Beware ANY Stimulus Package

They're at it again, those damnable politicians promising to stimulate the economy and promising to offer a real shot in the arm' to those of us in need. Bush says what will take care of us is tax breaks of $300 or $600 (which equates to $25 or $50 per month for a year) and Hillary decrying his plan as not nearly enough to help the seniors or African-Americans as the party politics ramp up their message.

Are you scared yet? Do you have enough fear in your economic situation to send you scurrying toward what amounts to a dose of Viagra which is good for a few but the many will be negatively impacted by the side-effects? Stimulus packages are being spewed forth from every campaign (sorry Dr. Paul, you're excluded) that will lift us from our challenges and deliver us from the sins of a recessionary economy!

This warning is for every U.S. citizen, these stimulus packages' are not going to positively help the many. Our dollar is crashing on world markets folks. Look into the Sovereign Wealth Fund and then look further into the 7 year plan to align the U.S. and European economy through the Transatlantic Common Market. We buy into these movements if we accept stimulus plans that equate to a total of $140 billion dollars (Bush proposal) and more!

Hilary Clinton, George Bush and all other candidates and representatives supporting this type of answer' knows full well they are band-aid proposals on a major wound. We need to embrace the idea our monetary policy fails everyday consumers; you, your neighbors, and me. They cannot fix our challenges with some sound-good, feel-good stimulation. The only thing stimulation packages do is creating a further usurpation of our liberty. Every great financial crisis has led to an increase in Federal Government control. Whether it be the Great Depression or our current challenges politicians are not telling us the hard truth!

We are in for a rough economic road ahead. The only way we can overcome these difficulties in the long term is to deal with the challenges and demand real monetary reform. I know this is not the easiest answer to accept. I know most want to embrace some Federal program to save us. It is not reality! Reality is foreign countries are controlling more of our economic future and our politicians are selling us short. Study the economic issues and realize there are tough but correct answers to the problems.

Don't swallow their pill, don't settle for less than your grand children deserve, demand we begin correcting the errors of our ways. It's not going to be easy folks, but in the long run we must accept the potential of a crash today in order to save our future generations. Study each of their stimuli and you will see it is nothing more than a false sense of security and we don't need anymore of their false promises, we need truth! Unlike common political belief, we CAN handle the truth and we stand ready to deal with what it takes to insure long-term improvement.

Paul Supporters Crucify Me!

I have now felt the wrath of supporters and it is counter-productive to the importance of the revolution!

read more | digg story

The Constitution Party Preamble: Historically Inaccurate

by Gary Wood

© January 9, 2008

A growing number of U.S. voters are tired of the two-party strangle hold of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Many are listening to the guidance of Lou Dobbs, CNN Anchor and radio show host, and registering as Independent. Although registering as an Independent may be a good idea there is a need to find candidates which will support the voters’ ideals. Still lacking is a platform for candidates who are in favor of the concepts the United States was founded upon, the Constitutional design for the Federalist Republic.

In my on-going search I grew more aware of a fairly young third-party known as The Constitution Party. The name alone spoke to my desire for a return to our roots. My research into this party began in earnest yet lasted a very short time. My first visit to their website was enough to send a warning when I read;

“The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders' legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.”

Initially I had a sense of excitement. It is true the Founder’s legacy has been squandered. It is also true countless officials ignore their oath. However, the last two words, “Biblical foundations” sent a minor shock. It is true many of the Founders considered the importance of developing a country which was set in moral convictions based on faith in a creator but to reference the Bible as the foundation is not accurate. This led me to the party’s preamble where I found;

“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

Sadly, many of the words which followed throughout the preamble and the rest of the platform have an air of real meaning. Within the context is a desire to limit government, restore the rule of law, promote liberty, and support a more accurate form of governing the United States. However, if a foundation is wrong the entire building is at risk of falling and in the case of The Constitution Party the foundation is wrong. Up front there is the establishment of Jesus Christ as Creator. Everywhere the word Creator is used throughout the rest of the text it goes back to this definition and historically it is inaccurate.

Overall I really wanted to embrace this party. Reading through their entire platform there were so many aspects I embrace due to the focus on restoring Constitutional provisions. Many of the platform’s points are well stated and embrace much of the Founder’s legacy which many of us know has been under direct attack for decades. Yet, intermixed within the platform are theocratic considerations due to the foundational belief Jesus Christ is the Creator and the Christian Bible therefore must be intertwined with policies and concepts.

It is a historical fact many of the Founding Fathers did not embrace any of the revealed religions. Among the most influential of the founders most considered themselves to be deist. That is, they believed in a creator based on science and nature, not revelation. The Enlightened age guided our founders to study such writers as Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau. There was a significant understanding of the importance of faith in a creator yet there was every attempt to insure the Constitution would not be directly influenced by any set religion based on revelations. Although there were Christians among the 55 men assembled debate raged about revealed religion being intermixed and those believing in a deist philosophy won the debates.

Among those we consider Founding Fathers deism can be associated with George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Ethan Allen. This is not to say there was no belief within these men’s hearts, it means there was no foundational belief the creator was and is Jesus Christ. To the point, they were not Christian and would not consider themselves to be Christians. As a deist it is likely these and others viewed Jesus Christ as a wonderful teacher but clearly not the Creator. None of them wanted to deny other’s right to follow any religion, revealed or natural, but all of them wanted to insure the Constitution clearly separated church and State. Note there was no desire to separate God and State, merely church or organized religion and State.

It is my hope the members of this new party will see the error in their preamble and in other portions of their platform based on this fundamental, historical mistake. They have come so close to being a party to rally around if a citizen truly wants to restore the Federalist Republic to its Constitutional roots yet foundationally it is a case of being close and at the same time no where near the target. Should this be corrected within the preamble and other areas impacted by this belief within the platform I will gladly look again at joining their party. If it is not corrected I will, with a very careful eye, look uneasily toward any of their candidates. We need to restore our Republic to the Founder’s legacy not implement a theocratic slant upon that very legacy.

Ron Paul Digs Up Roots: Others Prefer You Simply Smell the Roses!

Ω What is prettier to the eye, the roses on a rose bush or the roots? Of course, the roses are prettier to the eye just as the political, feel-good rhetoric is easier to the voter’s ear. We can smell the rose’s fragrance, enjoy its beauty, and romance about the way our lover swooned the last time we shared the flower’s beauty with them. Of course, we must avoid the thorns or they will prick our skin and cause us to bleed. Also, the roses we presented lasted for a short time and, if we failed to empty the water vase soon enough, we learned the stench of dead roses is quite unpleasant. Despite that we still marvel at their beauty and pick or buy them over and over.

Although the rose is pretty to the eye without the plants roots what beauty would we find? The roots provide the life of the bush, the thorns, the limbs, and the beauty of the rose. The planter of the bush must care for the roots for if a single rose is picked it merely dies soon without the roots but if the roots die the entire bush dies with them and no longer are there any roses for us to enjoy. Those ugly on the eye, dirty roots are the key to a beautiful rose or no rose at all.

