Fair Tax

The Fair Tax: Key To Republican Victory?
By Daniel G. Jennings
There is a simple action Republicans can take to turn what could be a humiliating defeat into a massive electoral victory this fall: commit to replacing the income tax with the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org).
The Fair Tax is a 23 percent national sales tax that would replace all federal income taxes Fair Tax legislation is currently being pushed in Congress (HR 25/S 1493). Democrats and their masters in the media elite have ignored the Fair Tax because the idea is popular with average people. The liberal elite hates the Fair Tax because under it they would loose all manner of tax breaks they benefit from.
If Republicans want victory in November they should commit to the Fair Tax in a big way. President Bush should hold a press conference and announce that he will sign the Fair Tax if it is passed. The Senate and House GOP leadership should announce that they’re bringing the Fair Tax to a vote and twist the arms of Republican Senators and Congressmen to vote for it.
The Republican message should be the Fair Tax, the Fair Tax is popular when it’s mentioned on talk radio the calls are overwhelming supportive. Republicans who ran on the issue in 2004 were victorious despite Democratic efforts to paint the Fair Tax as an effort to give “a tax break to the rich.”
Democrats are scared to the death of the Fair Tax, they know that average people are fed up with the tax system and would like radical change. This is why the mainstream media ignores the Fair Tax, they don’t want to mention it because average people will hear about it, like it and starting asking why their Congressman and Senators aren’t voting for it.
Every time a Republican Congressperson makes a media appearance they should promote the Fair Tax. Even if the media apparatchiks want to talk about Iraq or baseball players using steroids the Republicans should talk Fair Tax, Fair Tax, Fair Tax. The message should be the Fair Tax and nothing else.
Average viewers would start asking what is this Fair Tax thing? Why are the liberal elitists so afraid of it and unwilling to talk about it? Many people would conclude if these assholes hate the Fair Tax it must be a great thing.
On the Republican campaign trail, every Republican Congressional candidate should commit to the Fair Tax and campaign on that issue. The GOP should buy advertising in as many Congressional districts as possible to promote the Fair Tax. On a grassroots level Republican activists should show up at every public appearance by every campaign Democratic candidate and ask them about the Fair Tax. Ask why they’re against it and what their alternative is.
Imagine how Democrats will react when the Republican tells a working class audience vote for me and I’ll let you keep all of your paychecks. The Democrat will have to tell them why it is a good thing to turn a large percentage of their hard earned income over to the government.
The result of this is that the differences between Democrats and Republicans will be highlighted. Democrats will be exposed once again as the party of tax and spend and the status quo. Republicans as the party of radical change and true reform.
The present tax system is so corrupt and unfair nobody could defend it and any politician who tried to defend would destroy their career. The Democrats would hurt themselves greatly if they had to defend the income tax on the campaign trail.
A GOP dedicated to the Fair Tax would win handsomely, instead of struggling to retain congressional control Republicans would win decisive majorities in both houses. Fair Tax Republicans would win landslide victories in many contested races and I’m sure a lot of pro income tax Democrats would be defeated. Even many far left stalwarts in supposedly safe blue states would be thrashed by no name opponents who ran on the Fair Tax platform.
The media and the Democrats’ refusal to acknowledge the Fair Tax’s existence proves they’re scared of the issue. The question we have to ask is why aren’t the Republicans taking advantage of the Fair Tax?

