Here’s the deal.  Mortgage borrowers who are underwater are divided into two categories.

Category 1:  Underwater and delinquent.

Category 2:  Underwater, not delinquent.

Those in Category 1 get to write down their loans and re-finance.  Those in Category 2 only get to re-finance.

Hm.  That’s rewarding bad behavior.  The government is feeding stray cats.

Ha, ha, ha on those who play by the rules.

To back a losing candidate you sorta like?

To back a winning candidate you don’t like?

To back a losing candidate you don’t like?

To back a winning candidate you like?

These are the choices:  Gingrich, Romney, Romney, Gingrich.

It’s 50-50, tilted in favor of Obama.

I say, go with your gut.

The Government’s Story

The basic story is

– that McVeigh drove a Ryder truck to the front of the Murrah Federal Building;

– that the truck was packed with a mixture of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel; and

– that the truck detonated.

No disagreement, so far, as to the broad strokes.

Story Continued

The rest of the the official story is basically that the blast tore the face off the Murrah Building.

To which the writer demurs.

Here’s Why

Ammonium nitrate — a fertilizer — is a pretty good oxidizer. That is, under the right conditions, it produces volumes of oxygen, which can lead to a fire or an explosion.

But here’s a little secret or two: Ammonium nitrate is far from being the best available oxidizing agent. (The writer never used it in rocket fuels.) It was, in 1995, simply the most widely available oxidizing agent. You could get bags of it in farm stores.

Furthermore, mixing ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel doesn’t really make that powerful an explosive. No 15-year-old in 1960 blew off part of his hand with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel. Just did not happen. It took something like homemade nitroglycerin or a red phosphorous and potassium chlorate mixture.

Now, you fill a Ryder truck full of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel, and you’re going to get a big bang.

But Here’s the Problem with the Government’s Story

The big bang in OKC on 19 April 1995 spread out in ALL DIRECTIONS. It was not a focused — not a shaped — blast. Only about 40 percent of the blast energy was directed toward the Murrah Building.

The Writer is not a Civil Engineer

The writer strongly suspects, however, the amount of blast energy hitting the face of the Murrah Building could not have done the amount of damage the government claims it did. Sure, the blast energy traveled at the speed of sound. But keep in mind that a blast energy wave (air wave) diminishes in power the further it travels. Basic physics. The Ryder truck was maybe 30 feet or so from the Murrah Building. That’s a pretty good distance for an un-focused energy wave to travel.

The writer doesn’t know whether CTs are permitted here at Redstate. If they are, the writer will present his theory as to Tim McVeigh and OKC, with supporting arguments, in the comments.

Autumn 1960

My 15-year-old friends and I were deeply into rocket-making and explosives. Girls were much more complicated, but very interesting as well.

We experimented (with rockets) daily — before, during, and after school and on the weekends.

Most experiments were duds. But my friend Herb and I made some breakthroughs.

Breakthrough #1

The first breakthrough was to discover that a very powerful rocket fuel could be made by adding certain light medal powders to our gunpowder mixture. From this point on, we could shoot our homemade rockets hundreds of feet into the air.

Where did we get our chemicals? Five places, principally:

1) pharmacies

2) doctors and dentists offices (we just asked)

3) factories where our dads worked

4) the high school chemical room (yeah, we were little thieves)

5) the Stansi Scientific Company of Chicago (I posed as a mail-order PhD)

Breakthrough #2

Now that we had mastered basic rocket science, our goals became (a) to aim our rockets, and (b) to tip our rockets with explosives. The Soviets, after all, weren’t shy about all this.

The aiming part didn’t require a breakthrough. Just some fiddling with with fins and exhaust apertures.

The breakthrough came in the area of contact explosives — explosives that go boom on mere contact.

Herb and I pored over chemistry texts at the local library (funded by Andrew Carnegie) and learned the chemical structures and recipes for various contact explosives.

We made, for example, a certain harmless purple liquid and drenched a piece of notebook paper in it. We placed a piece of juicy candy on the paper and ever so gently fanned it dry. Presently, a large fly buzzed down to snack on the candy. BOOM!