Whenever any business or organization is attempting to improve productivity or solve complex problems the goal is to identify the root cause of the problem. There are many challenges that spring up around the root cause. If we fail to identify the root cause and only address the surface challenge problems will continue to blossom although they won’t be as pleasing as a rose. New managers and supervisors often are plagued with spending their day putting out fire after fire while failing to extinguish the source of the fire. Management consultants and industrial engineers earn a good living helping organizations identify and solve root causes of problems. Once those are solved the never-ending surface challenges finally end!

One problem with identifying and dealing with the root causes is the fact they are often the most unpleasant to admit to having. Especially if the root cause is found at a high enough level within the organization, specifically if they involve a key employee or a long standing process that has become accepted as necessary. While working as an Air Force Management Engineer I remember Commanding Officers who refused to accept our study’s findings at first. The solutions usually took less time to implement, measure, and verify with positive results than did the initial acceptance the root cause was in fact a policy or process they personally implemented. "That’s the way I’ve always done it," does not mean it has always been done the best way possible.

It is this basic understanding of the importance of identifying root causes prior to attempting to solve problems combined with my knowledge of the other candidates that really made me finally realize they don’t want the voters to understand the real problems, the roots Ron Paul keeps digging up! During the recent ABC debates Ron Paul once again talked directly about root causes to problems facing us and how to begin solving those problems. Once again the other candidates provided merely lip-service, feel good, empty words. The words sounded good to the viewer’s ears while Ron Paul’s message is harder to listen to. If anyone missed reading Nolan Chart columnist John Armstrong’s article, "Ron Paul: A Man Among Boys at ABC Debate" please do. Clearly Ron Paul dug up the roots of the problem surrounding the rising cost of oil in the United States and our ensuing energy crisis.

When Dr. Paul clearly identified the weakening of the dollar and our failed monetary system as a major root cause he was right on target. Yet, the most experienced and skilled business man among the candidates, Mitt Romney, applauded each of his opponents’ answers to the energy crisis EXCEPT our weakening dollar. He knows without a sound financial base a business will fail. So why didn’t he help explain the connection of our monetary system to rising oil prices? Why don’t most of the politicians trying to gain our vote for President talk directly about root causes?

To admit the root cause is a failed policy is unpleasant and difficult for any person in our leadership to share with the voting public. If the root cause is failed policy those in charge of the policy have to then admit there were errors made. The vicious cycle of dealing with surface problems persists but in the end the bush will die if someone does not attack the real problem, if the roots aren’t cared for. In 2008 it is not a rose bush that dies; it is the very prosperity so many promise to deliver and so many of us want change to deliver.

The American roots are rotting; I know how ugly that is to look at directly. Politicians want us to believe our problems in foreign lands are the terrorist’s fault, not ours. Politicians want us to believe our high prices for oil are due to company greed or dastardly Middle Eastern rulers who control the oil production. Politicians want us to believe illegal aliens are invading our country to merely escape their country’s problems. Politicians want us to believe our public education system is failing because our educators simply are not measuring up to the standards they should.

Politicians want us to believe we can solve these problems by having our military kill the terrorists where they live. Politicians want us to believe the government can force the greedy companies or dastardly rulers to treat us fairer. Politicians want us to believe a fence and more border patrol agents can stop the invasion upon our borders. Politicians want us to believe we can force teachers to perform their jobs better by testing them and punishing them if they fail to measure up. Politicians want us to believe it is not our fault and they can take care of us and provide for us solutions to our woes.

Ron Paul wants us to understand our root causes are real and destroying our way of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. He also wants us to understand the root causes are difficult to solve yet together we can solve them. He wants us to understand by solving the real problems, at their roots, can be achieved. By taking the time to understand, by implementing real solutions, measuring the results, and verifying those results not only can we restore prosperity, we can insure our children’s children will be able to enjoy the beauty of the rose.

Here is a little secret all voters need to understand, Ron Paul is not alone in wanting to attack our problems at their roots. There are thousands of economists, business leaders, military leaders, every day citizens, and even some politicians that will join in the fight to restore this nation to the healthy roots we once flourished with. It is up to you to join those thousands; it is up to you to insure future generations enjoy the beauty of the rose. There is Hope for America if we dare only to understand the answers are in our roots.

©2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.

Ron Paul's Reaction: Tough Common Sense

©December 28, 2007
by Gary Wood

Today’s assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created a firestorm of passionate reactions from around the world. In the United States those vying to become our next President are responding in a variety of ways one could no doubt expect. John McCain is touting his unprecedented experience as being key and critical in times like these. Hillary Clinton is reminding people she not only had a professional but also a personal relationship with the Pakistan leader. Mitt Romney has mentioned the need to further our policy of propping up foreign governments. Rudy Giuliani is stating 9/11, 9/11. The fear of terrorism and the loss of this brave lady, who passionately lived to help a dream of democracy in Pakistan be realized, are being used to further the cause of interventionist approaches in dealing with the world.

I have listened to each candidate’s response with the thought of whom I would want in the Oval Office when this type of tragedy rocks the world. It is this type of crisis that allows a window of opportunity to be opened for either common sense preventative reactions or for the spreading of reactionary actions leading to more of the same. When passion and fear collide it is easy to believe we are listening to someone dedicated to being tough when it comes to terrorism and world instability by continuing a political path that has aided in leading us to our current situation. In our hearts we want to stand up with an iron fist to crush those behind such violent, despicable acts.

The toughest response I have heard today came from Ron Paul in a brief phone interview on Fox’s ‘Your World with Neil Cavuto’ and in a longer interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on ‘The Situation Room.’ No doubt many will spin his position as being somehow weak yet it is true intestinal strength to react the way he did. Often, when looking in the mirror, we don’t like to admit our policies may somehow weaken those we think we are helping.

Ron Paul reminded us all we backed a dictator who overthrew an elected government and spent billions over the last eight years aiding his government. He advocated changing the policy immediately while indicating Bhutto was a true fighter for democracy in that country. He also was brave enough to remind us our Constitution does not give us the right to continue to meddle in the affairs of foreign countries nor does it give us the right to continue to intervene. His lone voice on the campaign trail delivered tough common sense!

For several weeks we can be assured many will spin these tough words as the wrong approach to the events unfolding due to Benazir Bhutto’s sacrifice. We will have our patriotism called into question while the hawkish interventionists attempt to further capitalize on our fears as well as our compassion. Many of the media’s talking heads will tell us our policies must not only be continued but ramped up to fight the global war on terrorism. Through all of this I can only hope and pray the toughest common sense approach of non-intervention will finally be understood by at least of few more brave defenders of liberty.

The Radical Truth About Ron Paul!

