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.
Showing posts with label Defending Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defending Freedom. Show all posts
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The argument against Altruism
If I had a dime for every time I heard someone say the government doesn’t do enough to help people I would be in a higher tax bracket. I especially hear this around the issue of healthcare.
The other day I had a conversation with someone who said the government should provide free healthcare to everybody. I answered by saying, how about we go down to the bank and open an account so you can contribute money to pay my health care costs since I don’t want to pay for insurance anymore. She looked at me with a puzzled look in her eye. I continued, what’s wrong with that? Do you really think there is any difference between me demanding you pay my costs or the government demanding it? I cannot use force to make you do it without violating the law but the government can. Such is the essence of providing free healthcare to everyone.
The moral to this story is giving people things for nothing is an act against freedom since it uses force to violate the rights of others.
The other day I had a conversation with someone who said the government should provide free healthcare to everybody. I answered by saying, how about we go down to the bank and open an account so you can contribute money to pay my health care costs since I don’t want to pay for insurance anymore. She looked at me with a puzzled look in her eye. I continued, what’s wrong with that? Do you really think there is any difference between me demanding you pay my costs or the government demanding it? I cannot use force to make you do it without violating the law but the government can. Such is the essence of providing free healthcare to everyone.
The moral to this story is giving people things for nothing is an act against freedom since it uses force to violate the rights of others.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Combating Tyranny
Gene Palmisano, writes in a recent post “Waiting for the Renaissance” that if Americans truly wanted to fight tyranny “a tax revolt would suffice.”
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I have had several conversations with folks about the power of the consumer. Remember, gas prices came down mostly because consumers changed their driving habits. If enough people dislike the business practice of some corporation, Wal-Mart for example, they could change the way Wal-Mart does business—even put them out of business—simply by spending their money somewhere else. Wal-Mart would then face a choice; change their business practices or go out of business.
In a free-market society the consumer controls their own destiny, and they don’t need government regulation to do it. When it comes to combating tyranny the same principles apply. Society could effectually overthrow the usurpers of power, those who pervert the principles of Republican government, simply through economic means.
Check out Gene's Blog at, “The Metaphysical Lunch”
“I always assumed if Americans wanted to fight government tyranny, a tax revolt would suffice, but the tax structure in this country is so pervasive, so enmeshed into the fabric of our everyday lives it’s inescapable. If this recession has taught us anything, we the consumers are the ones with purchasing power, we determine which markets survive and which die, we determine the destiny of our economy.
If we are to demand political reform in Washington, we need to flex our fiscal muscles and restrain from buying durable goods; after all, why should we bolster the economy with our buying power, when the government shows such lack of moral restraint in fiscal policy. I say we strike this economy. Crash the markets if need be; whatever it takes to twist the strong arm of government.”
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I have had several conversations with folks about the power of the consumer. Remember, gas prices came down mostly because consumers changed their driving habits. If enough people dislike the business practice of some corporation, Wal-Mart for example, they could change the way Wal-Mart does business—even put them out of business—simply by spending their money somewhere else. Wal-Mart would then face a choice; change their business practices or go out of business.
In a free-market society the consumer controls their own destiny, and they don’t need government regulation to do it. When it comes to combating tyranny the same principles apply. Society could effectually overthrow the usurpers of power, those who pervert the principles of Republican government, simply through economic means.
Check out Gene's Blog at, “The Metaphysical Lunch”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
