanistan' too. Remember Charlie Wilson? Yeah, we supplied all those warlords in Afghanistan with Stingers since they were fighting those godless communists. It even worked to a degree when the USSR pulled back to Moscow but then there was nothing to shoot at and so many missiles left to shoot and the United States was washing its hands free of Afghan dirt back in the waters of the Potomac.. What to do?

Well I suppose that terrorists could always be relied on as paying customers and I've been to Afghanistan, Mister Barber, they really don't have anything else to tout as a cash crop. So the Taliban took over along with their little sidekick bin Laden and we all know how that went.

So yes many third world and Islamic countries do hate us for our perfidy, but then that perfidy has long been the foundation of our foreign policy.

Elihu Root spelled it out back in 1922 when he advocated the 'self protection' scheme that was later converted by subsequent administrations into a policy of 'our economic welfare in America comes before anyone else's, anything else', and that doctrine, however laundered to support dictators from Mussolini to those in current events is diametrically opposed to the foundation principles of our country and the Libertarian Party of which Representative Paul is a member.

And still it is Ron Paul that you find dangerous?

You regard Ron Paul as dangerous for his Libertarian values in snapping off 'national defense' and 'social values' from Ronald Reagan's precious three legged stool, but what of that stool Mister Barber and your biased interpretation for the meaning of those legs?

On personal liberty:

See sections 1.0-1.4 of the Libertarian platform. Try this quote... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." Remember that? 'All men...are...equal'. That means just what it says and I am no better than you, nor are you any better than anyone else. We are all equal and all Libertarians support that equality along with personal responsibility for our own actions.

On a strong National defense:

See sections 3.1, and 3.3 of the Libertarian platform. In particular note that the language employed in both sections is the same language imparted to our fledgling government by George Washington when he wisely counseled us to avoid 'entangling alliances'. Perhaps Uncle George was a Libertarian as well...or should we neither allow him to carve the turkey?

In closing I suggest that you take the world's smallest political quiz.Find it here: http://theadvocates.org/quiz , from The Advocates for Self Government, and yes, they are a Libertarian organization.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Falwell Group: Ron Paul Is Dangerous

Can't Get a Job if You Don't Have One....

Recently the Huffington Post ran an article called 'Unemployment Discrimination: Who's Afraid to Hire The Jobless.'

Yeah that's right, Huffington Post. You might be thinking therefore that here's another commie, pinko writer quoting the liberal media and in that, you would be wrong. Indeed, I look at a variety of propaganda sources every single day since the news we get in this country is a lot like fertilizer. It has to be spread around to do any good and a reader constantly has to sift through the uh...inert matter.

So the story referenced above caught my attention. Mostly that was because exactly what was described happened to me personally. I was literally told, by a company recruiter that if I had any unemployment on my recent job history, I could not apply. Then it happened with another company.

Now, O learned mavens of the blogoshphere, I don't mind telling you that this situation seemed mighty queer to this old country boy, emphasis on the old. After all, I had just reached the point when I finally reasoned out that sending applications through on AARP sponsored stationery might just not be the best plan for a career position. Indeed I had attended interviews where the HR director came right out and told me that he could hire three young people for what he would have to pay me. Yeah, I know that is age discrimination and also illegal but we all know it happens, and really, why bother to sue when you have already been told that the company does not want you working there?

So after working a couple of corncobs like that out of my ass I was really not prepared to learn that If I didn't have a job, I might not be able to get one. I decided to read further, and yes, from other sources as well, even some from the rabid right. (I have to tell you though that there was no article about this practice on the FOX web site.)

What I found out during that reading was that the practice is actually legal since 'unemployed' is not a category listed as discriminatory under EEOC guidelines. Yes! Our government in action at its best. There is no policy that addresses discriminating against the unemployed. And the practice is growing according to NELP Executive Director, Christine Owens.

Now, there may be a few of you out there who have recently arrived on Earth from some off planet locations but most of us already here are familiar with the reality that since mid 2007 or so, unemployment has been on the rise at a rate nearly parallel with what was experienced during the great depression of the thirties. Of course the numbers have been dummied up to make the statistic look better than it really is but I'll bet that anyone reading this has friends and relatives that are unemployed. The situation is bad to the point of being dire and we need less methods used to disqualify or avoid hiring competent workers. The solution is more jobs but with the growing trend towards globalization that is becoming harder to do.

In this pre election year run up to 2012, I believe that the best strategy for accomplishing the sea change that we need is as I outlined in an earlier post entitled 'Throw The Bastards Out'. At least with that strategy we all have a fighting chance to get hired.