He is radical and here's a few truths to prove it!

read more | digg story

The Golden Rule Isolates and Fails

© by Gary Wood
November 28, 2007

Ask anyone what the ‘Golden Rule’ is and you will hear many a similar answer. Very simply stated it is treating others the way you would like others to treat you. Often referred to as the ethic of reciprocity it is taught, in one form or another, by many different faiths and ideologies. Although some members of the Christian faith believe it was first introduced in the times of Jesus the ethic actually existed long before yet was embraced within the teachings as it has been embraced by so very many.

Study the teachings for Buddhism and one hears expressions like, “Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.” The Baha’i Faith has expressions such as, "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." Throughout the Old and New Testament there are sentiments similar to, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In the Analects Confucius taught, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Islamic teachings are filled with the idea as evidenced in, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Turning to Jainism teachings we again find the golden rule concept in reading, “Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.” The underlying principle of Jewish law can be found in the teaching, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

With so many claiming the golden rule is truly a sound way to treat others and is a good way to be treated why does it isolate and fail? In the Republican debates most of the candidates support a form of the preemptive interventionist policy currently embraced by the Bush Administration and used by many administrations in the past. In the debate last night Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the current policy and claimed the policy supported by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the type of policy that “We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.” Paul’s policy is one of non-intervention as embraced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. According to Paul he is not an isolationist, “I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.” In other words, do unto others as we would have others do unto us or the Golden Rule.

I’ve heard this type of interaction throughout the campaign this year as the Iraq war is one of the key issues being hotly contested. Most candidates in both parties want to continue some level of presence in Iraq. I hear commentators and political leaders across the country discuss the need to win, secure, and maintain a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Many also make the comment (as they do on many topics), “...except Paul.” If you were to review a transcript from last night’s post-debate coverage on CNN you would have heard those two words more than a dozen times.

Yet, everything I study and read about the idea of non-intervention as a primary foreign policy to follow indicates it is foundational and consistently inline with the teachings of the ethic of reciprocity. Within foreign affairs how we treat countries is indicative to how we want to be treated, isn’t it? Using a policy of preemptive intervention sends the clear message we, the government and citizens of the United States, treat other nations this way and therefore it is fair for other nations to treat us this way. According to McCain we create Hitler type leaders if we use non-intervention instead. If the policy is to trade, talk, and travel to each other’s country while respecting the sovereignty and right to defend one’s own borders McCain and others say it isolates the U.S. and it fails. A foreign policy based on the teachings of the Golden Rule, that is, to treat others as we would have them treat us is wrong according to most of the candidates who want to take over as POTUS.

If the Golden Rule isolates and fails between countries it also is a failed philosophy among individuals. It cannot be an ethic of reciprocity on the one level and not on the other. The Golden Rule must either be rewritten or it must be retired as a failed teaching among most philosophies and theologies if we are to accept a preemptive intervention policy. Perhaps the other interpretation of the Golden Rule is more accurate among the current political leaders in the United States. You know the other Golden Rule, “He who has the gold rules.”

Who’s Whipping up the Power, You?

Oligarchy Rule in the United States
By Gary Wood
© October 18, 2007

An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.” Some dictionaries define it further as rule by a few persons or families. The first time I heard the United States was very much becoming an oligarchy with a shadow government controlling much of the power, carrying titles and leadership roles none of the people voted on nor could the positions be found in the Constitution I rolled my eyes. Initially, the notion of some shadow government fell on deaf ears as I was nearly too quick to simply label the idea some conspiracy theory with no foundation. Finally, oligarchy stuck with me and I started to research in an effort to determine if there was any such few with power enough to run the government.

There is a level of plutocracy going on, that of the government being ruled by the wealthy as it is nearly impossible to gain access into the system, especially at the Federal and State level, for citizens of less wealth. The entire election process has grown immensely expensive. On a discussion board not long ago a poster, ‘alamo1836,’ came up with the combination of a plutocratic oligarchy being a possible better description of what form of government the U.S. is morphing in to. However, oligarchy still requires finding these few persons or the dominant class or clique.

Listening to some commentary on the Iraq war by Senator Harry Reid, the current Senate Majority Leader, it started to come into a clearer focus on where some of these few may be controlling the government from. He was mentioning what a disastrous foreign policy gaff the Iraq war was yet he did not lead the Senate in fulfilling their responsibility to either declare or not declare war there, which the Congress passed off to the Executive Branch. He was not apologizing for not fulfilling his duty, nor taking any responsibility but pointing blame in other directions. It’s like watching a magician’s shell game or a quick round of three cards Monte.

His title kept coming to my mind, Senate Majority Leader. Is that position on any ballot any of you voted on? The citizens of Nevada elected Harry Reid as one of their Senators but where were the voices of the people in assigning him the powerful title of Senate Majority Leader and where in the Constitution is this position defined? This is not the only position of this nature in the Legislative Branch, there are over 20 extremely powerful positions between the House and the Senate that control much of the Federal government’s Congress. Less than 4% of the elected officials wielding amazing influence complete with whips to keep everyone in line.

Take a look at who a few of these people are this year. In the Senate you have the Majority and Minority Leader titles held by Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) due to the Democrats holding a majority of seats. That’s the tradition, if your party holds the majority of seats your party gets to pick someone to play majority leader and it is a highly coveted and powerful role to play. Then, of course, every good leader needs to wield a skillful whip to keep the beasts of the circus in line. To help with this we have the Majority and Minority Whip held by Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Trent Lott (R-MS) cracking it for their leaders.

From the United States Senate’s website the definition of party floor leaders is, “The Majority Leader and Minority Leader are elected by their respective party conferences to serve as the chief Senate spokesmen for their parties and to manage and schedule the legislative and executive business of the Senate. By custom, the Presiding Officer gives the floor leaders priority in obtaining recognition to speak on the floor of the Senate.” The following definition for the position of whip is given. “Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader.”

Again, none of these positions were mandated in the Constitution yet began to emerge around the turn of the 19^th and 20^th century. Today they are merely accepted traditional and extremely powerful positions. Remember, the Senate was to be presided over by the Vice President and the House by a Speaker of the House. Note very clearly who the floor leaders speak for, their parties with priority in speaking. Nevadans may have elected Harry Reid but it is his job to speak for his party. Kentucky counted on being represented by Mitch McConnell but he is busy speaking not for Kentucky but for the Republican Party.

Look closely at the whips (and their assistants!) job which is to mobilize votes within their parties. In other words they are to insure there is enough of their party’s Congressional delegation in place at each vote to cast that vote not as the people would want but as the party wants. Illinois sent Dick Durbin to represent them and instead he, and his assistant, is charged to make sure there are enough Democrats at every important vote to cast that vote the Democratic Party way. The actual term, whip, comes to us from the position in a fox hunt known as the ‘whipper-in.’ The whipper-in assisted the huntsman in keeping the pack of dogs all together and stop the pack from running riot or chasing something other than the fox.