Truth is, I should not be writing this. I should have died in the Fall of 1960. It is only by the Grace of God that I survived, and others around me survived, that time period.

Some other guys I knew weren’t so lucky. They blew off hands or parts of hands.

Parting Shot

I have to wonder about the Detroit underwear bomber. Here’s why.

A guy with my knowledge could get past airport security carrying what would appear to be a box of cereal and a plastic bag full of powdered milk.

And I guarantee you the consequences would be devastating.

Is al qaeda that stupid?

When I got back, my mind was screwed up.  For two reasons.

I didn’t want anyone to know I was defective and weak.

I was afraid and frightened.

I had suppressed stress and that bang on the head.

And ignored the adrenalin on which my body had become dependent.

Here’s the deal: You have dealt with stress? Seek help. I’d go today to a good neurologist, not a shrink.

Don’t be ashamed. Seek help,

In 1969, here’s what five bucks bought:

– 50 packs of Winstons (which I smoked)

– 50 gallons of gasoline

– a steak dinner with wine at a fancy restaurant

The Fed has cheapened our currency in the meantime.

We have let it happen.

I say, time enough.

Let’s re-take our government.

First, overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and return the abortion debate to the states.

Second, organize at the state level informed opposition to abortion.

HERE’S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN

Corrupt legislators in some “blue” states — such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont — would ignore modern pre-natal medical technology and pass laws making abortion legal in the first trimester — the Roe rule.

Some states, no doubt, would outlaw abortion except in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.  This was Alabama’s law in 1970.

Then there would be states — perhaps including Missouri and South Dakota — where abortion opponents would be evenly matched by pro-choicers and pro-abortion types.  These states would follow the 1970 Alabama model but add a provision leaving the decision on abortion up to the sound medical judgment of the woman’s physician.  A lot of docs would punt rather than face the ire of abortion opponents — sorta the situation today in Mississippi.

All “red” states and some other states as well would enact parental notification laws.

Note: Some states have “trigger laws” that will automatically come into effect if Roe v. Wade is repealed.

OVER TIME

Over time, some “pro-choice” states would move to restrict abortions.  Why?  Because the medical evidence would overwhelmingly support the notion that abortion is murder.  (I believe that evidence exists today.)

HOW THINGS WOULD PAN OUT

Women everywhere would still be able to get abortions, including illegal abortions.  Why?  Because no law will ever completely eradicate abortion.

But the U.S. would be a more honest place, and the federal government would not — as it does today — endorse murder.

FOOTNOTE

Roe’s real name was (is) Norma L. McCorvey.  In 1995, she declared herself to be pro life.  Since that time, she has been adamantly anti-abortion.

She never had an abortion.

McCorvey came to know that she was deceived by her lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. They kept from her their real goal — to turn abortion into a form of birth control.

I am into principles, not politics.

So maybe I don’t belong here, even though I love the posts and feel at home.

Principles trump politics in my book.

Am I naive?  Of course.  I’d rather be naive than cynical.  Cynical means you see injustice and accept it.  I do not accept injustice.  I am prepared to be offended.  And to attack injustice.

I know this is a political site.  I respect that.

I make a call to principles.

What principles?

– respect human life

– uphold the Constitution

– elect principled members of the House and Senate

– make the U.S. as it was in 1960 (minus Jim Crow laws)

– enact federal legislation that is good for the American People.

Truth is funny.  You can beat on it, cross-examine it, and it always shines true.

Like gold.  It doesn’t corrode or otherwise degrade.

It is extremely durable.

LIES

Lies are different.  They hold up to casual inspection.  But upon deeper inspection, a lie raises one or more questions that cannot be answered satisfactorily.  That is the hallmark of a lie.

Take Obama’s health care proposal, all 2,700 pages.  Do you have any questions about this bill that have not been answered satisfactorily?

A lie is delicate and not durable.  That is, it fails in not holding up 100-percent to close inspection.

SOMETIMES IT’S HARD TO DISTINGUISH TRUTH FROM LIES FROM IGNORANCE

You might not have enough information.  Or your trust in a certain person might keep you from seeing his or her lies.  Or from seeing ignorance.  That’s why an objective, outside opinion is sometimes really helpful.  That’s also why getting information from a wide variety of sources is important.