Falklands War & Iran

The Falklands War & Iran
By Daniel G. Jennnings
Recent history proves that US military action can take down the regime in Iran without invading that troubled nation.
The history is the Falklands War in the early 1980s, for those of you that don’t remember in the early 1980s Argentina was controlled by a worthless military dictatorship whose popularity was falling. As in Iran today the Argentine dictatorship faced a lot of popular opposition.
The mighty Argentine generals were experts at murdering unarmed leftist students but had never actually fought in a war. In 1982 their worthless leader General Gulitari sought to defuse popular opposition by invading a number of islands in the South Atlantic that were British territory but claimed by Argentina. Interestingly enough no Argentines lived in the islands their residents were British. Britain’s prime minister Maggie Thatcher responded to this by sending her military to reclaim the Argentine occupied territory.
The outcome of this war was predictable the highly professional British military easily defeated the Argentine forces. The British were highly trained professional soldiers, the Argentine military’s expertise was torturing unarmed students to death, you do the math. Her Majesty’s forces used Argentine ships and planes for target practice. British commandos stormed into the Falklands and overwhelmed the Argentine military.
The result was that the Argentine military dictatorship collapsed completely and Argentina became democratic. This happened without a single British bomb falling on an Argentine city or a single British soldier landing on Argentine soil. Even though Her Majesty’s Army could have occupied the Argentine capitol, Buenos Aires, in a few hours.
Instead the British simply reoccupied the British territory seized by the Argentines and destroyed the Argentine forces occupying them. The result was that the Argentine military dictatorship was discredited and collapsed completely without a single British solider landing in Argentina. Instead the useless generals who had started the war were driven out of power. A sort of domino effect followed in which a number of South American military dictatorships allied with Argentina collapsed and became democratic.
This makes me wonder, if President Bush were to simply order our Air Force to take out the Iranian nuclear plants. No invasion of Iran, no regime change, simply US planes flying over Iran shooting the Iranian Air Force out of the sky and blasting the Iranian nuclear plants to rubble would destroy the Iranian dictatorship in the way that Iron Maggie brought democracy to Argentina.
Like the Argentine generals the Ayatollahs would be revealed as useless frauds. Like the Argentine Army, Iran’s gestapo, the Republican Guard would collapse and the Ayatollahs would have to back down.
With their military revealed as a worthless farce, and their political allies including this moronic president who thinks of himself as the Iranian Hitler would run for cover. They’d have to explain the Iranian people why we can’ t defend our own country. No American soldiers would have to die in Iran and American taxpayers would pay little.
Of course this doesn’t fit with the Neoconservative World View in which democracy can be achieved with American soldiers occupying foreign countries. Or the liberal world view in which diplomacy can magically transform terrorists into our friends. Unfortunately neither the neoconservatives or their apologists or self proclaimed critics in the media pay attention to Maggie Thatcher or remember how she won the Falklands War. After all history, recent or otherwise is of no interest in our current age.

