Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. Matthew 6:33

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

We Couldn't Have Been More Right

Back on February 28, 2011, right in the middle of high-priced oil mania, this blog posted an article entitled "Remember the Peak Land Crisis?" in which we excoriated every type of self-proclaimed expert and their hysteria-prone followers for ignoring the enduring economic truths plain to see and predicted the eventual re-balancing of the oil market. We certainly did not see the correction coming in the form or at the time it did, as the losses in our own actively managed stock portfolios will attest, hat-tip to Nassim - another reason the individual entrepreneur cannot save us from Fed-induced debt bubbles, even if he is aware of economic truths.

Let's just say, we couldn't have been more right - even if we tried. Let this be a lesson that our faith should not be put in the media, self-proclaimed experts, mainstream, government-owned academia or even necessarily ourselves! - except as we strive in humility to understand the limits of our knowledge. Our faith belongs in God's providence and the morally-sustained market system, designed by God, too complex for human understanding.

The article reappears below:

Remember the Peak Land Crisis

(Or: Why the Crisis-mongers aren’t as smart as they think they are.)

As we await the imminent peak oil crisis (Never mind those new discoveries of oil in Kansas! - - and Brazil! - – and the fact that hydrocarbons are likely a renewable source of energy! -, it seems quite appropriate that we ought to recall our experience the last time we ceased finding more of some valuable input to the world’s economy. I want to talk about the Peak Land Crisis.

Sometime, oh, around 1492, the last major land discovery was made by Christopher Columbus.  Well, I am being a tad Eurocentric and sarcastic. Continuing with my Eurocentrism, Australia was discovered later on. I couldn’t find any information on Antarctica’s discovery. And for those of you who are really picky, advanced satellites around about the 1980s finally discovered every last small, ocean island.  Anyway, since that time, the world has had to suffice with what remains of all known land reserves. The advent of Peak Land was a tumultuous time: land prices skyrocketed to unheard of highs, mass starvation occurred everywhere, population growth permanently halted, and the marketplace was unable to shift to alternative terrain sources.

Except, we all know this is exactly NOT what happened. Land is still affordable – so affordable that during the Great Depression and even now it can be harder to find a job than it is to find land: The world’s population is today greater than it’s ever been.  And the marketplace successfully turned its attention towards making “known land reserves” yield more produce per acre. So why are we scared now?

The answer to that question is that there are groups with particular interests, such as the media, politicians, and environmentalists – I referred to them as “crisis-mongers” – who have discovered that they can parlay our fear into an increase in power for themselves. The media – considering the relative stability of modern life thanks to the advances of capitalism – have an interest in creating crises where there are none to attract viewers. (Hence the enormous coverage of, e.g., kidnapped children or shark attacks, even when the average incidence of such events on a year-by-year basis has decreased - )  Politicians need so-called “market-failures” to justify their infringement upon our economic freedom, but since the market cannot fail, we must be made to believe that it can. We are told that high oil prices now are a direct result of too much oil consumption in the past, i.e., the 1990s, the era of the gas-guzzler. We are told we should’ve begun our conservation of oil long ago, and that we are not moving away quickly enough from oil today. But this is where the media, the politicians, and the environmentalists among them, are exactly wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the market is extremely efficient at properly allocating resources throughout time.  Considering the fact that new oil deposits have been found (see above concerning Kansas, Brazil), the opposite, i.e., we consumed too little oil during the 1990s, may be true.  There were owners of oil reserves that did not produce oil in the 1990s, speculating that prices would rise in the future. Considering the recent downward pressure (whatever its extent) put on the price of oil due to new discoveries, at the margin, a few of those owners, i.e., the one’s speculating on the highest price rise, now wish that they had produced earlier. 

  As Economist Robert Murphy explains:

 “If oil traders really believe…that [for example] up to a million extra barrels will be hitting the market in a decade, then this will obviously reduce the expected world price of oil starting at that time. Consequently, any oil producers who had previously settled on a production rate with ‘excess capacity’ [now] — i.e., where they could have produced and sold more barrels today, but decided not to for reasons of profit — will re-evaluate their decision.”

