Well the "Big Lie" was illustrated by Hitler in Mien Kampf. "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
In today's speech the President stated that the Republicans had been responsible for the last ten years of policy that caused the economic problems we currently have including the soaring deficits. Overlooking obviously that fact the the Democratic party has been in charge of Congress since 2006 and in complete control of the government since 2008.
These people continue to continue down the same path even though the approval rating for this Congress approaches single digits. These people keep on telling the "Big Lie".
Google to your hearts content and find all you need to know about the time line to the rise in deficits and stimulus spending, rising unemployment etc etc. Not that the GOP has been any great shakes in stemming this rising tide.
Our government continues the pile one spending bill on top of another, none have even taken the time to look at what we are currently spending on, what we have set up in the past, if we still need these programs, if these programs are being run efficiently, if anybody cares is the American taxpayer is getting shortchanged or not.
This is an area where the Teaparty could make great strides by beginning to elect people who will take a good look at the books and sunset some of the outdated spending programs and agencies.
Get involved, let the elected officials know we need to spring clean the government and rid ourselves
Monday, September 6, 2010
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Limits on Congress
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Our Founding Fathers seem brilliant to me. They put several clauses into the document that controls our government that amount to checks and balances that no one had seen before, and are seldom used.
This one clause, highlighted above, is one that is long over due in its application. Thirty for state legislatures are need to call a constitutional convention with regard to proposing an amendment to the Constitution, and thiry eight states need to radify this document to change our govening document.
The federal government is in need of taking down a peg, and just changing the party in power every 2 to 4 years is not getting it done.
The Founders originally set out term limits in the Articles of Confederation but removed them in the Constitution feeling they had no place on a shortened document.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article5Article V. For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.
No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.
We talk and whine that no one hears us in DC. If we started an Constitutional convention outside of the DC arena, with the aim of Amending the Constitution and add term limits to the members of Congress..............................can you hear me now?
This is a subject that rings true with the voting public. Consistent polling show that 60% + of all
voters support term limits on the Congress, just ask the representatives in the California State Legislature.
This is a idea who's time has come.
Monday, May 18, 2009
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Some of us, who haven't suffered through the last 15 or so years of public education, will recognize those words as coming from our Declaration of Independence.
Our founders recognized that the rights of men were not granted by kings or land holders or such. These rights come from a place where no one man or group of men hold sway. These rights we are born with and are granted to us by a power no one can challenge or change. They believed that the rights we have, all men have, and that they come from our Creator.
Over the years religion is slowly being driven from our society., and this just didn't start in the US. Some references are made to the decline of Christianity starting back in the late 1800's. Why? Some might believe we are more "enlightened", some that we are more "evolved", some are just to lazy to get up on Sunday and do the work or are embarrassed to voice their beliefs.
Look closely though, if God is removed from our society, then where will we say our rights come from?
Our current group in Washington would love to have you believe that your rights come from them. That their intellectual prowess is all that is necessary to make all thing clear, and nothing will work better than the way they lay it out.
There are many rich elitists who put their financial muscle behind what they feel are the causes that need to be addressed to give the world "proper direction". This is not something new, it has been going on since at least the industrial revolution began and allowed great accumulations of wealth. This desire on the part of our perceived "betters", at least in their minds, to care for and nurture us, reverts us back to a day when kings and their barons dictated the rules of how they rest of the "rabble" would be governed.
The creation of America broke that chain and allowed each of us to have a voice in how he or she was governed. Which causes we find important, and to what degree we will support with our pocket books those causes.
The idea that unelected elitists control our policies should be unacceptable to any liberty loving individual anywhere.
WP
Some of us, who haven't suffered through the last 15 or so years of public education, will recognize those words as coming from our Declaration of Independence.
Our founders recognized that the rights of men were not granted by kings or land holders or such. These rights come from a place where no one man or group of men hold sway. These rights we are born with and are granted to us by a power no one can challenge or change. They believed that the rights we have, all men have, and that they come from our Creator.
Over the years religion is slowly being driven from our society., and this just didn't start in the US. Some references are made to the decline of Christianity starting back in the late 1800's. Why? Some might believe we are more "enlightened", some that we are more "evolved", some are just to lazy to get up on Sunday and do the work or are embarrassed to voice their beliefs.
Look closely though, if God is removed from our society, then where will we say our rights come from?
Our current group in Washington would love to have you believe that your rights come from them. That their intellectual prowess is all that is necessary to make all thing clear, and nothing will work better than the way they lay it out.
There are many rich elitists who put their financial muscle behind what they feel are the causes that need to be addressed to give the world "proper direction". This is not something new, it has been going on since at least the industrial revolution began and allowed great accumulations of wealth. This desire on the part of our perceived "betters", at least in their minds, to care for and nurture us, reverts us back to a day when kings and their barons dictated the rules of how they rest of the "rabble" would be governed.
The creation of America broke that chain and allowed each of us to have a voice in how he or she was governed. Which causes we find important, and to what degree we will support with our pocket books those causes.
The idea that unelected elitists control our policies should be unacceptable to any liberty loving individual anywhere.
WP
Sunday, May 17, 2009
For all of our nation's history, there have been tactical battles between opposing political ideologies -- liberals (leftists) who want to liberate us from constitutional rule of law, and conservatives who strive to conserve rule of law. Great political capital has been, and continues to be, expended by the Left in order to offend our Constitution, and by the Right in order to defend it.
Mark Alexander, Patriot Post.
Some people just don't want to play by the rules. Could you imagine a sporting event that did not have a predetermined set of rules to play by.
That is what our Constitution is, the agreed to list of rules that we run our society with. It was written in plain language and set up the way our Founding Fathers viewed how a government of the people should be run. They drew on the experiences they had lived thru all their lives, the ruling Monarchies of Europe, the Parliament of England, the excesses, abuses, and disappointments of all.
They saw only one goal of this new experiment they started, FREEDOM. They strove to assure that the power of government lay with the people, not with any one person or group. That there would be a way for the people to change those in power when needed, and to change the Rules when needed, by having the MAJORITY of the people agree that a change was needed and was written in a way that they could agree to and live with.
The 10th Amendment was written to specifically define the powers of the Federal Government and state that those powers not given to the Fed belonged to the States, something that our national leaders seemed to have forgotten in recent years.
Our Federal government was never meant to be the ruling body it has become. Read the Articles of Confederation and you will see that our founders believed in, and were passionate about, the rights of each individual state. And, as it should be, because the state is closer to the people than Washington, even in this time of instant global communication. The national government was meant to help in the interaction between the states and between this new country and other countries, not to create the rules and hold the reins. The people are to hold the reins, we hold the power, not the other way around.
We see now that our government wants to control the banks, the oil companies, the auto industry and to what end? They want to control us, but yet we control the means to remove them if we so desire. So the next logical step is to assume that they are not finished, that there are more of our liberties that will vanish. They must move the pieces around so that they have the power to retain their power.
H.B 45 is one step in that direction. The Second Amendment is a big stumbling block on that path to power. Yamamoto was asked why he did not invade the US after Pearl Harbor and his reply was "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass". This remains true today. With 90 million gunowners in the US we have them out gunned, the question is, can we out will them.
Will enough Americans stand and be counted when the status of liberty, real liberty, is on the line?
The current fight that is brewing between the states and the fed over the 10th Amendment is one that needs the support of every American, both Republican and Democrat. We need to push back on the erosion of our rights from both the Congress and the Courts and convey to those inside the beltway that they serve at our connivance not we obey at theirs.
