Freedom’s Forge

Broken Hockey Sticks and Other Climate Change Deceptions

2009-12-28T13:34:00.011-07:00

Read Biship Hills Blog "The Yamal implosion" for the best explanation I've read to date about the infamouse "hockey stick" graph that shows a supposed unprecedented warming in the 20th century. But…When Steve McInty revised the dataset with a greater number of core samples from Fritz Schweingruber's collection, which Keith Briffa left out of his analysis, the results were mind boggling. The sharp up spike that appears in Briffa’s graph at the end of the twentieth century had vanished.

Here is a graph depicting the IPCC (Keith Briffa & Mann) "Hockey Stick" that shows dramatic warming in the 20th century:

Here is Steve McIntyre's graph overlaid on top of Briffa's "Hockey Stick":

The Immorality of Socialized Health Care

2009-08-06T10:08:00.001-06:00

We have all heard the arguments against government “anointed” health care: The high unsustainable costs, the monopolies it will create, the special interest it will create, the lucrative contracts to favored constituencies it will create, the forfeiture of choice, the rationing, which ultimately leads to a total government takeover.

All are valid arguments; however, let’s not forget the most fundamental argument of all, which is: Health care is NOT a right.

A right is a moral sanction of mans actions. It says one’s actions are proper and good. Therefore to violate a man’s right is immoral and evil. The fundamental right, of which all others are corollaries, is the right to life. What this means in practical terms, is the right to live for one’s self not for the sake of others. The primary implementation of mans rights is to pursue a standard of living of one’s own choosing free from force or coercion. The only moral purpose of government, then, is to protect these rights. If government extends it powers beyond protecting these rights into the aggressive role of confiscating people’s wealth for the greater good of society, government becomes a tyrant plundering the people.

Any artificial right, such as the right to health care, destroys the real rights of people by forcing them to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it. This is aggressive force to take one’s income and give it to another.

It is neither moral nor well intended to lay claim to the rewards of someone else’s productivity. It is vicious and predacious to demand a good or service without compensation, or to force someone else to pay for it. A right by its very nature makes no claim on someone else’s property or income, a right as our founders conceived it, only applies to the freedom of action not the compulsion of others. In other words these new rights, such as in the case of universal health care, which require the coercion of others cannot be a right. Such new rights are in fact immoral and evil.

What government health care—or any other form of government created publicly funded program that redistributes wealth or subsidizes one group at the expense of another—does, is it turns the productive in society into serfs of the state.

The CNN Propaganda Machine Spinning Obamacare

2009-08-06T09:20:00.005-06:00

On Sunday I was working out at the gym and watching CNN. The pundit being interviewed—no idea who she was—made a very confusing comment. After reviewing the healthcare legislation that is now before the House of Representatives she commented there is nothing in there that would create a single payer source for health care coverage.

I have to call her out on that statement. According to Investors Business Daily, who sought clarification on the bill from the House Ways and Means Committee, reports the bill provides prohibitions against insures signing up new accounts after the bill goes into effect.

In the bill listed under "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage," in the "Limitation on Enrollment" section on Page 16:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.”

The House Ways and Means Committee told Investors Business Daily that in fact the bill prohibits those who currently have private health care from changing it. And those who leave their employer to work for themselves won’t be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a democrat from Illinois, was speaking to a group of socialized health care supporters when she admitted that one goal of Obama’s socialized health care plan would be to kill private insurance companies in the process of “reform.”

Barak Obama himself reported he wanted to instill a single payer source universal health care system.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

However 80% of Americans are happy with their current health plans and as more details are released the Democrat health care plan is rapidly loosing public support so the news media like CNN, who worship at the alter of Obama, have to step up efforts to spin Obamacare to make it more palatable to the masses.

Can We Really Afford Universal Health Care?

2009-07-27T15:27:00.009-06:00

The predominate argument made by the President and congressional liberals for pushing their health care agenda is that it will save the government money in the long run by containing costs. In his usual histrionic fashion Mr. Obama argues his health care plan is vital to controlling future costs and deficits.

"If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit," Obama said. "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we don't act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now."

In yet another foolishly candid moment, Vice President Joe Bidden, in a tryst with the AARP told attendees at a town hall meeting that without the Democrat health care plan the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

The Democrats want to spend their way into a healthy economy, which throughout history has never worked. The only way to pay for it is to tax an already overtaxed people or borrow the money further increasing the deficit.

Can government spending really save the economy? It has never worked; every time it has been tried it was a dismal failure. It was tried during the great Depression and it failed, Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, wrote in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot.” The result of Jimmy Carter’s price fixing and tax and spend polices to combat the 1970’s recession was stagflation. Maybe the Democrats in Washington think it will work this time—what is the definition of insanity again: Repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome? I digress.

According to Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, the house plan shows no fundamental changes hat would reduce the costs of federal health care spending by any significant amount. Instead, the legislation significantly increases the costs the federal government will be responsible to pay.
The CBO estimates the cost will run $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Furthermore the CBO reports 23 million Americans currently insured will loose their private health care plans.

An editorial in The Washington Times suggests it could be even more expensive costing upwards of $4.5 trillion. The article points out mistakes the CBO made in their calculations, grossly—though not intentionally—underestimating the costs. According to the article the CBO didn’t consider small businesses that employ 10 or less workers. Such businesses account for over 12 million employs and pays out 18.5 billion in health insurance per year. This adds up to $185 billion over ten years that the CBO didn’t take into account in their analysis.

The Washington Post article also quotes estimates made by the Lewin Group a health care policy consulting firm, that estimates that 119 million Americans will switch from their private health care plans to the government plan and if this happens the cost could easily swell to $4.5 trillion over the same 10 year period.

No matter how it all plays out the real burden to Americans will be astronomical; trillions of dollars will be added to the deficit over the next 10 years, millions will loose their private insurance plans, at least 16 million Americans will still be without coverage, and competition between insurance companies and consumer choice will be eliminated by government mandates.

Mr. Obama, who wishfully promises: "we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year,” is promoting a fantasy world that in reality will lead to unsustainable deficits, hyper inflation, and a total government takeover of health care.

Happy Independence Day

2009-07-05T13:50:00.018-06:00

As I survey the crowds of flag waving 4th of July celebrators marveling at the grandiose displays of fireworks bursting above, I wonder, if they understand what it means to have individual rights.

I ask myself, do they realize the Boston Tea party was a protest against a government created monopoly? And if so, do they make the connection between then and what is happening today with our own government created monopolies; such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, education (K-12), and others?

Do they consider that the battles of Lexington and Concord began over the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Do they make the connection that today we have places in America where gun ownership is virtually prohibited while in others it is strictly limited?

Do these revelers really understand that we are less free and more heavily taxed than our ancestors under British rule?

Is this really a celebration of the American Revolution—the taking up of arms against one’s own tyrannical government…I wonder which side they would have been on—or is it just a celebration of cool flashy lights in the sky?

Happy Independence Day everybody.

Quote of The Day

2009-07-05T09:21:00.001-06:00

Barack Obama has said his favorite President is Abraham Lincoln. But Obama and Lincoln are on the opposite sides of the ploitical spectrum. As Obama heads us down the road to socialism, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say:

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.---Abraham Lincoln

The Eight Republicans Who Voted For Cap and Trade:

2009-06-27T13:58:00.004-06:00

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

Make them explain themselves!

Click here for the complete results of the vote.

Cap and Trade: Subversion

2009-06-27T13:11:00.006-06:00

As if things couldn’t get any weirder.

As Democrats in the house narrowly pass the thousand page, $2 trillion-dollar plus, cap and trade bill on Friday, EPA documents that refute global warming data are being suppressed.

In a new 2009 study by the EPA on global warming makes the United Nations’ 2007 study, which is being used as the impetus for the Markey-Waxman “Cap and Trade” bill, obsolete. However, this study was suppressed so it wouldn’t interfere with Fridays vote.

Not only does this fly in the face of Obama’s transparency rhetoric it also shows the pragmatism of Obams’s promise when he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”

As it turns out the EPA has been keeping the report under wraps and silencing its author because the Obama administration is pressuring them to support carbon dioxide emission regulations.

The report warns that the EPA's adoption of the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” means that it is relying on outdated research and ignoring major new developments on the issue of climate change.

According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which released the report by analyst and economist/physicist Alan Carlin, explained that those new developments include the continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

Other new data indicates that ocean cycles probably are the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, the institute said. Moreover, reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.

The cost of Universal Healthcare

2009-06-20T22:09:00.011-06:00

The proposed healthcare reform measure being touted by the Obama White House is a recipe for failure and the result will be a complete government takeover of healthcare. That will mean higher taxes, lower quality of care, larger deficits, and bureaucratic rationing.

Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.

According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.

Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.

So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.

Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.

One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.

Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.

Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.

Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.

If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.

Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.

Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.

Quote Of The Day:

2009-06-04T12:04:00.001-06:00

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.”—Hugo Chavez

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez chiding that Barrack Obama is more liberal than Fidel Castro and himself.

More Hypocrisy from the Obama Administration

2009-06-04T11:59:00.020-06:00

During the elections Barrack Obama stated that Iran, Cuba, Venezuela are tiny countries that pose no serious threat to the United States.

See Video

Brezhnev never took Kennedy’s diplomatic solutions seriously until he blockaded Cuba leaving the U.S. and the Soviets tittering on the brink of war.

SALT I and SALT II were miserable failures. There wasn’t a serious or lasting nuclear treaty with the Soviets until Ronald Reagan began a massive military build up that forced the Soviets to negotiations proving that negotiating form a position of strength is a recipe for success.

Now Barrack Obama has succumbed to the idea Iran will become a nuclear state, “Iran may have some right to nuclear energy” says Obama.

In N. Korea his strategy is more of the same; to go back to the table for more talks which have failed for last six years.

According to Hilleary Clinton’s warning to N. Korea, which makes no mention of preemption, is a warning without teeth. It would appear American military intervention will come only after an attack on S. Korea or Japan.

Time and time again talk has proven cheap when dealing with these rogue regimes whose leaders are nothing more than escaped mental patients from the asylum. History has shown us that negotiation from a position of weakness is a recipe for failure. Yet the Obama administration is hell bent on modeling failed formulas from the past.

Obama has accepted a nuclear Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela who is currently working with Russia to develop nuclear power.

The Obama administration is fine with everyone going nuclear except the U.S. where he refuses to allow any new nuclear power plants and has embarked America on a course of green energy that is less than environmental friendly and guaranteed high costs in both jobs loss and tax payer subsides.

The Morality of Climate Change

2009-06-04T10:27:00.009-06:00

According to this article by Paul Driessen Harvard economists predict Cap and Trade will cost the average American family an additional $1500 a year in energy costs. MIT economists predict it will be even higher toping out at $3000 per family. This is sick and immoral and based on lies and unproven theories.

Compared to no cap-and-tax regime, Waxman-Markey would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, according to an updated study by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The bill would also cost an additional 1.1 million jobs each year, raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, cause a 74% hike in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices, and add $1,500 to the average family’s annual energy bill, says Heritage.

The Congressional Budget Office says the poorest one-fifth of families could see annual energy costs rise $700 – while high income families could see their costs rise $2,200 a year. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that the average person could pay an extra $1,500 per year for energy. MIT says household energy costs could climb $3,000 per year.

Where will families find that extra cash? “What do I tell a single mom, making $8 an hour?” asked North Carolina congressman (and Congressional Black Caucus member) G. K. Butterfield.

In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?

Spain’s experience should be cautionary, but probably won’t be. According to a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Spanish taxpayers spent $800,000 for each new job in the wind turbine industry (mostly installing towering turbines) – and destroyed 2.2 regular jobs for each “green” job, primarily because pricey “renewable” electricity forced companies to lay off workers, to stay in business.

And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.

You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com

And Eco- Imperialism.com

Obma's Supreme Court Pick

2009-05-26T11:03:00.013-06:00

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.

Unveiling the lies

2009-05-13T10:14:00.002-06:00

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.

Story of stuff

2009-05-12T18:18:00.002-06:00

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?

The Unholy Alliance

2009-05-11T14:40:00.003-06:00

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.

The Road to Fascism

2009-05-11T14:33:00.004-06:00

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."

Michael Bloomberg Explains the Housing Crisis

2009-05-11T11:18:00.001-06:00

Just A Reminder

2009-05-07T22:25:00.001-06:00

The New American Dictatorship

2009-05-05T15:57:00.007-06:00

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.

Does the Republic Still Exist?

2009-05-03T12:54:00.007-06:00

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.

Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting Part 2

2009-05-01T15:58:00.006-06:00

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.

Disarming America Part 3

2009-05-01T11:53:00.005-06:00

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.

Disarming America Part 2

2009-05-01T11:29:00.003-06:00

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:

“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

2009-05-01T10:42:00.007-06:00

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?

Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting

2009-04-30T09:14:00.012-06:00

According to the world renowned “expert” on Stockholm Syndrome, Janeane Garofalo speaking on the Keith Olbermann Show about the tea parties—giving us a glimpse into the mental madness of liberalism— says "tea parties" are all about hatred for a black president.

Of course nothing can be further from the truth.

The “Tea Parties” are about protesting government overspending, overtaxing, threatening hyperinflation and the devaluation of the dollar. It’s about the government usurping the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

But, the left isn’t going to listen to that...They'll just spew out the same old rhetoric against anyone (or movement) that challenges their world view.

None the less, conservatives are just supposed to shut up because Janeane Garofalo—a failed comic and movie actress, who has never done anything worth while—says so?