Over at the Blog – which I highly recommend - they advise taking anything the government tells you and assuming the opposite is true.  Their theory is proven correct again.

Now there are those who may concede that what I have just said is true, but they will nonetheless question why we should let the market decide the proper rate of oil consumption in the first place. Most of you have probably really never thought about the market price system. It is one of the most miraculous creations of mankind. EVERYONE – you, me, Bill Gates, Mr. Obama, the homeless guy on the bench down the street – contributes to the creation of a price on the free market. Both our willingness to pay particular prices for particular goods and our abstention from payment and thus purchase, helps to determine the proper price for everything on Earth.  As Ludwig von Mises says, 

A price is expressive of the position which acting men attach to a thing under the present state of their efforts to remove uneasiness….In [the] collection of things considered valuable by the value judgments of acting men, each [thing]’s place is interrelated with those of all other [thing]s. What is called a price is always a relationship within an integrated system which is the composite effect of human relations.”

In the case of the oil market, the oil producers decide to sell a certain amount of oil, given their expectations about what price for oil EVERYONE else will be willing to pay (or not pay) in the future and what price EVERYONE else is willing to pay (or not pay) now.  EVERYONE else, in turn, seeing how much oil the producers are willing to sell, increase or decrease the price we are willing to pay now, if we deem that they are selling too much now or too little. This interaction goes back and forth, eventually determining the optimal amount of oil consumption.

So, who are you gonna trust? Everyone or some know-it-all environmentalist? Moreover, if the environmentalist crisis-mongers are actually correct in their assertion that too much oil was consumed during the 1990s, they should have bought up all the oil in excess of the amount they deemed appropriate for then current consumption, in order to sell it later at a profit. They either did not do this because, alas, they were as shortsighted as the rest of us, or they are actually wrong about the optimal rate of oil consumption, as determined via the price system by all people, and thus would not be turning a profit of late. If the first is the case, they are as guilty as everyone else. If the later is the case, their current disparagement of past oil consumption indicates merely a desire to substitute their own wishes for the wishes of all consumers everywhere – a dictatorial desire if ever there was one.

So, if we have been consuming the optimal amount of oil as determined by EVERYONE, are we consuming the right amount of oil now? Of course. As we have seen, the price system guaranteed that, given our then current knowledge about the amount of total oil reserves, the optimal amount of oil to consume was consumed. The same is true today. Prices are first now saying, “Hey guys, it’s time to start conserving!”  Now is the time to begin looking for ways to make our use of oil more efficient. High prices now do not mean we should have conserved in the past; they mean we should conserve now! The crisis-mongers have put the cart before the horse, so to speak. In their attempt to make up for our supposed lack of conservation in the past, the politicians now consider hindering the very mechanism that otherwise guarantees the proper rate of conservation, as determined by everyone: the price system.  

It would seem unnecessary to point out that there are things besides oil that need to be conserved at an optimal rate. Let us consider corn fields, for example. Prior to ethanol subsidies, there was a price for corn as determined by EVERYONE that guaranteed the optimal amount of land conservation. However, government has since stepped in with money taken coercively, i.e., taken from people who did not choose to purchase corn or ethanol, and through purchases of ethanol that – and this is the key - would not have otherwise taken place, they have upset this optimal rate of corn field conservation. In addition to the notable tortilla inflation that is starving poor folks in Mexico, the overuse of our cornfields (and the complimentary under use of our oil reserves) will come back to haunt us in other, unforeseen ways. The government’s attempt in this instance to make oil MORE available in the future than it otherwise would’ve been will actually hinder our move towards greater oil efficiency, as this decreases expected future oil prices.

