He who defends everything, defends nothing

"He who defends everything, defends nothing." Frederick the Great

I abhor radical Islam. I believe there will be more terrorists attacks in the U. S. The Salt Lake City mall shooter was likely a terrorist. He is a lone warrior in an asymmetrical war.

Mr. Jack Tymann, guest commentator of the Naples Daily News naplesnews.com wrote, Saturday, February 17, 2007, "The wrong voices are leading the jihadists to victory", makes some good suggestions as how to fight terrorism. As he says there are no quick fixes. Still you should be aware that he has a motive to incite fear. He founded Homeland Security Partners, which focuses on counter terrorism technologies. I wonder how much of his technology is sold to governments? Insurance companies, the State, Religion, and other organizations all sell fear first, then protection.

I do believe the radical Islamist want to be the supreme religion. Most religions compete with each other, and against secularism, for members and money. Someday Islam and Christianity will have a conference like the Council of Nicea http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm to combine their resources to compete against the ACLU and the Hollywood Satans. Their best marketing ploy will be the new discovery that God is, a WOMAN, and their new interpretation of the prophets is, the prophets meant to save the environment, women and children. (Edited 5/6/2008- The Catholic Church recently came out with some new sins. One is pollution. Another is social injustice.)

The western ideas of individual liberty will win over the oppressive policies of Islam. Muslim women already see the rights western women have, and the Muslim women will want the same rights. Given a choice, Muslim women will choose to have fewer babies, not more. The west's mighty military will lose in the new asymmetrical warfare. It only takes one terrorist to carry on the war. The west will go bankrupt before it can win an asymmetrical war.

If the radical Islamists want to do away with non believers, why don't they start with a Christian nation like Mexico? Mexico only spends $50 per person on defense while the U.S. spends $1600 per person. Why do the Jihadists not attack Costa Rica, a country that does not even have a military? Instead Costa Rica has a few Cessnas, Pipers, and one Aero Commander. Maybe the reason Jihadists want to attack America is not because we are nonbelievers, but because of our foreign policy. For the past hundred years the Muslims did not practice terrorism against America. Why now? Is it a coincidence that the terrorists attacks increased after our meddling in the Middle East increased? http://lp-ca.org/policy/Libertarian_Policy_Terrorism.htm

Bilbo Baggins

Heroes

Author Ben Stein wrote a column in 2006 praising all members of the armed forces, firefighters, and EMTs. He profusely called all of them heroes. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9633 Stein refers to all 1.4 million people in the military as heroes. The rest of us civilians he refers to with boring disdain as we go through our boring and meaningless lives.

I think the esteemed author should refer to the dictionary and read the definition of hero.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. 2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal.

It seems the word hero has been defined downward in our everyday usage to mean approval for anyone who has the same political agenda as we have. If someone agrees with you on global warming and participates in a public protest you will likely call them heroes. This praise will help keep them contributing money and support for your agenda. Likewise if you approve of the war you will reap praise on any person serving, even if they are a prison guard that tortures prisoners, or if they are a cowardly clerk that will never approach hero status. This demeans the real heroes, but it encourages recruitment.

All of the American military heroes of the past 195 years won their hero status fighting in a foreign country, not defending America from an invasion by a foreign enemy. Since WWII the United States has attacked 65 foreign countries which created many heroes.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/glaser2.html
Are military personnel who refuse to serve in an illegal war heroes?

Most all young males want to be heroes. It helps them find a mate. They have thick skulls to protect their brain from injury. The thick skull will not protect them from words and ideas of prevaricators and evil despots.

When I was a young man looking for adventure and travel, and a place to sleep and eat, I joined the U.S. Army. I did not consider myself a hero just for being in uniform. I knew at a young age to be a hero one must do something above the normal duty. I thought the girls would like men in uniform. Women find men who wear a uniform to be reliable, disciplined, and willing to take risk. But that does not mean all men, and women, in uniform are heroes.

Since everyone uses the term hero so loosely, let me describe some of my heroes. One was a young Mexican woman who was delivering newspapers in the dawn hours. She jumps out of her car and runs up to the second floor landing to deliver the paper, then runs back to the car and is off in a hurry. I wonder about her day. Was she hurrying home to get a child ready for school?

