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":
Monday, December 28, 2009
Broken Hockey Sticks and Other Climate Change Deceptions
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":
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":
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Immorality of Socialized Health Care
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Can We Really Afford Universal Health Care?
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.
"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.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Happy Independence Day
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.
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
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
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
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Eight Republicans Who Voted For Cap and Trade:
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.
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
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.
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.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The cost of Universal Healthcare
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.
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.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Quote Of The Day:
“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.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez chiding that Barrack Obama is more liberal than Fidel Castro and himself.
More Hypocrisy from the Obama Administration
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.
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
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.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
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
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
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obma's Supreme Court Pick
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Unveiling the lies
Thomas J. DiLorenzo In his article on “Never-Ending Government Lies About Markets” on Mises eloquently points out the truth about the deceptions perpetrated on the public about the great failures of capitalism for the purposes of creating more regulation in the name of protecting the public. Like a good parent government knows best but unlike a good parent they are willing to deceive you in order to fulfill their agenda.
Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, over 100 federal agencies, more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register, and dozens of state and local government agencies that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of
• Bank holding companies
• State-chartered banks
• Foreign branches of member banks
• Edge and agreement corporations
• US state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks
• Nonbanking activities of foreign banks
• National banks (with the Comptroller of the Currency)
• Savings banks (with the Office of Thrift Supervision)
• Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies
• Thrift holding companies
• Financial reporting
• Accounting policies of banks
• Business "continuity" in case of an economic emergency
• Consumer-protection laws
• Securities dealings of banks
• Information technology used by banks
• Foreign investments of banks
• Foreign lending by banks
• Branch banking
• Bank mergers and acquisitions
• Who may own a bank
• Capital "adequacy standards"
• Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities
• Equal-opportunity lending
• Mortgage disclosure information
• Reserve requirements
• Electronic-funds transfers
• Interbank liabilities
• Community Reinvestment Act subprime lending requirements
• All international banking operations
• Consumer leasing
• Privacy of consumer financial information
• Payments on demand deposits
• "Fair credit" reporting
• Transactions between member banks and their affiliates
• Truth in lending
• Truth in savings
That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Story of stuff
This video is supposed to be the story of the "effects of human consumption" that teaches kids to be accountable. Does this challenge the minds of kids or does it indoctrinate them?
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Unholy Alliance
The assaults on freedom take on many forms and come from many directions. In our fight to remain a free people we must realize it isn’t only the altruists who worship at the altar of collectivism that we need to watch out for. It also comes in the form of vicarious entanglements between big business and government.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
The Road to Fascism
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So it would seem the road to fascism is also paved with good intentions.
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The New American Dictatorship
When the president of the United States can fire a CEO of a non-government enterprise it is dictatorship. When a president can by the power of whim abuse the sanctity of contract law it is not only a shameful act it is an act of a dictator. When a President can exercise omnipotent power over private contracts and independent financial institutions it is dictatorship.
At the end of the video, Mr. Kudlow asks Donald Luskin a very interesting question in which I personally find the answer very profound. Here is the exchange in case you’ve forgotten or missed it.
Kudrow: “The rule of law we have contract rights. Doesn’t that amount to anything, isn’t there a value to preserving that…”
Donald Luskin: “You cannot run an economy unless property rights are well established and well represented and well agreed on. It is a formula for the road to serfdom.”
What we are experiencing here folks is government openly exercising omnipotence over the economy and industry.
At the end of the video, Mr. Kudlow asks Donald Luskin a very interesting question in which I personally find the answer very profound. Here is the exchange in case you’ve forgotten or missed it.
Kudrow: “The rule of law we have contract rights. Doesn’t that amount to anything, isn’t there a value to preserving that…”
Donald Luskin: “You cannot run an economy unless property rights are well established and well represented and well agreed on. It is a formula for the road to serfdom.”
What we are experiencing here folks is government openly exercising omnipotence over the economy and industry.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Does the Republic Still Exist?
To set the tone for discussion here is a brief rundown of various forms of government:
Dictatorship: Total government control.
Dictatorships don’t really exist—there maybe one visible leader but it is always ruled by a group behind the scenes: nobles, commissars, or bureaucrats, etc.
Oligarchy- ruled by a group (a powerful few), the most common form of government throughout history. It is the most common form of government today. All totalitarian/ dictatorships are “oligarchies.”
