Out of Control

 "And Pharao calling Moses and Aaron, in the night, said: Arise and go forth from among my people, you and the children of Israel: go sacrifice to the Lord as you say."

Backtracking a bit: Pharao was ruler over a strong and wealthy kingdom, home to a diverse group of peoples, including a thriving Hebrew people, skilled in animal husbandry.  To retain control over his kingdom, he consulted with his advisors, and determined that being ethnically different from his people, these Hebrews might rise up against the Egyptians during a period of war.  To prevent this, he exerted greater control over them buy subjecting them to cruel slavery.  When Moses and Aaron approached him to allow the Hebrews to go to the desert, Pharao resisted.  He resisted each and every request, even when his resistance was met with increasingly harsh consequences.  Finally, at the death of his son, he relents.

Pharao has seen a great deal of BAD happen because of his resistance.  It would have been easier if he simply said "sure...three days", but he didn't.  While each of us can speculate the "why", one aspect is "control".  Pharao wanted to control everything he could.  He was lord of his house, he was the ruler of all the peoples in his land.  In his religion, HE was part god.  Along comes two guys, one from the desert, who had fled Egypt years ago, and the other from Gessen, wherein the Hebrews dwelt.  They claim that their God wanted sacrifice in the desert, contrary to Pharao's wishes.  He chooses control.

How often do we as men think we are "in control"?.  To be fair, we must have control of our passions, we must have control of our thoughts, we must have control over situations if we are to be successful in our endeavors.  However, modern man assumes he can control everything.  We assume that we have this amazing ability to "defeat" a virus through our own controls...despite there being no inclination in the history of humanity that such a thing is even possible.  The ability to control things is all around us.

Pharao bristled when presented with a paradigm outside of his control.  He pushed back, HARD, against that paradigm.  He pressured the Hebrews still the more.  He even made his own people suffer rather than give up control.  He wanted things on HIS terms.  We are encouraged to do the same thing.  We somehow believe we are worthy of having everything done our way, from our hamburgers to the music at Holy Mass.  We are encouraged by the incessant catering to our desires to be outraged when things don't go our way.  We bristle when things run counter to what we can control.

As Catholic men, we must recognize that we were born into a system with defined authority structures, structures we cannot change nor can we control.  When God created Heaven and Earth, He did so with specific, immutable laws and roles for each creature.  There are physical and spiritual roles, each with their own responsibilities and authority.  We cannot control that which is outside of our authority structure...and expect good things to come of it.  When we do, we will be humbled, there will be consequences.  As men, we must be open to accepting that which is within our ability to control...and humble enough to accept that which is beyond our control.  When we operate within our ordained roles, and within our ordained authority, we will prosper, even if only spiritually, because that is all that matters.

Church and anti-Church

"The Church and the anti-Church will exist in the same liturgical and juridical space."  What, exactly, does that mean?

We'll use Humanae Vitae to explain.  In 1931, Pius XI published Casti connubii, which reiterated the clear and consistent Tradition of the Church that because the PRIMARY end of marriage was the having and raising of children, all methods of contraception were never permissible, as they are intrinsically immoral.  In 1968, Paul VI "shocked the world" by issuing Humanae vitae, which seemingly upheld the Church's teaching on marriage and contraception.  In fact, Paul VI made an almost imperceptible change: marriage now had TWO equal and primary ends: children AND "mutual help".  

On the surface, this isn't a big deal, right?  However, this slight change has led to a HUGE change in what Catholics actually believe.  Consider that if children are the primary end of marriage, then the underlying purpose of marriage is to have and raise children.  Thus, troubled marriages cannot, and will not, be abandoned because it exists, above all else, for the children.  The Church is less likely to approve or acknowledge separation when children NEED their mother and father to grow optimally.  Including a selfish end, like "mutual help" (which is vague and ill-defined), open up the possibility for separation (and then divorce and more likely re-marriage).  

To the average Catholic, HV simply restates what the Church has ALWAYS taught...which it does not.  The post-Vatican II Church upholds many similar changes, which are contrary to Tradition.

Another example is Nostrae Aetate, which elevates "ecumenism".  Almighty God says, in Psalm 95:5 (96:5 when not using the Douay-Rheims), that "the gods of the gentiles are demons", and yet NA talks mostly about how wonderful non-Christian religions are, and how much truth they hold.  Traditionally, Catholics have ALWAYS understood that ANY deviation from the Catholic faith will result in a complete and total loss of faith.  The Catholic Faith is the one, true Faith.  Everything else is false, and thus offensive to God.  No pope before Vatican II would be caught getting a demonic "blessing" by shamans or non-Catholic "clergy", and yet Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have ALL embrace non-Catholic "clergy".  In fact, JPII allowed a demonic idol of Buddha to be placed on the Tabernacle containing Our Lord at Assisi.  Many Catholics who upheld the pre-VII faith viewed JPII's allowance as an act of apostasy.

Yet ANOTHER example: the use of the NAB and other modern translations of Scripture.  The Church has, consistently and routinely, held that the Latin Vulgate is "free of all error".  It is the norm of Scripture for ALL theologians...in theory.  HOWEVER, at Mass, we hear the NAB, and most Bibles available to us, or used in our readings, are NOT based on the Vulgate.  In fact, the NAB cites, in it's introductions to the Gospels, heretical statements condemned by Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, namely that the authors of the Gospels aren't known and that the Gospels themselves are derived from previous oral/written "traditions".

But WAIT...there's MORE!  JPII said that theistic evolution was entire consistent with the Catholic faith.  However, the IV Lateran Council, Leo XIII, and all the Church Fathers maintain that the Genesis account is the way it happened.  Further, Our Lady called herself THE Immaculate Conception.  If theistic evolution is correct, Our Lady was not THE Immaculate Conception, because Adam and Eve would have been immaculately conceived before she was.  Either Our Lady and the Tradition of the Church is wrong, OR JPII (and the post-VII church by extension) was wrong.  

I could go on, but that would take time.  The bottom line, is that, when you actually look at the present state of the Church, and compare it with the pre-Vatican II Church, you see two distinct faiths.  The problem is that the heretical Modernist group exists IN THE SAME SPACE as the True Church.  In many cases, it is impossible to distinguish the two.  Consider Bishop Wall's recent statement instituting ad orientam Mass in his cathedral.  While it is laudable that he is doing so, there are some BIG Modernist assumptions that he makes in this (namely that error and truth can be equated, and personal feeling is a legitimate argument for celebration of Mass a certain way).  He is assumed by most Catholics as a validly ordained bishop, a successor to the apostles.  There is also the Declaration that Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider put out.  While it DOES restate Church teaching, it includes post-VII accretions that are either highly suspect or definitely heterodox.  We would normally consider Card. Burke "orthodox" or "conservative", but here he is, allowing these heterodox thoughts in some of his work.  

One reaction to this is reject ALL of the post-Vatican II accretions, including the Mass and the Rites of Ordination, calling them "invalid".  The only way THAT logically works is to state that the Council was invalid (as in NOT an ecumenical Council).  The only way THAT works is if John XXIII wasn't actually pope.  Of course, there are some who claim that evidence exists that John XXIII and Paul VI were Freemasons (and thus not Catholic, and so not pope because only Catholics can be pope).  Others hold that both held heretical beliefs, and by default removed themselves from the papacy (which means that the New Rites are thus invalid, because they were put forward by an anti-pope).  If the Council and the approving Popes aren't valid, then the rites of ordination aren't valid.  IF this is true, than all priests and bishops ordained since 1968 are invalidly ordained, except those in the SSPX, as they never left the usage of the Traditional Rites.  (Sedevacantists will argue that even the SSPX is heretical because it believes the NO to be valid--illicit, but valid--and deals with the "pretenders" in the Vatican as legitimate).

This is the REAL scandal of the Church: that heresy has so infected the Magesterium that even the Magesterium doesn't mention it.  This means that the laity are in a bind.  Those who followed St. Pius X's lead and went to fight Modernism see the errors, but have no one to turn to.  Those who would like to promote Tradition and restore Holy Church are silenced by the Modernists who are in control.  Groups like the SSPX felt compelled to violate the wished of the Vatican, to preserve Tradition, but yet recognize the Vatican as legitimate.

Obama's Foreign Policy Explained...Sort of.

Like most sane Americans, I've been wondering what the hell our Administration has been thinking in terms of foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.  Lets briefly look at what has happened, under Pres. Obama's watch:

Egypt
We start with the Obama/Clinton support of the efforts to remove Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian strongman who was also an ally to the United States.  After turning their backs on a long-time US ally, the administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood, who began to enact a strict sharia-compliant, Islamist government in Egypt, a seeming contradiction to their campaign promises.  Not only that, but the US sent several pieces of top-notch military weaponry to the Muslim Brotherhood.  When the Egyptian military, led by current president al-Sisi, toppled the MoBroHood, our administration gave a pseudo-hissy fit.  They still haven't warmed relationships with al-Sisi (who has been working with Jordan and other Arab nations to actually defeat ISIS).