Look on the internet and find those groups that are close to you that are beginning to rise up and petition for the return of the 10th Amendment, write your state representatives and make your voice heard.
It is not to late.
WP
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Moving Towards Europe
Last week the POTUS gave the UAW 55% ownership of Chrysler. Bypassing the creditors and as many observed repaying his debt to more of those who got him elected.
The unions provided somewhere in the neighborhood of 67 million to the Obama war chest during the run up to the election. Since only about 10-13% of the United States work force are unionized that is quite a debt to repay.
Union membership has dropped significantly over the decades since the '70's, mainly because the younger members of the work force do not see the benefits of union membership. The leadership of many unions probably see their paycheck slipping away and felt they needed someone in Washington so they went to the wall to contribute to the "One's" election.
I feel this is something other than pay back for all that support. For years now the elite members of our society and government have had an almost morbid fascination with the structure of European governments, societal makeup and socialism in general.
Unions in Europe have major representation on the boards of many corporations and businesses. Now a union in the US has been handed that same privilege.
This is nothing more than a move on the part of elite members of our society to move us in the direction of socialism, a form of government that many European nations are beginning to try and move away from.
Europe is beginning to see the same thing that has happened in the US, manufacturing jobs are moving away. Moving to the newer members of the EU or further east to Asia. Manufacturing in Europe is shrinking because the higher value of the euro vs the dollar. Importing good from the EU just cost more than even making them stateside.
Socialism, some are beginning to realize just causes a stagnation. There is no telling how much further many economies could go if the restrictions were removed and the owners were allowed to take risks. With labor unions strangling many industries in the EU ownership is looking for relief. Relief in the form of less taxes, lower wages, cheaper interest etc.
America seems bent on trying socialism on for size, with total disregard to the past efforts in this country that never panned out. If this is such a great system, everyone would use it.
Now it seems we are going to use it whether we want to of not.
The unions provided somewhere in the neighborhood of 67 million to the Obama war chest during the run up to the election. Since only about 10-13% of the United States work force are unionized that is quite a debt to repay.
Union membership has dropped significantly over the decades since the '70's, mainly because the younger members of the work force do not see the benefits of union membership. The leadership of many unions probably see their paycheck slipping away and felt they needed someone in Washington so they went to the wall to contribute to the "One's" election.
I feel this is something other than pay back for all that support. For years now the elite members of our society and government have had an almost morbid fascination with the structure of European governments, societal makeup and socialism in general.
Unions in Europe have major representation on the boards of many corporations and businesses. Now a union in the US has been handed that same privilege.
This is nothing more than a move on the part of elite members of our society to move us in the direction of socialism, a form of government that many European nations are beginning to try and move away from.
Europe is beginning to see the same thing that has happened in the US, manufacturing jobs are moving away. Moving to the newer members of the EU or further east to Asia. Manufacturing in Europe is shrinking because the higher value of the euro vs the dollar. Importing good from the EU just cost more than even making them stateside.
Socialism, some are beginning to realize just causes a stagnation. There is no telling how much further many economies could go if the restrictions were removed and the owners were allowed to take risks. With labor unions strangling many industries in the EU ownership is looking for relief. Relief in the form of less taxes, lower wages, cheaper interest etc.
America seems bent on trying socialism on for size, with total disregard to the past efforts in this country that never panned out. If this is such a great system, everyone would use it.
Now it seems we are going to use it whether we want to of not.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
It Belongs to You Now
So congress went ahead and passed the 3.5 trillion dollar Obama budget. Ok anybody feel stimulated? Gm doesn't, Crysler doesn't, many banks are looking for more, I'm having a ball on my 13.00 extra a week. How much are we going to have to give in taxes to support these coming budget deficits?
Last week it was revealed that Bill Gates is once again the king, owning $40,000,000,000.00 of wealth making him the richest man in the world. Now, they are projecting 9 trillion dollars in deficit. So if you took all of Gates' money ( face it the left dosen't think we need to have that much in one mans hands) to help pay off what we owe, he would cover .44 % of the total. Where oh where shall we get the rest?
In 2006 corporate taxes accounted for 24.3 %, taxes on production and imports 6.4 %, taxes from the rest of the world .8 %..........that leaves you and me holding the bag for 68.5% of the monies needed.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-much-does-us-rely-on-personal.html
Get your check books out folks that means we owe $6,165,000,000,000.00 of the coming deficit.
According to the Tax Foundation in 2006 41% of Americans are out side the federal tax system, meaning they either pay no taxes or get extra money back.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
Well that means that the rest of you, cause I don't make any money, owe about $37,282.00 each, that is every man, woman and child. If you would all just forward a check or credit card number we can take care of this and we will all move on.
Of course after the passing of this budget, that no one read, this economy now belong to the Big O. There is no denying it now, Bush has left the building and what Obama does and asks for makes this economy his and his presidency rises or falls on what he and the Congress does.
Did he inherit a bad economy? Every president inherits the economy of his predecessor and the Congress that helps form the policies. For the last 2 years the Congress was held by the Democrats and Obama was a part of that Congress. They controlled the purse strings and the ability to say no to any spending the administration proposed. I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the past. The future?....... where to place the blame is becoming clearer all the time.
Last week it was revealed that Bill Gates is once again the king, owning $40,000,000,000.00 of wealth making him the richest man in the world. Now, they are projecting 9 trillion dollars in deficit. So if you took all of Gates' money ( face it the left dosen't think we need to have that much in one mans hands) to help pay off what we owe, he would cover .44 % of the total. Where oh where shall we get the rest?
In 2006 corporate taxes accounted for 24.3 %, taxes on production and imports 6.4 %, taxes from the rest of the world .8 %..........that leaves you and me holding the bag for 68.5% of the monies needed.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-much-does-us-rely-on-personal.html
Get your check books out folks that means we owe $6,165,000,000,000.00 of the coming deficit.
According to the Tax Foundation in 2006 41% of Americans are out side the federal tax system, meaning they either pay no taxes or get extra money back.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
Well that means that the rest of you, cause I don't make any money, owe about $37,282.00 each, that is every man, woman and child. If you would all just forward a check or credit card number we can take care of this and we will all move on.
Of course after the passing of this budget, that no one read, this economy now belong to the Big O. There is no denying it now, Bush has left the building and what Obama does and asks for makes this economy his and his presidency rises or falls on what he and the Congress does.
Did he inherit a bad economy? Every president inherits the economy of his predecessor and the Congress that helps form the policies. For the last 2 years the Congress was held by the Democrats and Obama was a part of that Congress. They controlled the purse strings and the ability to say no to any spending the administration proposed. I think there is plenty of blame to go around for the past. The future?....... where to place the blame is becoming clearer all the time.
Friday, April 24, 2009
We are the "New Jews"
Own a Bible, gun, American flag, marry a member of the opposite sex , seek your Congress Critter to reduce taxes and look out................your one of them. Wait till they find that you live next door or sit in the next cubicle, your life may change forever.
I have a coffee cup at work that says "Infidel" on the side in big bold letters, several people have said I need to throw it out. In the words of Ron White "I don't think so scooter."
Last time I looked this was A-M-E-R-I-C-A, not your watered down, pasty Hollyweird, President apologizing for version, but the land of the free home of the brave version.
The Constitution, remember that document, says we have the right to "freedom of speech" " lawful assembly" etc. Currently many are beginning to believe that only certain groups have the right to assemble and make their views known. Those that feel this way of course are the ones that won the election and now they intend to ram their power and vision of America down our throats.
Common decency, respect, give and take debate are out the window as the elites plow headlong into their "new version" of America.
