San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 4, 2015

Myths And Lies About The Republican Tax Plans

If you look carefully through all of the smoke and mirrors associated with the GOP presidential candidate's panel discussions you will find some general level of agreement with the idea that the rich, whoever they are, are taxed too much and deserve some tax relief.  If you continue to pay attention to the issue of taxes you will also discover that most of the citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are opposed to granting the rich, whoever they are, any sort of tax break.  Indeed, just the opposite is the case.  Both major Democratic candidates for the office of King/Queen of the SDA believe that the rich are not paying their fair share, whatever that means, and need to be taxed even more.  That position plays well with the envy filled masses who populate this greedy and immoral land.
Daniel Chilcoat of Lakewood wrote a letter to the Denver Post a week or so ago in which he took up the cause of the sinfully envious members of our society and staunchly proclaimed his view that Republican proposals to reduce the tax burden on the rich, whoever they are, will "imperil the country."  Allow me to present his argument here in full:
"Beware the 'decreased taxes equals increased tax revenue' snake oil being peddled by the Tax Foundation and most Republican candidates for president.  If it sounds too good to be true, it is because it is.  Based on the same 'voodoo' economics, President Reagan decreased income tax rats for the rich from 70 percent to 28 percent and decreased corporate taxes.  Subsequently, the national debt quadrupled from less than $1 trillion in 1980 to more than $4 trillion 12 years later.  President George W. Bush inherited an annual budget surplus that was reducing the national debt and cut corporate taxes and income taxes; the national debt increased from $5.6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion during his administration.  So the anti-tax crowd continues to push discredited ideas including 'supply-side economics,' the Laffer curve, IRS misconduct, and now 'dynamic scoring' to convince us that taxes should be reduced for corporations and the very, very wealthy.  Drink their snake oil at our country's peril."
I trust all readers of this blog post have already detected the logical flaw in Daniel's specious argument.  It is not hard to find.  Daniel begins by declaring that the belief that reducing marginal tax rates oftentimes results in higher tax revenues as taxpayers take advantage of the lower rates to capture some capital gains, thus resulting in more taxable income and higher tax revenues, is dead wrong.  He presents only one argument in support of his position and that is his assertion that in a time when the marginal tax bracket was reduced from 70% to 28% the national debt quadrupled.
There are two immediate problems with his argument. First, he is comparing apples to oranges.  He uses the eight year period from 1981 through 1989 (the Reagan years) as an example for when the top tax rate was seriously reduced but he uses the 12 year period (including George H.W. Bush's term during which he raised the top tax bracket) for the period of time during which the national debt increased.  Maybe Daniel should have used the same time period for each data point.  The national debt at the end of Reagan's eight years was closer to $3 trillion, a full $1 trillion less than Daniel would have us believe.
Second, the national debt is not a good indicator of the successfulness, or lack thereof, of a federal income tax policy.  All spending bills come from the Congress of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Blaming a King for the spending of his Court is ridiculous.  Congress also sets federal tax rates, although the opinion of the King often weighs heavily upon the final decision about the top rate.  A more valuable indicator of the success of a tax policy would be the rate of economic growth experienced in the land.  I believe most of us would agree that economic growth is good and that any tax policy that hinders economic growth is bad.  Conversely, any tax policy that promotes economic growth would be good, whether it helps the evil "rich" people among us or not.
Daniel also asserts that the belief that lowering tax rates can often increase revenues is "voodoo" economics.  I am already sick and tired of Daniel's stupid ideas.  I am also sick and tired of his outright lying.  Either Daniel is really dumb or he is a flat out liar.  I don't know which it is but neither of them is good.  Here are the facts about the situation Daniel brings up.  Reagan ruled from 1981 through 1989.  Clinton ruled from 1993 through 2001.  King George II ruled from 2001-2009.  And, of course, King Obama has ruled us since 2009.  Look at the chart I have crafted below.  It gives you the marginal tax bracket at the beginning and end of each kingdom as well as the rate of revenue increase, the rate of spending increase and the total rate of economic growth for each period.