Just as with the “Peak Land Crisis,” the best thing to do during the crisis of “Peak Oil” is to sit back, relax, continue to participate in the marketplace in the way you see fit, and ignore the pleadings of those who only think they are smarter than everyone else.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Strong Circumstantial Evidence Trump is Legitimately Outside the Establishment.

1. He does an Alex Jones interview:
2. The interview is arranged by this gentleman (as is immediately apparent from where I start the previous video), himself a friend of and interviewed by Lew Rockwell:
This is not the social circle of a typical Presidential candidate, unless we are talking of course about Ron Paul.
NB: Listen to the Rockwell-Stone interview, and then picture Stone so much friends with Trump he could get him to appear on Alex's show. Stunning.

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Why the Art of "Manliness" Blog is All Washed Up

Meme this.

A response to an Art of Manliness Blog series. Or, what we will now call Art of "Manliness" Blog.

The original, unaltered Art of "Manliness" chart. Better known as the pictorial embodiment of "feminism."

Some of the AoM article linked above is pure nonsense. Gender roles are not even partly "artificial." All creatures need something to aspire to or you end up with something boring and fetid like modern American society. Just because a man uses his mind to refine something such as his mannerisms to accentuate the masculinity, does not make it artificial. To the contrary, how unnatural it is to not think of doing such a thing! The proof is that people do this today anyway - except now they just accentuate their lesser traits rather than their stronger ones. Get out of Oklahoma - go to Austin and shop at a Whole Foods - look at the women that try to talk and walk like men - quite unnaturally!

Can't stop; won't stop.

How uni-dimensional to suggest that scarcity has been eliminated. Certain types of scarcity have diminished perhaps but that has been happening since the first day a human being existed on this planet. Because of the limited nature of man-qua-man - as opposed to some semi-delusional, presumptuous end of history paradigm that makes man out to be some-sort of God - there will always be scarcity. Scarcity like almost all concepts is not binary - yes it is, no it isn't. Scarcity is on a continuum like almost anything else. Using one feminist complaint to prove my point, when the modern vacuum cleaner replaced the "hard-work" of sweeping, 'patriarchal society' just increased its standards of cleanliness so that the same amount of work had to be done anyway and the 'housewife' made no 'progress.' Furthermore, the exact same situation might seem scarce to one man, and very abundant to another.

Just because we are on Tahiti now doesn't mean we can't continue to make Tahiti better than it is. Or that we don't want to see other parts of the world. And Tahiti is a pretty scarce place anyway if you are used to living in luxury in the beautiful snow of Aspen, or surrounded by the great works of architecture in a New York penthouse, or on vast tracts of cattle and natural gas-filled land like the King Ranch in Texas, or praying without stop the liturgy of the hours in a culturally all-consuming Catholic monastery. To the point, the modern 'pampered' life you suggest we have today is more scarce in more ways than at any point in history. And artificial too, in the true sense of artificial. Instead of finding ways to accentuate and enhance what nature gave us, we have more literally replaced our environment with less clean air, more polluted oceans and more questionable food.

Gotta stretch yourself, bro.

No, things have not changed at all. Some of us have only fooled ourselves into thinking that this is as good as it gets. And that everyone now deserves an equal cut of a size-constrained pie. But these are the myths that limit human development and always have been. Good luck.

I would like to thank Tony Robbins and Roger Miller for the inspiration to this post.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Your Country Can Be Beautiful Again

As I think about the social chaos being reinforced by the recent decision by a few people in the United States in robes to twist Western language and culture, my mind wanders for a place where I can begin to make a change. Somewhere I can start-over from a fundamental base. No matter what Satan throws in our path, we can choose what it means to us. Is the beginning of the end? Or is a last desperate gasp of a rotting culture?

Nowhere perhaps is this more true right now than in Ukraine. What is that fundamental base? It's all that's left when you have lost everything else. Many Ukrainians may be feeling that they have lost everything, their government, their economy, their peace, their livelihood, their security. These things may be true. But you have yourself. And you have your determination of what to make of the future. This is true of those even on the verge of death? What will you die for? What have you lived for? For yourself? Your country? Or something you can never lose, your God?