Libya
After Egypt and Tunisia fell to the "populist" forces of the Arab Spring, Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddhafi, was the next figure to feel their wrath.  Gaddhafi was, like Mubarak, a US ally in the War on Terror having given valuable information on al Qaeda and other groups.  On the heals of a made-up report of atrocities by Gaddhafi forces (in other words, a lie), the president authorized (illegally, I might add, but John Boehner was too concerned about looking nice that he didn't do anything about it), air strikes on Gaddhafi targets and supplying weapons to "moderate rebel forces". Of course, as the fighting continued, those "moderate rebel forces" actually were identified as al Qaeda affiliates (in other words, foreign enemies of the United States, which makes the effort to supply them, according to the definition in the US Constitution, "treason"), and we continued to supply them anyway.

**Side note, and partially relevant: investigate reporters have identified two significant storylines concerning Libya.  First, Gaddhafi and the European nations had come to an agreement rather early on in the conflict which would have provided a peaceful transition of power from Gaddhafi to a secular group.  The agreement needed US approval, and the US did not approve, and continued to supply the "rebels" with arms and air-support.  Eventually Gaddhafi was murdered.  Second, recently released information, noted by The Blaze's For the Record investigators, link the US's attempt to remove Gaddhafi with a Pan-African movement that included a single gold-backed currency for all of Africa.**

Syria
Soon after the Arab Spring set Libya on fire, the inferno engulfed Bashar al-Assad's Syria.  Of course, unlike Libya, in which the rebel groups morphed into radical Islam-centered groups, the insurgency in Syria was initiated by the terror-inducing Islamic groups, like al-Nusra Front, and was supported by the Muslim Brotherhood.  In a typical about-face, the Obama administration (which was friendly with Assad prior to the "Arab Spring") sought to remove Assad.  While not getting approval to use force, the president decided to send arms to the "moderate Syrian rebels".  That conflict is still on-going, and we know how that turned out: "moderate Syrian rebels", which were basically jihadist terror groups with a good PR team, obtained US weapons and continued to terrorize the Syrian countryside, while the Syrian forces fought back, likewise terrorizing the countryside (though the non-Muslim residents say that Assad's forces were much less terror-inducing).  From the "moderate Syrian rebel" forces sprung ISIS, which soon captured huge swaths of land in both Syria and then Iraq, further deteriorating an already nasty situation.

Iran
While ISIS terrorized the entire Middle East, threatening innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria and murdering non-combatants from other countries, our president's biggest concern was lifting sanctions on the completely untrustworthy and incredibly belligerent Iranians, allowing them to "legally" obtain nuclear weapons in a few years (if not earlier).  Even when it was abundantly clear that Iran, before even signing the "deal" had violated several provisions, the president did nothing.

Putting it all together
There are a good many theories behind what has transpired.  

1) Its all about the money...well, Saudi money.  Saudi Arabia has been HUGE financial supporters of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton (well, her "Foundation", which is really, it appears, looking like a slush-fund).  Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabist (Sunni) Islamic nation, with some of the most sharia-compliant legal codes in the world.    In all areas where the "Arab Spring" occurred, secular governments that suppressed Islamic fundamentalist groups were in power.  These governments proved to be less amenable to Saudi demands, most especially Syria.  With Saudi-backed Sunni groups in control, Saudi Arabia could extend its oil and gas hegemony into Europe via a pipeline, and thus break Russia's stranglehold on the O&G markets. Further, Gaddhafi nationalize Libya's oil industry.  With a Sunni government, the Saudi's could, essentially, control that oil as well.

2) Gaddhafi's economic policies threatened to cost global bankers huge sums of money, so he had to go.  It just so happens that Obama is closely linked with several officials of global financial institutions.  In this scenario, Barry's big donors would serve to lose billions if a gold-backed African currency arose.  This, of course doesn't explain Iran, Syria, or Egypt.

3) Obama's puppet master, Valerie Jarret has both Iranian connections (she's Iranian born), and MoBroHood connections.  Hillary Clinton's long-time aide, Huma Abedin has family members that are MoBroHood officials.  Thus, our administration followed policy that would benefit those non-American interests.

None of those, however, explain the ENTIRETY of events.  But there is something that connects all of them, and even includes domestic issues as well.  I thought of the idea while listening to Rush Limbaugh (which I don't do very often).  It wasn't Rush's idea, but a caller.  I don't exactly remember what he said, but it got me thinking about Marx' Communist Manifesto.  Marx believed that the Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, obtained their material wealth and success by exploitation, oppression, theft, etc.  Essentially, no wealth, according to Marx, could be obtained lawfully or legitimately.  Thus it was imperative and justified for the "Workers of the World, UNITE!!" to overthrow the bourgeoisie and fix society.

Strict Marxism isn't found much anymore.  Modern Marxists took the fundamental theories of Communism and spread them to nearly all walks of life: "liberation theology", "Marxist feminism", "Marxist race-theory", etc.  There is even a foundational theory among sociologists called "Conflict Theory" that is based on this idea of Marx's.  

Marx divided history between the "haves" and "have nots".  The "haves" universally obtained their success through oppression and malfeasance at the expense of the "have nots".  The only way to fix this problem is to forcibly remove the fruits of that success from the "haves" and distribute it to those who were oppressed.  

Using these ideas, lets apply them to the current administration.  First, the obvious: the US.  Since the late 1800s, and throughout the 20th Century, the US has been the World's Superpower, especially since after WWII.  According to Marxist thought (and the President and all his administration were taught by Marxists), this success could only have been obtained through illegitimate means: all American success is ill-gotten.  This is the main reason why the president isn't concerned with "America winning", and why he apologizes every chance he gets.  He is actively trying to build up those nations (like China) whom he thinks the US victimized in order to reach Number 1, while at the same time, denigrate the US.  But it goes beyond that.

Since the end of the 1700s, Islam and Muslim nations have been dominated by Christianity and Christian nations.  Intellectually, the great Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna have been overshadowed by Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kant, etc.  Great scientific discovery was found in Christian nations, by largely Christian scientists (the monk Gregor Mendel was the first to manipulate genetics, Jesuit astronomers confirmed Galileo's supposition that the galaxy was helio-centric, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, as well as the calculus he developed, were the result of his belief in God) while scientific advancement that originated within Muslim lands is scant.  Aside from those advances, Christian nations had a much higher standard of living due to their modernized economic systems, and their military capabilities were vastly superior.  Rather than attribute the bulk of these differences to ideological differences between the two cultures/religions, Marxists like Obama and Clinton attribute these differences to purposeful oppression on the part of Christians (Marxism is inherently atheist: no religion has any importance, other than its usefulness in keeping the people mollified by their bourgeois controllers).  As such, Christianity and Christians must be taken down a notch or two (or destroyed completely, because Christianity is inherently opposed to Marxist presuppositions), and Islam and Muslims must be brought up.  Groups that have particular success or notoriety (such as the Catholic Church) will receive greater scorn and derision among the Marxist Left (hence the "contraception mandate", and groups that have "suffered" the most (like Shi'a Iran), must be supported the most.  Here is the glue, or underlying principle, of Obama's foreign policy: the support of Islam and Muslims at the expense of Christianity and Christians.  

This should be quite clear in many cases.  Take Egypt to start with.  Mubarak was a secularist, and under him, Coptic Christianity (which dates, like many Syrian Christian communities and many Eastern Catholic communities to the century after Christ) grew, while radical Islamic groups were suppressed (the MoBroHood was illegal under Mubarak).  To a Marxist, this is unacceptable.  By getting rid of Mubarak, the radical sects were given free-reign to terrorize the people, and it should be of no surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood made it policy to terrorize Christians.  Islam, in Egypt, was being allowed to dominate.

In Libya, the proposal that would have let Gaddhafi go peacefully allowed for a secular government to be established, and radical Islam would, again, be "oppressed".  While not the only reason for allowing Gaddhafi's murder, it was a factor.  There is a reason why the administration rushed to support radical Islamic "rebels" in Libya after a lie was propagated, and why it continued to support to radical Islamists after a less bloody path presented itself.

ISIS presents somewhat of a challenge here, unless you know your Middle East and European history.  At the tail end of WWI, the British and the French sought to remove the Ottoman Empire from the war so they could focus all their efforts on Germany.  To do so, they needed the support of the Arab princes.  Among them, it should be known, "Islamic fundamentalism" was already strong and thriving: the "radical Islamic" movement of Wahhabism began in Arabia in the late 1700s as a counter to the decline and "heresy" of Ottoman Islamic practice (namely, the cessation of the use of armed jihad against the infidel--the Ottomans had been making treaties and deals with Christian nations for centuries).  The British sent "Sir Lawrence of Arabia" to get the tribes on their side.  To do so, Lawrence promised the princes that they could establish their own state in the place of the Ottomans; the Arabs wanted a caliphate.  However, unbeknownst to Lawrence, the British and French reached an agreement, referred to as "Sykes-Picot" (or officially "The Asia Minor Agreement"), which established British and French "spheres of influence" over all formerly Ottoman lands.  It was further agreed that steps would be taken to prevent the establishment of a single, large, powerful and exclusively Islamic state (also know as a "caliphate") in the future.  To a Marxist, Sykes-Picot represents nothing more that Christian-capitalist oppressive imperialism into the Middle East.  To this end, the President will do nothing of any consequence, because a strong Islamic state is not a bug, its a feature.

