Our Moment of Zen

How would you have answered the final question at the Nashville Presidential Debate? Do you remember the question? "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"

Senator Obama seized upon it as a moment to praise his wife. Then, he skillfully weaved around the question. I don't remember how Senator McCain dealt with the question.

That question reminded me of an Ashleigh Brilliant cartoon, which read, "If you wait until you are completely, absolutely, totally ready, you never will be." Though I am certain that Senator Obama could plumb the depths of that question, he chose not to provide the McCain campaign with grist for the mill. It was politically imperative for Senator Obama to parry all vollies casting doubt on his experience.

Yet, it would have been instructive to be reminded of the day William Tecumseh Sherman met President Lincoln shortly after the inauguration in March 1861. Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, introduced his brother by telling the President about William's trip from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Upon secession, Colonel (later, General) Sherman had resigned his position as Commandant of the Louisiana Military Academy and traveled by rail across the South. He had witnessed feverish preparations for war. Sherman tried hard to convey his alarm. Lincoln shrugged it off, remarking, "Well, I reckon we'll find a way to keep house." Sherman left that meeting thoroughly disgusted with the ignorant huckster in the White House.

Yet, we all know that President Lincoln rose to the challenge. The President, himself, could not foresee the immensity of the burden he was doomed to carry. He may not have known his shoulders could bear it. Only by bearing it did he learn he could bear it.

Immorality, High and Low

The financial crisis is man-made. It exposes the peculiar collective evils of the two major political parties. The foundation lies in the widespread, low-level immorality of the American public. Everyone wants to leverage themselves into the biggest possible home. To achieve this, they sought to rig (subprime) the entire housing market. And they empowered the Democratic party to deliver this rigged, highly combustible market for the American people. How overvalued is the real estate market? Lord only knows!

The immorality of Main Street congeals on Wall Street. There one finds the concentrated, high-level, egregious immorality which provides the accelerant for the IED constructed by the Democrats. There you will find people who quickly realized they could skim billions for themselves out of the rigged market. To cash in, they needed an emasculated regulatory regime. They wanted the Wild West, and the Republican Party gave it to them... complete with a brain-dead cowboy in the White House.

A Crime Far Worse than Murder

Reflecting upon the widespread misery of the Great Depression, precipitated by the rampant greed of speculators, Herbert Hoover concluded that, "There are crimes far worse than murder for which men should be reviled and punished."

This week, the Wall Street pirates are begging to dump their toxic, fetid waste into the taxpayers' collective lap. Some of our Congressmen, echoing our disgust and contempt, are demanding a morale-boosting quid pro quo. Through them, we want to cut the strings of the golden parachutes, quash the bonuses, and bring the salaries down from the stratosphere. Executive compensation is an issue!

And all week we have heard the mealy-mouthed pundits and Wall Street analysts warn us that, if we rein in executive compensation, the big wigs may not participate in the bail out plan.

Well, if they won't participate, we should do as President Hoover suggested. Line them all up on Wall Street and execute them. A few hundred corpses might serve as a salutary example incentiving the rest to play ball.

Girlie Men?

I just received an e-mail attachment from a dear friend, a likable fellow (though a bit of a Limbaugh dittohead). Fortunately, he is wed to a charming, warm-hearted, centrist Democrat who rubs the keen edge from his more extreme right wing opinions.

Nonetheless, he just forwarded a scurrilous bit of typical right wing nut job nonsense. Therein, it is urged, the conservatives are the he-men who build things, make them work, and provide for their women. Liberals are girlie men, whose women are blessed (or cursed, perhaps?) with a higher level of testosterone. These girlie men spend most of their time eating camembert, drinking chablis, and aping French fashions. The rest of the time they devote to dreaming up ways to steal from heroic, hard-working conservatives.

This e-mail was entitled HISTORY 101. So, let's test it against historical facts. How about recent history?

The conservative, George W. Bush, used family influence to evade service in Vietnam. He spent the war muttering into his beer that LBJ should nuke the gooks. Meanwhile, the liberal, John Kerry, though opposing the war, volunteered to serve. His family connections were just as well-placed as those of big-mouthed young Bush, yet he served. That other heroic conservative, Richard Cheney, of course, used the college deferment program six times to evade service.

