As I seez it

Liberal/Progressive values equals Greed is Good

2010-03-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good” stated the character of Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street.

Nothing quite inflames the left today than the concept of greed. Our so called “Progressive” friends seem to be taking upon themselves that they are David fighting the Goliath named Greed.

Needless to say, I take exception to the concept that liberals have a problem with greed. Also the idea that they are out to eradicate it.

For starters, greed is a personal failing. You will never eradicate it. There is no system of economics or politics or social order that will change the person. A person who is greedy under a Capitalist system will be greedy under a Socialist system. The system that a greedy person lives under may affect the expression of that greed, but it will not expunge it.

No matter how many laws, rules, and regulations are passed, personal greed will find an expression.

Think of campaign finance reform. It didn't get the money out of politics, it just changed how that money is used to create slimy campaigns.

Secondly, you can't convince me that liberals ('Progressives”) have a problem with greed, when their whole solution to societal problems is the empowerment of greed. They never really offer a solution to problems, the whole “solution” seems to be to confiscate the property and money of others. There is no greater empowerment of greed than to seek the power to fine and/or imprison to enforce redistribution. They can call their greed “Social Justice”,the simple fact is people that earned money are having that money taken from them and given to those who haven't earned it.

At least a Capitalist has to offer something of value to others in order to satisfy their greed. “Progressive” morality doesn't mean that you have to offer anything, just that you have the power to take everything.

And they call Senator Bunning a hypocrite.

2010-03-02T12:09:00.000-08:00

The real hypocrites are the ones that passed the Pay Go Legislation and now don't want to enforce it.
Why pass a law only to ignore it?

What happened to the constitution?

2009-12-14T15:18:00.000-08:00

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution of the United States, 10th amendment.

Some people make the case that the Constitution only has negative rights. They need to read this amendment. It states that if the Constitution doesn't allow the Federal Government to do something, then the Federal Government positively must stay out of the way of the states and the people.

It also says that even if something is a right, that doesn't mean that it is the job of the Federal government to provide it.

In fact, even if something is a right, it might still be fully the responsibility of the individual.

What do you think about the leaked Climate Research e-mails?

2009-12-05T07:33:00.000-08:00

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has stated that ‘peer review to the public is portrayed as a quasisacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong’.
From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688014/

The thing that I get from the leaked e-mails and news of the destroyed evidence is a certain amount of vindication.
We "Man Made Climate Change" skeptics have always known one thing.
Peer Reviewed Research does not equal Real Hard Facts.
As much was made about research bought and paid for by the Oil Companies, we see that Left Wing activism and money deserves the same amount of skepticism and scorn.

Finally capitalism is defended!!

2009-11-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

It is about time that somebody takes up the cause of capitalism.

True greed is found in collectivism. It can be called Socialism, Communism, or Progressive.
The whole point of these greedy systems is to empower greed and envy. It merely seeks power over your fellow citizen for the purposes of confiscating their property and putting the spoils under your power.
Greed and oppression institutionalized.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a system of exchange. To the extent that you want to prosper, you offer some goods and/or services to others. You add value to your customers and you gain value by the money that customers give in exchange. Win/win.

Yes, in Capitalism people can be greedy and do damage. Unlike more "Progressive" models, however, greed is not the system. Greed is not institutionalized. Greed, in Capitalism, is a personal failing, not a societal one.

Capitalism is positive and constructive. Progressivism is negative and destructive.

Steve Forbes is taking up the fight. I hope other authors will join the battle.

2009-11-17T12:44:00.000-08:00

Is Terrorism the real problem?

Unfortunately, no. The real problem is Jihad. Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic of war. The terrorists are convinced that killing and terrorizing the infidel (non-Muslims) is fully justified. It is their duty.

How do you fight terrorists?

The real question might be, how do you fight Jihadists? Well the answer was given by Charles "the Hammer" Martel at the Battle of Tours. He organized the people into a fighting force, confronted them on the battlefield and damaged their supply lines.
This is a bit harder in the digital age with a non-uniformed army, but the principles hold.

The police don't fight wars.

The current decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad and other terror suspects in civilian court breaks away from the correct way to stop the Jihadists. When someone goes to war with you, you don't call the police and choose the battlefield of the courts. You use the military to fight wars and you do it in accordance with military procedure from beginning to end.

I predict that we are all going to regret the decision to try terror suspects in civilian courts. This plays right into the terrorists hands. Remember, KSM himself asked for a lawyer when the military took him into custody. When they routed him to military and things weren't going his way, that took him by surprise.
We can't fight them according to their expectations. They think they will get a civilian trial and the Administration is sadly willing to play right in to their hands.

Can you handle the truth of Fort Hood?

2009-11-09T13:52:00.000-08:00

Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire and killed 13 and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood in Killeen Texas.
Major Hasan is a Muslim.
There are many speculating why he did it and is it a terrorist act.
Information is coming to light that he tried to contact Al Queda.
But, as to whether he was part of a terrorist cell or acted on his own, I ask the question...who cares?
We are killing ourselves with political correctness.
In an attempt to make the “War on Terror” not appear to be a war on Islam we are running from the truth.

The truth is that we are in a war on Jihad. Terrorist tactics are just that. Tactics.
They are a method of carrying out Jihad.
Do we have authorities say, when a horrible crime is committed in a community (like the serial murders in Cleveland), that it is not such a big deal as we cannot trace the acts to any Mafia family or drug cartel?
How organized the people that commit a crime is no reflection on the seriousness of the crime.
Whether someone who commits an act of jihad is part of an organized terrorist organization or not does not make it any less an act of jihad and an act of war on the USA.

We need to start acting like we are in a war. In this war the enemy has no uniform, nationality, capital city, or anything other than a theology and the willingness to die for the cause.
These people can be stopped.
It has been done in the past and can be done now, but we can't run from the fight and we need to recognize the enemy for what they are.
It starts by telling ourselves the truth.

I'm advertising some books in this post. I believe these books are the best resources available to be able to understand Jihad, and put the current conflict in it's proper light.

I couldn't have said it better myself

2009-10-30T12:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.itiswritten.com/tvprogram/episode/2009/10/1116

I have hit this point somewhat in my slideshow and blog, but this puts it better.
It is a religious program, you can read the transcript or play the audio or video.
The overall point is that it destroys Marxism and all philosophies based on his ideas (like the modern day "Progressives").
Marx and his followers today believe that if you reorder society, then you will change human behavior.
The reality is that people are self motivated. They lie, cheat, and steal not because of external corruption but internal (people will do what they believe is to their personal advantage).
It is that complete misunderstanding of human nature that dooms all forms of governmental and economic collectivism.

I just couldn't have said it better myself.

Is Capitalism Greedy?

2009-10-17T10:21:00.000-07:00

I got a comment on my YouTube slide show on my view of why Capitalism is good and Socialism is evil.
Hey, here it is.

I still cannot see how a system where you have to offer something of value in the economy to make the money that you want (Capitalism) is greedy.
People can be greedy, but that is a personal failure. It is not the system. Greed is not Capitalism and Capitalism is not greed.

Now Socialism is a different matter. Socialism is the control of the money and property of others without any exchange of value. Socialism is control of wealth that you don't earn. Socialism is institutional greed. Socialism is empowered greed.

Capitalism's success, Progressive failure

2009-10-14T05:40:00.000-07:00

I beat this subject a lot, but I really think that it can't be stressed enough.

The greatness of Capitalism and the great inherent flaw of Socialism/Progressivism and all forms of collectivism is this, The Direct Exchange of Value.

This means that for one to gain value financially, you must offer something of equivalent value in the marketplace. If you want to be a millionaire, then do or offer something that people value enough to pay a million dollars for. Or that a million people will pay a dollar for.
Your life gets better for the money you get, their life gets better for the product or service you offer. This can be as an entrepreneur or an employee.
The better you want to be rewarded, the better you strive to perform.
This is a very constructive dynamic.

Collectivism circumvents this constructive dynamic and replaces it with a destructive dynamic.
It fosters a mindset where needs and perceived needs are the responsibility if the collective to supply, not for the individual to earn. What the individual offers is irrelevant to what is supplied. If it is defined as a need it is to be supplied.
Now this might work except for one major problem. You don't have infinite supply. Demand will grow, either due to more population or simply more demand. You need health care , right? So it should be supplied to you. But you also need food, shelter, & clothing. Some will make the case that you need recreation and all that can imply. It never ends.
Proponents may say that they are exchanging value, but the exchange must be individual, not collective. Word games don't substitute for real work.
This makes all collectivism a Ponzi scheme (or in today's language, a Madoff scheme).
Shifting money from one person to another works as long as the income always exceeds outlay. Once there are income problems, for any reason, then the system fails.

And problems will come. It may be an economic downturn, an increase in demand, or that those taking from the system outnumber those paying in.

Ponzi schemes (Redistribution) simply must fail eventually. It is the nature of the beast.

One of the most brilliant examples of the failure of collectivism is the 1990 to 1993 Luxury tax. It was the perfect example of “spreading the wealth around”. A 10% tax on items like Yachts, High end cars, some High End Jewelery (Bling), and the like. Stuff only rich people would buy, and it will go to help those less well off.
The result was lower tax revenue as the money ran from the taxation. As the money ran from the taxes it also ran from the businesses whose products and services were taxed. Working folk were sent to the unemployment line and in some cases businesses closed.
Even the proponents of this tax had to admit failure and repeal it.

In enacting the tax they failed to realize one thing. The entrepreneurship that created the businesses catering to the rich were "spreading the wealth around" already. People had jobs that otherwise wouldn't have been there. Collectivist taxation interrupted the process and harmed people financially.

Collectivism seems compassionate, but in the end it only seems to be. There is little compassionate reality behind it.

As politicians try to sell us collective solutions to problems remember, “Let the buyer BEWARE”.

Congratulations on the Nobel Prize President Obama

2009-10-09T10:05:00.000-07:00

Congratulations on winning the Nobel Prize Mr. President.
It is truly deserved for your accomplishment in __________________.
You have stopped the war in ____________________________.
There is no longer fighting between ____________________and ____________________ due to your ______________________.
Your speeches did so much to ____________________________________.
Your policies stopped ______________________in______________________.
People's lives are so much better because you______________________________.

Enjoy the company of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Kofi Annan, and Yasser Arafat.

You ________________ it.

What is wrong with a nuclear Iran?

2009-10-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

Their theology, that's what.
While there are different interpretations of the Mahdi (The Islamic Messiah), it is generally agreed upon that there will be a time of conflict and confusion. Death and calamities everywhere.
Then the Mahdi will appear and make everything all right.

They don't have to be rational. They don't have to be able to conquer their enemies. They don't have to be able to survive any conflict that they start or escalate.
They just have to set the stage and let the Mahdi appear and win their victory.

It was Ayatollah Khomeini that said in 1981 "I say let all of Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world".