     Time Period         Top Tax Bracket         Revenue Change       Spending Change     GDP Growth
     1981 - 1989      70% in 81, 28% in 89             +20%                        +21%                   +80%
     1993 - 2001      40% in 93, 39% in 01             +46%                        +13%                   +60%
     2001 - 2009      39% in 01, 35% in 09              -13%                        +55%                   +40%
     2009 - Now       35% in 09, 40% Now              +38%                           -3%                   +25%

Can we learn anything from this chart? I think so.  Consider the following logically necessary deductions taken from the data presented above:
  • Daniel is wrong when he asserts that reducing the top tax rate does not increase revenues.  The Reagan tax cuts resulted in a 20% increase in federal revenues.  The lie that the Reagan tax cuts also cut revenues has been repeated so many times there is scarcely anyone to be found who does not believe it. Reducing tax rates can, and often does, increase tax revenues.
  • Another myth about King Reagan was that he cut government spending.  As you can see, that is not true.  Despite all of the hand wringing by the liberals at the time, King Ronnie did not turn away millions of mentally ill people, forcing them to roam the streets and commit acts of violence.  In fact, government spending rose more than revenues during Reagan's eight year reign.
  • The very small reduction in the top tax rate during the reign of King George II did not result in an increase in revenues.  Does that prove Daniel to be correct?  No, it does not.  That fact can be attributed to the equally obvious fact that King George II's tenure was during the Great Recession, the second worst period in the economic history of the SDA.  It is to be expected that revenues would drop during a time such as that.
  • The Clinton administration essentially left tax rates alone and revenues increased by 46% during his eight years.  The primary reason for the Clinton era revenue increase was the fact that the late 1990s were the period in this country known as the technology boom.  During that period of time tremendous amounts of capital were being created as a result of dramatic growth in technology companies.  That growth of capital also brought about a dramatic increase in federal revenues.
  • The Clinton era was the last one to experience an annual budget surplus.  The "peace dividend," as it was called, that resulted from the collapse of Soviet Russia allowed Clinton and his Court to increase spending less ferociously and, coupled with the tech boom, brought about a couple of years of budget surplus.  Those were our last.
  • King George II, being the warrior that he is, inaugurated wars against several Middle Eastern countries during his reign and, coupled with the Great Recession, greatly expanded government spending.  It takes a lot of money to expand an empire and King George II was willing to spend it.  Bush II forever put to bed the myth that Republicans do not like to "tax and spend" just as much as the Democrats do. 
  • The most important item, from my perspective, in the chart above relates to the rates of economic growth under each king.  You can clearly see a steady decline in the rate of growth in this envy filled country.  The last three administrations shown above have all dealt with basically the same rate of federal taxation.  The only significant tax reduction took place under King Reagan and it is not a coincidence that the greatest rate of economic growth also took place during his reign.  High taxes hinder economic growth.  Lowering taxes encourages economic growth.  That rule never changes.  We have been experiencing a continually decreasing rate of growth because taxes are too high and the increasing regulatory burden on business is sucking the life and profits out of them.  We need a plan to reduce taxes, just like the Republicans propose.
I conclude that reducing the top tax bracket often does increase federal revenues, although I do not see why anyone would ever promote the idea that government should have more of our money.  I also conclude that lowering the rate of taxation in this land brings about a state of affairs where economic growth can increase more quickly.  Lastly, I conclude that government spending is out of control.  Reagan, Clinton and Bush all presided over Courts that dramatically raised spending, although for different reasons.
Only our current King Obama, praised be his name, has managed to cut the total amount of federal spending during his reign.  That, of course, is a direct result of the reduction in military spending as the SDA has ceased expanding and finds itself bogged down in endless skirmishes in the outer countries of its empire rather than engaging in the expensive task of conquering new territory.  Take heart however, the direct impact of Obamacare is yet to be felt and when it hits us I am sure King Obama will show a nice increase in overall spending as well.  At the very least his successor will be saddled with massive increases in government spending.
Do not confuse the fact that King Obama has decreased spending during his first seven years with the possibility that the federal government has operated under a surplus. It hasn't.  Obama's spending reduction is calculated in real dollars.  If marginal dollars were used he would show an increase in spending as well.  He also was the beneficiary of two accidental realities.  First, expenditures have decreased in real terms only because King George II deficit financed his wars and bailout packages to the tune of trillions of dollars.  Compared to King George II, King Obama looks downright thrifty, but he is not.  He is just not spending as much as the utterly profligate King George II did.  Second, King Obama was inaugurated right as the economy started an expansion that has continued throughout his entire term.  Revenues have increased by 38% during his reign primarily because the economy started at an extremely weak point in 2009 and has grown consistently since then.  Revenues have grown because the economy has grown, no thanks to the career politicians and entirely the result of profit seeking businesses doing what they always do by creating capital, providing jobs, creating goods and services for people and selling those goods and services to people for a price they are willing to pay.  Yet despite all of the recent economic growth King Obama has continued to add to the federal debt.  The national debt when King Obama was coronated was $10.6 trillion.  Today it is $18.7 trillion.  The numbers speak for themselves.
Daniel, I proudly consider myself to be a member of the "anti-tax crowd" you choose to defame.  I do not see why it is a good thing for the federal government to take more of my money.  Your belief that the federal government should have even more of what we earn and own only displays your love for and worship of civil government.  Everybody needs a god to worship and Daniel's god is apparently the SDA Treasury.  The more it takes, the happier he is.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Putting Domestic Terrorism Into Perspective