After the leaders, the whips are considered the second most powerful position in the House and Senate. Stop and think about how these positions have been created as a part of our government legislature through tradition and yet are now considered powerful, highly coveted titles to hold. It reminds me of aristocracy titles of old in many ways. Again, these are only 4 of the more than 20. There is the Conference Secretary and Conference Chair, each party has a Policy Chair, and finally each party has a Senatorial Committee Chair. The Senatorial Committee Chairs are not the same as each party’s National Chairman, that is another powerful position not elected by the people but the person filling the National Chair role is not a sitting elected representative of the people within the legislative branch.

In the House of Representatives you get another Majority and Minority Leader, Whips(one for each of the two parties), a Caucus and Conference Chair, one each Policy Chair, the Steering Chair and finally one each Congressional Committee Chair. Each of the positions again focuses on the issues of the party, the positions are selected by the party conferences and the duties are performed above and beyond any responsibility the person may have to the people who elected them initially with the idea of representing their, not the party, interest.

This may well be the fruition of the warnings voiced over 200 years ago regarding the dangerous, tyrannical nature of party politics. The power is shifted back and forth between only two parties, Republicans and Democrats. In the current structure there is no way any person elected from outside the two majority party powerhouses in the United States could ever hope to land one of these power positions. It would be easier to get elected as a third party Presidential candidate than win a seat at the inner circle of Congressional power. Anytime there is a shift in the control of Congress the parties merely switch majority and minority hats and the hunt continues.

We the people now accept these titles, listen closely when these people speak, follow the drama of who will rise and who will fall in these positions when there is a party shift in control of Congress. They are not mandated by the Constitution and they serve the party first and foremost. This short article has only scratched the surface of the plutocratic oligarchy running the United States. There are others in the Executive and Judicial branches and many of these same traditional positions are mimicked in State level governments across the country. This is the shadow government; cast the light on it and it becomes apparent there are a few, rich and powerful people governing this country. We the people may believe we are in control but that tradition seems to have been brought nearly to an end.

When we wonder why there is less and less difference between the Democrats and Republicans overall this appears to be a very strong reason. There has to be, for a time, a façade maintained the people are getting a choice but the two-party system has a stranglehold on the power of government and over time really care less and less who is in the majority and who is in the minority as long as the shadow positions are selected by the parties and not the people. Who’s whipping up the power? The two-party system is, not you.

Mitt Romney: It's Not Religion, its His Politics

By Gary Wood
© October 15, 2007

Living in the Salt Lake Valley I have had the opportunity to discuss the upcoming primary election with many people. Literally dozens have chided me for not supporting Mitt Romney for President in 2008. Some have actually accused me of being prejudiced against him due to his religion. Only two have been able to discuss, at any length or depth, the political history and platform of Mitt Romney. Most simply expect me to support him due to his active membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It has reached a point I feel it necessary to declare that I have no problem with Romney’s religion, it is his politics I cannot, and will not, support.

If he had the same love of the Constitutional form of government this country was founded on, as the late Ezra Taft Benson held, he would no doubt have earned my vote. Remember these words of wisdom, “The sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.”(Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 1969) Think of that, anything more is usurpation and oppression.

What about Benson’s inspiring words, “There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift' their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies."(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 614; see also p. 682 & 704)

This man, Ezra Taft Benson, would have earned, truly been given freely, my vote for President of the United States. He understood the Constitution and the role of the President of the United States and of the Congress! He is not the only LDS leader that has; there have been many who share his inspired views. Mitt Romney simply is not one of them and does not deserve, nor earn, my vote and it is not his religion, and it is his politics! One only has to listen to his answers in the debates or study his record as Governor of Massachusetts to realize he is in lock step thinking with many of the Bush Administration and major Republican Party leadership positions which are not in step with the Constitution for the United States of America.

There is little research that really needs to be done by anyone within the LDS Church or outside the church to see Romney is not a firm believer in the Constitution. Simply, if you have watched or looked up the transcripts from the latest Republican debates you’ll begin to understand. Do you remember the one key question that Chris Matthews asked of Mitt Romney about the need to go to Congress for military action? If not, let me remind you now, from the transcripts of the debate Matthews’ asked the following, “Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?”
The answer by Romney reaffirmed all my beliefs but still sent a shockwave through me as this man may well be the next President. “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...” The Constitution requires the Congress to declare war. What Congress gave to Bush was totally against the supreme law of the land and totally betrayed their obligations by passing to the Executive Branch a power it never, I repeat, never should have!

I agree 100% with the reply of Congressman Ron Paul when he answered the following question by Matthews. He was asked, “Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?” His reply, “Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.” Romney does not either get it or does not agree with the Constitution on it, only Congress can declare war! It is a part of the careful check and balance system those 55 enlightened men debated over some 220 years past and the Bush Administration’s undeclared war on Iraq is proof the founders were right and Romney is wrong.

That is simply a scratch on the surface of the many political stances Mitt Romney has taken over his career to prove he simply doesn’t share the wisdom of Ezra Taft Benson. He wants to continue the same failed, preemptive interventionist foreign policy that has created the disasters we face in the world today. He will not learn from the past nine decades of history showing it is a failed policy that needs to be changed. He wants to continue the IRS and the income tax system started with the 16th Amendment and radicalized by FDR and wants to continue to use it to offer ‘incentives’ to the people for controlling the way we live our lives. His health care plan he signed into law in Massachusetts is very familiar, it is as if Hillary Clinton took his law and fashioned her Health Care Choice proposal after it.

My fellow Utahans, and all others blindly preparing to cast a vote for Romney because of his religion please take pause! Study this man’s politics, not his religion. It is OK to respect the way he has chosen to live his life religiously. It is fine to have a great deal of appreciation of the business sense he exhibited while saving the 2002 Olympics, we know what a great thing he did in that capacity. But, in the primaries we are not voting for his religion, nor are we voting for his business savvy, we are voting for the next President of the United States. Let me simply remind everyone reading this of the oath the person elected to President will take in January 2009.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The best of his ability does not give us any political expectation that he fully understands the Constitution let alone does it lead us to believe he will defend it. Do not study or vote his religion. Study and vote based on his politics and the next time you see me you will no doubt be supporting a different candidate during the Utah Republican primaries or the primaries of the state in which you reside.

Who Do You Have to Win in the Ninth?

By Gary Wood
© October 12, 2007

Ahhh, the ponies, have you ever spent a day at the racetrack watching the thoroughbreds run? You grab the racing forms, check out the picks from the expert odds makers, study the lines and lay down your bet for the winner. If you’re a Chalk Player you wager on the favorites in any given race and you know the odds are in your favor at the start of every race. The horses begin the parade toward the starting gate and someone near you says there is a horse that looks pretty or I sure like the colors that horse is wearing and they go to bet on that pretty plug horse as you shake your head in disbelief, what a waste of money. Yet, from time-to-time, you are caught in amazement as the plug turns out to be the winner and the silly bet returns large rewards.

