It’s official, but no surprise, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barrack Obama made it clear from the beginning he wanted to renovate the Supreme Court by picking a Justice who empathizes with special interests and perceived victims groups. Speaking at a Planned Parenthood gathering, Obama laid out his criteria for picking judges: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”
Not withstanding, “empathy” being code for Judicial activism, Obama claimed today that the Judicial role is to interpret law not make law, but this is what Sotomayer has to say:
Showing her predilection for political activism (and lack of Judicial objectivism), Sotomayor quipped, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Diversity Lecture Berkeley Law School.
Not only is this indicative of judicial subjectivism it is also indicative of a racial connotation. Just imagine the uproar if a White male judge said that a white male can make better decisions than a Latino woman.
Sotomayer is just the ticket Obama needs to achieve his social agenda. Obama writing in his book, Audacity of Hope, confirmed his belief that the Constitution "is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Translation: Your liberties are subject to judicial re-write. She certainly personifies this progressive ideology.
As an example of what we can expect on how Sonia Sotomayor will likely rule she recently gained some modicum of notoriety by killing a reverse racial discrimination case brought against the city of New Haven CT. This case was brought forward by white firefighters who topped the promotion exam but where not promoted. The case cites the city’s review which found that black candidates scored below the level required for promotion and as a result, the city threw out the test results.
Criticizing Sotomayor for a lack of reasoning dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes complained that Sotomayer’s single-paragraph oppinion ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.
The case is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Sotomayer has a history of having her decisions overturned by the High Court. Now she stands to be a member of it.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Unveiling the lies
Thomas J. DiLorenzo In his article on “Never-Ending Government Lies About Markets” on Mises eloquently points out the truth about the deceptions perpetrated on the public about the great failures of capitalism for the purposes of creating more regulation in the name of protecting the public. Like a good parent government knows best but unlike a good parent they are willing to deceive you in order to fulfill their agenda.
Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, over 100 federal agencies, more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register, and dozens of state and local government agencies that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of
• Bank holding companies
• State-chartered banks
• Foreign branches of member banks
• Edge and agreement corporations
• US state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks
• Nonbanking activities of foreign banks
• National banks (with the Comptroller of the Currency)
• Savings banks (with the Office of Thrift Supervision)
• Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies
• Thrift holding companies
• Financial reporting
• Accounting policies of banks
• Business "continuity" in case of an economic emergency
• Consumer-protection laws
• Securities dealings of banks
• Information technology used by banks
• Foreign investments of banks
• Foreign lending by banks
• Branch banking
• Bank mergers and acquisitions
• Who may own a bank
• Capital "adequacy standards"
• Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities
• Equal-opportunity lending
• Mortgage disclosure information
• Reserve requirements
• Electronic-funds transfers
• Interbank liabilities
• Community Reinvestment Act subprime lending requirements
• All international banking operations
• Consumer leasing
• Privacy of consumer financial information
• Payments on demand deposits
• "Fair credit" reporting
• Transactions between member banks and their affiliates
• Truth in lending
• Truth in savings
That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Story of stuff
This video is supposed to be the story of the "effects of human consumption" that teaches kids to be accountable. Does this challenge the minds of kids or does it indoctrinate them?
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Unholy Alliance
The assaults on freedom take on many forms and come from many directions. In our fight to remain a free people we must realize it isn’t only the altruists who worship at the altar of collectivism that we need to watch out for. It also comes in the form of vicarious entanglements between big business and government.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
The Road to Fascism
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So it would seem the road to fascism is also paved with good intentions.
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The New American Dictatorship
When the president of the United States can fire a CEO of a non-government enterprise it is dictatorship. When a president can by the power of whim abuse the sanctity of contract law it is not only a shameful act it is an act of a dictator. When a President can exercise omnipotent power over private contracts and independent financial institutions it is dictatorship.
At the end of the video, Mr. Kudlow asks Donald Luskin a very interesting question in which I personally find the answer very profound. Here is the exchange in case you’ve forgotten or missed it.
Kudrow: “The rule of law we have contract rights. Doesn’t that amount to anything, isn’t there a value to preserving that…”
Donald Luskin: “You cannot run an economy unless property rights are well established and well represented and well agreed on. It is a formula for the road to serfdom.”
What we are experiencing here folks is government openly exercising omnipotence over the economy and industry.
