August 30

Rick Perry is a total fraud

The evidence keeps piling up, and it’s all pointing towards one simple fact: Rick Perry is a completely, totally fake conservative, through-and-through! What follows is a quick summary of Rick Perry’s blatant and all-encompassing anti-conservative history. Newest dirt first…

universal health care

That’s right, folks – in the newest addition to the Rick Perry Neocon Laundry List, we have a letter from Pointy-Boots Perry to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton in support of her healthcare task force. Hillary’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform was created to provide government-run universal health care. This alone should be proof enough that Rick Perry is just another Big Government Authoritarian… but this is just the beginning!

“Gardasil Rick”

Rick issued an executive order forcing all sixth-grade girls to take Gardasil shots.


Rick gets a D- on immigration.

TARP Bailouts

Rick supported the TARP bailouts.

TSA Bill

Rick killed the ‘Restrain The TSA’ bill.

Al Gore

Rick backed an already-climate-crusading Al Gore in ’88.


Rick attends globalist Bilderberg meetings: Perry off to secret forum in Turkey. [alt]


Not to mention the questionable and would-be-hypocritical involvement with the La-Te-Da and Movie Gallery scandals. If you continue to support Rick Perry after being made fully aware of all these marks against him, you might want to question whether you yourself are a true conservative.

There is only one Republican Presidential candidate right now that has been a real, principled, consistent conservative for decades. His initials are RP and he is from Texas, but his name is NOT Rick Perry.

for more info:

Category: politics | Comments Off on Rick Perry is a total fraud
August 28

Domestic War On Tyranny

Recently I had a chance to attend two of Florida-01 Congressman Jeff Miller’s town hall meetings. At the latter, he made some comments about the need for the US to start drone-bombing into Pakistan more and more, without Pakistan’s permission – which is an act of war against the country of Pakistan itself. I got a chance to address him on this, and the transcript of our somewhat heated back-and-forth is below.

My name is Calen Fretts, I have a few questions for you. First on Pakistan. You brought up how basically you think we need to be bombing into Pakistan, trying to get the Taliban. Pakistan is a sovereign country. At the same time that you’re saying this you’re talking about Libya, the Libya “kinetic action” (not war), being an “arbitrary war” and “how do you choose which country we bomb?”…

(Miller interrupts): Alright let me answer your question.
Fretts: Can I finish the question?
(Miller interrupts): No, let me answer your question.
Fretts: Can I finish please?
(Miller interrupts): NO, let me answer your question.

Miller: Your question is “why would I support sending a missile into Pakistan vs sending a missile into Libya”, correct? I think that’s what you asked.
Fretts: Not exactly. I didn’t get to finish.
Miller:  Well that’s “kinda” what you read. Alright, because the people in Pakistan are killing our men and women in uniform every single day.
Fretts: Can I finish the question?
Moderator: Go ahead, let him have his follow-up.

Fretts: It seems you’re being just as arbitrary as Obama is on this. And my question is, do you support the sovereignty of other countries, and why do you seem so eager to drag us into yet another never-ending war front in the middle east?

Miller: Okay, I appreciate your question that was designed to try to pull me off of something whereby I believe that if people are killing our American men and women and sending them home in body bags, sending them home maimed without arms and legs, the United States of America has every right to go and find these people and kill ’em. You don’t believe that, I do.

(And the crowd goes wild… it’s MILLER TIME! Moderator pulls mic away from me and tells me “That’s it, you’re through!” when I try to respond.)

Since I wasn’t given the opportunity to respond to Miller’s statement then, I’d like to do so now. By Miller’s logic, we ought to invade Libya, and if any American troops get killed or maimed, then the invasion would be justified. OR, you could use reasonable logic, and realize that if we withdrew our troops from the middle east, they would NOT be getting sent home in body bags, or getting killed and maimed, not to mention spending trillions of dollars of taxpayer money on wars that we just don’t need. So, Miller wants to start a new war on a new front. He doesn’t want to end any wars in the middle east, clearly. And he just wants to arbitrarily pick and choose which countries we invade. He doesn’t want to support Obama’s war, he just wants to support his war – whatever the Republicans choose. There you have it.

After seeing what the past decade of war has done to this country, I am now convinced that the only war we should be fighting is a Domestic War On Tyranny. That starts with kicking ALL the bums in DC out of office, including Jeff Miller.