Actual Example:  Talked recently by phone with a law professor who is supposedly expert in a part of the law with which I’m quite familiar.  I saw right off he was a blithering idiot.  His students almost certainly can’t see this.  Nor can his fellow faculty members, who are allegedly expert in other parts of the law.

EXAMPLES:  TRUTH, LIES, AND IGNORANCE

Example 1: Jimmy Carter was a good President, I honestly believe.

I call this ignorance.  An un-truth uttered without any apparent malice.

Example 2:  Barack Obama is doing the best he can for America.

I call this a lie.  The assertion is clearly and provably false.  The speaker is a deliberate liar.

Example 3:  The law is designed to be fair to everyone.

Ignorance at best, a lie at worst.

Example 4:  I don’t recall saying that (said under oath).

May be true, may be a lie.  Count how many times the witness says this.

Example 5:  We need to bail out the banks to avoid disaster.

Why?  …I’m still listening.

No satisfactory answer.  A certifiable lie.  The lefty economists, in particular, know it’s a lie.

THE USE OF LIES AS PROPAGANDA

Beginning in the 1930s, powerful and evil persons in the U.S. came to understand they could manipulate the populace through radio, film, and other means of mass communication.

FDR, in particular, came to understand that he could, through mere words, deceive the American People in a major way.  Just as Hitler was doing to the German People in a more criminal way.

Subsequent presidents took FDR’s lesson to heart.  Especially Obama.  Even many on the Left now call him a liar.  It’s really quite amusing to watch.

A huge lie machine exists today to distract, deceive, and subdue the American People.  That machine is aimed squarely at YOU.

Remember:  If a tale being peddled to YOU raises even just one question that cannot be answered satisfactorily, it’s a lie.

SATISFACTORY vs. UNSATISFACTORY ANSWERS

What is a satisfactory answer?  A few examples:

Example #1:  The CBO scored this bill as costing $1 trillion.

I’ll take this as satisfactory, conditionally.

On the other hand, if I learn CBO has faked the numbers even just once, I’ll take this answer to be unsatisfactory.

Example #2:  Everybody does it this way.

Not satisfactory.

Example 3:  I just don’t know.

I’ll take this as satisfactory, conditionally.

But I might ask, why not?

Example #4:  That (politically sensitive) document is classified.

Today, I’m immediately suspicious.  Classifying documents is primary means of government cover-up.  Not satisfactory.

SUMMARY

If in the political arena you encounter a tale, question it, and receive an unsatisfactory answer — and if there is no satisfactory answer to replace the unsatisfactory answer — you’ve encountered either a lie or ignorance.

The more knowledgeable the peddler of the tale, the more likely it’s a lie.

HARMLESS LIES

Some lies, of course, are quite harmless.  My ex-wife, for example, used to ask me if I thought she had gained weight.  I always said no.

NECESSARY LIES

Sometimes, it’s necessary to lie.  For example, if you’re involved in acquiring military intelligence information from a third person, you must lie about certain things.  These lies must be deeply concealed.

These lies are made for a good, not a corrupt, purpose.

As I write this, labor unions have launched a general strike against the Greek SOCIALIST government,

Why?

Because the Greek government has implemented sharp, across-the-board spending cuts — just as the U.S. government should do.

Why?

Because the Greek government went  on a spending spree for a decade, ran up a huge deficit, and is facing a default on its national debt.  Sound familiar?

We here need to see the problems in Greece for what they are — the first chapter in a very long book.

Yeah, I know.   Greece far away, and I like Greek food and that funny resin wine they drink.

The people of Greece overwhelmingly support the government’s austerity measures…and oppose the unions.

It’s time for the Greek President to do what President Reagan did to the air traffic controllers.

Roe v. Wade (1973) amended the Constitution.

It did so by creating a novel “Right of Privacy” into which government may not intrude.

Now, I’m ALL for privacy.  ALL for keeping government out of my life.

Problem is, the Constitution NEVER ONCE uses the word “privacy.”  Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe, simply INVENTED a zone of privacy — made it all up.