Some philosophy

The Age We Live In
Philosophical Musings by Daniel G. Jennings
The age we live in is an unusual one, it is an era of decadence and corruption, of violence and of weakness. It is also an age of individuality and diversity, as well as an era of profound social, political, technological, social and economic upheaval, progress and change.
Politically the striving in our era as in all eras of profound change is for stability. In the Democratic countries the political desire seems to be for a sort of watered down Caesarism. We see this in Britain where Tony Blair has been elected PM, an unprecedented three times and in Italy where Mr. Berlusconi has served for over ten years. In the United States where term limits prevents such seemingly endless periods of office for the President, our current president is the son of a former president and the top contender for the 2008 race is the wife of an ex President. Most of our Senators and Congressmen are long serving, the average incumbent Congressman is more likely to be hit by lightning than he is to loose reelection.
The reason for this is a desire for stability, the vast majority of individuals are content with their lot in life and have no desire for change, no matter how much they claim to want change. The demand on all sides for political stability, that is why mediocrity is the norm in politics and true ability is hounded out. Politicians who promise continued stability are rewarded, those who seem threatening loose their popularity.
Demands for reform are still heard but no real reforms are carried out. Nor is there any real action from government except in desperation. Government is larger than ever yet it seems to do less than ever before. We have a large military machine, yet the popular demand is for no war or conflict. Schools are bigger than ever before but education has become meaningless and ineffective.
No real change can be made because that would upset the status quo. Liberals, progressives, conservatives no wants any real change. Conservatives have no desire for smaller government, liberals for new social programs. President Bush learned he can do nothing to reform social security just as President Clinton learned his ambitious national healthcare proposal was impossible.
Much of the hysteria against President Bush has been based on his radical actions in particular the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He upset the status quo and took radical action, politicians aren’t supposed to do that. We want Chamberlain, not Churchill, we want a friendly man who will tell us that everything will be all right if we just steer the course and muddle through.
We see this in other areas as well, for example we see a great deal of desire for military glory and its ugly stepchild imperial glory. Yet we see no stomach for war, lots of people wave flags and put support our troops stickers on their bumpers. Few men volunteer for military service. A few casualties on the battlefields of Iraq and the Bring the Troops Home Now signs go up.
Or in entertainment, truly groundbreaking new entertainments are ignored while rehashes of tired old themes are honored. On a more personal level there is gay rights, Hollywood and the news media are engaging in an orgy of celebration of “gay culture” which is largely their creation. They are showing their tolerance by making films about gay cowboys in the closet and writing articles about Spongebob’s popularity among gay men. Meanwhile the rise of China, a super power that will change the political, cultural and economic face of the world is ignored.
In terms of religion we see lots of talk about spirituality which is an attempt to have religious belief without any of the hard work or sacrifice demanded by true religion. In a related development we see a great rise in superstition which is a sort of watered down religion.
Superstition is after all based on faith but it makes no moral demands upon believers. Religion generally demands ethical discipline and sacrifice of some sort. Superstition demands only belief one simply has to believe in it.
Never before in history has superstition been more popular or more diverse. We have alternative medicine which is simply folk medicine disguised as science, scientific superstition in superstition is disguised as science for example ghost detection. Belief in UFOs and alien abductions. The Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. ESP and the paranormal in general. All manner of pseudo scientists present scientific evidence for such nonsense. There is also the New Age which is superstition disguised as spirituality.
Then there are all the political superstitions around these days such as folk Marxism. Real political commitment demands conviction and evidence. Political superstition simply involves prejudice and simple choices. The president is a crook, government doesn’t work, big business is evil, etc.
We even have religious superstitions, never have there been more Virgin Mary sightings. There is all the end of the world nonsense based upon the book of Revelation and the Bible. The renewed popularity of the devil and Demons. Even belief in witches, witchcraft and black magic has been renewed. Modern people now live in fear of Satan and witches. Creationism is another example of a religious superstition, if science doesn’t support your faith ignore it.
Superstition is popular because it is reassuring yet exciting, it is interesting but makes no real demands upon you. When you believe in UFOs or crystals you don’t need to stop drinking or supporting the war and the death penalty or to do anything for the poor. A real church might demand you change your behavior towards such things.
Superstition is faith for faith’s sake, faith without commitment or sacrifice, or ethics. Superstition is religion lite, there is no wonder superstition is so popular in our age. Just as modern politics are politics lite, call the president a jerk but don’t worry about any real political changes.
So what will be the next step that’s hard to say but historically superstition has always led to religious revival and fanaticism. Politically, I suppose we’ll see some efforts to institutionalize Caesarism, powerful leaders who exist to defend the comfortable existence of the many. No values, no ideology, just defend the status quo and those who profit from it at all costs. Such are the politics of a decadent and superstitious age. The politics of Imperial Rome or 1930s Britain, the politics of an empire at the apex of its power that is in fear of decline.

Senator John McCain for President?