Anarchy: (without government) ruled by no one.
But without law there can be no freedom. Anarchy is only a transitionary state (it is unstable). Out of chaos, governments always appear. Sooner or later a civilized people need order, a sheriff, a government to protect property so folks can leave their farms or property to seek employment or work their fields. With the proper amount of government everyone is freer.
Democracy: Rule of the people or Majority Rule.
This sounds good in theory but what if the majority wants to take your property (money, home, business, or even your children)? Democracys never last because sooner or later the majority figures out that they can vote themselves the property of others. This is what happened to the ancient Greeks. Many Americans maybe surprised to learn that nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution is the term “democracy” mentioned.
Republic: The Law or Ruled by Law.
In a Republic, government is limited, leaving the people alone. The law in America is the Constitution which explicitly restricts the powers of government and protects the individual from the majority.
The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of the government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law—Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it protects them. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals NOT a select group of people or the collective. A Republic is ruled by law not by majority opinion.
Here are some quotes to give you some food for thought:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. -Benjamin Franklin
After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked, what kind of government did you give us? Benjamin Franklin replied, “A Republic mam if you can keep it.”
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler
Today we have ample evidence that popular majority opinion is threatening our Republican way of life; for example: The rights of the poor have been put ahead of the rights of the rich. The rights of environmentalism are being put ahead of the property rights of individuals.
Some even complain our Founders could have never imagined what today’s society would evolve into; with cars traveling at high speeds along super highways; that Americans would seek to terrorize other citizens with bio-warfare using the postal service as a means of delivery, or that insurance would become standard in our society.
Because of these complexities many complain the Constitution is too restrictive. It needs to be reinterpreted, that our Constitution is not “written in stone,” but rather a living, breathing, stretchable, kneadable, document to be molded to fit the needs of today’s society. If this is true, we no longer have any clear rules that govern the behavior or jurisdiction of government.
I ask you, do we have a republic today?
True Republican government has disappeared from our understanding, evidenced by the fact that today we no longer hear anyone speaking of our constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government; all we hear about is spreading democracy. No longer do we hear our leaders in government, or in our institutions of higher learning, speak of our constitutional protections from far-reaching democratic institutions.
The Republic has been, over time, incrementally replaced by democracy, liberty has been substituted with majority opinion, and the value of the individual is measured by what sacrifices he makes for the greater good of society.
Dictatorship: Total government control.
Dictatorships don’t really exist—there maybe one visible leader but it is always ruled by a group behind the scenes: nobles, commissars, or bureaucrats, etc.
Oligarchy- ruled by a group (a powerful few), the most common form of government throughout history. It is the most common form of government today. All totalitarian/ dictatorships are “oligarchies.”
Anarchy: (without government) ruled by no one.
But without law there can be no freedom. Anarchy is only a transitionary state (it is unstable). Out of chaos, governments always appear. Sooner or later a civilized people need order, a sheriff, a government to protect property so folks can leave their farms or property to seek employment or work their fields. With the proper amount of government everyone is freer.
Democracy: Rule of the people or Majority Rule.
This sounds good in theory but what if the majority wants to take your property (money, home, business, or even your children)? Democracys never last because sooner or later the majority figures out that they can vote themselves the property of others. This is what happened to the ancient Greeks. Many Americans maybe surprised to learn that nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution is the term “democracy” mentioned.
Republic: The Law or Ruled by Law.
In a Republic, government is limited, leaving the people alone. The law in America is the Constitution which explicitly restricts the powers of government and protects the individual from the majority.
The essence of a republic is the fact that the rights of the government are not subject to the majority rule but by the law—Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it protects them. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals NOT a select group of people or the collective. A Republic is ruled by law not by majority opinion.
Here are some quotes to give you some food for thought:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin
When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic. -Benjamin Franklin
After the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin was asked, what kind of government did you give us? Benjamin Franklin replied, “A Republic mam if you can keep it.”
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler
Today we have ample evidence that popular majority opinion is threatening our Republican way of life; for example: The rights of the poor have been put ahead of the rights of the rich. The rights of environmentalism are being put ahead of the property rights of individuals.