For that reason alone, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.  William Rehnquist, who dissented, got it exactly right.  A majority of nine old white guys (hey, I’m in that camp!) simply imposed their will on the American People.

So, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided on constitutional grounds.

It was also wrongly decided on other grounds.

First, Blackmun ASSUMED that a fetus was not viable during the first trimester of pregnancy.  I wish Harry could have seen today’s MRIs.  Modern technology makes Blackmun’s assumption ridiculous.

Second, Blackmun clearly believed he was doing good by removing the abortion debate from the political arena.  His papers show this.

To put the matter in perspective:  By 1973, a little over a third of the states either flat out permitted abortion or placed very few restrictions on abortion.  Alabama, for example, permitted abortion to save the life of the mother.

By removing abortion from the political arena, Roe v. Wade ended REAL debate over abortion — which is very BAD.  This country was FOUNDED on the premise of wide open political debate.  It’s no accident that the First Amendment is the FIRST Amendment.

Oh, sure, a politician today can say he or she is pro-life or pro-choice.  But such chatter is largely just political posturing.

Footnote: Some say they oppose Roe v. Wade (as I do) but are pro-choice.  For these folks, the rubber never meets the road.  I’d prefer that they and the rest of us be given the vote on abortion, state by state.

That’s CLEARLY the sort of vote the Founders envisioned.

Note to lawyers and others: If you  want me to go into more detail, I’ll be pleased to do so.

There was a guy in my late-1960s ROTC unit who openly carried Mao’s Little Red Book — the then bible of communist China.  A right-wing sorta guy.

When he got challenged, which happened often, he always said, “Know your enemy.”

This diary aims at describing the Left.

The Political Structure (not the Power Structure) of the Left

Like communism, the Left not monolithic.  It includes

– Democrats of various stripes,

– people who are far to the left of the Democratic Party,

– anarchists and revolutionaries, and

– some self-described independents.

They fight constantly amongst themselves but have certain things in common, including  a fear and loathing of blogsites such as RS.  That fear and loathing is one of the primary things that binds the Left together.

The Democratic Party

The Dem Party is a mishmash.  It includes conservatives (as they see it) such as Ben Nelson (D-NB), opportunists such as John Kerry (D-MA), hollow drunks such as Teddy Kennedy (RIP), sell-outs such as Obama and Rahm Emmanuel, and so-called liberals such as Russ Feingold (D-WI).

If these folks have one thing in common, it’s TAX AND SPEND.  Reagan was absolutely correct about this.

Basically, all these folks are corrupt.  They can be had for the right price.  They are no more idealists than was Joseph Stalin.  But they all talk the talk.

Leftists

A lot — perhaps most — of the individuals who post on Dkos and FDL are far to the left of the Democratic Party and HATE the Democratic Party political and power structures.  There are many idealists in this camp.

In my opinion, idealists (not purists) on the Left and Right have certain things in common.  Chiefly, a desire for good government.

Anarchists and Revolutionaries

Small in number, these folks are colorful, really angry, and entertaining.

They want — to various degrees — to tear down the whole house and start from scratch.

These folks are way beyond party labels.

Self-Described Independents

I call these folks rationalists.  They are really angry and basically hate both major parties.  They leaned distinctly Left during the GW Bush years, but came out hard right and angry for Scott Brown.

These individuals will be the wild card in the 2010 and 2012 elections.  They will determine the make-up of the House and Senate and determine who is elected President in 2012.

They comprise about 20- to 25-percent of the voting public.

Two Flashpoints for the Left

Republicans CAN pick up Left-leaning voters, as Scott Brown has shown.  In my opinion, the election of Scott Brown to the Senate is the most significant political development of the past 40 years.

One of the last fights I had on Dkos was on the night before the Massachusetts election, when I presented the case for why Massachusetts voters should vote for Scott Brown.  I got attacked viciously, but a fair number of posters agreed with me.

There are two big flashpoints for the Left — and a Republican presidential nominee needs to know how to finesse them:

– abortion rights, and

– religion in the public sphere

Reagan and Obama both finessed the abortion rights issue, saying they were personally pro-life, but that the law was settled.  Roe v. Wade affords such good political cover — even though it’s a terrible decision.