Let's compare the service of Anthony Zinni and Paul Wolfowitz, antagonists during the run-up to the brain-dead invasion of Iraq. Zinni served in Vietnam with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines. Seriously wounded in battle, with his guts spilling out on a hillside, he vowed to prevent our country from making such a bonehead mistake again. Wolfowitz, like that other hero, Cheney, made use of the college deferment program to evade service. Perhaps, had he experienced Zinni's painful Vietnamese adventure, he might not have urged on the misadventure in Iraq. He might have have gained experience in counter-insurgency, enabling him to appreciate General Shinseki's sober assessment of troop requirements for post-war Iraq. Instead, he made the following asinine statement.

"It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself."

Naturally, it was hard for him to "conceive that it would take more forces." He evaded the experience which would have enabled him to so conceive.

Shall we move on to another comparison? How about the two journalists, William Kristol and James Webb?

Webb, of course, wrote eloquently against Kristol's steady drumbeat for war. Kristol opined that an occupation would require 75,000 troops, costing about $16 billion per year. Webb warned that the entire venture risked the squandering of our primary strategic asset - Mobility - on a static occupation. The cost would be much higher. It has turned out to be 150,000 troops (which is still thin, according to counter-insurgency theory), costing about $12 billion per month.

Kristol took advantage of the college deferment program to study at Harvard. Webb, far more gifted intellectually than Kristol, served with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, earning the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, and 2 Purple Hearts. Perhaps, had Kristol gained the sort of experience Webb gained, he might not have made the following utterly dense pre-war remark.

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shi'a cannot get along with the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that. Iraq's always been very secular."

Consider the breathtaking scope of this kind determined ignorance. With a casual wave of the hand, Mr. Kristol dismissed 14 centuries of Islamic history. This is willful ignorance. Inspired imbecility.

I can draw more portraits of girlie men if you like. This historical pattern is evident when one compares the World War II biographies of the victims and victimizers of the McCarthy witch hunts. It shows up in the World War I biographies of KKK enrollment during the Twenties. It shows up when one compares the biographies of antebellum Southern moderates with the fire eaters. It shows up during the American Revolution.

The average right wing nut is all mouth, seduced by his own mythomania. In other words, he is a chap whose head is buried so deep up his alimentary canal that he needs a sphincterectomy to pull it out. Without the help of warm-hearted centrist Democrats, Lord knows what contortions they might put themselves through.. and the country!

The Bible and the United Nations

A few years ago, I read the Bible from cover to cover.. something I had not done in the previous half-century. I took 41 pages of notes. Several themes stood out in sharp relief.. issues seldom, if ever, discussed in the mass media echo chamber. For example, throughout the Old Testament there is a vigorous debate over these primitive questions: 1) Is God our special tribal god, or is He a Univeral God?, and 2) Does God eat meat?

The Old Testament, to my astonishment, did not settle these questions. In fact, those who doubted that God was a voracious carnivore, like King David, found themselves at odds with the Temple Elders.. and forced to recant. One cannot help but suspect that the Cohens and the Levites, the priestly castes, worked overtime to preserve their meatpacking monopoly. I also suspect that Jesus' condemnation of the moneychangers at the Temple was a renewal of King David's challenge to animal sacrifice.. a much more determined challenge. Jesus never backed down, not even on the cross.

The condemnation of Nationalism is another major Biblical theme which never pierces the echo chamber. Verse after verse equates Nationalism with polytheism and idolatry.

"All the gods of the nations are idols." (Psalms 96:5)

"I will praise thee, O Lord, among the people: I will sing unto thee among the nations." (Psalms 57:9)

"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The Lord reigneth." (Chronicles I 16:31)

"O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon the earth." (Psalms 67:4)

"The Lord hath a controversy with the nations." (Jeremiah 25:31)

"Put them in fear, O Lord: that the nations may know themselves to be but men." (Pslams 9:20)

"All the nations compassed me about: but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them." (Psalms 118:10)

"Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." (Psalms 82:8)

"And nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city: for God did vex them all with adversity." (Chronicles II 15:6)

These very verses, so plain in meaning, are often turned upside down by National fetishists to condemn the United Nations.. the very institution which must unite all of God's children.