Iran is a particularly interesting case.   The president has thrown, it seems, all his support behind the anti-American, anti-Israel mullahs in Iran, even against allies such as Saudi Arabia (we still haven't ceased the lifting of sanctions in response to Iran's actions against our ally Saudi Arabia).  Seeing as the President was raised Sunni, and Iran is Shia, AND that Saudi Arabia both supports the president AND Hillary Clinton, the president's support of Iran makes no sense.  Well, almost no sense.  Iran is predominately Shi'a Islam, which is not only a numerical minority within Islamic groups, but an intellectual and political minority as well.  Shi'a scholars have been neglected for their more famous Sunni counterparts, and Shi'a kingdoms have almost always been inferior to Sunni kingdoms.  The historical Persia, once the greatest empire on Earth, has been a historical backwater for centuries.  If a Marxist MUST choose sides between Muslim factions, the Shi'a would seem to be the most ideologically pure choice.

Syria is vital to the emergence of Saudi Arabia into the European O&G markets.  Currently, Russia, a Christian nation that has been actively re-Christianizing itself and linking its national identity with the Russian Orthodox Church, is (and has been) the dominant O&G force in Europe.  Thus, it is necessary that Assad be removed, so Saudi Arabia can establish a sympathetic Sunni radical government that will bend to its wishes...in order to raise Saudi Arabia up at the expense of Russia.  You cannot mention Syria without the Syrian "refugees".  Glenn Beck started the Nazarene Fund to permanently relocate Christian families from Syria and Iraq to more favorable countries.  Nearly all the strongest and wealthiest European nations, the ones who have thrown open the doors to the Muslim "refugees" that have started riots and raped their women, refused any Christian refugees.  Even our own government has refused asylum to nearly all Christian or Yazidi applicants, while granting nearly 100% of Muslim applicants (with, it seems, little to no vetting).  ISIS has expressed an interest in removing Christianity from its region, and it appears that the Progressive, Marxist powers are in complete agreement.

Now, of Russia, this needs said:  Much has been made of Russia's forays into the Crimea, and its conflict with Ukraine, and it should be noted that much of that is oil and gas related.  There exist large gas-plays in the Crimean Sea, which could be vital to Ukraine's economic growth...as well as Russia's.  There is a reason why the President played golf while Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimea, and was engaged in a proxy war with Ukraine (I contend that Russian forces were NEVER engaged with Ukraine, but rather, Putin "donated" Russian equipment and advisers to the Russian-sympathizers, while many Russian citizens "volunteered" to fight on the sympathizers' behalf).  Currently, the US, thanks to major shale-gas plays in the Marcellus Region in the Northeast US (which many experts suggest could power the world for 50-100 years by itself), dominates the natural gas market.  Allowing Russia and Saudi Arabia to gain market share while at the same time making life difficult for oil & gas development in the US would accomplish two goals at once: denigrate the US economy by giving up market share, all while giving Russia and Saudi Arabia "their fair share".

 Summary--Boy is it needed
Certainly, political considerations cannot be ignored.  I'm not saying that Obama and Clinton have engaged in everything they have with the primary objective being the support of traditionally "oppressed" groups at the expense of traditionally successful groups.  I'm saying that as underlying Marxist mentality that says all success is ill-gotten and must be rectified is most certainly influencing everything that has gone on.  

2016, a Shallow Perspective, Part I

Woo hoo!  Another Presidential cycle is upon us!  Great.  

So far, we've got four confirmed candidates, with about 4 more waiting to jump in.  We've got plenty of time to analyze policy, throw mud, and lie about how awesome people are.  With that in mind, I'm going a different route: to review the current candidates from a shallow perspective. 

While yes, it is shallow, it is also important.  John F. Kennedy won his election in 1960 in large part because he appeared more "presidential" on the televised debates than did Richard Nixon.  Bill Clinton won in 1996 because, among other reasons, he was more appealing, looks wise, than his opponent.  Same was true in 2008.  It should be clear: how candidates present themselves is as important as what they say or what they've done.  So, that being said Part I:

Ted Cruz  Sen. Cruz was the first to announce.  His announcement speech was impressive, from a shallow point of view.  He didn't use any teleprompter, he spoke with passion, from the heart, and he spoke fluidly.  He knows what he's talking about.  He looked at ease and natural.  It should be obvious (but its not to many) that Cruz will be a formidable campaign opponent, simply because it won't be easy to best him in a debate.  However, from a completely shallow perspective, he's got some downfalls.  First, his voice...I'm not a big fan.  Second, he looks like he's slouching.  Not very presidential.  He's also not the most attractive of candidates.  He is, however, younger.  Younger is more appealing to voters: who wants a president that will croak mid-term? Overall, Shallow, Part I Grade: B.

Rand Paul Sen. Paul was the second to announce.  Like Cruz, he spoke well, and intelligently.  He's not a natural speaker, like Cruz, but he's a good one.  He's at ease with prepared remarks and off-the-cuff remarks.  In terms of looks, he's more "presidential" than Cruz.  He stands more straight, which is appealing.  His voice/sound is appealing in that it isn't hawty and he doesn't speak down; it has a "normal person" feel to it to make him more appealing to "everyday Americans".  His hair, though, doesn't help his cause.  Consider JFK, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 all had hair that at the VERY LEAST didn't stand out.  I'm not sure Rand's mop passes that test.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: A-

Hillary Clinton Sec Clinton announced third...via video.  It'd didn't go over well.  I found it staged, not really genuine (it didn't help that she used people's images without their permission).  I found her voice less than appealing.  Historically, Sec Clinton has had issues concerning likeability, so much so that staffers and campaign personnel have been trotted out to say that what you see when she speaks, or interacts with people isn't really her...she's really the "life of the party".  Her voice is, shall we say, less than appealing.  She's got this mean, edgy side to it...like its really hard to think she actually cares about the people she's trying to woo.  I'm also not a fan of her trademark pantsuits, plus, she hasn't aged well.  She was a relatively attractive first lady, and wasn't ugly as a Senator.  However, as Sec. State, and as a candidate, any physical appeal she may have had doesn't seem to be there.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: D+

Marco Rubio The fourth candidate to announce, Sen. Rubio has a lot going for him.  Unlike Sens Cruz and Paul, he's a natural politician.  In fact, I see a good many similarities, from a shallow perspective, between him and Bill Clinton in 1992: they're young, they're attractive, they relate well to the people, they have appealing stories to tell, and they interact well with the media.  Clinton was so well liked, that even Rush Limbaugh said he'd like to play golf with Clinton.  Rubio, to an extent, has the same feel.  Like Clinton, he speaks well, and can play a crowd.  His voice isn't annoying, but it isn't his strong point either.  It is, however, somewhat commanding, in that simply the way he speaks demands that he, or his opinions, should be heard.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: A-

POTENTIAL CANDIDATES

 

Dr. Ben Carson  Very intelligent, and speaks well on his feet.  He carries himself well, which is always appealing.  He's younger and and generally good looking.  On a stage of world leaders, he would most certainly look like a world leader.  His voice, though, is weak.  If I'm in a cabinet meeting discussing pretty important policy issues, his voice doesn't have the oomph! to command respect.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: B+

Carly Fiorina The former CEO of Hewlett Packard has a lot going for her from a shallow perspective.  She's attractive, she's well spoken and thoughtful when she speaks, and carries herself well.  There is a reason she was a CEO.  Her voice is strong, and she exudes leadership.  Strictly in terms of "looks", she'd be an excellent first female president.  She looks strong, exudes confidences, yet seems approachable.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: A+

Elizabeth Warren Unlike Sec Clinton, Sen Warren is not off-putting.  While most certainly not a spring chicken, she doesn't look old.  She doesn't seem as rehearsed as Clinton. I'm not a big fan of the professorial aura, though.  I don't want a professor as president, I want a leader.  She doesn't look like a leader.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: B-

Martin O'Malley Gov. O'Malley, in terms of looks and only looks, has a strong "presidential" feel to him.  I haven't really heard his voice, so I can't testify to that.  I don't really like his mannerisms, though. Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: A-

Chris Christie Gov. Christie is a fat blowhard. No one wants a fat blowhard for president...although he makes for good TV.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: F

Jeb Bush I don't like Gov. Bush as a candidate on policy reasons.  He's not bad, though from a shallow perspective.  Sure, every other president since Carter looked trim and fit, while Jebbie is on the chunky side.  He speaks intelligently on almost any issue, and he does present himself as a leader.  His voice is "normal" in that it doesn't stand out as either annoying (Hillary) or outstanding (James Earl Jones).  I don't like his hair though...it borders on Rand Paul territory.  Overall, Shallow Part I Grade: B-

As time goes on, maybe things will change.  Heck, the way it looks we'll a boatload of candidates.

Yeah fun.

The IRS thing isn't what you think...

I'm pleasantly surprised that its only been since October...I thought it was like March of last year.  Heh.

As to this IRS thing, this TOTALLY makes sense to me only because of the nature of the office itself.  I'll explain:

-  The IRS gathers financial and personal information from every person and group in the US.  As a result, its employees have access to more information on any one of us than any other office does during the normal course of business.  Sure, the CIA and FBI will gather info, but only if necessary, when a situation warrants.  However, it is the job of the IRS to gather information and then analyze and store that information. 

-  The IRS has human employees, which means that ethical mistakes are bound to happen.  From experience, I know that not everyone can be trusted with supposedly confidential information.  I can totally see individuals looking into information they shouldn't on people they know, people they hear about, etc.  They probably don't do anything with that information, but they've violated the ethical principle that an individual's personal information is the property of that individual.  In short, there are people who work at the IRS that are perfectly willing to look deeper than they should into our personal information.