It’s simply crazy that the tea party oppositionists see the parties as white extremist whine fests protesting a black president.

The question I have, why is it that conservatives take such a bad rap on racism?

History shows a different story.

Here are some facts:

In 1898, white democrats angry over Republican politics during the reconstruction, in perhaps the nation’s first coup d'etat, burned the printing press of a black newspaper. The violence spread leading to the deaths of over 60 people, resulting in an exodus of 2,100 blacks from Wilmington, N.C.

Moreover, the Ku Klux Klan was founded by a small group of democrats who opposed equality for blacks. A number of prominent democrats since then have been members of the KKK in good standing. One such person is none other than democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the "conscience of the Senate" was a recruiter for the Klan and was promoted to the rank of Exalted Cyclops.

David Barton, a historian and author, observed, "Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective.” "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Not only were blacks targeted by the KKK, so were white republicans. Between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the hands of the KKK. Interesting enough, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime, and again in 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill put forward by Republicans.

It was democrats who in 1868 honored the Grand Wizard of the KKK at their National Convention. Furthermore democrats overwhelmingly opposed the Republican led 14th Amendment which granted citizenship to former slaves and required that the states provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. It was the 14th Amendment that was sighted in the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education that led to the dismantling of racial segregation.

The 1924 Democrat National Convention, in New York City, was dubbed the “Klanbake convention” because it played host to the largest Klan gathering in American history.
FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, although not all reports agree that FDR knew this at the time. Remember George Wallace, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" was a democrat. Bull Connor, in case you have forgotten, ordered the water hoses and dogs to be turned on civil rights protesters, was also a democrat.

Now contrast those Democrats to Republicans:

Here are some facts about the Republican Party many might not know about. Just prior to the Civil War the Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats.

As everyone knows it was Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves.

It was Republicans throughout the 50's and 60's who championed Civil Rights Reform. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 past with 82% Republican support compared to only 64% of Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

See article: An Analysis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Legislated Response to Racial Discrimination in the U. S.

It was a Republican President who nominated Clarence Thomas who became the first black American on the Supreme Court. It was a Republican President who appointed the first black Secretary of State, Colin Powell. It was a Republican President who appointed the first black woman to be Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

It is apparent that the idea of conservatives are racist is a myth propagated by the opportunistic left to adorn themselves as champions of civil rights and portray the right as evil wrongdoers.

In upcoming blogs I’ll discuss these myths in greater detail.

FBI's newest 'Most Wanted' terrorist is American

2009-04-23T20:58:00.002-06:00

After all the to do with the release of the DHS report which basically reads like an anti-conservative political ad—released just in time for Tax Day and the Tea Party demonstrations for fiscal responsibility—It turns out that the FBI, for the first time, added a domestic terrorist to their 10 most wanted list. The irony here is that this “terrorist” is a left-wing animal rights activist –from Berkley no less—and not the dreaded conservative right-winger.

Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California. Authorities describe San Diego as an animal rights activist who turned to bomb attacks and say he has tattoo that proclaims, "It only takes a spark."

Read Story here.

While all the attention is on the right-wing it seams the left-wing radicals are still alive and well, yet ignored by the DHS.

Obama’s Apology Tour

2009-04-22T08:19:00.013-06:00

DOROTHY RABINOWITZ describes in her opinion article in the WSJ, "Obama Blames America" every sentiment I have felt about Obama's apperent guilt over America's greatness, namely betrayal. As an American and veteran I am deeply saddned by the lefts guilt and shame of America when all I have ever felt is pride. The values that made America great; economic and political freedom, and miltary might--it was our constituion, the power of the free markets, and the deterrent that the capability to defeat any enamy who would otherwise do us harm that made us the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation on earth. Now, every one of those tenants are under full-blown assault by Obama and the left.

RABINOWITZ writes:

“The president of the United States has completed another outing abroad in his now standard form: as the un-Bush. At one stop after another -- the latest in Latin America, where Hugo Chávez expressed wishes to be his friend -- Barack Obama fulfilled his campaign vows to show the nations of the world that a new American leadership stood ready to atone for the transgressions of the old.”

In one speech Obama apologized for American arrogance. Speaking in France he says, “In America there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading roll in the world. Instead of celebrating Europe’s dynamic Union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges there have been times when America showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

In other words we should be celebrating anti-Americanism, socialism, high taxes, weak militaries, and those who’ve surrendered there sovereignty and along with it many of their freedoms to the European Union? Who was it that came to their rescue in WW1 and WW2, and maintains military capabilities to defend Europe from Soviet and Iranian aggression? Yes, we should apologize and seek to be more like them...Lambs.

That no such estimation of the United States managed to infiltrate the content or tone of the president's remarks during his European tour -- nary a hint -- we know, and it is not surprising. He had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. Which were, as he perceived them -- arrogance, dismissiveness, Guantanamo, deficiencies in its attitudes toward the Muslim world, and the presidency of Harry Truman and his decision to drop the atomic bomb, which ended World War II.

No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home, or been so ostentatiously modest about the character and accomplishment of the nation he led. He was mediator, an agent of change, a judge, apportioning blame -- and he was above the battle.

None of this display during Mr. Obama's recent travels could have come as a surprise to legions of his supporters, nor would many of them be daunted by their new president's preoccupation with our moral failures. Five decades of teaching in colleges and universities across the land, portraying the U.S. as a power mainly responsible for injustice and evil, whose military might was ever a danger to the world -- a nation built on the fruits of greed, rapacity and racism -- have had their effect. The products of this education find nothing strange in a president quick to focus on the theme of American moral failure. He may not share many of their views, but there is, nonetheless, much that they find familiar about him.

Contiuing on his rampage of destruction Obama...:

Now, on the heels of those travels, comes his release of the guidelines known as "torture memos" -- a decision designed to emphasize, again, the superior ethical and moral leadership the world can expect from this administration as compared with that of presidencies past. This exercise in comparisons is one of which Mr. Obama may well never tire.

The memos' publication had its consequences, most of them intentional. First, declaring his intention to have a forward-looking administration, the president had, to his credit, announced that there would be no trials of CIA personnel involved in the interrogations of terrorists.

We know for a fact that those interrogation techniques led to stopping a major attack on LA. LA residents should rejoice for these new neo-ethical wish worshipping policies of the Obama administration because if they had been in effect many lives would have been lost (not might have been lost)in a 9/11 style attack on LA…You can sleep secure in your beds at night now folks. Obama will hug our enemies into submission. How well did that work for Jimmy Carter?

Here is where she hits the nail on the head and exposes the fallacy behind the Obama administration's soft policy:

…Any number of people listening to Mr. Emanuel -- those acquainted with terror's recent history, at any rate -- would have recalled, instantly, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, and the rest of the unending chain of terror assaults mounted against Americans long before anyone had ever heard of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Anyway, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, since Obama’s early days his political conscious was molded in the same vein as his Kenyan father’s anticolonial resentment when he [Barrack Obama] identified himself with Franz Fannon the revolutionary anticolonialist. Obama's life from cradle to the Presidency has been uninterrupted American resentment from Uncle Frank Davis to Jeremiah Wright.

Profiling-Crazed Right-Wingers

2009-04-20T15:09:00.008-06:00

A newly released Homeland Security report has broadly lumped gun owners, veterans, and many others as potential terror threats based on their political beliefs, including a support for the Second Amendment. So it would seem, according to Janet Napolitano, such people exhibiting these attributes are non grata in the USA.

According to the report, right-wing extremism is defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. It went on to say, "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

One has to wonder what is meant by a “hatred of certain religions” when it was Obama who asked Georgetown University officials, a Jesuit run school, to cover up the name of Jesus so it wouldn’t be displayed during his speech. The question that begs to ba asked is, could the term “hatred of certain religions” pertain to the Muslim religion?

Also, is it any coincidence that this report was made public the day before tax day, the day before the Tea Parties? It was definitely a political statement.

The State of Missouri came out with their own report on potential terror threats. Sighted in the report:

“The Feb. 20 report called "The Modern Militia Movement" mentions such red flags as political bumper stickers for third-party candidates, such as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for president last year....”

I guess to some people it’s no big deal that state troopers are being trained to recognize third party candidate supporters as potential domestic terrorists but profiling of Muslims is considered scandalous.

Where is the ACLU now? Hordes of lawyers would have descended upon the DHS if instead of gun owners, Christians, and veterans, it was Muslim stereotyping and profiling. This puts Barrack Obama’s words, “bitter people who cling to guns and religion” in a clearer context.

As it turns out the WSJ reports that the FBI has been investigating veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as an ongoing investigation into right-wing extremist groups. This investigation was on-going at least two months before the DHS came out with their report.

Understandably veteran groups are furious over the accusation. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment refusing to apologize except to say she was sorry that some vets were upset about the report.

Here is the pattern I see. The DHS report isn't really about keeping terrorist out of our country but redefining patriots as domestic terrorist and finding ways to deal with this new threat?

Arguably this report strongly references the white supremacists. Although, I don't understand what white supremacist have to do with right-wing extremism. White supremacists and Nazis follow collectivist totalitarian ideologies whereas the far right advocates something much different, which is individualism and individual liberty.

Other than semantics, Communism and Nazism are virtually the same thing. In the Soviet Union you had socialism and an extreme dictator, “Joseph Stalin.” In Germany there was “National Socialism” or “Nazism” and an extreme dictator, “Adolf Hitler”. So on one hand you have state ownership and state control and on the other you have some private ownership and state control. Both Nazism and communism advocate that man be a sacrificial lamb sacrificing for the greater good of society, which is a collectivist ideology. Either way they both led to nationalized economies, dictatorships, and enslavement. So, no matter how one spins it, white supremacists are NOT extreme conservatives or Libertarians they are collectivist totalitarians.

So it would seem collectivism is a far greater threat than the right-wing here in America. As despicable racist-supremacy is there are certainly more violent groups out there such as MS-13, Islamic extremists, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

Kool-aid drinkers attack Tea Drinkers

2009-04-18T16:54:00.006-06:00

It is the epitome of pathetic when people standing up for the moral principles of fiscal restraint are called racist pathological teabaggers suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Obama kool-aid drinkers stay true to their leftist colors and worship of pragmatism as Janine Garofalo of SNL fame and liberal poster child Keith Oberman make fun of the Tea Partys taking place across the country proving just what kind of character they have resorting to arguments of intimidation and revisionism when the facts are against them.

According to Ms. Garofalo anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist and conservatives don’t understand what the Boston Tea party was all about. One has to wonder what her version of it is.

It’s appalling that the race card is pulled at the drop of a hat. Where is the line drawn when any disagreement of the Obama’s policies is considered racism? This is further proof of what the left will resort too to inimadate and persecute their enemies to promote their immoral agendas.

Punch drinker CNN’s Anderson Cooper threw in his .02, concurring with Keith Oberman, calling tea party goers ‘teabaggers.” He described the tea parties themselves as "full-throated" and "toothless," he continues with his entendra: "They want to give Presiden Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending."

"Teabagging" for those who don't know, refers to a sexual act involving a part of the male genitalia and another person's face or mouth.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Immorality of Big Government

2009-04-16T13:16:00.003-06:00

Every one of us should take to heart what they believe and why they believe it and they should know how to defend what those beliefs are intelligently.

Whenever we are confronted by a particular philosophy or behavior or policy the morality of the position should be validated by comparison of the contents to the facts of reality. The first question you should ask yourself is does it have value in the real world? Using real world criteria is important because consequences, intended and unintended, are very real. Decisions based on emotionalism or on what one wishes as an outcome without deriving their conclusions based on facts, logic, and from antecedent knowledge are likely doomed scenarios. These scenarios often explode out of control when faced with independent reality and can come with costly unintended consequences.

In order to judge a moral philosophy from an immoral one, start by asking yourself is there value and why do I need it? A “value” is something that one acts to gain or keep. This value is both desirable and ethical and it is solely based on action. The process of obtaining the value is called virtue. In order for something to be valuable it must be virtuous meaning it takes rational action to gain it or keep it. It must advance the conditions needed for mans survival. Man’s survival isn’t just the perpetuation of the species but the perpetuation of man living a rational life as a sovereign being.

Let’s put this into context. Start with the simplest premise of man’s survival, which is freedom. In order to preserve freedom man must first define what it is and how it is implemented.

Freedom is best expressed as the freedom to think independently and act rationally on those thoughts. Freedom is implemented through property rights—property is the fruit of one’s labor, wealth is property. The cornerstone of freedom is laissez-faire ownership of the fruits of one’s own productive efforts. From this one can judge the morality of any philosophy whether altruistic in nature i.e. centralized government, socialized medicine, the welfare state, or any other philosophy big or small, liberal or conservative, authoritarian or anarchist.

Armed with this knowledge you can defend your beliefs from a position of moral superiority. From here it is just a matter of expanding your knowledge on the various subjects.

Freedom is delicate and many people don’t realize how many freedoms they have already lost, how many encroachments there have been upon their property rights. In order to maintain freedom government must be kept to its proper role.

The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce. And the biggest threat comes from a concentration of centralized power. The immoralists dedicated to the proliferation of their immoral agenda would rather see power centralized in one location, for example, power at the state level rather than at the municipal level. They prefer to see centralized power at the federal level than at the state level. This allows them to control legislation that they deem necessary for the benefit of the public rather that be a transfer of money from the rich to the poor or from the private sector to the government. Concentrated power in one central location, in this case Washington, opposes a society dedicated to freedom.