P.S. The capitol will be at Jerusalem.

"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it." (Jeremiah 3:17)

The Seven Sisters try to Rope a Dope

I am not unalterably opposed to drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I am willing to accept the oil gurus' argument that they can drill cleaner and smarter. (Though I must admit that, if I owned beach front property in Florida or California, I would not be such a soft touch for that argument.) Nonetheless, I am skeptical that more drilling will lower the price at the pump. And I bitterly resent how the oil gurus have pulled out the same rope a dope strategy that was used to drive us into the dead end of Iraq. I see another dead end ahead.

Once the oil companies obtain the oil (from land and continental shelf leased from the United States government), it is their property, not the American people's. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to sell that product in the most remunerative market. That oil, on the world commodity market, would be just a drop in the barrel. If we were to succeed in pumping enough to affect the Equilibrium Price of that commodity, oilfields with higher fixed costs, like the Alberta tar sands, will fall out of production. Thus, the price would start rising again.

In other words, the impact on the Equilibrium Price of American petroleum in the global marketplace is subject to such a multitude of offsetting factors as to be negligible. On the world market, the Saudis hold the trump card. Saudi petroleum, still rising to the surface under Artesian pressure, will always be the cheapest. That geologic fact gives them enormous leverage upon the Equilibrium Price of oil. If they want to offset the (hoped for) price impact of American production upon the global market, all they have to do is cut production to the point where the price rises. Drilling our way out of this problem only keeps us in the same humiliating position - with our collective tongues buried deep in the collective Saudi rectum osculating the collective Saudi sphincter.

If we wish to reduce our exposure to external forces operating upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum, we must insure that every drop of oil produced in America is consumed in America. To do that, we must either nationalize the oilfields; or, place a protective tariff upon foreign oil: or, impose an export fee on American oil shipped overseas. Do you see any other measures we could take to achieve that goal?

Under such a policy, the price of gas at the pump would be determined by the production cost of the American oilfield with the highest fixed costs. That price would still be quite high, if not higher than what we already pay - given our absurd rate of consumption.

Under NAFTA, of course (assuming we, wisely, don't breach the treaty), Canadian and Mexican petroleum greatly augment supply. Though we cannot force the Canadians or the Mexicans to sell their entire supply solely to us, it is in our interest to keep our market open to all producers in North America.

This course of action, naturally, would infuriate the Seven Sisters. After all, their self-interest closely mirrors that of the Saudis. We should remain mindful, always, that the oil companies have a huge stake in keeping us dependent on petroleum. That stake, in fact, is so huge that I strongly suspect them of actively sabotaging alternative technologies.

I am put in mind of the Rock Island Bridge case. In the mid-1850's, the state of Illinois encouraged the establishment of the Bridge Company, intent on spanning the Mississippi. Steamboaters - and the mercantile interests in St. Louis - were enraged. On May 6, 1856, two weeks after the completion of the bridge, a steamboat, the Effie Afton struck one of the piers, spun out of control, caught fire and burned down a section of the bridge. Fortunately, there were no human fatalities. All of the nearby vessels started blowing whistles and ringing bells. The news spread up and down the river like wildfire. The steamboaters were ecstatic.

Jacob S. Hurd, the owner of the Effie Afton sued for damages, $200,000, a huge sum in those days. He and his fellow steamboat operators hoped to raise the legal costs of maintaining bridges so high that the railroads would have to come home to Jesus; go back to the old system of offloading freight on one side of the river, ferrying it across on steamboats, and re-loading onto trains on the opposite shore.

Norman B. Judd, general counsel for the Rock Island Railroad, selected an attorney from Springfield, Abraham Lincoln, to join in the defense. Mr. Lincoln prepared thoroughly. In Federal District Court, Associate Supreme Court Justice John McLean presiding, Mr. Lincoln systematically destroyed Mr. Hurd's case. The steamboat companies failed in their attempt to sabotage east-west communication across the United States. The vast resources of the trans-Mississippi region could now flow cheaply to the most rewarding markets.