Is Russia invading? Pray that she will be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart. Is NATO invading? Pray for the rebirth of Catholicism in the West.

May your faith strengthen you. And as you think of the future, think of the conversion that war can bring. This is a chance for every Ukrainian to ask himself what do I want to live for? You realize how precious life can be, the less you have of it. May you choose God, may there be a rebirth of faith, and may you go on to build the most peaceful and prosperous country in Europe and the world. It is time to turn to the eternal source of all that is good. Rebuild Ukraine. But rebuild yourself, your family, your church first. And you will notice in no time that your peace and prosperity have returned.

Seek the Lord while he may be found,
call him while he is near.
Let the scoundrel forsake his way,
and the wicked man his thoughts;

Let him turn to the Lord for mercy;
to our God, who is generous in forgiving.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways,
says the Lord.

As high as the heavens are above the earth,
so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts.
For just as from the heavens the rain and snow come down
And do not return there till they have watered the earth making it fertile and fruitful,
Giving seed to him who sows and bread to him who eats,

So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
It shall not return to me void,
but shall do my will,
achieving the end for which I sent it,
says the Lord Almighty.


Between Jobs? No Health Insurance?

Apparently the authors of the bill actually through at least one item ahead of time...

Please see for confirmation of the following quote:
  • The exemptions for individuals who lacked access to affordable coverage, had a short coverage gap, experienced certain hardships, had income below their filing threshold, or who were not lawfully present in the United States may be claimed only as part of filing a federal income tax return.
You will claim or report coverage exemptions on Form 8965, Health Coverage Exemptions, and file it with your Form 1040, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ. These forms can all be prepared and filed electronically.
See question 25 for more information on Form 8965.
22. What qualifies as a short coverage gap?
In general, a gap in coverage that lasts less than three months qualifies as a short coverage gap. If an individual has more than one short coverage gap during a year, the short coverage gap exemption only applies to the first gap.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Third Coast L.A.

                It still astonishes me that I could have grown up so near to the Rio Grande Valley, but that I would have to move further away, spending four years in Austin, three months in D.C., and one month in LA to actually fully appreciate what was so near for so long and yet under-appreciated.
I am always told, both by people in a position to actually know and those who parrot the supposedly better informed, that LA, Austin and DC are the places to be, and the Valley is next to nothing.  Yet, given the choice of where to locate for the long term, I’d pick the valley.  If you know me, you already know why I think DC is next to nothing.  LA is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there:  Too many “liberals,” not enough guns.  Like so WAY totally superficial.  Pretty buildings, pretty faces, empty minds and hearts.  (Nowhere is perfect; there are still reasons to like it:,9171,903069,00.html?iid=chix-del )

Austin, despite being the California-liberal enclave of Texas, is the best of the three in terms of actual substance, but it lacks some of the other things LA has: the palm trees, the citrus groves, the beach, the fertile soil, frost-free temperatures, and it’s somewhat further from Mexico.  And it doesn’t really have that relish for life that you see in places where you can stick virtually anything in the ground and it’ll grow.  Because we’re on the wrong side of the US (western sides of continents tend to possess milder climates), there’s really only one place in Texas that falls in this category, the Rio Grande Valley.

Besides, LA and DC make great terrorist targets.  The world will end before anyone decides to avenge Abu Ghraib in McAllen.  (Where?)

Despite its relative lack of notoriety, the Valley’s combined current population actually surpasses that of Austin.  It doesn’t have Sixth Street, but it does have South Padre.  And it, along with our great state ( ), continues to grow at an astounding rate ( ).