I have already blogged on the proper role of government so I’ll only briefly describe the tenants of a moral government here which is to protect man from the coercion of other men. To do this government has a moral obligation to provide national defense against foreign enemies and to provide domestic law enforcement to protect men from criminals. They also have the moral obligation to protect the sanctity of contracts between men from unlawful breeches by force or fraud. To these ends does government protect man’s life and his sovereignty?

Freedom isn’t always safe because freedom cannot guarantee success it can only provide the opportunities and incentives. Freedom comes with risks, it doesn’t only provide the opportunities to succeed but it is also the freedom to fail. For this reason some people oppose freedom preferring safety afforded by a paternal government instead.

It is often necessary to change a definition of a term to make an immoral idea seem innocuous or even favorable to further the agenda. Be watchful for changes in nomenclature and catch phrases like “fairness”. Remember “fairness” implemented as an anti-discriminatory credit practice for low income borrowers was a major contributor to the housing crisis. Forcing lenders to put low income applicants with poor credit histories on the same level playing field as a high income earner with good credit in the name of equality had devastating consequences in the real world…Just one example (among many) of the unintended consequences of an irrational feel good idea.

Proponents of immoral authoritarian philosophies will also use subversive tactics to play upon one’s emotions, often using children or some other disadvantaged group to parley their message of why we need more government involvement—a concentration of power. In this example welfare and equality is the end that justifies any means necessary. Welfare and equality has become an alternative to freedom taking government out of the “moral” role of protecting people’s rights placing it into the aggressive role where the government partners with special interests to take things away form one group of people and give it to another.

When someone complains about this practice the immoralists use the argument by intimidation calling their opponents names such as “mean spirited” or “arrogant”, and other names to socially persecute and shame their detractors into silence. They use carefully crafted propaganda to promote their agenda and the legislative powers of government to force compliance.

Another deception is this misnomer that government can create wealth. The fact is government cannot create wealth. The government can give people jobs but those jobs are paid for by taxing people. These government created jobs destroy other jobs because if those people weren’t taxed, they would have spent or invested their money somewhere else. This spending and investing would help create new companies and help other companies to expand which would create new jobs and along with it wealth for a greater portion of society not just a few select people who receive government handouts at the expense of the tax payer. This is a prime example of how society is far better served by the private sector.

Another common ploy used by proponents of immoral philosophies against the free market is to decry the deplorable working conditions in the factories during the early stages of the industrial revolution as a critique against capitalism and an argument for regulation. Of course what isn’t mentioned is the higher standards of living made possible by those jobs. Why else would people abandon their meager living scratching at the dirt on rural farms and move to the cities to work in the factories? No one forced these folks to leave their farms and rural communities to seek work in the factories it was voluntary and they did so to improve their personal conditions. Still, compared to today’s standards those conditions were certainly poor, but the people who worked in those jobs were happy to have them and the conditions they worked under were certainly a step up from what they had previously.

Does capitalism support better working conditions? Free unfettered competition certainly does. As companies compete for the best and brightest and most productive workers salaries increase, bonuses and benefits increase and so do improvements in working conditions.

An example of this can bee seen today in underdeveloped countries where there is little regulation yet free trade has brought improvements to the standards of living for many people who profit form these factories moving to their shores. An immoralist might complain that the wage is too small putting a terrible burden on the worker ignoring that that same worker may have been jobless before or only made half of what he makes now. These higher wages have allowed parents to afford to send their kids to school which has effectually decreased child labor and increased the standards of living. In fact it has led to less human rights violations, not more, as the immoralists have argued.

Another deception is that laissez-faire capitalism is the cause of monopolies. It is government through anti-trust laws and subsidies that create monopolies, mediocrity, and higher costs for many goods and services. For example, the central pillar of our health care system, the “tax-subsidized, employer-based health care” where choice has all but been eliminated. Regulations by an over-centralized bureaucracy wrought with widespread inefficiency continue to destroy incentive, quality, innovation, and market power which limit the options available to the consumer and strips consumers of their power to negotiate individual plans or a la carte at lower prices.

What it really boils down too is that when government subsidizes an industry—or a group of people—besides creating a special interest, it completely disrupts the normal free market relationships between buyers and sellers of services. When that happens, accountability to the consumer is lost, quality suffers, and prices spin out of control.

The fundamental edict underlying every argument for governmental controls over what would otherwise be the free market is the lack of belief in freedom. Movement towards centralized control of economic activity is the road to becoming kept citizens because the free market acts as a buffer between political power and economic freedom. All these factors combine to chip away at the public’s confidence in the free markets opening the door even further to allow in political and economic totalitarianism.

Consider another false argument which is it’s the government’s responsibility to protect the poor from the rich.

I ask you, can Donald Trump come to your home and take your car? Can he force you to stay at one of his hotels? Can he confiscate a portion of your income against your will?

If you want Mr. Trump to provide you a service you have to pay him, and if he wants a service from you, he must pay you. He has no more power to take from you as you have to take from him without a mutual agreement. The same can be said about any rich businessman or industrialist.

Many of these tiresome arguments against capitalism and assaults on the wealthy are emotional arguments steeped in fear rather than on the facts of reality. As for pitting one group against another group such as the poor against the rich the constitution does not favor one over the other. Both the rich and the poor have the same constitutional protections. In other words a rich person has every right to his large estate as a poor person has a right to his small estate.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
~~ Thomas Jefferson ~~ (1743–1826)

Today many in our society assume that, in a democracy, the party that wins the majority can vote themselves what ever they want, for example, free health care. Does the majority have the right to confiscate the incomes of the wealthy (or middle class for that matter) to give themselves relief? This is a perfect example of the majority oppressing the minority. Our constitutional government was set up precisely so this doesn’t happen. To advance the immoral philosophy of wealth redistribution is to destroy the very essence of property rights and stands in utter opposition to our constitutional republic fulfilling the words of Benjamin Franklin when he was asked after the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, “What form of government did you give us?” “A republic if you can keep it.”

Let me interject just one more thought: If you think the rich greedy capitalists prey upon the poor, what about the government? Excise taxes are disproportionately paid by the poor.

The bottom line in all this is there are only two means of human interaction, reason (moral) and force (immoral). Immoral power comes from compelling someone, through the use of force, to act against their will. If someone forces you to do something against your will it is a violation of your rights and is punishable by law. However, the immoralists have collectively banded together to get around the law by centralizing power and electing politicians who promise to force others (often targeting select groups of people) against their will to provide prosperity to the rest.

Government is the only authorized institution that can use force to make people act against their will. That is why the immoralists rely so much on government. The corollary is the more reliant people become on government the bigger and more powerful, more immoral, and forceful government becomes which inevitably leads to the destruction of the conditions necessary for mans survival as a rational sovereign being.

I guess you really can’t have your cake and eat it to. You can’t have concentrated central planning controlling everything from the financial markets to massive spending on a plethora of social programs and have freedom too. Throughout the history of the world these two concepts have proven to be incapable.

So the next time you hear someone advocating for bigger government or favoring more government spending, more government regulation, nationalizing banks, socializing medicine, or anytime you see government employing coercion against one person or group to provide something for another person or group (wealth redistribution) you can confidently identify these fallacious principles as immoral and call it what it is.

The Other Side of the AIG Bonus Story

2009-03-29T20:43:00.005-06:00

NYT Op-Ed

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,
Jake DeSantis

America’s Lack of Gun Control is to Blame for the Violence in Mexico

2009-03-29T07:46:00.008-06:00

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

I knew (as many others did) as soon as the drug violence in Mexico became headlines it wouldn’t be long before the anti-gun crowd would use the crisis to their advantage and begin to try to implement their wish list.

It wasn’t long after “Drug Violence in Mexico” made headlines that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was on the news accepting Americas blame in the crisis sighting America’s addiction to drugs and lack of gun control. No mention however, of the lack of border security or immigration enforcement. In a speech she went on the attack blaming military-style assault weapons calling for a new “Assault Weapons Ban.

“Mrs Clinton said the use of military-style assault weapons was a particular concern, and she would discuss reimposing a ban on their sale.

A previous US decision to lift a ban on such sales had been a mistake, she told the NBC television network.

...Mrs Clinton said assault weapons did not belong on anyone's street.”

Over the past few months the anti-gun crowd in Washington, and over at the Brady Center, have been drooling over their anti-gun wish list now that Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches of government. Here is a short description of their wish list.

A new “assault weapons" ban: This is not a repeat of the Clinton ban. Many in congress and the Brady Center are calling for a California style ban which is far more restrictive than the Clinton Gun Ban. They want to ban out right AR-15’s, AK 47’s, M1’s, M1 carbine’s, Mini-14’s and other magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. They also want ban all semi-automatic shotguns and .50 caliber rifles.

Their stated goals are also to ban all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and require federal registration of all semi-auto rifle and pistol magazine fed firearms.

Require micro-stamping of ammunition: This will require stamping serial numbers onto the casings and bullets linking the owner to the bullets in a federal gun-owner registration database. This would virtually be cost prohibitive sending the cost of ammunition sky rocketing to pay for the program. This would also prohibit private transfers of ammunition. Say your and your buddy are at the gun range and he runs out of ammo and you give him a box, this would be considered an illegal transfer sense the serial number on the ammunition does not match the person who is in possession of it.

Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA): This protects the personal information of legal gun owners/purchasers. This of course does not affect illegal firearms since there is no paper trail for illegal purchases.

Require all firearm sales to go through NICS and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers: Again this does not affect illegal purchases only legal ones. This will also allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list which is flagrantly flawed.

Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period: This is thought to be a way to thwart "large-volume" illegal gun traffickers.

The consequences of these bills will put a huge burden upon the law abiding citizen and do little to stay the illegal gun trade. This will in effect ban all private transfers of firearms and amunition, ban millions of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and pistols, ration sales, and give new powers to the BATF to harass law abiding gun owners and legitimate gun dealers.

Quote of the Day

2009-03-27T14:16:00.001-06:00

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Milton Friedman

Daniel Hannan Takes America by Storm

2009-03-27T13:15:00.013-06:00

Mr. Hannon talks about some familiar themes that are being played out right here in this country. Speaking of the absurdity of replacing public sector jobs as a compensating mechanism for private sector job loss he says, “…you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive part of the economy in order to fund an engorgement of the unproductive. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”

On the Glenn Beck show Daniel Hanan points to the destructive forces that are unleashed when Government inserts its regulatory muscles into the free markets saying the bank bailouts, the nationalizations, the subsidies, act to make things worse.

About the issue of government created jobs he makes the point that they aren’t typical public sector jobs in the traditional sense like a policemen or firemen, rather they are liaison officers, outreach workers, or racism awareness counselors. Maybe here in America we can add to that list community organizer.

The most significant point here, showing the deception behind the scenes, is that these jobs are created to get folks to vote for the party who created them. This is what FDR did with organized labor and the many other special interest groups he created who benefited from his administration. Same thing is happening today with wealth redistribution policies.

In another interview, on the Sean Hannity show, Hannon said everybody, except politicians, understands that when you are in debt you spend less. Hannon also quoted Milton Friedman “There is only two kinds of money in this world. There is my money and your money.”

Milton Freedmen actually said, “"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."

Causality

Government interventions into the free markets, by artificial manipulation, is what caused the Great depression. It was war debt, high tariffs, and failed monetary regulation that caused the recession of the late 1920’s. It was government spending and regulatory controls and anti-business policies of the FDR’s administration that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.

The recession of the late 70’s early 80’s was started by LBJ’s deficit spending to fund the Vietnam War which brought about rampant inflation. Jimmy Carter mismanaged the economy egregiously by increasing taxation and regulation stifling the economy even further. The unemployment rate was higher then than it is now. By 1980, the "misery index"—unemployment plus inflation –hit over 20 percent for the first time since World War II. It was Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, freeing the entrepreneurial spirit of American business ending the recession.

Today’s crisis can be traced directly back to the easy money policies of the Fed and anti-credit discrimination regulations placed on lenders by the government.

Instead of looking at successful models as a guide to economic recovery the government keeps repeating the mistakes of the past by insisting on following the same failed methods.

What Mr. Hannon is getting at is, the best way to deal with crisis is to get back to the fundamentals of how government is suppose to work; leaving the people alone to make their own decisions and deregulate allowing an atmosphere where the sprit of entrepreneurialship can thrive.

The Road to Hell

2009-03-25T11:26:00.011-06:00

EU presidency: US economic plans 'a road to hell'

STRASBOURG, France (AP) -- The president of the European Union slammed President Barack Obama's plans to have the U.S. spend its way out of recession as "a road to hell," underscoring European differences with Washington ahead of a crucial summit next week on fixing the world economy.

With that said, the White House searches for new tax revenues.

The White House said it would launch a search for new tax revenues, as Congressional leaders moved to scale back proposed spending increases and tax cuts in President Barack Obama's ambitious budget.

The Obama administration plans to create a task force to consider elimination of corporate loopholes and subsidies, tougher enforcement against tax avoidance, and tax simplification, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said late Tuesday.

Basically the administration wants to find new ways of taxing people and corporations. Another thing they want to do is reduce the level of tax breaks such as on charitable contributions which will negatively impact philanthropy. They also plan on increasing the powers of the IRS to more aggressively go after people and corporations.

Mean while the senate plans on scrapping the middle-class tax cut after 2010.

President Barack Obama says he's not ready to comment on a proposal from some Senate Democrats to scrap his middle-class tax cut after 2010. Obama says he hasn't yet seen what changes are coming out of the House and Senate.

But he delivered his bottom-line on the budget at a Tuesday evening news conference. Obama said the budget must move toward health care reform and include an energy policy that frees the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. He also says he's looking for investment in education and a reduction in the deficit.