In light of the events in San Bernadino yesterday I decided to dedicate a post to some cold, hard statistical facts about domestic terrorism.  I was watching the news last night to see what each of the major news outlets was reporting and I was not surprised to discover that MSNBC and CNN were touting new gun control laws while Fox News was reporting on the efforts being made to find out who might have been involved in the murders.  One report on CNN got my attention.  A guest stated that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has experienced more than one mass shooting, defined as an event in which at least four people are killed by other people wielding guns, at a rate of more than one per day so far in 2015.  I wondered to myself, could that possibly be true?  I went to the source of all truth, the internet, to find out.  Here is what I found out.
My first stop was a website maintained by the FBI.  It had a chart that listed the total number of "terrorist incidents" in the SDA for the period from 1980 through 2005.  The chart can be found here.  A terrorist incident, according to the FBI, is not restricted exclusively to acts perpetrated by Arabs but includes all acts of violence designed to incite terror in the populace as well as mass shootings.  One thing that is abundantly clear from the statistics maintained by the FBI is that the incidence of domestic terrorism is considerably lower today than it was in the 1980s.  Has everyone forgotten those days?  I haven't.  And although the data did not go back into the 1970s, I suspected the rate of domestic terrorism then was even higher than it was in the 1980s.  Also note that the FBI only recognizes 318 terrorist incidents for the period shown.  It is hard to square the FBI data with the CNN report, don't you think?

Bar graph showing terrorism incidents in the U.S. from 1980-2005. 318 incidents shown, 1982 highest point and 1994-95 lowest.

Being fair and balanced I then went to the Washington Post for information.  I found an article entitled "Eight facts about terrorism" that was quite eye opening.  In that article were the two graphs shown below.  Figure 1 below shows what I suspected to be true.  The total number of terrorist attacks in the SDA was much higher in the 1970s than any recent time.  With the exception of 9/11, the same is true for the total number of attacks/shootings in which people were killed by terrorism in this country.

Table 1 shows how many people have died as a result of terrorism.  This list takes into account the total number of people killed by terrorist attacks rather than just the incidence of said attacks.  For example, 9/11 was classified as having four terrorist attack incidents although, as we all know, thousands of people were killed.  New York leads the list because of 9/11, Virginia is second because of 9/11 and Oklahoma is third because of the Oklahoma City bombing.  .

As I pondered how many people have been killed in domestic terrorist incidents I wondered just what the odds were of being killed by a terrorist.  Should I be afraid, very afraid, or should I remain my usual calm, cool and collected self?  The graph below answers that question for me. Just how likely am I to be killed by a terrorist when I make my morning donut run?  Not very likely it turns out.  Look at this graph and see for yourself.  The odds of being killed by a terrorist are so small it does not even make the list, coming in lower than my risk of being struck by lightning.

chance of death

According to the article I extracted this graph from, "In the last five years, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack have been about 1 in 20 million (that's including both domestic attacks and overseas attacks). As the chart above from the Economist shows, that's considerably smaller than the risk of dying from many other things, from post-surgery complications to ordinary gun violence to lightning."
That left me with just one more question.  Was the CNN report accurate?  Is the SDA unique in the world with more than one mass shooting a day or was that the incorrect report of a hysterical agenda-pusher?  I found the answer to that question here.  King Obama constantly says that the SDA is unique in that we experience more mass shootings, called "rampage shootings" below, than any other nation in the world.  Not surprisingly, the King is wrong.  Look at the chart.