Unlike LA, it seems the Valley’s culminating era lies in the future, which means it is a place yet to be made.  This can be inspiring to those who do not like to take what they are given but prefer to forge their own way.  LA has in the past been called, “100 communities in search of a city.”  That’s not as true for LA today as it is for the Valley, with no defining major center of population.  There’s McAllen and Brownsville, roughly of equal size, and a number of 50,000ish and 25,000ish (in terms of pop.) cities, but they are so regularly dispersed as to make one wonder whether they should each be taken as their own city or considered as a whole.   I have a feeling, though, that one day this valley too will find its city.

Spanish is far more commonly spoken in the Valley than in the other cities of comparison.  This I prefer, as I am attempted to teach myself the language.  This proximity to Mexico, in terms of culture, language, and geography, is ideal from my point of view, because I think that America’s is not the future to be betting on.  Demographics are often destiny, and on this count Mexico defeats the stale-liberal-interventionist cultural tendencies of the United States hands down.  If things get bad here and Texas doesn’t wise up, I want an out, even if it’s just a chance to run straight to a Mexican airport and take the next flight to Chile ( ).

The RGV can certainly speak for itself, as the following pictures making comparisons to Cali can attest, so I won’t let my comments run on.  But when I recall the little and negative (poverty, drugs, “Mexico” - like those are all inherently bad things) attention the Valley usually gets, I am often reminded of a phenomenon familiar to all those younger people told that “if they want to get anywhere in life, they have to stay in school.”  Sometimes I feel like this is repeated more often to children who attend school than any real knowledge.  If school really is so great, it would be self-evident, children would want to be there, and you wouldn’t have to be constantly threatening them with utter-ruin to keep them there.  The fact that kids must constantly be told how great school is and how terrible the alternatives are points to the school system’s utter and apparent bankruptcy.  So it is to a certain extent with America’s great cities, that came to prominence in a long-past era of laissez-faire.  DC, LA, et al, to a great extent live off their reputations; they are mere shells of their former selves, weighed down by the stagnation of excessive unliberal and unprogressive policies.  If you’re looking for the future in the U.S., I’d look elsewhere.  To ignore one of the fastest growing, economically dynamic areas in our country because it doesn’t fit the typical modern American mold is utter fallacy.  And like the world’s future considered at large, it will look a lot less American than you suspect.

LA on the left; RVG on the right.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Why does God permit Evil?

This is, of course, a difficult question, but I do think there are a few answers to which we can avail ourselves.  We are told in Genesis that God has made man in his own image and likeness, that in a very real sense we are, though certainly not fully, equal to God in certain respects (that may sound a little blasphemous, but it certainly is not meant as such), or we are, at least, proto-divine beings.  If this is true and if this is what God desired to bring into existence, it would make little sense for him to have created us as little robots, perfectly fixed to always do as God intends.  Indeed, if we are to approach or to approximate a divine nature in away, it seems humanity would have to be given some leeway regarding what it can and cannot do.  If we consider this aspect of humanity from God's perspective, we can see that it would be of very little ultimate value (speaking loosely) to a God that enjoys morality, not only for morality's sake, but because it is indeed superior to immorality, to create beings fixed perfectly as moral, as they, due to their limited nature, would have no concept of the bad.  Such beings so fixed would live in a world of perfect goodness, but would never be able to conceive of it as such, only seeing that world as what is and must be.  Thus, these beings would be seriously deficient to a God intending to create beings in his own image and likeness; for they would never understand the concept of morality in the same way as their own God.  The key to morality, then, is choice; for without choice, there is only what is and never what ought to be; and choice necessarily entails the ability to choose wrongly.

Thus, if we have justified the existence of evil in our world, as I believe we have, we now have to consider our relationship as individuals to that evil.  

My question…asks about those instances in which we do succumb to sin. In those instances, did God know you would falter?”

Because of what I see as the unconquerable continuity in existence, briefly, that all actions have an equal and opposite reaction and that the entire universe, from the moment that God set it in motion, is merely the culmination of all of the various and sundry reactions to that original action, and seeing that there exists a scientific regularity dictating how such reactions take place, it seems impossible, if we accept that God is truly omniscient, to say that he would not have known you would falter.