Obama’s spending plan, which will increase the deficit by over $9 trillion in the next 10 years, is simply unsustainable. Taxes will have to go up and not just on the rich but for everyone. This will be increases on taxes in virtually all categories from corporate taxes, income taxes, to regressive excise taxes—sales tax, gasoline, energy, etc. Nough said.

Change and the New Deal

2009-03-24T16:14:00.013-06:00

Voters in their zealousness for "change" have given us a President and legislature hungry to bring back the old failed policies of the FDR administration.

There is no doubt that the policies of “New Deal” were blatantly statist and centralized Government power. Essentially Roosevelt’s policies declared war on the Jeffersonian legacy of individualism and decentralized government.

As historians have repeatedly revealed, the origins of these policies came from soviet literature in communist publications lauded by intellectuals and progressives some of which had earlier sailed to Europe and traveled to Russia and met with Joseph Stalin. Many of these “travelers” as Amity Shlaes calls them in her book “The Forgotten Man” sympathized with communism and felt that many aspects of it could be successfully implemented back home. Many of these travelers such as, Raymond Moley, Rex Tugwell, and Adolf Berle became part of FDR’s Brain Trust. Others actually were appointed to cabinet level positions in FDR’s administration.

Harry Hopkins, one of FDR’s advisors and one of the principle architects of the “New Deal” was a communist sympathizer and a suspected Soviet agent. Hopkins, a Brain Truster, supervised the WPA and held the position of Secretary of Commerce from 1938 to 1940.

Then there were those who were outright communists themselves. One such example can be found in Lauchlin Currie, an economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt , Alger Hiss in the State department, Harry Dexter White a high ranking official in the Department of Treasury, etc.

The New Deal virtually destroyed laissez-faire capitalism in this country which was already under assault by interventions implemented by Woodrow Wilson such as the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax. But it was changes made by FDR’s administration that made the quantum leap towards statism and centralization.

Now under the leadership of FDR’s contemporary cronies we are promised “change” once again. What change? Promising to take more control of private and publicly traded financial institutions, as Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner are calling for, virtually taking over every part of the economy is “change” that would make FDR and his Brain Trusters proud.

“Change” so brazenly socialist that even Vladimir Putin took notice warning the Obama administration of the dangers of socialism.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

One thing is for sure the most prominent features of socialism and fascism is government inserting itself into private institutions.

The Obama administration has taken the “New Deal” to new heights never imagined in FDR’s day. “Change” maybe, but certainly nothing new. It is the same failed philosophies that the travelers brought back from Soviet Russia and were implemented by FDR. FDR used the crisis of the Great Depression as a segue for implementing sweeping socialist changes. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, agrees “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” There is nothing new here folks, Obama’s “change” is nothing more than a modern reincarnation of FDR’s New Deal, ushering in a new wave of outmoded collectivist idealism.

Government misdirection

2009-03-23T16:18:00.008-06:00

Obama’s new administration will never cease to astound me. First comes the multi-billion dollar Stimulus Bill, then the extraordinary Omnibus Bill without any pork. How’s removing tattoos from gang members at the cost to tax payers of $200,000 or $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, $2 million for swine odor and manure management, $250,000 to preserve Lahontan cut-throat trout, $866,000 for stable fly control, $265,000 for blackbird management for example of the lack of pork in the bill.

Then to find out that it was Christopher Dodd who wrote allowances into the bill for corporations receiving stimulus money to payout bonuses. It doesn’t stop there, come to find out it was Geitner who engineered the AIG bailout. Geiter also lied about when he knew what he knew. According to Liddy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has known about them for three months and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner found out about the payments two weeks ago -- a week before Geithner has said he first heard of the bonuses from his staff.

Some Republican law makers have called for Geitner’s resignation:

“Lawmakers in both parties Wednesday questioned why Mr. Geithner didn't do more to derail the bonus payments and two Republicans called on him to resign.

The uproar comes on top of a skeptical reception to Mr. Geithner's plan to ameliorate the financial crisis and concern about his slowness in building a team.

From the outset, Mr. Geithner's tenure was clouded by questions about his failure to pay personal taxes. Now, seven weeks into the job, he also finds himself pilloried by late-night comics.”

Now, according to the New York Times the Obama administration plans to further take over private and publicly traded financial insitutions.

“The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.”

The new rules will cover all financial institutions; including those institutions that haven’t received any bailout money.

Can anyone justify such a government intrusion into the free markets? The government has no right to make compensation decisions for the private sector. This is economic fascism where ownership remains in private hands but is controlled by the government. Can this be their Ultimate goal? Obama is fininshing what FDR begun. This has always been the goal of the left.

Of course the lies and decpetion don’t stop there. Obama promises to cut the deficit in half by 2014 but according to tht WSJ the CBO tells a different story:

“Congressional budget forecasters said President Barack Obama's spending blueprint would produce significantly deeper long-run deficits than the White House has projected, complicating the task of enacting his ambitious domestic agenda.

"This will make it more challenging for Congress as we craft a budget resolution," said North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad. The Senate Budget Committee chairman will be one of the key players steering the White House spending blueprint through Capitol Hill starting next week. "The reality is, we are going to have to make adjustments to the president's budget if we want to keep the deficit on a downward trajectory," Mr. Conrad added.”

More proof of the lies coming out of the Obama administration. Should America really put there trust in government to fix what they broke in the first place. Is this the philosophy of freedom? Should we ignore the lies and deceptions ignoring their consequences? America voted and America got what it asked for.

The Tax Gods Speak

2009-03-21T15:01:00.004-06:00

House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

Washington is sure protective of our tax dollars as Schumer, Pelosi et. al…cry fowl, "We want tax payer money back."

WASHINGTON – Denouncing a "squandering of the people's money," lawmakers voted decisively Thursday to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies. The House vote was 328-93. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate and President Barack Obama quickly signaled general support for the concept.

"I look forward to receiving a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated," the president said in a statement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, told colleagues, "We want our money back now for the taxpayers. It isn't that complicated."

As a tax payer I want the government to return the $750 billion they plundered from the tax payer.

Obama Biden Gaff Machines

2009-03-21T09:35:00.005-06:00

In the wake of Obama's off color remarks on The Tonight show Toby Harnden brings us the top ten Obamabiden gaffs.

But one of my favorites is when Joey Biden talks to a Indian American supporter and says in Delaware you cannot go into a 7Eleven or a Dunkin Donuts without a Indian accent.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama Overtures

2009-03-21T08:42:00.012-06:00

Oh, what a surprise.

Will Iran, whose leaders deny that the holocaust ever happened, have sworn themselves to the destruction of Israel, ever be appeased by the Great Satan Infidel as they chant in anti-western rallies?

Barrack Obama had mis-judged them from the beginning when he said Iran wasn’t a threat on the camping trail. Again he miscalculated when he went on Arab television to apologize for American polices and promising the murderous Palestinians $9 hundred million in US tax payer money to rebuild Gaza rebuffing our ally Israel.

He will continue to be wrong in the Middle East because of his foreign policies of appeasement and toleration just as Jimmy Carter got the Russians wrong during the SALT treaty and the Iranians wrong during the Iranian hostage crises. Ronald Reagan got it right, "Negotiate from a position of strength." That is assuming of course that anyone can negotiate with fanatical mentally challenged religious ideologues. But you certainly don’t negotiate from a position of tolerance, appeasement, and weakness either.

According to this NYT article:

Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings ''real changes'' in foreign policy.

Never mind the fact that Iran has supported violence and terror over the globe from North Africa, Lebanon, Israel, the Balkans, Asia, to Iraq that have killed Americans soldiers and civilians and many allies.

Iran's mentality towrds the US is that of brainwashed minions who worship a God-like cult leader.Besides recognizing Obama's weaknesses in foriegn polcy they aslo got something else right, the empty rhetoric of cahnge.

''They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change,'' Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community ''cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.''

Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama's language compared to that of his predecessor.

''He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change?
Make it clear for us what has changed.''

More change we can believe in.

Vladimir Putin Warns Obama of the Dangers of Socialism

2009-03-20T21:47:00.003-06:00

I have wanted to post this for a while but I have had other things to get out there. If there is a national shame this is it; Obama is warned about the dangers of socialism by, of all people, Vladimir Putin.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

Although, we can’t expect the former communist and head of the KGB Vladimir Putin to get everything right when it come to how capitalism works he certainly comes to the table with a wealth of knowledge on the failures of socialism. At the very least his warnings should be taken seriously.

And how quickly the national memory forgets the disastrous polices of the FDR’s administration and Keynesian economics—here we go again. Obama has picked up the torch of LBJ’s great society which picked up where FDR left off, which states government always knows best.

Den of Thieves

2009-03-20T08:16:00.019-06:00

Yes chuckie, and we want our stimulus money back too. It also belongs to the tax payer.

Constitutionally speaking the Congress cannot single out any one person or group for legislative persecution (and that is what it is) they have to do it generally across the board. What this means is, if they want to follow the constitution they have to tax all executive bonuses not just AIG. But why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way.

Those who complain of the bonuses being paid out to corporate executives need to remember AIG’s Edward Liddy had no legal recourse other than to pay the bonuses.

In the case of AIG where executives received some $173 million in bonuses were out of the financial services division located in Connecticut. Connecticut has a state law requiring any employer, who has a contract to pay an employee a set wage or bonus, to pay up. If the company should fail to pay, as required by the contract, the company is liable and can be sued. If the plaintiff wins the case the company will be required by state law to pay double the amount plus attorney fees. This could be disastrous making AIG liable to possibly pay out over $346 million dollars.

Not to mention the fact, there are provisions within the stimulus bill that allows companies receiving tax payer support to pay out bonuses to their employees. Once it was found out it was Christopher Dodd who wrote these provisions into the bill he quickly rolled on Barrack Obama saying he was asked by Obama to write these provisions into the bill.

So it would seem AIG acted within the regulations put on them by government. Now they are being persecuted by government for following the rules.

The Government wants to blast AIG for their behavior, what about the government’s behavior? One just has to remember that AIG is paying bonuses in the low hundreds of millions of dollars while the government stimulus spending is in the high hundreds of billions. They are all crooks, its thieves regulating thieves. If anyone wants to complain about the bonuses they should be complaining even louder about the bailouts in the first place.

I guess it’s a case of everyone wanting to have their cake and eat too.

The argument against Altruism

2009-03-19T13:47:00.002-06:00

If I had a dime for every time I heard someone say the government doesn’t do enough to help people I would be in a higher tax bracket. I especially hear this around the issue of healthcare.

The other day I had a conversation with someone who said the government should provide free healthcare to everybody. I answered by saying, how about we go down to the bank and open an account so you can contribute money to pay my health care costs since I don’t want to pay for insurance anymore. She looked at me with a puzzled look in her eye. I continued, what’s wrong with that? Do you really think there is any difference between me demanding you pay my costs or the government demanding it? I cannot use force to make you do it without violating the law but the government can. Such is the essence of providing free healthcare to everyone.

The moral to this story is giving people things for nothing is an act against freedom since it uses force to violate the rights of others.

Dangerous Philosophies

2009-03-15T22:52:00.015-06:00

The fact is that there are some philosophies that have very real and dangerous consequences. These philosophies fail because they ignore the essential characteristics of reality. In effect, people who follow these philosophies bury their head in the sand to the contradictions, denying causality of the unintended consequences. These failures are readily predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability.

We are seeing these philosophies being played-out in the stimulus package and the Omnibus bill. They are being played out by injecting altruistic ideology into the legislative processes.

Government benevolence always backfires with unintended consequences. Authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, have brought us to the brink of economic collapse. Just look at the “Community Reinvestment Act”, created to protect low income borrowers from discriminatory credit practices. This was the spark that ultimately led to the housing crash. How many Americans are being hurt by this crash?

While both Congress and the media rage a crusade to crucify corporate leaders for their corporate jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to their executives. No mention is ever heard of Nancy Pelosi flying her family, friends, and personal employees around on military jets which she demands to be at her beck and call 24 hours a day.

What is also ignored is that these corporations, who buy their own jets, hire contractors to improve the aesthetics of their offices, and give out bonuses actually help to stimulate the economy. These practices are job friendly and that is what we need right now isn’t it?

Speaking of job friendliness, Barrack Obama signed a not so job-friendly executive order that discriminates against 84 Percent of the construction workforce. This new order basically calls for large-scale federal construction projects to be carried out by union labor eliminating over 80 percent of non-union contractors. When Clinton called for higher wages, benefits and collective-bargaining, for union contractors resulted in the costs nearly doubling. Of course it is the tax payers who absorb these higher costs.

Obama says he wants to create jobs but this policy does the exact opposite because 84% of American builders and contractors do not belong to unions. In every case union only contracts drive up costs by limiting bidders and forcing construction users to use union workers who represent less than 15 percent of the workforce.

“Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union,” added Pickerel. “All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.”

And how have Unions affected the auto industry?

"The unions for decades have been making steeper and steeper demands on the auto industry through efforts of strikes, a form of legalized extortion. Making demands that simply could never be lived up to in the long run. Pensions alone that the auto industry owes union members exceed $14 billion dollars - and that is to people who no longer produce anything for the companies. It is basically a system similar to how our social security system works, where the workers of today are supposed to provide for the workers of yesterday. Both are doomed for failure.

So now we have the US auto industry going to the United States government and asking for taxpayer dollars to bail out the costs associated with these union groups demands. It is another form of redistribution of wealth, where Americans are asked to pay money so that the unions can benefit.”