At the end of the video, Mr. Kudlow asks Donald Luskin a very interesting question in which I personally find the answer very profound. Here is the exchange in case you’ve forgotten or missed it.
Kudrow: “The rule of law we have contract rights. Doesn’t that amount to anything, isn’t there a value to preserving that…”
Donald Luskin: “You cannot run an economy unless property rights are well established and well represented and well agreed on. It is a formula for the road to serfdom.”
What we are experiencing here folks is government openly exercising omnipotence over the economy and industry.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Does the Republic Still Exist?
To set the tone for discussion here is a brief rundown of various forms of government:
Dictatorship: Total government control.
Dictatorships don’t really exist—there maybe one visible leader but it is always ruled by a group behind the scenes: nobles, commissars, or bureaucrats, etc.
Oligarchy- ruled by a group (a powerful few), the most common form of government throughout history. It is the most common form of government today. All totalitarian/ dictatorships are “oligarchies.”
Anarchy: (without government) ruled by no one.
But without law there can be no freedom. Anarchy is only a transitionary state (it is unstable). Out of chaos, governments always appear. Sooner or later a civilized people need order, a sheriff, a government to protect property so folks can leave their farms or property to seek employment or work their fields. With the proper amount of government everyone is freer.
Democracy: Rule of the people or Majority Rule.
This sounds good in theory but what if the majority wants to take your property (money, home, business, or even your children)? Democracys never last because sooner or later the majority figures out that they can vote themselves the property of others. This is what happened to the ancient Greeks. Many Americans maybe surprised to learn that nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution is the term “democracy” mentioned.
Republic: The Law or Ruled by Law.
In a Republic, government is limited, leaving the people alone. The law in America is the Constitution which explicitly restricts the powers of government and protects the individual from the majority.
The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of the government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law—Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it protects them. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals NOT a select group of people or the collective. A Republic is ruled by law not by majority opinion.
Here are some quotes to give you some food for thought:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. -Benjamin Franklin
After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked, what kind of government did you give us? Benjamin Franklin replied, “A Republic mam if you can keep it.”
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler
Today we have ample evidence that popular majority opinion is threatening our Republican way of life; for example: The rights of the poor have been put ahead of the rights of the rich. The rights of environmentalism are being put ahead of the property rights of individuals.
Some even complain our Founders could have never imagined what today’s society would evolve into; with cars traveling at high speeds along super highways; that Americans would seek to terrorize other citizens with bio-warfare using the postal service as a means of delivery, or that insurance would become standard in our society.
Because of these complexities many complain the Constitution is too restrictive. It needs to be reinterpreted, that our Constitution is not “written in stone,” but rather a living, breathing, stretchable, kneadable, document to be molded to fit the needs of today’s society. If this is true, we no longer have any clear rules that govern the behavior or jurisdiction of government.
I ask you, do we have a republic today?
True Republican government has disappeared from our understanding, evidenced by the fact that today we no longer hear anyone speaking of our constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government; all we hear about is spreading democracy. No longer do we hear our leaders in government, or in our institutions of higher learning, speak of our constitutional protections from far-reaching democratic institutions.
The Republic has been, over time, incrementally replaced by democracy, liberty has been substituted with majority opinion, and the value of the individual is measured by what sacrifices he makes for the greater good of society.
Dictatorship: Total government control.
Dictatorships don’t really exist—there maybe one visible leader but it is always ruled by a group behind the scenes: nobles, commissars, or bureaucrats, etc.
Oligarchy- ruled by a group (a powerful few), the most common form of government throughout history. It is the most common form of government today. All totalitarian/ dictatorships are “oligarchies.”
Anarchy: (without government) ruled by no one.
But without law there can be no freedom. Anarchy is only a transitionary state (it is unstable). Out of chaos, governments always appear. Sooner or later a civilized people need order, a sheriff, a government to protect property so folks can leave their farms or property to seek employment or work their fields. With the proper amount of government everyone is freer.
Democracy: Rule of the people or Majority Rule.
This sounds good in theory but what if the majority wants to take your property (money, home, business, or even your children)? Democracys never last because sooner or later the majority figures out that they can vote themselves the property of others. This is what happened to the ancient Greeks. Many Americans maybe surprised to learn that nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution is the term “democracy” mentioned.