The constitutional law on religion in the public sphere (e.g., prayer in public schools) is pretty much settled as well, so there’s lots of political cover here also.

Conclusion

I had to know and understand my enemy in Viet Nam.  War is not simply about overwhelming force, although that is the principal tenet of U.S. military doctrine.

Republicans — conservatives generally — need to know and understand their enemy as well.

Think about this:  the U.S. military was able to turn a LOT of Viet Cong and NVA regulars into supporters of the South Viet Nam government.

Conservatives can do the same thing today in the political arena.

It’s a true adventure story…be sure to read the ending.

I arrived at Bien Hoa Airbase on 15 September 1971 having under my belt

– the rank of 1LT (USAR),

– 47 weeks of language training (Defense Language Institute)

– a stint at the army intelligence school (Fort Huachuca, Arizona),

– a degree in electrical engineering, and

– a law degree.

I was schooled-up really well, but I was young and inexperienced.  The inexperienced part was about to change.

Initially, I was a member of an intelligence team and made great use of my language training.  My team acquired, for example, information about NVA activity in Cambodian border areas of III Corps — the part of Viet Nam surrounding Saigon.

During this time period, I came to see how U.S. journalists and the anti-war Left were misrepresenting certain important facts about the war.  I was stunned.  Ironically, even though my work involved lying, I found it hard to believe journalists and Lefty leaders would LIE to advance their agendas.  Little did I know.

Most disturbing, there was one instance in which a journalist told a colleague over an OPEN LINE about an impending convoy to Saigon.  Sure enough, the NVA ambushed the convoy along Route 1, killing and wounding a number of American soldiers.

After awhile, my job changed — I was moved up a notch, into a position in which I was dealing with ALL the army M.I. teams in III Corps.  This job was so sensitive that

the job title was classified;

my  commanding officer was not permitted, except in the most general way, to examine my work;

the operations officer (S3), to whom I reported, could not examine my work;

only two high-ranking officers (not in Viet Nam) could examine and audit the full range of my work; and

a lieutenant in Saigon could examine part of my work.

This lieutenant and I have stayed in loose touch over the years.  We had some great adventures in Saigon involving spies, counter-spies, double agents, some terrifically good Vietnamese food, and women.  Did I say WOMEN?  We spent one curfew night, for example, in the basement of a Saigon hotel among 50 or so naked or half-naked bar girls.  You can imagine.

If you had observed me during this period as I went about my daily activities, you would have thought I was a scholarly civilian researcher, probably in the employ of the State Department.

During this time, I always carried (concealed) a .38 revolver and a .45 semi-automatic.  I was prepared to kill myself in order to avoid capture.

During this time period, I had to fly (via helicopter) to various and sometimes remote sites in III Corps to meet face-to-face with M.I. team members.  Sometimes when I flew to these sites, I was accompanied by two guys.  One carried a Swedish K gun, the other an AK-47.  The Swedish K gun, which was equipped with a silencer, was a nifty 9mm automatic.  I always took along my  handguns plus an M-16, water, and lots of ammunition.

Did we get shot at flying to these sites?  You betcha.

In April 1972, the North Vietnamese sent 15 divisions crashing into South Viet Nam.  At this point (omitting certain details), my attention was directed toward An Loc, a rubber plantation town northwest of Saigon on Route 13.  The fighting at An Loc (NVA, American bombing, South Vietnamese infantry) was brutal, bloody, and frightening.  I had no idea such violence and valor were possible.  When I went back in 1994, I saw that An Loc still bore major scars from that battle.

Along the way, I fell in love — with a beautiful and intelligent Vietnamese girl named Tinh (first name), who taught me how to speak and read Vietnamese.  My language-school training had been in another language.  That love was not to be, however.  American forces were withdrawing rapidly from Viet Nam, and as that occurred, my job focused more and more on Saigon.  Tinh lived elsewhere.

Also along the way, I learned Jane Fonda was in North Viet Nam cozying up to an enemy that would have liked nothing more than to capture me, torture me til I broke, and kill me.  I’ve never gotten over that.  I know Jane Fonda has apologized.  For me, the apology came too late.