Imagine that sentiment with nuclear weapons.

9/11 and Jihad

2009-09-11T07:28:00.000-07:00

Today is the 8th "anniversary" of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks.

Years later I ran into an interesting Liberal attitude on terrorism.

I forget whether it was the Spanish or English railway attacks, but I do remember telling the incident to my boss at the time.
His response was "We have to change our policies towards these people".

This sentiment betrays a horrible ignorance.

Islam developed a belief system that it is the duty of all Muslims to "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and Allah's religion shall reign supreme". (Surah 8:39 the Koran).
This has been taken seriously by many Muslims who believe that conquering a people by force and enacting Sharia law. This law puts Muslims at the top and relegates everyone else to Dhimmi status which oppresses and humiliates them until they convert.

All these beliefs were created about 1000 years before there was a United States of America and there was no Israel at the time.

While the Jihadists apply that to America and Israel today, these beliefs are deeply ingrained in their religious theology.

Circumstances may be different but these people would not be different if our policies changed. They are fighting to spread Islam to the whole world. No policy of our would change that.

To believe that we created or provoked these terrorists isn't just naive, it is stupid and suicidal.

How the President can start to win support for health care reform

2009-09-10T10:19:00.000-07:00

Mr. President, you gave a good speech last night.
In it you mentioned saving $500 billion in fraud and waste.
How about this? You save us the $500 billion first, then we talk about how to spend it.
If you really can do save that money, then it should be easy to do.
Will you take the lead?
Will you "show us the money"?
Why don't you pay for your program first, if you really can save that much just from cutting fraud and waste?
Wait a minute, shouldn't you do that anyway?
Why do you need your bill passed to save $500 billion is fraud and waste?

Capitalism is Evil?

2009-09-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Capitalism is evil according to Michael Moore.

Capitalism allows the fair and just distribution of wealth according to the effort one puts into excellence and one's contribution of value to the economy. Socialism doesn't. And capitalism is evil?
No, socialism is.

Socialism unfairly tries to equalize the lazy with the diligent, the non-producers with the producers, the lackadaisical with the ambitious, the mediocre with those who strive for excellence. And capitalism is evil? No, socialism is.

Capitalism empowers the individual, Socialism centralizes power so the few can lord over the many who are denied power. And capitalism is evil? No, socialism is.

Capitalism is motivational as one must achieve to take care of their own needs, Socialism is de-motivational as the onus is on others to achieve to provide for the collective. And capitalism is evil?
No, socialism is.

Capitalism is constructive as one must contribute value into the economy in order to be valued monetarily in return. Socialism is destructive as one is able to subtract value for perceived needs without adding proportional value to the economy. And capitalism is evil? No, socialism is.

Capitalism allows one to act on one's own moral imperative whether good or bad. Socialism collectivizes and empowers envy, jealousy, and greed in a confiscatory system making for collective immorality. And capitalism is evil? No, socialism is.

Capitalism unites a people as one must add value to others in order to be valued by others. Socialism is divisive as one is judgmental and demanding for others to add value to their lives. And capitalism is evil? No, socialism is.

Warning, the billionaires are coming......maybe.

2009-08-23T17:40:00.001-07:00

Liberal Progressivism
In today's Parade section of the local paper, there was a letter asking about Ralph Nader.
Well, among the things covered about him it mentioned that he is working on a book. It will be a fictional story of several billionaires who decide to band together and change the country.
I'm sure that in the book they will be “successful”.
He described several of his billionaire friends as being discouraged and might be writing the book as a motivation for them take up “Progressive” causes.

The Conservative Side
It remains to be seen if the billionaires rise to the call or not. Either way seems irrelevant.
I would simply like my conservative friends and allies that they are the “elites”, not the masses. There are more of us than there are of them.
As Glenn Beck put it, “We surround them.”
It may already seem that liberalism is everywhere, and more elites would overwhelm good conservative values.
The truth is that the few liberal elites can't do what many conservatives can do. They may own the newspapers, but we can swamp them with letters to the editors.
Blogs, Youtube, forums, and the like give us a terrific voice.
It is simply up to each of us to take up the fight and challenge liberalism where we find it and to pro-actively promote good conservative values and solutions.

Revealed-How liberals keep on deceiving people!

2009-08-22T19:02:00.000-07:00

Liberal Lies
The second chapter of Saul Alinsky's Rules for radicals is little more than a justification of The Ends Justify the Means.
He goes through some details and splits them down into several rules, but can be all summed up as: change to the “workers paradise” is important and you can't let things like honesty, decency, civility, or any other aspect of civilized society stand in your way.
Two aspects of his disgraceful beliefs are very telling.
The first is that all arguments must be couched in morality.
The second is that all arguments must use general language such as talking about the “common good” or other unspecific ideals.
The first is understandable. No one can oppose a supposed moral argument. This is why liberals always have a victim. Someone is being put down by someone else. This does more than play on our natural sympathy to root for the underdog, it is an attempt to wrap an issue in a light that makes you morally superior if you agree with them and allows them to paint you as a proponent of oppression if you disagree.
This is exactly why the current health care debate is framed as supporting the President or being for the status quo (which is a lie. There are different ideas on reform, it is not his way or nothing).

Liberal Deception.
The second is the great manipulation. It is being used to great effect.
Do you remember when President Clinton argued about what the definition of “is” is?
Didn't you think that word twisting was just as incredible as it was ridiculous?
The point of this pathetic exercise is to lie while denying any deliberate deception.
Now the use of general language is much the same. No one can call you on the details since you can always deny the details (if they get discovered).
You talk about the glowing generalities. Most people can readily agree with you since they are not really agreeing with you (since they don't know the details). What they are “agreeing” with is their ideas of what they think you mean by those generalities.
During President Clinton's term, there was a call for smaller government.
President Clinton closed several military bases and laid off the workers. He then spoke of the era of big government being over.
Trouble was everyone else meant a less taxing, less regulating government when they spoke of the problems with “big government”.
Clinton used the same words but attached different meanings not readily apparent.

Now you know why only the opponents of President Obama's health care reform are showing up with the bill and are arguing the details. The proponents are the ones that don't dare show up and read the bill to the people. They are just name calling and denying, but they won't argue the details, they can't go point by point.
Saul Alinsky would be proud of such “Progressive” tactics.

Rules for Radicals chapter 1: a conservative review.

2009-08-20T21:23:00.000-07:00

Progressivism at all costs.
The book starts out with this introductory chapter.
In it Alinsky praises the radical for forcing the issue of change in a society. There are also a few irrelevant examples of those who had opportunities to force issues in the public eye but didn't follow through in Alinsky's style.
He views revolution as the source for forcing change where those who speak of evolutionary change in a society as cowardly. They are waiting for the change and are not willing to fight for it.
The aspect of this chapter that most struck me was his referral to Judeo-Christian values. In his mind he apparently viewed his left-wing ideals as somehow living up to the Judeo-Christian ideal.
Yet, later in the book, Saul Alinsky makes the case for a completely situational morality. The means justify the ends. The lives that you destroy are worth the goal you are trying to achieve. UnChristian Politics.
In Matthew chapter 7 we read:
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The teaching is clear. Good people don't engage in bad behavior. Good people accomplish worthy goals by moral means. One who is willing to compromise moral behavior in pursuit of a goal, is not a good person trying to achieve something worthy.

When you get angry about “Haves” and “Have nots”, you can wrap that in veneers of justice and morality but the reality is envy and greed. People seek to use the government to redistribute wealth merely because they seek power, seek to control wealth that they didn't earn, and wish to lash out childishly against those they see as better off than themselves.

Right at the outset, Alinsky is self condemned though I bet he'd excuse his hypocrisy on the idea that he was being.....radical.

Senator Arlen Specter, where are you?

2009-08-10T15:50:00.000-07:00

Senator Specter the Democrat.
Not too long ago (at the time of this writing) Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector switched parties from Republican to Democrat.
He stated that he felt more in line with the democrats philosophy.
Well since that time the health care debate got going. Things have gotten hairy at town meetings. Angry people are not staying silent and things have gotten to the point where many, if not most, town meetings are canceled.
Then the rhetoric from the Democrats became disturbing.
President Obama gave the “punch back” speech and SEIU apparently took that very literally. Remember, there was no violence until the President charged the labor union to “punch back twice as hard”.
President Obama also gave a “shut up” speech as well.
“Astroturf” came from many on the democrat side. Never mind that liberal groups have used “astrosurf” for decades. The constitution guarantees the redress of grievences no matter if it is spontaneous or organized.
Now thanks to Senators Pelosi and Hoyer, our fellow Americans are Un-American.

What does Senator Specter really stand for?
Senator Specter, is this the party that you are more in line with?
Do you condone this rhetoric?
Are you proud of this party that you left the Republicans for?
If you answered no to any of these questions, then where is your condemnation?
Will you either own or disown this type of speech?
Does this kind of horrid name calling represent democrat's values?
Do they represent your values?
Do you believe that this is that talk of a party that wants to unify people?

Mr. Specter, where is your voice on these tactics?

Is this Left Wing Hate TV?

2009-07-29T17:16:00.001-07:00

I'm still wondering if what I saw was funny or pathetic.
The other day, Glenn Beck said on Fox and Friends that he believed that Barak Obama is a racist. He even expounded on that on his radio show http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/28574/

He sites several reasons for that belief, the ones that stood out to me are his 20 year affiliation with Jeremiah Wright's congregation (remember when McCain had to refuse the endorsement of John Hagee, a man whose church McCain never attended?) and Obama's denigration of the Cambridge police after he said that he didn't have all the facts.
But what I found so interesting was the attacks by NBC and MSNBC. I held my nose and watched Chris Matthews and The Ed show on this issue.
Predictably the left wing/ GE corporate line was that anyone who questioned President Obama is racist. I don't recall Matthews and his guests ever straying from this narrative. The whole tenor of what I saw is that all who find any fault with the President are being driven mad by the fact that a man of African heritage is in the White House.
What really got to me was The Ed Show. The host was totally on message. Glenn Beck is a racist, every one who listens to him is a racist, people who vote Republican are racist, everyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist.
Ed was on fire.
Trouble is, he had a guest by the name of Steven A. Smith. Mr. Smith tried to be somewhat fair. When the “Tea Party Types” were brought up, Ed made a “Birds of a feather” comment implying that all protesters were racist.
Mr. Smith brought up the fact that not all the protesters were opposed to the President due to race but because they thought the President was enacting the institutional injustice of Socialism (the institutional injustice is my descriptor).
Actually the whole concept of the Tea Parties is about over taxation, increased spending, and increased indebtedness. There is no racial component to the Tea Parties. Also remember that there are activists on the left that like to go to such rallies and pose as racists and kooks to spoil the whole activity.
The host wouldn't have it. I wonder if Mr. Smith will ever be invited back.
And I still can't decide if I'm amused or disgusted at the prejudice of the left.