Republic: The Law or Ruled by Law.
In a Republic, government is limited, leaving the people alone. The law in America is the Constitution which explicitly restricts the powers of government and protects the individual from the majority.
The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of the government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law—Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it protects them. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals NOT a select group of people or the collective. A Republic is ruled by law not by majority opinion.
Here are some quotes to give you some food for thought:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. -Benjamin Franklin
After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked, what kind of government did you give us? Benjamin Franklin replied, “A Republic mam if you can keep it.”
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler
Today we have ample evidence that popular majority opinion is threatening our Republican way of life; for example: The rights of the poor have been put ahead of the rights of the rich. The rights of environmentalism are being put ahead of the property rights of individuals.
Some even complain our Founders could have never imagined what today’s society would evolve into; with cars traveling at high speeds along super highways; that Americans would seek to terrorize other citizens with bio-warfare using the postal service as a means of delivery, or that insurance would become standard in our society.
Because of these complexities many complain the Constitution is too restrictive. It needs to be reinterpreted, that our Constitution is not “written in stone,” but rather a living, breathing, stretchable, kneadable, document to be molded to fit the needs of today’s society. If this is true, we no longer have any clear rules that govern the behavior or jurisdiction of government.
I ask you, do we have a republic today?
True Republican government has disappeared from our understanding, evidenced by the fact that today we no longer hear anyone speaking of our constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government; all we hear about is spreading democracy. No longer do we hear our leaders in government, or in our institutions of higher learning, speak of our constitutional protections from far-reaching democratic institutions.
The Republic has been, over time, incrementally replaced by democracy, liberty has been substituted with majority opinion, and the value of the individual is measured by what sacrifices he makes for the greater good of society.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting Part 2
Today, the conservative philosophy of individualism, personal responsibility, and limited government spending is being touted as racist, even being compared by some as tantamount to Neo Nazism. Of course conservatism is about free markets, individual freedom, and limited government and Nazism is about political and economic totalitarianism which are complete polar opposites.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
Disarming America Part 3
And so it would seem that Barrack Obama has taken the path of Jimmy Carter in repsonse to foriegn policy and Natiaonal Defense.
Jimmy Carter slashed spending on new defense technology including halting missile defense research complaining it wouldn’t work and even if it did the technologies would take years to develop. Ronald Reagan was mocked for his “Star Wars” program but as a direct result of the technology that came from “Star Wars” we now have a working strategic missile defense system.
This type of technology is what allows a patriot missile to shoot down other missiles in mid-air. It allows our cruise missiles to hit targets 100’s of miles away with pinpoint accuracy. Keeping ourselves on the cutting edge of this technology gives us the luxury of fighting at standoff distances minimizing casualties. Let that go, and you’re not looking at fewer conflicts, you're looking at the return of bloodier wars.
Just look at the numbers:
In Vietnam we had 58,209 American soldiers KIA.
In 1968 alone 16,592 American soldiers were killed in action in Vietnam the heaviest year for causalities of the war (BTW my brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1968), which pales in comparison to causalities and KIAs during WWII. Now compare that to 4,148 American Soldiers killed in Iraq and 587 in Afghanistan as of 9/22/08.
Thank God, once again, Reagan didn’t listen to the critics who said it would never work.
Jimmy Carter if nothing else proved that weakness invites predation. Ronald Reagan didn’t give us theory he proved that negotiating from a position of strength works—just like the surge in Iraq worked. Leading from a position of strength will always be superior to begging from a position of weakness.
Obama just may be a true Manchurian candidate who will try to negotiate with the likes of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese, the Russians, and Kim Jong-il from a position of weakness and hope they will be sensible people and keep whatever agreements they may agree too. Making nice giving concessions to our enemies in hopes they will return the gesture? Historically this has only met with failure but maybe that is what Obama means when he calls himself the candidate of ‘hope’, he hopes that this time, although the behavior maybe the same, the outcome will be different.
Jimmy Carter slashed spending on new defense technology including halting missile defense research complaining it wouldn’t work and even if it did the technologies would take years to develop. Ronald Reagan was mocked for his “Star Wars” program but as a direct result of the technology that came from “Star Wars” we now have a working strategic missile defense system.