“If so, why would he put these obstacles in front of you?”

I think the answer to this question is found chiefly in the first paragraph above.  It is important to consider, I think, that God did not desire to put obstacles in front of you as much as he wanted to give you a free will and choice, which necessarily entailed such obstacles.

Thus, if He controls everything, and knows the future.. how can he send a person to hell, when all the sins he committed were a result of God placing before him "tests" which (in all-knowing fashion) He knew that person would fail?”

This is the most difficult question asked so far.  I think part of the answer to this question lies in the unsatisfactory notion of someone being “sent” to Hell, and the commonly used imagery that depicts an angry God actively pursuing the evildoers in this way.  While I will not claim that there is no basis in reality that justifies the use of this imagery, I will say that it ought to be tempered with the theological discussions of Hell, that depict Hell less as an active, desired punishment from God and more as the necessary result of our own choices.  How can God justify any kind of punishment for a creature whose actions were determined long before that creature came into existence?  I’m not sure if ‘punishment’ is an accurate term for our discussion, as it relates to a situation in which an outside force intervenes to attempt, by providing a negative feedback, to modify our behavior.  Again, I don’t think God, if we conceive of him as recognizing the dignity of humanity, created in his image and likeness, would be much into behavior modification.  He is, if we allow that his goal is to give us the ability to choose good and that this better than merely being good and entails necessarily bad choices, forced to take a more hands-off approach.  And thus, the warnings from God about being “sent” to Hell are more an attempt to fully inform us about the necessary consequences of our actions than to actively punish us in order to demand a change in our behavior.

I think, then, if we think of God in this way, not as attempting to punish those whom he knew could do no better, but merely attempting to fully inform us as to the consequences of our actions, we can see that there remains a dignity for even the person that chooses wrong, as his choice is respected in this manner.

I concede I have not really answered your question, but only tried to reframe it.  It remains to be explained how God can justify consequences for actions it seems one had no ultimate control over.

Briefly, while I think that our actions are indeed determined, this does not negate for us the reality of choice.  And thus, our choices remaining valid, the justice of the consequences of our actions is not undone.  If you find the discussion in this note in any way unfulfilling, if any questions remain, do voice them, as I think this issue is of the utmost importance and would like to be made aware of the deficiencies in my own understanding of it.

But, again, as you say, God knew what you would choose and yet created you; so I have not really addressed the idea that it may, in this sense, be said that God is responsible for your actions more than yourself. Or, at least, 

I think this notion that because God has created you, and knew exactly what you would do, we are somehow deprived of all responsibility for our actions is a little fallacious.  As you indicated, you did not desire to do away with a notion of personal responsibility, but

We could say,  then that in a way Hell exists not so much for those who are "punished" but to save those who are not. ("Punishments remain, even in the case of determinism, an effective determent to crimes.")

Though, it is important to recall that Hell is not so much a punishment, as something that naturally follows from our actions.

It is thus the same in any situation: I must balance the value of doing something [bad] now, with the disvalue of the lack of something later (i.e.suffering separtion from God ever after, after death). Since we are not objective (which is to say, I think necessarily, omniscient beings), our subjective evaluations of this proposition will differ from the objective (God's) view. If we were objective beings like God, and knew exactly the pain that Hell entails, we would choose good all the time, because we would know definitively that this is the optimal choice. But, alas, we are not God, and the nature of our condition allows us choice...

exactly because we are not perfectly aware of the full effects of our choice and God ultimately respects that choice and the dignity and sovereignty it entails, even though he endeavors greatly to make it clear (most notably through the sacrifice of his own son) that we remain free to change our minds at any time and accept him fully and that this is, our human notions aside, indeed the optimal choice.