As in the 1930's they are trying to label us as fast as they can and trying to pass laws that when they manage to slap a label on you, it will affect your right to free speech, possibly to gain employment, or hold specific types of jobs. You wouldn't want a "racist" or "bigot" teaching your kids would you?
We are the "New Jews". They feel we are responsible for a multitude of sins, from alleged global warming, terrorist attacks on our soil, to the way the rest of the world views us.
In the 1930's one of the ways that the German people were controlled was that the opposition view point was silenced. In Castro's Cuba the only media outlets that are allowed to relay the news is are the ones "approved" by the government, and guess what.......they are owned by the Communist Party.
Our country has progressed further faster than any other given our short history. We did not do it by allowing the government to control us the way many seem to want to hand over control to them today.
Face it, the left is worried about any grassroots movement from those of us on the right. Why else would all the Lame Stream ridicule and deride those that participated on April 15th. The Secrete Service broke up the protest in front of the White House and the Washington Post came out with some limp wristed survey saying that 41% want bigger government in their lives.
We have worked ourselves into a great nation, why do we want to surrender our greatness? Why not embrace it and improve upon it? Make those that lag behind come up to where we are the world will be better for it.
WP
I have a coffee cup at work that says "Infidel" on the side in big bold letters, several people have said I need to throw it out. In the words of Ron White "I don't think so scooter."
Last time I looked this was A-M-E-R-I-C-A, not your watered down, pasty Hollyweird, President apologizing for version, but the land of the free home of the brave version.
The Constitution, remember that document, says we have the right to "freedom of speech" " lawful assembly" etc. Currently many are beginning to believe that only certain groups have the right to assemble and make their views known. Those that feel this way of course are the ones that won the election and now they intend to ram their power and vision of America down our throats.
Common decency, respect, give and take debate are out the window as the elites plow headlong into their "new version" of America.
As in the 1930's they are trying to label us as fast as they can and trying to pass laws that when they manage to slap a label on you, it will affect your right to free speech, possibly to gain employment, or hold specific types of jobs. You wouldn't want a "racist" or "bigot" teaching your kids would you?
We are the "New Jews". They feel we are responsible for a multitude of sins, from alleged global warming, terrorist attacks on our soil, to the way the rest of the world views us.
In the 1930's one of the ways that the German people were controlled was that the opposition view point was silenced. In Castro's Cuba the only media outlets that are allowed to relay the news is are the ones "approved" by the government, and guess what.......they are owned by the Communist Party.
Our country has progressed further faster than any other given our short history. We did not do it by allowing the government to control us the way many seem to want to hand over control to them today.
Face it, the left is worried about any grassroots movement from those of us on the right. Why else would all the Lame Stream ridicule and deride those that participated on April 15th. The Secrete Service broke up the protest in front of the White House and the Washington Post came out with some limp wristed survey saying that 41% want bigger government in their lives.
We have worked ourselves into a great nation, why do we want to surrender our greatness? Why not embrace it and improve upon it? Make those that lag behind come up to where we are the world will be better for it.
WP
Sunday, April 19, 2009
People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals...
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
That quote from Men in Black about sums up today's society. Americans today get their news and information from a variety of sources, the problem is that we either cannot or will not take the time to think about or check the information or source we are digesting. We see or hear the data and based on our perception of the world, make a judgement as to believe or dismiss the content of the data. Sometimes we make that call based on if the news is good or bad to our position in the political realm.
Today, for my political position, I find little favorable news. The man in the White House, the leadership of the Senate and the House all seemed hell bent on reshaping America into something that most of us never intended or expected America to become.
Our forefathers took up arms against, not just a tax on tea but against their perception that their "Rights as British Citizens" were being violated. No representation in Parliament for anything. Taxes, choice of appointees of government positions, providing housing for British soldiers etc. was forced upon them with no means for a redress of grievances anywhere.
We now fast forward to today. We have representation, we also have a growing sense that this representation is not only working for their own political and monetary gains and gains of their contributors, but they are moving this country away for our own identity and sovereignty and pulling us down from being a leader in the world, to be just another group equal to the lowest common denominator of the rest.
Their approach is both subtle and in your face. Obama stated he was for "wealth redistribution because it is fair", on the other hand they play up one crisis and slip things by while we're not looking, i.e. pork spending in the "stimulus" package.
"The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn — including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit — could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities,”
That was the quote from the now infamous DHS "secretly leaked" memo. Interestingly it leaked days before the planned "Tea Parties".
This should appear to anyone thinking that these statements are an attempt to paint opposition voices as the "New Jews". People to be feared and marginalized and roadblocks to the government's ability to deal with crisis and ease the suffering of the population.
An attempt by one group of people to scapegoat another group is a an long standing practice to divert attention for what you are really doing. It locks the blame for part of societies ills on one group and allows you to tamper in other areas while everyone is distracted. It also leads to dehumanizing those individuals, indicating that they are inferior or dangerous. This step can lead to the justification of stereotyping and allows those doing the scapegoating to have a feeling of innocence and unity and prevent them from looking at a rational explanation for the cause of whatever the conflict is.
Liberals, let's not even say liberals, some people do not want the facts of some issues. They either cannot follow the thought process that leads from A to B to C or they have a more sinister agenda in mind that usually involves you losing or subjugating some if not all of your freedoms.
That quote from Men in Black about sums up today's society. Americans today get their news and information from a variety of sources, the problem is that we either cannot or will not take the time to think about or check the information or source we are digesting. We see or hear the data and based on our perception of the world, make a judgement as to believe or dismiss the content of the data. Sometimes we make that call based on if the news is good or bad to our position in the political realm.
Today, for my political position, I find little favorable news. The man in the White House, the leadership of the Senate and the House all seemed hell bent on reshaping America into something that most of us never intended or expected America to become.
Our forefathers took up arms against, not just a tax on tea but against their perception that their "Rights as British Citizens" were being violated. No representation in Parliament for anything. Taxes, choice of appointees of government positions, providing housing for British soldiers etc. was forced upon them with no means for a redress of grievances anywhere.
We now fast forward to today. We have representation, we also have a growing sense that this representation is not only working for their own political and monetary gains and gains of their contributors, but they are moving this country away for our own identity and sovereignty and pulling us down from being a leader in the world, to be just another group equal to the lowest common denominator of the rest.
Their approach is both subtle and in your face. Obama stated he was for "wealth redistribution because it is fair", on the other hand they play up one crisis and slip things by while we're not looking, i.e. pork spending in the "stimulus" package.
"The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn — including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit — could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities,”
That was the quote from the now infamous DHS "secretly leaked" memo. Interestingly it leaked days before the planned "Tea Parties".
This should appear to anyone thinking that these statements are an attempt to paint opposition voices as the "New Jews". People to be feared and marginalized and roadblocks to the government's ability to deal with crisis and ease the suffering of the population.
An attempt by one group of people to scapegoat another group is a an long standing practice to divert attention for what you are really doing. It locks the blame for part of societies ills on one group and allows you to tamper in other areas while everyone is distracted. It also leads to dehumanizing those individuals, indicating that they are inferior or dangerous. This step can lead to the justification of stereotyping and allows those doing the scapegoating to have a feeling of innocence and unity and prevent them from looking at a rational explanation for the cause of whatever the conflict is.
Liberals, let's not even say liberals, some people do not want the facts of some issues. They either cannot follow the thought process that leads from A to B to C or they have a more sinister agenda in mind that usually involves you losing or subjugating some if not all of your freedoms.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Cuba
The current administration is talking of relaxing the sanctions against the Cuba government, or more specifically Fidel and Raul Castro.