Many people enjoy the thrill of betting on sporting events. In every event there are favorites and long shots. Most are not willing to bet on the long shots, there is something in our nature that shouts to us not to waste our money on betting our hearts or betting on a long shot. At the same time we find ourselves often cheering for underdogs and when an underdog wins, even if we didn’t bet on them, we quietly smile and think maybe we should have just this one time.

The experts are always ready with their picks and they have the best information to substantiate their picks. Look at the preseason polls in college football this year alone. Every sports show broadcast before opening day had the justification for picking the best of the best while giving little attention to the rest. This season the best have fallen week after week, leaving the experts scratching their heads in disbelief. That’s why we play the game, after all, and it is exciting to watch. The buzz turns from the best to the Cinderella teams that have risen to the occasion if only for one game. Simply stated, you just never know.

Still we turn our attention to the facts and figures that scream what should be happening, who should be winning. When we step to the window to plunk down our dollars we are drawn by that voice that calmly reaffirms our need to pick the winner, the obvious winner, and so it goes at sports books and racetracks all over the world.

This mentality bleeds over into an event that is far more important than anything happening in the sports world. Every year we face the voting booth at some level and enter the polling booth to cast our votes for candidates who will represent our views, our desires. Yet, we are trapped in a sporting event mentality not wanting to waste our vote, wanting to be able to say we voted for the winner rather than we voted for the one we thought would represent us well.

We follow the experts and listen to the odds developed by the early polling data. We gather our information as if we were betting on a horse race rather than voting on the future of our nation, State or community. Time and again we hear an expert cry to the masses that a vote for one candidate or another is merely a wasted vote, thrown away like a poorly conceived monetary bet on a plug horse. We are swayed away from someone we think may represent our views and instead convinced they have no chance so we cast our vote for the odds on winner, we become nothing more than Chalk Players in a political sporting event.

Politics are not sports; this is not the time to take on the wagering mentality we use for betting on players, horses, or teams. There is never a wasted vote unless it is the vote that goes unused. There is never a wasted vote unless it is a vote for a candidate you do not fully embrace but simply select because, after all, they are the front runner, the odds on favorite and better looking than the other horse in the race.

Politics are filled with experts who understand the sports betting mentality and play on it with skilled perfection. There are many media talking heads, party politic leaders, and pollsters ready to convince voters not to waste their votes no matter what their heart or mind may say. There is a mountain of statistics and data to prove which candidates must receive your vote for they are the favorites. Chalk Players continue to cast votes based on this expert analysis and after the race, even when your candidate wins, there is often regret if the changes you want never reach fruition. Politics are not a sporting event; your vote is never wasted, if you cast it based on your beliefs of who the best candidate is to represent you.

Will your candidate always win if you do bet your desires? Perhaps not yet from time-to-time they do, if you are brave enough to break free from the sports betting mentality played on by the leaders who truly don’t care what you do. Don’t select your candidate the way you select your horse, select your candidate based on the beliefs in your heart rather than the expert’s polling advice. The future of your nation, State and community depends on your vote while the future of the horse depends only on the jockey and the ride and not on your bet.

The Evil Twins Leading in the Polls Again

by Gary Wood
© October 11, 2007

With the advent of an early election campaign season we have been bombarded with national and local polls showing the default winners for the U.S. Presidency General Elections before the first primary vote is even cast. There may well be a significant change regarding the winner of the Republican side of the equation while the Democratic contest appears to be more a race for Vice President than President, especially if you listen to the mainstream media. In discussing the outcomes there is no loud roar for third-party candidates and the idea of any dark horse from either of the two-party oligarchy rising to victory appears unlikely to most observers right now.

Looking at all the polling data it was interesting to get feedback from some family and friends about the results and what it meant to them. Resoundingly there was the inevitable feeling the choice in the General Election would once again be a choice of the Lesser of two Evils. Some felt Lesser Evil was Democrat while others felt Lesser Evil was Republican. This confusion is easy to understand when you finally realize that More Evil and Lesser Evil are identical twins.

It is necessary to investigate these two twins more closely to improve our understanding of how they seem to dominate the elections each and every year. The Evil twins were reluctant to talk to me initially but I finally convinced More Evil to sit down and answer some basic questions for Hear My Thunder.org (HMT). Here is what we learned before the interview was cut short;

HMT – Thank you, More Evil, for sitting down with us. Can you explain why you’re twin, Lesser, and you seem to always be so popular?

More – It’s really a simple formula. We plan our platforms to be close enough on many issues as to actually blur understanding while keeping enough differences to sway the people toward one of us while convincing them a vote for anyone else is a waste.

HMT – In our research we’ve never uncovered anyone willing to vote for you, the voters always cast their vote for Lesser Evil, how do you deal with such losses every election year?

More – We are very well connected, Lesser and I, so it really doesn’t matter.

HMT – Why doesn’t it matter?

More – I do not use my name due to an impulse toward favoring Lesser, I’ve come to accept the fact nobody likes me. Look, think about 2000 when Lesser beat me out in the courts, remember that?

HMT – Yes, go on...

More – Everyone now knows that Lesser did not really beat me, you see we’re identical twins. All those voting for Lesser thought Lesser moved into the White House but in reality WE moved in. What you get when you vote for Lesser Evil is both More and Less Evil, no matter how it comes out Evil wins. Face it, right now you are talking to More or are you? You really don’t... {More’s phone rings...nods...hangs up} Ummm...seems we aren’t to be talking about this with you, seems...ummm...just forget what I said, we’ll deny it anyway, I gotta go.

HMT – But we have additional questions...

That was the end of the interview, More Evil (if that was More and not Less), quickly left without another word. Once this is published there will also no doubt be denial from one or both of the Evil Twins yet we do have the actual tape recordings of the conversation.

Another discovery is the Evil family is quite large and twins are a common occurrence. We’ve seen Evil members running for office at all levels, Federal, State, and Local. One of the key factors for on-going success is the Evil Family seems to be well-balanced between the two major parties. This has helped both funding and exposure through the media. The Evil Family is very well connected with policy makers, lobbyist, and other public officials.

The most disturbing fact that came out of the brief interview we had was the cavalier attitude evident in the tone of More, if that was indeed More. The other major awakening for me was the blatant disregard for concern over which Evil twin wins. Everyone thinks they are voting for Lesser Evil while nobody thinks they are voting for More Evil. What we are getting however is both, or in other words, Evil wins every time, and its been quite a winning streak.

It would appear the only hope we have for breaking this victory parade is taking a stand against voting for Lesser Evil. If the choice is between the More and Lesser Evil we must look for another candidate to invest our vote with. However, to do this we must be able to come to grips that voting for anyone other than the Lesser of the two Evil is not a waste but a demand for government change, a change that will not come in a government overseen by More and Lesser Evil, as we know all too well.

Shopping Stops Terrorism!