I caught the Freedom Bird back to the World on 14 September 1972 and shortly thereafter exited the army.

I came back to a society and even a family that wanted to hear NO PART of what I’d just been through.

PARTING SHOT:  Don’t advise your child or grandchild to go into Military Intelligence.  Oh, he or she may have a grand adventure.  But he or she also may wind up knowing a bunch of secrets that can NEVER, EVER be shared with another human.  It can make one feel isolated.

BTW, I’m doing well.  I ‘ve got a wonderful duaghter and am a very successful self-employed tax lawyer.

I come here to find my blog voice after three years of arguing and finally being banned on Dkos and FDL.

The tipping point was the Citizens United case.

As a lawyer who studied the case and a bunch of First Amendment cases before it, I could see the case was correctly decided.  I could also see that a lot of lefty activists were misrepresenting both the facts and the  law of the case, in order to whip up anger.  I told these people they were wrong.  They banned me.

I’m not one to shy away from honest debate.  That’s in large part what the  First Amendment is about.

I love the First Amendment.  I have utter contempt for those who would trash it.

The outrage over the decision in the Citizens United case is misplaced.

Four points need to be made about the law as it stood just before Citizens United was decided:

1)    Media corporations were free to publish advocacy and issue “ads,” although
congress held the power to end this freedom.  This was federal law as to federal
elections.

Advocacy ad:  Vote for  (or against) Candidate X.   These are “magic words.”

Issue ad:  Doesn’t contain the magic words.

2)    Non-profit corporations that received no corporate money were free to
publish advocacy and issue ads.  This was federal law as to federal elections.

3)    Any corporation was free publish issue ads.  This was federal law as to federal
elecctions.

4)    States could ban corporate political speech of any type relating to state and
local elections by showing a compelling state interest in so doing.

The Citizens United group fell into a crevice between 2 and 3.  It had received a small amount of corporate funding, which meant it didn’t fit category 2.  Its proposed means of expression — selling Hillary, the Movie to a cable pay-per-view company — was functionally advocacy against Hillary Clinton in her quest to become president, so it didn’t fit category 3 either.

In this crevice. congress claimed the power to regulate corporate political speech.

The crevice was in fact quite narrow.  Why?   Because an “issue” ad that wasn’t functionally advocacy avoided the censor.  One problem for the courts, therefore, was to draw the line between issue speech and advocacy speech.  The line was very blurry.  Activist, outcome-oriented judges like Ginsburg and Stevens love blurry lines.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled congress cannot have this power it claimed to have.  Why?  Because of the First Amendment command:  “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”

The notion that before Citizens United, the First Amendment did not apply to corporations is nonsense.  Since 1973, the Court has held the First Amendment applies to corporate commercial speech.  In various decisions over the years, the Court has held not only that the First Amendment applies to corporations, but also that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply.

Citizens United also struck down state laws regulating corporate political speech inconsistent with its holding as to the First Amendment.  This was unavoidable.  A state law that violates the Constitution cannot stand.  There are myriad examples in which the Court has struck down state laws.

Some so-called progressive advocates, including certain politicians, want to whip up popular outrage in order to fleece the pockets of those who are outraged.  It’s all in good fun, of course.

Citizens United will prove to be a great decision, except for lousy incumbents and those who would censor.  More political speech is always better than less.

Make no mistake about it.  Mainstream lefty blogs like Firedoglake are controlled or heavily populated by people who want to overturn Citizens United and give Congress the power to censor (control) corporate political speech.

I wouldn’t mind so much if they were honest about it.  But they’re not.  They’re spreading all kinds of lies.

The chief lie is that corporations now can give unlimited amounts to political candidates.  In fact, a corporation cannot give one cent to a political candidate.  That was true for many years before Citizens United, and it’s true today.

What are these folks on the left really up to?  For them, the prize is giving a Democratically-controlled Congress the power to censor Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  They’re frustrated and fearful.  Bill O’Reilly has a jillion more viewers than, say, Firedoglake.  People like Jane Hamsher at FDL cannot abide that.  So they’re willing to trash the First Amendment.  And Obama is right there with them.

Don’t let ‘em get away with it.  Call your congress critter or senator today.