We originally posted these sanctions due to the confiscation of US capital, property and defining shift towards communism.
The Times produced a handy list of ten reasons to hate Castro:
What else has Castro "given" to Cuba:
He stated that he believed in private property, but confiscated the property and wealth of Batista's followers claiming it was gained "illegally".
He confiscated all "inherited property" and instituted state farms with all the workers becoming state employees.
Cuba has one legal political party, The Communist Party" all newspapers though not government owned are published by "different" political organizations. Castro silenced all newspapers critical of his new regime.
In the late '50's there were various "purges" and hasty executions, many administered by Raul Castro himself.
Religion was subdued and clergymen expelled from the country.
One of Castro's main exports has always been Revolution, ask Angola or Ethiopia.
Obama seems to think that opening up our hugs to Cuba will change the way we look at that country today and that their past is nothing to be concerned with.
From where I sit the Castro brothers past is not to be forgiven.
WP
We originally posted these sanctions due to the confiscation of US capital, property and defining shift towards communism.
The Times produced a handy list of ten reasons to hate Castro:
- Sending homosexuals to forced labour camps.
- Executing people attempting to leave Cuba (as recently as 2003).
- Urging the USSR to launch a nuclear first strike against the USA.
- Holding 316 known political prisoners in 2006.
- Banning independent trade unions.
- Single candidates for all seats in the National Assembly.
- Computer and internet access is severely restricted.
- In 2003, 22 libraries raided with 14 librarians arrested with jail terms of up to 26 years, for having banned literature.
- Opposed even modest economic reforms, including the opening up by Gorbachev.
- Cuba's imperialist adventures in Africa, including supporting the Mengistu regime that was behind the 1980s Ethiopian famines that Bob Geldof relaunched his career off of.
What else has Castro "given" to Cuba:
He stated that he believed in private property, but confiscated the property and wealth of Batista's followers claiming it was gained "illegally".
He confiscated all "inherited property" and instituted state farms with all the workers becoming state employees.
Cuba has one legal political party, The Communist Party" all newspapers though not government owned are published by "different" political organizations. Castro silenced all newspapers critical of his new regime.
In the late '50's there were various "purges" and hasty executions, many administered by Raul Castro himself.
Religion was subdued and clergymen expelled from the country.
One of Castro's main exports has always been Revolution, ask Angola or Ethiopia.
Obama seems to think that opening up our hugs to Cuba will change the way we look at that country today and that their past is nothing to be concerned with.
From where I sit the Castro brothers past is not to be forgiven.
WP
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Do We Want a King?
America was founded on the principal that everyone had the same rights, and that we all have the right to vote to have an equal say in how our lives are run.
We elect Representatives on a revolving basis to insure that the will of the people is what is adhered to.
We have a set of rules by which we are governed, the US Constitution, and if necessary those rules can be changed by following the procedure outlined in Article 5, and again we all get to vote on it.
Over the past several decades we have see a growing desire for the Federal Government to be given more and more authority over our everyday lives, to a point where we seemed hell bound for many socialistic policies and solutions.
Now socialism has been tried in America before. Various groups tried Utopian Socialism, The Harmony Society, The Shakers, Oneida Community to name a few. All to no real accomplishments or lasting very long. Mostly because, when you do not have an established set of governance that all agree to, you are doomed to the wishes and egos of everyone, and as has been said before "a house divided cannot stand".
Now the American plan was set up so that everyone knew the rules, could live their life and when they got out of bounds there is an way for you to be kicked back into play. No single figurehead was deemed necessary or wanted. We have lived that way for over 200 years and now suddenly we up and want to change.
Many desire the Federal Government take the lead in our lives. Do these people believe that because it's the government that the decision will be better? That, for example, a small committee of say 5 people will have more insight into building cars that dozens of individuals who have been doing it all their adult lives will? Or maybe many do not feel qualified to take on such weighty matters. That is interferes with their visits to the mall or time at the spa or takes time from their golf game.
I am amused that so many of our Hollyweird brethren support such government interference when no so long ago they gave us the fight against being blacklisted for communism, or stared in movies such as "The Manchurian Candidate", "Three Days of the Condor", "RollerBall", "Network", "Conspiracy Theory", "Capricorn One" etc, and other works that railed against the establishment and an over bearing, interfering government entities.
Many of our forefathers who rebelled against "no Representation", moved to the hills to make moonshine and not pay taxes, they ran away from the city to the mountains just to avoid the government for having too much say in their lives.
Today we cannot seem to get to a place fast enough where we will let the government tell us, what to eat, what to drive, how and when we can worship, how we define various institutions in our lives, how much of our own money we get to keep, how big our bonus will be, which doctor to see and whether we deserve a particular medical procedure and on and on. The list grows by the minute and we cannot find it within ourselves to say no.
Maybe this is just the nature of man. When the Israelites found themselves in the desert they panicked without out a leader and they built a golden idol to hold them together. The showed no confidence in their faith or their own abilities to carry on. Most civilizations throughout history had leadership that was gained and retained by might or passed from father to son etc. leaving the will of the people out of the equation.
Americans are different, at least up to this point. We love our independence, the rights we are guaranteed to speak our mind, to protect our own, to live where we want, to make our own choices about most everything in our lives. These rights have been paid for over and over again in the words of Crosby Stills and Nash, "buried in the ground."
The governments of Europe, their people have had a ruling class for 100's of years, so it remains as no shock that they have and enjoy a more heavy national ruling government.
The thought of this situation for an American should be revolting and go against all we believe and desire, but maybe we're too lazy to carry on the fight...................or are we.
We elect Representatives on a revolving basis to insure that the will of the people is what is adhered to.
We have a set of rules by which we are governed, the US Constitution, and if necessary those rules can be changed by following the procedure outlined in Article 5, and again we all get to vote on it.
Over the past several decades we have see a growing desire for the Federal Government to be given more and more authority over our everyday lives, to a point where we seemed hell bound for many socialistic policies and solutions.
Now socialism has been tried in America before. Various groups tried Utopian Socialism, The Harmony Society, The Shakers, Oneida Community to name a few. All to no real accomplishments or lasting very long. Mostly because, when you do not have an established set of governance that all agree to, you are doomed to the wishes and egos of everyone, and as has been said before "a house divided cannot stand".
Now the American plan was set up so that everyone knew the rules, could live their life and when they got out of bounds there is an way for you to be kicked back into play. No single figurehead was deemed necessary or wanted. We have lived that way for over 200 years and now suddenly we up and want to change.
Many desire the Federal Government take the lead in our lives. Do these people believe that because it's the government that the decision will be better? That, for example, a small committee of say 5 people will have more insight into building cars that dozens of individuals who have been doing it all their adult lives will? Or maybe many do not feel qualified to take on such weighty matters. That is interferes with their visits to the mall or time at the spa or takes time from their golf game.
I am amused that so many of our Hollyweird brethren support such government interference when no so long ago they gave us the fight against being blacklisted for communism, or stared in movies such as "The Manchurian Candidate", "Three Days of the Condor", "RollerBall", "Network", "Conspiracy Theory", "Capricorn One" etc, and other works that railed against the establishment and an over bearing, interfering government entities.
Many of our forefathers who rebelled against "no Representation", moved to the hills to make moonshine and not pay taxes, they ran away from the city to the mountains just to avoid the government for having too much say in their lives.