Today, the oil companies and utility companies are the steamboat companies. Battery makers, windmill fabricators, etc. are the railroads. Two cases highlight my point. Iowa and many windy midwestern states have given tax breaks encouraging farmers to build windmills. An Iowa farmer, Greg Swecker, whose farm sits on the highest point in the state, took the people at their word, and invested $45,000 in a windmill. Soon, the windmill was producing a huge surplus of power. He wanted to sell that surplus onto the grid of his local utility, the Midland Power Co-operative. The utility balked worried, no doubt, that other farmers would make the same investment. Would they be cutting checks rather than cashing them? So, they fought like hell. Eventually, the utility lost - but consider how far that fight set back investment in windpower. Consider how such de-centralization of power production would benefit rural incomes. But the utilities want to keep us on our knees, cutting checks.

The second case is best illuminated by watching the entertaining documentary Who Killed the Electric Car, telling the tragic story of the EV 1. I strongly urge every American to watch the film, then go online and expose themselves to the passionate debate. In 2002, the Bush Administration joined the suit of auto dealers, General Motors, and the oil companies, forcing the California Air Resources Board to back down from its Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. That decision set back the development of the electric car by a decade. (I wonder whether that was one of the little decisions taken by Dick Cheney's energy task force?)

Management and Labor at General Motors celebrated that decision. No doubt, they sought to protect their Parts Division. Despite the beckoning of a world market, they refused to cross that bridge. They refused to re-tool. And now, they're in dire straits.

Stop, for a moment, to consider the impact of windmills and the EV1 would have made upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum in the last decade. Imagine modern windmills driving turbines on every farm and ranch across the Great Plains. Imagine every farmer and rancher, not only energy self-sufficient, but producing a surplus. And none of that happened because the utilities want to hang onto centralized collection and distribution of power.

Imagine the full impact of the EV1. How many millions of commuters would have been perfectly satisfied with the 65 mile range between charges. Not a bad trade-off to free oneself of the pump! Imagine the impact upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum of those millions commuter vehicles bypassing the pump day after day, week after week, month after month. It would have freed up billions of gallons for all the Hummers to waste. But, no! We fell for the childish notion that "real men burn fossil fuels!"

We are our own worst enemies. And now, abject slaves to our oil addiction, turning our backs on our astonishing history of innovating our way out of problems, we are willing and eager to despoil our coastlines in our frantic search for a non-renewable resource. And all under the dreamy delusion that the price at the pump will drop. Rubbish!

A Theater Destination

The recent production of A LION IN WINTER at the Victorian Theater in Denver thrilled full houses. The proprietors, hopefully, took in about $4000 each weekend. That will easily service the mortgage. Other expenses will be covered easily and there might be something left over for cast and crew. Responding to popular demand, an additional weekend was added. That additional weekend will really squeeze cast and crew of the next production, STONES IN HIS POCKETS. Striking LION's set and building of STONE's set will run right into each other. Cast and crew for STONES will have to work more in a compressed time frame familiarizing themselves with the set before opening as scheduled (months ago) on February 22. Cast and crew committed themselves (months ago), clearing their schedules. LION cannot be extended any further without completely screwing all involved with STONES. The proprietors of the Vic - and the public - will never know how long LION might have run. There will never be A LION IN WINTER poster placarded with a banner reading, "Now, in it's 58th smash week!" That only happens in London or New York, cities where tourists flock to see theater.

And Denver could never be a destination for theater lovers. Perish the thought! Theater could never reach deeply enough here to sustain extended runs. Drab, humdrum Denverites could never be transformed into theater lovers. Not on a mass scale! Certainly not!

But why not? We are the largest metropolis, centered in a huge geographic region. There is a tremendous amount of talent and an adequate stock of performance space. Much of that space is first rate and underutilized (the Lakewood Cultural Center, for instance). Much of that space is quaint and intimate. There are a handful of fine playwrights (one of extraordinary natural gifts). Our climate and scenery would be most congenial to the motion picture industry. A lively theater scene would serve as a pipeline for a motion picture industy. A motion picture industry, inevitably, would boost tourism. All reinforces all and all would benefit from a thriving theater scene.