According to a Fortune magazine article “Behind Ford's scary $12.7 billion loss” organized labor has created a disadvantage to American auto makers trying to compete with non-unionized competitors. Not to mention the fact it increases the cost of the car.

“What’s more, not only is the union work force a terrible expense for the auto industry it’s just flat-out less productive than it’s non-union counterparts:

...nonunion U.S.-based auto assembly plants made 1.1 million more vehicles in 2005 than they did in 2001, while production at unionized plants fell by 1.1 million, he said.

Of course, one way to look at that statement is to say that the non-union automakers (Toyota, etc.) are just selling more cars than the union automakers. And that’s probably true, but it still proves the point that a union labor force is bad for business. Companies like Toyota are selling more cars because their cars are cheaper (thanks to lower labor costs) and better made (thanks to better workers). Both of those facts are an indictment of the union workers.

And it also exposes a larger truth. The more we foist costs like health insurance, high taxes and heavy regulation on American businesses the worse they’ll do in competing with their international counterparts. Something that will drive jobs and economic growth overseas.”

It is only common sense that states what is anti-business is anti-job.

Does Gun Control Work?

2009-03-11T16:49:00.004-06:00

If all guns were banned I think the first thing you will see is a drastic underground market and the rise of crime organizations smuggling guns into the country just like drugs. I also think you turn hundreds of thousands if not millions of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals because many Americans will not give up their guns or seek guns on the black market. You give up the legal gun trade for the illegal gun trade but guns will still be out there.

In order to find out how gun laws affect crime the non-pragmatist would take a look in places where strict gun laws exist to find the results.

Before the Washington DC gun ban went into effect gun crime was already dropping, after the ban the murder rate rose.

John Lott speaking on the Heller vs. D.C. case stated, “The DC brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But what wasn't mentioned in the brief was the fact that the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005.”

In 1996, Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles and many pump action shotguns and other semi-automatic weapons. As of 2000, the Australian government confiscated and destroyed about 660,000 privately owned firearms. However between 1996-1998 armed robberies rose 73 percent, assaults rose 16 percent, and unlawful entries rose 8 percent. Murders also rose slightly. -- "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00

Germany has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe and like Washington D.C. a gun ready for defensive use in the home is outlawed. Despite this the annual number of firearm-related murders throughout Germany rose 76% between 1992 to 1995. --- Library of Congress, p. 69.

Today we here of a mass shooting in Germany:

WINNENDEN, Germany – A 17-year-old wielding a Beretta 9 mm pistol burst into classrooms at his former high school Wednesday and gunned down students — some of whom died with their pencils still in hand — in a rampage that ended with 15 dead before he took his own life, authorities said.

What information can be extracted from this? Gun control simply doesn’t work.

The Dishonesty of the Anti-Gun Crowd

2009-03-11T14:52:00.012-06:00

The arguments of the anti-gun crowd are based in emotionalism and histrionics and the fact that some folks actually exercise self-responsibility is somehow stifling to their soul. Trying to engage the anti-gunner in reasoned discourse just isn’t possible since they tend to be pragmatists.

During the debates on the Clinton gun ban the anti-gun crowd’s arguments were laden with rhetoric, emotionalism, and hysteronics, not facts. What facts they had were all nuanced, or quite frankly made up. What really pissed me off was when the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, refused to bang the gavel when time ran out. At this point the ban had been defeated by three votes. Although time had run out the anti-gunners in congress managed to sway a few more votes in their favor and Tom Foley quickly banged the gavel before the pro-gun crowed could talk them out of changing their votes. The ban passed and the rest is history.

To showcase this dishonesty here is Dennis Henigan the legal director for Brady Campaign omitting “Of the People” when quoting the second Amendment.

The above video might be argued as an unintentional omission until you see this one and realize he has a pattern of lying:

Dennis Henigan Misquotes the 2nd Amendment - Click here for more amazing videos

Two Supreme Court Justices had this to say:

In 1833 Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms provided a “strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers”. Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) listed the right to own and carry arms as one of the rights of citizenship.

In this Gallup poll shows Americans overwhelmingly agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals.

Smell the Pork

2009-03-11T09:12:00.005-06:00

According to the Heritage Foundation the "Omnibus" spending package contains 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion.

Let’s name some names. Here is a list of the big tax dollar spenders in the omnibus spending bill.

Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that the biggest spender is Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., with 60 earmarks worth $123 million. Of course he isn’t the only one:

1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900
2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250
3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491
4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425
5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475
6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750
7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000
8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500
9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000
10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205
11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250
12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100
13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125
14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250
15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750
16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613
17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000
18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000
19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250
20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625

Let’s vote them all out of office.

Letter to IRS

2009-03-11T08:24:00.007-06:00

Ed Barnett wrote a letter to the IRS explaining why he was unable to pay his 2008 income taxes. Though this is humorous (I’m sure the IRS had a good laugh as they began hunting this person down). As you read this letter pay attention to how many different taxes people have to pay.

Dear IRS,

I am sorry to inform you that I will not be able to pay taxes owed April 15, but all is not lost.

I have paid these taxes: accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capitol gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma and New Mexico sales tax, and many more that I can't recall but I have run out of space and money.

When you do not receive my check April 15, just know that it is an honest mistake. Please treat me the same way you treated Congressmen Charles Rangle, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and ex-Congressman Tom Dashelle and, of course, your boss Timothy Geithner. No penalties and no interest.

P.S. I will make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.

Ed Barnett

We should all send letters. Remember we have the power to fire any oppressive ruler in this country; the President, Congressman, or Senator and put people in office who will serve the people instead of abuse them--they work for us. Remember the second law of tyranny:

"Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it."

In summation: “Dangers to freedom”

2009-03-10T22:34:00.002-06:00

I ask you, is the principles of individual freedom outdated and irrelevant in today’s society? I ask this because I have heard over and over again that government doesn’t do enough to help people. So people who expect government to do more for people are either ignorant of the fact that to help more people the government has to violate someone’s real rights, or they think that property rights is out of fashion.

I was watching a news program recently when a guest of the program, who was there to defend Obama’s spending plan, said (with conviction): “We are going to be taxing the rich like they should have been taxed all along.” What this guy is really saying is some portions of society don’t deserve to have rights.

Anyway, in conclusion of the “Enemy Within” the threats to freedom have been shown to be pragmatism, altruism, and apathy.

The pragmatist finds no ready made reality; instead one creates his own reality. Relatively there are no absolutes; no facts and no laws of logic. The pragmatist worships at the altar of an alternate reality constructed of emotion and perception without regard to the independent facts. The pragmatist can rationalize anything including appeasing terrorists as a way to achieve peace. This happened when Barrack Obama’s first televised interview, after becoming president, was on an Arab Television station and he apologized for American policies. And when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Palestinians $9 hundred million to help rebuild the Gaza strip, she essentially rewarded Hamas for firing rockets into Israel and killing civilians.

The pragmatist can rationalize all these things including the need to marginalize some individual rights for the benefit of society. One way this is done is by changing the terminology such as “fairness” as a disguise for redistributing wealth, the disastrous CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) that caused the housing crash was disguised as “fairness” in lending. Speaking of the Community Reinvestment Act, Barrack Obama has broadened the CRA to become the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (notice the similarity to the disastrous National Recovery Act FDR implemented, deepening and prolonging the “Great Depression”). How does anyone defend the stimulus and the omnibus spending bill? Pragmatism, that’s how.

The altruist demands the individual make sacrifices to society—sacrifice some property; sacrifice some liberty, sacrifice some happiness so that others who don’t act on their own behalf to achieve these things can have them anyway. The altruist says that although man should be responsible for himself, he can’t be trusted with that responsibility, so society must be tasked to do it for him. The final product of altruism is socialism.

Apathy is the ostrich that buries his head in the sand ignoring the problems and allowing others to make decisions for him. Like the altruist he surrenders his responsibilities to society. The apathetic person by default tolerates the abuses of individual rights to go on unopposed.

The government should be the agents for protecting the rights of individuals. The voters should vote anyone out of office who doesn’t respect these rights. If the laws fail to stop oppressive practices of government the voters have to step up to the plate and change the personnel running the country. In other words, fire them.

Listen, the bottom line is if people want freedom to reign supreme in this country they need to understand the majority cannot vote the rights away from the minority—and the individual is the smallest minority.

If people want to stay free, it is time to stand united and demand individual rights be protected. It is the only way save our freedom.

The Enemy Within Part Three: Apathy

2009-03-10T22:22:00.005-06:00

Are American’s tiring of the fight for freedom? Is freedom in America dying by suicide?

When the government takes someone’s personal property and gives it to someone else just because they want it or need it is a violation of protected private property rights.

As the government moves to solidify the institutionalization of violating private property rights, many cheer, some complain, and others bury their heads in the sand, ignoring the real consequences of this nationalized behavior. My question is, where is the out cry, where are the protesters and demonstrations, where are the phone calls and emails telling government Americans won’t stand for it? Where are the voters when it comes to firing the bad guys involved in the plunder? Instead, far to many people just accept it and mumble under their breath about having to subsidize everything under the sun from treating crack heads in Chicago’s South Side, to tattoo removal for gang bangers in South Central LA, and even women’s reproductive care in Mexico City.

Why is it so destructive for the government to confiscate wealth and redistribute it anyway? Every democracy throughout history has failed because sooner or later the majority figures out they can vote themselves the property of the minority which in every case lead to socialism—in one form or another—which intern leads to a totalitarian style government sometime in the near future.

The founders of this great nation went to war against the government over “excess taxation.” Today the government has found away around the “excessive taxation” problem with the “progressive tax” code (and taxing everything including double taxation on investments and retirement funds). This is the implementation of, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."—Barrack Obama.

The progressive tax is where a minority of tax payers are forced to pay the majority of the tax burden. The fact is, the top 1% of earners pays more “income tax” than the bottom 90% put together. So, the minority—the highest income earners—In this country pay excessive tax rates (which even Whoopi Goldberg rails against) while the majority pay far less or none at all. Since the minority has little to no voice in a democracy they have little recourse other than to stop producing or shut up and pay the taxes.

Do the rich have any less right to their property than the poor or middle class? Do the weak have fewer rights than the strong? Or does every individual, rich or poor, strong or weak have the same equal rights under the law? The last I checked they did.

The altruists in society have convinced Americans that they are all victims of the arrogant and selfish rich and therefore the rich do not deserve their rights. What’s missing from this philosophy is the truth, which is, the constitution protects everyone’s individual rights not just the majority of people.

The progressives in society have put the rights of victim-hood ahead of those who succeed punishing initiative, creativity, and productivity, while rewarding idleness and fruitfulness. Today’s progressive society is a tribute to dysfunction. In America, if you can’t afford your home because you’ve mortgaged a lifestyle you can’t afford, the burden will be transferred to the guy working two jobs to support his family and trying to get ahead in life.

Throughout American history getting something for nothing has been a foreign concept in the national psyche but today it is not only common place but expected.

Those who would give up their dignity for a little security and a guaranteed piece of the American dream fail to realize they are giving up their personal sovereignty at the same time. Some people would rather give up their personal responsibilities and let the state take responsibility for making decision for them. This is cowardice and cowards don’t want to think or act for themselves. They want freedom from freedom in the same way a child wants mom and dad to tell him what to do. Instead of accepting the inherent risks of freedom they want freedom from failure. They prefer guaranteed prosperity to the challenges of life.

Freedom isn’t free; it wasn’t passed to us in our DNA and we will not pass it to our children in their DNA. Freedom is a ceaseless battle that every freedom loving American is responsible for waging. Freedom does not come without effort; it takes courage and vigilance, initiative and motivation, determination and education, and it takes work ethic. It takes the desire to better oneself and one’s position in life. What the fight for freedom really boils down to is the relentless pursuit of self-reliance.

Someone who is self-reliant says I don’t need the nanny state. I can take care of my self and my own. This of course is a slap in the face to the cowardly altruist who wants someone else, someone perhaps smarter than he, to make decisions for him. The altruist doesn’t want freedom. Quite to the contrary, he is afraid of freedom and he does not trust other’s to make choices for themselves and wants government to decide for them.

As long as people are willing to let the government make decisions on their behalf or violate the rights of others, freedom cannot thrive for long. What is needed is for Americans to stand up overwhelmingly for truth and freedom and let their representatives in government know they won’t tolerate the violation of individual rights. However this is not the trait of “apathy”.

The apathetic, like an ostrich, bury their head in the sand and ignore and evade the discussion altogether and by default support the philosophies and polices that are eroding the real rights of individuals in this country.

The 2nd Amendment Part Two: Original Intent

2009-03-08T21:50:00.007-06:00

The founders were united in their belief that private citizens, armed with their own firearms, were vital to a free nation. They observed what happens to citizens when the means of personal defense is kept from them. They observed that the greatest atrocities committed upon humankind have been at the hand of governments.

History is chock full of examples of tyrants who have sought to disarm the people they intended to enslave. Julius Caesar, during the Gallic campaigns, recognized the difficulty of conquering an armed people: “all arms were collected from the town” and “there could be no terms of surrender save on delivery of arms.” King Charles II imposed legislation to disarm the English population nearly 100 years before the disarmament campaign in the colonies, and there are many other examples.

The 20th century has also seen plenty examples of what can happen to unarmed populations such as in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and in Mao’s China, where millions of unarmed citizens were oppressed, abused, and slaughtered. Unarmed citizens will always live their lives at the whims of those who have guns, namely the government and criminals. In fact, dictators throughout history have disarmed their citizenries in order to impose power:

Adolph Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Lenin: "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Stalin: "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The founders of this great nation were revolutionaries who went to war against their government, the king of England, because of oppression. If they had allowed the government to disarm them we wouldn’t have the America we know and love today.