The Presidential press conference on Health Care

2009-07-22T18:28:00.000-07:00

I watched tonight's Presidential press conference. Now I usually avoid these as they are just dog and pony shows that give little more than the administration's propaganda.
Tonight I held my nose and watched.
My thoughts.
First, the President still won't try to have an honest debate. Always with the straw man. He continues to paint the picture that you support him or you are for the status quo. This is a blatant lie.
Conservatives have championed the medical savings account and other market based reforms. Also malpractice insurance is expensive and costs are going up. I heard today that the average doctor pays $50,000 in malpractice coverage and the cost increases each year.
If the plan doesn't include tort reform then the same malpractice pressures will be there no matter who pays. Combine that with attempts to control costs and you are looking at a disaster.
He also stated that if we bring insurance costs to businesses down, that is money that can be put in the pockets of everyday people. Since when did a democrat believe in trickle down?

The Health Care Debate.

2009-07-18T18:24:00.000-07:00

As a conservative, you can understand that I am not in favor of Obama's plans for Health Care Reform.
The big issue as I see it is that it really doesn't solve the real problem.
Coming up with a different payment plan for the same system doesn't address why costs have gone so out of control.
It seems to me that the conservative ideas of tort reform and market based competition really get to the heart of the matter.
Changing who pays doesn't change anything and price controls only lower quality.
I just can't imagine what Obama and the people in this administration are thinking.

When Fascism comes to America

2009-07-13T07:37:00.001-07:00

“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”.
I love this “quote” for two reasons.
First, it doesn't seem legitimate. It is ascribed to Sinclare Lewis or Huey Long, depending, but a quick Google search provides no evidence that either man said this. They both may have said that Fascism would come to America in the guise of Americanism, but the cross comment was likely made by some anonymous Theologophobe.
(As an aside here, Theologophobe is my term to describe those who hate religion and want to deny Americans their first amendment rights. Theos for God, Logos for word, and Phobia for fear. It refers to those phobics who need to stamp out any mention of God. Especially of it involves the Bible (the word of God) and beyond that if it invokes Jesus (The Word of God, read The Gospel of John Chapter One).)
Secondly, it doesn't make sense if you think about it. For Fascism to be enacted, government needs to control business.
Who is for that? Liberal, Progressive Democrats!
Who is opposed to that? Conservatives, even religious conservatives.
Even if you view Fascism as a synonym for Totalitarianism, you need to centralize planning and power. Again, it is the Liberal, Progressive Left that wants that, not Conservatives.
I laugh when people say that conservatives just want to run everyone's lives. It is the Left that is trying to do this! They are trying to control the economy, energy usage, healthcare, and on and on. There is no part of your lives that the Left is not trying to bring under their control.
It is amazing to me that the Left seems bent on demeaning the Right by ascribing liberal attributes to conservatives.
Maybe the Left will implode when they realize that they support what they claim they hate!

Find out the reality of Fascism, it's history, and it's goals. Become informed and be better able to refute the Left and win in the arena of ideas.

What Pravda shows us.

2009-06-02T16:59:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to an opinion piece in the newspaper Pravda.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

I've seen this post used by liberals to say “told you so”, but I come away from this with some different thoughts.
First, it faults a “dumbed down” educational system. We conservatives have been talking about this for a long time. Democrats, progressives, and teachers unions who have been more interested social engineering and self esteem than good traditional teaching. Liberalism destroyed out educational system.
Second, liberal politically active churches were put to blame by these people who lived under Communism. They recognize that conservative churches and the promotion of traditional values would make us stronger. Liberalized churches have failed America. Liberals don't even like churches. Both have failed us, conservative churches made us stronger.
The writer of this piece sends a warning for Russian investors to get out of America. The people of the country that “Progressive” and so called “Enlightened” left look up to can see that “Progressivism” is in fact the most regressive destructive philosophy.
Capitalism hasn't failed. “Progressivism” failed. Liberalism failed.
It looks like America just will have to learn for themselves. We could have looked at the rest of the world and seen that this is a route we didn't want to go down.
Hopefully we will learn out lessons fast and get back to reason and sense.

The Closing Gitmo debate, a different take.

2009-05-22T16:05:00.001-07:00

This past week we have had dueling speeches on national security.
Both President Obama and former Vice-President Cheney gave their ideas on why we are better changing course on the war on terror and not, respectively.
Now this blog is conservative and I have a built in bias against the Obama administration. Nonetheless I do think that the Obama administration is not pursuing the correct course.
You can't approach Islamic terrorism from a law enforcement standpoint.
I reach that conclusion from my understanding of the Jihadist belief system.
In their minds they are all right and we are all wrong. They are Allah's chosen and we are completely objectified as people that can be oppressed and killed. We (in their minds) cannot object to or criticize anything Islamic, they have the right to object to and criticize anything they want. If they hear words that they consider insulting, that can be considered an attack on Islam and use that as an excuse for a physical attack. Even peace treaties cannot last for more than 10 years and are only to buy time to become stronger in order to conquer their enemies.
The thing that opened my eyes is the concept of Dhimmitude. I will not go in to details here and recommend you Google the words Dhimmi and Dhimmitude. The short story is that people who live in lands ruled by Sharia (Islamic) law have a life worse than second class citizens.
I believe it was Pakistan that Muslims would corner Christians and ask them if they believe Mohammad was a prophet. If the Christian tells them the truth and says no, they then have him arrested for speaking against the Prophet. And that is a mild story.
This kind of thinking will not be effectively countered in the courts.

I am including a link to a controversial book, but I think it is absolutely worthwhile. Robert Spencer's book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” should be required reading. It is not really a good introduction to all of Islam, but it's real value is that it is the best single volume that explains the beliefs and motivations of Islamic terrorists.

Conservative principle #2

2009-05-21T19:00:00.000-07:00

The second great principle of conservatism is that you can't change the world because you can't change the individual.
It is understood that a person will not change until they want to change.
When one feels the need to change some aspect of their life, they will then apply themselves to that change. If a person doesn't want to change, there is nothing that can force them. One may control another for a time, but they don't change in their hearts. Released prison inmates who become repeat offenders are a good example. You give them a reason to go straight (not returning to an awful place like prison), but they go back to their old behaviors.
In the political realm, I'm reminded of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform laws. It was intended to get the big money that corrupts politics out of the system. Instead we got a variety of 527 organizations. More money came in to the system and the campaigns got nastier.
The big money found a way.
Why? Because the law didn't change the people who wanted to benefit from government and have the elected representatives in their debt.
Collective action can change the system but if a person was greedy before the change, they will be greedy after. Changing the law only changes the way greed expresses itself.
Similarly I remember some years ago USA today ran a story about increasing school violence in Japan. Kind of like the school shootings in the US. Only the story mentioned that since the nation of Japan had very restrictive gun laws, the perpetrators of violence had to use things like clubs and knives.
Curb gun ownership, but a violent person finds a way to be violent.
I have heard liberals/Progressives/Socialists that have a view of humanity that says, essentially, change the society then you change the person.
Change the economy to a collective ideal and the person will change from individual motivation to collective.
That is the great flaw in the liberal belief structure.
Everything we know about human nature tells that is not the case. People will change when they want to, and changing politics and/or economics won't make them want to.
Greed, envy, lust, arrogance, and all the other negative sides to human nature won't be eliminated because all people won't try to purge themselves of these traits. Some will even revel in them and think that they are better than others for using them.
We all want to change the world, but that fantasy simply cannot be attained. We can't better others. We can only better ourselves.

Conservative principle #1

2009-05-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

People are individuals.
Seems simple, doesn't it? Thing is, this thought is actually quite profound in the social/political world. People are individuals, not collectives.
My understanding is fueled by my time in sales. I have worked in sales for several companies under several different pay schedules. From hourly to salary plus commission, certain incentives, bonuses and a few other compensation plans.
I have seen people come and go, and different sales styles.
One person might work because they love the job, another because it is the only job they could get. Some love meeting people, some hate it.
One likes working for an hourly wage as it makes for a comfortable, stable income. Another will want commission due to the possibility of a much higher income.
Some will work to earn the highest commission, some will want to make the minimum to not get fired. Some want to achieve for the highest possible income or bonus, some for recognition, some to improve their lives by being able to get a better house/car/or whatever.
I hope you get my point through my reminiscences.
There is no one way to motivate people. People have to find their own motivation to succeed. People have to bring their own interests, skills, imaginations, creativity, drive, and efforts to the economy and the society.
Again referring to my sales experience, there have been several different pay types. Some were individual commissions and some were collective.
Invariably the individual compensations were the ones that motivated people the most, and helped create a happier work environment. This is because in the collective structures, people tended to drift and see themselves as working hard while they saw others as not doing enough. The individual structures forced people to stand up themselves and put their own efforts into their work. Collectively they could blame others. Individually they could only blame themselves. That forced them to analyze their own efforts and work to improve.
The company benefited and the individual benefited.
I simply never witnessed any collective structure produce the positive results of individual motivation.
This has shown me convincingly that collectivism plainly works against human nature.
And that opens up another point, to be continued.

The President on health care.

2009-05-11T18:50:00.001-07:00

You can see the video of today's speech about health care reform at this link,

http://www.necn.com/Boston/NECN-Extra/2009/05/11/Obama-I-will-not-rest-until/1242061229.html

I actually started to think that the speech was pretty good, until the usual liberal arrogance raised it's ugly head.
A few thoughts that I had listening to this;
He spoke of past efforts at health care reform being opposed by those who wanted to keep things the same. He should do a little more research. There have been past efforts to reform health care including conservative proposals like tort reform to reign in out of control lawsuits that are contributing to higher prices (but the special interest of the trial lawyers that support democrats don't want this), to market based solutions. Medical savings accounts, and the current ideas to remove health insurance from employers and let people buy their own without current restrictions.
What was opposed was government centered socialized medicine.
Maybe this is the only thing that liberals think is reform.
He spoke of the old Harry and Louise commercials opposing health care reform. Again, it was not reform that they were opposing, but socializing health care. This is his old straw man arguments. You are for his proposals or you are for the status quo. There is no reform if it isn't his plan. The same old politics that he was running against (I thought).
Same old plans too.