Today we cannot seem to get to a place fast enough where we will let the government tell us, what to eat, what to drive, how and when we can worship, how we define various institutions in our lives, how much of our own money we get to keep, how big our bonus will be, which doctor to see and whether we deserve a particular medical procedure and on and on. The list grows by the minute and we cannot find it within ourselves to say no.
Maybe this is just the nature of man. When the Israelites found themselves in the desert they panicked without out a leader and they built a golden idol to hold them together. The showed no confidence in their faith or their own abilities to carry on. Most civilizations throughout history had leadership that was gained and retained by might or passed from father to son etc. leaving the will of the people out of the equation.
Americans are different, at least up to this point. We love our independence, the rights we are guaranteed to speak our mind, to protect our own, to live where we want, to make our own choices about most everything in our lives. These rights have been paid for over and over again in the words of Crosby Stills and Nash, "buried in the ground."
The governments of Europe, their people have had a ruling class for 100's of years, so it remains as no shock that they have and enjoy a more heavy national ruling government.
The thought of this situation for an American should be revolting and go against all we believe and desire, but maybe we're too lazy to carry on the fight...................or are we.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Fascism
Maybe this is where we're headed?
fas·cism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.
The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7:
"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", then goes on to say in article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.”
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
fas·cism:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.
The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7:
"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", then goes on to say in article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.”
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
The Big Takeover
A great summery of the financial meltdown.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
It's over — we're officially, royally fucked. No empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far. It happened when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was forced to admit that he was once again going to have to stuff billions of taxpayer dollars into a dying insurance giant called AIG, itself a profound symbol of our national decline — a corporation that got rich insuring the concrete and steel of American industry in the country's heyday, only to destroy itself chasing phantom fortunes at the Wall Street card tables, like a dissolute nobleman gambling away the family estate in the waning days of the British Empire..............................
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
It's over — we're officially, royally fucked. No empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far. It happened when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was forced to admit that he was once again going to have to stuff billions of taxpayer dollars into a dying insurance giant called AIG, itself a profound symbol of our national decline — a corporation that got rich insuring the concrete and steel of American industry in the country's heyday, only to destroy itself chasing phantom fortunes at the Wall Street card tables, like a dissolute nobleman gambling away the family estate in the waning days of the British Empire..............................
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Prometheus Effect
Prometheus was one of the Greek gods responsible for giving the gift of fire to man. In one version of the story man beset vultures on Prometheus so he took back the fire until man took back the vultures.
We see this dynamic again being played out against the backdrop of today's economy.
Man (government) has beset on Prometheus (investors/businessmen) vultures (proposed taxation additional regulations, bad economic policy) so Prometheus has withdrawn his gift. A gift of that provides work, the gift of being able to provide for one's self, take care of your obligations, to provide life.
Do they do it to punish the rest of us, no they do it for their own self preservation. People with money to invest are under no obligation to make investments, they are not required to take risk for the benefit of everyone else. They have their own rights and obligations and we are not their responsibility.
Those that whine and moan about "we don't have a chance" "they have so much they should give us a part" live in fear. They fear that if they take a chance on their own capabilities that they will come up short, that they will find out that the person next to they is better or more capable and that they cannot get as many of the shinning things that we are told that are the measure of one's success and worth as a human being.
We see this dynamic again being played out against the backdrop of today's economy.
Man (government) has beset on Prometheus (investors/businessmen) vultures (proposed taxation additional regulations, bad economic policy) so Prometheus has withdrawn his gift. A gift of that provides work, the gift of being able to provide for one's self, take care of your obligations, to provide life.
Do they do it to punish the rest of us, no they do it for their own self preservation. People with money to invest are under no obligation to make investments, they are not required to take risk for the benefit of everyone else. They have their own rights and obligations and we are not their responsibility.
Those that whine and moan about "we don't have a chance" "they have so much they should give us a part" live in fear. They fear that if they take a chance on their own capabilities that they will come up short, that they will find out that the person next to they is better or more capable and that they cannot get as many of the shinning things that we are told that are the measure of one's success and worth as a human being.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Testosterone and American Society
Laughing or not there has been a movement, probably since the '60 designed to emasculate the male in society, especially American Society.
For instance:
Absolutely potty | Spectator, The | Find Articles at BNET
Young Swedish women now demand that their men use the lavatory in a strictly sedentary posture - partly, I am told, for reasons of hygiene, but, more crucially, because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and, by extension, degrading women. I am not taking the pissoir, dear and trusting reader; this is for real. To micturate from the standing position is now viewed among the more progressive Swedes - as the height of vulgarity and possibly suggestive of violence.
‘All my friends demand that their husbands or boyfriends sit down,’ says Jessica, from Uppsala. ‘I think it shows respect for the women who clean,’ adds the 31-year-old biologist. ‘My brother, for example, would not dream of standing up. Among the young, leftish intelligentsia there is also a view that to stand is a nasty macho gesture.’ Her English husband has refused to be cowed, she admits, because ‘it infringes his manly rights’. Reward for his heroic stand? Full-time cleaning duties.
Television:
Prime-time puts softer side of men on display - Television- msnbc.com
“There’s a bit of an evolution, the idea of male bonding, which has always been around in entertainment, but in the past it was done with a little more machismo,” says Nicole Vecchiarelli, entertainment director of Details, a men’s fashion and lifestyle magazine. “But in the post metrosexual era guys bonding isn’t necessarily about guns and action and high testosterone activity. They’re exposing their more sensitive side because that’s a reflection of the typical urban male.”
Not to mention that most of the male characters you see in sitcoms today portray the male as a bumbling, stumbling doofus that the woman has to bail out of trouble...........
Christina Sommers book "The War Against Boys" documents the tendency of the nation's schools to suppress boys' natural ways of seeing and doing things and force them to adopt feminine attitudes and behaviors.
With the work schedules of a lot of parents we leave our kids on their own with the TV, internet and peers as the babysitter. Without input from both parents on a consistent basis the young males of today are adrift without a rudder.
A country's ability to steer itself along a path that brings out the best of what society can offer does depend on both male and female input, a country will go down a path to ruin if only one of these traits is prevalent.
__________________
For instance:
Absolutely potty | Spectator, The | Find Articles at BNET
Young Swedish women now demand that their men use the lavatory in a strictly sedentary posture - partly, I am told, for reasons of hygiene, but, more crucially, because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity and, by extension, degrading women. I am not taking the pissoir, dear and trusting reader; this is for real. To micturate from the standing position is now viewed among the more progressive Swedes - as the height of vulgarity and possibly suggestive of violence.
‘All my friends demand that their husbands or boyfriends sit down,’ says Jessica, from Uppsala. ‘I think it shows respect for the women who clean,’ adds the 31-year-old biologist. ‘My brother, for example, would not dream of standing up. Among the young, leftish intelligentsia there is also a view that to stand is a nasty macho gesture.’ Her English husband has refused to be cowed, she admits, because ‘it infringes his manly rights’. Reward for his heroic stand? Full-time cleaning duties.
Television:
Prime-time puts softer side of men on display - Television- msnbc.com
“There’s a bit of an evolution, the idea of male bonding, which has always been around in entertainment, but in the past it was done with a little more machismo,” says Nicole Vecchiarelli, entertainment director of Details, a men’s fashion and lifestyle magazine. “But in the post metrosexual era guys bonding isn’t necessarily about guns and action and high testosterone activity. They’re exposing their more sensitive side because that’s a reflection of the typical urban male.”
Not to mention that most of the male characters you see in sitcoms today portray the male as a bumbling, stumbling doofus that the woman has to bail out of trouble...........