Steve Miller, Head of IRS (for now)

-  In any operation, there are people who are go-getters, who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide a better service and make themselves more useful than the next guy.  They may notice that they have access to potentially useful information, and then begin to track that information, in the case it may be useful to their superiors.  In my experience, not every superior cares that such information is being tracked...but some do, and make a note of who was willing to put forth the effort.  When a time comes for need of such services, the superior knows where to go.  Summary: the IRS has people that are using other people's information as a means of career advancement.

-  In a famous experiment by Stanley Milgram, it was shown that people have a strong tendency to obey their authority figures, even if they know what they are being told to do is morally, ethically, and legally wrong.  Milgram and others postulated that their obedience had to do with fear (of retribution), blind trust (the authority must know what they are doing, right?), self-preservation (if I don't do this, my chances at getting a raise are slim) or detachment (just following orders, its the authority's fault for asking me).  Summary: the employees of the IRS, including its supervisors, will most likely obey orders from the higher ups.

Here we have a purely natural thing in which information is easily available, and people are willing to track certain things with the data available, and obey their superiors' requests.  This entire SYSTEM is set up for something like this to happen.  The Obama admin is NOT the first administration to use the IRS to intimidate, acquire dirt on, or investigate political opponents.  One of Nixon's impeachment articles referred to the use of the IRS to intimidate an opponent.  Under President Clinton, conservative personalities like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck were audited often.  I'm sure that under Bush, there was information being gathered on Code Pink and the like.  The question becomes, how complicit was the White House in any of it?

I'm not so sure much at all, at least in the previous administrations (excepting, of course, Nixon).  Its simple.  In the Bible, there are two stories about how servants of King David are punished for doing things ON THEIR OWN that they thought would be appreciated by the King (one of them includes the killing of the King's son, Absolom, who was in open insurrection).  During the reign of Henry II, four loyal knights murdered St. Thomas Beckett, assuming the king wanted him dead.  It isn't without precedent, therefore, that eager-to-please IRS agents would begin such activities, assuming their political bosses in the White House at the least, would turn a blind eye.  I'm quite certain that in every administration, there is someone within the IRS who thinks their doing The Boss a favor by starting an audit on a political opponent, or scrutinizing their returns a bit more closely.

To anyone paying attention, this current Administration has not been above intimidation to get what it wants.  It should surprise no one, then, that when it became clear that the IRS would be willing to help out, the Administration was more than willing to use all of its resources. 

As of this writing, I'm not convinced this was instigated by the White House, or the Treasury Dept.  I think it entirely logical that, seeing as this sort of thing is most likely common within the IRS, some go-getter on the rise suggested this, and the Administration jumped on it.  I could be wrong, though...

Killing the Cowboys, Debates, and Human Dignity

My take on the foreign policy debate and a little background story to set the stage:

 

I'm a Jets fan, so consequently the loathing I have for Bill Belichek, Tom Brady and the Patriots is intense...HOWEVER, one cannot deny the success they've enjoyed due to an excellently coached team and good QB (this sentiment is similar to my take on Romney...my candidate dropped out of the race, and I'm not a Romney fan, but I have a healthy respect for his experiences). A few years ago, Uncle Screwtape (the Patriots) had a very successfull season in which, during the regular season, they defeated every opponenent. At one point in the season, Uncle Screwtape played Satan himself--The Dallas Cowboys. To summarize my take on this game, when Tom Brady and the rest of the starters were removed in the 3rd quarter, I was extremely displeased: I was hoping that Uncle Screwtape (that vile demon that he is), would thoroughly and entirely humiliate Satan by putting up 100 points on him. This desire reflected the absolute loathing I have for the Cowboys.

 

Thus was my hope for last night's debate: that Mitt would use the ample material provided to him by the president to simply annihilate the President, to publically humiliate him as payback for all he's done to America. Sometimes, however such a confrontation, while essentially necessary (currently, the biggest threat to national security isn't a nuclear Iran or Russia, but the incompetent presidential administration responsible for Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate), isn't the right course of action.

 

When the softball question of Libya and Benghazi was tossed to Mitt, he took the pitch. I didn't know why, or what he was playing at. Mitt never used a killing shot to publically repudiate the president's glaring foreign policy incompetence. He didn't need to.

 

My impression of the debate was different than a lot of people's, from what I can see perusing the interwebs. I noticed some things during the debate that only came together at the end. First, I noticed that unlike debate 2 (and to a large part debate 1), Romney didn't interrupt the President often at all...unlike the President who consistently cut into what Romney said (how true this was or not, I don't know…this is just the impression I got). Second, Romney's focus was always on his vision, his message. He occasionally would criticize the President's poor record, but that wasn't his theme. Third, I noticed a certain facial expression on the President when Romney spoke concerning Pakistan and China, an expression I've seen on kids in the classroom when they are actually learning something. This wasn't a paying-attention-to-see-what-I-can-rebut look. This was rapt attention, soaking in what was being TAUGHT. Facial expressions don't lie: a career businessman was teaching the President of the United States things he didn't know about foreign policy. Third, near the end, Bob Schieffer NATURALLY started giving Romney more time to answer, and cut the president off. This was most pronounced during the last questions, when Romney appeared to speak the most, and Schieffer just kept asking him more and more, not even letting the President (who was, as I said, paying rapt attention to what Romney was saying) say much in rebuttal. This seemed natural to me, because it was exactly what I would have done. At that point in the debate, the president had nothing of value to add, nothing to add to the discussion.

 

During the closing statements, I realized what had happened, what I witnessed. There was an emotion behind Mitt Romney's voice: he was speaking from the heart, not talking points or regurgitated campaign stump speeches. At that point, I realized that Romney didn't need to humiliate the President. The debate started as a good give and take, the President making good points, Romney making good points, and was essentially a toss-up. By the end, that was not the case: Romney commanded the debate and set the tone. This has really nothing to do with substance or ideas, but presentation.

The president's actions toward his political opponent have not been atypical of his policies. His anti-terrorist policy is simply to kill people, as he seemingly admitted last night. He has no respect for human life of human dignity, save when it helps him—we need no more proof of this than his response to the Trayvon Martin case (in which he demonized George Zimmerman immediately), or Fast and Furious (in which his support of his DOJ and ATF is tantamount to approval). Thus, he has no problem with demonizing his opponent, making him appear somehow less than human. His entire campaign has revolved around the rich vs. poor meme, class warfare and class envy. He doesn't care if he accurately depicts Mitt Romney's policies or if he ridicules his opponent. At the end of the debate, Mitt Romney had not stooped to that level. He did not denigrate his opponent, he did not ridicule. He clearly presented his ideas, his perspective to the American people.

 

As I reflected on the final moments of the debate last night, I realized that my ambition, my desire made me no better than the President. I wanted him humiliated, publically and brutally. How is this any better than the President's willy-nilly killing of Afghanis, or letting Americans die in Benghazi because its "simply a bump in the road" and then lying about the actions to save face? Just like every single terrorist, President Obama is human person, and as such, does not deserve the public humiliation for his administrations ineptitude.

 

In short, despite his political shortcomings, it is clear that Mitt Romney was the better man last night. Not just better than the president, but better than me. He did something I wouldn't have done. He did the right thing.

The “Sin” of Progressivism

I saw this headline and started thinking.

At work, we've got quite a few individuals who are politically astute (which makes for fun conversation), and we've been discussing the difference between "liberals", "socialists", "Communists" and "progressives". Being the student of history that I am, the four terms are NOT interchangeable.

For one, "liberal" is a relative term, as a "liberal" strictly speaking, seeks change from the status quo. Seeing as the status quo is constantly changing, what is "liberal" in one decade is "conservative" or "radical" in another. Consider that a few short decades ago, what passes today as "conservative" was actually "liberal". Further, classical "liberalism" was for increased voting rights, small and limited government, and a free market, which are the bedrock of modern conservativism.

For another, while many use "socialist" and "communist" interchangeably, they are not the same thing. Marx's communism was localized and small, a situation where small communities of people would work together for their common needs, with nothing held in private, and no over-arching governing structure. Socialism is large-scale communism, but in order to make it work, the government, on the premise of representing the people, makes the decisions on what the society needs, and how to meet those needs. To be a "socialist" is to also be a statist: to put the state as all important, and the individual as a servant to the state and its all-powerful central government. To be a communist is to be an anarchist (in that within communism there is no government), and private property doesn't exist.

Finally, there is the term "progressive". The term has been used to describe Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, as well as others, like Newt Gingrich, and most of politicians in the American "left". However, progressivism is not synonymous with socialism, or communism, or even liberalism. The term denotes a belief in the "progress" of society; a belief that human society will progress inevitably to some idealized utopia. Progressives are elitists, because only the elite can put together programs, or systems that can solve current or future problems. Progressives are humanist, because they believe that it is up to us humans to create the perfect society.

This is where the problem lies for the Christian. As Christians, we believe in the concept of Original Sin, that all humans have the propensity to sin. To believe that the goal of progressivism is possible is tantamount to rejecting the Creed of Christianity:

1. Christians believe that our sinful nature means that mankind cannot bring about its own salvation, but salvation comes only from God.
   
2. Jesus Christ came to Earth to suffer and die, and therefore purchase for us the reward of eternal life, as a result of our inability to do it for ourselves.
   