Other heroes of mine are commercial fishermen who like the military, volunteer. The fishermen volunteer for the duty of providing us with food for our survival. They are truly brave, working in the most dangerous U. S. occupation. The commercial fisherman have the highest fatality rate of any other occupation, even higher than police officers.

Other heroes are plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, assembly line workers, and small business owners. They are all producers and creators, not destroyers.

Bilbo Baggins

Minimum and Maximum Wage

“Women’s strength is their facade of weakness, and men’s weakness is their facade of strength.” Warren Farrell

Since Congress is debating raising the minimum wage, maybe they should also consider a maximum wage. Why not? If the government has the power to set a minimum wage, surely they have the power to set a maximum wage.

What should be the maximum wage for a CEO, attorney, doctor, actor, professional ball player, airline pilot, or news anchor Katie Kuric? If the high wages of a ball player were set at a maximum the price of a ticket could be lowered and more poor people could afford to take their children to a ball game. The same with movies. Reduce the maximum income of actors and more families could afford to take their children to the movie theaters. The result of a maximum wage would see more customers at theaters and ball parks.

You either love big government or not. You do not get to pick and choose which parts you like. Citizens often say they agree in principle that government should not fund this or that, but if they like the arts, they will make an exception to their principle and allow the government to fund the arts. Some other citizens will make an exception to their principles. Soon there are enough exceptions to principles of limited government that there are no limits, and no principles. If the government can set a minimum wage, it certainly can set a maximum wage.

Of course Congress would never consider maximizing salaries. They love large incomes. It means more TAXES! Politicians love the inequality in pay because it gives them another reason to manage our lives. The politicians can talk the compassion talk and play Robin Hood as the people cry to Congress, "Mommy, Mommy, the CEOs have more than I have". Congress will confiscate money from the rich and give to the poor. Shareholders will "depend" on Congress to solve the pay problem. Instead, shareholders should just refuse to buy the stocks of companies that overpay their CEOs.

I agree the CEO pay is immoral. Too many board members are executives of other companies. Actors are in more of a free market than CEOs. Attorneys and Doctors are in a club that restrict members by licensing, and they are heavily regulated by the government, which means they are not operating in a free market.

The Congress wants to raise the minimum wage not out of compassion, but because lobbyist want them to raise the wage. Wal-Mart, a big business, pays more than the minimum wage, but they are lobbying for the minimum wage to be raised for two reasons; it hurts any small retail competitor who might pay the minimum wage, and it allows the poor to have a few more dollars to spend at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart scores a public relations coup by advocating for a higher minimum wage.

Congress is lobbied by the trade unions to raise the minimum wage so it will make pay raises easier for union members, which will help the unions collect higher union dues.

Congress and State legislatures want the minimum wage raised so they can collect more taxes. Each time a poor person buys a one dollar lottery ticket in California, as much as forty five cents of that dollar will likely end up as State and Federal taxes. Each time a poor person buys a pack of cigarettes in California, she pays more in sales tax than the cost of the pack of cigarettes. When a poor person in California buys liquor with the increase in their minimum wage they pay an excise tax and a sales tax. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/liquor.html

When the government raises the minimum wage the consumer is hurt, but the big beneficiary is the government. If the government has a maximum wage the consumers benefit, but the government is hurt by revenue reductions. Which do you think the government will impose?

Bilbo Baggins

Iraqi Refugees to Settle in U. S.

The Iraqi refugee problem is showing more unseen consequences of war. Wars should only be fought as a last resort. If 7,000 Iraqis refugees come to the U.S., how many of those will be radical Muslims? Our State Department does not do a good job of keeping out undesirables. Suppose only 10% of the 7,000 Iraqi refugees allowed into the U.S. are radical Islamists who hate secularism and feminism! Will they change and assimilate or will they become terrorists?

