Girl Scouts hundredth anniversary. We want girls to be strong...unless they disagree with us....

Because the Republican party isn’t making big enough fools of themselves, HBO is making a movie to remind us that Sarah Palin is inferior. The movie is called, Game Change. I really don’t know why the liberal media elite is wasting its time on the subject. Opinion of Sarah Palin notwithstanding, she’s not in the race. She’s not a threat to the Democrat party. The only reason to drag her under the mud now is either to just rub the oppositions nose in their failures, or simply to show HBO as the misogynistic hypocrites they really are.

But I digress.

The liberal media still gloats over the defeat of John McCain. And they think they can do it again with the Hollow Man, Mitt Romney, who they are trying to set up as the nominee so that Obama can have an easy win. Right now, it kind of looks like they may succeed. Which is one reason why I haven’t written in a while. Work has been crazy, and I’m kind of down on the whole world, right now.

Which is exactly the wrong attitude. Jesus wouldn’t let this stuff get Him down.

Right now, I’m still reading The Federalist Papers. Hamilton, in Federalist 8, is revealing the evils of a standing army.

This is absolutely an idea not embraced by either major political party. We’ve had a major standing army since WW II. It seems archaic to think of America without a standing army. I personally think that we live in times that necessitate standing armies. But I think we do need to consider what Hamilton says on the subject.

1. Standing armies tend to prop up the executive branch of government, often at the expense of the legislature and civil liberties.

They [standing armies] would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.-Hamilton. Federalist 8.

Let’s face it. All of us were willing to give up some of our civil liberties, after 9/11, for a little security. But I wonder if we have gone to far? I wonder if the terrorists have ultimately won? I wonder if what they wanted all along was to take our liberties from us?

And what if 9/11 was just the excuse The Powers That Be needed in order to take complete control? My last major was psychology. I found a video on-line that is related. I warn you, it is a little slow. It’s just a college professor giving a boring lecture. But if you can deal with the tedium of it, it is very informative. Anyone that has read C. S. Lewis‘ That Hideous Strength will be reminded of the strange combination of science, religion, military and state in that book.

Is America a police state? The role of psychiatry

2. Even before 1984, Hamilton was warning that the mantra of a police state would be, “War is peace!”

The perpetual menacing of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel, its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense.. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionally degrades the condition of the citizen. The inhabitants of territories, often the theater of war, are unavoidably subjected to the frequent infringements of their rights; which serve to weaken their sense of those rights, and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors but as their superiors.-Hamilton. Federalist 8

If you need a perfect example of the above statement, just do some research on feudal Japan. The Samarai were the ruling class. And they were the warrior class. (And sometimes, I almost think they were right…..but I digress again…..)

I cannot exactly prove that the government has set up this state of perpetual war, but I found a video that i think is very intriguing in its implications.

Green light to attack Kuait revealed by Ron Paul

PLEASE DO NOT GET ME WRONG! I am absolutely pro-military. I know too many veterans. The best people I know have either seen war, or, at least, have served their country honorably. But I am absolutely against a police state. Twenty years ago, I could never have imagined that things would get this bad, without me firing a shot, or at least doing something drastic in order to change the state of things. But I’m afraid that I am spineless. All I do is “lift things up and put them down!”

And type on my little blog.

Ain’t it funny how many hundreds of thousand of soldiers we can recruit with nerve. But we can’t find one politician in a million with backbone.-Will Rogers, Feb. 18, 1929.

Related articles

• What Mitt Romney Can Learn From McCain, Palin, and Game Change (usnews.com)
• How ‘Massachusetts moderate’ could work for Mitt Romney | Harry J Enten (guardian.co.uk)
• Mitt Romney: Not the Sharpest Arrow in the Quiver (slog.thestranger.com)
• “The Real Romney”: The Danger Of Mitt Being Mitt (mykeystrokes.com)
• Note To Republicans: The First Rule Of VP Selection Is ‘Don’t Pick Someone Like Sarah Palin’ (businessinsider.com)
• Sarah Palin Votes For, Endorses Newt Gingrich; Takes Shot at Mitt Romney (thehollywoodgossip.com)
• Romney Fails To Deliver Knockout Punch, Will Still Win Nomination (outsidethebeltway.com)
• The Republican Super-PAC will buy a nominee and the keys for the White House (usaworldgaze.wordpress.com)
• Mitt Romney: ‘We Would Be Signaling Our Doom’ If GOP Nominee Is Not Decided Before Convention (mediaite.com)
• HBO and Palin Upstage Romney and Santorum (prnewsonline.com)
• Ann Coulter Takes Another Swipe at Sarah Palin (markamerica.com)
• Charlie Cook: Romney Should Pick Mainstream VP (usnews.com)
• Sarah Palin Says She Will Debate President Obama “Anywhere, Anytime” (slog.thestranger.com)
• ‘Game Change’: Could Sarah Palin portrayal affect the 2012 election? (csmonitor.com)
• Sarah Palin Talks to Fox News Weekend Live (markamerica.com)
• The Myth of Sarah Palin (oneway2day.wordpress.com)
• HBO’s ‘Game Change’: How Sarah Palin Ruined the GOP (spin.com)