3. Progressives believe that we can create our own perfect society…thus "saving" us.
   
4. This rejects the need for God.
   
5. That rejects the sacrifice of Christ.
   

Rejecting the Sacrifice of Christ essentially means you are no longer a Christian. Thus, by adhering to a progressive mentality, you are, whether you know it or not rejecting your Christian faith.

Finished…so now what?

I finished War and Peace this morning. Not sure what to make of it. I really enjoyed reading it, but came away unsatisfied as far as the story goes. This is, of course, because my favorite character, Prince Andrey Bolkonsky died, and his son, who lived with his aunt, Marya (my second favorite character) has no real father figure. Seriously, I almost stopped reading after Andrey died, there was no real point in continuing. I'm glad I continued though, because had I stopped, I never would have read the epilogue.

In the epilogue, Tolstoy says: "Then as now much time was spent arguing about the rights of women, husband-and-wife relationships and freedom and rights within marriage…. Questions like these, then as now, existed exclusively for people who see marriage only in terms of satisfaction given and received by the married couple, though this is only one principle of married life rather than its overall meaning, which lies in the family. All the latest issues and debates, such as the problem of getting maximum pleasure out of eating your dinner, did not exist then, and do not exist now for people who see dinner as a source of nourishment, and family life as the aim of marriage."

The epilogue is centered around two families that are very much alike: wives utterly devoted to their husbands, and husbands utterly devoted to their wives…and both completely devoted to their children. Unlike the other women of their class, who spent their time getting dolled up for soirees and pursuing their own interests, Natasha and Marya focus their lives around their families. Unlike the men of their class, Nikolay and Pierre do their work, but neglect the wealthy society and focus on their family (Nikolay was not well liked by the gentry, because he actually treated the peasants as people, fancy that…). For these families, social and political connections aren't the goal…the goal is their family. In the end, these two couples are infinitely happier than they could ever have imagined, because 1) they are devoted to each other, 2) they have adopted a certain order in their households which creates stability, and 3) they are devoted to their children.

The “Right to Crime”

Leo Tolstoy's writing style has a way to illustrate a depth of knowledge of the human condition and therefore, to explain certain actions. In Volume IV Part I Chapter 4 of War and Peace, he says "The ones who were actually making an effort to follow the federal course of events, and trying to get involved through self-sacrifice and heroic conduct, were the least useful members of society; they looked at things the wrong way round, and everything they did, with the best of intentions, turned out to be useless and absurd…." This particular sentence, coming when it does in the text is powerful.

On the one hand, we've seen the heroic deeds and self-sacrifice of Muscovites and Russian soldiers who are in the thick of the fight. In the text, we've seen men storm burning buildings looking for trapped children, and men coming to the rescue of young Russian women who are being harassed by the French. We've seen nobility lose everything in flames (or consumed by the French). These people are acting out of necessity. As psychologist Phil Zimbardo discusses in his book Lucifer Effect, these individuals are reacting to stimulus according to the moral training they've received throughout their lifetimes. In short, they are acting just like they've been taught to act, and are responding to extreme stimulus accordingly.

On the other hand, we see the less than heroic deeds of individuals who have inflated their own self worth to dedicate themselves to being heroic and to self-sacrifice. These individuals have gotten in the way and even hindered those noted above. These people are acting, far removed from any real stimulus, on their own idealized intellectual fancies.

From this simple quote, I have two observations. First, those that are "in the trenches" get things done and are a real boon to the "cause" (whatever the cause is) because of their knowledge of what is really going on. Along those lines, those that are "armchair quarterbacks" and use their education (rather than hands-on, firsthand experience) to theorize on how to solve a problem, serve to, at the least, get in the way, while at most hinder real progress. In this regard, from a standpoint of strict efficiency, using the idea of subsidiarity (principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively) to solve social problems makes more sense that using socialism or statism. For certain, many advocates of socialism or statism have good intentions, but inevitably, their lack of true understanding and their over-reliance on their intellectual capabilities, will only hinder any real solution.

Second, the so-called "right to crime" is somewhat alluded to here. In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky mentions this "right" to explain how certain "great" men were able to become "great". In short, they were willing to do what others weren't to achieve their own allegedly noble ends: transgress the law (either civil or natural). In fact, the idea goes so far as to infer that the truly great MUST violate the law, usually by spilling blood, to become great. In this quote, we see how utterly false this idea is. On the one hand, the truly great ones (like the truly heroic in Tolstoy's story) are those that do not use their reason to inflate their value to mankind or to make their goals somehow so noble that bloodshed is not an issue. The truly great act nobly based on 1) their moral formation throughout their lives, and 2) on the specific stimuli at hand (along these lines, I am thinking of George Washington, whom George III praised as the greatest man alive for stepping down as President of the US after two terms and near unanimous support among the people—essentially unlimited power due to his popularity). On the other hand, those that rationalize the spilling of blood to further their goals, like Che Guevera, Napoleon, Robespierre, Muhammad, Hitler, Bismarck, and many, many more are not a benefit to humankind, but a hindrance. None of these men added to humanity in any long-lasting and profitable or positive manner. Most have led to more pain, more suffering, and more death as a result of their intellectually driven machinations.

Pride, Honor, and Self-Service

I've reached the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in War and Peace, which begins in Volume III, Part I, Chapter I. Tolstoy begins this by undertaking to briefly explain why this rather pointless waste of human life began in the first place. He glosses the reasons illumined by the historians of his day (Napoleon's megalomania, Alexander's obstinacy, an affront to the Duke of Oldenburg, the failure of the Continental System, and machinations of the English), and then puts in some common sense observations from a non-historian point of view.

What is interesting is that he neglects a certain, perhaps vital cause that actually is illuminated throughout his work: the view that military service was a source of pride, and means of extolling one's own honor, and obtaining status within European society. All one needs to do is to look at the characters of the book. Boris is essentially thrust into the service, hoping to win himself a decent position in society. His service isn't about serving the Tsar or his country, but about his own self-aggrandizement. He realizes that with his mother's seemingly deplorable social and financial status, his only hope is to win glory for himself and then win the hand of a wealthy heiress. Further, what of Anatole, whose father uses his contacts to thrust him into military service in the hopes of whipping him into shape. Further is Nikolay Rostov, whose enlistment in the service was an attempt to win himself a nice position and help his family out.

Now, military service is pointless without conflicts to support the presence of a standing army. Could Boris, or Anatole, or Nikolay hope to gain the honors or promotions without some heroic service in wartime or conflict? Of course not. The fact remains that Tolstoy's work highlights and treats casually the understanding that war is honorable and military service is an ideal career path. Such an attitude makes such slight inconveniences like Alexander's obstinacy, a mere affront to a Duke, and other small things lead to war. In a society that is hell-bent on its men proving themselves in war, war is inevitable.

Of course, this says nothing of the historical fact that Napoleon Bonaparte based his entire political career off of his military successes. A cursory overview of the Napoleonic era reveals that when the going got tough at home, the French went to war. In a classic political maneuver that drew citizens' eyes away from unsavory conditions at home to the patriotic duty to war, Napoleon used his Grand Army to his political advantage: as long as he racked up victories, his support with the French people would be solidified. The Austrian general, von Clausewitz once claimed that war was an extension of policy. One could argue that with Napoleon, war was policy…it needed to be lest he lose popularity and support back home.

War and Peace and Immanent Destruction

I've been reading War and Peace and am so far enjoying it. Unlike Crime and Punishment which is ahistorical in that it doesn't necessarily mention the exact time-period in which it takes place, War and Peace is historical, naming names, events, and movements within Russian society. Further differences include the setting: Crime and Punishment takes place in the Russian underclass/peasantry (presumably after the freeing of the serfs), while War and Peace involves the Russian upper class.

While reading the novel, I can't help a sense of foreboding, of impending destruction setting over the whole thing. How can you possibly connect with the characters, many of them noble, good people, knowing that in a few short years after these events take place, their entire world will be destroyed, violently and horrifically, by the Bolsheviks and their fellow communists? It saddens me to realize how much was lost when the greedy, power hungry, and selfish communists wiped out all of Russian society to put in place their misguided, inherently demeaning philosophy of strife, struggle, control, and jealousy.

What is truly saddening is that, like the French immediately after the meeting of the Estates General in 1789, the Russians were gradually working towards meaningful reform. You can't just impose a constitutional democracy on a people overnight. It has to be worked at, tweaked, and made to fit the socio-political culture of that people. The US Constitution wasn't adopted immediately after the American Revolution; there was the inter-regnum period of the Articles of Confederation, which taught the leaders of the country a great deal about federalism, cooperation, and interdependency. The Tsars and their aristocratic advisors slowly worked to modernize and liberalize their incredibly conservative country bit by bit, and by 1917, great strides had been taken. All those strides were for naught. All the hard work of the liberals (referring to republicans, and free-market entrepreneurs) in Russian government and society was utterly destroyed by the usurpation of the Bolsheviks.

Now, I doubt that the Russians of today, after 70 years of devastating communist rule, could recognize the Russia in War and Peace, which is a sad thing.