Some even complain our Founders could have never imagined what today’s society would evolve into; with cars traveling at high speeds along super highways; that Americans would seek to terrorize other citizens with bio-warfare using the postal service as a means of delivery, or that insurance would become standard in our society.
Because of these complexities many complain the Constitution is too restrictive. It needs to be reinterpreted, that our Constitution is not “written in stone,” but rather a living, breathing, stretchable, kneadable, document to be molded to fit the needs of today’s society. If this is true, we no longer have any clear rules that govern the behavior or jurisdiction of government.
I ask you, do we have a republic today?
True Republican government has disappeared from our understanding, evidenced by the fact that today we no longer hear anyone speaking of our constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government; all we hear about is spreading democracy. No longer do we hear our leaders in government, or in our institutions of higher learning, speak of our constitutional protections from far-reaching democratic institutions.
The Republic has been, over time, incrementally replaced by democracy, liberty has been substituted with majority opinion, and the value of the individual is measured by what sacrifices he makes for the greater good of society.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting Part 2
Today, the conservative philosophy of individualism, personal responsibility, and limited government spending is being touted as racist, even being compared by some as tantamount to Neo Nazism. Of course conservatism is about free markets, individual freedom, and limited government and Nazism is about political and economic totalitarianism which are complete polar opposites.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
Disarming America Part 3
And so it would seem that Barrack Obama has taken the path of Jimmy Carter in repsonse to foriegn policy and Natiaonal Defense.
Jimmy Carter slashed spending on new defense technology including halting missile defense research complaining it wouldn’t work and even if it did the technologies would take years to develop. Ronald Reagan was mocked for his “Star Wars” program but as a direct result of the technology that came from “Star Wars” we now have a working strategic missile defense system.
This type of technology is what allows a patriot missile to shoot down other missiles in mid-air. It allows our cruise missiles to hit targets 100’s of miles away with pinpoint accuracy. Keeping ourselves on the cutting edge of this technology gives us the luxury of fighting at standoff distances minimizing casualties. Let that go, and you’re not looking at fewer conflicts, you're looking at the return of bloodier wars.
Just look at the numbers:
In Vietnam we had 58,209 American soldiers KIA.
In 1968 alone 16,592 American soldiers were killed in action in Vietnam the heaviest year for causalities of the war (BTW my brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1968), which pales in comparison to causalities and KIAs during WWII. Now compare that to 4,148 American Soldiers killed in Iraq and 587 in Afghanistan as of 9/22/08.
Thank God, once again, Reagan didn’t listen to the critics who said it would never work.
Jimmy Carter if nothing else proved that weakness invites predation. Ronald Reagan didn’t give us theory he proved that negotiating from a position of strength works—just like the surge in Iraq worked. Leading from a position of strength will always be superior to begging from a position of weakness.
Obama just may be a true Manchurian candidate who will try to negotiate with the likes of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese, the Russians, and Kim Jong-il from a position of weakness and hope they will be sensible people and keep whatever agreements they may agree too. Making nice giving concessions to our enemies in hopes they will return the gesture? Historically this has only met with failure but maybe that is what Obama means when he calls himself the candidate of ‘hope’, he hopes that this time, although the behavior maybe the same, the outcome will be different.
Jimmy Carter slashed spending on new defense technology including halting missile defense research complaining it wouldn’t work and even if it did the technologies would take years to develop. Ronald Reagan was mocked for his “Star Wars” program but as a direct result of the technology that came from “Star Wars” we now have a working strategic missile defense system.
This type of technology is what allows a patriot missile to shoot down other missiles in mid-air. It allows our cruise missiles to hit targets 100’s of miles away with pinpoint accuracy. Keeping ourselves on the cutting edge of this technology gives us the luxury of fighting at standoff distances minimizing casualties. Let that go, and you’re not looking at fewer conflicts, you're looking at the return of bloodier wars.
Just look at the numbers:
In Vietnam we had 58,209 American soldiers KIA.
In 1968 alone 16,592 American soldiers were killed in action in Vietnam the heaviest year for causalities of the war (BTW my brother was a Marine in Vietnam in 1968), which pales in comparison to causalities and KIAs during WWII. Now compare that to 4,148 American Soldiers killed in Iraq and 587 in Afghanistan as of 9/22/08.
Thank God, once again, Reagan didn’t listen to the critics who said it would never work.