Screenshot - 6_18_2015 , 9_43_12 PM

When the data are examined dispassionately and on a percentage of the population basis, I discover that I am more likely to be involved in a mass shooting if I live in Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, or Switzerland than I am in the SDA.  I thought those countries were all peaceful.  The Scandinavian countries have the reputation of being extremely safe as well as having highly restrictive gun control laws so how can they possibly have a higher rate of mass shootings than the SDA?  I can't answer that question but it is true that there seems to be no correlation between gun control laws and mass shootings.  I guess if I want to live in the safest country in the world I should move to France, despite the recent events in Paris.
I conclude that most of what I am hearing on the news is nothing more than politically motivated hysteria.  That is hardly worth writing about but I thought some of you might care to have some hard data to base your emotional responses to life events upon. I also conclude that Osama bin Laden was very successful in attaining one of his life goals.  He has successfully turned the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika into an amorphous mass of terrified sheeple who are looking to their god, the civil government, for protection at any cost.  The cost of that unnecessary protection is steep indeed as our freedoms are tossed away with the wind and the false promises of a police-state to protect us from ever-present terrorists fill the air.

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Planned Parenthood And Free Speech

While I was in the desert of southern Arizona last week, enjoying the warm desert sun as well as several cactus covered peaks, I saw a news report about a lone gunman who walked into a Planned Parenthood shop in Colorado Springs and opened fire with a gun, killing three people.  I suspected that his actions would ignite a firestorm of controversy and I have not been disappointed.  The Denver Post is dedicating large sections of the paper to stories about the shootings and their alleged causes.  Prominent in all of the stories is the allegation that people who oppose abortion are jointly responsible with the shooter for the murder of those three people.  Basically the argument goes that anyone who expresses a verbal or written opinion in opposition to abortion is engaging in hate speech that inflames the mentally ill among us to go into Planned Parenthood shops and kill people.  Let's consider that for a while today.
Planned Parenthood is a very strange name for a business that specializes in murdering babies.  I believe they should change their name to something like Stopping Parenthood or Preventing Parenthood After the Fact.  Planned Parenthood does not help women plan for their future status as parents of children.  Planned Parenthood exists to legally murder babies so their mothers do not have to be inconvenienced by the fact that their sexual promiscuity resulted in a pregnancy.  Proponents of Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, argue that abortions do nothing more than removed unwanted tissue from the body of a woman, thus allowing her to plan for her future status as a parent at some other time.  How that piece of amorphous tissue somehow ends up becoming a baby and why removing it is not an act of murder is never explained.  All that we are told is that having an abortion is like having liposuction, only cheaper because the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
One fact is incontrovertible when it comes to the abortion debate.  Either abortion is murder or it is not.  In the same way, killing baby Greyhound dogs in a "puppy mill," which brings tears to the eyes of most hardened abortionists, is either murder or it is not (it is not).  In the same way the Holocaust was either an example of murder on a grand scale or it was not (it was).  In the same way a soldier from the Socialist Democracy of Amerika deployed to Iraq and killing an Iraqi citizen is either murder or it is not (it is).  There is no such thing as something that is both murder and not murder at the same time.  So the million dollar question is this, is abortion murder?  Christians believe abortion is murder.  Christians believe God hates abortion and abortionists.  Christians believe that those who have committed murder via abortion must either repent or spend eternity in the Lake of Fire where they will suffer the just punishment for their sins.
Typical of the articles found in my newspaper in support of abortion is one I read today entitled, "Group blames anti-abortion rhetoric for shooting."  It is written by Joey Bunch and tells the story of a group called ProgressNow Colorado.  ProgressNow Colorado is dedicated to advancing abortion and censoring the speech of anyone who opposes it.  A series of murders at an abortion mill is perfect grist for the propaganda mill at ProgressNow Colorado and they are exploiting it to the hilt.  According to the article, "ProgressNow Colorado's executive director, Amy Runyon-Harms, called out a list of Colorado Republicans who have spoken against Planned Parenthood with language she characterized as hostile. 'Along with these policy changes has come an increase in hateful, ugly rhetoric, some of which, I believe, contributes to an increase of violence against abortion providers,' Runyon-Harms said."   So there you have it.  Merely opposing the murderous act of abortion is now the cause of attacks at abortion mills.
I have a question for Amy.  Amy, would you characterize those who spoke out against the Holocaust during WWII as engaging in "hateful, ugly rhetoric" merely because they opposed the slaughter of Jews in the German ovens?  Indeed, I suspect Amy has been guilty at one point or another in her life of declaring that anyone who lived during that era who did not speak out against the slaughter of Jews in the German ovens was behaving hatefully.  That being the case, why is this situation any different?  Try, if you can (and I know you can't but I will write this anyway), to think from the perspective of those who believe in the God of the Bible and argue that abortion is murder.  Can you understand, even for a brief inkling of a moment, why we would be upset when you say that we are guilty of the murder of three people in Colorado Springs?  Or have you become so desensitized to your own hate speech you are no longer capable of seeing anything from the perspective of a Christian person?   I will answer my own question.  Amy, and all others like her who live and prosper in a post-Christian society, have had their consciences seared to the point where they now believe murder is life and life is murder.  To maintain their fiction they turn to their god, the civil government, and petition it to suppress the speech of those who constantly prove them to be wrong.
There is a powerful movement afoot to suppress the free speech of those who oppose the murder of babies.  Since our God-hating society is built upon the pillars of free sex and the guilt-free murder of the by-products of those sexual encounters, it is essential that those who declare such actions to be sinful be suppressed from saying so.  I do not know how this is going to turn out.  I do know that there is a horrific irony in the entire discussion.  Abortion mills in the SDA have committed about 50 million legal murders since 1973 and, with the exception of a handful of Christians, nobody has protested about the violence being committed there.  Then, when two people accompanying customers to an abortion mill are killed, the airwaves are filled with wild ravings about the violence of anti-abortion protesters.  Just dispassionately examining the history of the past forty or so years causes me to come to the conclusion that a lot more violence has been perpetrated upon unborn babies than has been perpetrated upon their mothers.  Regardless, I wonder how long it will be before speaking out against abortion will be criminalized?  Much like it will soon be a criminal act to declare homosexuality to be a sin, I suspect it will also soon be a criminal act to declare that abortion is murder.  Then we Christians will really have no choice but to pack up our bags and check into the local prison where those who don't believe the SDA is the land of the free and the home of the brave will be expected to live out their lives. 