The founders felt it important to leave us the legacy of resistance because they understood the nature of man, which it is in his nature, once he gains a little authority to begin to practice despotism. Often the encroachments on freedom are slow, mostly unnoticeable, until one day you wake up with your freedom gone.

As we can see, the founders had a long (founded) history of mistrusting government and of standing armies as dangerous to individual liberty. For this reason it was considered the duty of every male to keep a rifle with few exceptions and this was considered patriotic. The duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those persons who were eligible for military service, this included older males as well.

James Madison, one of the principle architect’s of the second amendment (Bill of Rights), viewed the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right of gun ownership of the population at large. In fact many of America’s framers believed this, and on many occasions stated that the right to gun ownership is a right of the “people”.

Thomas Jefferson commenting on his mistrust of government power said,” Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

According to Thomas Jefferson the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty and defend against an oppressive government when he said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

John Adams seconds this notion but takes it a step further saying the 2nd amendment establishes right to self-defense against criminals: "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."

Thomas Jefferson addresses how gun control laws protect the criminal from his intended victim: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Paine stated the 2nd Amendment also plays a roll in protecting property rights: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property..."

Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society and good friend of James Madison tells us what the term “people” means when it is used in the Constitution. He also mentions the majority cannot deprive the individual of his rights: "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

George Mason defines the original meaning of the “militia”: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

Thomas Jefferson tells us what to do if there is ever a question of the meaning or intent of the law: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Though, there may be some vague language in parts of the Constitution, there is nothing vague about “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is quite clear the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the people (individuals) to own and carry guns.

The explicit reasons for the 2nd Amendment are: 1. National defense- to come to the aid of one’s country against foreign invaders and to defend liberty from oppressive and tyrannous government. 2. Self-defense. 3. For defense of property.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with sporting or hunting arms, though these arms are certainly a truly American heritage. Nevertheless, the 2nd amendment is about the right to defense.

The 2nd Amendment Part One: The Militia

2009-03-08T10:20:00.010-06:00

The Revolutionary War was fought over government oppression, specifically “excessive taxation”. The founders made sure the legacy of freedom they fought and bled for would be protected by placing restrictions on government through Constitutional restraints. The founders, in their uncanny wisdom, also gave us a backup plan for defending freedom if government, or reason, failed to protect the rights of individuals. They gave us the 2nd Amendment.

That said, the famous “Shot Heard Around the World” happened when colonists converged on the British army to stop them from confiscating private arms from homes setting off the battles of Lexington and Concord—the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

In the minds of many Americans, the Second Amendment may just be the most important constitutionally protected right of all since it serves to safeguard all other rights.

The truth behind the 2nd Amendment is often ignored or misunderstood and therefore gets misrepresented in the debates. One common error is the militia argument. What one needs to understand about the “militia” is that there are different categories of militia.

The militia according to Federal statutes in section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia” states: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

*Source “We the Unorganized Militia” by Randy E. Barnett. This is a great read on the utility and relevance of the militia in today’s society.

Given this knowledge any interpretation of the “militia” being only members of the military is an illogical and erroneous conclusion.

Pragmatism in Foreign policy Part Two

2009-03-04T21:57:00.007-07:00

How does the pragmatist respond to Terrorism? It seams the way to deal with bad guys is to reward them. Sectary of Sate Hillary Clinton on behalf the Obama administration, showing their true colors, has just given us a glimpse. By promising money to rebuild the Gaza strip.

“Hillary Clinton put America on a collision course with Israel today after pledging to press for a Palestinian state.

The U.S. Secretary of State's position brings her into conflict with the Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu.

Although Netanyahu has spoken of Palestinian self-government, he has shied away from a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.”

Hmmm, shouldn’t Israel, the folks who have to deal with Palestinian aggression daily, have the finale say on the matter?

“Clinton, who is in Jerusalem for talks today, spoke after attending a conference in Egypt geared to raising donations for the Gaza Strip. She pledged $900 million in U.S. aid.”

Although that is a stinging sum for American tax payers, who are already reeling form the Obama’s $3 trillion Stimulus package, is just a drop in the bucket in comparison of how the rest of the world is reacting by pledging $5.2 billion.

So the world rewards terrorism.

“Rockets still fly on a daily basis out of Gaza, does the world stand shoulder to shoulder against the terrorist.

No they stand shoulder to shoulder with the terrorist against the victims.

But since the victims of the rockets and terror are Jews, let's finish the job Hitler started.”

So it would seem my perdictions of toleration and appeasement will be the guide for the Obama administration’s foreign policy is coming true--as if that was a stretch to predict.

Pragmatism in Foreign policy

2009-03-04T20:11:00.003-07:00

Let’s take a look at foreign policy for a moment. The effects of pragmatism are evident everywhere one looks. For instance, it is no longer fashionable to use the term Muslim or Islam when speaking of our enemies. Instead of Islamic extremist or Muslim terrorist the acceptable term for those causing trouble is now extremist or fanatic. In fact, the war on terror isn’t even mentioned by the new administration.

The catch word “moderation” has become the new symbol of respectability. One must always keep an open dialogue with their enemies and keep the peace process moving along. One cannot challenge the validly of these claims because who gets to decide what’s valid? Ambiguity rules the realm of the pragmatist and it is this philosophy that drives both domestic and foreign policy. Since pragmatism is a code of non-ethics there can be no rightful claims except to do whatever is expedient or popular at the moment.

Take another example from war on Terror. In Iraq, instead of fighting the war to win the U.S. has embarked on a path of crusading western style democracy in the same way the Christian crusaders went about spreading Christianity to the heathens, who did not want it, employing brute force to achieve it.

The idea that the Islamic world would ever accept a western style democracy is simply ludicrous at best.

First of all, the image of democracy as a symbol of freedom and all Islam needs is a heavy dose of democracy couldn’t be further from the truth. Folks need to understand democracy is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. Freedom is premised on the idea of individualism; which principally states that every man (and women) is an independent and a sovereign being. Freedom means one does not need anyone’s permission to act on the judgment of his own rational mind. In other words, a free man is not a merely an interchangeable component of society—he is free to cultivate his talents, take calculated risks, to think and act for himself, and enjoy the benefits of his creations.

Islamic culture on the other hand is the antithesis to the principles of freedom. Instead of recognizing and respecting individual rights the culture of Islam is built on the idea of tribalism. The function of the individual is to serve the clan or the larger organism. Islam rejects the values necessary for freedom to exist.

So while Bush may take credit for having liberated millions of people (at least on paper) by giving them the vote. The consequence of his policies was to fan the flames of American hatred throughout the Middle East—exhibited by mass demonstrations glorifying martyrs and celebrating 9/11.

What else did we get for our troubles? In almost every case voters support candidates that are overwhelmingly anti-west.

In Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine, where U.S. policy advances democracy and demands elections, in every case without exception, the populations of those nations embraced anti-western, freedom adverse, Islamic fundamentalist candidates.

This same failed policy of nation building and crusading western style democracy around the Middle East as a means of achieving victory is still being played out in the Middle East under Barrack Obama’s administration. It quickly becomes apparent that the outcome of pragmatic policies isn’t as important as having noble intensions.

Pragmatism in Politics

2009-03-04T19:19:00.012-07:00

Pragmatism is truly the language of the politician. This is borne out time after time when a candidate presents one set of ideas in the primaries and another during the general elections. For example, during the democratic primaries Barrack Obama was seen pandering to the left but once he won the primaries he made a rapid shift towards the center to appeal to a broader audience in the general elections.

How many times did wee see candidate Barrack Obama backtrack on a statement he made with conviction just a few days before? How many flip-flops were there 10, 20, or more? How many half truths and deceptions were potential voters spoon fed? How many promises did he make that he had no chance of delivering?

Of course this isn’t exclusive to just Barrack Obama, or the democrats for that matter, politicians in general are pragmatists who run from the truth if it shows any potential whatsoever to be damaging. This is evident when a candidate changes his tune depending on the audience he is speaking too—even to the point of contradicting himself?

This behavior seams to be perfectly acceptable by the voters as simply, “just the way it is, everybody does it, the status quo, or business as usual.” If this is true, should anyone be surprised that we have so many problems in society today?

Does this pragmatic philosophy cause contradictions that affect policy? The answer is absolutely yes. Just examine any government policy and you’ll find plenty of contradictions. Look at the stimulus package which is full of pork. How does tattoo removal and food stamps help the recovery? How can Obama say there is no pork in the bill and yet there is at least $13 billion in pet projects that don’t do a single thing to stimulate the economy? How can Obama say he won’t hire lobbyists to work in his administration then turn around and appoint William Lynn, a lobbyist for Raytheon, as deputy secretary of defense? How can he say he is going to restore integrity to government and then have four appointees who are in trouble for failing to pay their taxes including one who is now the head of the IRS?

The broken promises just keep piling up. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone because Barrack, the poster child for pragmatism, was infamous for his flip-flopping during the presidential campaign as he tried to be all things to all people.

Obama promised:

1. No pork. See above.
2. Bipartisanship. Republicans in the House of Representatives weren’t even given a copy of the stimulus bill before the vote nor were they asked for their input.
3. To reduce bills that gets rushed through Congress and allow at least five days for public comment before signing bills. That never happened.
4. To create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs. That seams to be missing from the stimulus bill and budget.
5. Not to hire lobbyists. See above.
6. To bring integrity to government. Then he nominates 4 people who owed back taxes.
7. Transparency. The stimulus bill was a secretive process until after it was passed and we are still learning what’s in it.

These broken promises shouldn’t surprise anyone since he had such a vivid history of being untruthful.

Click here for Top Ten Flip-Flops

Want More? Here's more:

1. The Surge.
2. FISA.
3. School Vouchers.
4. Welfare Reform.
5. Divided Jerusalem.
6. Meeting with Iran without preconditions.
7. Palestinian elections.
8. The threat posed by Iran.
9. The Patriot Act.
10. Wiretapping.

There are many more but this should suffice to prove my point.

Does anyone doubt that the institutionalization of the pragmatic philosophy is a threat to America and to the principles of individual liberty?

Defending the Stimulus Package

2009-03-03T14:25:00.010-07:00

I tried watching President Obama’s speech to congress on the stimulus bill. However, when he patted himself on the back for passing a stimulus package without any “pork” in it (while maintaing a straight face), and Nancy Pelosi jumped to her feet in standing ovation, I have to admit I threw up in my mouth a little bit. I just couldn’t watch any further.

According to the Heritage Foundation the Stimulus package contains 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion. Some of these pork projects are:

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$2 billion on child-care subsidies
$2 billion for community organizations (such as ACORN)
$1 billion for Amtrak
$650 million on top what’s already been spent on digital TV conversion coupons
$400 million for global-warming research
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.7 million for swine odor and manure management research
$1.2 million for mosquito research
$200 thousand for a tattoo-removal for gang bangers
Etc.

No, none of this is pork.

The Stimulus package should be simply called the Obama debt plan. Besides being the most expensive spending package in history it is also the largest power grab by government in the history of the United Sates.

In order to carry out this massive plan the federal government would need to hire 200,000 new employees, according the Heritage Foundation calculations—as if government wasn’t already too big.

Can anyone tell me how this plan can in any way be defended?

Combating Tyranny

2009-03-03T13:22:00.004-07:00

Gene Palmisano, writes in a recent post “Waiting for the Renaissance” that if Americans truly wanted to fight tyranny “a tax revolt would suffice.”

“I always assumed if Americans wanted to fight government tyranny, a tax revolt would suffice, but the tax structure in this country is so pervasive, so enmeshed into the fabric of our everyday lives it’s inescapable. If this recession has taught us anything, we the consumers are the ones with purchasing power, we determine which markets survive and which die, we determine the destiny of our economy.

If we are to demand political reform in Washington, we need to flex our fiscal muscles and restrain from buying durable goods; after all, why should we bolster the economy with our buying power, when the government shows such lack of moral restraint in fiscal policy. I say we strike this economy. Crash the markets if need be; whatever it takes to twist the strong arm of government.”

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I have had several conversations with folks about the power of the consumer. Remember, gas prices came down mostly because consumers changed their driving habits. If enough people dislike the business practice of some corporation, Wal-Mart for example, they could change the way Wal-Mart does business—even put them out of business—simply by spending their money somewhere else. Wal-Mart would then face a choice; change their business practices or go out of business.

In a free-market society the consumer controls their own destiny, and they don’t need government regulation to do it. When it comes to combating tyranny the same principles apply. Society could effectually overthrow the usurpers of power, those who pervert the principles of Republican government, simply through economic means.

Check out Gene's Blog at, “The Metaphysical Lunch”

Does Democracy lead to socialsm?

2009-03-03T08:32:00.007-07:00

Tim Kerns writing in an article on Mises tells of a talk he gave to a group of entrepreneurs that illustrates how democracy can lead to the path of socialism if voters are not mindful.

“I've always been perplexed by the dichotomy that often divides people's avowed beliefs and their actions. It may be hard to accept the moral and economic evils of socialism, in the abstract, but it's also hard to vote against it.

Asked whether they believed that socialism was the best track to prosperity, all said no. Asked whether they supported socialism or capitalism, the latter got the universal nod.

I followed those introductory comments with a brief spiel on a book I wrote years ago. I brought out a copy, briefly paged through it, and mentioned its content and supposed value. I also said that, if the group wanted this book to go to one of the audience members, they could vote for me to make it so.