Jimmy Carter if nothing else proved that weakness invites predation. Ronald Reagan didn’t give us theory he proved that negotiating from a position of strength works—just like the surge in Iraq worked. Leading from a position of strength will always be superior to begging from a position of weakness.
Obama just may be a true Manchurian candidate who will try to negotiate with the likes of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese, the Russians, and Kim Jong-il from a position of weakness and hope they will be sensible people and keep whatever agreements they may agree too. Making nice giving concessions to our enemies in hopes they will return the gesture? Historically this has only met with failure but maybe that is what Obama means when he calls himself the candidate of ‘hope’, he hopes that this time, although the behavior maybe the same, the outcome will be different.
Disarming America Part 2
Liberals just don’t get it! We have real enemies who want to kill us and yet they want to cut spending to our intelligence gathering institutions and crush them with regulations making it more difficult to obtain information from captured terrorists. Clinton nearly dismantled the CIA when he was in office and Barrack Obama will likely do the same thing cutting funding and imposing restrictions that will hamper intelligence gathering operations.
Modern liberal presidents, every since Jimmy Carter, have been extremely weak on national defense. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK were strong on defense but ever since the 60’s, and the anti-war movement came along, all that changed. Around this time the ‘leftists’ in the liberal movement began a campaign of undermining such institutions as the military, law enforcement, and capitalism. These ‘hippies’ basically hijacked the democratic party forever changing it from what it was under such presidents as JFK who didn’t back down from anybody including the soviets.
JFK had this to say about National defense:
When Ronald Reagan took the reigns as Commander and Chief he was handed a military in ruins.
Democrats during the Carter years voted several times to cut spending on defense and for freezes on defense technology and development of new weapons systems. In September of 1979 democrats led by the likes of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt lead the way voting against a $5 billion package to upgrade vital defense systems. Less than 2 months later The US embassy in Tehran was seized by extremists lead by current president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And not long after that The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Ted Kennedy, who doesn’t share the same feelings about protecting freedom as his older brother John did, called for a nuclear freeze in 1983. This in spite of the failures to prevent the Soviets from out spending the US by over $140 billion on military expenditures after the SALT I was signed in 1972.
Teddy and his democrat allies, Daschle, Gore, Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, and Dukakis, etc, wanted to shut down the Trident missile program, the B-1 bomber, the stealth bomber, air-lunched cruise missiles, ground-lunched cruise missiles, and a host of other programs that would have given our military superiority over the Soviet Union that we lost under Jimmy Carter.
Forcing US military inferiority at a time when the Soviets were rapidly expanding their military forces, nuclear capabilities, and influence around the world would have been disastrous. Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was there to stop them.
Reagan’s philosophy was ‘peace through strength’ and it worked. Under Reagan’s administration we achieved the first meaningful Nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets because we could back it up.
In the end we forced the Soviets to spend and spend trying to keep up with us and they went bankrupt forcing the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire just like Ronald Reagan said it would.
Imagine what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency? We would have never won the cold war.
One can conclude, it is true, it is better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Once Clinton gained office he and his democratic allies went right back to work showing their naiveté on foreign policy and destroying the military.
For instance, the Clinton administration tried to cozy up to the Chinese. In an obvious policy of appeasement, Clinton’s defense secretary in a letter to the Chinese government Wrote:
The kind gesture was returned when less than six months later the People’s Liberation Army launched a simulated nuclear attack against the two largest cities in Taiwan firing two dummy missiles off their coast.
Clinton was dumbfounded and responded by sending US aircraft carriers to the region. The Chinese military took quick notice of the U.S. carriers, and as a result the communist army, Office of the Central Military Command, wrote a report on future nuclear combat with the United States.
When are these liberals going to recognize the fact that we have real threats and take them seriously?
In the 80’s Reagan began to rebuild our military forces after Jimmy Carter nearly decimated it by cutting it by half. President Bill Clinton cut Reagan’s military by nearly 1/3.
In 1996 the Joint Chief’s of staff requested $60 billion to beef up a rapidly declining force. Bill Clinton slashed that request down to $38.9 billion. In 1996 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $8.3 billion. In 1998 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $329 million. In June of 2000 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $1 billion just one year away from 9/11. Each time the cuts were defeated by 100% of the senate republicans.