Christina Sommers book "The War Against Boys" documents the tendency of the nation's schools to suppress boys' natural ways of seeing and doing things and force them to adopt feminine attitudes and behaviors.
With the work schedules of a lot of parents we leave our kids on their own with the TV, internet and peers as the babysitter. Without input from both parents on a consistent basis the young males of today are adrift without a rudder.
A country's ability to steer itself along a path that brings out the best of what society can offer does depend on both male and female input, a country will go down a path to ruin if only one of these traits is prevalent.
Friday, November 28, 2008
But what if they are Marxist?
They have been trying for years to convince us that socialism/communism works. they have yet to show good examples. Now they want to try and silence us by shouting us down when call attention to the truth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/making_the_world_safe_for_marx.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/making_the_world_safe_for_marx.html
Excuse me, but isn't the great lesson we were supposed to learn from Nazism to recognize such evil before it reaches critical mass - to quash such movements before things get violent? As a reminder, the Holocaust count was 11 million; communism killed 100 million.
If we do not allow ourselves to call something "wrong" or "evil", we yield the battle without even a fight. Yet to refrain from such "invective" is what is now called "civil discourse" and the right "tone."
Bill Ayers called himself a "small ‘c' communist." Is it OK to call him a communist? Barack Obama said this in one of his autobiographies (at least he said it on tape, whether or not he wrote the book himself ):
"To avoid being mistaken for such a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets."
Here's a hint: you have to be pretty steeped in leftist thought to even know that the adjective "structural" goes with the noun "feminist."
Obama was essentially a "red diaper baby" who was raised and educated by Marxists to be Marxist. Communists really did spy on us. They had secret meetings. Communism is no longer "strange"; it is taught in our schools, sometimes by Marxists. Obama went to such schools, took such classes and personally sought out Marxists. Bill Ayers calls himself a communist. Barack Obama's run for elective office was kicked off at a meeting in Bill Ayer's house. His voting record was the most liberal in the Senate in 2007, or left of self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Are we not to infer the obvious?
Some more hints: "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto. So is "centralization of credit in the hands of the State." So is "centralization of the means of communication" and "establishment of industrial armies."
I don't think it's my imagination that (a) we are already far down the road in establishing each of these planks (e.g., Federal Reserve System), and (b) Barack Obama and the Democrats are itching to take us even further down that road: more progressive income taxes; more government control of credit, banking and industry; the "fairness doctrine" and other regulations of speech and communications; a national service plan and mandatory "public service" for students; etc.
A reasonable person could infer that the present aim of the Democratic Party is full implementation of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. Just look at the ten planks and look at the Democratic Party's platform or its legislation waiting in the wings. You don't need rose-colored glasses to see the red in either.
In fact, the interesting question is no longer whether our politics in the US and Europe (not to mention Latin America) are leading to Marxism. The interesting question now is whether voters care. My guess is that almost half the people in the US, and probably more elsewhere, think Marxism is no worse or even better than "capitalism." Isms is isms, in our post-rational world.
(Personally, I avoid the use of the word "capitalism." It is a Marxist term that just means letting people buy and sell what they want at the prices they want -- or what Adam Smith called "the system of perfect liberty.")
Of course, Barack Obama has not even begun his Rule yet. It's possible, I suppose, that the Obama we'll get in the Oval Office is the Obama we saw in his campaign ads -- good old American nice -- a "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" as Joe Biden said.
Then again, here are a few parting thoughts from the horses' mouths:
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time." Barack Obama
"I am not a Marxist." Karl Marx
"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx
"We say that it may be possible in the U.S. to bring socialism through peaceful means. Perhaps through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be socialism in the U.S. until the majority of the American people want it." The Communist Party USA
Ready to play Communist Manifesto Bingo? Just get out your copy of the Manifesto and look at the 10 planks. Once Obama passes laws that enact or strengthen at least, say, five of them, yell "bingo." That will be the sum total of your power to do anything about it.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Ten Random, Politicially-incorrect Thoughts
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/ten-random-politicially-incorrect-thoughts/
1. Four years of high-school Latin would dramatically arrest the decline in American education. In particular, such instruction would do more for minority youths than all the ‘role model’ diversity sermons on Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Montezuma, and Caesar Chavez put together. Nothing so enriches the vocabulary, so instructs about English grammar and syntax, so creates a discipline of the mind, an elegance of expression, and serves as a gateway to the thinking and values of Western civilization as mastery of a page of Virgil or Livy (except perhaps Sophocles’s Antigone in Greek or Thucydides’ dialogue at Melos). After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies—indeed, anything “studies”— were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.
2. Hollywood is going the way of Detroit. The actors are programmed and pretty rather than interesting looking and unique. They, of course, are overpaid (they do to films what Lehman Brothers’ execs did to stocks), mediocre, and politicized. The producers and directors are rarely talented, mostly unoriginal—and likewise politicized. A pack-mentality rules. Do one movie on a comic superhero—and suddenly we get ten, all worse than the first. One noble lion cartoon movie earns us eagle, penguin and most of Noah’s Arc sequels. Now see poorer remakes of movies that were never good to begin with. I doubt we will ever see again a Western like Shane, the Searchers, High Noon, or the Wild Bunch. If one wishes to see a fine film, they are now usually foreign, such as Das Boot or Breaker Morant. Watching any recent war movie (e.g., Iraq as the Rape of Nanking) is as if someone put uniforms on student protestors and told them to consult their professors for the impromptu script.
3. All the old media brands of our youth have been tarnished and all but discredited. No one picks up Harpers or Atlantic expecting to read a disinterested story on politics or culture. (I pass on their inane accounts of ‘getaways’ and food.) The New York Times and Washington Post are as likely to have op-eds as news stories on the front page. Newsweek and Time became organs for paint-by-numbers Obamism, teased with People Magazine-like gossip pieces (at least, their editors still cared enough to seem hurt when charged with overt bias). NBC, ABC, and CBS would now make a Chet Huntley or Eric Sevareid turn over in his grave. A Keith Olbermann would not have been allowed to do commercials in the 1950s. Strangely, the media has offered up fashionably liberal politics coupled with metrosexual elite tastes in fashions, clothes, housing, food, and the good life, as if there were no contradictions between the two. No wonder media is so enthralled with the cool Obama and his wife. Both embody the new nexus between Eurosocialism in the abstract and the hip aristocratic life in the concrete.
4. After the junk bond meltdown, the S&L debacle, and now the financial panic, in just a few years the financial community destroyed the ancient wisdom: deal in personal trust; your word is your bond; avoid extremes; treat the money you invest for others as something sacred; don’t take any more perks than you would wish others to take; don’t borrow what you couldn’t suddenly pay back; imagine the worse case financial scenario and expect it very may well happen; the wealthier you become the more humble you should act. And for what did our new Jay Goulds do all this? A 20,000 square-foot mansion instead of the old 6,000 sq. ft. expansive house? A Gulfstream in lieu of first class commercial? You milk your company, cash in your stock bonuses, enjoy your $50 million cash pile, and then get what—a Rolex instead of a reliable Timex? A Maserati for a Mercedes, a gold bathroom spout in preference to brushed pewter? The extra splurge was marginal and hardly worth the stain of avarice on one’s immortal soul.