This type of technology is what allows a patriot missile to shoot down other missiles in mid-air. It allows our cruise missiles to hit targets 100’s of miles away with pinpoint accuracy. Keeping ourselves on the cutting edge of this technology gives us the luxury of fighting at standoff distances minimizing casualties. Let that go, and you’re not looking at fewer conflicts, you're looking at the return of bloodier wars.
Just look at the numbers:
In Vietnam we had 58,209 American soldiers KIA.
In 1968 alone 16,592 American soldiers were killed in action in Vietnam the heaviest year for causalities of the war (BTW my brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1968), which pales in comparison to causalities and KIAs during WWII. Now compare that to 4,148 American Soldiers killed in Iraq and 587 in Afghanistan as of 9/22/08.
Thank God, once again, Reagan didn’t listen to the critics who said it would never work.
Jimmy Carter if nothing else proved that weakness invites predation. Ronald Reagan didn’t give us theory he proved that negotiating from a position of strength works—just like the surge in Iraq worked. Leading from a position of strength will always be superior to begging from a position of weakness.
Obama just may be a true Manchurian candidate who will try to negotiate with the likes of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese, the Russians, and Kim Jong-il from a position of weakness and hope they will be sensible people and keep whatever agreements they may agree too. Making nice giving concessions to our enemies in hopes they will return the gesture? Historically this has only met with failure but maybe that is what Obama means when he calls himself the candidate of ‘hope’, he hopes that this time, although the behavior maybe the same, the outcome will be different.
Disarming America Part 2
Liberals just don’t get it! We have real enemies who want to kill us and yet they want to cut spending to our intelligence gathering institutions and crush them with regulations making it more difficult to obtain information from captured terrorists. Clinton nearly dismantled the CIA when he was in office and Barrack Obama will likely do the same thing cutting funding and imposing restrictions that will hamper intelligence gathering operations.
Modern liberal presidents, every since Jimmy Carter, have been extremely weak on national defense. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK were strong on defense but ever since the 60’s, and the anti-war movement came along, all that changed. Around this time the ‘leftists’ in the liberal movement began a campaign of undermining such institutions as the military, law enforcement, and capitalism. These ‘hippies’ basically hijacked the democratic party forever changing it from what it was under such presidents as JFK who didn’t back down from anybody including the soviets.
JFK had this to say about National defense:
When Ronald Reagan took the reigns as Commander and Chief he was handed a military in ruins.
Democrats during the Carter years voted several times to cut spending on defense and for freezes on defense technology and development of new weapons systems. In September of 1979 democrats led by the likes of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt lead the way voting against a $5 billion package to upgrade vital defense systems. Less than 2 months later The US embassy in Tehran was seized by extremists lead by current president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And not long after that The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Ted Kennedy, who doesn’t share the same feelings about protecting freedom as his older brother John did, called for a nuclear freeze in 1983. This in spite of the failures to prevent the Soviets from out spending the US by over $140 billion on military expenditures after the SALT I was signed in 1972.
Teddy and his democrat allies, Daschle, Gore, Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, and Dukakis, etc, wanted to shut down the Trident missile program, the B-1 bomber, the stealth bomber, air-lunched cruise missiles, ground-lunched cruise missiles, and a host of other programs that would have given our military superiority over the Soviet Union that we lost under Jimmy Carter.
Forcing US military inferiority at a time when the Soviets were rapidly expanding their military forces, nuclear capabilities, and influence around the world would have been disastrous. Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was there to stop them.
Reagan’s philosophy was ‘peace through strength’ and it worked. Under Reagan’s administration we achieved the first meaningful Nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets because we could back it up.
In the end we forced the Soviets to spend and spend trying to keep up with us and they went bankrupt forcing the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire just like Ronald Reagan said it would.
Imagine what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency? We would have never won the cold war.
One can conclude, it is true, it is better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Once Clinton gained office he and his democratic allies went right back to work showing their naiveté on foreign policy and destroying the military.
For instance, the Clinton administration tried to cozy up to the Chinese. In an obvious policy of appeasement, Clinton’s defense secretary in a letter to the Chinese government Wrote:
The kind gesture was returned when less than six months later the People’s Liberation Army launched a simulated nuclear attack against the two largest cities in Taiwan firing two dummy missiles off their coast.
Clinton was dumbfounded and responded by sending US aircraft carriers to the region. The Chinese military took quick notice of the U.S. carriers, and as a result the communist army, Office of the Central Military Command, wrote a report on future nuclear combat with the United States.