Today we face a similar dilemma. Barrack Obama has promised, once again, to cut defense spending. Only this time the democrats will run the executive branch—the House of Representatives as well as the Senate—there won’t be enough good sense republicans to stop whatever kind of damage they will cause to our National Defense infrastructure.
Modern liberal presidents, every since Jimmy Carter, have been extremely weak on national defense. Democrats such as Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK were strong on defense but ever since the 60’s, and the anti-war movement came along, all that changed. Around this time the ‘leftists’ in the liberal movement began a campaign of undermining such institutions as the military, law enforcement, and capitalism. These ‘hippies’ basically hijacked the democratic party forever changing it from what it was under such presidents as JFK who didn’t back down from anybody including the soviets.
JFK had this to say about National defense:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
When Ronald Reagan took the reigns as Commander and Chief he was handed a military in ruins.
Democrats during the Carter years voted several times to cut spending on defense and for freezes on defense technology and development of new weapons systems. In September of 1979 democrats led by the likes of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt lead the way voting against a $5 billion package to upgrade vital defense systems. Less than 2 months later The US embassy in Tehran was seized by extremists lead by current president of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. And not long after that The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Ted Kennedy, who doesn’t share the same feelings about protecting freedom as his older brother John did, called for a nuclear freeze in 1983. This in spite of the failures to prevent the Soviets from out spending the US by over $140 billion on military expenditures after the SALT I was signed in 1972.
Teddy and his democrat allies, Daschle, Gore, Gephardt, Biden, Dodd, and Dukakis, etc, wanted to shut down the Trident missile program, the B-1 bomber, the stealth bomber, air-lunched cruise missiles, ground-lunched cruise missiles, and a host of other programs that would have given our military superiority over the Soviet Union that we lost under Jimmy Carter.
Forcing US military inferiority at a time when the Soviets were rapidly expanding their military forces, nuclear capabilities, and influence around the world would have been disastrous. Thank God for Ronald Reagan who was there to stop them.
Reagan’s philosophy was ‘peace through strength’ and it worked. Under Reagan’s administration we achieved the first meaningful Nuclear arms treaty with the Soviets because we could back it up.
In the end we forced the Soviets to spend and spend trying to keep up with us and they went bankrupt forcing the collapse of the Soviet Communist Empire just like Ronald Reagan said it would.
Imagine what would have happened if Jimmy Carter had been reelected president or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis would have won the presidency? We would have never won the cold war.
One can conclude, it is true, it is better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Once Clinton gained office he and his democratic allies went right back to work showing their naiveté on foreign policy and destroying the military.
For instance, the Clinton administration tried to cozy up to the Chinese. In an obvious policy of appeasement, Clinton’s defense secretary in a letter to the Chinese government Wrote:
“Advancing the military relationship between our two nation’s remains an objective which we agree serves the long-term interests of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region."
The kind gesture was returned when less than six months later the People’s Liberation Army launched a simulated nuclear attack against the two largest cities in Taiwan firing two dummy missiles off their coast.
Clinton was dumbfounded and responded by sending US aircraft carriers to the region. The Chinese military took quick notice of the U.S. carriers, and as a result the communist army, Office of the Central Military Command, wrote a report on future nuclear combat with the United States.
When are these liberals going to recognize the fact that we have real threats and take them seriously?
In the 80’s Reagan began to rebuild our military forces after Jimmy Carter nearly decimated it by cutting it by half. President Bill Clinton cut Reagan’s military by nearly 1/3.
In 1996 the Joint Chief’s of staff requested $60 billion to beef up a rapidly declining force. Bill Clinton slashed that request down to $38.9 billion. In 1996 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $8.3 billion. In 1998 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $329 million. In June of 2000 the democrats in the senate attempted to cut the defense budget by $1 billion just one year away from 9/11. Each time the cuts were defeated by 100% of the senate republicans.
Today we face a similar dilemma. Barrack Obama has promised, once again, to cut defense spending. Only this time the democrats will run the executive branch—the House of Representatives as well as the Senate—there won’t be enough good sense republicans to stop whatever kind of damage they will cause to our National Defense infrastructure.
