THE GOLDWATER DOCTRINE
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Barry Goldwater, "The Conscience of a Conservative"
Would that the current President entered his office with a similar attitude.
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
So You Want to Adopt a Baby?
Well, he/she won't be black unless you are.
I live a mite south of Los Angeles, but close enough that I hear about all the nonsense that happens up there, and see that part of it that spills over to OC. This adoption business has been around for a while, but it just came back into focus after a report of CBS' 60 Minutes recently.
I didn't see the program in question; I never watch any newsy-type stuff on the major networks any more because of their biases--and the fact that they won't admit to having them. In this case, I'm going by what Elder, who spoke to the issue on his radio show the other day, said. I trust Elder. His biases are closer to my own, and he's fully open about them.
Elder quoted individuals connected with the Black Social Workers' Association. Before I go any farther with that--Black Social Workers' Association?!? What's that all about? Is there also a White Social Workers' Association? An Asian Social Workers' Association? I doubt it. Yet more evidence that Bigotry has moved over to Black Street.
Seems the BSWA has declares that black children cannot be adopted by non-black families. Something they call "Cultural Genocide." Can we attempt to define "Cultural Genocide?" Is it that a black child who grows up in a white household won't be a good baxabaw player? Won't have rhythm? Will have a better chance to finish college with honors? What is it that the BSWA is trying to preserve by requiring that black children be adopted only by black families?
If there were thousands of black couples waiting patiently to adopt these black children, it wouldn't be so bad (although it'd still be racist). There aren't. There are thousands of orphaned black kids languishing in foster homes and other sorts of childrens' prisons all over Los Angeles (not to mention the rest of the country). There are thousands of non-black couples and families who wish to adopt a youngster and add him to their family. Many aren't particular about the youngster's race. Many are adopting foreign-born Asian kids because there aren't enough non-black American kids to fulfill the desires of the many couples wishing to adopt.
Because of the efforts of the racist BSWA, most orphaned black kids can't get adopted. There aren't enough black couples who want to/are qualified. BSWA seems to have taken the position that it's better that black children stay in state care and not be allowed to join caring families if both of the parents aren't black.
If anyone has any ideas why this is the case (other than black racism, which I've already mentioned) I stand prepared to be enlightened.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Well, he/she won't be black unless you are.
I live a mite south of Los Angeles, but close enough that I hear about all the nonsense that happens up there, and see that part of it that spills over to OC. This adoption business has been around for a while, but it just came back into focus after a report of CBS' 60 Minutes recently.
I didn't see the program in question; I never watch any newsy-type stuff on the major networks any more because of their biases--and the fact that they won't admit to having them. In this case, I'm going by what Elder, who spoke to the issue on his radio show the other day, said. I trust Elder. His biases are closer to my own, and he's fully open about them.
Elder quoted individuals connected with the Black Social Workers' Association. Before I go any farther with that--Black Social Workers' Association?!? What's that all about? Is there also a White Social Workers' Association? An Asian Social Workers' Association? I doubt it. Yet more evidence that Bigotry has moved over to Black Street.
Seems the BSWA has declares that black children cannot be adopted by non-black families. Something they call "Cultural Genocide." Can we attempt to define "Cultural Genocide?" Is it that a black child who grows up in a white household won't be a good baxabaw player? Won't have rhythm? Will have a better chance to finish college with honors? What is it that the BSWA is trying to preserve by requiring that black children be adopted only by black families?
If there were thousands of black couples waiting patiently to adopt these black children, it wouldn't be so bad (although it'd still be racist). There aren't. There are thousands of orphaned black kids languishing in foster homes and other sorts of childrens' prisons all over Los Angeles (not to mention the rest of the country). There are thousands of non-black couples and families who wish to adopt a youngster and add him to their family. Many aren't particular about the youngster's race. Many are adopting foreign-born Asian kids because there aren't enough non-black American kids to fulfill the desires of the many couples wishing to adopt.
Because of the efforts of the racist BSWA, most orphaned black kids can't get adopted. There aren't enough black couples who want to/are qualified. BSWA seems to have taken the position that it's better that black children stay in state care and not be allowed to join caring families if both of the parents aren't black.