Video: Congressman Jeff Miller town hall 2011-08-26 – War on Pakistan

Category: Florida, politics, war | Comments Off on Domestic War On Tyranny
June 22

The Fed is the root of all money evils

The Federal Reserve, more commonly known as “The Fed”, is the central banking system of the United States. As the common saying among sound money endorsers goes, The Fed is “no more ‘federal’ than Federal Express”. It is in actuality a quasi-federal cartel of private banksters and federal bureaucrats which centrally dictate United States economic policy with no oversight, transparency, or accountability; in fact, it has never been audited in its entire existence. The Fed claims one of its primary objectives is to control inflation, but in fact, the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased by more than 95% since its initiation, and the US has seen a number of recessionary and depressionary periods.

US dollars, more accurately called Federal Reserve Notes, are fiat money; that is, money backed by nothing of intrinsic value, traditionally such as gold or silver. For this reason, The Fed can engage in a little-understood but extremely detrimental act known as quantitative easing (QE). QE is, simply, the printing (or digital creation) of new (but worthless) money (also known as “expanding the money supply”), and is tantamount to legalized counterfeiting. This has the effect of decreasing the value of all other money in circulation, essentially stealing from your savings.

To counteract this criminal enterprise, the US must drastically reform its monetary policy. We must Audit the Fed and determine exactly where our money has been going for decades. We must return to a system of sound money, backed by a valuable asset like gold or silver.

It is no coincidence that the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment (which established the income tax) were enacted in the same year, 1913 (as a matter of fact, the Seventeenth Amendment was introduced in this year as well, making it a very bad year for the US). Prior to the income tax, most citizens were able to live the majority of their lives without the involvement of the government. The government was funded via consumption taxes, and a return to such a method would do us well.

The Fair Tax would simplify and basically eliminate the current leviathan tax code, decreasing the burden on individuals and small businesses. It would place an emphasis on savings (the wealth of a country), as individuals would have an added incentive to contemplate their own spending. And it would spur economic growth and return jobs to the US, as corporations scramble to invest in the return of industry.

June 10

cheatsheet for World’s Smallest Political Quiz

The short answer: “Agree” to all! Take the quiz, and post your results and comments below.

Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet:

ANY government encroachment is always a slippery slope. The state has proven time and again that once they get their foot in the door, they will only open it wider. The First Amendment guarantees recognition of the right to absolute freedom of these mediums, period.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft:

Compulsory military service is an infringement of the individual’s right to freedom. Anything the government enforces involuntarily must be done either directly or indirectly at the point of a gun, with the threat of violence, which is not only immoral but against the spirit of liberty. Besides, anyone forced to do something against their will lacks motivation to perform – and if the people of a country lack the motivation to defend themselves from an impending attack, that country is destined to fail either way.

There should be no laws regarding sex between consenting adults:

There should be no laws regarding ANYTHING between consenting adults. Sex falls into that category. What people choose to do with their own bodies is up to them only – period.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs:

Possession and use of drugs harms nobody except possibly the user. As established previously, what people choose to do with their own bodies is their business only. Objectors will point out various crimes and hazards stemming from drug use – these issues only exist because of black markets and would be significantly reduced or eliminated altogether with decriminalization. Personally, I have never once used a single illegal drug, but I will defend anyone else’s right to do so of their own volition.

There should be no National ID card:

The powers that be want to put the means in place to eventually be able to track and control our every move – would never happen on my watch. If it were up to me, I would eliminate the Social Security card too, and go back to the original means of identification which worked just fine: by name.

End “corporate welfare”. No government handouts to business:

I would not give another corporation a single taxpayer dime if my life depended on it. Modern governments seems to be primarily run “by the corporations, for the corporations”. This is called fascism, or corporatism. Governments should not have a single finger in business; if a business is failing, the invisible hand of the market will do its work. A new business or entrepreneur will come in, buy up the assets, and restructure them in a more useful way. This holds true even for “critical” sectors, such as banking (though there are issues there with the FDIC, but that’s a whole new issue).

End government barriers to international free trade:

Absolutely. What products the government restricts in order to “save jobs” for businesses, it restricts the citizen (generally, the “little guy”) from obtaining at better prices. Protectionism helps only the corporations by allowing them to artificially inflate prices, creating monopolies. Market competition, even with other countries, is what equalizes costs and spurs innovation. If an entrepreneur can undercut a foreign industry at a profit, he will do so; otherwise, the citizens are obtaining the product at market price, and the entrepreneur’s attention is best suited elsewhere.

Let people control their own retirement: privatize Social Security:

Government control of the individual’s affairs in any way, including finances, should be called what it is: the Nanny State. Most people can manage their own retirement on a custom basis and much more efficiently than the state as a collective, and if they choose to let it sit in a bank, that is their own prerogative. Besides, Social Security is a complete failure and is nothing more than a tax-and-spend slush fund.