The media has somehow decided in its infinite wisdom that the 2008 Presidential Race will be Democratic Joan of Arc, Sen. Hillary Clinton vs. Sen. John McCain of Arizona media favorite and hope of moderate Republicans. I can halfway agree with this statement, I can see Hillary as the Democratic nominee but I can't see McCain as the Republican nominee. Vice President, maybe, but Presidential nominee forget it.
First, Hillary has a genuine popular following on the American Main Street, I can't see who McCain's constituency is. Yes, he's an ex POW in Vietnam who wrote a couple of popular books, but other than that the media seems to be his only following. I see no group or constituency that would actively support the guy. McCain is the darling of the media, they are his constituency. Average Republicans out in the Red States don't seem to care about the guy. His media support may actually hurt him there. Will McCain get the nomination, in a word no, he's too old, he's too moderate and too well liked by the media. He's also a maverick who's offended too many Republican politicians including President Bush who is not to be taken lightly.
So who will get the Republican nomination? Good question there are a number of interesting contenders, theres's Senator Frist of Tennessee, a doctor a heart surgeon no less who won a recent leadership poll, Mitch Romney, a Mormon from Massachusetts, a former governor, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, and Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, President's younger brother. Old Jeb says he isn't running but anybody who listens to talk radio knows that somebody's promoting the gospel of tax cutting effective administrator Jeb Bush. There are some interesting lesser candidates too like Bill Owens of Colorado, (like Jeb Bush a Catholic). Any of these people is far more likely to get the nomination than McCain. So one has to ask why does the liberal media like this guy so much. That's enough to stop me from voting for him.

Cultural Marxism

Why Should People Worry About Cultural Marxism?
By Daniel G. Jennings
Thanks to Jay Bennish, the simple minded Colorado high school teacher who tried to teach his students President Bush is no better than Adolph Hitler, the Left’s efforts to turn our schools into Cultural Marxist indoctrination centers are once again in the spotlight.
Watching such antics average people ask the question why should we worry about Cultural Marxism? After all Cultural Marxism is a silly, simplistic dogma whose practitioners must resort to charlatanism to convince anybody of their arguments. That’s exactly why we would should worry about Cultural Marxism, for all its sophistication, CM is quickly reducing education to the level of a cheap carnival act.
The arguments advanced by Cultural Marxists and other extreme leftists are so ludicrous that the only way to convince people of them is through trickery and lies. When someone like Jay Bennish states an obvious falsehood for instance America being a violent, terrorist state he is lying both to himself and others. To get the class to believe such nonsense, the teacher or professor must trick them.
For example, Bennish disguises his argument that Bush and Hitler are the same as a question and a debate. By doing this Bennish isn’t trying to provoke a debate, he is trying to insert propaganda into education.
At its worst, Cultural Marxist education becomes a carnival act as the antics of Ward Churchill, the controversial ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, demonstrate. Churchill dresses up like a Hollywood Indian complete with ponytails and a cowboy hat. His lectures are little more than fashionable leftist propaganda about the evils of American society and the suffering of Native Americans. Outside the classroom, Churchill takes his act on the road to demonstrations and even charges crowds of leftists to listen to his drivel. Like controversial radio hosts, Churchill writes controversial essays and gives controversial speeches to attract attention. Like most conmen, Churchill bullies students who disagree with him and dismiss those who don’t believe his line of bullshit as his enemies.
By reducing education to a cheap carnival act Cultural Marxism takes the meaning out of education. It strips education of its most important element namely the transmission of information vital to our civilization’s survival to the next generation. Once truth is gone from the education process, morality follows as does all the basic values upon which our civilization (and all civilization) is based.
Worse, Cultural Marxism teaches students that trickery and lying are moral, ethical and even desirable behaviors. They are told it is okay to trick others to get your point across and that it is fine to lie as long you are lying in a good cause. It is little wonder we are seeing numerous corporate scandals like Enron and a political culture of attack ads, the executives and politicians are the products of Cultural Marxist Education.
Cultural Marxist education doesn’t indoctrinate the next generation in its sick ideology. It turns the classroom into a school for con artists where students learn from the teachers and professors how to trick others to get what they want.
The effect of such educational tactics on students can be profound. A tiny minority of gullible or stupid students will get indoctrinated and buy into the party line. The majority of students knows in their guts that something’s wrong here but go along with the party line because they need the good grades and the college degree. In effect Cultural Marxism is teaching the future generation not to question or dissent, just along and get ahead. A few brave students, usually those who have some real knowledge of the subject speak out and are made into examples of what will happen to those who question the system.
Another terrible result of this is that many of the best and brightest students get put off by education and learning completely. Students will real knowledge of subjects like history and philosophy quickly see that what is going on in the classroom is nonsense and drop out. If they are ethical people they may turn their backs on academia completely and end up swinging a hammer or working in a store because that at least is honest work.
Worst of all Cultural Marxism preys on ignorance and needs ignorance to flourish. Students with real knowledge of history would quickly know that someone like Ward Churchill or Jay Bennish is full of crap and walk out. Churchill and Bennish can only make fantastic claims like Bush being another Hitler or the US Army employing germ warfare in the 19th Century (before Pasteur had discovered that germs cause disease) because they know the students know nothing of the subject.
Like medical quackery, Cultural Marxism itself is nothing but snake oil but the damage it does is real. Especially when it is substituted for real education, Cultural Marxism shortchanges us all by substituting learning and knowledge with snake oil.