The Revelation of 1993

2009-05-05T16:35:00.000-07:00

1993 was a year of great revelation for the concepts of collectivist/Democrat economics and fairness.
It was the year that they had to admit that they were wrong.
In 1990 the Luxury Tax was enacted. A 10% tax on luxury items (Yachts, cars above $30,000, some jewelery, and items like these).
It was a perfect example of liberal ideas. Get the rich. Make them pay for their successes. Punish them for living better than those with less money.
It didn't work.
The expected revenues weren't raised as the rich took their money elsewhere. What did that do for the little people?
Put quite a lot of them out of work. Unemployment went up, especially in industries that catered to yacht building and ownership. One statistic that I saw mentioned that $7,000,000 more was paid out in unemployment benefits than was taken in by these taxes.
The worst part is that the Democrats didn't recognize that they were undoing a truly just system.
The rich had money. People offered the rich things that they wanted to buy. The rich bought them and other people got richer.
Business redistributed wealth.
Capitalism redistributed wealth.
Value was offered and exchanged and everyone benefited.
Conservative values benefited everyone. Liberal values hurt many.
The best part of it is that the tax was targeted. The effects couldn't be blamed on the economy or any other circumstance. It was the tax, period.
As the Republican party seeks to redefine itself and go on “listening tours”, they need to remember this example.
Conservatism needs a strong voice. When liberals get their way, people get hurt. Even if conservatives are the minority, conservative principles are good for everyone and need to be promoted.
As much as Republicans should listen, they need to constantly educate people on the benefits of conservatism.
People need a strong conservative voice, even if tax and spend is easier to sell.

I've started adding links to items that expand on the ideas of this blog. First up is what I consider a great work in understanding economics. Be better informed than those around you, read Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics.

Socialism is opression.

2009-04-26T16:55:00.000-07:00

I would like to clarify my position on Socialism.
Socialism is the oppression of the individual. Period.
Defenders of collectivism can look through their rosy Utopian glasses all they want. Reality will come crashing in.
Collectivists live with the assumption stretching back to Plato that if you change the society then the individual will blossom into inherent goodness. All will be peace and love.
Trouble is, there is simply no reason to believe this. If a person would seek a higher good after their needs were met, then the USA should be virtually crime free.
If collectivism could produce a better society then at least one Socialist country should be a paradise. I am not just talking places like Cuba, Red China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy. I mean France and actually most all of Europe today. Where is the crime less, peaceful, prosperous society? No social unrest, no discontent, no turmoil. FYI, this place doesn't exist.
This is because of a basic truth. There is no form of politics or economics that can change people.
Individuals must apply themselves to change with persistent, determined effort. One can only change when one wants to.
Other than that if a person is greedy under Capitalism, he will be greedy under Socialism. Same with people who lust for power, money, sex, prestige, control, and other vices will not change because a group of people who consider themselves more advanced enact laws and spread money around. In fact, these people will seek how to satisfy their desires within the context of the new laws. Remember how McCain/Feingold was supposed to get the money out of influencing politics? All it changed was how the money influenced politics.
Do collectivists really believe that everyone in a community will agree completely on all decisions and there will be no disagreements and discord? Won't happen, and when it does happen the majority will have to wield power over the minority.
To enact Socialism or Progressivism is to subjugate and control the individual. Their form of “democracy” is to eliminate private property and make your entire life subject to the control of others.
The Utopian idea of Socialism and Progressivism is a fairy tale. Only harm can come from trying to enact it.

Liberals have no ideas.

2009-04-18T16:56:00.000-07:00

After listening to Janine Garofalo's pathetic, ignorant rant on Olberman's pathetic, ignorant show it finally struck me.
I actually knew about it for some time but the thought really didn't coalesce before this.
It is one of the main reasons that I can't be a liberal.
What is that realization?
Liberals can't defend their beliefs.
If you have legitimate problems with government causing inflation, seeking power over private sector businesses, forced public service, or any number of issues then you are racist.
If you realize that the earth has been cooling despite carbon emissions increasing, you are a denier.
Never take up the issues, just call names. Demean. Shout down. Try to get people to hate others. Invoke Rush Limbaugh. These are all the tactics that liberals have.
I had a boss that said that it took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan.
More and more I think that he is right.
With inflation coming due to Obama's porkulus plan, it probably won't really matter who the Republicans offer in the next election.
The liberals will have to fight a bad economy that they will completely own, and they won't be able to give people a reason to vote for them.
America, help is on the way!

The failure of liberalism

2009-04-09T16:10:00.001-07:00

There was posted on the Usenet a story of a college professor who claimed that he never failed a student but did fail a class. The class defended Socialism and the professor decided to grade according to the Socialist model. He distributed all grades equally according to the average of the class. The first grade was a “B”. This pleased the lower scoring students as they got a higher grade than they would have. However the “A” students were upset. They studied hard for an “A” and didn't get one due to the lower scoring students. The next grade was a “C” as the “A” students didn't see any point in trying for what they couldn't achieve. Subsequent grades eventually fell to failing and the class didn't turn things around, but they did start blaming each other. The “A” students resented the lower performing students for not carrying their weight and the lower performing students resented the “A” students for not carrying them.
I don't know if this story is true or not, either way it does tell the truth about collectivism.
The truth that you can't change human nature.
Collectivists believe that people will work for the collective good if you change the system from a profit based system of individual achievement. This is the great flaw of so called “Progressive” beliefs.
Take a look at any country that adopts Socialism. Is there one that has no crime, no one that wants power, no one that wants to control others? No.
Politics and economics can't change the person. Only the individual can change the individual. One must apply one's self to change with persistent, disciplined, individual effort.
Any attempt to make a better world through politics or economics will fail due to the fact that people won't change. The only thing that will change is the way greedy/power hungry people seek their advantage.

North Korea stymies UN over missile launch.

2009-04-05T17:50:00.000-07:00

In response to North Korea's launch of a missile disguised as a satellite, the UN Security Council expressed it's outrage in an e-mail written with the Caps Lock on for the entire text.
Trouble followed as they later realized that the Korean alphabet doesn't have an upper and lower case thus negating the force of the message.

Really, when will “Progressives” realize that they are of no use here. You can't talk someone out of the lust for power. A “Progressive” UN is a paper tiger that is accomplishing nothing that will stand the test of time. They are just giving evil people time to gain strength.

I just don't understand.

2009-04-03T16:19:00.001-07:00

Some things I just don't understand.
Today a man went to a center helping immigrants in Binghamton NY, shot many people, killing several and then killing himself.
Now I understand wanting to lash out at people. I've never picked up a gun, but I do understand wanting to punch someone who I thought really went out of their way to deserve it (FYI I never acted on that impulse).
I guess the desire to kill ones self is understandable on some level. I have felt at times that desire to give up, make the world go away, just be done with some situation (never did that either, obviously).
What escapes grasp is this rage to kill a bunch of people before committing suicide.
My mind can't wrap around the concept
What is gained?
What point is made?
What itch is scratched?
What exactly was achieved?
Especially with my Christian faith these things are difficult to understand. The lessons I learned are to have faith, develop one's own character, do good to others, and realize that God makes all things work together for good to those who love Him.
It helps to look at any situation with optimism, to look for possibilities, to seek the silver lining in any cloud.
Frustration never leads to anyplace good.
Building things up in your mind until you are ready to pop just doesn't make sense.
Why hurt your self blaming others or situations when you could think of how you can use the resources you have to your advantage?
Americans should be better than this. We are blessed. We have it good. Even our bad times are better than many countries' good times.
Come on America, be happy for what you had, thankful for what you have, and hopeful for the future.

A manipulated America

2009-03-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

What a country.
The AIG bonus controversy really struck me. Not so much about the whole bonus after a government bail out to a failing company.
What got me is America's reaction to it.
I understand the outrage that people feel. I share in it.
I just hoped that people would react with some intelligence. Taxing a special group of people, bus tours to executives houses, protests, death threats, families living in fear.
You see, I have always understood that Socialism is inherently oppressive. People must be made subject to the collective will. Somebody must constantly pass judgment over the individuals to make sure that the individuals are properly “contributing” to the collective.
Socialism has nothing to do with equity, equality, fairness, or building a better future. Socialism is a greedy power grab. It is seeking to benefit from the economy to a greater degree than you contribute to the economy. Socialism is inherently unjust.
Now we see people outraged at the AIG executives Where is the outrage at the people who are sending the death threats, taking people on bus tours to harass the families. They are stirring up people and some of those people will take action. I believe that the “community organizers” that sponsor the bus tours are counting on someone else acting out the outrage.
While the bonuses are bad, these reactions are worse.
These tours are despicable things done by despicable people. Death threats and harassments are criminal. Government making a special tax for a special group of people is downright vile.
We are scared due to the economy, and this situation seemingly turns us into a lynch mob.
In a sane, rational, good, right, and fair country these people would be scarlet lettered. They should be ashamed to show their faces in public.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
However there is a strategy in play. Number 13 by Saul Alinsky. In short, destroy a few people over an issue and ride the outrage to political victory. Never let a crisis go to waste.
The AIG bonus scandal plays perfectly to the eat the rich left. With the state of the economy, an awful lot of people are willing to let them feast.
What do we get in return? A government that controls your life to the point that they can set your salary.
Thats what some call “Progressive”.

What is your charity?

2009-03-13T15:47:00.000-07:00

I forgot what got me thinking about this but something struck me today.
I wonder why liberals need an act of Congress to help people with the money that they earn?
Like many conservatives, I go to church each week, and give a significant portion of my income to the church. The church supports many good works.
Nobody needs to tax me for this to happen. I'm happy to do it.
Liberals apparently need to be threatened with punishments in order to part with their money.
Maybe this explains some of the hostility that the left has with religion. We don't need liberals to do good with our money. They need to bully people into supporting what they want to support. Apparently they need to be bullied themselves.
What a strange situation. Those that condemn me for being greedy and not caring are greed and uncaring enough to need force to part with their monies.
It's like the old saying, Those who are busy rowing the boat don't have time to rock it.
Liberals need to do more rowing and rowing doesn't include political action.

Even Obama believes in trickle down

2009-03-11T17:20:00.001-07:00

“When you give it to public companies, public entities like fire departments and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefiting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community.”

After years of liberals telling us that trickle down doesn't work finally an admission that everyone believes that trickle down works.

Some don't call it trickle down, the modern version is called the Ripple Effect.

It gets explained like this, if a company lays of workers then those workers have no income. That means that they don't spend as much money at McDonalds, Walmart, and don't stop for their daily Starbucks.

That causes these businesses to take in less money. That means that they would have to compensate which could be no overtime allowed, empty positions not filled, layoffs, and in some cases stores close. That means that those people won't be spending money in other stores which have to compensate, and the ripples go on and on in a downward spiral.

Now consider this, how much money can you spend to pay your bills, pay off debt, and otherwise live your life....of the money that you pay in taxes? The answer is NONE!

Now also consider, how much money that your employer takes in can be used to pay your paycheck and make your job more secure....of the money that they pay in taxes. Again the answer is NONE!

If your employer has less money then they might have to lay people off and the Ripple Effect of decline starts.

Now if your employer can keep that money and your job is secure then that downward spiral doesn't come in to play. In fact there may be a positive Ripple Effect (Trickle down) of plenty of spending that keeps people employed and growth takes place.

Democrats are implementing a trickle down of the negative variety. They consider this progressive. How can anyone really think that Federal Money will do for the communities what strong companies in those communities will do?

We need recovery, we need a vital economy. People can take care of this themselves, but taxing the rich (who are the employers) makes everyone's jobs and finances less secure. Insecure people don't spend and the Ripple Effect kicks in.