Replace government welfare with private charity:

The government has no business forcing one citizen to pay for another against his will. Objectors will claim that without government welfare, the needy will go unhelped; however, they fail to recognize that everything the government does, it is said to do with the will of the people. This means that if it is the will of the people to give to the needy, they will do so whether or not they are forced, and if it is not their will, the government should not be doing it in the first place.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more:

My ideal solution would be to cut government by 90% or more, but unfortunately this is probably impractical. I would like to go to a “Fair Tax” of 10% (if 10% is good enough for God, it’s good enough for me), end the wars and bring all troops around the world home, defund most executive departments/Cabinets, eliminate basically all unelected bureaucracies, repeal the majority of government regulations and legislation, and eventually privatize all welfare/charity. That is, return to Constitutional government – just for starters.

March 28

thoughts on omniscience (and determinism vs free will)

Determinism vs Free Will, Calvinism vs Arminianism – the classic debate has raged between Christians for generations. Though never completely sure one way or the other, I have generally fallen into the former camp throughout the decade or so I’ve seriously contemplated this issue.

Oftentimes one of the strongest arguments we rely on in the case for “determinism” is the idea that since God is omniscient, then He knows the future, and therefore things can’t happen in any other way. That is to say, God has a specific plan for each of us, planned down to the microsecond, and therefore, if we had any free will at all, we could choose to do something against God’s will, rendering him non-omniscient, non-omnipotent.

But does omniscience really imply knowledge of the future? Certainly we have seen God’s future prophecies fulfilled, but we know that since He is omnipotent He can assert his will at any time. Does His omnipotence preclude free will? I certainly can’t know for sure, but I will make the case that it does not.

Listening to a series by renowned theologian RC Sproul recently, I have picked up a thing or two about the field of Christianity known as apologetics. As Christians, we know that God is not just the source of, but is, all truth and rationality (“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” – Proverbs 1:7). Within our measurable universe, rationality is generally regarded as that which we can consistently and empirically hold to be true, or natural laws. The crux of the issue, then, is that in our universe, rationality does not dictate time travel forward. Therefore, just as God cannot create a rock so big He can’t lift it (because this is a contradiction, and contradictions are not rational, so even God cannot perform contradictions), perhaps God also does NOT know the future (as this too would be a contradiction). Note that this does not in any way “limit” God in His omnipotence or omniscience, as these features only apply in rational terms.

We know that the Bible is full of verses which people of both Calvinist and Arminian camps use to support their position, and which in their own right can be interpreted either way. So to help find an answer, let us transcend looking at individual verses and examine this issue in the context of the Bible as a whole and some of its tenets which we know to be true.

God created Lucifer. God did not create sin. Lucifer in his pride challenged God’s authority and lost. We know this to be the point at which sin and evil came into being. Sin and evil entered our world through Adam’s fall. Lucifer (or Satan) is the author of sin. God does not create evil or sin, but permits it under His own will (His “permissible” will). God’s perfect will does not include sin, because He does not create the sin. Therefore, we must conclude that God created both Lucifer and man with, at least to some extent, free will – not just from our perspective, but from His as well – because otherwise, He would have predetermined that Lucifer and man would sin, which means He would have had to create the sin, which we know He does not do.

The existence of sin, therefore, seems to imply to us that God allows free will. Keep in mind, no doubt God can assert His will in our lives at any time in His omnipotence, so you might call this position “limited free will” OR “limited determinism”. Whether we have free will or not, God still has a perfect will that He is working towards, in which the remaining prophecies will be fulfilled. I recently read a commentary by AW Tozer which gave a good metaphor for this: God is directing a cruise ship from one port to another, and we humans are free to move about that ship as we please, but in the end, we will all end up at that final destination.

Now, we must address those verses which mention those “elect” or “pre-destined”. I would assert that these are in the context to be called, NOT to be saved. That is to say, God may choose some of us to draw nearer to Himself than others – they are the “elect” – but He may not “force” them to choose Him.

In conclusion, I posit that there could be complete determinism via His foreknowledge and assertion of every single thing He will impose, BUT, His omniscience doesn’t necessitate determinism because omniscience doesn’t have to include foreknowledge if He allows free will, since that would be illogical. Happy trails wrapping your mind around all this! Please leave any comments below.

As a side note: as a programmer, I have always been fascinated by the concept of “true random” (those in the field will understand this fascination, because we know that true random in computing is impossible). We know, though, that we can create imperative programs where we define the functionality and predetermine all of the inputs to get an expected result. How much more, then, is God glorified in the allowance of free will as opposed to complete determinism? In my professional opinion, infinitely so :)