As we are sent hurdling towards 2014 at breakneck speed, my thoughts have turned backward to the country we were, and forward to the country we are going to be. And in so much as Barack Obama complains about Republicants obstructing his progress, he has been successful at his naked goal of transforming America. The new year will bring more offensive executive orders, uncontested nominations of persons who are proudly and deliberately ignorant of constitutional principles, and more spending of future generation's money.
Now that the linchpin of constitutional subjugation, ObamaCare, has been implemented without opposition, and might I say, even acquiescence by congressional Republicants, the country we enter in 2014 will forever leave behind the remnants of a tattered republic. And if this all sounds a bit too melancholy for the New Year celebration, I am a realist, and I see Americans hating the new health care law, but accepting it because there is no backbone amongst our leaders to stand and fight for the liberty of all Americans.
Republican governors such as Rick Snyder of Michigan, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, and John Kasich of Ohio have all allowed for the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare. To the extent that there is a Republicant strategy, it seems to be not so much to oppose the unconstitutional law, but to "make it better." Some on the Right still hold out hope that if Republicants gain control of the Senate and hold the House after next year's mid-term elections, that that will be the time they will stand on their principles and fight ObamaCare, the scourge of liberty. This strategy is analogous to if the patriots in 1776 waited until they had a better equipped, better trained, and better funded army before they fought the British in the cause of liberty.
All those modacans (moderate Republicans) who crucified Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, et al, for vociferously and bravely opposing ObamaCare to the point of a partial shutdown of the federal government, have been proven wrong. ObamaCare did not "collapse of its own weight," as they predicted it would. If anything, implementing the modacans' strategy of doing nothing has only cleared a path for the law to proceed unencumbered, gaining momentum every day it stands unopposed.
And now as we exist in the space between the light of liberty that we leave behind in 2013, and the dark of tyranny that awaits us in 2014, the seconds, minutes, and hours tick away until the sunset of the patriots legacy and the dawn of the statist's oppression pass each other, the former to the ash heap of history, the latter to become the new order of the 21st century. One party has put flame to the United States Constitution, and the other has stood idly by, too afraid to implement the means by which the flames could be extinguished. This is the legacy of redistribution, the boot of big government on the citizen's neck, and the death of free choice that we leave the next generation.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Monday, December 30, 2013
The Problem With Power-Filled Children
The object of the exercise of parenting is to raise children to be independent, contributing members of society. This feat is accomplished, to a large extent, by inculcating a child with a core set of values, but also by encouraging independence and strength of character through a strong will. A strong will is highly desirable, it is what sustains an individual through hard times, and is one of the main ingredients to a successful life. But so many parents, especially of the last quarter century, have not raised strong-willed children, instead opting for the much less desirable power-filled child.
Power-filled children are immersed in an ocean of coddling and acquiescence by parents who infuse them with the concept that they are the center of the universe, entitled to their every whim and fancy, without any effort on their part. We publicly witness power-filled children everyday, who control their parents with bad behavior, temper tantrums and abusive language. But there has never been a more public example, en masse, of power-filled children than the Occupy Wall St. movement. Thousands of young adults throwing a collective temper tantrum to secure that which they did not earn.
The same sort of arrogant selfish entitlement resident in the Occupy movement, can be witnessed every day in many homes in America where children are given control of family life. It begins almost from birth, when well meaning parents allow a child's toys to occupy common family space such as living rooms, kitchens, and even the parents bedroom. The young child learns that the entire family home is his domain instead of having a designated area for his things in a home that is governed by his parents. This ceding of the parents' governance to the child fills them with power that they do not have the wisdom or understanding to possess.
Our popular culture has contributed to the raising of power-filled children by placing parents in a subservient role to their children in television shows, commercials, and other such drivel for public consumption. The power-filled culture teaches that the modern parent, first and foremost, is suppose to be a friend, not an authority figure, to their children. So the power-filled child is rewarded without first meeting any expectations. Character-building concepts such as delayed gratification, earned success, and determination are absent from the power-filled child. He grows into an adult who feels entitled to have someone else fill his sails and navigate the choppy seas of life for him.
The Left of course has encouraged the raising of power-filled children because it breeds an army of adults whose daily bread must come from the efforts of others, filtered through a government bureaucracy that they control. One of the biggest enemies of Leftists are the strong-willed. They not only have very little need for government largess, but generally think for themselves and are not susceptible to the lies, half-truths, and drivel that spews from the mouths of Leftist leaders. So, the most valuable gift that a parent can give a child is to take away his power and replace it with a strong will.
Power-filled children are immersed in an ocean of coddling and acquiescence by parents who infuse them with the concept that they are the center of the universe, entitled to their every whim and fancy, without any effort on their part. We publicly witness power-filled children everyday, who control their parents with bad behavior, temper tantrums and abusive language. But there has never been a more public example, en masse, of power-filled children than the Occupy Wall St. movement. Thousands of young adults throwing a collective temper tantrum to secure that which they did not earn.
The same sort of arrogant selfish entitlement resident in the Occupy movement, can be witnessed every day in many homes in America where children are given control of family life. It begins almost from birth, when well meaning parents allow a child's toys to occupy common family space such as living rooms, kitchens, and even the parents bedroom. The young child learns that the entire family home is his domain instead of having a designated area for his things in a home that is governed by his parents. This ceding of the parents' governance to the child fills them with power that they do not have the wisdom or understanding to possess.
Our popular culture has contributed to the raising of power-filled children by placing parents in a subservient role to their children in television shows, commercials, and other such drivel for public consumption. The power-filled culture teaches that the modern parent, first and foremost, is suppose to be a friend, not an authority figure, to their children. So the power-filled child is rewarded without first meeting any expectations. Character-building concepts such as delayed gratification, earned success, and determination are absent from the power-filled child. He grows into an adult who feels entitled to have someone else fill his sails and navigate the choppy seas of life for him.
The Left of course has encouraged the raising of power-filled children because it breeds an army of adults whose daily bread must come from the efforts of others, filtered through a government bureaucracy that they control. One of the biggest enemies of Leftists are the strong-willed. They not only have very little need for government largess, but generally think for themselves and are not susceptible to the lies, half-truths, and drivel that spews from the mouths of Leftist leaders. So, the most valuable gift that a parent can give a child is to take away his power and replace it with a strong will.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
The Unconstitutional Nature of Government Immunity
The state of Ohio where I reside, a few years ago made it illegal for persons to smoke in public, even in the state's thousands of bars. But walk into most any of those same bars and one will immediately notice a sixty inch or larger flat screen television promoting the practice of gambling through the state-sponsored Keno cabal. One can sit at the bar, drink and gamble, but do not dare smoke a cigarette or cigar.
I have often wondered how the state of Ohio determined that smoking in bars was more detrimental to society than encouraging folks to spend hundreds of dollars engaged in the act of gambling, which use to be illegal for the bars themselves to promote through tip boards, poker, and other such games of chance. And while smoking has health risks for about a third of those who partake of that habit, the gambling addiction ruins millions more lives through bankruptcy, loss of property, and criminal activity in support of the habit.
State-sponsored gambling is exemplary of government's ability to engage in activities that would send the average person to prison. Other examples are monetizing debt (The Federal Reserve's purchase of treasury bonds with dollars created out of thin air), Ponzi scheme (social security), and violations of the RICO act (pretty much anything the Obama administration has implemented over the last five years). I could not, for instance, require bond holders of a private corporation's debt to sell that debt for five cents on the dollar, then give the equity represented by that debt to my friends free of charge. I would go to prison. But that is exactly what the Obama administration did with General Motors bonds, and this thievery was hailed by those on the Left as a crowning achievement, right up there with killing Osama Bin Laden.
Today's government, and the ruling class that populates it, have given themselves immunity from the very law that they are charged with upholding. But this is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. In fact, James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Papers #57 made the following statement in reference to Congress, "...they can make no law which will not have its full operation on them and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society." How far from that guiding principle upon which our great nation was founded we have strayed, from the federal level all the way down to the cities in which we reside.
I have often wondered how the state of Ohio determined that smoking in bars was more detrimental to society than encouraging folks to spend hundreds of dollars engaged in the act of gambling, which use to be illegal for the bars themselves to promote through tip boards, poker, and other such games of chance. And while smoking has health risks for about a third of those who partake of that habit, the gambling addiction ruins millions more lives through bankruptcy, loss of property, and criminal activity in support of the habit.
State-sponsored gambling is exemplary of government's ability to engage in activities that would send the average person to prison. Other examples are monetizing debt (The Federal Reserve's purchase of treasury bonds with dollars created out of thin air), Ponzi scheme (social security), and violations of the RICO act (pretty much anything the Obama administration has implemented over the last five years). I could not, for instance, require bond holders of a private corporation's debt to sell that debt for five cents on the dollar, then give the equity represented by that debt to my friends free of charge. I would go to prison. But that is exactly what the Obama administration did with General Motors bonds, and this thievery was hailed by those on the Left as a crowning achievement, right up there with killing Osama Bin Laden.
Today's government, and the ruling class that populates it, have given themselves immunity from the very law that they are charged with upholding. But this is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. In fact, James Madison, father of the constitution, in Federalist Papers #57 made the following statement in reference to Congress, "...they can make no law which will not have its full operation on them and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society." How far from that guiding principle upon which our great nation was founded we have strayed, from the federal level all the way down to the cities in which we reside.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Labor Force Participation Paints Bleak Economic Picture
Yesterday, the weekly claims for unemployment benefits dropped to a multi-year low, or at least that is what the Obama administration would have anyone believe who still has even a modicum of trust in the juked statistics coming from the Executive branch. While the administration crowed about the questionable data being evidence that this flaccid economy is miraculously showing signs of improvement, the Labor Force Participation Rate is at a 35 year low. An improving job market can not co-exist with a falling Labor Force Participation Rate, no matter who is in the White House.
The 63.2 percent Labor Force Participation Rate is not only the lowest since 1978, the height of another Democrat president's rein by the name of Jimmy Carter, it is illustrative of the disconnect that exists between reality and the Obama administration's economic data that they spew on a regular basis from the depths of the White House bowels. Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard, has recently illustrated one such data point manipulation. Mr. Hayes has accurately stated that if the Obama administration used the same formula to calculate the unemployment rate as every prior administration, the unemployment rate would stand at a staggering 15%.
But back to the Labor Force Participation Rate, which was approximately 66% or above the entire 8 years of the George W. Bush administration, and when Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. The current president holds the dubious distinction of presiding over the largest drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate in any five year period in this country's post-World War II history. This means that when Barack Obama was droning on incessantly in his inaugural speech on January 20, 2009 and promised to put America back to work, there were 8 million more persons working then that are not working now.
It is important to note that defenders of the President's economic policy point to the plummeting Labor Force Participation Rate as a function of baby boomers retiring. But if the jobs that these retirees held are also retiring, and not being filled by younger workers, the job market is indeed bleak and desperate. If participation in the labor force continues to fall in conjunction with the mass retirement of baby boomers, all being supported by tax payer-funded social security, remaining workers in the labor force will necessarily have to cede a higher percentage of their incomes to taxes. This, of course, will mean less money being spent in the private economy and more money being grafted by big government.
The shrinking number of persons participating in the labor force is planned economic devastation resulting in more dependence on government, and those who control it. The Obamaites' political fortunes are fed by the economic misery of a once free and prosperous nation. I fear that it is becoming more difficult by the day, month, and year to reverse the downward spiral of which the falling Labor Force Participation Rate foretells.
The 63.2 percent Labor Force Participation Rate is not only the lowest since 1978, the height of another Democrat president's rein by the name of Jimmy Carter, it is illustrative of the disconnect that exists between reality and the Obama administration's economic data that they spew on a regular basis from the depths of the White House bowels. Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard, has recently illustrated one such data point manipulation. Mr. Hayes has accurately stated that if the Obama administration used the same formula to calculate the unemployment rate as every prior administration, the unemployment rate would stand at a staggering 15%.
But back to the Labor Force Participation Rate, which was approximately 66% or above the entire 8 years of the George W. Bush administration, and when Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. The current president holds the dubious distinction of presiding over the largest drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate in any five year period in this country's post-World War II history. This means that when Barack Obama was droning on incessantly in his inaugural speech on January 20, 2009 and promised to put America back to work, there were 8 million more persons working then that are not working now.
It is important to note that defenders of the President's economic policy point to the plummeting Labor Force Participation Rate as a function of baby boomers retiring. But if the jobs that these retirees held are also retiring, and not being filled by younger workers, the job market is indeed bleak and desperate. If participation in the labor force continues to fall in conjunction with the mass retirement of baby boomers, all being supported by tax payer-funded social security, remaining workers in the labor force will necessarily have to cede a higher percentage of their incomes to taxes. This, of course, will mean less money being spent in the private economy and more money being grafted by big government.
The shrinking number of persons participating in the labor force is planned economic devastation resulting in more dependence on government, and those who control it. The Obamaites' political fortunes are fed by the economic misery of a once free and prosperous nation. I fear that it is becoming more difficult by the day, month, and year to reverse the downward spiral of which the falling Labor Force Participation Rate foretells.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
The Media's Attempt To Spin Jang Execution To Obama's Advantage
Recently, the current pot-bellied dictator of North Korea and the world's creepiest Dennis Rodman fan, Kim Jong-un, executed his uncle, Jang Song-thaek. Jang was North Korea's Vice Chairman of the National Defense Commission, a position considered to be second to the Supreme Leader himself. Jang was also married to Kim Jong-Il's only sister, making him Kim Jong-un's uncle. He also was rumored to have been in control of North Korea during the former leader's illness and death several years ago.
Jang Song-thaek was charged with mentoring the young Kim Jong-un a few years back by his brother in-law, Kim Jong-il, then Supreme Leader of North Korea. It is a common occurrence for the mentor to be executed by his protégé sometime after he has taken the reins of power, for fear of being challenged by the powerful mentor. Of course the official charges against Jang read somewhat like a recitation of North Korean law, Jang having been accused of everything from political corruption to pornography.
Reading the main stream media's analysis of the execution, one would think this was the first time that a dictator in North Korea, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, executed members of his government who they perceived to be too powerful. The dolts in the media even quoted North Korean "experts" who confirmed that Kim Jong-un was an anomaly when it came to any lineage of lunatic leaders, beginning with his grand father Kim Il-sung and being passed to him by his father Kim Jong-Il. But the truth is that both Kim's father and grand father did their share of purging during their tenures in power.
The reason that the media has gotten it so wrong is partly their disinterest in and incompetence for anything approaching journalism, and partly they consider it to be their divine directive to make President Obama look less feckless with foreign policy than he is. The media has deliberately tried to characterize Kim Jong-un as so much more irrational and off the world leader reservation than was his father, who of course was in power mostly during the Bush years. The media's narrative on North Korea seems to be that no one, not even the Great Obaminator, could reason with a man so unreasonable as Kim Jong-un, who would execute his own uncle and mentor. Therefore excusing Barack Obama for actually ignoring the growing threat to the region posed by Kim Jong-un.
I am certainly not excusing the mentally ill Kim Jong-un, but nor should the United States be using the recent execution of his uncle to excuse the incompetence and buffoonish foreign policy of our own "Supreme Leader." It may be unfair to compare Barrack Obama to Kim Jong-un, after all, our President has not executed any of his family members or administration officials, only common sense, decency, and a cogent foreign policy.
Jang Song-thaek was charged with mentoring the young Kim Jong-un a few years back by his brother in-law, Kim Jong-il, then Supreme Leader of North Korea. It is a common occurrence for the mentor to be executed by his protégé sometime after he has taken the reins of power, for fear of being challenged by the powerful mentor. Of course the official charges against Jang read somewhat like a recitation of North Korean law, Jang having been accused of everything from political corruption to pornography.
Reading the main stream media's analysis of the execution, one would think this was the first time that a dictator in North Korea, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, executed members of his government who they perceived to be too powerful. The dolts in the media even quoted North Korean "experts" who confirmed that Kim Jong-un was an anomaly when it came to any lineage of lunatic leaders, beginning with his grand father Kim Il-sung and being passed to him by his father Kim Jong-Il. But the truth is that both Kim's father and grand father did their share of purging during their tenures in power.
The reason that the media has gotten it so wrong is partly their disinterest in and incompetence for anything approaching journalism, and partly they consider it to be their divine directive to make President Obama look less feckless with foreign policy than he is. The media has deliberately tried to characterize Kim Jong-un as so much more irrational and off the world leader reservation than was his father, who of course was in power mostly during the Bush years. The media's narrative on North Korea seems to be that no one, not even the Great Obaminator, could reason with a man so unreasonable as Kim Jong-un, who would execute his own uncle and mentor. Therefore excusing Barack Obama for actually ignoring the growing threat to the region posed by Kim Jong-un.
I am certainly not excusing the mentally ill Kim Jong-un, but nor should the United States be using the recent execution of his uncle to excuse the incompetence and buffoonish foreign policy of our own "Supreme Leader." It may be unfair to compare Barrack Obama to Kim Jong-un, after all, our President has not executed any of his family members or administration officials, only common sense, decency, and a cogent foreign policy.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
The Lefts Redefining Of America
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America." This often repeated quote, by those on the Right anyway, from President Obama prior to winning the 2008 presidential election, could serve as the platform of the modern Democrat party and the Leftist movement in this country. But the Left has not so much transformed America as it has redefined the lexicon of our public debate on the important issues of the day. It is this redefining that is the linchpin of the Lefts effort to subdue the spirit of liberty in a free people and to dismantle the government that was established to protect and promote that spirit.
The Left has redefined hate to mean any position taken that is in conflict with the politically correct, albeit factually lacking narrative on any subject that they themselves believe, or want to make others believe for their own political advantage. They have redefined racism to mean any statement of fact that acknowledges a truth about, or suggests an expectation of, any minority that is stabled in the barn of Leftist victim hood. They have redefined misogyny to mean anyone who has values that are not congruent with modern feminism.
The Left has redefined marriage away from the thousands of years of human history that proves traditional marriage to be the best way in which to raise children as responsible, contributing members of a culture, to any relationship whose participants say they love each other. They have redefined rights to mean any commodity that they can convince a segment of the population is their entitlement to have the United States taxpayer provide them through the bureaucracy of the federal government. And they have redefined bigotry to mean any word that flows from the mouth of anyone on the Right, while ignoring the bigoted statements of anyone on the Left.
This redefining of America, mainly through political correctness, has had a devastating effect on the free flow of ideas, especially on college campuses and in Washington D.C. The Founders knew that if the free flow of ideas was restricted in anyway, the storm clouds of tyranny and oppression would obscure the brightly burning sun of liberty. It was to protect free speech, more than for any other reason, that the United States Constitution has as its first amendment language to protect any man's ability to express his political ideas, and for those who may disagree to vigorously debate and challenge them with opposing ideas.
The way in which the Left has redefined America has allowed them to advance their ideas, not based on intellectual merit, but solely on intimidating any opposition away from even participating in debate. Any expectations of those on government assistance has become bigotry, expecting women to pay for their own birth control has become misogyny, and allowing persons to keep the fruits of their labor has become greed. Any society that allows itself to be defined in this manner has left behind the sunlight of freedom and liberty and has entered the dark forest of oppression and tyranny.
The Left has redefined hate to mean any position taken that is in conflict with the politically correct, albeit factually lacking narrative on any subject that they themselves believe, or want to make others believe for their own political advantage. They have redefined racism to mean any statement of fact that acknowledges a truth about, or suggests an expectation of, any minority that is stabled in the barn of Leftist victim hood. They have redefined misogyny to mean anyone who has values that are not congruent with modern feminism.
The Left has redefined marriage away from the thousands of years of human history that proves traditional marriage to be the best way in which to raise children as responsible, contributing members of a culture, to any relationship whose participants say they love each other. They have redefined rights to mean any commodity that they can convince a segment of the population is their entitlement to have the United States taxpayer provide them through the bureaucracy of the federal government. And they have redefined bigotry to mean any word that flows from the mouth of anyone on the Right, while ignoring the bigoted statements of anyone on the Left.
This redefining of America, mainly through political correctness, has had a devastating effect on the free flow of ideas, especially on college campuses and in Washington D.C. The Founders knew that if the free flow of ideas was restricted in anyway, the storm clouds of tyranny and oppression would obscure the brightly burning sun of liberty. It was to protect free speech, more than for any other reason, that the United States Constitution has as its first amendment language to protect any man's ability to express his political ideas, and for those who may disagree to vigorously debate and challenge them with opposing ideas.
The way in which the Left has redefined America has allowed them to advance their ideas, not based on intellectual merit, but solely on intimidating any opposition away from even participating in debate. Any expectations of those on government assistance has become bigotry, expecting women to pay for their own birth control has become misogyny, and allowing persons to keep the fruits of their labor has become greed. Any society that allows itself to be defined in this manner has left behind the sunlight of freedom and liberty and has entered the dark forest of oppression and tyranny.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Why Income Inequality Is Not A Bad Thing
There has been much talk from the White House and others on the Left about "income inequality," as if it is the scourge of civilized society. But income equality is the sign of a stagnant and corrupt culture. Stagnant, because when incomes are equalized by the force of government, wealth creation, innovation, and prosperity suffer and die. Corrupt, because the amount of authority that must be given to government to equalize incomes breeds crony capitalism, bureaucratic greed, and a loss of individual liberty that has its roots in economic freedom.
It is one of the glaring hypocrisies of the Left that they support and evangelize for what they call diversity in every other aspect of our culture except the economy. Income equality, by its very definition and nature, necessitates an economy that is anything but diverse. The founders of this great nation dedicated their fortunes, lives, and sacred honors to a cause that had its foundations first and foremost in economic freedom. The freedom of men to advance their economic conditions as far as their talents, ambitions, and personal industry would take them. When government aims to equalize incomes, economic freedom dies, and along with it, a nation's prosperity and innovative spirit.
When Abraham Lincoln said that, "a man does not build his own house by tearing down his neighbor's house," he was not only talking about structures made of wood and stone. He was referring to a man's personal wealth that is destroyed by income re-distribution. And it is not just personal wealth that is destroyed by the misguided and dangerous concept of income equality, but all the good that a man's wealth can do in the society at large. Much more good is done for the less fortunate by private wealth creation of the successful than any government bureaucracy can ever dream of accomplishing. Even celebrity Leftist Bono recently admitted, begrudgingly, that capitalism has lifted more persons out of poverty than all the government programs that have ever existed.
The rank and file Leftists who follow the doctrine of fairness promulgated by power-hungry politicians with the advancement of income equality, may not be so quick to bow at the altar of class warfare if their hard-earned wealth was on the chopping block of income tyranny. I find it somewhat ironic that most of those who push for income re-distribution are Leftist politicians who stand to gain personal wealth and power from being the ones who implement the re-distribution, or they are folks who have no wealth of their own nor the ambition to create any. That which makes income inequality healthy for a free society can be found in the utter failure and misery of systems that vigorously re-distribute wealth.
I recall during the height of the Occupy Wall St. craze that some protesters were horrified that their iPads, iPhones, and other devices were being stolen by their fellow Occupiers. But it was illustrative of the society for which they were advocating, one in which those that have must "share" with those that do not have. Of course, it is very unlikely that any of the Occupiers, or anyone else who advocates for wealth re-distribution, will ever recognize the folly and dichotomy of their position. It is a shame that some advocate for the destructive power of redistributive policies, instead of the life-giving tenets of economic freedom.
It is one of the glaring hypocrisies of the Left that they support and evangelize for what they call diversity in every other aspect of our culture except the economy. Income equality, by its very definition and nature, necessitates an economy that is anything but diverse. The founders of this great nation dedicated their fortunes, lives, and sacred honors to a cause that had its foundations first and foremost in economic freedom. The freedom of men to advance their economic conditions as far as their talents, ambitions, and personal industry would take them. When government aims to equalize incomes, economic freedom dies, and along with it, a nation's prosperity and innovative spirit.
When Abraham Lincoln said that, "a man does not build his own house by tearing down his neighbor's house," he was not only talking about structures made of wood and stone. He was referring to a man's personal wealth that is destroyed by income re-distribution. And it is not just personal wealth that is destroyed by the misguided and dangerous concept of income equality, but all the good that a man's wealth can do in the society at large. Much more good is done for the less fortunate by private wealth creation of the successful than any government bureaucracy can ever dream of accomplishing. Even celebrity Leftist Bono recently admitted, begrudgingly, that capitalism has lifted more persons out of poverty than all the government programs that have ever existed.
The rank and file Leftists who follow the doctrine of fairness promulgated by power-hungry politicians with the advancement of income equality, may not be so quick to bow at the altar of class warfare if their hard-earned wealth was on the chopping block of income tyranny. I find it somewhat ironic that most of those who push for income re-distribution are Leftist politicians who stand to gain personal wealth and power from being the ones who implement the re-distribution, or they are folks who have no wealth of their own nor the ambition to create any. That which makes income inequality healthy for a free society can be found in the utter failure and misery of systems that vigorously re-distribute wealth.
I recall during the height of the Occupy Wall St. craze that some protesters were horrified that their iPads, iPhones, and other devices were being stolen by their fellow Occupiers. But it was illustrative of the society for which they were advocating, one in which those that have must "share" with those that do not have. Of course, it is very unlikely that any of the Occupiers, or anyone else who advocates for wealth re-distribution, will ever recognize the folly and dichotomy of their position. It is a shame that some advocate for the destructive power of redistributive policies, instead of the life-giving tenets of economic freedom.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Inter-Generational Racial Victim Hood
One of the Lefts favorite activities is accusing the Right of being racists, mostly to gain a political advantage with a woefully under-informed, and sometimes deliberately misinformed, public. But it is the Left that is obsessed with race, brandishing it like a nine millimeter hand gun every time a black youth is shot by police, in every election cycle, and whenever they perceive a chance to destroy someone who opposes their severely flawed ideology.
Such was the case recently with comments made by Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family. His innocent comments about growing up in Louisiana in the 1960s among blacks, were called racist by an ever-increasingly hateful and irrational media and other Leftist devotees. Phil's comments that he never witnessed any discrimination against blacks growing up in the South, and that he worked along side many blacks hoeing the cotton fields and did not hear any of them express any concern about being the victims of racism, is illustrative of the Lefts "all or nothing" strategy when it comes to race.
The narrative of the Left is that every white person in the South is a racist bigot and practices discrimination against any black person he can find. This narrative falls apart when one considers the post-Civil War Jim Crow Laws of the South. Why would laws need to be implemented to get persons to do that which they are already doing on their own? But the actual facts or truth will not stop a committed Leftist from proffering their own version of reality to push an agenda based on their own bigotry of those with whom they disagree. And Mr. Robertson's own life experience must be sublimated to the Lefts agenda and the narrative used to impose it. This is not to say there were not racists in the South that discriminated against blacks, they were called Democrats.
The Left has also manufactured inter-generational racial victim hood i.e., because you may have had an ancestor that was a victim of racism, you are automatically a victim as well and should receive special treatment and compensation. This has been a deliberate strategy by the Left to offer themselves as the only remedy for the alleged racial offense, thus giving Leftist politicians power and authority that the United States Constitution never envisioned. But this kind of racial pandering has only served to injure the intended beneficiaries with higher high school and college drop-out rates, twice the unemployment rate of the general population, and the almost complete destruction of the black family structure.
So as many in the black population have been deliberately distracted to think that they are victims of conservative white policy (if such a thing exists), the real source of their victimization is Leftist social policies that have aimed to keep them on the Democrat plantation of low expectations and unlimited entitlement that are born of never-ending victim hood.
Such was the case recently with comments made by Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family. His innocent comments about growing up in Louisiana in the 1960s among blacks, were called racist by an ever-increasingly hateful and irrational media and other Leftist devotees. Phil's comments that he never witnessed any discrimination against blacks growing up in the South, and that he worked along side many blacks hoeing the cotton fields and did not hear any of them express any concern about being the victims of racism, is illustrative of the Lefts "all or nothing" strategy when it comes to race.
The narrative of the Left is that every white person in the South is a racist bigot and practices discrimination against any black person he can find. This narrative falls apart when one considers the post-Civil War Jim Crow Laws of the South. Why would laws need to be implemented to get persons to do that which they are already doing on their own? But the actual facts or truth will not stop a committed Leftist from proffering their own version of reality to push an agenda based on their own bigotry of those with whom they disagree. And Mr. Robertson's own life experience must be sublimated to the Lefts agenda and the narrative used to impose it. This is not to say there were not racists in the South that discriminated against blacks, they were called Democrats.
The Left has also manufactured inter-generational racial victim hood i.e., because you may have had an ancestor that was a victim of racism, you are automatically a victim as well and should receive special treatment and compensation. This has been a deliberate strategy by the Left to offer themselves as the only remedy for the alleged racial offense, thus giving Leftist politicians power and authority that the United States Constitution never envisioned. But this kind of racial pandering has only served to injure the intended beneficiaries with higher high school and college drop-out rates, twice the unemployment rate of the general population, and the almost complete destruction of the black family structure.
So as many in the black population have been deliberately distracted to think that they are victims of conservative white policy (if such a thing exists), the real source of their victimization is Leftist social policies that have aimed to keep them on the Democrat plantation of low expectations and unlimited entitlement that are born of never-ending victim hood.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Phil Robertson, A&E, And The Tyranny Of The Minority
The way in which the Left, especially in the media and the Democrat party, slant and deliberately mis-characterize the positions of Christians and others on the Right, has recently been illustrated by their reaction to the comments made by Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family that has the number cable show in America. Mr. Robertson was very steadfast in his Christian belief, based on the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin. But the media over and over again characterized his remarks as "anti-gay" instead of accurately describing them as "pro-Christian," "pro-heterosexual," or even "pro-Biblical." These are all things we know from Phil Robertson's comments, what there is not any evidence of is any anti-gay sentiment, in fact he basically stated that he loved the sinner, but not the sin.
But for his deeply held, and courageously expressed beliefs, Phil Robertson has suffered the wrath of the political correctness Nazis at A&E, the cable network that carries his highly popular show. Phil has been indefinitely suspended. I am not worried about Phil Robertson, he and his family were persons of substance both in character and financially before their show on A&E, unlike most reality television stars. I am sure Phil will be just fine if his suspension from the show is permanent. My concern is with the Duck Dynasty audience and every other American who can have their livelihood threatened by a group that comprises less than two percent of the population.
A&E, like most of corporate America, is so intimidated and frightened by the radical homosexual lobby that they felt it necessary not only to suspend Phil Robertson for his beliefs, but to additionally make a statement that dripped with fear, cowardice, and pandering. No where in their statement was any acknowledgment of respect for the tens of millions of Christians who support Phil's beliefs, if not for the tens of millions more who support his right of religious expression. I read the statement from A&E as a slight to the very audience that watches Duck Dynasty and fills the network's coffers with ad revenues. I highly doubt that many homosexuals watch the show. So for the network to tell regular viewers of the show, mostly Christians and those on the political Right, that they no longer are appreciated by the network, reminds me of the Republicant party establishment, in essence telling their conservative base to stay home on election day. In both cases, the ones who provide the lion's share of support are being told they are persona non grata.
Perhaps A&E's cowardice will be rewarded with a backlash from the show's fans which will result in the reinstatement of Phil Robertson. And perhaps the Republicant establishment will whole-heartily embrace the Tea Party and conservatives. I am not holding my breath in anticipation of either one. What I do know is that until the vast majority of Americans, who live their lives in decency, stand up and assert themselves, sliver groups like the radical homosexual lobby will continue to impose their tyranny of the minority on the rest of America by pulling the strings of their corporate marionettes like A&E.
But for his deeply held, and courageously expressed beliefs, Phil Robertson has suffered the wrath of the political correctness Nazis at A&E, the cable network that carries his highly popular show. Phil has been indefinitely suspended. I am not worried about Phil Robertson, he and his family were persons of substance both in character and financially before their show on A&E, unlike most reality television stars. I am sure Phil will be just fine if his suspension from the show is permanent. My concern is with the Duck Dynasty audience and every other American who can have their livelihood threatened by a group that comprises less than two percent of the population.
A&E, like most of corporate America, is so intimidated and frightened by the radical homosexual lobby that they felt it necessary not only to suspend Phil Robertson for his beliefs, but to additionally make a statement that dripped with fear, cowardice, and pandering. No where in their statement was any acknowledgment of respect for the tens of millions of Christians who support Phil's beliefs, if not for the tens of millions more who support his right of religious expression. I read the statement from A&E as a slight to the very audience that watches Duck Dynasty and fills the network's coffers with ad revenues. I highly doubt that many homosexuals watch the show. So for the network to tell regular viewers of the show, mostly Christians and those on the political Right, that they no longer are appreciated by the network, reminds me of the Republicant party establishment, in essence telling their conservative base to stay home on election day. In both cases, the ones who provide the lion's share of support are being told they are persona non grata.
Perhaps A&E's cowardice will be rewarded with a backlash from the show's fans which will result in the reinstatement of Phil Robertson. And perhaps the Republicant establishment will whole-heartily embrace the Tea Party and conservatives. I am not holding my breath in anticipation of either one. What I do know is that until the vast majority of Americans, who live their lives in decency, stand up and assert themselves, sliver groups like the radical homosexual lobby will continue to impose their tyranny of the minority on the rest of America by pulling the strings of their corporate marionettes like A&E.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
The Brazil Effect
Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame co-wrote and directed a cult film in 1985 called Brazil. It was a commentary on living in an over-bureaucratized society created by a totalitarian government. Several times in recent years I have been reminded of that movie's final scene, when the protagonist is walking the street in a whirlwind of papers that attach themselves to him until he is completely overcome under a mountain of paper and is forced to the pavement. It was a rather pithy commentary on the inescapable smothering that results from bureaucracy.
Almost a quarter century before the election of Barack Obama, Mr. Gilliam accurately illustrated what could easily have been the crushing bureaucracy imposed by his administration. Mr. Obama's health care law alone has generated over a hundred thousand pages of regulations on an industry which for decades has been the envy of the world, and in a few years will be worthy of its pity and a source of shame for Americans. But the massive, unthinkable amount of regulations generated by ObamaCare is an all to common thread that weaves its way through this administration's policies.
Hundreds of thousands of regulations have been churned out by a White House with teams of policy wonks and lawyers whose job it is to write law masquerading as regulations that are imposed by Executive Branch agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, The Food and Drug Administration, The Department of Health and Human Services, and many others.This mountain of regulations that has reached its nasty tentacles into every aspect of the federal government, makes it almost irrelevant if the Republicants gain a majority in the Senate and hold their majority in the House or not. Barack Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, and this he has done, turning this representative republic, where the people's representatives in congress make law, into a bureaucratic authoritarian socialist society with rules imposed upon it by an out of control Executive.
The modacans in the Republicant party will sell their souls to the devil to gain the majority in both chambers of congress, only to continue to allow the Executive Branch of government to usurp their constitutionally legitimate authority for law making. The Obama administration, for sure, has been the most lawless, corrupt, and expansive in the history of this nation. But it is a much easier task to transform a self-ruling federalist system into a bureaucratic centralized state when there is no opposition party to speak of roaming the halls of government. And as the Republicant party continues to delude itself that controlling the ever shrinking influence of congress is worthy of leaving their principles abandon in the desert of politics, the rest of us are like the guy in the movie, being suffocated under an ever growing mountain of bureaucracy.
Almost a quarter century before the election of Barack Obama, Mr. Gilliam accurately illustrated what could easily have been the crushing bureaucracy imposed by his administration. Mr. Obama's health care law alone has generated over a hundred thousand pages of regulations on an industry which for decades has been the envy of the world, and in a few years will be worthy of its pity and a source of shame for Americans. But the massive, unthinkable amount of regulations generated by ObamaCare is an all to common thread that weaves its way through this administration's policies.
Hundreds of thousands of regulations have been churned out by a White House with teams of policy wonks and lawyers whose job it is to write law masquerading as regulations that are imposed by Executive Branch agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, The Food and Drug Administration, The Department of Health and Human Services, and many others.This mountain of regulations that has reached its nasty tentacles into every aspect of the federal government, makes it almost irrelevant if the Republicants gain a majority in the Senate and hold their majority in the House or not. Barack Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, and this he has done, turning this representative republic, where the people's representatives in congress make law, into a bureaucratic authoritarian socialist society with rules imposed upon it by an out of control Executive.
The modacans in the Republicant party will sell their souls to the devil to gain the majority in both chambers of congress, only to continue to allow the Executive Branch of government to usurp their constitutionally legitimate authority for law making. The Obama administration, for sure, has been the most lawless, corrupt, and expansive in the history of this nation. But it is a much easier task to transform a self-ruling federalist system into a bureaucratic centralized state when there is no opposition party to speak of roaming the halls of government. And as the Republicant party continues to delude itself that controlling the ever shrinking influence of congress is worthy of leaving their principles abandon in the desert of politics, the rest of us are like the guy in the movie, being suffocated under an ever growing mountain of bureaucracy.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
The Myth Of The Level Playing Field
One of the favorite Leftist whines is that government authority should be used to "level the playing field." They are so committed to the concept that they are willing to forgo fairness, wealth creation, and even jobs for the middle-class in order to achieve it. The point that is missed by those on the Left advocating for government to "level the playing field" is that the free market is self-leveling. It is not within the purview of government to interfere in the private sector anymore than to set boundaries of law. Just as it is not the job of an NFL referee to "level the playing field," if it were they would rearrange the teams according to an equal distribution of talent before the game began.
The Lefts idea of what "leveling the playing field" means is that everyone succeeds to the same level, and no one player in the market is more dominant than another. But the Lefts obsession with a level playing field springs from their infection with the cancer of equality, which they place above everything else. The Left deliberately misreads the Constitution to support equal outcomes, instead of equal opportunities.
The more that the Left tries to "level the playing field" through government imposition, the more unequal it actually becomes. They rammed through financial reform legislation (Dodd/Frank) which has shuttered the doors of dozens of smaller community banks because they can not afford the millions in government compliance costs as can their larger competitors. They also used corrupt means to pass health care insurance reform (ObamaCare) which has as its centerpiece inter-generational theft through wealth redistribution from the young and healthy, to the old and sick.
It is not only under the Obama regime that the Lefts attempt to "level the playing field" has only made things worse for the very persons they claim the leveling is suppose to help. In the last fifty years, since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society that was suppose to end poverty through redistributing wealth, the number of people living in poverty has actually increased, more under President Obama than any other administration during that time. Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty has succeeded only in transferring 10 trillion dollars from producers to non-producers, hurting both groups and making Leftist politicians wealthy in the process. That is how Lyndon Johnson himself managed to enter the White House as a member of the middle-class and leave as a millionaire.
The continuation of the myth of the level playing field has allowed greedy Leftist politicians to grow the percentage of the federal budget dedicated to entitlements from barely over ten percent in 1964 to well over sixty percent today. The whole idea of "the level playing field" is illustrative of why Leftist initiatives fail. Behind every Leftist policy is the idea that poverty creates wealth, i.e., government can raise up the poor by lowering the wealthy through confiscatory taxing policy. The only ones who ultimately benefit from the "level playing field" are the Leftists in government who are unable to create wealth on their own and must therefore confiscate it using the poor as a hammer against the wealthy.
The Lefts idea of what "leveling the playing field" means is that everyone succeeds to the same level, and no one player in the market is more dominant than another. But the Lefts obsession with a level playing field springs from their infection with the cancer of equality, which they place above everything else. The Left deliberately misreads the Constitution to support equal outcomes, instead of equal opportunities.
The more that the Left tries to "level the playing field" through government imposition, the more unequal it actually becomes. They rammed through financial reform legislation (Dodd/Frank) which has shuttered the doors of dozens of smaller community banks because they can not afford the millions in government compliance costs as can their larger competitors. They also used corrupt means to pass health care insurance reform (ObamaCare) which has as its centerpiece inter-generational theft through wealth redistribution from the young and healthy, to the old and sick.
It is not only under the Obama regime that the Lefts attempt to "level the playing field" has only made things worse for the very persons they claim the leveling is suppose to help. In the last fifty years, since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society that was suppose to end poverty through redistributing wealth, the number of people living in poverty has actually increased, more under President Obama than any other administration during that time. Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty has succeeded only in transferring 10 trillion dollars from producers to non-producers, hurting both groups and making Leftist politicians wealthy in the process. That is how Lyndon Johnson himself managed to enter the White House as a member of the middle-class and leave as a millionaire.
The continuation of the myth of the level playing field has allowed greedy Leftist politicians to grow the percentage of the federal budget dedicated to entitlements from barely over ten percent in 1964 to well over sixty percent today. The whole idea of "the level playing field" is illustrative of why Leftist initiatives fail. Behind every Leftist policy is the idea that poverty creates wealth, i.e., government can raise up the poor by lowering the wealthy through confiscatory taxing policy. The only ones who ultimately benefit from the "level playing field" are the Leftists in government who are unable to create wealth on their own and must therefore confiscate it using the poor as a hammer against the wealthy.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Why Leftists Hate Christmas
No reasonable person who has not been hibernating in deep space for the last decade can honestly contest the premise of my title for this blog post. From trying to remove the traditional symbols of Christmas, to changing its very name to "holiday," the Left has fought hard and tirelessly to drive underground the spirit of a holiday that aims to bring people together in peace, love, and joyous glad tidings. It use to perplex me how anyone could be offended by such a holiday, no matter which faith promotes it. But the dedicated Leftists who have declared war, not only on Christmas, but all traditional values, do so because of their hubris, arrogance, and unwavering faith in government.
The act of persons in this country being publicly joyous over something that not only has a religious significance, but is outside the control of a centralized government, deeply offends those on the Left. And that which offends Leftists must, of course, be eliminated from public display and discourse. The real impetus for the Lefts war on Christmas is not about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but about the freedom that is the foundation of religiosity. It was, after all, the Founding Fathers' belief in the Almighty's blessing of rights on his people that formed the foundation of the greatest and freest nation in the history of man. And the Founders' legacy of liberty deeply offends and threatens the Left like nothing else can.
Christmas is the complete antithesis of Leftism. It is a holiday that celebrates the birth of a child whose mother was a virgin, and father was a non-union carpenter and who was venerated and honored by three wise men from government for his divinity. Nothing elicits the ire and insecurity of the Left more than the placement of anything above government in the order of importance in a person's life, and the life of the nation. The public display of Christmas is a blatant reminder to the Left that tens of millions of Americans trust in God more than government, and that that trust strengthens people and makes them more independent in a way that government can not.
If the Left were to rewrite the Christmas story, Joseph would be out of the picture, Mary would be a recipient of food stamps and other government programs, and the three wise men would be navigators visiting Jesus to sign him up for ObamaCare. Therein lies the real reason Leftists hate Christmas, it is an all too painful reminder that the thing in which they have chosen to place all their faith and trust, i.e. government, is just a placebo for the substance and healing power of real faith in God.
The act of persons in this country being publicly joyous over something that not only has a religious significance, but is outside the control of a centralized government, deeply offends those on the Left. And that which offends Leftists must, of course, be eliminated from public display and discourse. The real impetus for the Lefts war on Christmas is not about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but about the freedom that is the foundation of religiosity. It was, after all, the Founding Fathers' belief in the Almighty's blessing of rights on his people that formed the foundation of the greatest and freest nation in the history of man. And the Founders' legacy of liberty deeply offends and threatens the Left like nothing else can.
Christmas is the complete antithesis of Leftism. It is a holiday that celebrates the birth of a child whose mother was a virgin, and father was a non-union carpenter and who was venerated and honored by three wise men from government for his divinity. Nothing elicits the ire and insecurity of the Left more than the placement of anything above government in the order of importance in a person's life, and the life of the nation. The public display of Christmas is a blatant reminder to the Left that tens of millions of Americans trust in God more than government, and that that trust strengthens people and makes them more independent in a way that government can not.
If the Left were to rewrite the Christmas story, Joseph would be out of the picture, Mary would be a recipient of food stamps and other government programs, and the three wise men would be navigators visiting Jesus to sign him up for ObamaCare. Therein lies the real reason Leftists hate Christmas, it is an all too painful reminder that the thing in which they have chosen to place all their faith and trust, i.e. government, is just a placebo for the substance and healing power of real faith in God.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Living Present In The Moment
If I was called away from this planet tomorrow by my Heavenly Father, and I could only leave one message for my grandchildren and all the children to come, it would be that unless one lives present in the moment, all the lessons of the past are useless and the successes of the future disappear like vapor. For it is how we use yesterday's information today that makes for a better tomorrow. This may seem obvious and somewhat trite to some, but it has been a hard fought lesson in my life.
In the daily pursuit of a better self, one must constantly do battle with the demons that are rooted in the frailties of human beings. There are those who believe that human beings are, at their very core, good. But this is a mistake, for there is no greater vessel of larceny than the human heart. The corruption and vice that lurks beneath the surface of human beings has no equal in any other living thing on earth. Animals operate on instinct, which allows no room for pettiness, jealousy, and myriad other character flaws only resident in human beings. But the ability of humans to consciously battle these demons of our nature and become higher spiritual beings is something unique to our species.
I have spent a substantial portion of my life allowing the pettiness of such human behaviors as jealousy, greed, sloth, anger, lust, and others distract me from the present, thereby negatively affecting my future. I have recognized that successful persons stay focused on the present using the lessons they have learned from past failures. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who wisely pointed out that failure was a much more apt teacher than success. And a man who not only learns from his failure, but others as well, is not only successful, but wise. There is no better place to implement the lessons of the past than in the present. If one's focus is stuck in the past, or racing ahead to the future, it leaves to little energy for the present, where life is ultimately lived.
Staying present in the moment to achieve success in life can be compared to playing poker. In poker, it is not so much the cards one is dealt that leads to success, but rather how they are played. One can easily lose with a winning hand if they allow themselves to be bluffed into giving up. And the inverse is also true, i.e., a losing hand can win by the player's representation of a better hand than he actually has. But success, whether in poker or life, can not be possessed in the past or the future, but only in the present. The way in which the present is lived can actually change the past, for the present is the past when gazed at from the precipice of the future.
So give the past only the attention to its lessons and the future only a fleeting glance of desired destinations, but give the present your energy, talents, and ambitions. Do good in the present, for yourself and others, and let the past sleep and the future awaken as it may.
In the daily pursuit of a better self, one must constantly do battle with the demons that are rooted in the frailties of human beings. There are those who believe that human beings are, at their very core, good. But this is a mistake, for there is no greater vessel of larceny than the human heart. The corruption and vice that lurks beneath the surface of human beings has no equal in any other living thing on earth. Animals operate on instinct, which allows no room for pettiness, jealousy, and myriad other character flaws only resident in human beings. But the ability of humans to consciously battle these demons of our nature and become higher spiritual beings is something unique to our species.
I have spent a substantial portion of my life allowing the pettiness of such human behaviors as jealousy, greed, sloth, anger, lust, and others distract me from the present, thereby negatively affecting my future. I have recognized that successful persons stay focused on the present using the lessons they have learned from past failures. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who wisely pointed out that failure was a much more apt teacher than success. And a man who not only learns from his failure, but others as well, is not only successful, but wise. There is no better place to implement the lessons of the past than in the present. If one's focus is stuck in the past, or racing ahead to the future, it leaves to little energy for the present, where life is ultimately lived.
Staying present in the moment to achieve success in life can be compared to playing poker. In poker, it is not so much the cards one is dealt that leads to success, but rather how they are played. One can easily lose with a winning hand if they allow themselves to be bluffed into giving up. And the inverse is also true, i.e., a losing hand can win by the player's representation of a better hand than he actually has. But success, whether in poker or life, can not be possessed in the past or the future, but only in the present. The way in which the present is lived can actually change the past, for the present is the past when gazed at from the precipice of the future.
So give the past only the attention to its lessons and the future only a fleeting glance of desired destinations, but give the present your energy, talents, and ambitions. Do good in the present, for yourself and others, and let the past sleep and the future awaken as it may.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The Great Cost Of Government Reliance Over Self-Reliance
Conservatives like myself do not advocate self-reliance only because we are against the expansion of government that is necessary to support those who are not self-reliant, but also because it engenders competition, lower cost, and conservation of resources. When individuals are self-reliant and pay for their wants, needs, and desires from money they have earned, they are much less likely to overuse and abuse resources. Any resource that is supplied to individuals by a third party tends to be overused, then rationed and limited. One can make the argument that the free market rations resources through the cost of supply based on demand, but this type of rationing is driven by individuals and not government bureaucracies.
It was, after all, rugged individualism that built this country into the greatest and freest in the history of man, and not as Barack Obama and others on the Left like to say, social programs created by government. It was not government-sponsored social programs that settled this country and carved out cities from the untamed wilderness. Neither was it government-sponsored social programs that built the railroads, inspired inventors and innovators from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs, and created the most diverse and prosperous economy in the history of man.
Car insurance is illustrative of how the free market keeps costs low and choices plentiful; health care insurance, under the new socialized scheme imposed by Democrats, is exemplary of the opposite. To insure my vehicle against costs related to an accident, I pay less than $30 a month. This is largely due to the lack of government interference in the car insurance industry. To insure myself against the costs of medical events under ObamaCare will cost me ten times what my car insurance costs. The reason is self-reliance. When individuals are left to make decisions for themselves, it creates choice which engenders the low cost of competition. I can choose car insurance that only covers my expense in the event that an accident is my fault, or insurance that includes fire and theft, and every combination in between.
Health insurance has become the antithesis of car insurance, with government subsidies, individual requirements, and heavy-handed government regulations on insurance companies. Where individual choice drives (no pun intended) the car insurance industry, the government mitigation of choice imposed by ObamaCare has not only increased health insurance premiums and deductibles, but will inevitably lead to a reduction in the quality and availability of care. Increased cost for a dwindling supply is the result that can be accurately predicted as self-reliance is replaced with government dependence. All great societies eventually destroy themselves when the virtue of self-reliance is swallowed by the vice of voluntary dependence.
It was, after all, rugged individualism that built this country into the greatest and freest in the history of man, and not as Barack Obama and others on the Left like to say, social programs created by government. It was not government-sponsored social programs that settled this country and carved out cities from the untamed wilderness. Neither was it government-sponsored social programs that built the railroads, inspired inventors and innovators from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs, and created the most diverse and prosperous economy in the history of man.
Car insurance is illustrative of how the free market keeps costs low and choices plentiful; health care insurance, under the new socialized scheme imposed by Democrats, is exemplary of the opposite. To insure my vehicle against costs related to an accident, I pay less than $30 a month. This is largely due to the lack of government interference in the car insurance industry. To insure myself against the costs of medical events under ObamaCare will cost me ten times what my car insurance costs. The reason is self-reliance. When individuals are left to make decisions for themselves, it creates choice which engenders the low cost of competition. I can choose car insurance that only covers my expense in the event that an accident is my fault, or insurance that includes fire and theft, and every combination in between.
Health insurance has become the antithesis of car insurance, with government subsidies, individual requirements, and heavy-handed government regulations on insurance companies. Where individual choice drives (no pun intended) the car insurance industry, the government mitigation of choice imposed by ObamaCare has not only increased health insurance premiums and deductibles, but will inevitably lead to a reduction in the quality and availability of care. Increased cost for a dwindling supply is the result that can be accurately predicted as self-reliance is replaced with government dependence. All great societies eventually destroy themselves when the virtue of self-reliance is swallowed by the vice of voluntary dependence.
Friday, December 13, 2013
The Lowdown On Shutdowns
Two recent examples of Republicants' irrational fear of government shutdowns revealed themselves to me in the last couple of days. The first was from Congressman Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, who used his fear of shutdowns as a reason to compromise his fiscal conservatism by lending his name and support to the budget he authored with Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. The second example was from Bill Bennett, host of Morning In America and former cabinet member for both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Mr. Bennett proclaimed on his show that shutdowns of the Federal government are always blamed on Republicants, and subsequently hurt them politically.
Mr. Bennett and other modacans (my term for moderate Republicans) continue to make the error in judgment of accepting every premise that the Democrat party and the rest of the Left proffers as being gospel. The modacans have said for years that the Newt Gingrich-lead shutdown in 1995 was a political disaster for Republicants, simply because that was the narrative advanced by the Democrat party and the main stream media. The fact is that the 1995 shutdown forced President Clinton into a balanced budget and welfare reform, among other legislative victories for the people of the United States. And five years after the shutdown, George W. Bush was elected for his first of two terms as president. The political failures that Republicants have had since, have been because of their own unwillingness to stand on their principles like the Gingrich House did in '95.
The even more blatant example of Republicants snatching defeat from the jaws of shutdown victory, is the recent shutdown over de-funding ObamaCare. This was an example of an issue where the vast majority of Americans were behind the Republicants. But weak Republicant leadership in the House abandoned not only their prinicples, but the American people, by letting their fear of what the media was saying about them guide their decision to allow a Democrat victory. The American people were not angry at the Republicants for shutting down the federal government, but shutting down the backbone of their courage.
If one were to eliminate the issue of the shutdown from recent polling, and only asked respondents if they supported the Republicants position which pushed the Democrats to shutdown the government, the polling would show majority support for Republicants. The weak-kneed Republicants allowed themselves to be intimidated by the false narrative of the Left, and now use it as a reason to engage in more government spending through the Ryan/Murray budget. The reason that Paul Ryan and other Republicants voted yesterday to increase spending through the passage of the Ryan/Murray budget, and are still able to consider themselves conservatives, is easy. They look around a Washington that has become dominated by statists and Leftists of every stripe, and they see themselves as comparatively conservative. But an orange stick placed next to a white stick does not make it green simply by virtue of it not being white.
Forcing the Democrats into a partial shutdown of the federal government as a means to save the country from financial ruin is not simply a political parlor trick, but a moral imperative. There was a time when Republicants understood moral imperatives and exhibited clarity of constitutional purpose. But those days have been supplanted by fear, politics, and the worship of approval from a Washington power structure intoxicated by the ever-increasing influx of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Bennett and other modacans (my term for moderate Republicans) continue to make the error in judgment of accepting every premise that the Democrat party and the rest of the Left proffers as being gospel. The modacans have said for years that the Newt Gingrich-lead shutdown in 1995 was a political disaster for Republicants, simply because that was the narrative advanced by the Democrat party and the main stream media. The fact is that the 1995 shutdown forced President Clinton into a balanced budget and welfare reform, among other legislative victories for the people of the United States. And five years after the shutdown, George W. Bush was elected for his first of two terms as president. The political failures that Republicants have had since, have been because of their own unwillingness to stand on their principles like the Gingrich House did in '95.
The even more blatant example of Republicants snatching defeat from the jaws of shutdown victory, is the recent shutdown over de-funding ObamaCare. This was an example of an issue where the vast majority of Americans were behind the Republicants. But weak Republicant leadership in the House abandoned not only their prinicples, but the American people, by letting their fear of what the media was saying about them guide their decision to allow a Democrat victory. The American people were not angry at the Republicants for shutting down the federal government, but shutting down the backbone of their courage.
If one were to eliminate the issue of the shutdown from recent polling, and only asked respondents if they supported the Republicants position which pushed the Democrats to shutdown the government, the polling would show majority support for Republicants. The weak-kneed Republicants allowed themselves to be intimidated by the false narrative of the Left, and now use it as a reason to engage in more government spending through the Ryan/Murray budget. The reason that Paul Ryan and other Republicants voted yesterday to increase spending through the passage of the Ryan/Murray budget, and are still able to consider themselves conservatives, is easy. They look around a Washington that has become dominated by statists and Leftists of every stripe, and they see themselves as comparatively conservative. But an orange stick placed next to a white stick does not make it green simply by virtue of it not being white.
Forcing the Democrats into a partial shutdown of the federal government as a means to save the country from financial ruin is not simply a political parlor trick, but a moral imperative. There was a time when Republicants understood moral imperatives and exhibited clarity of constitutional purpose. But those days have been supplanted by fear, politics, and the worship of approval from a Washington power structure intoxicated by the ever-increasing influx of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
The 2013 Paul Ryan Negotiates Against The 2012 Paul Ryan
Once again the leadership in the Republicant-lead House of Representatives, this time in the person of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, have sold the family farm to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray and the administration for the worthless shiny bobble of promised spending cuts in the future. The deal on a so-called bi-partisan budget, the first one in 4 years thanks to intransigent Democrats, increases spending over the next two years 63 billion dollars by negating parts of the sequester. Eighty five billion dollars in "spending cuts" would be implemented over the next ten years, leaving the door wide open for any future congress to ignore them since they will be under no obligation to live by spending restrictions made by the current congress. Therefore, the cuts in this proposed budget are vapor and will disappear like a Summer breeze.
Democrats did not even have to break a sweat in order to get gun-shy Republicants to roll over and play dead while administration lackey's achieved something they have wanted since the deficit- reduction sequester cuts went into effect a year ago. In the worst idea since General Custer said, "Hey let's make our stand in that low-lying area surrounded by hilly high ground," Republicants telegraphed to Democrats that they would be unwilling to stand on their principles to the point of another partial shutdown of the federal government. Taking a government shutdown off the table is like a parent telling a child to behave or else there will be no consequences.
During the ensuing years leading up to and including the 2012 presidential election, Paul Ryan correctly pointed out that if the federal government continued to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave, the country would suffer dire financial consequences. That was the 2012 Paul Ryan, the 2013 Paul Ryan has used the tired and worn refrain by establishment Republicants that they only control 1/2 of 1/3 of government, and therefore are unable to stand on principle. It is astounding how Mr. Ryan's position can change so drastically in one year. The urgency of the country's financial ruin has given way to the political expediency of bi-partisanship.
The Republicant party is indistinguishable from Democrats if they do not boldly stand against the immoral behavior by government of piling debt onto future generations of Americans. The current state of the Republicant party, as highlighted by the ease with which they seemingly have accepted the Ryan/Murray budget, is worse than simply abandoning their principles. The Washington Republicant establishment, which now seems to include Paul Ryan, mocks and ridicules the Tea Party and The Heritage Foundation when they espouse the core values of conservatism which use to constitute the Republicant party.
On Greta Van Susteren's Fox News Channel show, Paul Ryan defended the avoidance of a partial federal government shutdown by saying it would be a distraction from the debacle known as ObamaCare. Apparently the Republicants' strategy on the ill-fated health care law is to, "allow it to collapse of its own weight." It is astounding to me that establishment Republicants have shrank from the bare-knuckle defense of this nation's founding principles in favor of some sort of sorcerer's magic. The magic implementation of future budget cuts and the magical collapse of a law that is the crowning achievement of a hundred years of progressivism. The only thing that will collapse from the weight of a government out of control is the ever-weakening foundation of American liberty and exceptionalism.
Democrats did not even have to break a sweat in order to get gun-shy Republicants to roll over and play dead while administration lackey's achieved something they have wanted since the deficit- reduction sequester cuts went into effect a year ago. In the worst idea since General Custer said, "Hey let's make our stand in that low-lying area surrounded by hilly high ground," Republicants telegraphed to Democrats that they would be unwilling to stand on their principles to the point of another partial shutdown of the federal government. Taking a government shutdown off the table is like a parent telling a child to behave or else there will be no consequences.
During the ensuing years leading up to and including the 2012 presidential election, Paul Ryan correctly pointed out that if the federal government continued to spend like drunken sailors on shore leave, the country would suffer dire financial consequences. That was the 2012 Paul Ryan, the 2013 Paul Ryan has used the tired and worn refrain by establishment Republicants that they only control 1/2 of 1/3 of government, and therefore are unable to stand on principle. It is astounding how Mr. Ryan's position can change so drastically in one year. The urgency of the country's financial ruin has given way to the political expediency of bi-partisanship.
The Republicant party is indistinguishable from Democrats if they do not boldly stand against the immoral behavior by government of piling debt onto future generations of Americans. The current state of the Republicant party, as highlighted by the ease with which they seemingly have accepted the Ryan/Murray budget, is worse than simply abandoning their principles. The Washington Republicant establishment, which now seems to include Paul Ryan, mocks and ridicules the Tea Party and The Heritage Foundation when they espouse the core values of conservatism which use to constitute the Republicant party.
On Greta Van Susteren's Fox News Channel show, Paul Ryan defended the avoidance of a partial federal government shutdown by saying it would be a distraction from the debacle known as ObamaCare. Apparently the Republicants' strategy on the ill-fated health care law is to, "allow it to collapse of its own weight." It is astounding to me that establishment Republicants have shrank from the bare-knuckle defense of this nation's founding principles in favor of some sort of sorcerer's magic. The magic implementation of future budget cuts and the magical collapse of a law that is the crowning achievement of a hundred years of progressivism. The only thing that will collapse from the weight of a government out of control is the ever-weakening foundation of American liberty and exceptionalism.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The Duplicitous Nature Of The Left
One of the most vociferous accusations from the Left about conservatives is that we are constantly trying to impose our values and morals on everyone else. The blatant duplicitous irony involved in the Left accusing anyone of imposition is surely missed by people who bury their heads so far in the sand that even a metal detector would be unable to locate the ball bearings rattling around inside their otherwise empty heads. After all, these are the same folks that have no problem using the power of government to impose the radical homosexual agenda, the radical environmental agenda, the radical open-borders/amnesty agenda, and the radical feminist agenda, which includes government support of infanticide. All these positions are not supported by the majority of Americans.
God help anyone who takes a moral stand against what is so obviously a destructive and immoral agenda. Those that do are figuratively tar and feathered by the Left in media and government alike. Government in a free society should encourage values and morals that lead to more prosperity and liberty for everyone. The Founding Fathers of this country called it promoting the general welfare. But Democrats, under the poisonous spell of Leftism, have so horribly bastardized the general welfare clause of the United States Constitution that they have made it unrecognizable from the founders' intent. Instead, they have redefined it to mean that big government should promulgate programs of dependence whose recipients are indebted to them. This indebtedness is paid for by their vote with the goal of keeping Leftist politicians in power in perpetuity.
President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, spoke about the moral imperative of liberty and freedom, not only in this country, but throughout the world. He also spoke of the founding of this country as one based on the unique idea that the rights of free people come from God, and not the state. One would be engaging in an almost impossible task to find one Democrat in Washington who would promote such values publicly, let alone acknowledge them even in private. But then honest knowledge is a scarce commodity among the Left who engage in voluntary ignorance on a daily basis.
The duplicitous nature of Leftists is inherent in their ideology. This is after all a political ethos that preaches fairness and equality, yet promotes a progressive tax structure that punishes success. It is an ideology that claims to protect the rights of the "little guy," while implementing laws that favor their wealthy and well-connected political donors. The Left preaches "equal protection under the law," and then imposes "hate crimes" legislation which treats one class of crime victims differently from others. They speak of choice when it involves murdering the unborn, yet have no tolerance for it as it relates to health care, light bulbs, smoking, soda-drinking, and trans fat intake. Leftists dispense self esteem to our children like candy at a parade, then indoctrinate them to believe that their own country as founded is so inherently evil that they have no chance of realizing theirs dreams without massive government interference in their daily lives.
The Left has an infinite supply of duplicity and a finite respect for individual liberty, rule of law, and common decency. Unfortunately they also have brightly colored bobbles to lure the unsuspecting into lives of un-fulfillment and servitude to their masters in government. Our nation becomes more diminished by the duplicitous nature of the Left, and less free by our acceptance of it.
God help anyone who takes a moral stand against what is so obviously a destructive and immoral agenda. Those that do are figuratively tar and feathered by the Left in media and government alike. Government in a free society should encourage values and morals that lead to more prosperity and liberty for everyone. The Founding Fathers of this country called it promoting the general welfare. But Democrats, under the poisonous spell of Leftism, have so horribly bastardized the general welfare clause of the United States Constitution that they have made it unrecognizable from the founders' intent. Instead, they have redefined it to mean that big government should promulgate programs of dependence whose recipients are indebted to them. This indebtedness is paid for by their vote with the goal of keeping Leftist politicians in power in perpetuity.
President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, spoke about the moral imperative of liberty and freedom, not only in this country, but throughout the world. He also spoke of the founding of this country as one based on the unique idea that the rights of free people come from God, and not the state. One would be engaging in an almost impossible task to find one Democrat in Washington who would promote such values publicly, let alone acknowledge them even in private. But then honest knowledge is a scarce commodity among the Left who engage in voluntary ignorance on a daily basis.
The duplicitous nature of Leftists is inherent in their ideology. This is after all a political ethos that preaches fairness and equality, yet promotes a progressive tax structure that punishes success. It is an ideology that claims to protect the rights of the "little guy," while implementing laws that favor their wealthy and well-connected political donors. The Left preaches "equal protection under the law," and then imposes "hate crimes" legislation which treats one class of crime victims differently from others. They speak of choice when it involves murdering the unborn, yet have no tolerance for it as it relates to health care, light bulbs, smoking, soda-drinking, and trans fat intake. Leftists dispense self esteem to our children like candy at a parade, then indoctrinate them to believe that their own country as founded is so inherently evil that they have no chance of realizing theirs dreams without massive government interference in their daily lives.
The Left has an infinite supply of duplicity and a finite respect for individual liberty, rule of law, and common decency. Unfortunately they also have brightly colored bobbles to lure the unsuspecting into lives of un-fulfillment and servitude to their masters in government. Our nation becomes more diminished by the duplicitous nature of the Left, and less free by our acceptance of it.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
The Modacans And The Repeal Fairy
I think it was General MacArthur who once said, "When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, get out of his way." This quote has recently been used by moderate Republicants to justify inaction with regards to ObamaCare. What the modacans fear is that any resistance shown by those on the Right to President Obama will be used by the President to prove his charge that they are obstructionists. This overwhelming fear by some on the Right has paralyzed them, even on an issue like ObamaCare, which garners the condemnation of a majority of American voters.
The MacArthur quote applies aptly to an enemy destroying himself, but what if that enemy is in the process of destroying the very foundations of liberty which breathed to life the United States of America? A recent Gallup poll revealed that 52% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed or severely limited. And as that is a healthy percentage, it still does not rise to the level of causing the collapse of any law, especially not a health care law that the Left has waited a hundred years to impose on this free society. For a law to collapse of its own weight it needs seventy or eighty percent of the voting public to demand its repeal, as of yet, the opposition to ObamaCare is not nearly large enough or impassioned enough to do the trick.
But the modacans persist in their self-delusion that if they do nothing to fight a bad law born of tyranny, the repeal fairy will smile upon their cause and bestrewn them with laurels of victory. They ignore the fact that ObamaCare is law, and as such it will stand and continue to be implemented and funded until it is repealed, no matter how much pain it causes the American people. It is very unlikely that in the 2014 mid-term elections the Republicants will achieve sufficient majorities in both houses of congress to override President Obama's veto pen. And if in 2016 the modacans are able to convince the voters to elect their candidate for president, the repeal ship will have already sailed with regards to ObamaCare, as its subsidies will have already been part of the American fabric for at least two full years.
The time to fight ObamaCare was during the government shutdown, which the modacans squandered by retreating like scared little rabbits. There is still time, but very little, if liberty and freedom of choice is ever to be restored to America's health care industry. The modacans' strategy of stepping aside and letting the repeal fairy do the heavy lifting is a losing one. Every freedom fighter, from Mosses to Reverend King, knew that the cause of liberty was worthy of their actions and that they would be unworthy of its blessing if they chose a course of inaction.
The MacArthur quote applies aptly to an enemy destroying himself, but what if that enemy is in the process of destroying the very foundations of liberty which breathed to life the United States of America? A recent Gallup poll revealed that 52% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed or severely limited. And as that is a healthy percentage, it still does not rise to the level of causing the collapse of any law, especially not a health care law that the Left has waited a hundred years to impose on this free society. For a law to collapse of its own weight it needs seventy or eighty percent of the voting public to demand its repeal, as of yet, the opposition to ObamaCare is not nearly large enough or impassioned enough to do the trick.
But the modacans persist in their self-delusion that if they do nothing to fight a bad law born of tyranny, the repeal fairy will smile upon their cause and bestrewn them with laurels of victory. They ignore the fact that ObamaCare is law, and as such it will stand and continue to be implemented and funded until it is repealed, no matter how much pain it causes the American people. It is very unlikely that in the 2014 mid-term elections the Republicants will achieve sufficient majorities in both houses of congress to override President Obama's veto pen. And if in 2016 the modacans are able to convince the voters to elect their candidate for president, the repeal ship will have already sailed with regards to ObamaCare, as its subsidies will have already been part of the American fabric for at least two full years.
The time to fight ObamaCare was during the government shutdown, which the modacans squandered by retreating like scared little rabbits. There is still time, but very little, if liberty and freedom of choice is ever to be restored to America's health care industry. The modacans' strategy of stepping aside and letting the repeal fairy do the heavy lifting is a losing one. Every freedom fighter, from Mosses to Reverend King, knew that the cause of liberty was worthy of their actions and that they would be unworthy of its blessing if they chose a course of inaction.
Monday, December 9, 2013
The Stimulative Effect Of Unemployment ?
This past weekend, President Obama combined his acid tongue with spurious statements of economic fact to promote more spending by the federal government to extend unemployment benefits that are set to expire. Somehow Barack Obama wants the American people to believe the dichotomy of an improving job market as highlighted by Friday's November employment numbers, and that it is essential that taxpayer money be used to extend unemployment benefits to those unable to find work in what his administration has been selling as an improving economy. Like so much about this president, the community organizer in chief expects to butter both sides of the bread simultaneously.
President Obama scolded Republicans for their well-founded hesitation in passing yet another extension of unemployment benefits, supposedly four years into a recovery from the Great Recession. In so doing, Mr. Obama has once again demonstrated his complete ineptness in practicing leadership skills that result in any outcomes, sans those that come from bullying and deception. I have never before witnessed in my lifetime a president that publicly vilifies his political opposition as a means of negotiation.
There is a truism in government that when it subsidizes an unwanted behavior, more of it is created. Hence, by subsidizing unemployment, the federal government is encouraging non-work. A German public policy experiment in recent years resulted in unemployment recipients finding work only as their benefits were set to expire. So when the German government extended unemployment two years, it took recipients two years to find work, when they extended benefits three years, it took recipients three years to find work. A similar phenomenon occurs in the United States because a government check is a disincentive for most persons to find work on their own. Put more bluntly, when our basic needs are being met we become slothful and will continue in such a manner until we find that we have no other choice.
President Obama revealed either his economic ignorance or his contempt for the collective intelligence of the American people when he said, "One of the best ways to stimulate the economy is with unemployment benefits." If this were true, then why not enroll every American in the unemployment system, send them a check every month, and sit back and watch the economy boom. The President, and those who advance this ridiculous theory, contend that the economy is helped by the unemployed buying essentials with their taxpayer-supplied money.This obtuse economic psycho-babble misses two important points. One, the money these folks receive first has to be taken from the economy by the federal government, which also takes its cut. And secondly, if those receiving a government check were actually working, they would spend more money in the economy. And that money would be new wealth created by private sector enterprise and not confiscated wealth redistributed by government.
There is no benefit to economic growth and prosperity for those who are working to subsidize those who are not. The fact that President Obama is pushing to extend benefits to the jobless is an admission on his part, even though he does not see it as such, of failure. He can dress this wolf in whatever sheep's clothing he wants, but after five years of his economic policy there are more persons not working, a heavier burden placed on those who are, and less prosperity for all Americans.
President Obama scolded Republicans for their well-founded hesitation in passing yet another extension of unemployment benefits, supposedly four years into a recovery from the Great Recession. In so doing, Mr. Obama has once again demonstrated his complete ineptness in practicing leadership skills that result in any outcomes, sans those that come from bullying and deception. I have never before witnessed in my lifetime a president that publicly vilifies his political opposition as a means of negotiation.
There is a truism in government that when it subsidizes an unwanted behavior, more of it is created. Hence, by subsidizing unemployment, the federal government is encouraging non-work. A German public policy experiment in recent years resulted in unemployment recipients finding work only as their benefits were set to expire. So when the German government extended unemployment two years, it took recipients two years to find work, when they extended benefits three years, it took recipients three years to find work. A similar phenomenon occurs in the United States because a government check is a disincentive for most persons to find work on their own. Put more bluntly, when our basic needs are being met we become slothful and will continue in such a manner until we find that we have no other choice.
President Obama revealed either his economic ignorance or his contempt for the collective intelligence of the American people when he said, "One of the best ways to stimulate the economy is with unemployment benefits." If this were true, then why not enroll every American in the unemployment system, send them a check every month, and sit back and watch the economy boom. The President, and those who advance this ridiculous theory, contend that the economy is helped by the unemployed buying essentials with their taxpayer-supplied money.This obtuse economic psycho-babble misses two important points. One, the money these folks receive first has to be taken from the economy by the federal government, which also takes its cut. And secondly, if those receiving a government check were actually working, they would spend more money in the economy. And that money would be new wealth created by private sector enterprise and not confiscated wealth redistributed by government.
There is no benefit to economic growth and prosperity for those who are working to subsidize those who are not. The fact that President Obama is pushing to extend benefits to the jobless is an admission on his part, even though he does not see it as such, of failure. He can dress this wolf in whatever sheep's clothing he wants, but after five years of his economic policy there are more persons not working, a heavier burden placed on those who are, and less prosperity for all Americans.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
The Minimum Wage Limits Free Market Growth
This week there was much talk and some hysterical ranting on the Left about "income inequality." Fast food workers demanded to be handed over $15 an hour for performing unskilled tasks. Even President Obama joined the choir of the ant-capitalists who proffer such nonsense as a means of fulfilling some nebulous ideal of equality. But those who would advocate for government determining the wages of any American, show their economic ignorance, a truly dazzling display of fatuousness, and a real lack of compassion for those they say are the targets of their "help."
Economic studies throughout the world have resulted in the knowledge that when minimum wages paid to workers is raised by a government entity, unemployment among those workers increases. Businesses that pay minimum wage are unable to have as many workers and must layoff some in order to survive financially. When the free market sets wages depending on the laws of supply and demand, everyone benefits. The business has sufficient workers to produce goods and services at a fair price to its customers, and more workers enjoy the benefit of employment and can advance themselves financially if they choose.
If the President acted as a king, as his followers have asked him to do, and raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour with a stroke of his pen, not only would fewer workers be employed, but the ones who were could hardly afford the cost businesses would have to charge for their goods and services to meet their artificially inflated payrolls. Charity to the poor from those who participate in the private sector would also suffer because there would be less disposable income available to be distributed to charitable organizations. Money made in the free market, under the laws of supply and demand, creates untold wealth that benefits all of society. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet did not work hard to found their respective companies with the idea of being magnanimous with less fortunate people. They worked in their own self-interest in the free market and were able to voluntarily share the fruits of their success through their charitable works.
During my life time I have worked jobs at or near minimum wage and have always felt that I was paid fairly for the unskilled tasks I performed. I never for a second entertained the thought that government should force my employer to pay me a higher wage. If the job I was doing required a higher wage, the market would force my employer to pay me more. If a business is paying too little, they will not find workers to fill the open positions they have in their company, and will have to raise their rate of pay to compete with other companies for labor.
The so-called labor activists ignore the surveys that show that a vast majority of those working for minimum wage are college and high school students, or persons working a second job, there are very few people raising families on the income from one minimum wage job. The market works in setting wages. Illustrative of this fact is the reality that most businesses providing unskilled employment pay more than the current minimum wage. Increases in the minimum wage are advocated by the Left and Democrats because union contracts use them as an automatic trigger for an increase in union wages. Higher union wages means more union dues that is syphoned into Democrat campaign coffers. The minimum wage debate, like so many others over which the Left works themselves into a hysterical frenzy, is all about money, power, or both.
Economic studies throughout the world have resulted in the knowledge that when minimum wages paid to workers is raised by a government entity, unemployment among those workers increases. Businesses that pay minimum wage are unable to have as many workers and must layoff some in order to survive financially. When the free market sets wages depending on the laws of supply and demand, everyone benefits. The business has sufficient workers to produce goods and services at a fair price to its customers, and more workers enjoy the benefit of employment and can advance themselves financially if they choose.
If the President acted as a king, as his followers have asked him to do, and raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour with a stroke of his pen, not only would fewer workers be employed, but the ones who were could hardly afford the cost businesses would have to charge for their goods and services to meet their artificially inflated payrolls. Charity to the poor from those who participate in the private sector would also suffer because there would be less disposable income available to be distributed to charitable organizations. Money made in the free market, under the laws of supply and demand, creates untold wealth that benefits all of society. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet did not work hard to found their respective companies with the idea of being magnanimous with less fortunate people. They worked in their own self-interest in the free market and were able to voluntarily share the fruits of their success through their charitable works.
During my life time I have worked jobs at or near minimum wage and have always felt that I was paid fairly for the unskilled tasks I performed. I never for a second entertained the thought that government should force my employer to pay me a higher wage. If the job I was doing required a higher wage, the market would force my employer to pay me more. If a business is paying too little, they will not find workers to fill the open positions they have in their company, and will have to raise their rate of pay to compete with other companies for labor.
The so-called labor activists ignore the surveys that show that a vast majority of those working for minimum wage are college and high school students, or persons working a second job, there are very few people raising families on the income from one minimum wage job. The market works in setting wages. Illustrative of this fact is the reality that most businesses providing unskilled employment pay more than the current minimum wage. Increases in the minimum wage are advocated by the Left and Democrats because union contracts use them as an automatic trigger for an increase in union wages. Higher union wages means more union dues that is syphoned into Democrat campaign coffers. The minimum wage debate, like so many others over which the Left works themselves into a hysterical frenzy, is all about money, power, or both.
Friday, December 6, 2013
The Inverse World Of Barack And Ben
Yesterday, the third quarter Gross Domestic Product rate of growth was reported as 3.6%. If one believes the validity of that number, which is difficult at best in light of recent revelations by an Obama administration insider that the unemployment statistics were falsified the month before last year's presidential election, the uptick in GDP would be a good sign for the economy. The market, however, did not respond with an overwhelming sigh of relief, but rather a fearful groan at the prospect of the cessation of easy money provided by the Federal Reserve. The market responding negatively to positive news is just par for the course in the inverse world of Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke.
The Obama administration knows that it can scarcely afford to devalue the currency much more than it already has with its program of quantitative easing in affect over the last several years. They know that they are in a race to rein in the 85 billion dollars a month they have been pumping into the market to keep it propped up, before the bottom falls out of the dollar and it becomes worthless. Hence the fictitious GDP number of 3.6%, which can not co-exist with the worst unemployment since the Great Depression and the doubling and tripling of health care premiums thanks to ObamaCare. The market movers are smart enough to realize that the economy is not growing anywhere near the reported rate of 3.6%, but they also know that if the administration can convince Americans it is, they can begin the dreaded tapering of the Fed's quantitative easing.
Even if the 3.6% statistic is accurate, it is barely a tick above the average economic growth rate for the U.S. economy since the end of World War II, let alone a supposed recovery from a deep recession. The economy has not shown any signs of conditions resembling a normal recovery since Barack Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. The economy is like a rubber band, the further it is pulled back, the more forward momentum it will have when it is released. The Great Recession of '08/'09 should have, and normally would have, produced economic growth of 5-7%. During the Obama reign of terror, the economy has struggled to achieve 2% growth. This anemic rate of growth has been in spite of almost a trillion and a half taxpayers dollars being pumped into the economy by the administration, and approximately two trillion dollars of created-out-of-thin-air money being pumped into the market by the Federal Reserve.
If ever there has been a glaring example of the spectacular failure of Leftist economic policy, it has been on full display with the Obama administration the last five years. The result has been a country on life support and a shrinking private sector in favor of an expanding federal government. A condition that not only spells the end of free market prosperity, but of the individual liberty that it has ensured in this country for over two hundred years.
The Obama administration knows that it can scarcely afford to devalue the currency much more than it already has with its program of quantitative easing in affect over the last several years. They know that they are in a race to rein in the 85 billion dollars a month they have been pumping into the market to keep it propped up, before the bottom falls out of the dollar and it becomes worthless. Hence the fictitious GDP number of 3.6%, which can not co-exist with the worst unemployment since the Great Depression and the doubling and tripling of health care premiums thanks to ObamaCare. The market movers are smart enough to realize that the economy is not growing anywhere near the reported rate of 3.6%, but they also know that if the administration can convince Americans it is, they can begin the dreaded tapering of the Fed's quantitative easing.
Even if the 3.6% statistic is accurate, it is barely a tick above the average economic growth rate for the U.S. economy since the end of World War II, let alone a supposed recovery from a deep recession. The economy has not shown any signs of conditions resembling a normal recovery since Barack Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. The economy is like a rubber band, the further it is pulled back, the more forward momentum it will have when it is released. The Great Recession of '08/'09 should have, and normally would have, produced economic growth of 5-7%. During the Obama reign of terror, the economy has struggled to achieve 2% growth. This anemic rate of growth has been in spite of almost a trillion and a half taxpayers dollars being pumped into the economy by the administration, and approximately two trillion dollars of created-out-of-thin-air money being pumped into the market by the Federal Reserve.
If ever there has been a glaring example of the spectacular failure of Leftist economic policy, it has been on full display with the Obama administration the last five years. The result has been a country on life support and a shrinking private sector in favor of an expanding federal government. A condition that not only spells the end of free market prosperity, but of the individual liberty that it has ensured in this country for over two hundred years.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Faith-Based Environmentalism
I am a Conservative, which means I believe in conserving not only the principles of liberty and freedom as outlined in the founding documents of this country, but I also believe in growing prosperity in a way that responsibly respects our resources and the environment. I also believe that science should be a relentless pursuit of the truth, no matter where that truth may lead. These are not beliefs shared by the modern environmental movement. Their goal is to redistribute wealth and destroy capitalism.
The whole concept of man-made global warming is a religion that requires more faith than do other religions. This is because there is more evidence of the existence of God, than there is of man-made global warming. That is why recently the name of the movement has been changed from global warming to climate change. In this way, no matter what natural course the climate may follow, the anti-capitalists can use it to implement their redistributive policies. The change in the movement's name was also necessitated by the fact that since 1998 the globe has not warmed, and none of the dire predictions of environmental Armageddon that were made by people like Al Gore 20 years ago have come to fruition.
At the very core of my argument is the fact that there have been times in the earth's history when the climate has been much warmer than it is now. This well known scientific fact did not lead to man's extinction. These periods were long before human industrialization and some were even before human existence. A case in point is Greenland, which today is covered by ice and snow most of the year. But it got its name because during the time of the Vikings it was fertile farm land that was green most of the year. And there are other examples, the famed ice caps that the anti-capitalist environmentalists like to point out are melting, are prime among them. Science informs us that prior to several million years ago, the ice caps did not even exist. How did the world continue to exist and thrive without the ice caps?
Anyone who doubts the thesis of this post has only to consider Al Gore's statement of a dozen years ago when he said the time for debate on the subject was past, and the tenets of his faith were to be believed or else. The "or else" is public ridicule, learned men and women losing their jobs in academia and elsewhere, and public policy being implemented based on spurious scientific data. Even a religious zealot will debate the merits of his faith, but Mr. Gore and others have traveled far beyond the outer reaches of even the space occupied by zealots.
The global warming/climate change subterfuge is beginning to be seen for the hoax that it is by an ever more informed public. As Al Gore and his gang of foil hat followers have been exposed as the frauds that they are, an ever increasing band of real scientists have been abandoning the hysteria of climate change in favor of the truth. The manufactured crisis of climate change is illustrative of the fact that the Left needs an uninformed public to advance their agenda. As the general population becomes more informed on a subject, the Lefts position begins to deteriorate like a rotting apple in the heat of the Summer sun. This is one of the core differences between Leftists and Conservatives, i.e., where the Left thrives on spreading ignorance and fleeing from the truth, the Right embraces more knowledge and information being possessed by the common man.
On issue after issue, the Left tries to preserve the fragility of their ideological positions by encouraging, and in some cases legislating, ignorance. And when they are successful, liberty is diminished. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once wrote that a nation can posses liberty or ignorance, but not both. Let us hope for the sake of this nation's liberty that the ignorance of man-made global warming continues to be destroyed by knowledge and truth.
The whole concept of man-made global warming is a religion that requires more faith than do other religions. This is because there is more evidence of the existence of God, than there is of man-made global warming. That is why recently the name of the movement has been changed from global warming to climate change. In this way, no matter what natural course the climate may follow, the anti-capitalists can use it to implement their redistributive policies. The change in the movement's name was also necessitated by the fact that since 1998 the globe has not warmed, and none of the dire predictions of environmental Armageddon that were made by people like Al Gore 20 years ago have come to fruition.
At the very core of my argument is the fact that there have been times in the earth's history when the climate has been much warmer than it is now. This well known scientific fact did not lead to man's extinction. These periods were long before human industrialization and some were even before human existence. A case in point is Greenland, which today is covered by ice and snow most of the year. But it got its name because during the time of the Vikings it was fertile farm land that was green most of the year. And there are other examples, the famed ice caps that the anti-capitalist environmentalists like to point out are melting, are prime among them. Science informs us that prior to several million years ago, the ice caps did not even exist. How did the world continue to exist and thrive without the ice caps?
Anyone who doubts the thesis of this post has only to consider Al Gore's statement of a dozen years ago when he said the time for debate on the subject was past, and the tenets of his faith were to be believed or else. The "or else" is public ridicule, learned men and women losing their jobs in academia and elsewhere, and public policy being implemented based on spurious scientific data. Even a religious zealot will debate the merits of his faith, but Mr. Gore and others have traveled far beyond the outer reaches of even the space occupied by zealots.
The global warming/climate change subterfuge is beginning to be seen for the hoax that it is by an ever more informed public. As Al Gore and his gang of foil hat followers have been exposed as the frauds that they are, an ever increasing band of real scientists have been abandoning the hysteria of climate change in favor of the truth. The manufactured crisis of climate change is illustrative of the fact that the Left needs an uninformed public to advance their agenda. As the general population becomes more informed on a subject, the Lefts position begins to deteriorate like a rotting apple in the heat of the Summer sun. This is one of the core differences between Leftists and Conservatives, i.e., where the Left thrives on spreading ignorance and fleeing from the truth, the Right embraces more knowledge and information being possessed by the common man.
On issue after issue, the Left tries to preserve the fragility of their ideological positions by encouraging, and in some cases legislating, ignorance. And when they are successful, liberty is diminished. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once wrote that a nation can posses liberty or ignorance, but not both. Let us hope for the sake of this nation's liberty that the ignorance of man-made global warming continues to be destroyed by knowledge and truth.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The Goolsbee Effect
The re-launch of the ObamaCare website, known by its technical name of healthcare.gov, occurred over this past weekend. Most Americans noticed no difference in their day-to-day lives as a result, but the Obama administration could not stop crowing and celebrating the re-launch of a site that was suppose to have been connecting millions of Americans with "affordable" health insurance over the last two months. The crowing involved the meeting of the administration's pathetic goals for it of being only 70% complete, working 90% of the time for 80% of visitors to the online exchange. Any private sector enterprise would be embarrassed by these metrics, but not the shameless Obama administration.
The re-launch of healthcare.gov illustrates, in my mind at least, the two kinds of Leftists who support this administration. The first kind is the leader of the administration himself, Barack Hussein Obama, who deliberately hides the truth from the American people so he can clear a path towards practicing his naked aggression towards liberty. Then there are those like Austan Goolsbee, who must sink into the twisted world of their own delusion to support the administration against the tide of common sense and truth. Mr. Goolsbee is a former economic advisor to Barack Obama; successful if he was advising him on how to create the worst economy since the Great Depression, a failure if he thought his advice would lead to economic prosperity for the majority of Americans.
Unless one lives in denial like Mr. Goolsbee, it is painfully obvious that more people are unemployed under Barack Obama than at any time in our history, over 90 million at last count. The growth of the economy is at its lowest rate for the longest sustained period of time ever. There are double the persons on food stamps than when President Obama was inaugurated, and more Americans live in poverty than ever before, one out of every six. But in a recent interview, dripping with sycophancy for all things Obama, Mr. Goolsbee illustrated his complete lack of connection with reality by saying things have gotten better under his former boss and current Messiah. But then what can be expected from a man who has never worked in the private sector for which he helped draft execution orders. Austan Goolsbee has spent his entire career in academia and government, so he has never had to experience the utter failure of his treasured economic theories.
The biggest failure of the Left is the failure of delusion. They have refused to remove the blinders from their eyes and see that the greatest prosperity and liberty for the most number of people comes from free market capitalism and not from their god of bigger and bigger government. Mr. Goolsbee is illustrative of the former statement in spades. It is beyond me how anyone, Obama devotee or not, could think that the federal government is capable of managing something as complex as the American health care industry, when they failed so miserably at something as simple as creating a website that works. The inability at the dawn of the 21st century to create a website is analogous to the inability to build a barn at the dawn of the 20th century. And yet, Leftists like Austan Goolsbee celebrate the incompetence and ineptness of an all-consuming federal government that they worship as the solution to every problem and the vicar of every virtue contained within the dusty volumes of failed Marxist scriptures.
The re-launch of healthcare.gov illustrates, in my mind at least, the two kinds of Leftists who support this administration. The first kind is the leader of the administration himself, Barack Hussein Obama, who deliberately hides the truth from the American people so he can clear a path towards practicing his naked aggression towards liberty. Then there are those like Austan Goolsbee, who must sink into the twisted world of their own delusion to support the administration against the tide of common sense and truth. Mr. Goolsbee is a former economic advisor to Barack Obama; successful if he was advising him on how to create the worst economy since the Great Depression, a failure if he thought his advice would lead to economic prosperity for the majority of Americans.
Unless one lives in denial like Mr. Goolsbee, it is painfully obvious that more people are unemployed under Barack Obama than at any time in our history, over 90 million at last count. The growth of the economy is at its lowest rate for the longest sustained period of time ever. There are double the persons on food stamps than when President Obama was inaugurated, and more Americans live in poverty than ever before, one out of every six. But in a recent interview, dripping with sycophancy for all things Obama, Mr. Goolsbee illustrated his complete lack of connection with reality by saying things have gotten better under his former boss and current Messiah. But then what can be expected from a man who has never worked in the private sector for which he helped draft execution orders. Austan Goolsbee has spent his entire career in academia and government, so he has never had to experience the utter failure of his treasured economic theories.
The biggest failure of the Left is the failure of delusion. They have refused to remove the blinders from their eyes and see that the greatest prosperity and liberty for the most number of people comes from free market capitalism and not from their god of bigger and bigger government. Mr. Goolsbee is illustrative of the former statement in spades. It is beyond me how anyone, Obama devotee or not, could think that the federal government is capable of managing something as complex as the American health care industry, when they failed so miserably at something as simple as creating a website that works. The inability at the dawn of the 21st century to create a website is analogous to the inability to build a barn at the dawn of the 20th century. And yet, Leftists like Austan Goolsbee celebrate the incompetence and ineptness of an all-consuming federal government that they worship as the solution to every problem and the vicar of every virtue contained within the dusty volumes of failed Marxist scriptures.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Pope Francis Ends Church Support For Liberty
Pope Francis, in the latest published pontiff pontification has signaled a change for the Catholic church from defender of freedom to purveyor of Marxist ideals. It is hard to believe that it was scarcely thirty years ago that Pope Francis' predecessor, Pope John Paul II, joined forces with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to oppose, and finally defeat the communist Soviet Union. But here we are thirty years later, and today's Pope not only refuses to oppose the practice of communist ideology, he has suggested the augmentation of such ideas as some sort of panacea to solve all the world's problems.
The current Vicar of Christ wrote that much of the world's pain and suffering has been caused by "unfettered capitalism." I wonder in which part of the world His Holiness sees "unfettered capitalism?" The failings of capitalism have existed to the extent that government interferes with it, which allows crony capitalism to supplant free market capitalism. We have seen this corruption practiced in this country for several decades, but it has been greatly accelerated under the Obama administration. Companies and businesses that have an "in" with the administration receive favorable treatment through legislation i.e., Dodd/Frank, or blatant political payoffs with taxpayer money, i.e., Solendra and the rest of the "green energy" sector.
Pope Francis also wrote that more government is needed in the world, and that government needs to provide its people with health care and other essentials of life. I must have missed the Holy Father's appointment to the Obama administration, but it sounds as though he has fallen right in line with its talking points, "If you like your Catholicism, you can keep your Catholicism." Pope Francis may know matters of faith, but he is woefully under served by his knowledge of world history. The most tyranny and oppression throughout history has been practiced by unlimited governments, not limited ones.
Of course no left-leaning treatise would be complete without its reference to "equality," and so it is with Pope Francis'. But what Leftists like the Pope fail to recognize is that all men are equal in the eyes of God, but God has also placed inequalities in men and nature in order for the proper functioning of a balanced world. Civilized and free societies can not function when its members have equality forced upon them. And throughout history these types of systems have always failed because there is no equality in nature, and the abrogation of the laws of nature is the reason Leftist public policy fails wherever and whenever it is implemented. The world is defined by inequality; one mountain is higher than another, one location is warmer than another, and so on. So it is with men; one man is more intelligent than another, one man is more athletic, and so on.
It is very disheartening to see the faith of my upbringing utterly dismantled by that which corrupts and sullies everything it touches; Leftism. Christ told Peter, the man considered the first Pope, that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. Unfortunately the current successor to Peter has traded that rock for the fleeting, feel-good feather bed of Leftism.
The current Vicar of Christ wrote that much of the world's pain and suffering has been caused by "unfettered capitalism." I wonder in which part of the world His Holiness sees "unfettered capitalism?" The failings of capitalism have existed to the extent that government interferes with it, which allows crony capitalism to supplant free market capitalism. We have seen this corruption practiced in this country for several decades, but it has been greatly accelerated under the Obama administration. Companies and businesses that have an "in" with the administration receive favorable treatment through legislation i.e., Dodd/Frank, or blatant political payoffs with taxpayer money, i.e., Solendra and the rest of the "green energy" sector.
Pope Francis also wrote that more government is needed in the world, and that government needs to provide its people with health care and other essentials of life. I must have missed the Holy Father's appointment to the Obama administration, but it sounds as though he has fallen right in line with its talking points, "If you like your Catholicism, you can keep your Catholicism." Pope Francis may know matters of faith, but he is woefully under served by his knowledge of world history. The most tyranny and oppression throughout history has been practiced by unlimited governments, not limited ones.
Of course no left-leaning treatise would be complete without its reference to "equality," and so it is with Pope Francis'. But what Leftists like the Pope fail to recognize is that all men are equal in the eyes of God, but God has also placed inequalities in men and nature in order for the proper functioning of a balanced world. Civilized and free societies can not function when its members have equality forced upon them. And throughout history these types of systems have always failed because there is no equality in nature, and the abrogation of the laws of nature is the reason Leftist public policy fails wherever and whenever it is implemented. The world is defined by inequality; one mountain is higher than another, one location is warmer than another, and so on. So it is with men; one man is more intelligent than another, one man is more athletic, and so on.
It is very disheartening to see the faith of my upbringing utterly dismantled by that which corrupts and sullies everything it touches; Leftism. Christ told Peter, the man considered the first Pope, that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. Unfortunately the current successor to Peter has traded that rock for the fleeting, feel-good feather bed of Leftism.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Rocky Mountain High
It has been one year since the voters of Colorado chose to believe the arguments of the pro-marijuana crowd, and legalize the sale and use of that harmful drug. And after only one year, teen use has risen substantially in the state, traffic fatalities as a result of driving under the influence of marijuana have seen a forty percent increase, and there are more cannabis shops in Colorado than in Amsterdam. The Colorado experiment with legalized marijuana should be enough to convince any reasonable person that it is a practice that should be avoided in other states.
The level of THC (the chemical in marijuana that produces the high and addiction) has gone from 3-4% 40 years ago to over 30% today. This has caused not only more addiction, but an almost epidemic rise of personality disorders such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia, especially in teens and young adults. So much so that there are now more young adults in drug treatment programs for marijuana use than all other drugs combined.
The pro-marijuana crowd has always tried to convince the unsuspecting that marijuana is a harmless drug. One argument that they have trotted out from the stables of misleading statistics is the fact that persons under the influence of marijuana commit fewer violent crimes and cause fewer traffic fatalities than those under the influence of alcohol. But in using this statistic, the pot pushers conveniently omit the fact that alcohol is legal, and therefore is in much wider use than marijuana. This fact alone would cause a spike in crimes and traffic fatalities due to alcohol use. We see the proof of this theory at work in Colorado, where after making marijuana legal, a spike was seen in crimes and traffic fatalities caused, or at least involving, marijuana.
Another tactic used by the pro-marijuana lobby is what they say are the drug's medical benefits to those suffering from any number of illnesses. This "argument" is just a shameless use of the sick to justify the recreational use of the drug. Marijuana's use as an elixir for the ill has been greatly exaggerated, and besides, its benefits in this area have been available for years in the prescription drug Marinol. For ninety five percent of the afflicted who would benefit from marijuana use, Marinol is a seamless substitute. With a quick perusal of the side effects of Marinol, which are often sited by the pro-marijuana crowd as a reason to legalize pot, one would quickly notice the striking similarity to the side effects of smoking marijuana. Not to mention the "gateway" qualities of marijuana, which the pro-marijuana crowd say are a myth. But while many who smoke marijuana never escalate to other drugs like heroine or crack, the vast majority of heroine and crack addicts have begun their journeys of addiction with marijuana use.
In recent years, with the aid of fresh studies and millions of case histories, I have seen that marijuana is not some miracle substance that is at the same time a harmless recreational drug, and a powerful medicine that can relieve the symptoms of those suffering from serious illness. In my mind, the Colorado experiment has illustrated that any small benefit to society that legalization of marijuana may have, is obliterated by the deleterious effects the drug has on society at large, especially among the young. And the future of this great nation, and the continuation of liberty itself, depends on the lucidity of thought that is almost impossible with the use of marijuana.
The level of THC (the chemical in marijuana that produces the high and addiction) has gone from 3-4% 40 years ago to over 30% today. This has caused not only more addiction, but an almost epidemic rise of personality disorders such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia, especially in teens and young adults. So much so that there are now more young adults in drug treatment programs for marijuana use than all other drugs combined.
The pro-marijuana crowd has always tried to convince the unsuspecting that marijuana is a harmless drug. One argument that they have trotted out from the stables of misleading statistics is the fact that persons under the influence of marijuana commit fewer violent crimes and cause fewer traffic fatalities than those under the influence of alcohol. But in using this statistic, the pot pushers conveniently omit the fact that alcohol is legal, and therefore is in much wider use than marijuana. This fact alone would cause a spike in crimes and traffic fatalities due to alcohol use. We see the proof of this theory at work in Colorado, where after making marijuana legal, a spike was seen in crimes and traffic fatalities caused, or at least involving, marijuana.
Another tactic used by the pro-marijuana lobby is what they say are the drug's medical benefits to those suffering from any number of illnesses. This "argument" is just a shameless use of the sick to justify the recreational use of the drug. Marijuana's use as an elixir for the ill has been greatly exaggerated, and besides, its benefits in this area have been available for years in the prescription drug Marinol. For ninety five percent of the afflicted who would benefit from marijuana use, Marinol is a seamless substitute. With a quick perusal of the side effects of Marinol, which are often sited by the pro-marijuana crowd as a reason to legalize pot, one would quickly notice the striking similarity to the side effects of smoking marijuana. Not to mention the "gateway" qualities of marijuana, which the pro-marijuana crowd say are a myth. But while many who smoke marijuana never escalate to other drugs like heroine or crack, the vast majority of heroine and crack addicts have begun their journeys of addiction with marijuana use.
In recent years, with the aid of fresh studies and millions of case histories, I have seen that marijuana is not some miracle substance that is at the same time a harmless recreational drug, and a powerful medicine that can relieve the symptoms of those suffering from serious illness. In my mind, the Colorado experiment has illustrated that any small benefit to society that legalization of marijuana may have, is obliterated by the deleterious effects the drug has on society at large, especially among the young. And the future of this great nation, and the continuation of liberty itself, depends on the lucidity of thought that is almost impossible with the use of marijuana.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Medical Oppression To Which State Licensing Has Lead
The state licensing of individuals in the medical and legal profession is against the very core principles of limited government. When any government entity can determine the composition and participation in a profession, it can also control how that profession is practiced. I have always wondered why the successful completion of medical and legal schools' requirements are not sufficient for those wanting to participate in those professions. Why the approval of bureaucrats is somehow more legitimate than the degree one receives from the centers of higher learning from which they attained the knowledge and skills to perform the functions of their chosen profession, is beyond me.
This constitutionally ill-advised practice of state governments interfering with matriculation into certain professions is now being discussed as a means of forcing doctors to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, which they are fleeing like Leftists from the truth. This forced participation by the federal government will take the form of either federalizing the licensing of doctors or by the heavy boot of the federal government being placed on the throats of states through mandates aimed at compelling ObamaCare participation by doctors. Either way, the medical profession will essentially be transformed into an army of government workers who will be at the mercy of rules and rationing imposed by tax collectors and bureaucrats.
It was not until the late 1800s that states began to license doctors and control the profession, originally to improve the quality of medical standards. But now, combined with ObamaCare, licensing could result in actually lowering both the standards and delivery of care. President Obama himself illustrated this in his response to a woman at a town hall meeting in 2009 when she asked if her ninety year old mother's will to live could be taken into account when determining if she could receive a pacemaker. He basically told the woman that her mother's age had to be the only determinant for receiving care, and the best that could be done for her is to administer a pain pill and send her home to die.
Another more recent example is that of Sarah Murnaghan, a ten year old Pennsylvania girl who was facing sure death without a lung transplant. Her doctors determined that Sarah would be an excellent candidate for an adult lung, which often is not the case for young children. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, refused to allow the operation, saying that, "some people live and some people die." It took an order signed by a federal judge to overrule the Sebelius death panel of one, and thankfully Sarah is alive and doing well today, no thanks to the "compassion" of Leftist government policy.
I understand that prior to doctor licensing in the 1870s, many people were practicing medicine who were doing more harm than good. But has not the maturation of the medical profession in the last hundred years mitigated and not intensified the need for government interference into this noble profession? Does any reasonable person believe that out from under the government's thumb, the medical profession would revert to 19th century standards and practices? To the woman at that town hall meeting, Sarah Murnaghan, and millions of other Americans, the government thumb on the jugular of the medical profession has now become the bane of quality health care that is medical oppression.
This constitutionally ill-advised practice of state governments interfering with matriculation into certain professions is now being discussed as a means of forcing doctors to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, which they are fleeing like Leftists from the truth. This forced participation by the federal government will take the form of either federalizing the licensing of doctors or by the heavy boot of the federal government being placed on the throats of states through mandates aimed at compelling ObamaCare participation by doctors. Either way, the medical profession will essentially be transformed into an army of government workers who will be at the mercy of rules and rationing imposed by tax collectors and bureaucrats.
It was not until the late 1800s that states began to license doctors and control the profession, originally to improve the quality of medical standards. But now, combined with ObamaCare, licensing could result in actually lowering both the standards and delivery of care. President Obama himself illustrated this in his response to a woman at a town hall meeting in 2009 when she asked if her ninety year old mother's will to live could be taken into account when determining if she could receive a pacemaker. He basically told the woman that her mother's age had to be the only determinant for receiving care, and the best that could be done for her is to administer a pain pill and send her home to die.
Another more recent example is that of Sarah Murnaghan, a ten year old Pennsylvania girl who was facing sure death without a lung transplant. Her doctors determined that Sarah would be an excellent candidate for an adult lung, which often is not the case for young children. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, refused to allow the operation, saying that, "some people live and some people die." It took an order signed by a federal judge to overrule the Sebelius death panel of one, and thankfully Sarah is alive and doing well today, no thanks to the "compassion" of Leftist government policy.
I understand that prior to doctor licensing in the 1870s, many people were practicing medicine who were doing more harm than good. But has not the maturation of the medical profession in the last hundred years mitigated and not intensified the need for government interference into this noble profession? Does any reasonable person believe that out from under the government's thumb, the medical profession would revert to 19th century standards and practices? To the woman at that town hall meeting, Sarah Murnaghan, and millions of other Americans, the government thumb on the jugular of the medical profession has now become the bane of quality health care that is medical oppression.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Should Kindness Play A Role In Politics ?
In a recent champagne swilling event with his Hollywood devotees, President Obama quoted the late Roger Ebert to explain his own political philosophy. The late Mr. Ebert once said that all his political beliefs are based on kindness, and Mr. Obama stated that it is that philosophy that gets him out of bed each morning to face his critics. Beyond the fact that this president has displayed more nastiness towards those who disagree with him on policy than a bull caught in barbed wire while being taunted by a group of rodeo clowns, is the fact that his statement is illustrative of the core flaw of Leftism.
Politics is, as its root word polis invented by the Greeks suggests, the creation of a city-state that is governed by its citizens. As such, public policy is implemented to the benefit of all the governed, not, as kindness would suggest, to the benefit of a select group of individuals within the whole. James Madison articulated this concept best and most succinctly when he said there is no charity in the United States Constitution. This is as it should be, charity and kindness is best left to individuals in the private sector practicing these lofty and worthy virtues on their families, friends, and neighbors.
The inappropriateness of any President of the United States saying that his politics is driven by kindness is that the subjective nature of kindness can destroy what should be the objective nature of the law and public policy. This is the reason that the symbol of this great nation's justice system, Lady Justice, is blindfolded. The law, as well as public policy, should apply equally to all citizens regardless of sex, race, creed, wealth, or any other cosmetic or external characteristics. But this truly fair way of implementing policy would be the death knell of Leftism because it eliminates governmental authority being used to create victim groups for the expressed purpose of also creating permanent voting blocks, mainly for the Democrat party.
The wisdom of the Founders informed them that a nation based on the subjectivity of human emotions such as kindness and charity could lead to the justification for tyranny. This was best exemplified by Davy Crockett during his term as a representative of Tennessee in the House. Legislation was speeding through the congress to allocate taxpayer money in support of the widow of a well known Navy veteran. Mr. Crockett made an impassioned plea for his colleagues not to violate the public trust by using its money for the benefit of an individual, instead imploring his fellows to follow his lead in donating a portion of their own salaries to the cause. His speech on that day, entitled, Not Yours To Give, should be required reading by everyone in public service. It illustrates that charity meted out by government is not a virtue, but a vice visited upon those who have no stake in the largess of that charity.
And so public servants like Barack Obama who speak of kindness as a driving force for politics, are silent on the inherent unkindness to those who pay the freight for their magnanimity. Of course the kindness of which President Obama and others on the Left speak has its roots more in political opportunity for them and their friends than any benefit for those who are in need of that kindness. In the final analysis, kindness as a driving force for public policy leads to the unraveling of the very fabric of liberty. A concept the founders understood when they created the documents which lead to the greatest nation in history populated with the most prosperous, and I might add, the kindest people on earth.
Politics is, as its root word polis invented by the Greeks suggests, the creation of a city-state that is governed by its citizens. As such, public policy is implemented to the benefit of all the governed, not, as kindness would suggest, to the benefit of a select group of individuals within the whole. James Madison articulated this concept best and most succinctly when he said there is no charity in the United States Constitution. This is as it should be, charity and kindness is best left to individuals in the private sector practicing these lofty and worthy virtues on their families, friends, and neighbors.
The inappropriateness of any President of the United States saying that his politics is driven by kindness is that the subjective nature of kindness can destroy what should be the objective nature of the law and public policy. This is the reason that the symbol of this great nation's justice system, Lady Justice, is blindfolded. The law, as well as public policy, should apply equally to all citizens regardless of sex, race, creed, wealth, or any other cosmetic or external characteristics. But this truly fair way of implementing policy would be the death knell of Leftism because it eliminates governmental authority being used to create victim groups for the expressed purpose of also creating permanent voting blocks, mainly for the Democrat party.
The wisdom of the Founders informed them that a nation based on the subjectivity of human emotions such as kindness and charity could lead to the justification for tyranny. This was best exemplified by Davy Crockett during his term as a representative of Tennessee in the House. Legislation was speeding through the congress to allocate taxpayer money in support of the widow of a well known Navy veteran. Mr. Crockett made an impassioned plea for his colleagues not to violate the public trust by using its money for the benefit of an individual, instead imploring his fellows to follow his lead in donating a portion of their own salaries to the cause. His speech on that day, entitled, Not Yours To Give, should be required reading by everyone in public service. It illustrates that charity meted out by government is not a virtue, but a vice visited upon those who have no stake in the largess of that charity.
And so public servants like Barack Obama who speak of kindness as a driving force for politics, are silent on the inherent unkindness to those who pay the freight for their magnanimity. Of course the kindness of which President Obama and others on the Left speak has its roots more in political opportunity for them and their friends than any benefit for those who are in need of that kindness. In the final analysis, kindness as a driving force for public policy leads to the unraveling of the very fabric of liberty. A concept the founders understood when they created the documents which lead to the greatest nation in history populated with the most prosperous, and I might add, the kindest people on earth.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
My Thanksgiving Message
The national holiday of Thanksgiving was first suggested in 1789, by George Washington. It did not reach its lofty national status until the 1860s. But the origins of Thanksgiving predate George Washington's recommendation by more than 150 years. The first Thanksgiving, as legend has it, was celebrated by the pilgrims who settled the New World around the dawn of the seventeenth century. They were thankful to God almighty for the blessings bestowed upon them in their new home, thus making Thanksgiving one of the only remaining national holidays with its roots in the spiritual world. Even Atheists celebrate this national day of thanks, although I always wondered who it is they are thanking.
Many myths about the first Thanksgiving persist, the most widely held one is that the pilgrims had such a bountiful harvest because of the farming skills taught to them by the local natives. Actually, even though the pilgrims received some valuable farming tips from the natives, they weren't totally helpless and it was not the kindness of the native population that saved them from certain extinction in the New World.
Governor Bradford originally set up the colony to be a co-op, where the harvest was shared equally among all the colonists. Not only was the harvest communal, but so were the houses and other structures, no matter who was responsible for their construction. Mr. Bradford quickly found, as everyone does who implements this type of system, that the work was not being accomplished. With no personal incentive to work hard and own the fruits of their own labor, even these puritanical and spiritual people succumbed to the sloth that is inherent in a socialist system. I recall an episode of the sitcom Taxi where the Reverend Jim, a 1960s burnout, talked about a commune on which he lived. He said they farmed and raised animals and everyone did their own thing. When asked why it disintegrated, he said it turned out every one's thing was sitting around getting loaded. Reverend Jim's fictional commune and that of the real first pilgrims did not share a problem with drugs and alcohol, but did share human nature. And human nature teaches that if everyone is getting an equal share, even the more industrious will not put forth their best effort.
Governor Bradford solved his problem by splitting up the land into plots over which each family had complete control, and benefited from the harvest of their land. This led to an over-abundance during the harvest, which they were able to share with the native people. They were also able to pay off, ahead of schedule, the overseas investors who sponsored their trip. They learned a valuable lesson about how working in one's own self-interest benefits the entire society. This is because there is more motivation to work hard when the individual is able to keep the fruits of his own labor.
There are many things for which to be grateful on this day. Gratitude itself is the essence of a happy and well-lived life. If you find yourself in good health, be grateful that your health isn't poor. If you find yourself in poor health, be grateful for the opportunity to improve your condition. If you have enough money to pay your bills and be generous with others, be thankful for that blessing. If your paycheck runs out before your bills or you are unemployed, be thankful that you live a country where these conditions do not have to be permanent. No matter how dark the hour may seem, their is always some sliver of light for which to be thankful. And finally, be thankful for those pilgrims long ago who gave us the basis for the freest, most prosperous and exceptional nation in the history of the world.
Many myths about the first Thanksgiving persist, the most widely held one is that the pilgrims had such a bountiful harvest because of the farming skills taught to them by the local natives. Actually, even though the pilgrims received some valuable farming tips from the natives, they weren't totally helpless and it was not the kindness of the native population that saved them from certain extinction in the New World.
Governor Bradford originally set up the colony to be a co-op, where the harvest was shared equally among all the colonists. Not only was the harvest communal, but so were the houses and other structures, no matter who was responsible for their construction. Mr. Bradford quickly found, as everyone does who implements this type of system, that the work was not being accomplished. With no personal incentive to work hard and own the fruits of their own labor, even these puritanical and spiritual people succumbed to the sloth that is inherent in a socialist system. I recall an episode of the sitcom Taxi where the Reverend Jim, a 1960s burnout, talked about a commune on which he lived. He said they farmed and raised animals and everyone did their own thing. When asked why it disintegrated, he said it turned out every one's thing was sitting around getting loaded. Reverend Jim's fictional commune and that of the real first pilgrims did not share a problem with drugs and alcohol, but did share human nature. And human nature teaches that if everyone is getting an equal share, even the more industrious will not put forth their best effort.
Governor Bradford solved his problem by splitting up the land into plots over which each family had complete control, and benefited from the harvest of their land. This led to an over-abundance during the harvest, which they were able to share with the native people. They were also able to pay off, ahead of schedule, the overseas investors who sponsored their trip. They learned a valuable lesson about how working in one's own self-interest benefits the entire society. This is because there is more motivation to work hard when the individual is able to keep the fruits of his own labor.
There are many things for which to be grateful on this day. Gratitude itself is the essence of a happy and well-lived life. If you find yourself in good health, be grateful that your health isn't poor. If you find yourself in poor health, be grateful for the opportunity to improve your condition. If you have enough money to pay your bills and be generous with others, be thankful for that blessing. If your paycheck runs out before your bills or you are unemployed, be thankful that you live a country where these conditions do not have to be permanent. No matter how dark the hour may seem, their is always some sliver of light for which to be thankful. And finally, be thankful for those pilgrims long ago who gave us the basis for the freest, most prosperous and exceptional nation in the history of the world.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
The Continuing Adventures Of EPA Oppression
There is hardly an American over the age of twenty one and in possession of cognitive abilities who does not realize that the bureaucracy known as the Environmental Protection Agency has outgrown the bounds of decent regulatory authority. The latest oppressive measure to be reined down upon business and residents alike is the draconian regulations on lighting. Of course we are all familiar with the EPA's tyrannical decision to outlaw incandescent light bulbs, in use for well over 100 years, and force Americans to use the mercury-laced compact fluorescent bulbs instead.
The latest light bulb oppression from the EPA has reared its ugly head in the manufacture and sale of the tube fluorescent bulbs that are available in a variety of sizes. These bulbs are designated by the industry as T12, which the EPA has determined have too much rare earth minerals in their composition. Beginning in July of 2014, the T12 bulbs will no longer be legal to manufacture and sell. This means their replacement, the T8 bulb, must have new fixtures in which to be installed. This regulation, past not by Congress but by the Obamacrats in the EPA, will affect millions of businesses that have T12 fixtures in their offices and manufacturing facilities.
This new edict from on high, along with previous regulations on light bulbs, will force 97% of all light bulb manufacturing to take place overseas, mainly in China. This will of course facilitate more jobs vacating the sinking ship of the Obama economy. This new wolf of oppression dressed up in the sheep's clothing of environmental concern will be another impediment to growth for American businesses. Having to expend the funds to replace T12 fixtures joins the nails of the worst economy since the 1930s Great Depression and ObamaCare, to affix the lid tightly on the coffin of prosperity in America.
The founders of this great nation did not trust government to make very many decisions, hence the severely limiting nature of the Constitution with regards to the federal authority. They would be shocked and dismayed that we have vested so much power in unelected bureaucrats. The power to oppress business and individuals alike, all in the name of the environment of which the Left, in their foolish arrogance, have appointed themselves protectors, is anathema to the founding principles of this country. It is this soft tyranny that grows into full blown oppression that the framers of the constitution were trying to avoid when they drafted the greatest document of freedom the world has ever seen. A document that the current occupant of the White House has betrayed in words and actions, thus violating his oath and disgracing the office entrusted to him by the citizens of this great nation.
The latest light bulb oppression from the EPA has reared its ugly head in the manufacture and sale of the tube fluorescent bulbs that are available in a variety of sizes. These bulbs are designated by the industry as T12, which the EPA has determined have too much rare earth minerals in their composition. Beginning in July of 2014, the T12 bulbs will no longer be legal to manufacture and sell. This means their replacement, the T8 bulb, must have new fixtures in which to be installed. This regulation, past not by Congress but by the Obamacrats in the EPA, will affect millions of businesses that have T12 fixtures in their offices and manufacturing facilities.
This new edict from on high, along with previous regulations on light bulbs, will force 97% of all light bulb manufacturing to take place overseas, mainly in China. This will of course facilitate more jobs vacating the sinking ship of the Obama economy. This new wolf of oppression dressed up in the sheep's clothing of environmental concern will be another impediment to growth for American businesses. Having to expend the funds to replace T12 fixtures joins the nails of the worst economy since the 1930s Great Depression and ObamaCare, to affix the lid tightly on the coffin of prosperity in America.
The founders of this great nation did not trust government to make very many decisions, hence the severely limiting nature of the Constitution with regards to the federal authority. They would be shocked and dismayed that we have vested so much power in unelected bureaucrats. The power to oppress business and individuals alike, all in the name of the environment of which the Left, in their foolish arrogance, have appointed themselves protectors, is anathema to the founding principles of this country. It is this soft tyranny that grows into full blown oppression that the framers of the constitution were trying to avoid when they drafted the greatest document of freedom the world has ever seen. A document that the current occupant of the White House has betrayed in words and actions, thus violating his oath and disgracing the office entrusted to him by the citizens of this great nation.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Since When Does The Support Of The Governed Matter To Obama ?
President Obama's approval rating in a recent CBS poll dipped to 37%, a level at which the main stream media tried to convince the American public that President Bush was no longer able to fulfill the duties of his office because he had lost the confidence of the American people. Of course, President Bush's low approval rating was only accomplished after four years of non-stop bludgeoning by the main stream media. President Obama has gotten his all on his own, the main stream media having carried his water for the better part of five years now.
Conservatives have been jubilant at the prospect of Barack Obama's approval rating plummeting. I have heard some say it is the beginning of the end for the President. I do not know what that means to a President who has already won re-election, and can not run again. And if these conservatives are alluding to next year's mid-term elections, I do not see any indication or evidence that Democrats in congress will suffer from a low approval rating by the President. If that were true, then the opposite would also be true, and the Republicants would not have been able to take control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election at a time when President Obama enjoyed an approval rating over 60%.
The Democrats may lose control of the senate next November, but it will be vis-a-vis their support for the train wreck that is ObamaCare and not the President's low approval rating. The recent invoking of the nuclear option by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, essentially eliminating the 230 year tradition of the filibuster, is a result of the Democrat leadership seeing a possible loss of the senate next Fall. It is also due to fear of Republicants like Ted Cruz who are actually serious about their duty to the constitution. Make no mistake, the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republicant party is gaining strength, and scaring the hell out of the Washington establishment on both sides of the aisle.
At this point in Barack Obama's term he has no concern for, or sense of duty to, the approval of the governed. The reason is twofold. One is that with essentially no filibuster in the senate to slow down his agenda, he is free to impose his will with a much lower level of congressional support than any president in the past. The second reason is the signaling of acquiescence by Republicant leadership, who have publicly stated that they refuse to allow another government shutdown for any reason, even to fight for the constitutional integrity of this republic. It is a republic that is currently at a crossroads, to the left is tyranny and to the right is liberty. The path taken depends on how We The People use our dwindling constitutional power to retake the authority granted to us by our founding documents before we become totally subservient to our Washington masters.
Conservatives have been jubilant at the prospect of Barack Obama's approval rating plummeting. I have heard some say it is the beginning of the end for the President. I do not know what that means to a President who has already won re-election, and can not run again. And if these conservatives are alluding to next year's mid-term elections, I do not see any indication or evidence that Democrats in congress will suffer from a low approval rating by the President. If that were true, then the opposite would also be true, and the Republicants would not have been able to take control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election at a time when President Obama enjoyed an approval rating over 60%.
The Democrats may lose control of the senate next November, but it will be vis-a-vis their support for the train wreck that is ObamaCare and not the President's low approval rating. The recent invoking of the nuclear option by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, essentially eliminating the 230 year tradition of the filibuster, is a result of the Democrat leadership seeing a possible loss of the senate next Fall. It is also due to fear of Republicants like Ted Cruz who are actually serious about their duty to the constitution. Make no mistake, the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republicant party is gaining strength, and scaring the hell out of the Washington establishment on both sides of the aisle.
At this point in Barack Obama's term he has no concern for, or sense of duty to, the approval of the governed. The reason is twofold. One is that with essentially no filibuster in the senate to slow down his agenda, he is free to impose his will with a much lower level of congressional support than any president in the past. The second reason is the signaling of acquiescence by Republicant leadership, who have publicly stated that they refuse to allow another government shutdown for any reason, even to fight for the constitutional integrity of this republic. It is a republic that is currently at a crossroads, to the left is tyranny and to the right is liberty. The path taken depends on how We The People use our dwindling constitutional power to retake the authority granted to us by our founding documents before we become totally subservient to our Washington masters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)