Academy Awards

Academy Awards
By Daniel G. Jennings
Once again the kooky carnival known as the Academy Awards has come and gone.
I must confess I didn’t watch the Oscars, I didn’t want to stay up late and besides I had a DVD of a movie I wanted to watch instead (the 1964 British epic “Zulu”). Still the Academy Awards are a fascinating and entertaining phenomenon that shows how schizophrenic our society has become.
Tens of millions of Americans tune into see Hollywood reward movies they skipped in theaters and won’t watch on DVD. Movies that in many cases aren’t even shown in most American communities. Millions of Americans watch to gasp at stars whose films they avoid like the plague.
What happens inside the Kodak Theater on Hollywood Boulevard is even more absurd. A crowd of materialistic nihilists tries to prove they have a social conscious by proclaiming left wing propaganda great art. By honoring movies about gays, evil oil companies or the moral ambiguity of terrorism Hollywood millionaires can tell themselves they don’t have to feel guilty about their mansions, stock portfolios, private jets and Ferraris.
The kooks and crazies in charge of today’s film industry dress up and pretend to act like real movie stars. The last of the real stars being too old to attend this horrendous charade.
What this says about American society I don’t know but I do know one thing. I’m not in the minority I have a feeling that the majority of Americans did exactly what I did. They watched something besides the Academy Awards, something they really cared about.

Bush in India

Bush Does the Right Thing in India, Media Gets It Wrong
By Daniel G. Jennings
President George W. Bush is to be commended on his trip to India and his intelligent and far sighted policy towards that country.
As part of his state visit to India Bush effectively tore up the idiotic Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which states it’s alright for a communist dictatorship like China to have nuclear weapons but wrong for a democratic country like India to build nuclear weapons for its own defense. It is hypocritical for the United States, a democracy which maintains a large nuclear arsenal for its own defense to enforce such a policy. This policy is also a threat to peace countries that lack nuclear weapons are more likely to be victims of aggression while countries (China) with nuclear weapons will be able to get away with aggression.
On a more strategic and sensible level America needs India as a an ally. India is probably the world’s number two military power with a large highly professional Army and a growing Air Force and Navy. Unlike the tired old nations of Europe India has real military power, hundreds of thousands of highly trained professional soldiers whose help we may soon need on the battlefields of the Middle East.
India is a democracy and a majority Hindu country so it is America’s natural ally in the war against Islamic Terror. India’s Hindus suffered centuries of oppression, exploitation and terror at the hands of Islamic conquerors such as the Moguls and Afghans. More recently Al Qaeda has backed terrorists battling Indian troops in Kashmir and terrorists who attacked India’s parliament building in New Delhi. America will need India’s help and soon, just as India will need America’s help.
Bush’s deal makes environmental sense too, by transferring American nuclear power plant technology to India. Bush is ensuring that India will be burning less fossil fuels and generating less greenhouse gases. This will do more to stop global warming than the moronic Kyoto Treaty which does nothing to curb green house gases.
The media of course doesn’t see any of this. TV reports about Bush’s India trip have been full of pictures of Islamic mobs burning Bush’s picture and screaming death to America. These mobs represent a minority in India and don’t reflect India’s population which is 80.5 percent Hindu according to the CIA World Fact Book found online at www.cia.gov. Unfortunately Americans watching the TV reports will get the simple minded message the media elite wants them to: they hate us over there because of Bush’s policy.
Imagine what would happen if on Bush’s next state trip to France the only pictures the media showed were leftists and Muslims burning American flags. That would make France look like a nation of anti-American bigots but since France is a “white” European nation the media likes, it would be presented in a positive light. Even though France probably has less than a tenth of the military power of India, France is presented as the ally we need while India is ignored.
Is this racism I don’t know? One thing is very clear; however, President Bush’s grasp of the global reality and the policies America needs to purse is far better than that of the media’s. Hopefully the voters and Congress will continue to see through the media deceptions and back our President’s sensible policy towards India.