Crime and Punishment

I picked up Crime and Punishment sometime last week. To give a little back story, I've never read it, which is unfortunate, really. I picked it up on a whim: Borders at our mall was going out of business, and so had books on super-sale. The wife told me to pick up some classics on the way home (dumb on her part really…I am somewhat of a bibliophile, and to be give the vague command to "pick up some classics" was like giving me a blank check…). So in the midst of the said shopping spree, I checked out the back of a paperback edition of Crime and Punishment. I was intrigued by the description, and even more intrigued by the brief biography of Dostoevsky contained in the opening page. I bought it.

At first, it was slow, and I found it easy to put down and get distracted. But as the story progressed, and we actually met more characters, I found myself borderline obsessed with the story. There were several aspects that sucked me in. The first was the supposed motive for the murder, and the differentiation between "everyman" and the "superman". What sucked me in the most, however, was the cat and mouse game between the inspector and Raskolnikov. It was so masterfully done that I really couldn't tell if the inspector really knew that Raskolonikov was guilty and was trying to draw him out, or if the inspector was genuinely clueless. Further, the differing aspects of Raskolnikov's character (his genuine heartfelt generosity, his internal dialogues about his personal charity) sucked me in—although I can't say that I genuinely liked him as a person. In addition, the depth of characters line Sonia, Katerina Ivonovna, Pyotr Petrovich provided further stimulus. As the climax drew near, Dostoesky artfully maintains a shroud over the conclusion, leading one to wonder about how the conflict will be resolved, but at the same time, leaving open every possibility. In fact, when the resolution does come, it's not a surprise, but it certainly isn't a forgone conclusion.

Some different themes interested me in the work, and I'll comment on them separately:

1. The idea of love in the story
   
2. The true hero of the tale
   
3. The concept of the "superman" and the "right to crime"
   
4. Raskolnikov's motive and today's Occupy Movement (and associated incidents)

Socialism vs Fascism, Part II

From what I've said previously, it makes total sense for liberals in America to assign the greatest slur they can think of (fascists/Nazis) to conservatives, while conservatives assign the greatest slur they can think of to liberals (Communists/socialists).  The problem is, at least with the liberals' use of fascism and Nazism, they fail to look deeper at both fascism (which they abhor) and socialism (which they wish to emulate).


Socialism, it is widely thought, was the brain-child of the theories of Robert Owen.  Owen (1771-1858) used his extraordinary skill in managing and overseeing to create a successful textile mill at New Lanarck. He was able to put several of his progressive ideas into practice at New Lanarck, and these successes gave him the opportunity to put his more radical, socialist theories into practice, most notably at New Harmony in Indiana.  Owen's socialism reduced the population into small "societies" of about 500-3000 people, and removed private property and private ownership: all that mattered was the success of the "society".  All people shared everything, and each would receive according to their need.  Everyone would exist in relative equality in these self-contained societies, which would be overseen by a capable, qualified and adept overseer.  Groups of societies would be linked together, and those groups would be linked together, until every society was part of a globally integrated, non-competitive socialist utopia.  In classical socialism, the goal is the economic survival/success of each individual, not competitive "collective".  Due to the non-competitive nature, the idea of nationalism, or pride in one's collective, or heritage, or individuality is supposed to be non-existent.  Any sort of differentiation between individuals would create a competitive atmosphere, which would undermine the socialist utopia.  Thus, true socialists are afraid of nationalism, or "American exceptionalism", so much so that the would label anyone who demonstrates any sort of pride in their country as "fascists" thought to invoke the totalitarian regime of Hitler.


Fascism is first seen in Mussolini's Italy.  Mussolini's fascism was centered around his authority as a dictator, and the uber-nationalism that accompanied Italy's militarism.  For Mussolini's Italy, everything revolved around the good of the State.  So important was the State's influence on everyday life, that a common joke was that while everything was going to hell-in-a-handbasket, at least the (state-run) trains ran on time.  Over time, he dramatically increased state control over the private sector, eventually settling on a system called corporatism, which melded a centralized economic plan with privately run businesses.  Mussolini was the first, but not the last.  Adolf Hitler adopted the fascist idea with his National Socialists is Germany.  For the Nazi party, the good of the state was the goal, and while Mussolini never really went full socialist, Hitler did.  However, we don't really hear about Hitler's love-affair with socialism.  Instead we are faced with his great nationalism, his Thousand Year Reich, and the "Fatherland". 

The fact is, that all fascists used socialism as their economic policy to some extent.  The goal of the fascist is the success of the state...thus, socialism, with its goal of economic "success" of the society is a good match. Fascists will, because of their insistence on the importance of the state over the importance of the individual, adopt socialist policies. For this reason, it is rather ironic that American liberals (who want state control of the economy, and who believe in the importance of the state over the importance of the individual) call American conservatives (who are proud of the United States and believe in the importance of the individual over the importance of the state) "fascists".

Dracula, revisited

I was just breezing through Creative Minority Report and I came across the phrase "he gave vampires souls".  It brought me back to an issue I have with Stoker's work and how he dealt with vampires and souls.

When vampire-Lucy was waylay-ed by Professor Van Helsing and his partners, Van Helsing imparts on Arthur the importance of what need to happen: by slaying the vampire-Lucy, Lucy's soul is free to enter into Heaven.  This gives a rather interesting perspective on the soul, salvation, damnation, and the link between the soul and body.

Catholic teaching on the soul and the body is such that both are intrinsically linked: the body is THE vessel for the soul, and during the resurrection, the soul will be reunited with the body (not a different one, but a glorified old one).  When the body dies, the soul is freed from this "mortal coil" and will be separated from it.

This means, in relation to vampire-myth, that when the body dies (and before it becomes a vampire) the soul is released and thus the soul is not trapped by the vampire's actions.  So then, it would appear that vampire-Lucy wouldn't really have been Lucy at all, but a demon using Lucy's body, or something to that effect, and Lucy's soul would have entered Heaven already.  But that isn't what Stoker presents.


Stoker actually presents two DIFFERENT perspectives in his work.  Lucy's soul is in jeopardy, as if it is trapped in the body while the body continues its evil, God-forsaken actions of feeding off others.  Killing the body will release Lucy's soul to enter into heaven.  The fate of Lucy's soul (whether it will be damned or saved) is unrelated to the actions of the vampire, it appears.

HOWEVER, both Lucy and Dracula know who they are.  Lucy recognizes her beloved, and with evil depravity presents herself in a lustful manner to seduce him in order to prey upon his blood and win him over to her (and possibly be his master, as Dracula is hers).  Likewise, Dracula is fully aware of his existence, who he is, what his purpose is, and what his plan is.  He recounts his history, what he's done, etc.

The two perspectives are mutually exclusive.  Lucy's soul cannot be trapped against its will by vampire-Lucy AND vampire-Lucy know who she is and act accordingly (although in an utterly depraved manner).  Either the vampire is Lucy or it is not.

On 'Coriolanus' and American Politics

To summarize a rather long situation, I was tricked into reading Shakespeare's Coriolanus.  It was an interesting and enjoyable read.  The story surrounds a rather decorated and successful general for the Roman Republic, who is eventually banished, and seeks to exact revenge on the spiteful populace of Rome.

The main theme, from what I could gather, is anger, or more specifically, anger management.  If the title character could control his anger in public, he wouldn't have been in the situations he was in.  Mother always said, think before you speak.  However, this is not what caught my eye as I read the play.

What I thought was most compelling was the subtle manipulations that went on that ended up inciting Coriolanus to anger.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the manipulations present in Shakespeare's 17th century play are eerily similar to the manipulations that are occurring presently within the American political landscape, particularly with the Democratic Party.

The plebians' opinion on the Senate in general and Caius Marcius in specific are essentially the result of careful seeds planted and nursed by their supposed voices in the Senate: Junius Brutus and Sicinius Velutus.  Their seeds include class-envy and class warfare, inciting the crowds to jealous outrage against the wealthy Senators and their motives.  Had not Rome been threatened by an attack by their enemies the Volscians, it is highly likely a violent outburst would have occurred, quietly encouraged by the supposed "voice of the people".  Such actions only increase the influence and authority of the two tribunes.

Within the American political landscape, we see the same thing taking place with the Democratic party. The first connection between the tribunes and the Democratic party has to do with identification.  For a while now, perhaps over four decades, Democrats have branded themselves as the "voice of the poor", while calling their main opponents, Republicans, advocates for the rich.  As such, like Junius and Sicinius, they play on class envy and class warfare.  Consider how often we've heard the meme "make the rich pay their fair share".  Prominent Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz gave repeated public support to the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, among other things, advocated and carried out violence against the "rich", much like Junius and Sicinius prompted and supported in Coriolanus.  Further, there is the undeniable hatred that Junius and Sicinius have for Caius Marcius, who put his life on the line for Rome more that once, and begrudgingly accepted the consulship against his better judgement.  Even after Marcius had won the support of the people, the two tribunes managed to trick them into thinking that he had humiliated them, and used them for his own gain.  While not a perfect fit, we witnessed a similar thing with former President George W. Bush.  All one needs to do is look at the way Democrats and the media (remember, well over 75% of journalists consider themselves liberal) treated President Bush--"Bushitler" comes to mind.  Further, Junius and Sicinius attempted to use their manipulations to gain influence; it cannot be less obvious that certain policies (like expanding food-stamps and unemployment benefits, or not enforcing immigration laws) only serve to create support for the Democratic Party among certain demographics.