When are these liberals going to recognize the fact that we have real threats and take them seriously?
In the 80’s Reagan began to rebuild our military forces after Jimmy Carter nearly decimated it by cutting it by half. President Bill Clinton cut Reagan’s military by nearly 1/3.
In 1996 the Joint Chief’s of staff requested $60 billion to beef up a rapidly declining force. Bill Clinton slashed that request down to $38.9 billion. In 1996 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $8.3 billion. In 1998 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $329 million. In June of 2000 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $1 billion just one year away from 9/11. Each time the cuts were defeated by 100% of the senate republicans.
Today we face a similar dilemma. Barrack Obama has promised, once again, to cut defense spending. Only this time the democrats will run the executive branch—the House of Representatives as well as the Senate—there won’t be enough good sense republicans to stop whatever kind of damage they will cause to our National Defense infrastructure.
Modern liberal presidents, every since Jimmy Carter, have been extremely weak on national defense. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK were strong on defense but ever since the 60’s, and the anti-war movement came along, all that changed. Around this time the ‘leftists’ in the liberal movement began a campaign of undermining such institutions as the military, law enforcement, and capitalism. These ‘hippies’ basically hijacked the democratic party forever changing it from what it was under such presidents as JFK who didn’t back down from anybody including the soviets.
JFK had this to say about National defense:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
When Ronald Reagan took the reigns as Commander and Chief he was handed a military in ruins.
Democrats during the Carter years voted several times to cut spending on defense and for freezes on defense technology and development of new weapons systems. In September of 1979 democrats led by the likes of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt lead the way voting against a $5 billion package to upgrade vital defense systems. Less than 2 months later The US embassy in Tehran was seized by extremists lead by current president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And not long after that The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Ted Kennedy, who doesn’t share the same feelings about protecting freedom as his older brother John did, called for a nuclear freeze in 1983. This in spite of the failures to prevent the Soviets from out spending the US by over $140 billion on military expenditures after the SALT I was signed in 1972.
Teddy and his democrat allies, Daschle, Gore, Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, and Dukakis, etc, wanted to shut down the Trident missile program, the B-1 bomber, the stealth bomber, air-lunched cruise missiles, ground-lunched cruise missiles, and a host of other programs that would have given our military superiority over the Soviet Union that we lost under Jimmy Carter.
Forcing US military inferiority at a time when the Soviets were rapidly expanding their military forces, nuclear capabilities, and influence around the world would have been disastrous. Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was there to stop them.
Reagan’s philosophy was ‘peace through strength’ and it worked. Under Reagan’s administration we achieved the first meaningful Nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets because we could back it up.
In the end we forced the Soviets to spend and spend trying to keep up with us and they went bankrupt forcing the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire just like Ronald Reagan said it would.
Imagine what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency? We would have never won the cold war.
One can conclude, it is true, it is better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Once Clinton gained office he and his democratic allies went right back to work showing their naiveté on foreign policy and destroying the military.
For instance, the Clinton administration tried to cozy up to the Chinese. In an obvious policy of appeasement, Clinton’s defense secretary in a letter to the Chinese government Wrote:
“Advancing the military relationship between our two nation’s remains an objective which we agree serves the long-term interests of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region."
The kind gesture was returned when less than six months later the People’s Liberation Army launched a simulated nuclear attack against the two largest cities in Taiwan firing two dummy missiles off their coast.
Clinton was dumbfounded and responded by sending US aircraft carriers to the region. The Chinese military took quick notice of the U.S. carriers, and as a result the communist army, Office of the Central Military Command, wrote a report on future nuclear combat with the United States.
When are these liberals going to recognize the fact that we have real threats and take them seriously?
In the 80’s Reagan began to rebuild our military forces after Jimmy Carter nearly decimated it by cutting it by half. President Bill Clinton cut Reagan’s military by nearly 1/3.
In 1996 the Joint Chief’s of staff requested $60 billion to beef up a rapidly declining force. Bill Clinton slashed that request down to $38.9 billion. In 1996 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $8.3 billion. In 1998 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $329 million. In June of 2000 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $1 billion just one year away from 9/11. Each time the cuts were defeated by 100% of the senate republicans.