5. California is now a valuable touchstone to the country, a warning of what not to do. Rarely has a single generation inherited so much natural wealth and bounty from the investment and hard work of those more noble now resting in our cemeteries—and squandered that gift within a generation. Compare the vast gulf from old Governor Pat Brown to Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger. We did not invest in many dams, canals, rails, and airports (though we use them all to excess); we sued each other rather than planned; wrote impact statements rather than left behind infrastructure; we redistributed, indulged, blamed, and so managed all at once to create a state with about the highest income and sales taxes and the worst schools, roads, hospitals, and airports. A walk through downtown San Francisco, a stroll up the Fresno downtown mall, a drive along highway 101 (yes, in many places it is still a four-lane, pot-holed highway), an afternoon at LAX, a glance at the catalogue of Cal State Monterey, a visit to the park in Parlier—all that would make our forefathers weep. We can’t build a new nuclear plant; can’t drill a new offshore oil well; can’t build an all-weather road across the Sierra; can’t build a few tracts of new affordable houses in the Bay Area; can’t build a dam for a water-short state; and can’t create even a mediocre passenger rail system. Everything else—well, we do that well.
6. Something has happened to the generic American male accent. Maybe it is urbanization; perhaps it is now an affectation to sound precise and caring with a patina of intellectual authority; perhaps it is the fashion culture of the metrosexual; maybe it is the influence of the gay community in arts and popular culture. Maybe the ubiquitous new intonation comes from the scarcity of salty old jobs in construction, farming, or fishing. But increasingly to meet a young American male about 25 is to hear a particular nasal stress, a much higher tone than one heard 40 years ago, and, to be frank, to listen to a precious voice often nearly indistinguishable from the female. How indeed could one make Westerns these days, when there simply is not anyone left who sounds like John Wayne, Richard Boone, Robert Duvall, or Gary Cooper much less a Struther Martin, Jack Palance, L.Q. Jones, or Ben Johnson? I watched the movie Twelve O’clock High the other day, and Gregory Peck and Dean Jagger sounded liked they were from another planet. I confess over the last year, I have been interviewed a half-dozen times on the phone, and had no idea at first whether a male or female was asking the questions. All this sounds absurd, but I think upon reflection readers my age (55) will attest they have had the same experience. In the old days, I remember only that I first heard a variant of this accent with the old Paul Lynde character actor in one of the Flubber movies; now young men sound closer to his camp than to a Jack Palance or Alan Ladd.
7. We have given political eccentricity a bad name. There used to be all sorts of classy individualists, liberal and conservative alike, like Everett Dirksen, J. William Fulbright, Margaret Chase Smith, or Sam Ervin; today we simply see the obnoxious who claim to be eccentric like a Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Barney Frank, or Harry Reid. The loss is detectable even in diction and manner; Dirksen was no angel, but he was witty, charming, insightful; Frank is no angel, but he merely rants and pontificates. Watch the You Tube exchange between Harvard Law Graduate Frank and Harvard Law Graduate Rains as they arrogantly dismiss their trillion-dollar Fannie/Freddie meltdown in the making. I suppose it is the difference between the Age of Belief and the Age of Nihilism.
8. Do not farm. There is only loss. To the degree that anyone makes money farming, it is a question of a vertically-integrated enterprise making more in shipping, marketing, selling, packing, and brokering than it loses on the other end in growing. No exceptions. Food prices stay high, commodity prices stay low. That is all ye need to know. Try it and see.
9. As I wrote earlier, the shrill Left is increasingly far more vicious these days than the conservative fringe, and about like the crude Right of the 1950s. Why? I am not exactly sure, other than the generic notion that utopians often believe that their anointed ends justify brutal means. Maybe it is that the Right already had its Reformation when Buckley and others purged the extremists—the Birchers, the neo-Confederates, racialists, the fluoride-in-the-water conspiracists, anti-Semites, and assorted nuts.—from the conservative ranks in a way the Left has never done with the 1960s radicals that now reappear in the form of Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Cindy Sheehan, Moveon.org, the Daily Kos, etc. Not many Democrats excommunicated Moveon.org for its General Betray-Us ad. Most lined up to see the premier of Moore’s mythodrama. Barack Obama could subsidize a Rev. Wright or email a post-9/11 Bill Ayers in a way no conservative would even dare speak to a David Duke or Timothy McVeigh—and what Wright said was not all that different from what Duke spouts. What separated Ayers from McVeigh was chance; had the stars aligned, the Weathermen would have killed hundreds as they planned.
10. The K-12 public education system is essentially wrecked. No longer can any professor expect an incoming college freshman to know what Okinawa, John Quincy Adams, Shiloh, the Parthenon, the Reformation, John Locke, the Second Amendment, or the Pythagorean Theorem is. An entire American culture, the West itself, its ideas and experiences, have simply vanished on the altar of therapy. This upcoming generation knows instead not to judge anyone by absolute standards (but not why so); to remember to say that its own Western culture is no different from, or indeed far worse than, the alternatives; that race, class, and gender are, well, important in some vague sense; that global warming is manmade and very soon will kill us all; that we must have hope and change of some undefined sort; that AIDs is no more a homosexual- than a heterosexual-prone disease; and that the following things and people for some reason must be bad, or at least must in public company be said to be bad (in no particular order): Wal-Mart, cowboys, the Vietnam War, oil companies, coal plants, nuclear power, George Bush, chemicals, leather, guns, states like Utah and Kansas, Sarah Palin, vans and SUVs.
Well, with that done—I feel much better.
Friday, November 21, 2008
America’s True Genius
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzUwYzY2ZWZjYTNhOWM4OTQ5NjNlOTQ4ZWNjZjY5OGI=&w=MQ==
The Founding Fathers designed our Constitution so as to make it very difficult to bring about significant changes. New legislation requires majorities in both houses of Congress followed by a presidential signature. Constitutional amendments are even more difficult — the easiest method is for an amendment to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities and then be ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures. This suggests the Founding Fathers were suspicious of quick and easy change.
The actual genius of America, and what makes our country unique, is precisely the opposite of change. It is that our country was founded on certain timeless principles, laid out in the Declaration of Independence and put into practice by the Constitution. These principles include the conviction that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and to provide freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and equal protection under the law.
There are those who argue that the principles of the founders are woefully out of date — that our old ideals of limited government and individual liberty need to be revised and updated to accommodate the sweeping government intervention that the complexities of modern society demand. But Americans have always believed that our founding principles are not merely the product of a particular society or point in time. The principles are universal and inalienable or, to quote the Declaration of Independence, they are “self-evident truths.” These moral truths have not weakened over time, but rather have been strengthened by our national experience and our advances in social and economic understanding. Free-market capitalism has led not to the oppression and misery of the working class, but to a record of prosperity and a standard of living that are the envy of the world. Our conservative Constitution, skeptical of change and rooted in respect for the tradition of ordered liberty, has not made us inflexible but has rather safeguarded us from the turbulence of political fads and the temptations of radicalism..........................
Just Beautiful.........................
The Founding Fathers designed our Constitution so as to make it very difficult to bring about significant changes. New legislation requires majorities in both houses of Congress followed by a presidential signature. Constitutional amendments are even more difficult — the easiest method is for an amendment to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities and then be ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures. This suggests the Founding Fathers were suspicious of quick and easy change.
The actual genius of America, and what makes our country unique, is precisely the opposite of change. It is that our country was founded on certain timeless principles, laid out in the Declaration of Independence and put into practice by the Constitution. These principles include the conviction that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and to provide freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and equal protection under the law.