During the past few years the foreign policy of the United States has caused its popularity in the Muslim world to plummet. President Bush has often said we need to fight the terrorists over there so we will not have to fight them here. Now he proposes to bring them here with our financial support! The world gets stranger and stranger. After one of the refugees kills someone in a terrorists attack, the Department of Homeland Security will ask for a bigger budget and more of our freedoms. The State is like an arsonist who gets paid to put out her own fires. Maybe the State wants another terrorist attack. It will keep the hoi polloi aroused and loyal.

Bilbo Baggins
------------------------------------------------

http://www.sierratimes.com/07/02/20/refugees.htm

COLUMBUS - Gov. Ted Strickland on Wednesday had a message for President Bush: any plan to relocate thousands of refugees uprooted by the Iraq war to the U.S. shouldn't include Ohio.
The Bush administration plans to allow about 7,000 Iraqi refugees to settle in the United States over the next year, a huge expansion at a time of mounting international pressure to help millions who have fled their homes in the nearly four-year-old war.
The United States has allowed only 463 Iraq refugees into the country since the war began in 2003, even though some 3.8 million have been uprooted.
Strickland, a Democrat who opposed the war as a U.S. House member, said Ohioans cannot be expected to have open arms for Iraqis displaced by the war. More than 100 Ohioans have been killed since the war began.
"I think Ohio and Ohioans have contributed a lot to Iraq in terms of blood, sweat and too many tears," Strickland said. "I am sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Iraqi people who have fled that country. However, I would not want to ask Ohioans to accept a greater burden than they already have borne for the Bush administration's failed policies."
The decision to allow about 7,000 Iraqis to come to the United States answers mounting political and diplomatic pressure on the administration to do more to remedy the consequences of a war it largely started. Only 202 Iraqis were allowed in last year.
The administration also said it will immediately contribute $18 million for a worldwide resettlement and relief program.
The United Nations has asked for $60 million from nations around the world.
The U.S. has a responsibility to help Iraqis who face danger in their own country for helping Americans topple Saddam Hussein's government, said Abid Al-Marayati, a professor of government at the University of Toledo who left Iraq in 1958.
"It's not a question of whether we should accept them or not. These people served the U.S. forces," Al-Marayati said. "I think for our country, we could absorb that (number of refugees) quite easily."
While Ohio's economy is struggling, the refugees would take whatever work was available, Al-Marayati said.
"I feel bad for those people. They cannot live in Iraq anymore," he said.
The U.S. proposal also includes plans to offer special treatment for Iraqis still in their country whose cooperation with the U.S. puts them at risk.
Expanding visa programs for those Iraqis would require legislation in Congress, State Department Undersecretary Paula J. Dobriansky said Wednesday.
Some 2 million Iraqis have left their country, and an additional 1.8 million are believed to have relocated inside Iraq.
The refugee flow has increased sharply as sectarian violence has increased over the past year.
The numbers have overwhelmed the hospitality of Arab neighbors such as Syria and Jordan.
The United Nations says most of those who have been uprooted have no desire to come to the United States, and want to return to their homes in Iraq when fighting stops.
But allies, U.N. diplomats and lawmakers of both parties have recently told the administration that the small number of Iraqis the U.S. has allowed in looks miserly.
Syria has taken in an estimated 1 million Iraqis. It was the last Arab country to take in large numbers.

Embolden

President Bush, August 30, 2006: "Last week, President Bush said that setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal would embolden the enemy and cause chaos in Iraq."

If the United States wins in Iraq, will that embolden the United States to invade other countries? If the United States wins in Iraq with a loss of ONLY five thousand military dead, those who are embolden might seek another war that would be a disaster and cost tens of thousands of military lives. It might be to a country's benefit in the long run to lose a war if it prevents them from plunging recklessly into a disastrous conflict. On the other hand, if the United States loses or ties in Iraq, they will likely do what they did after Korea and Vietnam. They will continue to seek redemption, power, and glory.