The vote was unanimous; no one was so "selfish" that he or she would vote against someone's receiving a book — even if the odds were against any particular individual's getting the book. Heck, "something for nothing" was in play!

So I gave the book to the nearest audience member, and then I said, "Well, you voted for me to give this book to 'George,' but that book had a cost. We never discussed what cost was attached to your votes. I just spaced that. Anyway, it's only fair to have that cost borne by all: I'd like you each to pass a dollar up here to the podium — unless, of course, 'George' wants to give it back to me."

"George" played along (or perhaps he really wanted the book). He laughed and told his colleagues to fork over the money.

The audience's mood was growing dark, and I didn't want to cause trouble, so I then reached into my bag and gave a book to everyone.

The lesson cost me a dozen books, but I figured I had made a point about liberty, about democracy, and ultimately about limited government.”

This is a great illustration of how democracy can lead to socialism. In fact, it was Karl Marx who said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

A Brief Note on Taxes

2009-03-02T11:34:00.012-07:00

My question is, is the taxation of income even Legal? Can anyone show me the law where it says we have to pay income tax?

The 16th amendment, besides never being ratified, was not about income tax. According to W.H. Taft, the president who signed the bill into law (and later became a Supreme Court Judge himself,): the 16th amendment was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more.The Supreme Court concurred in its majority opinion:

“It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment [16th amendment] to bring any new subject within the taxing power.” [Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170; 46 S.Ct. 449 (1926)]

In other words, whatever the taxing power the federal government had before the 16th amendment didn’t change after the 16th amendment according to the Supreme Court.

Also, in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population.

Of course the income tax today remains a direct unapportioned tax and therfore unconstituional.

It is clear that the intent of the 16th amendment was to allow the government to tax only its own employees and not private citizens. There is however a provision in the amendment to tax American citizens and corporations oversees, for being given US protection, in countries that have a tax treaty with the United States.

Wealth Redistribution Part Three: The Original American Model

2009-03-02T11:08:00.001-07:00

Aristotle warned, “If the majority distributes among itself the things of the minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.”

The founders shared this view as well, which is democracy is inherently “incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.” What the founders understood is that taxes could become a weapon for one group of people to prey upon another group. This is why the constitution limited the government to indirect taxes such as tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. Today’s income tax is none of these, in fact the income tax is a new classification of taxes altogether that falls out side the constitutional definition of what and who can be taxed. (More on this later)

Jefferson (and the other Founders) opposed confiscating wealth and reallocating of property by government. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, April 1816, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The framers made sure the constitution was very strong on property rights—what belongs to you is yours. If someone tries to take it from you, you can stop him yourself or call the sheriff. Our founders understood that in democracies the majority can take property from the minority so the framers of the constitution put in safeguards so this wouldn’t happen.

The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it protects them, and it doesn’t protect the rights of the collective. In other words the “Bill of Rights” offers no class of people or special interest group any special rights. That is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.

Another thing our founders understood very well was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. In fact property rights are the only means of implementing one’s rights. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, the income one earns, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity, and productivity is more often propagated by reward and dignity is a product of self-achievement.

So they created a nation of opportunity but not one of guarantee. In America anyone, regardless of gender, race, or financial status, can succeed if they are willing to get an education, have a strong work ethic, and exercise good judgment in the choices they make. Although opportunity exists for everyone there can be no guarantee of prosperity without violating someone’s rights.

I think the principles of American economic philosophy are best described in G Edward Griffin’s book “The Fearful Master”:

1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is impossible without incentive.
5. Of all forms of incentive—the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called profit motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7. Therefore any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

Suffice it to say in order to preserve the rights of people the founders favored measures to encourage free-market solutions for the natural distribution of wealth rather than by government mandate. The American economic method is capitalism and capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports individual rights.

Wealth Redistribution Part Two

2009-03-02T11:02:00.002-07:00

The altruist calls compassion a duty of everyone in society. The method for showing compassion for the poor, vulnerable, and underprivileged, however, is to take the productive fruits of those fortunate enough to be successful and give it to those who did not earn it through the use of force, implied or otherwise.

The goal of the altruist is “wealth redistribution”, need proof?

Hillary Clinton:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Barrack Obama:

"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."

Michelle Obama:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

"We've lost sight of the fact that we are one another's brothers' and sisters' keepers in this nation. We have to prepare to sacrifice something big for the greater good."

Karl Marx:

“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”

“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all…”

Adolf Hitler:

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finely come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.”

Two things are clear hear, 1. The altruist wants to seize a portion of your income. 2. They believe it is one’s duty to sacrifice on behalf of society.

It should be understood that wealth redistribution is a weapon to wage war on certain classes of people but it is also a recipe for destroying incentive in the nation as the more successful cut back on their productive efforts.

However, if one wishes to show his compassion for his fellow man, for society, he is certainly free to do so by his own voluntarily action, perhaps by donating some money to charity or volunteering his time and talents to help others in need. But the collectivized altruistic model calls for every citizen to do his part. But if he chooses not to, for whatever the reason, perhaps he struggles to pay his own bills. The government is empowered by the collective to garnish his wages, put liens on his home, confiscate his property, or even imprison him…And if he resists any of these measures to collect the fruits of his labor, on the behalf of society, the state can physically restrain him or even kill him.

Now ask yourself is this really compassion—Force?

All real rights of man are defined by the right to own property. Without it there can be no other rights. So any new rights, such as the right to welfare or free medical care for example, violate the real rights of men because it imposes a compulsory obligation upon the productive class in society to pay for the services of the unproductive or under-productive, robbing them of their earned property—income. Forcing someone to work on the behalf of someone else is, by definition, slavery. The practice of confiscating the product of one’s efforts is oppression. Therefore any so called right that violates the rights of others cannot by definition be a right.

Wealth Redistribution Part One

2009-03-02T10:53:00.002-07:00

It should be known that when I use the term “altruism” or “altruist” I am referring to a group or individual that would advocate collectivizing or nationalizing the altruist ideal and not the individual who is charitable of his own personal volition. People should be charitable but they should never be forced to surrender their property in the name of compassion.

Let’s define what wealth redistribution is in clear terms. Whoever takes it upon himself to redistribute wealth says that the wealth belongs to that person. In other words, if government is the agent of redistributing wealth then that wealth, your wealth, belongs to the government. This is basically saying the individual is nothing more than a sacrificial animal whose purpose it is to serve the greater good of society.

The altruist believes that some individuals’ productive efforts should be taken away and given to other people who did not produce it by imposing significantly higher taxes on the most successful individuals and companies in our nation. This is class warfare in which one class of people, those who do not produce or earn wealth pit themselves against another class of people, those who produce or earn wealth to take a portion of their wealth, therefore causing harm to that group of individuals, not to mention damaging the integrity of property rights in the process.

During the Presidential elections Barrack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Basically what Obama was saying is that the government should seize the wealth of successful folks in the name of equity.

However, the Constitution is very strong on property rights. It was Hugo Chavez who said, the United States Constitution is too individualistic and ought to be reformed to be more socialist.

The stated policies of Barrack Obama seem to agree with Mr. Chavez. Listen carefully to this audio recording:

In the audio we hear Obama’s frustration that the Constitution places too much restriction on government when he complained about the Warren Court didn’t go far enough to facilitate redistributive economic policies. What Obama was really hoping for was for the courts to impose a “right” to welfare.

What wealth redistribution really amounts too is wealth confiscation and legalized plunder. One could also call it “nationalizing your pocket book”.

Frederic Bastiat (French economist and theorist in the mid 1800’s) points out that once the government over steps the clear line between the protective role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so called benefits for some of its citizens; it becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.

Bastiat explains legal plunder:

“When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed…

How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them. And gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen by himself cannot do without committing a crime…”

John Locke said: “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.

What Bastiat and Locke observed and what Karl Marx accurately describes as class struggle is really “class warfare” where each class or special interest group competes to sway the balance of governmental power in their favor. This is also a fair description of democracy. In fact it was Karl Marks who said “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

It is Marxist doctrine that says, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is what’s important; his privacy and freedom are secondary. It is this altruistic doctrine that views men as sacrificial animals.

The altruist says your productive efforts belong to society and government is the principle agent that enforces the will of society. What the government doesn’t tax is a gift to you from them. This insidious doctrine is irresponsible and puts the individual on the road to becoming a kept citizen because the redistribution of wealth consumes the fruits of his labor and since property rights are essential to liberty it also robs him of his liberty.

Individual Rights

2009-03-02T10:49:00.004-07:00

In upcoming posts I will talk about ‘wealth redistribution’ and ‘the stimulus bill’. But before I do that I want to establish in greater detail the terms that are fundamental to any rational discussion on these topics.

Remember, facts are independent of one’s wishes or emotions. Not even one’s passions can alter the facts.

What makes this country so special and unique is the fact that the founders of this nation dared to challenge the long standing tradition which regarded the state as the supreme ruler of the individual. They founded this nation on the moral principles of individualism and independence. The founders gave us a constitutional government that protected the sanctity of the individual as a sovereign being.

Our natural rights, which are the only real rights of men, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to earn and own property, and the right to pursue one’s own happiness are not separate and distinct entities but one inseparable unit. Destroy any one of these and you destroy man’s freedom.

These rights are not arbitrary. They are what is required for the survival of man and they support one very important fact of survival and that is man’s right to his own life. This right according to Samuel Adams is “self-preservation” which he calls the first law of nature. To quote John Dickinson, “These rights ‘are not annexed to us by parchments and seal. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives.”

To further quote Fredrick Bastiat, who said, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that Life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

In the Declaration of Independence the founders made it clear, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving there just powers from the consent of the governed.” However, the powers of government are not limited to the whims of majority opinion alone but are based in the principles that government is forbidden to infringe upon the rights of men. Samuel Adams wrote, “The grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights.”

To clarify democracy’s limited role, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the will of the majority “to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

Dr. Leonard Peikoff illuminated on this subject further when he wrote, “When the framers of the American republic spoke of “the people,” they did not mean a collectivist organism one part of which was authorized to consume the rest. They meant a sum of individuals, each of whom—whether strong or weak, rich or poor—retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights.”-- “The Ominous Parallels”

Ayn Rand had an interesting perspective on the issue of Individual Rights:

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect the minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

She also wrote, that “the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.”

And one finale quote which I find particularly sobering: “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” John Adams

Lastly, the view the founders held of government was the state is the servant of the individual and not the sole agent of the collective. The constitution was therefore enacted to limit government to the protective role—protecting the rights of individuals.

Economic Crisis 101

2009-02-28T10:41:00.008-07:00

Who’s to blame? It would seem we’ve forgotten history…again.

It seems we have forgotten the mistakes of the past. All one needs to do is look back in history to see how government interference into the free markets worsened the depression turning it into the “Great Depression”.

The depression of the late 20’s and 30’s was blamed on the free market and it was believed the only way to fix the problem was to reign in the greedy capitalists by government regulation and the courts.

Today it is recognized by many economists and historians that the blame for the Great Depression lays squarely on the shoulders of government. First Herbert Hoover miscalculated when he signed the Smoot-Hawley Act into law granting protective tariffs for American business which resulted in trade with Europe coming to a grinding halt. The Federal Reserve reacted with a series of disastrous interest rate hikes that sent the economy into depression. Then anti-business measures such as FDR’s “National Recovery Act” deepened the depression.

Government deserves the lion’s share of the blame. According to UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, it was FDR’s policies that needlessly exacerbated and prolonged the great depression by 7 years.

Not only did FDR’s “New Deal” Policies make the depression worse, they also changed the way government and the courts operate putting the country on a course towards destroying the integrity of private property rights and towards becoming a collectivized nation.

The Great Depression, which was caused by government intervention in the first place, was blamed on capitalism and the cry was for more regulation.

Once again we have been told that the current economic crisis is the result of the failures of capitalism. Government leaders especially within the current ruling Party have constantly blamed today's financial problems on the lack of government regulation.

The truth is government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets. Let me explain. The government has embarked on an altruistic campaign of promoting the “right” to the American dream, which is the artificial right to own a home.

Today’s economic crisis can be traced back to the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977 and the Carter administration. The “Community Reinvestment Act” or CRA was created to protect low income borrowers from discriminatory credit practices.

In 1995 President Bill Clinton asked Congress to make some regulatory changes to the “Community Reinvestment Act” by strengthening enforcement. In 1999 with the help of Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer, President Clinton was able to expand the “CRA” even further, giving it even stronger teeth explaining that it "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act.”

The Clinton administration directed federal agencies to expand credit and government began pressuring banks to lower their lending standards to allow low income wage earners to qualify for loans. This was achieved by abandoning the long time practice of insuring the borrower could afford the loan by means of income verification, credit history, and savings history.

See video clip of the Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" program that forced banks to make bad loans:

Community organizations were empowered by the Clinton administration to promote these loans. One such organization was ACORN. ACORN began applying pressure to banks to lend money to those who did not qualify for loans under traditional industry standards by holding protests, sit-ins, and through civil litigation.

But it wasn’t by stick alone the government bullied private banks into lowering their standards to promote home ownership. The government also employed the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to secure and buy up these loans.

The final nail in the coffin was the Federal Reserve, which began a campaign of easy money by artificially lowering the interest rates priming the pump for future disaster.

All these factors contributed to creating a situation in which lenders were enticed to lend, or punished for being responsible, which lead to a lending frenzy that artificially drove home prices skyward (bubble) that sooner or later had to painfully come crashing back down to earth.