There is another angle that presents itself, when we analyze it further.  In Act II, Scene I, Menenius Agrippa (a Senator who "hath always loved the people"), confronts Sicinius and Junius, essentially calling them hypocrites, for they are quick to criticize Caius Marcius for faults they all too willingly exhibit themselves (like pride).  This is similar to the Democratic attacks on President Bush for his war in Iraq while failing to attach President Obama (who engaged US military forces illegally in Libya--he did not notify or explain his actions until much after the fact--and 'unilaterally' engaged in military operations in new venues, all while continuing wars he said he'd end), or Democratic attacks on Dick Cheney for "crony capitalism" on creating a energy policy that supposedly benefits his oil buddies, while being mum on President Obama for giving "stimulus" monies to "green energy" companies which happened to have wealthy Obama supporters at the helm.

Junius and Sicinius manipulated public opinion and most certainly put themselves in a more advantageous position.  However, their manipulations, while certainly bringing out the downfall of their enemy, Caius Marcius, also almost completely destroyed Rome.  They lied to the people they supposedly stood for, for personal gain, despite the ruin it almost caused.  The modern Democratic Party, which is engaging in the same thing, should take heed.  Sure, Shakespeare's play is a work of fiction, but like all of the Bard's works, Coriolanus still exhibits a deeper knowledge of the human condition: often, we will engage in behaviors that can or will ultimately lead to the suffering of many for our own selfish ends. 

Fascism vs. Socialism, Part I

So apparently once-famous author Terry McMillan has decided that, because Republicans are obviously against Barack Obama, they are racists and compared them to Hilter by Tweeting "Republicans are behaving just like Hitler did."  Besides the obvious inanity of this statement (a group of well over 10  million individuals behaving like dictator), there is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding on Ms. McMillan's  part.  However, this lack of understanding is actually rooted in a poor education on the roots of socialism and fascism, and this poor education has led to a common misconception that fascism is a "rightist" movement, while socialism is a "leftist" movement.  Hence, Ms. McMillan and other progressives, can claim that Republicans, and most especially conservatives, are fascists and "Nazis", while Glenn Beck and other conservatives can equate President Obama and progressives with Stalin, Mao, and other socialists (well, at least Beck has a point: Obama is an official member of the New Socialist Party...). 

First, we'll look at fascism.  Benito Mussolini is noted as the father of fascism, as he founded the Fascist party in the early 1920s.  What is particular about the fascists is their use of nationalism and a proud history to promote the concept of the welfare of the state over the welfare of the individual.  Such a sentiment was actually at odds with the "left-wing", meaning the socialists and communists, whose idealists dreamed of a world-wide communal utopia with everyone living in equality.  The nationalist-based State-first mentality is a hearken to the absolutist monarchies of the not-too-distant past.  When one looks at France after the fall of the Ancien Regime, nationalism and pride for the greatness of France is often linked with "conservative" monarchists.  Ditto for Italy, Germany and Spain.  Thus, it is no surprise that Hitler's National Socialist Party would gain support from military veterans and conservative elements of the German society.  This is particularly true when one considers that in contemporary Germany, the Weimar Republic was extremely liberal in that Germans had always had a monarch, or another strong single leader (Bismarck).  In Mussolini's Italy, nationalism likewise appealed to a conservative, or right-wing demographic, especially since the socialists in Italy rejected any and all nationalist or country-first action or sentiment. 

Socialism, since its inception, has always been associated with the left.  While fascism used elements and themes linked to traditionally conservative views (strong central government, nationalism), socialism was derived from "new" and "enlightened" ideas that shunned traditional ideologies.  While not universally atheist, socialist originators were essentially secular, whereas conservative and traditional ideologies were based on Judeo-Christian religious tradition.  Likewise, where as conservative and traditional economic models were based on private-property and private ownership, socialism was not.

Tinfoil Hat time

Okay, so in Wisconsin, we've seen a major break with precedent: an incumbent governor survive a recall election.  This is the first time in American history that that has every happened. 

First, a little necessary background.  Gov. Scott Walker (elected in 2010) got in trouble because he curtailed some issues public workers unions would be allowed to collective bargain on, despite the fact that he said he was going to do those if elected.  After said reforms were passed, the public sector unions (very strong in Wisconsin) went ballistic (even as Gov. Walker's reforms were saving public employees' jobs and saving the state money).  Strikes and demonstrations (the unions had to hire out people to demonstrate, as their union workers were busy or didn't want to), along with threats of physical violence toward the Republicans who voted for these reforms, were organized and carried out by the unions.  Around this time, President Obama threw his support behind the union bosses in several high profile pictures and events.

Egged on by the union antagonists, the Wisconsin people agreed to a recall vote against Gov. Walker.  Nearly 12 months later, Walker won, handily (it wasn't close by any means).  Of course, those on the left are attempting to rationalize why such a heartless and evil hater of the working man and middle class could possibly have won so big against the forces of Justice.  A few have thrown out the cheating thing, but faced with the fact that heavily Democratic Madison, WI had a 119% voter turnout, that argument can't be effectively raised.  So, the progressives and Democrats have begun focusing on MONEY.  Their argument: the cause of Right was undermined by the massive amounts of money that the evil rich people sent to Gov. Walker's campaign.

As I have been reading about this, something hit me.  President Obama was conspicuously present during the initial outpouring of support for the unions.  Since the recall campaign began in earnest, however, the President was conspicuously ABSENT, sending only a little supportive Tweet to the Democratic challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Barrett.  Then, this meme about being outspent (ratios vary between 5-1 to 8-1) surfaces.  What is interesting is that the whole being outspent thing was essentially vocally promoted by Obama's campaign coordinator, Jim Messina.  The Obama campaign has now been using the money disparity to raise funds for his own campaign.

This got me thinking:

Could it be that this whole Wisconsin recall affair was orchestrated by the Obama camp to further Obama's own ends?  Could the selection of Tom Barrett (who lost to Walker in 2010) over the pro-union candidates been designed by Obama to ensure a Walker victory?  Could Obama have influenced potential donors NOT to donate to Barrett's campaign?

My reasoning is, I think sound.  1)  Obama's been in the tank for unions since he entered the political arena, so it makes no sense that he'd withdraw his support now.  2)  The statistic concerning the ratio of funding is based on the report of an essentially non-partisan group with a historical link to George Soros (a progressive billionaire who funds socialist, progressive, and other far left causes, AND is the de facto owner of the Democratic party).  3)  Obama's rise to prominence and his election had a heavy Soros hand in them.  4) Obama is now using the failed recall effort to drum up his own funds.  5) [and perhaps most incredibly relevant] Obama is a Chicago politician, who has used Chicago thuggery and corruption to get his way in the past.

This doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Obama definitely orchestrated this.  It could also be that Obama was afraid to put his stamp of approval on Barrett when he wasn't sure if Barrett would win.  It could be that Obama thought that the election was in the bag already.  Whatever the case may be, I think it not only possible, but probable, that Obama was some how involved in this whole event.

Doubting Thomas, another explanation

Today at Mass (rather yesterday, as I post this), the Gospel reading was the account of the apostle Thomas, who famously didn't believe in his fellow apostles' account that the Lord had indeed risen, as He said.  Father B discussed how similar Thomas and atheists are, because both of them demand physical proof.

As I reflected both on Father's homily and the Gospel a few thoughts came to me. 

1)  Father opined that Jesus appeared to Thomas because it was in His plan to have Thomas as an apostle, and it was necessary for the Divinely Ordained Church.  While certainly true, there is something else at play, the real difference between atheists and Thomas.  Thomas was called to be an apostle.  He spent countless hours with his companions on the road, and with the Lord.  These men were his close friends, and he acted just like the other apostles did when they disbelieved in the Resurrection when the women told them.  Yet his disbelief wasn't one of the will, but of the intellect.  He WANTED to believe, as is evidenced in his return to the upper room with the rest of the apostles. 

This is purely speculation on my part, but it makes sense (at least to me).  Why was Thomas NOT with the apostles on the day following the Sabbath?  Why should he have been?  After all, their hope was lost, their leader, Who inspired them and motivated them, was crucified, and laid in a sealed tomb.  The joyride was over, the hope was gone.  The apostles, Scripture says, locked the door out of fear of the Jews...Thomas chose not to show up because he saw no point now.  And yet...

What does Thomas do after he hears his brethren tell of the Resurrection?  He doesn't believe...but he joins them the next week.  Why, if he didn't believe, would he join them?  I think it highly likely that Thomas knew that IF Jesus was alive, and IF He were to appear again, it would be to the apostles in that room, just like before.  He chose to be there so he COULD believe.  His heart was open, his hope was rekindled.  Jesus acted on that and chose to reveal Himself to a willing person.

When I think of Thomas reaction to seeing Jesus, I don't just picture a muted, humble "My Lord and My God."  I picture a man kneeling, with tears of joy flowing down his cheeks, mumbling through his profound amazement, joy, and relief.  I picture a man unable to stand, and barely able to speak.  I picture a man, once broken and lost, now strengthened and emboldened.

2)  Thomas' doubt is no different than the rest of the apostles.  As we learned on Easter Sunday, the women who witnessed the empty tomb ran and told the apostles...who didn't believe them.  So, Peter and John ran to the tomb.  It is said John believed, but Peter was still unsure...until Jesus appeared to him.  Mary Magdelene didn't believe until Jesus appeared to her.  The rest of the apostles didn't believe until He appeared to them.  It appears that the apostles were likewise willing and wanted to believe: why else would they follow the instructions given to them by the women?