During the past 195 years no American military personnel have been killed in the United States defending the United States from foreign invaders. During the past 195 years there has been no combat medals for bravery awarded to United States military personnel for combat action in the United States. All of the commendations during the past 195 years have been awarded for action on foreign soil. The last time the United States was invaded by a foreign country was the War of 1812, and then only after America declared war on the English and invaded Canada. Some territories of the United States were attacked during WW II, but the Continental United States has not been invaded. If the war between the states is counted as a civil war then it is not a war with a foreign country. If on the other hand the southern states was a separate country who had declared their independence, then that is a completely different circumstance and an opportunity to talk about the rights of states to declare their independence.

With two vast oceans as two borders and two friendly nations on the other two borders, the United States has little to fear from a foreign invasion. Who has a navy large enough? Still the war crowds cheer to support our troops, who are in other countries making more enemies, which make more soldiers necessary. Its like lawyers and police trying to make more laws so it will create more jobs for the lawyers and police. The more enemies America has the more profits for the military industrial complex. Our danger is not from foreign armies but our own standing army that needs a purpose.

The United States has been a beacon of liberty since its creation. Tyrants the world over shuddered in fear at our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. Popes, Caliphs and Kings fear words and ideas more than they fear foreign armies, which is why people who speak out end up in dungeons. Foreign armies are only fuel to fire loyalty of the masses. President Bush uses foreign armies as fuel to scare Americans into paying more and more for less and less protection.

Bilbo Baggins.

New Age of Reason

Yes, Islam has a violent history. So does Christianity. It is a good thing that the west has won the right to free speech, else we would still have our Sunday Blue laws and all the other Biblical laws that promoted Christianity. Were it not for our free speech, atheists and liberals would have to go along with the radical Christians. Those who spoke out against religion, like Thomas Paine with his "Age of Reason", had their careers ended. The Arkansas legislature just voted down a law that would have a Thomas Paine Day. The law was rejected because of Paine's anti religious views. I wonder if Muslims and Christians were allies in the fight against Thomas Paine?

It has become easier during the past fifty years in America for writers to speak out against religion. Sam Harris's, "The End of Faith" and Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" would not have been so popular in the past. In some of Christianity's past these two authors would have been burned at the stake. This secularism of the past fifty years in the west is just what the leaders of Islam are afraid of. If this secularism moves to the Muslim world, and it will, the Imams see their power being destroyed. Successful leaders see trends and the Islam leaders see the future. It is not a world dominated by radical Islam. It is a world where people will advance, thanks to technology, as they have in the past. It is a world of bio-technology, where reason will rule over mythology.

No religious empire nor government empire has stopped man's desire to improve his life. Though Islam is 1300 years old, it to will be consigned to the dust bin of history. Religion casts a shadow on mankind. Shine a light on religion and its shadow disappears.

Like the original Nicene Creed of 325, designed to solidify Christian belief against splinter groups and kings, Islam and Christianity will have a modern day Council of Nicea, designed to use both Christianity and Islam to fight against free thought, secularism, and the new age of reason. Paine's "Age of Reason" was written 350 years after the invention of the printing press. What will the new age of reason be 350 years after the invention of the internet?

Bilbo Baggins

Who Owns Iraq?

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Goethe


Mark Steyn, National Review, January 15th 2007 wrote, "But, psychologically, in the eyes of the world, Iraq for the moment isn’t “foreign” soil: it’s ours".

Psychologically??? Maybe the Iranians think the United States does not own their neighbor, Iraq! If Iran invaded Mexico, do you think we would believe Iran owned Mexico?

Mr. Steyn writes, "So the Administration should follow its catchphrase to its logical conclusion: let’s fight on the offense on enemy turf, so we don’t have to play defense on ours".

"Catchphrase" for sure, and people are willing to go to war over a "catchphrase". Iraq is not ours. But millions of sheep, after reading this agitprop will believe it is ours. The sheep and war lovers will believe Iran is the invader of Iraq while denying that the United States is the invader of Iraq.

Mr. Steyn is continuing the marketing campaign to get the United States to take up Israel's 60 years of religious war. Israel is finding it difficult to keep the Jewish population of Israel from declining. After 60 years of fighting, Jews are having fewer babies and living in safer countries than Israel.