The insistence on subsidizing the American dream, which is just another form of welfare rather than promoting responsibility, caused this crisis. This crisis--to the extent it has become--would have never happened under normal free market conditions. But instead of accepting the blame, Washington and the media would rather demonize Wall Street and sound the all familiar cry for more government regulation.

In light of this knowledge it isn’t logical to believe that the situation today is the result of a lack of regulation. The problem is not the failure of the free market, but of perverting the principles that allow the free market to work.

Dilbert on the Bailouts

2009-02-26T17:35:00.003-07:00

Click Picture to enlarge

One Example of the Dangers of Pragmatism and the Collectivist Philosophy

2009-02-23T15:41:00.008-07:00

As I was writing the previous post I was reminded of a conversation I had with a guy at work recently. He said he felt that healthcare was a right and that government should give everyone free health care.

What first struck me about what he said bedsides the obvious “right” of healthcare was that he “felt” it was a right--not to mention the fact that this is confusing an opinion for a right. Feelings are not knowledge neither is having an emotion a method of acquiring knowledge. Only through the exercise of reason and logic can someone acquire knowledge.

Reason is a process of concept-formation and perceptual integration that identifies the true nature and attributes of reality. The method of reasoning is called logic. Logic is the process of non-contradictory identification.

After a short period of back and forth on the pros and cons of capitalism (which I’ll discuss in a later post), this person went on to say that the government doesn’t do enough to help people.

After I reminded him of what rights are guaranteed by law in the Constitution, and what such “new rights” do to the real rights of people, he said that my way of thinking is outdated and does not conform to today’s standards. He went on to say that the Constitution should be rewritten to reflect today’s society. He even said there should be a Constitutional Convention every ten years to make sure the Constitution keeps pace with changing societal mores.

This has got to be one of the most dangerous philosophies I have ever heard in terms of what the effect would be if this was attempted. Man’s rights would be dictated by majority opinion. The majority would get to decide what those rights were and who would get them and then be subject to change at the whims of a new majority opinion.

This is a perfect example of pragmatism. This philosophy contradicts the real rights of man and the pragmatism here is that one can oppose the moral principles of freedom and yet expect to always be free.

The Proper Role of Government

2009-02-23T13:46:00.002-07:00

Man’s survival depends on three things. The first is his ability to reason, which is the means by which he interacts with other men and the mechanism that guides his behavior. Man also needs purpose which is productive work and self-esteem which is self-worthiness, embracing the concept that he is worthy of happiness. What this basically means is that man has a right to life and a right to pursue a life worth living.

This is worth repeating; this concept, which is “man has the right to life and a right to pursue a life worth living” is uniquely American.

Let me make one quick point here. This does not mean man has the absolute right to a life worth living, only the right to pursue that life. Remember these are rights of action. You cannot expect rewards for inaction but to act or not act in your own best interest is voluntary. In other words, you reap what you sow.

The Declaration of Independence prescribes this quite eloquently as the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to own property, and the right to pursue one’s own happiness.

Therefore if this is man’s real rights than what role does the government play in protecting these rights?

Men have only two ways of dealing with one another which is through volition or through intimidation—by reason or force. The government is the only institution with a monopoly on the physical use of force, so the question then becomes whether or not that force is to be used to protect or violate the individual rights of man.

The founders understood the delicate relationship between state powers and protecting the individual quite well. They understood that the most grievous of atrocities perpetrated upon mankind have been committed by government. The founders set forth a form of governing that protects the individual and society from the abuses of government.

The founders knew that in order to safeguard these rights the government must be limited in size and scope so, they gave us a Republic. A Republic is a government that is limited by law, thus 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 Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it PROTECTS them, and it doesn’t protect collective rights. In other words, no special groups of people have protected rights under the Bill of Rights and that is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.

The Bill of Rights is defined in negative terms, in other words it is what the government can’t do to people and what the majority can’t do to the individual.

Another thing our founders understood was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, income, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity and productivity is more often than not propagated by reward, and dignity is a product of self-achievement.

We also live in a democracy which by definition is the rule of the people or majority rule. Democracy is important to the “will” of the people and although democracy plays an important function in society it is also dangerous in that the majority can take someone’s property (income, land, business, or even their children) by simply having the majority of votes. Democracies have never lasted long 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.

Democracy is the process of legislating opinions. The republic which means to be “ruled by law” protects the individual from the whims of the majority. Another way of putting it is democracy can be a means to legislate the majority’s opinion but in a republic it can do so only as long as it dos not violate the law.

The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law.

In conclusion the only rational function of government is to protect man’s individual rights. This is accomplished, first and foremost by government obeying the law then by providing a police force to protect men from criminals, provide a military to protect men from foreign aggression, and to provide courts to protect men from breach of contract, and to settle disputes among men.

The Enemy within Part Two

2009-02-21T14:17:00.005-07:00

The second primary enemy that endangers freedom is pragmatism.

During the Presidential elections we heard several speeches in which Barrack Obama proclaimed himself to be a pragmatist, even boasting and reveling in it.

While Americans disagree on many moral, political, and economic issues, there are those who believe the way to address these issues is always through moderation and compromise. Barrack Obama promises change and says he can bring this nation together and mend our differences through pragmatism.

As a School of philosophy pragmatism was founded by C.S. Pierce and William James in the late 19th century. According to its founders, pragmatism is primarily a way of addressing philosophical questions.

William James wrote, “Pragmatism does not represent any specific substantive doctrines; rather it is distinguished by its method of clarifying ideas, clarifying in practical terms by tracing the practical consequences for accepting one idea over another.” In other words, the meaning of any truth depends entirely on its practical effects. Pragmatism’s roll is not to discover truth; rather it is to act without regard to independent reality.

Pragmatism, however, fails to answer this one very important question: don’t we need truth, which is the understanding of the external reality, in order to understand the practical consequences of our actions?

The facts that identify pragmatism:

Pragmatism says truth is whatever one wishes for as an outcome. Truth is therefore the expedient which allows its practitioners to forget or remember history for whatever is convenient at the moment. It allows them to remember or forget facts, depending on their usefulness to justify their behavior.

The pragmatist might say truth may not be the same for everyone. It depends on one’s circumstances and perceptions. What’s true today may not be true tomorrow. Therefore pragmatism is a short term perspective manifested as in the moment thinking. Pragmatism resists identifying facts by their essential nature. There is really no right or wrong way. There is only emotion and what’s expedient. This disregards independent reality and separates one’s behavior from the consequences. This is why causality is irrelevant and revisionism of the past and of the facts is so prevalent.

Pragmatism is held by its practitioners as a virtue; be practical, be agreeable, be expedient. However this insidious doctrine of pragmatism suggests conforming to an alternative code of ethics—that one’s behavior is devoid of absolute standards of right and wrong or good and evil. Pragmatism is, in other words, a code of non-ethics.

Another way of putting it, pragmatism is the intensional language of abstraction—of advertising, the politician, the diplomat. It is guiding behavior disassociated from independent reality and without the use of extensional facts.

One’s perceptions should be investigated by means of “reason and logic” of the extensional facts to identify the facts of reality. Pragmatism is the antithesis of reason, it is the practice of deceiving one’s self to the true nature of reality. In essence pragmatism is the lack of essence.

The Enemy within Part One

2009-02-21T14:11:00.003-07:00

Are we sowing the seeds of our own destruction?

It was Abraham Lincoln who said:

“If danger ever reaches us it must spring up from amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

Phillip Van Stern said:

“The fight for freedom is an endless battle. Its victories are never finale; its defeats never permanent. Each generation must defend its heritage, for each seeming conquest gives rise to new forces that will attempt to substitute fresh means of opposition for the old. ”

In 42 B.C. the Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero understood the dangers that come from within when he said:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

And George Washington warned, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master!”

Suffice it to say that America’s unique freedoms will never be conquered from without. The United Stated has the most powerful military in the world and when allowed to fight without political restraint can defeat any army on the globe. The biggest threats to freedom are right here walking among us.

The primary threats to freedom are the perverse philosophical doctrines of 1. Altruism, and 2. Pragmatism (discussed in Part 2). And 3. Apathy.

The doctrine of “altruism” states that man is a sacrificial animal whose duty is to self-sacrifice on the behalf of others, on behalf of society. The stance this results in is that it is immoral and selfish for man to produce and keep the rewards of his own efforts, while it is moral and virtuous to live off the rewards of someone else’s labors.

The effect altruism has on society is that it undermines the original concept of rights. In order to give people new rights, which require no effort on the behalf of the beneficiary, in order to mandate prosperity for everyone real rights have to be compromised. Since the government cannot produce these new rights out of thin air they can only be taken from the real rights of individuals. Essentially, it is the redistribution of rights, but the catch is it takes from the real rights of all individuals and replaces them with artificial rights that are only given to specific groups of people.

Of course it is moral for an individual with the means to do so to voluntarily help his neighbor as long as he doesn’t put his own survival at risk but the collectivized form of altruism mandates the confiscation of private property by means of force. This is not only inherently anti-American but it goes against the moral principles needed for man’s survival.

Foundations

2009-02-21T12:56:00.003-07:00

These first few posts will establish the foundations for future discussions. In order to have rational discussions, participants must have an accurate map of reality which provides the context for the discussion. Having accurate maps are necessary to understand the terms being discussed.

Moral Responsibilities

The first rule for the preservation of man is to uphold moral principles. These moral principles are found in the Declaration of Independence which are:

The right to life
The right to liberty
The right to own property
The right to pursue happiness

This country was founded on the moral principles of individualism and independence. All rights in this country are strictly defined as rights of action. All other rights are negative meaning one cannot violate the rights of others. At the same time the bill of rights establishes what the government cannot do to people.

It should be recognized that wealth creation and economic prosperity are the result of protecting the rights of individuals to plan, produce, and trade in a truly free market. Failure to protect these rights by dictating prosperity for everyone through redistributive policies and market manipulations is the destruction of real property rights, which is the right to keep what one earns.

Property rights dovetail into the right to pursue one’s own happiness, which is the pursuit of knowledge, wealth, and dignity through one’s own efforts. To think independently, act voluntarily, to produce, and to benefit from the results of those efforts is the natural state of man and government interventions into these moral principles destroy the real rights of man. The corollary to this is that redistributive policies are incompatible with individual liberty.

Capitalism, in its simplest terms, is based on the idea of property ownership. People have the right to think, act, earn, produce and keep the results of their efforts. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, private control, and voluntary interaction.

Socialism, in its simplest terms, is government control of the means of production in which government owns the factories and exerts omnipotent control over the economy.

Today it isn’t uncommon for people to refer to the term “mixed economy” when describing our current economic system. This means a mixture of private ownership and government regulation of private enterprise and market manipulation.

To explain further our current system has a mix of economies such as socialism—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (entitlements). There are cases in which government has partnered with private industry such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the proposed nationalization of some banks and healthcare. There are also cases of government subsidizing business and price and interest rate fixing.

Understanding these concepts lays the groundwork for future discussions on many topics about man’s current moral, political and economic condition.

Introduction:

2009-02-20T13:34:00.016-07:00

Who is an American?

America proudly stands as the beacon of freedom that illuminates the darkness that surrounds those who worship false realities and the anti-life. An American unapologetically stands for freedom—freedom above order and freedom above safety.

The story of America is the story of bravery, adventure, hope, progress, and the pursuit of freedom and opportunity for every man, women, and child. America is a nation of opportunity but not one of guarantee. In America anyone, regardless of gender, race, or financial status, can succeed if they are willing to get an education, have a strong work ethic, and exercise good judgment in the choices they make. Although opportunity exists for everyone there can be no guarantee of prosperity without violating someone’s rights.

An American is someone who:

• He pursues life to the fullest, his purpose is to think and act for himself, and he finds joy in his own achievements.
• He seeks freedom and opportunity, not security.
• He is self-sustaining, not a kept citizen to be taken care of by society.
• He takes risks to succeed or to fail.
• He refuses to surrender his dignity for a handout.
• He prefers the challenges of life to guaranteed prosperity.
• He does not cower before any earthly master or threat.

The foundation of all just and moral rights is that which supports the right of man to own his own life.

“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his own effort has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.” Ayn Rand

When it comes to “rights”, Laissez-faire capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports the individual rights of men.

This blog is a lexicon of extensional philosophy in the political and economic realm. It is the objective observation of the plight of man and the role society plays in the rational life of the individual.

What is the purpose of man? The ingredients to finding one’s purpose is through the ethical pursuit of one’s rational self-interests.

Man in order to survive must have three things: 1. Reason. 2. Purpose. 3. Self-esteem.

In determining the tenants of what’s required for man’s survival can be termed as “Natural Rights”.

The Natural rights of man:

1. Freedom to think independently
2. Freedom to act upon those thoughts
3. Freedom to produce and to keep the rewards of one’s productive efforts
4. Freedom to pursue a rational purposeful life—the pursuit of one’s own happiness

All these are elements of action and of voluntary cooperation between men for the survival and the betterment of men.

For man to achieve these worthy virtues of action he needs truth. The recognition of reality is truth. To recognize independant reality man needs to reason. Reason is the ability to accurately integrate one’s intensional world with his extensional observations. The recognition of truth is the guiding factor for man’s ethical behavior. Truth cannot be compromised without very real consequences. And pragmatism is the antithesis of reason (more on Pragmatism later).

For example, here are some invariable truths as they apply to the political and economic realm:

· Capitalism is the only system which fully recognizes individual rights.
· Altruism and pragmatism is the worship of an alternative intensional realty that is inherently immoral and stands in opposition to the moral tenants of a purposeful life.

How can this be true you ask? Read on.

For those of you seeking objective truth in an independent reality you’ve come to the right place.