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Jihadists Don't Hate Us Because We Are Free

With the attacks by ISIS agents in Paris and Al-Qaeda agents in Mali in recent weeks we have once again been subjected to a familiar stream of propaganda emanating from the lying mouths of  western career politicians who refuse to confess their sins in public.  Here is what we know is true....ISIS and Al-Qaeda would not exist today if it were not for the extreme political and economic destabilization in the Middle East that was a direct creation of the military forces of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika under King George II.  King George II wanted to expand the Amerikan empire and get his name written into the history books as a great warrior.  He created false pretenses for his war against Iraq and then happily destroyed a society that was successfully keeping Islamic radicals from rising to power.  The vacuum of power created by the Amerikan military is what created ISIS and allowed Al-Qaeda to greatly expand.
The standard line used to explain all of the blow-back associated with the amazingly stupid military incursions into Islamic territory by the SDA and its allies is that those brainless Islamists "hate our freedom" and "want to destroy us because we have liberty."  Islamists are consistently portrayed as sub-human sociopaths who kill for nothing more than the joy of killing.  As an interesting historical sidelight, their portrayal is very similar to what we allegedly learned about the Japanese during WWII, but that is a different story.  Although the assertion about the Islamists is patently false, and can be seen to be so by even the most dense adult who takes more than a couple of minutes to think about it, it remains the standard response and continues to be largely believed by the sheeple of the SDA.  Joe Clement, of Littleton, Colorado, is a case in point.
Joe wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post recently in which he made these familiar assertions, "If we are not to face the sociopaths who want to destroy our freedom and individual liberty, then what are we to do?  Turn the other cheek?  Suppress freedom of expression so as to not offend?  For cowardly psychopaths who murder women and children, reason does not exist.  We need to be courageous and fight for our right to exist in this world.  I would rather die fighting with dignity than be extinguished like lambs."  Wow!  Joe really is clueless.  Let's consider his arguments for a while today.
Joe begins by informing me that Islamists are obsessed with a desire to destroy my freedom and individual liberty.  Don't worry about that Joe.  The SDA government has already done that for them.  I have very little freedom left as a citizen of the SDA.  I am enslaved to the SDA government and the top 51% of the voting public that has made the rational decision to force me to pay for all of the bills incurred by the federal government.  Go here for that story.  I live under thousands of rules and regulation created by faceless career bureaucrats and enforced upon me by a para-military class that can't wait to steal my property and throw me into prison.  If you do not believe me, try this one thing....stop paying your real estate taxes on your home.  Send me an email from prison later.  Citizens in places like Jordan, Mexico and Ukraine have much greater personal freedom than I do.  Don't believe me?  Ask them yourself.  Go find a person who has lived in Jordan, Mexico or Ukraine and ask them if their level of personal freedom was greater there or here.  You might be surprised by their answers.  SDA sheeple have become so accustomed to regulatory oppression we no longer have eyes to see it.  Islamists don't need to kill us because we are free, the federal government has already done the job for them.
Career politicians and their shills like Joe never stop to answer the rather obvious question that must be asked, why would Islamists want to destroy our freedom?  Or an equally obvious question that should be asked is, If Islamists want to destroy our freedom why do they never use that as a reason for their attacks?  Or an equally obvious question that must be asked, Why do Islamists keep saying that the reason they are attacking western nations and peoples has everything to do with the fact that western military forces, primarily consisting of French and  SDA forces by the way, have waged war against and occupied their homelands for decades?  Why do people like Joe not believe it when the Islamists clearly inform us that their goal is to get the SDA out of their country?  And, lastly, why is it such a psychopathic, hateful and sub-human thing for Islamists to desire to be free within the geo-political boundaries of their own countries?