3)  The difference between St. Thomas and atheists like Richard Dawkins who demand physical, tangible proof is that St. Thomas WANTED to believe, and atheists don't.  To be an atheist is to decide that God doesn't exist, and therefore close your mind to the possibility that He does.  When you read accounts of atheists who become Christians (or simply theists), there is a universal step in all their accounts: they open their minds to God's existence, and show some desire to know Him...and He reveals Himself to them.

I suppose one could argue that such an attitude (wanting to believe) is biased towards belief, and so when something "unexplainable" happens, the decision to believe isn't based on evidence or fact, but rather on emotion.  But if one is to argue that, one must also accept that the decision NOT to believe when faced with the "unexplainable" is likewise based on a pre-concieved bias towards un-belief.  Thus, all the "evidence" against God isn't evidence at all, but rationalized reasons to support one's determined will not to believe.

From where I sit--The Republican Candidates

I firmly believe that this election is an incredibly important one for this country.  I've heard many say that the survival of this nation is at stake.  How true that is I don't know, but I am getting quite disturbed by the direction the Obama presidency is taking.  To wit, Obama has 1) engaged in war by fiat (contrary to the War Powers Act, and thus illegally), 2)  put peaceful pro-life and Tea Party  groups on the domestic terrorist lists at the FBI, 3) used "recess appointments" while Congress is in session to avoid Congressional approval of his picks, 3) use back-room deals to get legislation passed that increases the Presidents' authority over individuals (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), 4) failed to uphold current law (as in immigration law), 5) conceiving, implementing, and ultimately covering up Fast and Furious, which led to the murder of a US Border Control Agent, and 6) used Executive Orders to side-step Congress because he faces opposition in Congress.  This is in addition to the blatant anti-Christian measures he has resorted to, not only with the HHS mandate (the Catholic Church is not the only Christian group that opposes contraception, sterilization, or abortifacient drugs), but with Belmont Abbey College lawsuit, the covering of the Holy Name at Georgetown, and his lack of support for Christians being persecuted as a result of the Arab Spring (he explicitly referred to Muslim victims of an Islamist attack on a church when no Muslims were injured or killed in the attack).  Of course, we can't forget the steps that the administration has gone to push the abortion agenda, suing states who've rescinded Planned Parenthood funding and more. It isn't just the President, however, but it seems that the entire Democratic Party in Washington is complicit in the madness, cheering him on, and encouraging him to do more.  Sure, Democrats may have a different idea of how to keep America great...but the things that this Administration is doing is beyond the pall.

So, this brings me to the Republican candidates for President.  I will give you a disclaimer: I have supported Rick Santorum from the beginning, for reasons I will not outline here.  Below will be my impression of the candidates, from where I sit.

1) Mitt Romney--I put Romney first because he was the front runner since 2008.  Romney presents a formidable challenge to any of the other challengers because of that fact.  Romney, it appears, maintained much of his campaign structure and infrastructure since 2008.  He's got guys on the ground in every important state, and they've been working to not only promote Mitt, but ensure that his message is on target.  Besides that, he's got a large warchest with which to operate now and in the general election.  There is an issue with that, however.  I think Romney and his handlers were expecting to all but walk away with the nomination.  A protracted primary simply drains his coffers.

In terms of policy, Mitt is surely not conservative, and most definitely not "severely conservative".  His record as Mass. governor shows that.  What is concerning about Mitt is the different ways he's attempted to show himself when ever he's been up for election.  When he ran for the Senate in Mass., he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy...as if that is possible.  When he ran for President in 2008, he labelled himself as the "conservative" (and compared to McCain, he was).  Now, he's labeling himself as the moderate.  His record shows that as governor of Massachusetts, he oversaw a net loss of jobs, and the Massachusetts economy suffered with him at the helm.  He constructed the current health care law that governs Massachusetts, upon which President Obama's monstrous health care law is based.   The problem is, he hasn't walked back from it, not one iota, and he hasn't admitted that Massachusetts needed to beg the federal government to help it pay for the implementation of the law because it was so darn expensive.  As Americans begin to feel the effects of the Affordable Care Act, namely higher insurance premiums and employers dropping coverage altogether, this is going to be the noose or millstone around Romney's neck.  Unlike any of the other Republican candidates, Romney will not be able to use Obamacare to his advantage.  Even Mitt's organization of the Salt Lake City Olympics was less than stellar, as they needed to borrow state and federal cash to get the job done.  Like Romneycare, this does not bode well for the financial problems we are in.  Romney's big selling point is his turning around of private industries, like Bain Capital.  This shows his commitment to the free market and an acumen to at least understand how the economy works (unlike President Obama).

Socially, I don't know if I can trust him.  LDS adherents tend to be socially conservative, so that's a plus.  However, Romney seems to be more of a vote-grabber, and will pursue those things that will promote himself.  I mean, first, he runs to the left of Ted Kennedy, then he tries to paint himself as THE conservative in 2008, and now he's saying he's a moderate.  It seems too calculated to me.


2)  Rick Santorum--I'm discussing Santorum second because he is currently the runner-up.  Santorum is known for going on "tangents" and thus people lose what his message is.  I blame this not only on Santorum (and his handlers), but also on the current generation who rely on 10-second sound bites for their information.  This tendency is not an overly good thing, especially seeing what happened after he gained momentum after his three state sweep a few weeks ago: by going "off message", he gave his detractors some sound bites to use against him.  In addition, Santorum spent a good 12 years in the Senate, enough time to compile a less-than-stellar conservative record (his votes on unions and some spending bills are evidence).

Santorum isn't your standard, run-of-the-mill politician, like Romney or Gingrich.  He is genuine, and actually believes what he says, so much so that he practices it.  In addition, he is consistent.  You really don't have to wonder what new position or new spin he's going to come up with on the campaign trail. Santorum has built a reputation as being consistent and genuine, which is definitely a plus when going against an opponent who has created a 3 year portfolio of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Mr. Santorum's record on social issues is unquestionable.  His appeal to evangelicals (who helped to carry President GW Bush over John Kerry) is based on this.  Unlike Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who parrot the pro-life, pro-marriage positions as outliers of their basic platform, they are part and parcel of Santorum's basic platform.  You aren't going to get a tabling or a truce on social issues with him...that is why he wrapped up the evangelical support early on.

 3) Newt Gingrich--Newt was an admirable Speaker of the House, and has several things going for him.  First, his record as a legislator and negotiator during the Clinton administration is astounding.  To really consider it, we must remember that under Clinton, politics became more polarizing: the strategy was to appeal to your base and get out the vote, not pander to the center.  It was in that climate that welfare reform was passed.

However, a career as long as Newt's is not without problems.  Not one of Newt's colleagues while Speaker has endorsed him.  Some have argued that this means that Newt's leadership qualities are lacking.  I see it differently.  First, there were some Republicans who questioned and challenged Newt as Speaker, that cannot be denied.  However, they were not the  majority.  Newt still had the support of a great deal of Republicans in the House.  Second, under Newt's leadership, Congress controlled spending and balanced the budget.  When Newt left, the floodgates opened.  Thirdly, the face of Congress has changed considerably since 1998, when Gingrich was Speaker.  Republicans lost the House in 2006, and only regained it 4 years ago.  Finally, the attitude of the Republicans in the House has changed.  Americans were unhappy with the Republican leadership in the House in 2006, and subsequently voted them out.  When Republicans regained the House, they elected as Speaker one of the good-ol' boys from the Bush-era spending spree, John Boehner,who coincidentally, was one of the architects of the anti-Newt movement.  Suffice to say that Congress in 2012 is very different than it was in 1998.

Clearly, Newt has political acumen.  He knows how to play the game.  He is bombastic and not afraid to back down.  Where Romney has vowed not to really go after Obama, Newt will attack with a vengeance.  Newt understands that he is up against the media, as well (to be fair, Santorum has shown that he gets it too, and can use it to his advantage).  Newt knows his stuff, which is clear in the debates.  I firmly believe that in any debate setting, Newt would run rings around Obama, and would go for the jugular (which McCain wouldn't do, and Romney has refused to do).

Newt, however, is a bombastic, egotistical, attention seeker.  His attack campaign on Romney was viscous and spiteful.  He's prone to doing and saying stupid things (sitting on a couch with Pelosi agreeing with global warming, condemning Paul Ryan budget as "right wing social engineering"), which gain him just enough notoriety to remain a household name (sort of).  Of course, there is the whole marital infidelity thing.  On that, there is only one thing that comes to mind: Bill Clinton's response to his involvement with Monica Lewinski: I did it because I could.  Such an attitude reveals a character flaw that I don't want in my presidents: unwavering selfishness. 

4) Ron Paul--Clearly, Ron Paul is the outlier in the process.  His ideas on the size of government and spending are mainstream, well, at least they are not opposed by the other Republican candidates.  Fiscally and economically, Paul's proposals make sense.

Paul's foreign policy is what loses me.  At best, its naive, at worst its simply moronic.  He completely does not understand the ethos or the threat of radical Islam.  Fundamentally, radical Islam is aggressive and imperialistic.  His lack of historical perspective on the conflict with radical Islam, which is the single biggest threat to America today.  In addition, he fails to grasp that as a result of a globalized economy (which isn't a bad thing), its not sound policy to circle the wagons around our borders in case of an attack.