The two most significant obstacles local theatrical producers face when pondering extending a run are: 1) the necessity of scheduling space well in advance, in 4-6 weeks blocks of time; and, 2) The inability of local actors to make open-ended commitments of their time. The second problem can be solved easily enough by the producers themselves. All local producers have a list of actors in their heads that they can call on in an emergency. That list in their heads must be better systematized - and shared among each other. The first obstacle is the big one. All producers face rents or mortgages which must be serviced. They must schedule runs in 4-6 blocks with a minimal amount of dark time, hopefully less than two weeks between the closing of one show and the opening of the next.

There is plenty of underutilized performance space in the metro area. The City and County of Denver (and most of the suburban municipal governments) own much of that space. Why not use that space, especially that which is municipally owned? Why not move A LION IN WINTER to city owned space, rent free? Just charge a conservative percentage of the profits? Let the theater owners, cast and crew reap the windfall. It seems such a cheap and simple thing to do which might bring plenty of bang for the buck.

A Stroll to the Theater with President Lincoln

One day, while sitting for his portrait, President Lincoln chatted with the artist, Frank B. Carpenter. He described the Cabinet meeting of July 22, 1862, when he decided upon emancipating the slaves.

"Things had gone from bad to worse until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope on the plan of operations we had been pursuing, that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy, and without consultation or knowlege of the Cabinet, I prepared the original draft of the proclamation, and after much anxious thought, called a Cabinet meeting upon the subject. I said to the Cabinet that I had resolved upon this step, and had not called them together to ask their advice, but to lay the subject matter of a proclamation before them, suggestions as to which would be in order, after they had heard it read. Secretary Chase wished the language stronger in reference to the arming of the blacks. Mr. Blair deprecated the policy, on the ground that it would cost the administration the fall elections.

"Nothing, however, was offered that I had not fully anticipated and settled in my own mind, until Secretary Seward spoke. He said, in substance, 'Mr. President, I approve of the proclamation, but I question the expediency of its issue at this juncture. The depression of the public mind, consequent upon our repeated reverses, is so great that I fear the effect of so important a step. It may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government; the government stretching forth its hands to Ethiopia, instead of Ethiopia stretching forth her hands to the government.'

"His idea was that it would be considered our last shriek, on the retreat.

'Now,' continued Seward. 'While I approve the measure, I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue, until you can give it to the country supported by military success, instead of issuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters of the war.'

"The wisdom of the view of the Secretary of State struck me with great force. It was an aspect of the case that, in all my thought upon the subject, I had entirely overlooked."

I am a playwright. I often attend public readings of new works. These readings are usually followed by an audience critique. I have seen wonderfully useful criticism utterly ignored by aspiring playwrights. So many of them - keenly aware that no member of the audience has thought as deeply upon the plot, theme, and characters of their play as they have - dismiss the criticism. They would do well to consider President Lincoln's close attention to the input of his Cabinet. No doubt, he was the moral and intellectual superior of his several Department Secretaries. He had thought much more deeply upon emancipation than any of them. Yet, in all that deep thought, he had missed a huge piece of the puzzle - picking the best time for publication. Had he gone forward full steam ahead, Emancipation would have failed.

A great playwright, determined to pen a masterpiece, must have both qualities possessed by President Lincoln - moral autonomy and purposive humility. And a finely tuned ear to the input of others.

Bleating for Corey

The local talk radio anti-immigration loonie, Peter Boyles, labors day and night to stir up some sympathy for Corey Voorhis, a Border Patrol agent who provided sensitive information to the Bob Beauprez campaign during the recent contest for Governor in Colorado. He uses this to trash a very good man, Bill Ritter, the winner of that election.

In 2004, the Republicans tossed a gigantic stink bomb into the Presidential campaign when the Vietnam draft dodgers, Bush and Cheney, trashed the patriot, John Kerry, with their swift boat ads. Kerry, by not defending himself against these outrageous lies, demoralized the Democratic party. He had a duty to his supporters, and himself, to attack his slanderers. Bill Ritter did not make the same mistake in 2006 in Colorado. When the Trailhead Group tossed their stink bomb into Colorado politics, the Ritter campaign threw it right back at them. Bill did his duty.