By Gary Wood
© October 10, 2007

Checking my watch I see it is early October. Commercials are starting, stores are decorating, and it is time for another year of the commercialized push toward Christmas gift giving. Consumers prepare by checking the credit card balances and setting up home equity lines of credit to insure everyone is ready to spend their way toward holiday happiness. Not only will our families be happier if we buy like crazy, it is the patriotic thing to do and our way of helping to defeat the terrorists.

Remember we are taught the importance of shopping in fighting off the terrorists. One need only listen intently to the words of the U.S. President, the Honorable George W. Bush. “This war on terror is the calling of a new generation; it is the calling of our generation. Success is essential to securing a future of peace for our children and grandchildren. And securing this peace for the future is going to require a sustained commitment from the American people and our military....A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

In recent years I met the onslaught of holiday advertising with a grunt and groan. The commercial focus on the holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas was something I grew so frustrated over I nearly considered boycotting holiday gift giving all together. Forgive me for being so selfish and narrow minded regarding the shopping season. It wasn’t until the call to arms by Bush that I realized how unpatriotic I was by being annoyed with the commercials and displays at every turn. This year my outlook is different for now I know the debt load and gifts will go a long way in sticking it to terrorists who attempt to destroy world neighbors everywhere.

With many new credit card offers bombarding the mailbox it suddenly occurred to me just how helpful these companies were being. It was not some profit based, high interest charging, self-interest that caused them to mail me more credit debt opportunity. No, these corporations were merely rallying behind the cries of leaders to fight terrorists in our own backyard and around the globe. These companies were aiding to arm an army of consumers poised this holiday season to deliver a severe blow to the terror networks of the world. It was not my rightful duty to shred these offers; it was time to make a stand, to arm myself and family with the artillery necessary for a battle that would culminate in victory over the evil attackers of our liberty.

It does not matter where the products are made, simply buy the products. Give to every person a gift whether friend, family, or even a foe. To the foe present toys from China, to the friend and family avoid recalls if you dare. This is a time for all citizens to band together, armed to the hilt with all the credit one can obtain. Shop until you drop! Fight on through the mobs and give them their due for they are merely attempting to be as patriotic as you!

Give me credit or give me death! Take not the purchasing power from my hands but allow me the buying power to deliver our stores from evil. Frivolous presents shall not be delivered for all presents will aid more than a family, they will aid our world in warding off the dangers of homicide bombers everywhere. Fear not the overpowering debt, know deep in your heart you are fighting for life, liberty, and freedom in all corners of the globe!

Embrace the commercials; be honored by the in-store displays. Know this is happening for one purpose and only one purpose. WE defeat the terror and drive it into the depth of dark caves by shopping, not dropping, our way to freedom and liberty. Shop on fellow citizens, rise to the call, shop on fellow citizens, and death ~ to terrorists all!

4th Largest U.S. City is Prison, USA

by Gary Wood
© October 8, 2007

Do you think we’re free? Every day we hear that is the reason for fighting wars, to protect our freedom. Ask 100 people why we are fighting any war and the majority will answer in a single word, freedom. We believe this because our leaders and mainstream media continue to tell us we must fight to protect our freedom and win the freedom of others who desire to be free yet are not strong enough to stand on their own in defense of their freedom. Remember then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, on November 11^th, 2001 telling us why we were attacked. “They attack us because we’re free.” On September 20^th, 2001 President Bush had this impassioned statement before Congress and the country, “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom.” It rings well to the ear, we are free, they hate our freedom, we must defend our freedom against the hate so we may continue to remain free and war is a small price to pay in defense of freedom. I will not attempt to deny the importance of defending our land from those attacking us, what I will attempt to do is raise a serious question, are we really free?

I’m not going to tackle, in this brief article, the more illusive ideas of our freedom under attack from the many demands and requirements we face to use the private property we think we own. Nor, will I look into the debate over recent invasions on our personal freedom as a direct result of such heinous acts as ‘The Patriot Act’ or the ‘Military Commissions Act’ which combined place our basic right of habeas corpus in jeopardy. This article will not address the many attacks we face daily on our 4^th Amendment violations, just dare be a veteran entering a VA Hospital for a small sample of this. Among the many directions I could take my focus for now will be on the prison population and the reasons it has reached the levels it has.

With all the wars we’ve entered in defense of freedom it became quite alarming for me to realize the United States of America has more of its population locked away in prisons than any other country in the world today. In the recess of my mind I knew this but to hear it confirmed on Sunday as a part of the promotion for an upcoming documentary by Ted Koppel it raised the reality to my conscious level once again.

I had to do a bit of research and what I found proved amazing. Based on 2005 population figures for both our prisons and U.S. cities the prison population would rank as the 4^th largest city behind New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago while beating Houston out by over 200,000 people. I’ve been to Houston, have family in Houston, Houston is huge! Yet, it would be relegated to fifth place if we considered the population of our prisons.

Not only that, population growth shows the prison population outpacing the top cities’ growth figures which means it will only continue to rise in rankings and within a few years can pass the population of Chicago! Taking the 2005 prison population and comparing it against the 2005 U.S. population figures we see that nearly 1% of the population is locked up! 1 of every 100 citizens, according to our justice system, must be incarcerated. This does not begin to look at the numbers which are arrested, on probation, face charges which result in something other then confinement, this is just those incarcerated.

Well, I said to myself, these are the violent criminal minds among us that deserve to be locked away so they don’t interfere with my family or my personal freedom by harming us. The violent criminals need to be incarcerated, right?

So I further dug into the Bureau of Justice Statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was not pretty; the numbers are too large to be comforting but the number of violent criminals’ incarcerated represent 52% of the total population. Just over half are violent criminals that have harmed another of our neighbors in the criminal conduct they pursued which led them to being incarcerated. This would mean the violent population represents the 10^th largest city but it also meant there were enough non-violent criminals incarcerated to also represent the 11^th largest city.

In researching raw numbers of prisoners I noticed an inordinate number of those serving time were non-violent offenders incarcerated for drug violations, property violations, tax violations, and more. Within the drug numbers lie the bulk of those who are categorized by ethnic race. Are Hispanic or African American citizens, by human nature, worse humans than those classified as white? Or are these segments of categorized society merely tempted into the non-violent economic opportunities created by prohibition laws attempting to regulate morality on all citizens.

We know the dangers created by prohibiting acts which violate a majority view of what is and is not moral. History taught us the lessons of prohibiting alcohol as this attempt gave significant rise to underground mobs preying on the desires of all members of society. The temptation was too great, the violation too many, to deny the fact our attempts to police morals simply fails. Yet we as a society continue to attempt to control the lives of citizens through the failed, expensive, and dangerous war on drugs.

No matter what race classification is assigned to humans, there is no race worse or better than any other. We are equal in our propensity toward good and toward what society may deem to be not good. By judicially enacting constraints on human behavior, by attempting to regulate morality, the creation of underground economic gain surpasses the good of a law. Any and every time we enact such moral restriction we fail; whether the restriction is on alcohol, drugs, prostitution, or any other aspect of human behavior desired and sought by humans. The only result is the laying of a trap for those in an economic position willing to risk now illegal activities to satisfy the demands of mankind. Is it a question of nature or is it a question of failed focus in our judicial desires to control the non-violent activities of our neighbors?