The only answer our rulers have for us, if they are forced to respond to those questions, is that Amerika is exceptional and anything the Amerikan military does is, by definition, morally good and proper.  Conversely, since other countries are not exceptional they deserve everything they get from the hands of the morally superior Amerikans.  That is the argument of every tyrannical empire builder.  What they do for and to their subjects is always for their own good, even up to and including killing them.
Joe believes that the Islamists are psychopaths because they murder women and children.  I wonder if Joe would apply that same standard to the SDA?  SDA imposed sanctions upon Iraq from 1991 through 2011 killed a million Iraqis, about 4% of the total Iraqi population.  Among the dead were hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians including women and children.  Go here for the story.  When queried about the policies of the SDA in regards to Iraq, former Democratic Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked in 1996 by 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl about reports that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of SDA imposed sanctions on that country, stoically replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."  Albright called the half million dead children "acceptable collateral damage."  I wonder what their parents thought about that?  Do you think it is possible some of the Islamists attacking the west today might have had children who died as a result of SDA sanctions?  By the way, the SDA is now imposing similar sanctions on Iran.  I wonder how that will turn out?  I am sure it will be good.
Joe believes that Islamists are such a threat to him that we have to kill them to be able to "exist in the world."  Wow, the Islamists are a lot more powerful than I realized.  Does Joe really expect me to believe that the Islamists present a legitimate military threat to the national security of the geo-political zone known as the United States?  Does he really believe they have the potential to take over the United States?  Come on Joe, free your mind of statist propaganda and look at the real world.  To believe that Islamists are a legitimate threat to SDA national security is one of the dumbest, stupidest, most ludicrous, and most ridiculous things I have ever heard from the mouth of another human being.  The right of the SDA "to exist in the world" is already pretty well established as the SDA currently has military bases, according to Ron Paul, "in 130 nations with a total of 900 overseas bases."   Now tell me Joe, just who is the biggest threat to worldwide security, a couple of Islamist jihadists or the SDA military?  Tell me Joe, how does ISIS compared to the SDA in sheer military might?  Please tell me how ISIS is a threat to SDA national security.
Do you feel insecure as a westerner, in light of recent terrorist events in Paris and Mali?  If so, inform your career politicians that you would prefer that the SDA not be an empire.  Tell them you want the SDA out of the Middle East.  Tell them you want the SDA military out of 129 of the 130 countries it is currently in (it can stay in the SDA, where it belongs).  Tell them you want to follow the Jeffersonian maxim that we are to have free trade with everyone and entangling alliances with no one.  When they accuse you of being a hated "isolationist," inform them that if an isolationist is someone who does not want to be morally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children you are happy to be one.  Most of all, stop repeating the fiction that Islamist warriors are fighting western peoples because they hate our freedom.  We have no freedom for them to hate and what we have done to them for decades is, I dare say, a pretty good reason to fight back.  Indeed, if a country like Saudi Arabia, for instance,  had done to us what we have done to Iraq and Iran over the last 100 years, every one of us would be signing up to go to war against them.  We would all be Christian crusaders and proud to do so but one thing is for sure, we would not be fighting them because we hate their freedom.