The Pentagon budget has doubled since the year President Bush was elected. This attitude only creates violence. We should bring the troops home and defend "our" borders. No more meddling in other countries, meddling that cause retaliations, like 9/11. Of course defense is boring. Military officers just sitting around and waiting for someone to attack, unprovoked, is not good for careers. Nor is it good for the war profiteers. The media journalists have no war to cover which will enhance their resumes. Offense is more exciting. It requires planning, risk, and execution. Glory and power comes from offense, never defense. Onward Christian soldiers.

Bilbo Baggins

The Lure of Glory

"Men will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon". Napoleon Bonaparte

The United States attained glory by its Herculean victory in WW II. It has longed to repeat that glory. Old men want their tribe to bathe once again in the splendor of victory. Young men want to taste the glory with a victorious homecoming and parades down Main Street. Political leaders overflowing with puerile hauteur long to find a place in history. They all want to be "Churchillian". Military generals want to be the next Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and carve a place in the history books for their names. They simply cannot sit still and practice defense only.

The desire for glory is innate in the individual. It transfers itself into a monster when it becomes a State. All States have started on the path to glory with agitprop and a delusional roseate view of themselves. Some have captured glory, but State glory is always fugacious. The desire for glory has contributed to the demise of empires.

When Napoléon Bonaparte had a glorious empire he was not satisfied.("My glory is declining. This little corner of Europe is too small to supply it. We must go East. All the great men of the world have there acquired their celebrity". Napoleon Bonaparte) He marched into Russia and was defeated. He and the French longed for a repeat of their glorious empire so they continued in their foolish quest, only to be defeated at Waterloo by the Sixth Coalition; Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and a number of German States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Coalition

It is natural for a group to try and become dominant. The dominant group always feels safer. There are two ways to survive; with one's own effort or the effort of others. The dominant group can always exploit the weaker group. Whenever groups feel threatened they will form coalitions against the stronger group. This is what happened to Napoleon. It happened to the other empires throughout history. This is what will happen to the United States as it continues its quest to capture the glory of the victory of WW II. Coalitions will form, as they already are, to defeat the empire. Borrowing money from other nations for the United States to finance its empire and wars will become difficult. The United States empire will become bankrupt, as has happened throughout history to other empires.

States do not gain power by peace, except through sound economic policies. They usually gain power by doing more. More is usually domestic programs or war. Only States can make war. Of course there can be a war between families or tribes, but their death and destruction is limited as they have to pay for their violence out of pocket. The State can counterfeit money to finance their wars, which eventually cause bankruptcy. For fiscal year 2008 President Bush is asking for a 16% increase in the budget for the U. S. Army! This is after the United States empire already spends more per capital on defense than any other country.

The desire for glory creates an interventionist policy if a group is dominant, as is the United States. The dominate group cannot help itself. The lure of conquest and power is too great. According to the defense department this interventionist policy of the United States for the past 50 years has made the United States a target of one third of the world's terrorists attacks. http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html This interventionist policy will make our children and their children's children targets of terrorist attacks.

Bilbo Baggins

A Letter to Congress

February 2, 2007

To: Senator Feinstein
Senator Boxer
Congressman Tom Lantos,

Since you claim to be my representatives to the Federal Government, please represent me by doing the following;

1. Cut off funding to the Iraq war. Bring all troops home and secure our borders and ports. We spend more per capita on defense, so defend us, not some other country.
2. Reduce the funding to the National Institutes of Health. Stop funding research. You get more research but no cures. Instead, offer a billion dollar prize for a cure for breast cancer or ovarian cancer.
3. Please, do not allow regulators to write laws. They are not my elected representatives.
4. Please, do not pass any legislation that reduces my liberty.
5. Please, eliminate the Department of Education.
6. Please, reduce government spending.
7. Please, reduce income taxes.
8. Please, decriminalize drugs. It is immoral that I, a 71 year old, cannot buy pain medicine on the weekend, or any other time, without permission. To do so would make me a felon.
9. Please, privatize health care. Keep government out. If you creat Universal Health Care, make sure congress and all government employees have the same coverage as the private sector.
10. Allow private companies like Federal Express and United Parcel Service to deliver letters to my mailbox.

Respectively,

Bilbo Baggins