Corey Voorhis broke the law. Whenever the anti-immigration loonies wax poetical about the Mexicans, they always seal their argument by saying, "They broke the law, therefore they are criminals." By that very logic, Corey Voorhis is a criminal. He broke the law. Case closed.

Lastly, the time has come for Peter Boyles, Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, and the whole pack of demagogues to put up or shut up. They will, capriciously, turn the Arkansas Valley into a wasteland if they get their way. Mr. Boyles should use his program to obtain pledges from his devoted listeners to bring in the harvest next year. They can all traipse down to Alamosa and put their deltoids where their mouths are.

Trashing Obama

In the decades leading up to the Civil War, the Fire Eaters down South - to inflame their white trash acolytes - excoriated the abolitionists up North, accusing them of implementing a plot to "miscegenate the races." This strategy worked like a charm. Nothing inflamed white trash, north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, like the fear of mixing their pure white blood with primitive African blood. Abolitionists were persecuted, even murdered, at the instigation of such oratory.

Meanwhile, Down South, in the shadows, slave masters were performing the dark acts they accused the abolitionists of perpetrating. Some historical demographers estimate that 1/3 of all births in the United States between 1840 and 1860 were mulattoes. The slave masters were extremely eager miscegenators.

Today, the spiritual descendants of the Fire Eaters - the right wing loonies - are mobilizing against Barack Obama. I received an e-mail condemning Obama for attending an all black, racist church. The sender, no doubt, attends one of those all white suburban mega-churches. The most segregated hour in America is the Sunday morning sermon. If that fact exposes some hypocrisy in American spiritual life, the sender herself is a participant. Yet, she feels patriotically compelled to trash Obama for something which she excuses in herself. The reservoir of poison slaking the thirst of the right wing loonies is bottomless.

Dr. Paul second guesses President Lincoln

I am a registered Libertarian. If Ron Paul gets his name on the Presidential ballot, I will vote for him - despite two stunningly ill-informed statements on Meet the Press.

Mr. Paul had the temerity to second-guess Abraham Lincoln's inability to head off the Civil War - the irrepressible conflict. Dr. Paul criticized President Lincoln's failure to compromise with the secessionists. The truth is, of course, that President Lincoln was willing to compromise on every issue, save one. He would not budge on the extension of slavery into the Federal Territories. His party had pledged itself on that issue. The Southern political elite insisted they must have the right to take "this species of property" wherever they wanted. They insisted on this despite the fact that the plantation system could never pay west of the 97th Parallel. Essentially, they insisted that the Northern people bless Slavery as a positive good, not just tolerate it as a necessary evil.

Dr. Paul went on to say that slavery would have withered away. Perhaps. But, I doubt it. Slavery had already reached the point where it made scant sense economically. Yet, Southerners grew more attached to the peculiar institution as the 19th Century wore on. Perhaps this was due to its peculiarites? The Northern male, feeling a bit randy, had to comfort himself with self-abuse - or go out on the open market to purchase relief. The slavemaster, prompted by the same urge, could instruct his property to spread her legs and submit. And nine months later, of course, his net worth might increase with the birth of a slave child - a child which he could sell at the most opportune moment. A child he could exploit for himself - economically or sexually. A system like that, so riddled with the deepest, darkest vices, is hard to give up. Especially when the local divines bless it all as virtuous Christianity. Such peculiarities might not conveniently wither away.

In fact, Slavery was replaced with a pseudo-slavery - Jim Crow and the sharecropper system. Dr. Paul blandly asserts that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 were not necessary. He correctly points out that Barry Goldwater, hardly a racist, opposed it because it imposed on property rights. This, of course, is true. But the Civil Rights Acts, relying upon the commerce clause, were constitutional. And such construction of the commerce clause was no expedient innovation of the Johnson Administration. The precedent was set in an 1821 decision by a South Carolina judge in Elkison v. Deliesseline.

As wrong as Dr. Paul is on these historical questions of Civil Rights, he is dead right on the biggest issue before us today - the state of the Empire. We have created a monster which is consuming us. The question Dr. Paul asks, we should all ask ourselves. Why wait for a financial crisis to take the necessary actions to tame the Imperial Beast?