Today we face a similar dilemma. Barrack Obama has promised, once again, to cut defense spending. Only this time the democrats will run the executive branch—the House of Representatives as well as the Senate—there won’t be enough good sense republicans to stop whatever kind of damage they will cause to our National Defense infrastructure.
Obama Disarming of America
The Obama administration faces many challenges from threats around the world. For instance, besides the threat of terrorism, we are seeing a resurgence of Russian political and military influence in Latin America. The Russians have sent political and military envoys to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. The Russian Navy has recently participated in war games with Venezuela and during the same time frame the Russian Navy put into port in Panama. Also worrisome, during the visit to Venezuela Russian officials signed an agreement with Hugo Chavez to help him develop nuclear capabilities.
The reasons for this hostile posturing are two fold, 1. To show the world that after over a decade of absence, the post-Soviets are back on the world scene. 2. A return of soviet aggressive posturing is an apparent campaign to pressure the United States to disengage in talks of admitting former Soviet satellites the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This is not because they pose any significant military threat to Russia necessarily; it is their response to fear over encroaching western influences in the region.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War where The US and the Soviet Union competed over military superiority.
At a time when China and N. Korea have been busy building and testing space weaponry Barrack Obama promises to cut spending to missile defense technologies. However, both Chinese officials and American military strategist agree weaponization of space is inevitable. Soldiers on sea, air, and land already heavily rely on space for GPS-navigation, communications, and satellite imagery. The next step in a natural progression of technology is weapon systems in space. These new technologies will give whoever possesses them a huge advantage in strategic capability.
First and foremost, the president’s job as Commander and Chief of the United Sates military is the security of the country. This takes priority over everything else he does.
First of all we are at war with Muslim fascism and extremism. We face threats from terrorist groups and terrorist states. Many of whom seek nuclear capability to destroy us and Israel.
Tensions have been high over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the invasion has folks making threats on both sides.
Moscow warns it will sell missiles to Iran if the US follows through with plans to place a missile defense sheild in Europe, this includes threatening nuclear war, warning that Poland and the Czech Republic would become designated targets if NATO goes ahead with the missile shield. But failure to do so leaves our European allies virtually defenseless—the Russians, like most predators, like their prey defenseless.
China has been selling weapons, cruise and ballistic missile technology and equipment to Iran for a long time. Both Russia and China are huge importers of Iranian oil.
And to add insult to injury, the Russians and Chinese have been holding joint military exercises.
See Video:
The present threats and challenges are great. The lingering question is, will the Obama administration react like Carter or Reagan?
The reasons for this hostile posturing are two fold, 1. To show the world that after over a decade of absence, the post-Soviets are back on the world scene. 2. A return of soviet aggressive posturing is an apparent campaign to pressure the United States to disengage in talks of admitting former Soviet satellites the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This is not because they pose any significant military threat to Russia necessarily; it is their response to fear over encroaching western influences in the region.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War where The US and the Soviet Union competed over military superiority.
At a time when China and N. Korea have been busy building and testing space weaponry Barrack Obama promises to cut spending to missile defense technologies. However, both Chinese officials and American military strategist agree weaponization of space is inevitable. Soldiers on sea, air, and land already heavily rely on space for GPS-navigation, communications, and satellite imagery. The next step in a natural progression of technology is weapon systems in space. These new technologies will give whoever possesses them a huge advantage in strategic capability.
First and foremost, the president’s job as Commander and Chief of the United Sates military is the security of the country. This takes priority over everything else he does.
First of all we are at war with Muslim fascism and extremism. We face threats from terrorist groups and terrorist states. Many of whom seek nuclear capability to destroy us and Israel.
Tensions have been high over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the invasion has folks making threats on both sides.
Moscow warns it will sell missiles to Iran if the US follows through with plans to place a missile defense sheild in Europe, this includes threatening nuclear war, warning that Poland and the Czech Republic would become designated targets if NATO goes ahead with the missile shield. But failure to do so leaves our European allies virtually defenseless—the Russians, like most predators, like their prey defenseless.
China has been selling weapons, cruise and ballistic missile technology and equipment to Iran for a long time. Both Russia and China are huge importers of Iranian oil.
And to add insult to injury, the Russians and Chinese have been holding joint military exercises.
See Video:
The present threats and challenges are great. The lingering question is, will the Obama administration react like Carter or Reagan?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