The question may arise as to why God did not create us as omniscient beings; but omniscience, it seems to me, requires omnipresence, and thus omnipotence. In other words, God would have had to create us exactly as He is Himself. I do not think this is something God could've done. That's not so say God is not all powerful, but that there is no power that can undo the nature of existence, i.e., what is. When God was asked for his name by Moses, God said that his name is "I am that I am." ( ). I do not think that we, as we are (i.e., created beings), could ever be what is, without having been along with God from the beginning and thus we would've been God himself, and thus have no need of a "creation," for we ourselves would be the creator.

So, there are certain restrictions, I think, that not even God can overcome as they are an inherent aspect of what it means to be God in the first place.

Thus, seeing that we are not God, and thus necessarily not omniscient, but we are at the same time not like, e.g., rocks, totally without consciousness, we find ourselves in a grey area of partial knowledge and self-awareness, which entails the ability to choose, as outlined above.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Dear Leader

I will start by saying that I took no part in trying to get you elected. In fact, I did everything within my power to see that you didn’t succeed. Throughout this election I chose to stand with a principled man, a man who truly wants freedom for the individual, not for the government. I chose to write-in Dr. Ron Paul as my choice for president. Before you claim that I have wasted my vote because the man will not win, let me say that I agree with part of that statement. As much as I wish it weren’t the case, he will not win, but my moral compass will not allow me to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that is what I believe you to be. To understand why I feel this way, it doesn’t take much effort on your part. I’d like to introduce you to two men I’ve gotten to know quite well over the last five years, pre-election Obama and post-election Obama. Pre-election Obama promised me hope and change and post-election Obama left me hoping  he’d stop changing  his mind. Pre-election Obama promised me transparency; he promised that the public would have five days to review a bill online before it was passed. Indeed, it was Nancy Pelosi herself who said we had to pass Obamacare so we could know what was in it. Pre-election Obama promised me that all of our troops would be out of Iraq within 16 months. Post-election Obama changed his mind and sided with former president Bush by keeping the same timeline for withdrawal that Bush had put in place. Now it was not just pre-election Obama and post-election Obama who had their differences. Post-election Obama promised to veto the atrocious piece of legislation known as the NDAA, only to sign it in to law and continue the destruction of our civil liberties. While I could continue on infinitely, it would seem as you are probably fabricating some lie to someone somewhere as I type this, I will not. I am tired of having my freedoms destroyed by liars. You promised you’d be different than former president Bush, I hope this time around you will fulfill that promise. I hope you work to repeal the NDAA and the patriot act. I hope you bring more of our troops home. I hope you focus on cutting our debt instead of adding trillions more to it. I have zero faith that any of these things will get done, but I really do HOPE this time around you do CHANGE.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Next Stage in Human Devolution is Here

President Obama vows to continue his policies in a second term.
In the spirit of a bygone era, Obama announced to a crowd of early voters, "We choose to go to Hell! We choose to go to Hell... [interrupted by applause] we choose to go to Hell in this decade and ignore the other things, not because they are difficult, but because Dancing With Stars will be on in a few minutes..."

Upon hearing a recording of the President's speech on her government provided smart phone, the Obama-phone creature did not react.

The president vowed to continue and build upon the policies of his first term which will promote a culture of infertility and sleaze, greater budget deficits, higher taxes, more attacks on the rights of the people to defend themselves, greater dependency on federal welfare programs and the dismantling of the rule of law.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Conspiracy Theories Handed Down From Our Pontiffs

Before Alex Jones, before the masonic takeover of Mexico, before the devolution of the Catholic Church during and after Vatican II, there was a pope that predicted it all:

By Blessed Pope Pius IX in Etsi Multa, November, 1873:

Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.

"Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again."

Does the Holy Father seem to indicate, as Alex Jones et al does, that these conspiring actors trace their foundations even back to times before Christ? Does "our predecessors" here refer to the chosen race of God, the Jews, of whom the Catholic Church is merely the fullest culmination and most recent iteration in God's plan?

If you do not believe the Pontiff could be correct in his assertions, please watch.