Obama Disarming of America
The Obama administration faces many challenges from threats around the world. For instance, besides the threat of terrorism, we are seeing a resurgence of Russian political and military influence in Latin America. The Russians have sent political and military envoys to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. The Russian Navy has recently participated in war games with Venezuela and during the same time frame the Russian Navy put into port in Panama. Also worrisome, during the visit to Venezuela Russian officials signed an agreement with Hugo Chavez to help him develop nuclear capabilities.
The reasons for this hostile posturing are two fold, 1. To show the world that after over a decade of absence, the post-Soviets are back on the world scene. 2. A return of soviet aggressive posturing is an apparent campaign to pressure the United States to disengage in talks of admitting former Soviet satellites the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This is not because they pose any significant military threat to Russia necessarily; it is their response to fear over encroaching western influences in the region.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War where The US and the Soviet Union competed over military superiority.
At a time when China and N. Korea have been busy building and testing space weaponry Barrack Obama promises to cut spending to missile defense technologies. However, both Chinese officials and American military strategist agree weaponization of space is inevitable. Soldiers on sea, air, and land already heavily rely on space for GPS-navigation, communications, and satellite imagery. The next step in a natural progression of technology is weapon systems in space. These new technologies will give whoever possesses them a huge advantage in strategic capability.
First and foremost, the president’s job as Commander and Chief of the United Sates military is the security of the country. This takes priority over everything else he does.
First of all we are at war with Muslim fascism and extremism. We face threats from terrorist groups and terrorist states. Many of whom seek nuclear capability to destroy us and Israel.
Tensions have been high over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the invasion has folks making threats on both sides.
Moscow warns it will sell missiles to Iran if the US follows through with plans to place a missile defense sheild in Europe, this includes threatening nuclear war, warning that Poland and the Czech Republic would become designated targets if NATO goes ahead with the missile shield. But failure to do so leaves our European allies virtually defenseless—the Russians, like most predators, like their prey defenseless.
China has been selling weapons, cruise and ballistic missile technology and equipment to Iran for a long time. Both Russia and China are huge importers of Iranian oil.
And to add insult to injury, the Russians and Chinese have been holding joint military exercises.
See Video:
The present threats and challenges are great. The lingering question is, will the Obama administration react like Carter or Reagan?
The reasons for this hostile posturing are two fold, 1. To show the world that after over a decade of absence, the post-Soviets are back on the world scene. 2. A return of soviet aggressive posturing is an apparent campaign to pressure the United States to disengage in talks of admitting former Soviet satellites the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This is not because they pose any significant military threat to Russia necessarily; it is their response to fear over encroaching western influences in the region.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War where The US and the Soviet Union competed over military superiority.
At a time when China and N. Korea have been busy building and testing space weaponry Barrack Obama promises to cut spending to missile defense technologies. However, both Chinese officials and American military strategist agree weaponization of space is inevitable. Soldiers on sea, air, and land already heavily rely on space for GPS-navigation, communications, and satellite imagery. The next step in a natural progression of technology is weapon systems in space. These new technologies will give whoever possesses them a huge advantage in strategic capability.
First and foremost, the president’s job as Commander and Chief of the United Sates military is the security of the country. This takes priority over everything else he does.
First of all we are at war with Muslim fascism and extremism. We face threats from terrorist groups and terrorist states. Many of whom seek nuclear capability to destroy us and Israel.
Tensions have been high over the Russian invasion of Georgia and the invasion has folks making threats on both sides.
Moscow warns it will sell missiles to Iran if the US follows through with plans to place a missile defense sheild in Europe, this includes threatening nuclear war, warning that Poland and the Czech Republic would become designated targets if NATO goes ahead with the missile shield. But failure to do so leaves our European allies virtually defenseless—the Russians, like most predators, like their prey defenseless.
China has been selling weapons, cruise and ballistic missile technology and equipment to Iran for a long time. Both Russia and China are huge importers of Iranian oil.
And to add insult to injury, the Russians and Chinese have been holding joint military exercises.
See Video:
The present threats and challenges are great. The lingering question is, will the Obama administration react like Carter or Reagan?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
FBI's newest 'Most Wanted' terrorist is American
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama’s Apology Tour
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:
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.
Contiuing on his rampage of destruction Obama...:
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:
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.
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.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Profiling-Crazed Right-Wingers
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Kool-aid drinkers attack Tea Drinkers
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.
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
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Immorality of Big Government
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