There are those who argue that the principles of the founders are woefully out of date — that our old ideals of limited government and individual liberty need to be revised and updated to accommodate the sweeping government intervention that the complexities of modern society demand. But Americans have always believed that our founding principles are not merely the product of a particular society or point in time. The principles are universal and inalienable or, to quote the Declaration of Independence, they are “self-evident truths.” These moral truths have not weakened over time, but rather have been strengthened by our national experience and our advances in social and economic understanding. Free-market capitalism has led not to the oppression and misery of the working class, but to a record of prosperity and a standard of living that are the envy of the world. Our conservative Constitution, skeptical of change and rooted in respect for the tradition of ordered liberty, has not made us inflexible but has rather safeguarded us from the turbulence of political fads and the temptations of radicalism..........................
Just Beautiful.........................
Monday, November 17, 2008
Socialized Medicine
Socialized Medicine is defined as is a term used primarily in the US to refer to certain kinds of tax paid for health care.
Who receives this care? Well in the ideal it would be everyone.
The pro's of this system are argued to be, everyone gets health care, no one has high costs and the quality of health care goes up.
The con's against say that the quality of care actually goes down, there are long lines for Dr's and the system is impersonal as you do not get to choose your GP.
Those that argue for socialized health care say, one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars go to administrative costs.
The RAND Health Insurance Experiment notes that 31 % of care given to patients for free, is wasted, and access related facilities regulations which cost 11.8 billion, provide benefits of only 3.8 billion.
Also quality related facilities regulations impose about 21.8 billion in costs and tender about 4 billion in benefits.
What does all this mean, probably that there are some other paths we could take to help provide health to everyone other than just paying for it out of the tax payers pocket.
Another dire side effect of the thinking of those that promote free for everyone medicine is rationing of care. We will not be able to provide all services for everyone.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/whatswrongwithushealthcare.php
Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University sees health care swallowing up 28 % of GDP by 2030 (up from 16% now), but asks: What would we rather spend the money on? "SUVs" In contrast, Brookings Institute senior fellow Henry Aaron prescribes a bitter, if sugar-coated, pill: "Intelligent health care rationing - limiting the availability of care that costs society more to produce than it is worth to patients - is not a horror to be avoided. It's a regretfully necessary limit to sustain fair access to health care that is worth what it costs."
The health care industry and the insurance industry are in need of major shake ups beginning with some good old fashion competitiveness coupled with real pricing transparency. We as consumers cannot "shop around" for our health care we must go where we're allowed.
This is a set of chains that need to be removed and then we will probably see the prices of daily health care come down.
Who receives this care? Well in the ideal it would be everyone.
The pro's of this system are argued to be, everyone gets health care, no one has high costs and the quality of health care goes up.
The con's against say that the quality of care actually goes down, there are long lines for Dr's and the system is impersonal as you do not get to choose your GP.
Those that argue for socialized health care say, one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars go to administrative costs.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.
Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
Conversely current regulatory costs are argued to be in the neighborhood of about 25 % which includes regulation of health facilities, health professionals, health insurance, drugs and medical devices, and the medical tort system, including the costs of defensive medicine, or say an annual 335 billion.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formula or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.
The RAND Health Insurance Experiment notes that 31 % of care given to patients for free, is wasted, and access related facilities regulations which cost 11.8 billion, provide benefits of only 3.8 billion.
Also quality related facilities regulations impose about 21.8 billion in costs and tender about 4 billion in benefits.
What does all this mean, probably that there are some other paths we could take to help provide health to everyone other than just paying for it out of the tax payers pocket.
Another dire side effect of the thinking of those that promote free for everyone medicine is rationing of care. We will not be able to provide all services for everyone.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/whatswrongwithushealthcare.php
Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton University sees health care swallowing up 28 % of GDP by 2030 (up from 16% now), but asks: What would we rather spend the money on? "SUVs" In contrast, Brookings Institute senior fellow Henry Aaron prescribes a bitter, if sugar-coated, pill: "Intelligent health care rationing - limiting the availability of care that costs society more to produce than it is worth to patients - is not a horror to be avoided. It's a regretfully necessary limit to sustain fair access to health care that is worth what it costs."
The health care industry and the insurance industry are in need of major shake ups beginning with some good old fashion competitiveness coupled with real pricing transparency. We as consumers cannot "shop around" for our health care we must go where we're allowed.
This is a set of chains that need to be removed and then we will probably see the prices of daily health care come down.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
'Socialism'? It's Already Here
This is the title to a great article by George Will at the Washington Post. In it he talks about how America need not wait for socialism to arrive via the Obama/Pelosi express but how it is already here. It is here we allowed it and we don't even know it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
McCain/Palin spoke out about it in their C- campaign for the Presidency, attacking The Big O on his "spreading the wealth" quote. But since different programs have crept into our everyday lives under the auspices of "good for the country" (Medicare, welfare, farm subsidies, bailouts etc) when confronted with the cold statement "Socialism" most Americans don't grasp the significance.
It won't be till it begins to hit our personal take home pay that we will begin to understand, by then it may be to late.
"The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well."
I call BS.
WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
McCain/Palin spoke out about it in their C- campaign for the Presidency, attacking The Big O on his "spreading the wealth" quote. But since different programs have crept into our everyday lives under the auspices of "good for the country" (Medicare, welfare, farm subsidies, bailouts etc) when confronted with the cold statement "Socialism" most Americans don't grasp the significance.
It won't be till it begins to hit our personal take home pay that we will begin to understand, by then it may be to late.
"The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well."
I call BS.
WP
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Moving Forward
Most voters that I have communicated with since election day are devastated at what we feel
is a bigger threat to America than the attacks on 9/11. There is a serious feeling that Socialism is
coming in massive waves and we do not have enough of a arsenal to defend against it.
We are asking several things from our representatives going forward.
For one, toughen up, lose the idea of moderation, return to solid conservative
principles that should be our foundation.
Remove those in current leadership roles, (this is 2 election cycles where they have proved ineffective) and replace them with individuals
who will put conservative values with a message we can become excited about and support.
Maintain diligence that those who we support uphold solid conservative and personal values.
We are looking for, and counting on, your votes against the upcoming liberal/socialist agenda;
tax increases, military budget cuts,
additional bailouts, assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights, the appointment of activist judges,
an attempt to return TO the "Fairness Doctrine", Pro-abortion legislation and a retreat form the War on Terror.
We are looking for you and others we support to stand solid against permanent, irrevocable changes to
our American way of life and our freedoms.
America has come far in it's short History, but it did not come this far by adhering to the ideals
put forth by the incoming Administration and Congressional Leadership.
Conservatism did not lose November 11, 2008, for the most part IT was not on the ballot.))))
is a bigger threat to America than the attacks on 9/11. There is a serious feeling that Socialism is
coming in massive waves and we do not have enough of a arsenal to defend against it.
We are asking several things from our representatives going forward.
For one, toughen up, lose the idea of moderation, return to solid conservative
principles that should be our foundation.
Remove those in current leadership roles, (this is 2 election cycles where they have proved ineffective) and replace them with individuals
who will put conservative values with a message we can become excited about and support.
Maintain diligence that those who we support uphold solid conservative and personal values.
We are looking for, and counting on, your votes against the upcoming liberal/socialist agenda;
tax increases, military budget cuts,
additional bailouts, assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights, the appointment of activist judges,
an attempt to return TO the "Fairness Doctrine", Pro-abortion legislation and a retreat form the War on Terror.
We are looking for you and others we support to stand solid against permanent, irrevocable changes to
our American way of life and our freedoms.
America has come far in it's short History, but it did not come this far by adhering to the ideals
put forth by the incoming Administration and Congressional Leadership.
Conservatism did not lose November 11, 2008, for the most part IT was not on the ballot.))))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."--Barry Goldwater
If we give the government the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan
