The Thomas Chronicles

I’ve been fairly active in commenting on one of my favorite blogs lately, and since my comments tend to be long and essay-ish, I thought I’d re-publish a recent comment here.

Bookworm wrote the following about our current crop of Democratic Presidential candidates:

…

Listening to these vapid platitudes, it occurred to me that I could do better — or come up with something at least as good as what’s currently emanating from the Dems. You too should feel free to join in:

“Now more than ever!”

“Peace through harmony!”

“Prosperity through wealth!”

And as you think about those slogans, take a minute to read this Spiegel article proposing a Clinton-Obama ticket for ‘08. The author thinks it would be a fantastic ticket, not because of any harmony of ideas or style, but because it would neatly tag all identity politic demographics. It envisions the perfect election cycle for Democrats, where they don’t have to address the issues at all — they can just stand there and be. (What’s really scary is I heard precisely this idea voiced with great approval at my bus stop a couple of months ago. The neighborhood consensus was that this was a ticket they could go for.)

I responded with the following:

I think you’ve hit flush on when you said that with an Hillary-Obama ticket, the Democrats can just be. It doesn’t have anything to do with actually getting anything accomplished. Like the Democratic presidential predecessor, Senator John F. Kerry, being President was more important than doing anything as President.

I think the 2004 election was a major demarcation in American politics. For the first time in our history, nothing of substance was being proposed. Before 2004, a man ran for President because he had the conviction that he could run the nation better than his opponent. He wanted to do things, he had an idea of where he wanted to take the nation. I challenge readers of this blog to come up with one thing Kerry wanted to do as president.

In similar fashion, besides raising taxes and subsuming the American Republic into international oversight, what particular are they proposing? Change? I have not one doubt that an Hillary-Obama ticket would be formidable to the extreme, one might be tempted to say unbeatable; however, the reason why that ticket seems unbeatable is what’s disturbing, even if true.

All this makes one very anxious about our prospects for the future. And rightly so. But with this said, people also said the same thing of FDR. In his day, men accused FDR of being a lightweight as well. They said he was a affluent playboy who spouted all these empty platitudes and that his ideas are as virulent to America as the Nazi’s were to Germany. Indeed, Hitler and FDR rose to power at nearly the same time and the press were drawing parallels between them all the time.

There is no doubt that FDR’s liberalism tended to have fascistic undertones— in the descriptive classic use of the term as Goldberg pointed out— but you couldn’t accuse him of being a lightweight. He was a juggernaut that rolled over his opposition, and to my recollection he was defeated only a few times, the most salient of which was when he tried to stack the Supreme Court. When he tried to do that, the gray eminence of the Democratic Party in the Senate stood up in debate and called him, “Dictator!” And that pretty much nipped that.

I don’t know if Obama’s empty platitudes and shameless vote gathering is another repeat of FDR, and I personally don’t want to find out– just as I don’t want to find out if Hillary really meant what she said when she spoke of putting a 1984-esque TV out on public streets and town squares in her book…

I think we’re in a strange place in time. There is no doubt that we are in a period of change. But the circumstances of an American revival and renaissance would look exactly like a decline of our Republic into Democracy then authoritarian rule.

These shifts in people and government are not neat tidy events. We all know we have traitors in our midsts, Democratic and Republican, and we have stalwart bastions of patriotism in our midsts as well, Democratic and Republican. Who is who and what is what is for God to decide at this point because I don’t think we can know from the outside appearances.

This election, I’m just going to vote my conscience like I usually do and hope that America’s days of glory are still before her.

I’ve recently become the proud owner of a new Mac computer. In many ways, I think that Macs are superior to PC’s in performance and stability. However, there is a misconception I keep hearing from Mac owners and Mac salesmen at the local Fry’s. And that is that Macs don’t get computer viruses.

I can understand Mac owners who don’t specialize in computer technology updates, but Mac salesmen?

When Apple made the decision to switch the processing chip to Intel, the opened the doorway to viruses. It solved a whole slew of compatibility issues with Microsoft, but it also opened new vulnerabilities to viruses and maleware.

With Apple fans focused on the buzz surrounding Macworld this week, news of vulnerabilities and attacks that could wreak havoc on Apple users may be falling on distracted ears.

Security researchers are reporting two issues that Apple users need to hear about. The first is a Microsoft Relevant Products/Services security Relevant Products/Services advisory warning of a vulnerability in several versions of Microsoft Office Excel. This affects both Windows and Mac OS users. The second is a scareware program targeting Mac users.

You can read the rest here.

Don’t get me wrong. I love my new Mac, and I think they still have tighter and security than Windows PC’s, which seems to be like a permeable membrane for viruses and other malicious programs, and their operating system runs more smoothly. But Macs are definitely not invulnerable to cyber attacks like so many Mac lovers say.

Many media outlets, including the Drudge Report (the link not the headline), has characterized Mitt Romney’s exchange with AP reporter, Glen Johnson, as a moment where Romney lost his cool. Mr. Johnson challenged him on his statement that he didn’t have lobbyists running his campaign and, in effect and in fact, called him a liar to his face.

Even at this Romney, in my estimate reacted with the trained smoothness of a well-adapted politician. What was unfair about the media’s characterization is that Romney got irritated when this “reporter” interrupted his response to ask another question, then interrupted his response again when he tried to answer.

This is not the behavior of a reporter. This is the behavior of an Inquisitor. The curious thing about it is how there are videos up titled, “Don’t question Mitt”.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s the video.

I’d be pretty irritated myself. And I wouldn’t be the only one.

There was a woman (I can’t tell who was speaking exactly.) at the end of the video who said, presumably addressing Glen Johnson, “I’m not with the campaign… and I think you’re rude and ugly.”

Where I grew up on the north side of Houston in the burbs there was a national cemetery just across the street outside my subdivision. The area was mostly quiet until the advent of the freeway, Beltway 8. The cemetery was flank on either side by a couple of cattle farms, and on the rarest of moments we’d hear the bell toll from the central building at the heart of the cemetery.

I remember being about, I don’t know, nine or ten years old and I thought to myself how quiet that cemetery was. It wasn’t like normal cemeteries where there were occasional caravan of cars and motorcycled cops for escorts. That rarely ever happened.

It wasn’t until years later in high school when I moved away that I realized that it was a national cemetery for military veterans and government officials. Indeed, the road is named “Veterans Memorial”.

Surrounding the perimeter of the cemetery was a black iron fence, and the nearest grave for the longest time was not visible from the road. Those cattle farms were long gone for years now, replaced by mini-malls and shopping centers, washeterias and apartment complexes. But the cemetery was still there, like a constant perennial land marker for that side of town.

When I visited this past December, I drove on that same road on my way to see my parents, and it was different. It took me a moment recognize what I was seeing because it was like watching images of the graves set in Normandy. There were over a hundred white markers, tombstones, of newly dug graves lined in neat columns and rows, and they ran all the way up to that black iron fence.

Military men and women back from the war.

Our casualties. Our soldiers.

I felt immeasurably sad and proud. We are so blessed to have such protectors and warriors. They were Texans and it figured that they were overrepresented in our military, but I couldn’t help but wonder if I knew someone now lying there…

Some people are laughing loud about this, but I’m not.

NEW YORK (CBS) ― There’s a new first for the city that has everything. You’ll find it in New York City’s Madison Square Park. Think of it as a new business for people who need to do their business.

The city on Thursday unveiled its first automatic pay toilet. City big-wigs seem to think it’s a great idea.

“This is a truly historic occasion,” one said.

Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff said the city is just supplying a service to residents who asked for it. That’s right. They apparently asked for it.

“People have been clamoring for it for a long time. They absolutely have,” Doctoroff said.

When asked if he actually heard citizens clamor, Doctoroff said, “I not only have … I’ve read them.”

The “Pay-Per-Potty” — as some cleverly call it — is purported to be automatically self cleaning. It even does the floors and is touted as more sanitary than regular public toilets.