In the Koppel report the focus is on the California prison system. It was designed to hold a maximum of 100,000 inmates yet is strained with the overcrowded number of 178,000. The cost per prisoner for one year of incarceration is $43,000.00 (compared to a Harvard education costing $43,200.00) and there is no relief in sight for eliminating this strain. There is no wonder why the criminal justice system and prisons are among the fastest growing segment of our economy today. We are building more prisons to house more non-violent criminals every day.

Let us assume there are 52% of the California prison populations incarcerated for violent crimes, crimes that harm people. The population drops to 92,560, not comforting yet below the threshold of the maximum numbers California prisons are prepared for. By altering the laws to focus on the violent criminals not only does the State of California have the room for the prisoners it would save over $3 billion dollars in direct costs associated with housing those prisoners. Extrapolated out to all 50 States and the savings and benefits become much clearer to the eye.

More important is the question, are we free? Freedom’s definition is easily debated. The fact is we incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country. Is the root cause because our citizens are just worst among world citizenry? Or, rather, is it possible our judicial system and law making system is out of control and busy enacting laws that limit freedom? Are we, as a people, actually less free than the many countries we occupy, defend, and fight today?

We are entering the heart of yet another election year. There are voices on the Federal, State, and local level who understand we are not the free society we claim to be. There are voices of reason among the candidates who understand the root of our problem is not a larger number of bad people but a larger number of bad laws. I encourage each voter to seek out and vote for the candidates who recognize the root causes of our challenges and will work to reverse this assault on the very freedom we are so proud of. We need legislature focused on the needs of society and not focused on the greed of enacting laws which ultimately bind and incarcerate our freedom, which most of us will willingly die to defend.

How do we change the 'Way We Fight?'

by Gary Wood
© October 6, 2007

An acquaintance urged me to watch the Sony Entertainment Documentary “Why We Fight” and I’ve watched it twice now. There was a lot of information concerning the Bush Doctrine and the history behind the rise of what Eisenhower called the ‘Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).’ In his farewell address, in 1961, Eisenhower warned about the dangers this type of standing complex could lead to. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” It’s as if he saw into the future when our Congress would relinquish responsibility for declaring war by passing this power to the Executive Branch. Within six months President Bush used the power to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraq War.

When Eisenhower delivered his farewell address I was not quite two years old and since that time I had never read the entire address. As I did this earlier tonight I was amazed at the wisdom and insight found within the text. According to what I can find this was not written for him but was penned by him, a culmination of his many years in military and government service. According to his son and granddaughter he was a military man who did not like the ravages of war and actually attempted to stave off the march toward such a strong standing military. He often equated the cost of the growing MIC to hospitals, power plants, houses, and other areas where the money could have been spent in improving daily lives within the United States.

I have reflected for hours on the following lines from his address. “We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Clearly, he knew it was the duty of the people to remain alert and knowledgeable, yet we have not. Unchecked the MIC is gaining control.

Let me caveat the remaining remarks by stating I have not merely engulfed a single documentary and now believe it is fully true and the government has fully been false. As in all matters the truth usually lies between the two extremes. Many have read my thoughts on the foreign policy of the Bush Doctrine and know I do not support a preemptive strike approach to dealing with the world. Whether we want to admit it or not, the United States has become a militaristic country. We are the bullies on the playground, as my wife put it. Our government is quick to flex the MIC muscle at all signs of concern over the direction of other nations if the direction is not in line with our own. The history of our conflicts the past four and a half decades is easy enough to track. The message we are always given is we fight because we honor freedom, liberty, and strive to promote peace and democracy to those in need. In our desire to promote peace is it wise to always fight? Or do we always seek out reasons for a fight so we can feed the complex?

As my wife and I pondered these questions, and more, a very strong realization came over me. The MIC is a huge part of our economy. The war on terror, or as some call it, the war for terror is the latest raging conflict feeding this economic need. Since Eisenhower bid farewell, however, it is only the next one as there have been wars and insurgencies under every administration since. In 2007 we are spending $12 billion dollars every month in our battle for freedom in Iraq, if that is really what it is all about as many respond when asked why we fight in Iraq. We know Iraq was not because of 9/11; Bush admitted on national television there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Eisenhower would truly see many other things this $12 billion monthly could be invested in to help our nation yet this is a tremendous boost for the companies involved with the MIC and those that rely on the complex for jobs.

Increasing demands from the citizens, those whose duty it is to keep this machine in check, are to end the Iraq War. DownsizeDC.org has a drive on their website which states, “U.S. policy has inflamed the Middle East. It has made terrorism more likely rather than less. We seem to be fighting a war for terror, rather than on terror. This policy must stop.” Whether that is true we cannot deny many jobs are directly linked to the war and if we change the policy the ramifications can truly be devastating for many who rely on our military activities for their livelihood. This is the number one realization, why it had not so clearly dawned on me before I cannot say.

I’ve been busy pressing for a change to the policy of preemptive, intervention or what is being referred to as the Bush Doctrine. It is a terrible way to deal with the world, in my opinion. Not only does it send an insightful message, it is leading us down a road where our country no longer resembles a free society where people enjoy true liberty. Let me one last time refer to Eisenhower’s warning, “As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” We are reaching a critical crossroad right now, we are marching toward insolvency and the MIC does not appear to care so we the people must, you and I.

Yet, that leads me to the question which began this article, how do we change the way we fight? If you are reading now thinking I am about to provide my insights and answers I am going to disappoint you, trust me when I say I’m not that smart and need your help. I am asking this question because it needs to be elevated to a serious national discussion among all of us. I have no faith that our leadership, our representatives, our press, or the companies charging us billions to fight the war will have an answer. Their answer seems clear; war is good for business and good for the increase and maintenance of control over the people.

We need to heed the warnings of Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, the MIC is so ingrained in all States, counties, cities, and homes how can we change it now without ruining our economy? How can we change it while insuring the terrorists don’t come to our neighborhoods next? Please either continue the discussion or start one with your friends and family today. We must change or we will be the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. We need a plan, we need an answer, how do we change the way we fight?

Can We Support Troops and Not the Iraq War?

by Gary Wood
©October 4, 2007

For many there is a dichotomy surrounding the question of supporting our troops while attempting to maintain a stance against the Iraq War. Someone near to you serving in Iraq will probably least understand the sentiment as their efforts to help stabilize Iraq while attempting to rid the country of the terrorist groups the war invited in is very hard to see. Many families and friends see the support of one being somehow connected to the support of the other. For them there is no split in the two, in order to support our troops one must stay strong in the support of winning in Iraq or the loss of life and limb has gone for not.