If anyone has any ideas why this is the case (other than black racism, which I've already mentioned) I stand prepared to be enlightened.
Warmest regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Letter to ACLU
February 13, 2005
ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Ms. Nadine Strossen
Dear Ms. Strossen:
While I appreciate the ACLU and realize that such an organization--and perhaps several like organizations--are needed to stand up against the police state that's being constructed by the Federal government, I find that ACLU, as it is currently functioning, to be an utter failure. Rather than attack assaults on fundamental rights, such as one's right to use and dispose of one's life, money and property as one sees fit, privacy in one's business and other affairs and effects, and one's right to defend them, ACLU defends triviality.
ACLU has done a very good job defending the right to free speech and expression of various deviant groups--and I agree that the right to free speech is very important--but what ACLU misses is that there are TEN Amendments to the Constitution in the document we wistfully recall as the Bill of Rights.
When ACLU shows that they are aware of all ten Amendments, and begins to defend innocent individuals against the government in cases of victimless "crimes," property confiscations and invasions of privacy, not to mention right to bear arms cases, then I can't, in good conscience send a donation that'll only go to waste on relatively meaningless lawsuits.
Since I find organizations like ACLU and IJ theoretically valuable, I hope fervently that you'll pick your battles with a little more attention to rights that have more fundamental meaning to larger numbers of Americans.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
[Col. Hogan]
February 13, 2005
ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Ms. Nadine Strossen
Dear Ms. Strossen:
While I appreciate the ACLU and realize that such an organization--and perhaps several like organizations--are needed to stand up against the police state that's being constructed by the Federal government, I find that ACLU, as it is currently functioning, to be an utter failure. Rather than attack assaults on fundamental rights, such as one's right to use and dispose of one's life, money and property as one sees fit, privacy in one's business and other affairs and effects, and one's right to defend them, ACLU defends triviality.
ACLU has done a very good job defending the right to free speech and expression of various deviant groups--and I agree that the right to free speech is very important--but what ACLU misses is that there are TEN Amendments to the Constitution in the document we wistfully recall as the Bill of Rights.
When ACLU shows that they are aware of all ten Amendments, and begins to defend innocent individuals against the government in cases of victimless "crimes," property confiscations and invasions of privacy, not to mention right to bear arms cases, then I can't, in good conscience send a donation that'll only go to waste on relatively meaningless lawsuits.
Since I find organizations like ACLU and IJ theoretically valuable, I hope fervently that you'll pick your battles with a little more attention to rights that have more fundamental meaning to larger numbers of Americans.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
[Col. Hogan]
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Global Warming
There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, mankind didn't cause it.
If there is global warming, mankind can't do anything about it.
If there is global warming, it's part of a natural, probably cyclical phenomenon which takes place over millennia. We don't yet know, because we haven't had the technology capable of sufficiently accuracy for a long enough time to actually track these trends (if any). At some point in the future, perhaps we'll see the pendulum swing back to a cooler climate. Or not.
The handiest proof is easy enough to find. Crazed environmentalists would have us sift through volumes and volumes of data, alledgedly proving all manner of calamities just around the corner. Warmer weather. Melting polar icecaps raising the level of the oceans, causing widespread catastrophic flooding of coastal cities and surfing beaches. Extinction of species. Death and catastrophy to all.
Reams of other data can be found that show few or no such calamities in the offing. The data from many studies is inconclusive.
The proof is simply the following: The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, the .44 Magnum of volcanoes (it'll take your head clean off), shot more smoke and ash (read "greenhouse gases") into the air than all mankind has in the whole life of mankind. There were, of course, serious changes of many different kinds for many years after the eruption, but the fact is, the world survives. Evidence of this eruption can still be found, especially in the area, but the earth heals itself.
Volcanic eruptions happen every now and then. Krakatoa wasn't the only one, and there will be more. Many people living near these events will be killed, disruptions will happen. Afterwards, men will repair their stuff and nature will fall into a new (very temporary) stability.
A few years ago, the ever-vigilant news media was reporting that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Global cooling, if you will. Well, it didn't happen. Global warming, in the sense meant by the crazed environmentalists, isn't either.