I was completely bewildered while visiting London in the summer of 1999. Thanks to Tony Blair and their Labour Party elitists, they implemented a pay restroom in many, if not all, the public johns in London. You couldn’t use it unless you had a Pound or 50 p or something around there. I thought it outrageous at the time and I still do. Needless to say, I was very happy to travel over to Dublin, Ireland to escape this mini-tyranny of taxation.

And now, the tyranny is trickling down the Atlantic to our shores. No surprise there.

I’ve noted for a long time that our elites are trying to remake the United States in image of Britain. They allow mass immigration into the British Isles from the Mideast to break the Tory conservatives, and they’ve been scattered and in disarray ever since Maggie Thatcher left. They destroyed all the institutions that held for centuries, the House of Lords for instance and countless other institutions, leaving no British tradition unturned and de-constructed.

This measure in New York, small as it is, if it is implemented on a wide scale, will have the same result as London. It will discourage travel and leave traveling to our professional class and the wealthy. Like I said, this is a small measure, but how many small measures does it take to accrue into a large measure?

If the new Britain is the model for a new America, then this latest outrage shouldn’t come as a surprise. This new America our elites are trying to fashion is done incrementally. The best of all scenarios for our elites is if they hedge us into a position where we will not only allow the changes they want, we the people will demand it.

This all might be much ado about nothing. They’re silly toilets after all, not tanks. However, that’s precisely the incremental change I’m discussing. How far can our elites go without enraging the American public?

Will we get angry over toilets? Nope.

Will we get angry over subjective property tax increases through appraisals? Nope.

How about taking crosses down from government buildings? Nope.

How about encouraging mass migrations of illegal immigrants? Um… nope.

How about a treaty ceding our technological patents? Um… nope.

How about letting foreign countries run our ports (i.e. China)? Uh… nope.

How about raising the price of energy through environmental measures? Naw.

Okay, how about raising the price of food because farmers grow energy rather than food? …. I dunno.

The question, is what is that invisible line in the sand when enough is enough? Any one of these things by itself doesn’t warrant total outrage.

The game of our elites, Democrats and Republicans, is to bring us right up to the line without pushing us over. Give us time, get used to the idea. Then push us again to the line (now further down). Then give us time to get used to the idea. Etc. etc. etc. It’s called the “silent march through the institutions.”

Then just like Britain, years go by and suddenly we lost our sovereignty and not even notice it. Like Britain, we’d still insist that we are the United States of America, even though in reality we’ve become another province in a larger entity… like Britain is to the European Union.

I think for the moment, this is the direction of our country. But we can still change course. Our fate don’t have to be that of what was formerly known as Britain.

Either God will grant us His revival or we go under, and I’m not talking about our physical welfare. I am talking about what embodies us as a nation, our spirit, our character. I think we can choose to remain ourselves, or we can morph into another limb of a global creature.

For myself, I want to live and remain in freedom, and for my two cents, I think the American people agree with me.

This may be old news to some, but it’s new news to me.

The Amero.

The name itself conjures up images of smoke filled rooms and swirling international conspiracies, but if you haven’t heard of it, have no fear. I suspect it will be the talk of the town fairly soon if events propel it into the spotlight.

If you think I’ve been drinking too much Kool-Aid or that Liberal/ Leftists Hollywoodland has finally gotten to me, what say you to these videos.

And if you think this is something that went behind President Bush’s back without his authorization, some think he’s one of the progenitors of the whole idea. There is pretty strong evidence pointing in that direction, and it rides on the say-so of another progenitor of the idea— former Mexican President Vicente Fox.

Jerome R. Corsi at WorldNetDaily has more interesting commentary on this.

He wrote back in October:

Last week, WND reported BankIntroductions.com, a Canadian company that specializes in global banking strategies and currency consulting, is advising clients the amero may be the currency of North America within 10 years.

Coin designer Daniel Carr has issued for sale a series of private-issue fantasy pattern amero coins that have drawn attention on the Internet.

WND also reported the African Union is moving down the path of regional economic integration, with the African Central Bank planning to create the “Gold Mandela” as a single African continental currency by 2010.

The Council on Foreign Relations has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies.

In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled “The End of National Currency,” CFR economist Benn Steil asserts the dollar is a temporary currency.

Steil concluded “countries should abandon monetary nationalism,” moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global “one world currency.”

WND previously reported Steve Previs, a vice president at Jeffries International Ltd. in London, said the amero “is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.”

The world seems to be sliding very rapidly into a one world government, a feat that many people would have thought impossible just a few years ago. Now, it seems not only possible; it seems virtually inevitable. Being a Christian, I know it must go there in the fulfillment of prophecy.

And so, here we are…

I’ll have more on this later. Much, much more.

… I have not the foggiest.

I watched all the machinations of both parties during the New Hampshire primaries and thought to myself, “It can go either way. It’s all so darn fluid.”

Here are some speculations:

1. What if there isn’t a clear front runner on either side all the way up to the party conventions?

Huckabee won Iowa. McCain won New Hampshire. Thompson or Romney wins South Carolina… What if the Republican candidates can’t win two states in a row, and the winners keep alternating? What then? A three or four-way run at the convention?

Then on the Democratic side. What if the Democrats have the same thing happen as well. Obama in Iowa. Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Edwards in South Carolina….

People are so quick to rule out Edwards, but I don’t think they should. His populist platform could draw plenty of voters in the Midwest and the heartland around states like Missouri and Minnesota. Furthermore, I believe him when he said that he would run with the ball all the way to the endzone.

Now for a bit of a commentary on Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire.

Holy macro. That’s what I’ve got to say about that.

Tons and barrels of talking heads and pollsters said that Hillary won because of her weepy moment at a diner. That was the precise moment when the voters who shifted to Obama shifted back to Hillary, and to my eyes, this shifting ping-pong back and forth just speaks to the wild swinging variables this time around. Most if not all the truisms of elections no longer attend.

The talking heads said that her weepiness evinced to the American people that the “Ice Princess” is human after all. Commentators, one after another, said her “human moment” catapulted her to the win.

Without even realizing it, they’ve betrayed a pretty damning opinion of Hillary Clinton, one that should exclude her from the Oval Office right off the top. Implicit in their analysis and glowing praise of her win is that she is inhuman 99.9% of the time. I read in a Newsweek article not long ago how Hillary absolutely detests emotion. Apparently, there is a part of her that is completely walled off from human emotions.

She doesn’t trust them. She trusts only logic.

I.e. She doesn’t want to be human. She prefers to be the inhuman Dr. Spock rather than the all too human James T. Kirk.

This, I suppose, is one of the reasons for her inappropriate cackling laughter at inappropriate times— why her bulging wide-eyed effusion of “thank yous” and “I love you” comes off flat, fabricated. It has the flavor of someone putting on a show, as though an out-of-this-world alien trying to fit in with the general human populace by doing things he thinks is human.

With all this said, unlike Sean Hannity and others, I think that weeping moment was entirely genuine. She couldn’t be more sincere.

Look at what she was weeping about. She was weeping about herself.

She felt that her entitlement to the White House was slipping away, and when you actually listen to what she was saying and block out her choked voice, she basically said she was the apex of Western Civilization and that she was bewildered why she was losing her audience.

Do the Democrats really want her sitting in the White House?

When Muskie cried in New Hampshire, it effectively ended his run for President. People thought he’d be too weak. I think this should apply especially to Hillary since her entire campaign, her slogan is her readiness to be President on day one.

If she can’t take it on the campaign trail and has a weepy breakdown, can you image her confronting Putin and Ahmadinejad? What if she starts breaking down when these people fail to see recognize the splendor of her being? Will she break down then? Good grief.

If her weeping makes people, especially single women, vote for her, we might see much more of that in the future. I’m afraid she’s found the most effective vector to showcase her emotions.

Can you take the softer, gentler, more feminine (?) side of Hillary Clinton gushing into the public limelight?

I can’t hardly wait.