I wonder when the Administration will figure this out.

Rush Limbaugh and Jim Cramer

2009-03-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

First it was Rush Limbaugh who incurred the wrath of the White House. Now it is Jim Cramer.
I liked the part of Mr. Cramer's blog where he spoke of Fox News "It is funny how the right is certainly very civil as my old friends and new allies as of last week, Fred Barnes and Sean Hannity, don't hold my left wing social view against me when they talk about my criticism of the president! I always love anyone from Fox on the team because they are fierce in their defense with much less gratuitous slamming.)".

Also where he spoke of John Stewart and Mark Rich who slammed him over an out of context sound byte.

http://mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart

We can expect more personal attacks and propaganda from the Obama administration in the months to come.

It is a simple fact of collectivism. People work for themselves, to improve their lives. If working for the collective worked, there would be no bonuses or commission sales.

Incentive pay exists because it works. People are motivated to achieve, not just to keep their jobs, but to get more money that they can use as they see fit. The people work to prosper individually and that works for the company that is paying them. The bonuses/commissions work for everybody's benefit.

For Collectivism to work people must be watched and judged constantly. Collectivism must enforce obedience, it cannot allow dissent. Conformance is mandatory.

Someone must be set above the “worker” to be sure that they “give” in accordance to the mandated amount. Of course, someone has to set the amounts and goals. You can't leave that to the individual, after all what if the individual's idea of the collective good doesn't meet the collective's view of the collective good. And if the individual disagrees with the collective then they must be submitted. If individuals can make individual choices, so much for the collective.

Collectivism means the submission of the individual to the group.

As America plunges more and more toward Socialism and Communism, as we get more and more greedy for the money of others, as we get more insistent for power over others then dissent must be punished.

Rush Limbaugh is used to this. Jim Cramer is learning.

America is learning.

Leave it to a Socialist.

2009-03-03T16:48:00.001-08:00

Leave it to another Socialist to set me off.
He was on a message board somewhere ranting against Capitalism. He made the claim that Capitalists were stupid for working in a system where someone else owned your labor.
This is crazy and selfish, as well as short sighted.
The fact is if you are working for another person, the labor belongs to the person that you are working for.
If you want to own your own labor, then start your own company. Of course, if you grew the company to the point where you alone could not handle the work load, then you become one who is “owning the labor of another”.
Fortunately conservative thought offers a much more sensible and stable view of the world.
When a company is started, someone takes a risk. They put their finances and futures on the line. They do an awful lot of work. They fulfill an awful lot of tasks.
Often there is no regular paycheck at the beginning, perhaps no paycheck at all. No benefits, vacations, retirement plan, nothing.
There is just someone with a dream who is willing to bet it all to win it all.
If things pan out, then business gets too good for them to handle on their own. They need help. They have to hire an employee or two.
Hopefully the cycle will continue and business will get better. There will be rough times but the owner will make decisions to keep things going.
If this happens, there will be more hiring. Capitalism is working.
Unfortunately the employees can have a different mindset.
They aren't there for the beginning. They didn't work without a paycheck. They didn't sacrifice for the business. But they work hard. They feel a sense of entitlement.
Trouble is, they are not working “their” jobs. They are working the jobs that the owner hired them for. There is a huge difference here.
Often there was heard in Union literature, it is along the lines of “we are the company, not managment” or words to that effect.
This is where Socialist thievery comes in.
The employee forgets that it isn't their company. They didn't risk to start it. Their job didn't exist until someone grew a company to the point where their jobs were created.
It is the owner's company, work, jobs, desks, paper, pens, copier, computers, and on and on.
I think you get the picture.
Socialists don't care about this distinction. Socialists don't build, they take. Others put their necks on the line, and when success comes they swoop in to take over.
We need to remember the conservative, Capitalist, viewpoint.
In conservative Capitalism there is an exchange of value. If you feel undervalued, you don't steal (socialize) what other people build, you build your own.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Socialists are the greediest, most arrogant, most judgmental people that exist.
Capitalism is fair and just. The Capitalist may have moral failings, that is why there is rule of law.
Socialism is a moral failing.

A jealous, envious, greedy, and arrogant America

2009-02-26T16:54:00.000-08:00

I've seen much made of Jim Calhoun, basketball coach for the University of Connecticut, in reference to his salary.
For those who don't know, some self-righteous busy body brought up the fact that he is that state's highest paid employee and people are commenting on how that seems wrong with today's economy.
What struck me is that it is a great example of what liberal politics and social attitudes are doing to America.
The spirit of the question betrays the jealousy, envy, greed, and arrogance of the left.
Jealous in the sense that people even look at other's salaries who are well off.
Envious in that they think that money should be spent elsewhere.
Greed in that they want power brought to bear to get that money for their pet projects.
Arrogant in that they believe that they should sit in judgment over other's lives and money.
And like histories other oppressors, feel fully justified in bringing these attitudes and powers to bear. It's for the “greater good” after all.
The “Progressive” ideal of a judgmental, controlling society where everyone must submit to public scrutiny was perfectly on display with the question and the subsequent commentary.
I believe in a better America and a better world than that.
The world works better when we all focus on how well we are performing and not judging others.
I have learned by experience that what goes around comes around.
I have known people who slack off, people who are overpaid for their contributions eventually are exposed and brought down.
I have also learned that if I let these people affect me then I only hurt myself.
If I see someone who is getting by with minimal work and I emulate them, then I will be called to account. If I don't let them affect me and keep striving for excellence, then people notice who does the best work and I reap the benefits.
All of life is like this.
If we get petty, jealous, and bitter we drag ourselves down. If we stay committed to doing our best, then the rewards will follow.
People, don't worry about the high paid. If they don't deserve their salaries, this will become apparent and will be adjusted. Even if it isn't, how does that hurt anyone? It only hurts you if you let it.
Commit yourself to excellence in all that you do. Don't give up. The rewards are not always swift to come, but they do come if you don't give up.
Don't become your own worst enemy, and don't vote for or support those who seek power by division or jealousy (democrats mainly).

I'm trying to be positive, I really am.

2009-02-25T17:33:00.000-08:00

I have been trying to come up with some more positive posts for this blog but keep getting undercut.
Again it was the President.
First I was hopeful when he announced that he wanted to cut the deficit in half in a few years.
I forgot that we are talking about democrats here and this would be from the context of raising taxes.
It doesn't occur to enough people that we cannot continue to spend like idiots.
America was founded with a Constitution that limited government. People have twisted the preamble where it says "promote the general welfare" to an un-American view of an activist government.
The reality is that what is not explicit in the constitution is given by the constitution to the states or the individuals.
Federal spending should have never gotten this big.
Our representatives have been like those who run up credit card debt. When they max out the one card, they get another, and on and on.
It never occurs to them that fiscal responsibility starts by living within one's means.
Tax cuts do not cause deficits, spending does.
Tax increases to provide for government spending hurts the working people. It takes money from them and their employers, money that now can't be used by people or employers to improve their lives.
Justifications of how government programs will help do not replace the money that was taken and can promote irresponsible behavior.
The sad fact though is that we got what we voted for. We the people haven't voted for fiscal responsibility, we love when the money gets thrown around.
Now the bills are coming due and we need to have the courage to live within our means.

Democrats are clueless.

2009-02-22T16:12:00.001-08:00

I saw the governor of Michigan on a Sunday news show today and she was speaking about why she will take money from the Stimulus plan.
The only point I felt relevant was her statement that she wasn't making a philosophical statement, her state just needed the money.
That “Philosophical” tag that she and President Obama have been throwing around about Conservative ideas shows how out of touch they are.
Well liberals and “progressives” there are a few items to consider before talking about philosophical differences.
When you print more and more money, said money becomes worth less. That causes inflation which harms people's financial life. Kind of like when gas went up to $4.00 per gallon. This is not philosophical, it is factual.
When other countries won't purchase our bonds because they are worthless, there will be no credit, and no more living beyond our means. This is not philosophical, it is factual.
When you raise taxes on businesses, you suppress economic activity as money runs away from taxes. This is not philosophical, it is factual.
When you raise taxes on individuals, they have less money to spend and save. This is not philosophical, it is factual.
When you reward irresponsible behavior, you get more irresponsible behavior. This is not philosophical , it is factual.
When will people on the left wake up?

The sad state of America today.

2009-02-19T17:33:00.000-08:00

The government got stupid and manipulated the market. People got greedy, spent too much on credit.
Now the President seems to think that more credit and government manipulation will fix it.
There has been a prevailing attitude similar to people who run up several credit cards. They must maintain a lifestyle no matter how much debt they rack up. They will eventually have to scale down their lifestyle drastically when they can't pay the bills. They should have scaled back long before that time.
Same with the USA. We have sown to the economic wind and are getting ready to reap the whirlwind.
The crazy thing is that many if not most Americans have been complaining about runaway spending for a long time. We just couldn't seem to get the people elected who would do the right thing.
And those people are getting angry.
The only good that I see is that the right people are getting angry. People who want a limited government without all the stupid rules and manipulations. No more judicial activism. No more Progressivism.
I don't know how this anger will express itself, but so far it is looking good for the Left to start losing power and a good Capitalist, Conservative government might be right around the corner.
Here's hoping.

We Surround Them 2

2009-02-16T17:33:00.000-08:00

Principle number 2, “I believe in God and He is the center of my life.”

Religious faith is under attack in America today. Reason is lauded as superior to religious faith which is viewed as backwards and the source of much of the world's troubles.
In fact, atheism has killed about 250,000,000 people from 1900-1987 which is more that all religions combined throughout the course of known human history.
The point here is that there is no belief system that doesn't have blood in it somewhere.
But faith has two things going for it.
First it restrains human behavior (depending on the doctrines of that faith. I come from a Christian background and perspective). The reality of life is that human behavior must be restrained for people to live together. The classic example are the roads. If everyone decided for themselves how fast to drive, who should yield right of way, what side to drive on, etc. then there would be chaos. When everyone is on the same page as to the rules of the road, then the roads can be rather safe. Someone had to decide and enforce those rules.
Religion provides a moral code for people to follow. God sets the rules, God enforces them, and God (in the book of James) makes it clear that you cannot have two standards for the way you treat believers and unbelievers. After all, no matter how bad a person acts they were created in the image of God just like you were.
I have actually seen posts from atheists where they consider themselves to be more evolved that someone that they disagree with. This is classic from atheism where some people are just on a higher level than others and they should rule. The others should accept their inferiority and let the elites rule. If they don't submit, then they must be oppressed for the collective “good”.
The second thing that it brings is the idea that there are things out there that are bigger than you.
Atheism supports a subjective, situational morality.
It is no coincidence that someone like Mother Theresa who gave her life to help people who were suffering wasn't an atheist. It is no coincidence that many hospitals are named Christian saints. Orphanages, various charity work, civil rights movements, and slavery abolition are among the many things that were put forward by religious people who who felt there was something to stand for more than their own position in life or comforts.
Those who advocate the end of reason are not necessarily bad people, but the facts are that religion has motivated people more to bring more good into the world than reason or atheism.

We surround them 1

2009-02-15T17:03:00.000-08:00

I've become aware of Glenn Beck's current We Surround Them campaign.
I have been intrigued about this. I'm not really sure where he is going but like the direction that I see so far.
His points seem to be that we have lost our moral compass due to a materialistic bent as of late, fueled by easy money policies and easy credit.
We Surround Them was launched with 9 principles with, I think, the focus on trying to get our moral standards back.
I'd like to spend some time looking at them.
The first principle is “America is Good”.
That sounds so good to the ear. America is good. It was worth repeating.
On one hand, nobody says that America is perfect, but people have criticized this country making it sound like there is nothing good here.
I know some do truly hate America. They hate capitalism and Judeo-Christian morality.
The fact is that attempts to enact collectivism and other than Judeo-Christian morality have spread injustice (capitalism is economic justice) and other societal ills.
Capitalism, again, is economic justice. One is compensated for the work one does in the economy. If you want more, improve your work in the economy.
Greed based collectivism just takes and takes. Demand eventually exceeds supply and the system collapses. Thank you Mr. Marx for such a wonderfully self-destructive system. America has been productive because we reject this moral and intellectual black hole.
The Judeo-Christian outlook is the greatest standard for people to live together safely in a community.
Those who want to tear down these American values are deluded. The failures of America are the failures of the individuals within. People are imperfect and often it shows in people's behavior.
But some want to replace it with a collectivist/moral relativist view. They don't understand that they want to enact a system that is inherently flawed and inherently unjust.
If we want to get America out of it's current funk we have to acknowledge that America is good.
That is the starting place. America is good and we have to get back to the principles of its founding.
Nothing needs to be torn down except the big government push of the last century. Liberal/Progressive beliefs (I don't call it thought because there is no though in them) got America off track.
It is past time to reclaim our country.
Good start Glenn.

America according to Alinsky

2009-02-13T16:46:00.000-08:00

I found Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals in a used book store. It was all of two dollars so what the heck, I bought it.
Let's take a look at at some of the nuggets mined from this tome.
Pg 34 The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. The same means employed with victory seemingly assured may be defined as immoral, whereas if it had been used in desperate circumstances to avert defeat, the question of morality would never arise.

Pg 36 The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.

Pg 130 The thirteenth rule is to pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

This is where you fight a person, not a bureaucracy a law or anything. You find a person. Don't let that person be seen as a person, they are the issue. Don't let them be humanized. You don't let them wiggle out of anything with any argument, no matter how legitimate the point. Then you polarize them. If you support the person then you support the issue. The person you pick is 100% the devil and you are 100% the angels. They are to be dehumanized and destroyed. In destroying the person you advance your cause.

This is just a small sample of what is in the book and as you can see it is disgusting and disgraceful. Now you can see why politics are so divisive. Saul Alinsky's disciples (like Hillary Clinton and likely Barak Obama, well pretty much any democrat) are trained to advance the cause without care to the people you hurt.
Morality is what advances your cause, end of story. Hurt and divide, damage and demean, all the way to victory.
If you can't fight a war by moral means then you won't run a moral society.

Followers of Alinsky's are scum pure and simple. They should never be elected or appointed to anything. They are trained fascists. God help us if they rise to power, oh wait, they just did.
Good work America.

When the Stimulus plan passes

2009-02-10T16:30:00.000-08:00

I have gone on and on about President Obama before and the speeches and news conference selling his stimulus plan. All that gets me is his arrogant blindness to the reality of his policies and liberal policies in general.
I have made my point previously that his plans won't work. Even the Congressional Budget Office says something to the effect that his stimulus plan will be worse than doing nothing.
What got us to this point is a market manipulated by the government, a reckless monetary policy, debt, and greed.
The stimulus plan indicates that more of the same is on its way.
Obama supporters seemingly want us to put our minds on hold and just support him.
Well it seems that President Obama will get his (anti)stimulus bill one way or the other, so what do we do?
The lower GDP predicted by the CBO portends a lower quality of life for us.
It seems to me that among the things we need to start doing is:
Start reconnecting with one another. No more distractions. No more TV, videogames, and other forms of empty entertainment. We are going to need one another more and more. We are going to have to start supporting each other. May as well start renewing old bonds and looking for new ones. Friends will be worth their weight in gold.
Start reconnecting with our faith. When things get rough, sometimes only faith can carry one through. Time to get back to church.
Start re-discovering the simple pleasures of life. I used to love model building. Now it is tough to find a local store to get those little model kits. Reading, hobbies,gardening, visiting, think about what you can do that doesn't require a TV or computer.
When tough times hit, the first thing you find out is that the good people in your life are your most prized possessions.
Start to cherish them. If you find some people being a negative influence, move on and find new friends to take their place.
If things get bad, you will be glad that they are there. If things don't get bad, you will still be glad they are there.
You win either way.

Trickle Down always works.

2009-02-06T16:24:00.000-08:00

When business runs well, makes money, and is able to keep it then that business has the money to employ people and provide benefits. It can also stay in business and keep on being an employer.
When it can't keep enough of the money that it makes due to taxes and regulations then it can't use that money to employ people, provide benefits and sometimes stay in business.

When people have jobs and are secure in those jobs because the business is doing well, then they spend money with businesses that also employ other people. Those businesses that have customers coming in also have employees that are making money and are secure in those jobs and they patronize other businesses who are employing people who are now more secure in their jobs. Those people also patronize other businesses and you get the picture. The positive cycle goes on.

When people lose their jobs or are insecure in their employment, they spend less. That means that businesses have less money coming in. That means the employees of those businesses are insecure in their jobs. They also spend less which means that the businesses they frequent also have less money coming in. That makes their employees less secure who start spending less and that cycle of decline goes on and on.

These scenarios make the point. Trickle down always works.

It is just a matter of whether the trickle down is positive or negative.

A tax and spend government creates the negative cycle. Remember Jimmy Carter's Misery Index?

A low tax, smaller, and cost conscious government creates the positive cycle. Like the Reagan years.

The stimulus bill is a pork laden tax and spend white elephant. The good that it may bring will be dwarfed by the bad that it will bring.

The responsible thing for our government to do is to cut taxes and cut spending. President Obama says not to bring the tired old politics of the past.
Well this approach is definitely not what was enacted in the past.

Too bad Mr. Obama is married to the tired old liberal policies of the past that got us to this point.

One person complained about my criticism of the President. He said something to the effect that if a ship was sinking, you would not fight the captain. Well, if the captain's strategy was to drill holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water drain out, the responsible thing to do would be to oppose him.

Sadly 53% of America was fooled by slick packaging and empty speeches. Now we have a captain that wants to drill holes in the bottom of the boat in order to drain the water that is sinking the ship,

I suppose the only hope we have is that Mr. Obama won't be able to do too much damage before the 2010 elections sweep a revitalized conservative movement into congress.

Here is holding out hope.

Michael Steele and the RNC

2009-02-03T15:56:00.000-08:00

The Republican National committee has elected its first African-American Chairman in Michael S. Steele.
This seems profound to liberals who judge people by skin color. Conservatives really don't care about such things. He is qualified, wanted the job, and won. I'm hopeful since what I know of him seems that he is a small government conservative.
What gets me is the silly punditry who are thinking that his election to the RNC Chairmanship is profound (Republicans never had a problem with black skin, we just don't give it preference. Like when we tried to unseat the white Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania with Lynn Swann. Unfortunately the Democrats won.) and their assertion that the party needs to change to be a big tent.
The typical pathetic liberal arrogance.
We are currently in an economic “crisis” due mainly to government interference in the market. This was in line with the liberal idea that the “Promote the general welfare” statement in the Declaration of Independence is an open ended, big spending, government empowering phrase. This in the face of quotes by the Founding Fathers that contradict that.
Liberals empower greed with redistributionist tax and spend policies and crush individual liberties with social engineering and political correctness.
Their policies have failed minorities for decades, but people don't wake up to this fact due to the dependence that they foster through big government programs.
The fact is that conservative (not necessarily Republican) ideas are better.
They promote prosperity for all, individual rights and individual responsibility, and a better, more stable, and sustainable society.
Conservatives have the better, more moral, more right policies.
Republicans do need to change to attract more voters. They need to fully and unapologetically embrace conservatism. They need to teach people every day about the superiority of our ideas and policies.
Those are the two things that will sweep us to victory and relegate liberalism to the trash heap of history, where it rightly belongs.
I hope Mr. Steele is up to the task.

Has Capitalism collapsed?

2009-02-01T16:22:00.000-08:00

I posted a slide show on Youtube making my point that Capitalism is good and Socialism is evil (just love that “evil”. It is such an attention getter).
I got a few comments on it and most were of the opinion that I was wrong.
However the points I made were not addressed.
While I addressed one of the comments before, another mocked my points that Capitalism required the individual to be creative and adaptable to change. The writer mentioned Britain and America in a derisive tone about that.
What the writer overlooked is that both countries have been pursuing Socialism for many decades.
The current trouble was caused by individual and corporate greed in the housing market, but this was precipitated by government interference in the market. Government required lower standards in approving loans. The Fed kept money cheap and easy to get which caused a bubble that people got greedy in.
If the market was left alone then many, if not all, of the toxic loans would not have been approved. There would have been no business reason to take the risk.
To all the people saying that Capitalism has failed or collapsed, I am saving all these comments. It may take some years, but people will awaken to the truth and then I will pull out all these Capitalism is dead comments and have a good, hearty laugh.
And that truth that they will awaken too? That all redistribution schemes are Ponzi schemes and all Ponzi schemes must fail. Their nature is that payouts will grow to the point that they exceed payins and the whole thing collapses.
Think of it another way-what you subsidize, you get more of.
Socialism (all collectivism) subsidizes demand.
Capitalism subsidizes supply.
Without outside interference, people within the Capitalist system have every incentive to handle risk intelligently and minimize loss.
Socialism must fail. It cannot sustain itself.
For Socialism to work, you must have either unlimited resources or an economy where growth always outpaces demand and inflation.
Neither is possible.
Socialism is a Utopian fairy tale, a Pandoras box that has no hope within.

Why I don't believe in the stimulus plan.

2009-01-31T16:42:00.000-08:00

I used to be in the retail end of the cellular phone business.
Some of our customers were in the logging business. One such customer was telling me about his job. He would go around to customers in his V8 truck and purchase the trees on lots that they want cleared.
I don't know how he did business before, but he was telling me that with his new cell service he can keep a web page on his phone's browser, refresh it from time to time and get up-to-the-minute market information. It really helped him run a profitable business and made that job much easier.
However I already mentioned that he went to his customers in his truck.
People can argue about the advantages of green technology but in this instance I see a flaw.
You see, this customer already has the ability to get a more fuel efficient vehicle and save money. The trouble is a less powerful truck just doesn't do the job he needs it to do.
A new vehicle/fuel is not going to expand his range so he can service more customers, and it would have to use as much energy as his current one to do the job he needs to it do. That is just a matter of physics. You just can't get 100ft/lbs of work with less that 100ft/lbs of energy.
And there is no guarantee that this new system will be less expensive. We will have to wait to see, but if it is mandated then the change will have to occur even if it is more expensive.
It also helps to think of business traffic, like traveling salesmen. It is to their advantage to be able to drive a few hundred miles and spend 5-10 minutes refueling. Change that to 5 hours to recharge, and business will suffer.
Again we will have to wait to see exactly what form the new autos take but it seems to me that much of the hype that I have heard is simply too optimistic.
In the case of my logging customer, where mobile internet access provided a new functionality to his business, a new fuel/car will not.
The same goes for infrastructure repair.
The repaired roads and bridges will not take us anywhere we do not already go. It will not help business be conducted faster or cover greater distances in the same amount of time.
Infrastructure repair may be important and needed, but it isn't an economic stimulus. Not for the long term. Not enough.
I still believe that the Reagan model of tax cuts (but this time with spending reductions) is better, and it was the Obama-esque idea of government trying to shape the economy that got us into trouble.

The reason for tax cuts.

2009-01-29T15:45:00.000-08:00

Let's do a little mental exercise.
Think about your financial life. Think about your bills, budgets, savings account, IRA or 401k. Think about the money that you have to put toward making your and your family's life better.
Now think about how much money you can apply to your finances of the money that you pay in taxes.
The correct answer is none.
This is something that I realized when I purchased and financed my first new car.
I did my taxes and realized that my taxes would have paid over 9 months of car payments.
I was furious. I was struggling to pay my bills and pay off my debts and the government was taking almost enough money from me to purchase a new car!
Now do another mental exercise. If you have a job or want to have one, think about what it takes to keep a business up and running. The money needed to meet payrolls, pay benefits, utilities, raw materials, office supplies, and on and on.
Now think about how much money can that business use for keeping the business running and profitable, and keep people's jobs safe.....of the money that they pay in taxes.
The correct answer is, again, none.
This is where the Democrat's critics come up with the line of government picking the winners and losers. The claim is made that government spending props up the economy (thank you Mr. Keynes).
The trouble is that for them to get the money to prop up one business, they take it away from businesses who now will have less money to keep people employed and from individuals who won't be able to use that money in the economy.
They won't use that money to be customers at places where other people are employed. They can't. That money is gone to taxes.
If you want people employed, you need a strong economy. For a strong economy you need profitable businesses and people spending money. Taxes mean less profits and less money for people to spend. The more the taxes, the less the profits and spending.
The worse the economy, the greater the need for tax relief.
The greater the tax relief the more money in businesses and consumers pockets and accounts. The better the economy.
The impulse to tax and create government projects is understandable. People are afraid when things look bad. In that fear they get anxious, angry, and frustrated. They get jealous and envious of people they see as being better off than they are. Then the power hungry come along and sell the idea “give me power and I will act on your behalf”. It scratches that emotional, irrational itch. Someone will get the rich and make them pay and there will be a government program that they might benefit from.
The trouble is that the way that things get better is when people re-evaluate and get motivated and creative. The beauty of capitalism is that instead of taking, one must offer. Mr. A offers something of value to Mr. B. Mr. B is willing to pay Mr. A for that something. Thus both Mr. A and Mr. B are better off. Mr. B has the value of that something and Mr. A has the value of the money paid for that something.
That is constructive. That is positive.
And that is what we really need.

Hope and change ends up being the same old.

2009-01-24T17:33:00.000-08:00

Boy do I get tired of hypocrites.
And just when I was thinking I wanted to post more positive posts.
A weekend news show was making a point of President Obama's call to come together and not listen to Rush Limbaugh.
When Republican Eric Cantor brought up an objection to Obama's tax plans the reply was “I won, I trump you on that.”
So much for working together. Obama railed against stale old ideas, yet he is a stale old politician at heart.
In effect his position is we will get along as long as you agree with me. We will be bipartisan when you do what I want you to do. I will listen to all as long as you echo me.
Typical leftist arrogance.
This despite the fact that his plan has failed when it was tried under FDR where Ronald Reagan went in the opposite direction and succeeded.
Bill Clinton had no concept of a balanced budget until after he had to deal with a Newt Gingrich/Tom Delay Congress.
Obama needs conservative advice, or more accurately guidance.
Instead we get the most liberal senator acting like he is everyone's president. And he got enough people to fall for it.

My initial thoughts on the new President.

2009-01-22T16:11:00.000-08:00

It has been two days of Barak Obama's presidency and some thoughts are striking me about what the future is starting to look like.

We are in an economic crisis caused in a great part by excessive borrowing by people who have trouble paying it back. It seems the new administration has the idea that more borrowing is going to get us out of it. Will there be trouble paying it back? The stimulus monies will have to be paid back with interest. If we borrow 1 trillion dollars, then we will have to pay back more that a trillion. Raising taxes to cover it? Think suppressed economy. Why not just print the money? The more that gets printed the less that money is worth. Think inflation, meaning everything costs more. Again, a suppressed economy. Brilliant? I think not. The point has been made in the book “The Forgotten Man” that FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the Great Depression (Actually turned the Depression into the Great Depression). Looks like BHO will repeat that mistake.

America the greedy. If you read any of my previous posts you know that I see progressive politics as institutionalized greed and injustice. Now it looks like we will really see that on display. We are getting ready to demand more and more from the government. From health care to nationalized banking to the bailout to income tax refunds to those that don't pay income tax and on and on. And how is this all paid for? Tax some one else!!!! Wonderful. A greedy America that feeds on itself and pits citizen against citizen. American plundering American for their own benefit. So much for a united, civil society. Looks more like gang warfare to me.

Closing Gitmo, possibly extending Habeus Corpus to enemy combatants, and looking to quickly end Iraq. Doesn't make sense to me to not go all out against and enemy that has already proved that it will. Those willing to throw their lives away in Jihad are not going to be swayed by anything we find reasonable. They believe that they are doing Allah's will, that their path is the only good path, and dying in that path is the only sure hope to paradise. In their minds they are all right and we are all wrong (kind of like liberals, you know the “blame America first” crowd). In their minds, they are the ones with all the rights including the right to rule and we have no rights, not even the right to exist.
Like Rush Limbaugh once said, How do you make peace with someone who doesn't acknowledge your right to live? This is the question between Al Queda and America and Hezbolla/Hamas and Israel.

In short, it looks like the new administration is all set to do the wrong things.

And all this was put into power by a whole bunch of people who called George W. Bush and idiot.

It will be and interesting few years, but not necessarily in a good way.

Random thoughts on today's inauguration.

2009-01-20T16:16:00.001-08:00

Rick Warren opened with a prayer. His selection caused a stir and outcry among liberal groups for his opposition of homosexual marriage. Shouldn't the Obama administration have more vocally defended Warren's selection in the spirit of unity and decried the outcry as working against unity?

To quote the President “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.” I wonder if he means that he and the Democrats will compromise with conservatives or whether the people who disagree with him are ones to be ignored?

“We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.” Does he think that people who have different views are immature compared to him? And when will Democrats quit misquoting the Bible?

“What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” Does he rightly mean Keynesian economics, wealth redistribution, exploiting division, seeing people as individuals instead of groups, accepting that elitism is bad, and promoting Capitalism over all forms of Socialism (including Progressivism)? Somehow I doubt it.

‘Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around… when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen’…
Is this racist preacher and his remark going to be characteristic of Obama's administration? That was you smiling at this point Mr. President, yes it was.

Unity

2009-01-17T17:26:00.000-08:00

heard President-elect Barak Obama's speech today as he got ready for his train trip.
There is one part that stood out to me.

“But I also believed something else. I believed that our future is our choice, and that if we could just recognize ourselves in one another and bring everyone together - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, north, south, east and west, black, white, Latino, Asian, and Native American, gay and straight, disabled and not - then not only would we restore hope and opportunity in places that yearned for both, but maybe, just maybe, we might perfect our union in the process. “

Nice words, really nice words. I just couldn't help but think “when did Democrats get along with anyone?”
I hear words of unity in speeches, but after that the words change to “bigot”, “jingoist”, “Imperialist”, “Fascist (like any liberal knows what that is, after Fascists believe in collectivism, not Capitalism)”, and on and on and on and on and on!
People like me are (fill in the blank)-phobic, sexist, hateful, and basically every bad name in the book.
The true left wing extremists even believe their philosophy is more evolved and progressive.
And let's look at some of their track record.
We can look to the effect of left-wing morals on society with increased drug usage, the breakdown of the family unit, and a selfish focus on rights over responsibilities.
Leftist groups like the Weathermen and the Black Panther party were terrorists and murders.
The reality is that it took Reagan policies to get us out of the recession that Carter prolonged. Clinton never had a hint of a balanced budget until Gingrich and the Republican revolution made such a thing attainable.
The left has been wrong on terrorism, North Korea, and Iran.

Liberalism is Utopian in belief but destructive in practice. Progressivism is a very regressive and backwards political and social system.

Conservatism needs to be strong and vital and Liberalism needs to be controlled for society to work.
Unfortunately liberals don't grasp this.
Even worse, neither do Republicans.

Responses to a video part 2

2009-01-07T16:42:00.000-08:00

Continuing my response to the criticism of my video, I think I covered all the points except one.
The idea that failed Socialism is as bad as failed Capitalism.
While I would basically agree with the premise, the point I am making is that Socialism is destine to fail. It has to.
All that I have seen of collective schemes convinces me that the absolutely inevitable course of the collective is to demand more and more until demand outstrips supply.
All collectivism is a Ponzi scheme.
For those who don't know what that is, the short answer is that a Ponzi scheme is an investment plan where there is no actual investment. It is made to look like there is one because money from later investments is used to pay earlier enrollees.
For instance if you were running a Ponzi scheme, you might use money from investor 11 to pay investor 1, money from investor 12 to pay investor 2, and so on. Seems to work fine unless there is no investor 21 when it comes time to pay investor 11.
That is the natural result of a Ponzi scheme. Eventually you have more to pay than those who are paying. At that point the whole thing collapses.
With collectivism there is one more dynamic beyond simple numbers though. That is, the people involved find more and more needs/rights to be provided by the collective. So not only do you have more people taking from others but they will be demanding more per individual.
First it's a job. Then health care. What about housing, surely that has to be there? O.K. You have a job, what about transportation? Now that there is all that then food comes in. Clothing, communication, Internet access, computers, even basic entertainment. After you might need a TV for info during an emergency, and what good is the TV without cable or satellite TV?
This may sound ridiculous, but how many remember a few years ago when Representative Richard Gephardt tried to proclaim that bread was a right?
Thankfully the Founding Fathers of America gave us a Constitution that gave us a limited government instead of an activist one.
As James Madison said:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Also, “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. “

Let's also add Ben Franklin. “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. “
What about failed Capitalism? Capitalism isn't collective. The sins under Capitalism are the sins of the individuals, where the sins under collectivism are the sins of the collective.
People can do bad under Capitalism, but they don't have to. They may make the choice to take and take, and they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions. But under Socialism, it is the collective (the country) themselves that decide to take and take and the consequences will fall on all (as is happening as of the time of this writing.)
As I mentioned in the video, Capitalism requires the individual to be educated and alert. Thieves are out there and you must be on guard. Socialism makes us all thieves.
Capitalism can fail, but Socialism must. That is the essence of the Ponzi scheme.
You can call collectivist goals compassionate and demean those of us who disagree with you, many do. But before you take the moral high road, please remember one thing.
The Luxury Tax.
Enacted in 1990 it had to be repealed 3 years later. The idea to make the rich pay “their fair share” and spread the wealth around didn't hurt the rich. It closed businesses and put middle class people out of work.
Socialism is a false promise, a fraud that destroys those who it says will be helped.
Don't fall for it.

Responses to a video part 1

2009-01-06T10:18:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I posted a video on YouTube about my view on why Socialism is evil and Capitalism is good (if interested, you can see the video on the bar on the right or go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgRSpjkX5mY).

I got a couple of responses on this which I will take up here.
The gist of the responses are:
If you are not greedy you won't mind people taking your money as it is going to help people, in fact you should be happy about it.
Socialist states make sure everyone has a job.
My video resembles propaganda.
Everyone will be happy if everyone is helping everyone else out.
Failed Socialism is as bad as failed Capitalism.

For starters the video is not propaganda, it is my view on the subject (asiseezit).

Correct me if I'm wrong but I know of no socialist government that has 0% unemployment. I have heard of those that tried (China who re-assigned doctors to manual labor to “fill the gaps”) and didn't succeed and a socialist government like France seems to totally reject this idea, where unemployment regularly runs 9% or more.
You might make the case that taking one's money wouldn't be a problem for people because others are being helped.
My life experience says otherwise. I have never run into someone who is working and paying taxes and are glad to have their money taken. Socialist proponents subscribe to the idea that people will work for the collective. I have seen nothing of human nature that lets me see that as a realistic belief.
Let me use one example.
I have worked in sales in my lifetime. Some of these jobs were paid hourly and some where commission.
There is no comparison in the effect on the people involved. The people who worked on commission were happier and more motivated than the hourly employees. Why. These people were working for the rewards to make their own lives better. They were working for themselves. They could set goals and work to achieve them. They had a reason to excel and improve, to go the extra mile to succeed.
The employees that worked for hourly wages simply didn't have the motivation, drive, or reasons to excel or do better. They got paid the same if they sold 6 widgets or 12 widgets. Working for the betterment of the company did not produce the results of working for the betterment of oneself.
This is the difference between Capitalism and Socialism. The Capitalist must work to improve, it is in the Capitalist's self interest to excel and be motivated. Collectivism simply doesn't have this dynamic. After all, if the individual doesn't excel then so what? It isn't their responsibility to take care of themselves and their families, it is the responsibility of the collective.It takes a village!
People are happy when they are productive and reaching for goals, and society is better when people are doing this.
As far as being happy when everyone is helping everyone else, first the idea that Socialism is helping people out is where we disagree. Socialism is control not assistance. I also have a problem with people who need a system or an act of Congress to help others. I give through my church and I have other charities that I give to. If you want to help people then why not just help them? Why do people need to threaten others with fines and/or imprisonment and/or property confiscation to enact a “better world”?

To be continued.

Greed part 3 What makes America great

2009-01-01T06:27:00.000-08:00

Greed makes America great? No, don't be fooled by the title.
Greed doesn't make anyone great.
Greed is entirely bad.
Continuing the subject of greed, many have the Ebenezer Scrooge idea of Capitalism. To them Capitalism is synonymous with greed.
Unfortunately this is a really perverted view of Capitalism.
The greatness of America is that it is built on Capitalism, and the greatness of Capitalism is that it is built on the exchange of value.
It works like this; if you want to have more value (monetarily) in your life, then you must offer something (products and/or services) to others that they value enough to purchase from you at the price you are looking for. Your life gets better in that you get the money that you want and their life gets better in that the product/service that they paid you for is now in their lives. Win-win.
This is a constructive dynamic that improves the lives of everyone involved.
The more you want, the more you offer, the better you offer, or the better you make your sales pitch to overcome the idea that you don't offer enough value.
Collectivist schemes (socialism/progressivism) are just the opposite. Collectivism accomplishes three things.
First is subjects the individual to the collective.
Second it takes without earning.
Third it creates ever increasing demands on the collective as people look to the group to satisfy all needs real or perceived.
This is clearly a destructive dynamic that leads to decline and failure.
This is not what America was built on, but seems to be the way it is heading. That's too bad.
The problem is that collectivism is easy to sell. Someone is going to take care of you. Simple and easy. Sadly good old human nature also comes In to play. When you are hurting you naturally feel some level of anger and that anger gets directed towards those who you see as better off than you. “They” will scratch that irrational “get them/get even” angry itch that human envy and jealousy breeds. Also, in some people, equally irrational guilt will get assuaged. After all you are empowering someone to take care of all that.
The capitalist view requires discipline, self sacrifice, and motivation from the individuals in society.
That can be scary as real success never comes easy. Like the saying goes “If it were easy to be a millionaire, then everybody would be one.”
Capitalism and conservatism require the constant reinforcement of teaching and motivation. They require self discipline, self motivation, and constant introspection.
Creativity and diligence are needed for a constructive (a conservative/capitalist) society.
These are the things stifled in a so-called “progressive” society.
After all it is just easier to demand that others pay their “fair share” to fit your ideas, than for you to consider whether your life is a result of your decisions and to demand more from yourself.

To be continued.

Greed part 2 Politics and the empowerment of greed

2008-12-18T14:55:00.000-08:00

Politics is a wonderful thing. There is nothing quite like it to make you angry and yet it seems to be the number one motivator behind much of the comedy that you see today.
However, the subject is greed. I don't think anyone finds anything funny about that subject.
But it is a motivator behind much of the politics of today.
The scenario works like this. You have people. Those people have problems in their lives. The people with problems like to imagine that they win the lottery or somehow come into money. That money would pay all their bills, eliminate a lot of stress, and make their lives much, much easier. They would be able to pay their bills, buy a new car/house/whatever and never have to worry about losing their job.
Naturally that isn't going to happen.
The people that would love to have a better life might be working for someone who is much wealthier than them (naturally, after all poor people don't have the money to hire anyone) or they would see people around them who are wealthier or better off.
In typical human fashion they feel some anger toward those they see as richer, especially if they work for them. In their minds, it's their labor that is doing the actual wealth creation, or it's just not fair that someone has what they perceive as more than enough while they don't.
Then someone comes along with the line "elect me and I'll make them pay their share."
Sounds good to them. It scratches that little itch deep inside-at last the rich guy will pay.
The transaction is complete. The anger breeds jealousy and envy. These breed the judgmentalism that lets one see the property and work of others as "resources" that should really be shared.
Then all those negative emotions take action to empower those who will go and get those "resources" and if the people who have them don't like it they can be fined, have their property confiscated, and/or thrown in jail.
Full blown greed in action.
To be continued....

How to stream internet radio on cell phones.

2008-12-09T15:19:00.000-08:00

Make sure that you have an unlimited data plan if you want to do this. Let me start with the disclaimer that I can't be responsible with what you do with this info (like run up a gigantic bill).

The big problem streaming radio over a cell phone is that most radio stations (at least the ones that I wanted to stream) used a Flash popup that cell phones can't handle.
I found a way around that, at least in most instances.
The key is the website www.reciva.com.
You might be able to go to this website with your phone's browser. I don't have a data plan as of late so haven't been able to try this. It might also depend on your phone's capabilities.
However there is another way. This works with Windows XP and Vista. I have used this with a Blackberry and a Samsung running Windows Mobile 6.0. If anyone finds a way to get this to work with other operating systems, please let me know.
The only feature your phone really needs is the ability to use playlists.
1. Find the station that carries the programs you want.
2. Go to reciva.com and use the search feature to find that station.
3. When the station's page comes up, there will be a link to listen to it. Click on this link.
4. A tiny popup window will come up followed by Windows Media Player.
5. In WMP, you can right click to get the FILE menu and select "Save Now Playing List As.." or go to the playlist area on the right side and use the pulldown menu to select "Save Playlist As".
6. Now save the playlist in the format that your phone recognizes. On a Blackberry it was as an M3U file, on the Windows Mobile 6.0 phone it was as an ASX file.
7. Now transfer the playlist to your phone. This can be done via data cable, Bluetooth, Infrared, or transferred to a memory card (like a MicroSD card) depending on the capabilities of your phone.
Now you should be able to click on the playlist file and connect to the station you want to listen to.

The next issue is that listening through the phone's speakerphone isn't great.
I like using Bluetooth headphones, Motorola S9 headphones are my favorites.
Otherwise you could use corded headphones. If you don't like the regular headphones that are sold for your phone's model, there are headphone adapters for various cellphones that let you use about any headphone you like.
Just remember, streaming data and using Bluetooth will drain your battery rather quickly.
A spare battery, car cord, A.C. charger, or those portable chargers that use AA batteries will be helpful.
Use wisely and enjoy.

Greed part 1

2008-12-08T14:53:00.001-08:00

Black Friday 2008 turned out to be an infamous day.

The day one Walmart worker died in a stampede of shoppers charging into the store as it opened.
And the people who did that weren't starving people running to food, they were rushing for doorbuster specials of TV's, videogames, and the like.
What was the motivation to press into a store for deals and ignore the people you are stepping over?
Greed.
No sugar coating it.
Also, the people who were there weren't the people that usually get mentioned as greedy. You know the CEOs, bankers, corporate heads, politicians and the like. They were just ordinary citizens. Like you and me.
That is the trouble with greed. It is easy to accuse others of it but difficult to see in yourself.
We might deride the Wallstreet hot shots or private jet riding CEOs for greed but they will see the same actions as pleasing their bosses/stockholders,and generally doing the things that create jobs and keep the economy going. It wasn't greed-they were just doing their jobs.
I have seen individual greed justified in many ways.
Someone will turn in a lost wallet but keep the money inside as their reward for turning in as much as they did.
One might help themselves to supplies from their workplace, after all they won't miss it and they work hard for the employer.
Another might milk a job for the purpose of gaining overtime even though they could finish without overtime.
However don't you dare call any of these people thieves, that would be intolerable!
Then there is politics.
...to be continued....