At SupportYourTroops.us there is a message board and videos from people across this land. There message is quite simply that of supporting the troops no matter what you may think of the war. A foundation is in place for anyone to share a thought with the troops far away and thanks to the Internet the troops can read and respond to these positive feelings of warmth and hope. There are many helpful links and overall the site has steered clear of the political debate regarding the war itself.

On the ‘Bring Them Home Now’ website there is a copy of ‘An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq’ which was sent by over 100 active duty troops to their Representatives and Senators stating their desires to remove all troops and bases from Iraq as, in their view, it is not working nor is it worth continued bloodshed. Again, this group of brave men and women are in Iraq now, serving and risking their life and no doubt support their fellow soldiers while not supporting the war.

Within the military community there are organizations that have come into being which share exactly the message, support the troops and not the war. Visiting the website for ‘Veterans Against the Iraq War’ there is a different way of stating this sentiment. “Support the Troops, Oppose the Policy” is their rallying cry. The statement of purpose for their organization has some interesting insights into their formulation of the stance against the war yet there is no doubt this group of veterans supports the troops.

Are these and others simply non-patriotic, are they merely cowards afraid to face the fact we have terrorists in our world who mean to wipe us off the map as a nation? Can we believe them to be pacifists or isolationists too naïve to understand the importance of the foreign policy which led to this encounter in Iraq? President Bush declared a straight-forward objective in launching the attack as being "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." That was some four and a half years ago. Now we must stay in Iraq since the Al Qaeda terrorists are there and we have to fight them on that front or we shall fight them on our own soil. The war on terror has expressed needs, the policy must be upheld, and we must keep up the fight in Iraq, right?

There was a clash during the South Carolina Republican Debate between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani which was started by the comments of Dr. Paul. In part he stated, “There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican Party, it is the constitutional position, it is the advice of the founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy. Stay out of entangling alliances. Be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.” He went on to explain even the CIA warns of blowbacks from an interventionist foreign policy and among the blowbacks was the attack on 9/11. Giuliani garnered loud applause when he countered, in part, “I would ask the Congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean that.” However, there is that word again, policy. Did he mean it, and what is it?

The Iraq War was started nearly a year and a half after the attacks yet clearly the foreign policy of intervention has been practiced in earnest for decades and the results seem consistent, war erupts, both civilian and military lives are lost, debt is piled high, and does anyone ever win? For retaliation against the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11 was the front in Iraq or was it in Afghanistan and perhaps Saudi Arabia?

Hussein and bin Laden, the mastermind of the cowardly attack which killed and forever wounded so many souls, did not even get along. The front of the war on terror was clearly not in Iraq at the time yet the foreign policy of intervention led us to toppling a hated dictator thereby opening up a new front, one that is now in Iraq. This policy decision reminds me of a dog trying to chase two rabbits, clearly a hunter knows the confusion and challenge in that and the hunt for bin Laden still goes on today, one rabbit who’s gotten away. He is a much safer man since we attacked Iraq and his terror and influence is still felt around the world.

What was that policy Dr. Paul mentioned in the debate, non-intervention? Is that a pacifist, isolationist approach to foreign policy, one that is more a coward’s course or a course someone would follow who denied a war on terror was a real threat? I believe I’ve heard that on TV, I believe I heard it right after the debates in fact. However, in researching the founders it can be said there was no desire to be passive, or was there a desire to be in isolation. There was a firm belief in a strong defense against any foreign aggression. The insights into the strength of a foreign policy based on the idea of non-intervention was perhaps no where better extolled than in George Washington’s farewell address, delivered in 1796.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.... If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”

There was a desire to have ‘commercial relations’ or trade with the world. This is not the focus of an isolated nation. Read again the lines about remaining one people under an efficient government, think of the concept he is trying to get across with regards to the strength developed in neutrality. Then read carefully the words regarding belligerent nations and how they will not “lightly hazard the giving of provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.” This is from the outgoing Commander-in-Chief, General George Washington. It was a policy of non-intervention, not a policy of passive isolationism.

Many of those seeking to lead us today and many of those who have led us over the past several decades had me confused about this for a time. However, what this policy is all about is not provoking attacks, not preemptively striking nations and forcing our systems and beliefs on them, but one in which no external country will attack us without clear knowledge the price they will pay will be quite heavy. When there was a need to declare war it is clear these leaders would not shrink from that need yet it would be done guided by justice. I urge you to read the farewell address in its entirety as well as study the other founders with regard to this idea of a non-interventionist foreign policy. You may find what I found, the bad press is misplaced.

In pondering the meaning behind our present policies and the policies of our founders I have discussed it with many people. One theme I hear often is the policy of non-intervention, of neutrality, promoted by these men so many years ago is not applicable today. Somehow, their reason goes, technology and the shrinking distance between countries has changed all that. This is also what I hear from many of today’s leaders in explaining why we must have a military presence in over 68% of all countries on Earth. This is the reasoning for supporting Saddam, arming him, teaching him how to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran and then changing positions and toppling him for being a ruthless dictator. This is the reasoning behind removing the freely elected leader of Iran in 1953, placing our own choice in the leadership role and then being surprised when the Iranian government’s attitude toward us today is less than open and friendly.

We cannot say if the non-interventionist foreign policy urged by Washington would have greatly altered our world had it been followed these past 211 years. We cannot say since the interventionist foreign policy has been the predominant course our leaders have taken since the Wilson Administration. Modern political leaders, including our current leadership, have turned intervention into a preemptive fine art. When Ron Paul dared to utter the idea the policy may be flawed the misunderstanding of the true nature of what the policy was he attempted to explain allowed Giuliani and others to look superior and somehow more patriotic for they supported our troops and could puff up in pride that our policies had no connection, and gave no reasoning, for terrorist attacks against us. The audience and many around the country cheered, while a few decided to investigate the real idea behind the founders’ foreign policy of non-intervention. Giuliani may deny any connection between policy and attitude toward the United States but the connection is clear when studied, perhaps something he should do.

I support our troops, as a veteran who understands the nature of raising my hand and taking the oath of a soldier. We must defend them and honor them for they are defending us and fighting against an enemy in Iraq that does have terror in their hearts and hatred clearly set. However, it is time to plan for the careful and safe closing of the Iraq front, time to begin bringing them home and bringing home all those who are in foreign lands not due to any failure on their part but due to a failed foreign policy of intervention.

We have created a long enough history now to know interventionism leads to ongoing conflict, wars with no ending (as we have on the Korean Peninsula), death and destruction, and the burden of debt more in the heavy debt owed to the family and loved ones who will not see their beloved soldiers again and to those who will see their soldiers as they invest years and tears nursing the wounds of war.

We can support our troops and we can oppose the foreign policy of intervention. We can demand and receive leaders who will place us on a sounder path using the non-interventionist foreign policy from our founders’ days. We can develop a new history of strength and peace, one our great-grandchildren will study and be thankful for our wisdom. This we can do without cowardice, without being unpatriotic, in fact it may well be the most patriotic and brave thing we the people dare to do.