I don't know the actual text of the Kyoto Treaty, which we Americans are all doomed to hell for not having signed, but casual paying partial attention leads me to form the conclusion that the real reason for the treaty is to damage America (and, to a degree, other industrial nations) by causing us to have to severely alter our habits regarding the use of energy.
Well, they ask that, yet give a pass to many countries who, even though their hardscrabble populations use far less energy than we (per capita), their industrial habits are far dirtier than ours, and their countries are just....dirtier.
The reason for "Global Warming" is to drum up global support for the Kyoto Treaty. The reason for the Kyoto Treaty is to knock the United States and, to a lesser extent, other industrialized countries, down a peg or two. That and, more importantly, to hobble capitalism.
Well, capitalism has given me everything I own and am, so I'm for enhancing it.
Warmest (pun intended) regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, mankind didn't cause it.
If there is global warming, mankind can't do anything about it.
If there is global warming, it's part of a natural, probably cyclical phenomenon which takes place over millennia. We don't yet know, because we haven't had the technology capable of sufficiently accuracy for a long enough time to actually track these trends (if any). At some point in the future, perhaps we'll see the pendulum swing back to a cooler climate. Or not.
The handiest proof is easy enough to find. Crazed environmentalists would have us sift through volumes and volumes of data, alledgedly proving all manner of calamities just around the corner. Warmer weather. Melting polar icecaps raising the level of the oceans, causing widespread catastrophic flooding of coastal cities and surfing beaches. Extinction of species. Death and catastrophy to all.
Reams of other data can be found that show few or no such calamities in the offing. The data from many studies is inconclusive.
The proof is simply the following: The 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, the .44 Magnum of volcanoes (it'll take your head clean off), shot more smoke and ash (read "greenhouse gases") into the air than all mankind has in the whole life of mankind. There were, of course, serious changes of many different kinds for many years after the eruption, but the fact is, the world survives. Evidence of this eruption can still be found, especially in the area, but the earth heals itself.
Volcanic eruptions happen every now and then. Krakatoa wasn't the only one, and there will be more. Many people living near these events will be killed, disruptions will happen. Afterwards, men will repair their stuff and nature will fall into a new (very temporary) stability.
A few years ago, the ever-vigilant news media was reporting that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Global cooling, if you will. Well, it didn't happen. Global warming, in the sense meant by the crazed environmentalists, isn't either.
I don't know the actual text of the Kyoto Treaty, which we Americans are all doomed to hell for not having signed, but casual paying partial attention leads me to form the conclusion that the real reason for the treaty is to damage America (and, to a degree, other industrial nations) by causing us to have to severely alter our habits regarding the use of energy.
Well, they ask that, yet give a pass to many countries who, even though their hardscrabble populations use far less energy than we (per capita), their industrial habits are far dirtier than ours, and their countries are just....dirtier.
The reason for "Global Warming" is to drum up global support for the Kyoto Treaty. The reason for the Kyoto Treaty is to knock the United States and, to a lesser extent, other industrialized countries, down a peg or two. That and, more importantly, to hobble capitalism.
Well, capitalism has given me everything I own and am, so I'm for enhancing it.
Warmest (pun intended) regards,
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Friday, February 11, 2005
.jpg)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
My all-time favorite car. This is a Harley Earl concept, built in 1954. I guess they built a couple of them, and one of them made its way to the public sector when Mr Earl gave it to Mr E.L. Cord.
Somehow, it made its way to the Barrett-Jackson Auction in Scottsdale this past weekend. After a furious fifteen minutes of bidding, the car was sold to a representative of the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum for $3 million. It was the highest-priced car of the weekend.
It was supposed to be Oldsmobile's answer to the Chevrolet Corvette, which had just been introduced the year before. Somehow, the project didn't make it to production. I wonder if Oldsmobile might still be in production, if it had.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Somehow, it made its way to the Barrett-Jackson Auction in Scottsdale this past weekend. After a furious fifteen minutes of bidding, the car was sold to a representative of the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum for $3 million. It was the highest-priced car of the weekend.
It was supposed to be Oldsmobile's answer to the Chevrolet Corvette, which had just been introduced the year before. Somehow, the project didn't make it to production. I wonder if Oldsmobile might still be in production, if it had.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