Bush Does the Right Thing in India, Media Gets It Wrong

Bush Does the Right Thing in India, Media Gets It Wrong
By Daniel G. Jennings
President George W. Bush is to be commended on his trip to India and his intelligent and far sighted policy towards that country.
As part of his state visit to India Bush effectively tore up the idiotic Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which states it’s alright for a communist dictatorship like China to have nuclear weapons but wrong for a democratic country like India to build nuclear weapons for its own defense. It is hypocritical for the United States, a democracy which maintains a large nuclear arsenal for its own defense to enforce such a policy. This policy is also a threat to peace countries that lack nuclear weapons are more likely to be victims of aggression while countries (China) with nuclear weapons will be able to get away with aggression.
On a more strategic and sensible level America needs India as a an ally. India is probably the world’s number two military power with a large highly professional Army and a growing Air Force and Navy. Unlike the tired old nations of Europe India has real military power, hundreds of thousands of highly trained professional soldiers whose help we may soon need on the battlefields of the Middle East.
India is a democracy and a majority Hindu country so it is America’s natural ally in the war against Islamic Terror. India’s Hindus suffered centuries of oppression, exploitation and terror at the hands of Islamic conquerors such as the Moguls and Afghans. More recently Al Qaeda has backed terrorists battling Indian troops in Kashmir and terrorists who attacked India’s parliament building in New Delhi. America will need India’s help and soon, just as India will need America’s help.
Bush’s deal makes environmental sense too, by transferring American nuclear power plant technology to India. Bush is ensuring that India will be burning less fossil fuels and generating less greenhouse gases. This will do more to stop global warming than the moronic Kyoto Treaty which does nothing to curb green house gases.
The media of course doesn’t see any of this. TV reports about Bush’s India trip have been full of pictures of Islamic mobs burning Bush’s picture and screaming death to America. These mobs represent a minority in India and don’t reflect India’s population which is 80.5 percent Hindu according to the CIA World Fact Book found online at www.cia.gov. Unfortunately Americans watching the TV reports will get the simple minded message the media elite wants them to: they hate us over there because of Bush’s policy.
Imagine what would happen if on Bush’s next state trip to France the only pictures the media showed were leftists and Muslims burning American flags. That would make France look like a nation of anti-American bigots but since France is a “white” European nation the media likes, it would be presented in a positive light. Even though France probably has less than a tenth of the military power of India, France is presented as the ally we need while India is ignored.
Is this racism I don’t know? One thing is very clear; however, President Bush’s grasp of the global reality and the policies America needs to purse is far better than that of the media’s. Hopefully the voters and Congress will continue to see through the media deceptions and back our President’s sensible policy towards India.